|
|
Please note that Vineeto’s correspondence below was written by the actually free Vineeto |
(List D refers to Richard’s List D
and his Respondent Numbers)
Vineeto’s Correspondence
with
Claudiu on List D and DA Forum
November 16 2017
CLAUDIU: Hope all is well! I’d like to ask you and Richard a last question which I only
posted after Dona and Alan had left. And also to give a great thanks for participating and answering all our questions on slack. The chat transformed
for the better once it started happening. Just another reason for me to “do it” as well – so I can be an actually
free person contributing directly on the chat.
VINEETO: Hi Claudiu,
That is very good to hear and great that it inspired you to become actually free sooner rather than later.
CLAUDIU: So the question is: I’ve been looking at ‘how’ to self immolate, in terms of
‘how’ to give permission to have the controls be let go of. I discovered a reluctance to allow the controls to be let go of. I saw the reluctance as a
wanting others to approve of what I was doing! A need for permission from the others. I am not giving permission to have the controls be let go of because
I’m putting my freedom in others’ hands.
I haven’t gotten past this yet. But my question is am I right in getting that the only thing that
is needed is for me to give permission to let the controls be let go of to pure intent? That is having the golden clew in place and then giving
permission to allow that. Then literally all ‘i’ do is enjoy as it all unfolds (which unfolding ‘i’ have no control over).
VINEETO: The “I” who would be doing the letting go *is* the controller (Remember the simile of ‘you’ and a pizza?
You can slice the pizza into pieces but ‘you’ can never remove the last piece because that is still ‘you’.)
“I”, the controller, can give ‘my’self (the controller) permission to have it happen – the “it” refers to
being out from under control to have one’s life live itself similar to Richard’s experience to have the painting paint itself.
What that means is that the controller goes in abeyance.
CLAUDIU: Also is it correct that it is ‘me’ I give permission to? As in it’s an allowing
myself to have the controls be let go of ... since ‘i’ am the only thing standing in the way anyway?
VINEETO: Yes, that is well said – “allowing myself to have the controls be let go of”.
CLAUDIU: Finally I’m curious, the feeling of requiring permission from others... considering
that ‘i’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’ does that feeling also mean that ultimately ‘i’ only need permission from ‘myself’
– since the “others” that ‘i’ feel ‘i’ need permission from are ‘me’ also? I find this strange to say though because they are
factually speaking flesh and blood bodies separate from this one... they are not ‘me’ in actuality.
VINEETO: A clarification to your reasoning – they are not factually speaking flesh and blood bodies, they are identities using
their flesh and blood tongues and vocal cords to say what the identities instruct them to say.
Those other identities will never give you permission to leave the fold, and deep down you know that.
The feeling of requiring permission from others for your actions is backed up by strong atavistic feelings that leaving the fold is
deadly dangerous and this feeling is reinforced by the fact that in the past being an outcast has meant that the person couldn’t survive on their own.
Even so this is no longer the case the feeling is still based on ancient human history.
So, whilst your reasoning might help you to understand it in theory that ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’ in the
psychic/affective sense, it is important to understand this experientially and eventually come to the conclusion, with supreme confidence, that it is
utterly safe to abandon humanity, defying all of humanity’s wisdom, even if not a single person gives you permission to do so or agrees with you.
Your PCEs and the golden clew inform you of the utter safety of living here in the actual world.
CLAUDIU: Also a note of interest, lately I’ve been experiencing the golden clew as an
experience that the world actually is indeed a magical fairy-tale like playground, where all everyone is doing is basically moving through the world
and having fun. I much prefer that over the real world!
VINEETO: And this is truly wonderful.
Cheers Vineeto
March 30, 2024
Claudiu: As what started as a quick follow-up but led to some questions, can I share pieces
of or all of the following on the forum? I think it’s relevant to his queries about what Richard was sensing before you abdicated the guardian.
(https://discuss.actualism.online/t/being-able-to-existentially-sense-someone/946/16).
Milito’s question: I agree with you about pure intent being actually existing and forgive
me if I’m not following you but this started with my curiousity surrounding the event where one second Richard could sense Vineeto existentially
then the next he couldn’t. That is why the question was posed, what is it he was sensing one instant, then no longer able to sense the next?
Could it be that the abdication of the guardian was the elimination of the last vestiges of any
perceivable ‘presence’ in Vineeto? If so, then the question arises: Richard cannot feel vibes. So what is the non-affective content of presence?
I dunno I thought it might be the sum total of all the social mores and psittacisms
VINEETO: Here is the text of mine Milito is referring to –
[Vineeto to Srinath]: After the abdication of the guardian I was one day ready to allow myself to
*fully (and permanently) experience the spatial infinitude of the universe*. Here is the description of what happened –
[Vineeto]: “The next significant event happened a week after my completion [the abdication of the guardian]. It began with
an eerie sensation in the head as if my brain was being operated on whilst being fully conscious. After about 15 minutes or so there was a
sensation as if my brain was being scattered throughout the universe. When I recovered from the experience itself enough to find out what
actually happened, I noticed that I had lost my centre of reference (a discovery that left me quite disconcerted for about 2 weeks a week).
Richard reported that in the days before he was able to existentially sense me as being close, very close, right in front of his eyes, so to
speak, but that after this event he has been no longer able to sense me existentially. The direct result of losing the boundaries of my localized
reference during this ‘brain-scattering’ event is that I am permanently apperceptively aware of the infinitude of the universe as infinite space,
eternal time and perpetual matter." Private Correspondence, November 29, 2010
I remember a similar profound disorientation (for a short period of time) after allowing to fully understand and experience
the temporal infinitude of the universe. (Actualism, Actualvineeto, Srinath, 01 January 2019) [emphasis added]
Two corrections to Milito’s perception -
It was not that “one second Richard could sense Vineeto existentially then the next he
couldn’t”. It was that “Richard reported that in the days before ["I had lost my centre of (spatial) reference”] he was able
to existentially sense me as being close, very close, right in front of his eyes, so to speak, but that after this event he has been no longer
able to sense me existentially”.
So the ceasing of Richard’s existential sensing of me is directly related to me having “lost my centre of (spatial)
reference”, i.e. I was no longer a boundary-creating centre of consciousness who could be sensed existentially.
The second correction to Milito’s question is that this ceasing of existential sensing is *not* related to me
having abdicated the guardian as I clearly stated in that email what it related to.
“The abdication of the guardian” was *not* “the elimination of the last vestiges of any perceivable
‘presence’ in Vineeto”. In fact, after that event of the guardian abdicating I existentially looked around, so to speak,
expecting Richard to be where I was (existentially) but he was nowhere to be found. I was on my own. Hence it was clear that I had further to go
to reach a full actual freedom.
I am pleased Milito’s question has crystallized this aspect of existential sensing because it has become clear that, when
on certain occasions a fully free person is sensing another existentially – be they feeling beings approaching the actual world or newly free
persons with a social identity, or even without a social identity as I had been in the few days after the abdication of my guardian –
this sensing is always related to the *boundary-creating centre of consciousness* which that person still maintains. Once I had lost this
there was nothing available for Richard to existentially sense.
I read through the exchanges you quoted and find that they don’t directly relate to Milito’s question. It would only
confuse the issue.
Cheers Vineeto
April 04, 2024
VINEETO: Hi Claudiu,
PS: For clarification purposes I would like to address the rumour Milito apparently started from a verbal report (I never
wrote about this on the website) which either the reporting person or Milito himself misconstrued and now has been further
developed by Kuba –
Milito, 1 April 2024: Jeez, Vineeto can cry when a cop writes her a ticket …
(https://discuss.actualism.online/t/milito-s-journal/946/122)
And Kuba, misinterpreting the event even further adds ‘Vineeto cries to get out of trouble with police’ –
Kuba, 2 April 2024: I have read Actually free people write all sorts of stuff that is weird to me :
[…] As Milito mentioned there is the situation where Vineeto cries to get out of trouble with police. (https://discuss.actualism.online/t/milito-s-journal/946/133)
Before this rumour gets even more legs and spreads any further like ‘Chinese Whispers’, here is what actually happened –
and I remember recounting the event on the meeting with Claudiu, Henry, Alan, Jon and Srinath in Café 29 –
One day whilst driving to a work appointment in Byron Bay on the main 2-lane highway I noticed I was followed by a blinking
police car. Because I considered the space at the side of the road too narrow for such a busy road as it was I slowed down to perhaps 30 km/h
and drove on to a nearby public car park and stopped there. The police officer commanded me to stay in the car, reached through the open window
and took my car keys (as if I was going to escape!). He then proceeded to scold and berate me with great passion because I had not stopped
immediately along the busy road. I explained that I had found it unsafe to stop there and then, but he was not satisfied with my explanation
and started again with the same berating. When he arrived at the third repeat of his monologue with no sign of abating passion I realized I
had to do something if I ever wanted to get to my work appointment. There was no thought of what to do next when suddenly I felt an uprising
of a sob from the gut area and so I allowed it to continue, resulting in the eventual calming down of the police officer's mood as I had
obviously demonstrated the remorse he was looking for. He then proceeded more calmly to write me a ticket and I could finally go on my way.
In hindsight I was amazed and pleased about this event as it was a practical demonstration that despite being devoid of
feelings and thus possibly handicapped when dealing with feeling beings, I still have the wherewithal and the options available, if the
situation requires it, to communicate a true facsimile of a feeling should it be necessary.
*
The other point I want to address is this comment –
Kuba, 2 April 2024: I have read Actually free people write all sorts of stuff that is weird to me :
There is a bit on the AFT where Richard responds to someone by suggesting that what he is doing, in Australia is called ‘being a bit of a wanker’. (https://discuss.actualism.online/t/milito-s-journal/946/133)
Now, Kuba could have easily looked up the correct wording and the context for himself on the website to see if it indeed
still was ‘weird’ to him and to verify for himself if that quote justifies not paying due diligence in regards to the claims of anyone declaring
themselves to be actually free.
Here is the sequence which shows that nowhere Richard is ‘suggesting that what he [the respondent] is doing, in Australia is
called ‘being a bit of a wanker’’.
RESPONDENT: As to Richard, our past discussions have been very thorough and have included some of
the most imaginative name calling! He thinks me a wanker (an Australian term for masturbator), and I TRUST he remains to be pigheaded stubbornness
(a characteristics he relishes being). Though thorough and imaginative, our communications have netted very little.
RICHARD: Oh dear ... is this all that you can recall of our long and thoughtful discussions about life,
the universe and what it is to be a human being? Is all you remember that Richard ‘thinks me a wanker’ and that Richard indulged in
‘the most imaginative name calling’? Speaking personally, I gained immeasurably from our discussions ... our communications netted heaps of
valuable and revealing information for me ... which I have put to good use.
Also – as a point of order – I would never stoop so low as to name-call any person, least of all you ... for
I have too much regard for my fellow human being. It is identities – images about oneself – that I categorise, judge, label ... and attach ‘the most
imaginative name calling’ that my fertile mind can dream up. If you, or anyone else, wishes to identify with an image ... then you will feel
attacked. Just to be sure, I typed ‘wanker’ into my search-engine and sent it scrolling through all my posts to the Mailing List – not just
those to you – and these quotes are the only references to ‘wanker’ made by either of us:
• [Richard]: ‘There is a word in the Australian lexicon that is apt when it comes to describing pacifists ...
they are wankers. Not having any feelings I cannot relate to the ‘contemptible’ part of the dictionary meaning of the word. (Wanker: (noun) coarse slang:
a person, especially a boy or man, who masturbates and thus is deemed an ineffectual or contemptible person)’.
• [Richard]: ‘Only the elimination of identity in its totality will enable the already always existing
peace-on-earth to become apparent. Until that happens on a global scale, some semblance of law and order will need to be maintained at the point of a gun.
Hence pacifists are wankers’.
• [Respondent]: ‘I bid you, Richard ... for a moment at the least, move away from your rather wanker-like (I Love that word!) dissecting of
me and meet the statement as it is: You can produce no fact, as it were, about the afterlife’.
• [Richard]: ‘Look, it is not a dissection of you ... it is a relentless exposé of the eastern spiritual
mysticism that you espouse that I am doing. I make no bones about this and as I know full well what it is that I am doing it is not wanking ... given that
*a wanker is an ‘ineffectual’ person’*.[emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 14b, 09 November 1998).
(Richard, List B, No. 14c, 23 May 1999)
April 05, 2024 (3.12pm EST)
VINEETO: Hi Claudiu,
[...]
The link for the postscript of my last email can be found on the website here. (Actualism, Actualvineeto, Claudiu, 4 April,
2024).
CLAUDIU: To make the post-script even better – I looked it up at the time and I thought he was
referring to this exchange rather than the one you referred to in your postscript:
KONRAD: There is only confusion about a belief in the existence of such an identity. This is
why I see that you are the one who is confused, not me.
RICHARD: Perhaps a few quotes from these long-time spiritual seekers might enable you to see – by seeing
how others are playing with themselves – just what you yourself are doing here. Viz.:
[...]
Does all this help somewhat, Konrad, to throw some light upon the subject? In Australia, this kind of behaviour
is called ‘being a wanker’.
VINEETO: It could be either this or the one I presented or a different one altogether which Kuba was referring to but Richard
prefers the one I presented in the previous email because in this correspondence he explained that ‘I would never stoop so low as to
name-call any person, least of all you ... for I have too much regard for my fellow human being. It is identities – images about oneself – that I categorise,
judge, label’, which is less explicit in the excerpt of his correspondence with Konrad.
Kuba can always present the quote which he is referring to and in the context it was written, so it can be discussed rationally and
intelligently. But presenting a sentence out of context and make it fit his list of 'weird' utterances in order to bring into question the purity of a full
actual freedom so that he can justify his faith in a very questionable claim is rather counterproductive to himself and others.
April 24, 2024
Hi Claudiu,
Richard has asked me to draw your attention to the following text (from the Facts vis-à-vis
Groupthink index). Viz.:
• RICHARD: What I have found, more
often than not, in any area of research I have ever looked into is that not only are facts rather few and far between
but it is mainly the proposition which gets most of the attention ... so much so that I have oft-times figuratively
likened such theses to an inverted pyramid (one standing on its apex) where a judicious pulling-out of its intuited/
imagined capstone results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down.
It is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for—the factual basis of the
hypothesis or theory/the basic premise of the argument or proposition—and it saves wading through a lot of quite
often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 110, 14 April 2006).
(Sundry, Facts (Actuality vis-à-vis Groupthink (Othodoxy), Index
Richard wrote all what follows (below) and handed it over on a memory-stick for me to include in this
response of mine.
*
Richard: The reason for drawing your attention
to the above text is because the recent “Burnt Toast” thread, on the Discuss Actualism Online forum, is
where Rick has painstakingly constructed a teetering edifice of such a flashy magnitude—an inverted pyramid
teetering so gaudily on its illegitimate
capstone as to register 7.4 on the Ricker Scale (and surpassed only by his infamous ‘affective feelings are actual’ thread which registered 9.6 on
that eponymous scale)—as to render it more than passing strange how none of the thread’s responders ever noticed it.
It is well worth copy-pasting it here (immediately below), in full, so as to more easily refer to its
fatal flaw. Viz.:
• Burnt Toast: That’s that Sh* I don’t like!
Post № 01; Rick; 14 Apr 2024.
[https://discuss.actualism.online/t/burnt-toast-thats-that-sh-i-dont-like/965].
In 1959, Broadway writers Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein composed “My Favourite
Things” for their hit musical The Sound of Music, whose film adaptation starring Julie Andrews went on to win
five Oscars, including Best Picture. “My Favourite Things” was Rodgers’ and Hammerstein’s ode to those
things for which they heartily approved, namely: || Raindrops on roses | whiskers on kittens | Bright copper kettles
| warm woollen mittens | Brown paper packages tied up with strings | Cream coloured ponies | crisp apple strudels |
Doorbells | sleigh bells | schnitzel with noodles | Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings | Girls in white
dresses with blue satin sashes | Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eye lashes | Silver white winters that melt into
springs ||
{Video Caption: The Sound of Music; My Favourite Thing; 1965}.
53 years later, in what was plainly a furtive nod to the Broadway composers, Chicago debutants
Messrs. Chief Keef and Lil’ Reese, self-styled “musicians,” pillars of their community, and “good
boys” according to their mommas, penned their chart-topping “[Things] I Don’t Like”, a definitive,
antipodal version of the 1959 classic. “[Things] I Don’t Like” was Chief Keef’s and Lil’ Reese’s
sonnet dedicated to those things for which they fervently disapproved, namely: || fuck niggas | snitch niggas | bitch
niggas | sneak dissers | popped bitches | smoking Reggie | fake trues | fake shoes | flake niggas | stalking-ass
bitches | playing both sides | thirsty-ass bitches ||
{Video Caption: Chief Keef: I Don’t Like f/ Lil Reese}.
Enter Richard, a Perth native {!sic!; a Harewood native, actually}, whose accomplishments include
Peace on Earth, setting the stage on fire with a unique twist to the like/ dislike dichotomy, which the arts had been
forcing upon its patrons since time began. Artists worth their salt pay homage to their forebears before striking out
on their own. Accordingly, in the fashion of Rodgers and Hammerstein, Richard utilised the medium of prose to first
describe a thing he liked, namely:
• “hot, golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip”.
Then, in style characteristic of Chief Keef and Lil’ Reese, he submitted a thing he did not like, namely:
• “cold, charred-black toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed”.
How is one to feel about this? The audience has been straightaway driven from one extreme of the
like/ dislike spectrum to the other. They are confused, dizzy, and, what’s worse, feeling rather neutral about it
all. “Meh”, they seem to say, for that is how it feels when subjected to an equal share of repulsive
“ones” and pleasing “tens”. But not to worry, for that was just the intro, a mere illustration of
the essential defect in the jumbled, chaotic outlooks of those who’d gone before. Then, defying all convention, he
rectifies the defective dichotomy by decimating the scales, hierarchies, and gradations altogether, to reveal a
pre-existent, underlying, and “ultimate” aspect to everything—golden-brown and charred-black toast alike—that
is nothing short of perfect and peerless. Here, and only here, is where all without exception is faultless and
flawless.
Here is where ♫ crisp apple strudels and
thirsty-ass bitches, raindrops on roses and the raping of villages ♫ can
be liked, enjoyed, and appreciated, for how else would one experience a thing that was, in the final analysis, perfect?
RICHARD: “[i]f, upon ordering buttered toast at a café the waiter/ waitress brings hot,
golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip, in contrast to bringing cold, charred-black
toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed, I would rate the former as being 10, on a scale of 1-10
and the latter as being 1 on the same scale ... howsoever that is a relative scale as the very stuff of both the
former and the latter, being the very stuff of infinitude itself, is incomparable (peerless). Thus, in the ultimate
sense, *everything* is perfect here in this actual world”. [emphasis added by Rick].
(Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25c, 15 September 2003).
To explain: by hyperopically eyeing what he considers the key word—and thus already
mentally reacting to it (he even added emphasis to the word “everything” it will be noticed)—he adroitly
overlooked the operative words “the very stuff” (which appear twice mind you) and which reactionary thought
has him then engage in what is known in the trade as a strawman argument (wherein an argufier invents something their interlocutor did not say then criticises their own invention as if they are having a
meaningful conversation about what the other had actually said).
What follows are some clearly spelled-out examples, from The Actual Freedom Trust website, which
unambiguously detail just what Richard is referring to when he writes and/or says “the very stuff” and
“the very stuff of infinitude itself” (as in the further above “Burnt Toast” instance). Viz.:
• Jul 10 2015:
RESPONDENT: “I’m a bit confused
about Pure Intent here—since it is a life-force, does it exist only in living organisms?”
RICHARD: “No, not only as living
organisms—as in, flora and fauna, that is—but as matter as well (which is what the constituent elements of all flora and fauna are, anyway) as per that ‘same-same stuff
as the very stuff of the universe itself’ articulation⁽*⁾ in the email you are responding
to”. (Richard, List D, No. 32a, 10 July 2015).
__________
⁽*⁾that ‘same-same stuff
as the very stuff of the universe itself’ articulation, July 6 2015
RICHARD: “(...). In this context, then, as the term ‘pure intent’ refers to an intimate
connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence
which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective
faculty) then the benedictive/ liberative impetus, or agency as such, stems from and/or flows from that which is
totally other than ‘me’ and/or completely outside of ‘me’ (this factor is very important as it is vital that
such impetus, such agency, be not of ‘me’ or ‘my’ doings) and literally invisible to ‘me’—namely: that
flesh-and-blood body only being thus apperceptively conscious (i.e., apperceptively sentient). Now, as a
flesh-and-blood body is the same-same stuff as the very stuff of the universe itself—inasmuch each and every one of
its constituent elements, all of which are as old as the universe is as matter itself is neither
created nor destroyed, come out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and
cheese, and whatever else is digested, in conjunction with the air inhaled and the water swallowed and the sunlight
absorbed
—then what one is, as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body, is the universe experiencing
itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of
its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful”. (Richard, List D, Martin, 6 July 2005).
__________
• June 17 2000
RICHARD: “What I am is the air breathed, the water drunk, the food eaten and the sunlight
absorbed—thus I am nothing but ‘the stuff of which the universe is made’ (matter). The matter of the universe
is both actual things (solid stuff) and active force (energetic stuff). The immeasurable amount of ‘stuff of the
universe’ (either in its solid aspect or energetic phase) is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in
endless varieties of myriad form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of
eternal time. This universe, being boundless and limitless (never beginning and never ending) is unborn and undying—as
I remarked (further above): it is this universe which is immortal”.
(Richard, List B, No. 19d, 17 June 2000).
__________
• March 16 2000
RICHARD: “Yet a fact never changes (otherwise it is not a fact). It is a fact that there is
only heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and so on ‘within’ this flesh and blood body”.
RESPONDENT: “Yes that qualify as
material plane stuff. Why couldn’t there be non-material plane stuff? Why limit stuff? Isn’t that being a bit
stuffy?”
RICHARD: “Yet ‘material stuff’ is
not limited: this physical universe, being infinite and eternal, is boundless and limitless. The physical infinitude
that this very material universe actually is, is comprised of an unlimited amount of ‘material stuff’ perpetually
arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space
throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time. Thus the ‘material stuff’ that is this flesh and blood body
is the very same-same ‘material stuff’ as the ‘material stuff’ of this infinite and eternal physical
universe, in that I come out of the ground (‘material stuff’) as a variety of carrots and lettuce and milk and
cheese and whatever (‘material stuff’), combined with the air (‘material stuff’) that I breath and the water
(‘material stuff’) that I drink and the sunlight (‘material stuff’) that I absorb. As such there is no ‘limit’
whatsoever, and, as this flesh and blood body (‘material stuff’), I am this very ‘material stuff’ universe
experiencing its own infinitude (‘material stuff’) as a sensate and reflective human being (‘material stuff’).
This very physical universe (‘material stuff’) is also experiencing itself as cats and dogs (‘material stuff’)
and all other sentient beings (‘material stuff’).
How on earth can all this magnificence be ‘a bit stuffy’ (i.e., ‘dull; lacking in freshness or
interest’; Oxford English Dictionary)? Everything is in a constant state of flux: nothing stays the same, each
moment again everything is novel, fresh, vital, dynamic. One can never, ever be bored”. (Richard, List C, No. 3, 16 March 2000).
__________
• October 20 2001
RICHARD: “Whereas, as I said further above, I am this flesh and blood body only—it is the
stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude—and, as this flesh and blood
body only, I was born, live for x-number of years, and die, whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a
multitude of other forms (as it also partially does moment-to-moment throughout its life). In short: I am
mortal”. (Richard, List B, No. 33g, 20 October 2001).
__________
• October 21 2001:
RICHARD: “In short: I am mortal”.
RESPONDENT: “In long: this mortal is
also the infinitude of the universe, that is timeless, etc”.
RICHARD: “No ... ‘in long’ it reads
as above: I am this flesh and blood body only—it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and
rearranging itself in infinitude—and, as this flesh and blood body only, I was born, live for x-number of years,
and die, whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a multitude of other forms (as it also partially does
moment-to-moment throughout its life). I am not ‘timeless, etc.’”.
RESPONDENT: “I thought we agreed
upon that point: you and I, as universe, are infinite and timeless etc., didn’t we?”
RICHARD: “No, I have been most specific that the physical universe is spatially infinite,
temporally eternal and materially perpetual—in direct contrast to the non-physical Brahman being spaceless,
timeless and formless. ’Tis the universe which is immortal—not some god (or ground of being by whatever name)”.
RESPONDENT: “[Richard]: ’Tis the
universe which is immortal, not some god (or ground of being by whatever name). [A]. I am mortal. [B]. [endquotes].
Can mortality ever know that which is immortal? [A] and [B] are mutually contradictory statements, my friend. So,
which one is it, [A] or [B]?”
RICHARD: “It is quite simple: the very
stuff of this universe is immortal (perpetual) whereas the shape or form that this stuff takes, which is born, grows,
ages, and dies, is what is mortal (transitory)—be it flesh and blood bodies, planets, stars or nebulae (or even
houses and cars and so on). I have also referred to this all-pervading perpetuality in earlier posts to you in
regards buildings, pixels on computer screens and other examples. Viz.:
• [Richard]: “...the universe is as much the building you are sitting in reading these words
as it is ‘out there’ in the far reaches of galactic distance”.
• [Richard]: “...these pixels on this computer screen are as much the universe as anything
else is—there is no thing that is not the universe”.
• [Richard]: “...all flora and fauna are as much the universe as all the stars are (which are
born, grow, age and die)—all of the universe is in a constate state of flux”.
• [Richard]: “...there is nothing else other than this eternal, infinite and perpetual
universe”.
• [Richard]: “...as the universe is all existence (all time, all space and all matter) what is
called the ‘relative’ is actually the absolute”.
• [Richard]: “...the universe is constantly arranging and rearranging itself everywhere and
everywhen as everything—that something is born and dies is but a local event (‘local’ as viewed by an
observer)”.
• [Richard]: “...matter is arranging and rearranging itself perpetually (matter as either mass
or energy)”.
• [Richard]: “...as this universe is eternal it is all time—it is already always this moment
in eternal time whenever you go anywhere”.
• [Richard]: “...as this universe is infinite it is all space—it is already always this
place in infinite space whenever you go anywhere”.
• [Richard]: “...the stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe and
the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen”.
• [Richard]: “...it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude”.
Therefore a mortal or transitory shape or form, comprised of immortal or perpetual stuff, can indeed
‘know that which is immortal’, or, as I have said before, as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’
as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the
universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude.
Then you will see it (the absolute) even when looking at your own hand ... for example”. (Richard, List B, No. 33g, 12 October 2001).
__________
• June 21 2000
RESPONDENT: “(...). Now my question
is which entity ‘I’ or ‘me’ is perceiving this state which you are describing...”.
RICHARD: “The brain is entirely capable
of perception without any ‘I’ or ‘me’ whatsoever—it does it a whole lot better, in fact. I am the sense
organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me—and
this thinking is me.
Whereas ‘I’/‘me’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if
looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’
tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose ... and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of
course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the
actual world—the world as-it-is.
RESPONDENT: “...the state that I name ‘stasis’ if you allow me, as ‘perfect’?
RICHARD: “Sure ... although most people
I have used the word ‘stasis’ with, as being a word describing the motile equanimity which ensues in arriving at
perfection, initially comprehend ‘stasis’ as being either a static equipollence or a stagnant immobility—rather
the dynamic, scintillating vitality of the peerless perfection of infinitude wherein everything is the vivid,
sparkling and lustrous purity that is coming from nowhere nor going anywhere. Consequently I rarely, if ever, use the
word—too much explaining involved”.
RESPONDENT: “If I am not wrong due to physics the world is going
toward an atrophy [an entropy]. Disorder. You perceive what is and call it perfect”.
RICHARD: “In physics, entropy applies
only in a closed system, whereas this universe is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in myriads of
countless form (nebulae, stars, planets and so on) all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the
limitless extent of eternal time. This infinitude is perfection (infinitude has no opposite) and as infinitude cannot
be entropic (infinitude is perpetuus mobilis) there is no disorder whatsoever”. (Richard, List B, No. 49, 21 June 2000).
__________
• February 13 2002
RESPONDENT: “Is the universe being infinite in all directions a theory, not a fact?”
RICHARD: “First of all, it is
physically impossible to empirically establish the extended attributes of space, time and matter—one cannot, ever,
hop into some ultra high speed spacecraft and travel to some ‘where’ or ‘when’ or ‘that’ and show or
demonstrate or exhibit infinitude. Needless is it to say, for those who propose a caused universe, that no one has
journeyed to where they can witness such a creation of material ex nihilo? Needless is it to say, for those who
propose a temporary universe, that no one has travelled to when that limited time began? Needless is it to say, for
those who propose a finite universe, that no one has voyaged to the edge of that bounded universe?
Similarly, if (note ‘if’) one could roam forever throughout the physical infinitude of
immeasurable matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the boundless
reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time—one would never ‘prove’ anything.
Apart from the current passionate preoccupation by academia with Quantum Theory (which gets ever more
frantic due to the mathematicians who, having taken over physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, are bemiring themselves more and more in their futile efforts to prove their god to be a mathematician)
modern astronomy is showing the universe to be immensely vast. For example, in 1986 a huge conglomeration of galaxies
that is 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick were found
(which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken
100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically
estimated ‘age’ of the universe—12 to 14 billion years—simply look sillier than it already did.
Obviously then, the entire question revolves around being sensible, and I always plunk for a rational
or reasonable approach—the judicious approach—from the word go.
It is up to those who propose an edge, a boundary, a beginning, a duration, an ending, a depletion to
demonstrate the veracity of their claim. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless,
limitless, immeasurable infinitude.
Furthermore, they need to satisfactorily explain why they are unnecessarily complicating what is
actually a simple issue: they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a finite space—and where it came
from and out of what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a limited time—and
when it came and from what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing depletable
matter—and where it came from and out of what and how and why. They also need to satisfactorily explain just what
constitutes their timeless and spaceless nothingness which this immense universe (supposedly) arose out of.
Apperception reveals that identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) creates a centre to
consciousness—and thus a boundary (or circumference)—which is then projected onto this universe’s properties;
the ending of identity is the ending of such boundaries.
In an apperceptive awareness it is patently obvious that one is the universe experiencing itself as a
sensate and reflective human being—as such the universe is stunningly conscious of its own infinitude”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 30, 13 February 2002)..
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The following is the much further above “Burnt
Toast” text in full (and thus in context) with
explanatory curly bracketed inserts added. Viz.:
• RESPONDENT: “One more thing, do
you have the discriminative ability still intact, the ability to see something as being of greater value then some
other similar object/ person (a value scale of some sort)?”
RICHARD: “Perhaps if I were to put it
this way: if, upon ordering buttered toast at a café the waiter/ waitress brings hot, golden-brown toast covered
with butter just beginning to melt and drip, in contrast to bringing cold, charred-black toast covered with butter
long-ago melted and now congealed, I would rate the former as being 10, on a scale of 1-10 and the latter as being 1
on the same scale ... howsoever that is a relative scale as the very stuff {i.e., the elements & compounds} of
both the former and the latter, being the very stuff of infinitude itself {i.e., those
self-same immortal elements & compounds}, is incomparable (peerless). Thus, in the ultimate sense {i.e., in the ‘perpetuus mobilis’ sense
of matter, either in its solid aspect or energetic phase, dynamically arranging and rearranging itself in endless
varieties of myriad form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal
time with the scintillating vitality of the matchless perfection of infinitude wherein everything is the vivid,
sparkling, lustrous nonpareil purity which is coming from nowhere and nowhen nor going anywhere or anywhen},
everything is perfect here in this actual world”. [explanatory
curly bracketed inserts added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25c, 15 September 2003).
As detailed in the “inverted pyramid” explanation (where a judicious pulling-out of an
intuited/ imagined capstone-like basis of many an otherwise scholarly thesis results in the teetering edifice
painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down) it is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to
what to look for—the basic premiss of the argument or proposition—and it saves wading through a lot of quite
often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense.
Nonetheless, buoyed by the apparent success of his hyperopic strawman argument, a certain hubristic
tone soon ensued in Rick’s follow-up messages in the ‘Burnt Toast Part Two’ thread. Viz.:
__________
• Burnt Toast: Part 2.
Post № 01; Rick; 17 Apr 2024.
[https://discuss.actualism.online/t/burnt-toast-part-2/967].
Continuing the discussion from Burnt Toast: That’s that Sh* I don’t like! It would appear that
there’s been a misunderstanding, and I’ve some time and inclination to sort it out. (...). Please note that my
comments stem from what was said regarding *perfection*, which was attributed not just to *being alive*, but to
*every thing* in existence. It’s patently clear that although “cold, charred-black toast” might be
regarded, for many, as a dismal thing when measured on a relative scale, in an ultimate sense, it is perfect. Richard
underscored that point adding that *“everything”*—as in, *all* things—is perfect. Given that there is
nothing—not one thing—out there that is not perfect, then it follows that each and every so-called *“abhorent”*
thing is not ultimately or truly abbhorent after all, only relatively so. In fact, *every relatively* abhorent thing,
which includes items like rape, war, murder, taxes, famine, floods, hurricanes, taxes, earthquakes, disease, taxes,
black toast, and so on, are ultimately and absolutely perfect as-they-are. Are they not? Now, as to be perfect is to
be peerless, pristine, faultless, flawless, impeccable, immaculate, and so on, then *“how else”* besides
enjoyment and appreciation, I asked in my little ♫ jingle
♫, would one experience those things? In fact, it would be unnatural and
unreasonable to not like, enjoy, and appreciate something—anything—that was truly perfect, regardless of how
cold, charred, and black it was.
(...).
[Claudiu]: “It’s just not possible, and also not sensible, to enjoy bad things happening. Why
enjoy things that are bad? This amounts to ‘positive thinking’ and is essentially an insult to intelligence”.
After all the above, and bearing in mind the distinction between the relative and ultimate nature of
every thing, do you still think so?
(...).
[Claudiu]: “I don’t see what there is to like or enjoy about war, murder, rape, etc”.
Do you see it now? (...).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
That certain hubristic tone subtlely became a rather self-satisfied hubristic tone shortly
thereafter. Viz.:
• Post № 03; Rick; 17 Apr 2024.
[Claudiu]: “Well it didn’t take long to find this, perhaps it will settle it for you:
(...).
Here’s one saying the opposite.
(...).
We could lob (seemingly) conflicting and contradictory quotes at each other all day, but what would
that demonstrate?
(...).
There was nothing to settle on my end, by the way.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
By the eleventh message that rather self-satisfied hubristic tone had segued into a blatantly
self-satisfied hubristic tone. Viz.:
• Post № 11; Rick; 18 Apr 2024.
[Claudiu]: (...).
[Rick]: (...).
[Claudiu]: (...).
You sidestepped the question.
Which is fine, you’re free to do as you wish. As I already know the answer, it was more for your
edification than anything else.
I’m losing the inclination to continue pointing out the obvious.
Have a good day.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
All of which self-satisfied hubris (despite being based upon a strawman argument, remember) reached
its high-and-mighty zenith by the fourteenth message. Viz.:
• Post № 14; Rick; 19 Apr 2024.
[Rick]: “As I already know the answer, it was more for your edification than anything
else”.
[Miguel]: “Can you share that answer, Rick?”
Miguel, the purpose of this thread, which I indicated at the beginning, was to clear up a
misunderstanding that had cropped up in a sibling thread. Initially, I had both the time and inclination to sort it
out. Now I have less time and, moreover, no further inclination since observing that further explanation, no matter
how meticulous, begets further misunderstanding; pointed queries beget equivocations; and dialogue shatters into a
fractal of non sequiturs. Lastly, as I indicated in my last post, I’m done with pointing out the obvious. Which,
amusingly, brings us to your request. (...). There lies, I take it, an unspoken motivation or purpose behind your
petition. I do not guess as to what that purpose is, but I trust, coming from you, that it is neither illegitimate
nor frivolous, and so will honour it. Therefore, in a few words, (...), yes, murder, child abuse, domestic violence,
and suicide are actual.
(...).
I have no more to say on this matter.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
’Tis all openly evident, as the above message expressly conveys how Miguel—unlike Claudiu and
Nick and Paul (the other three responders thus far), along with their “further misunderstanding”,
their “equivocations”, and their dialogue-shattering “fractal of non
sequiturs” no less—is a specially-honoured responder to be “amusingly” trusted
(and with a ‘blank-cheque’ type of trust, to boot, as Rick does not guess as to what “unspoken
motivation or purpose” lies behind his “petition”) to having been
neither “illegitimate nor frivolous” with his request for Rick to not yet be “done with pointing out the obvious”.
Meanwhile, over on the Zulip forum, Rick had been engaged in pulling a similar stunt on Syd—trying
repeatedly to browbeat him into answering a certain question in a certain way—via the strawman tactic of first
articulating something Syd never said (as in “to
genuinely like absolutely everything” immediately below
in the first copy-pasted message) and thusly drawing a red-herring conclusion regarding what Richard finds likeable
(as in “he finds all them—a whole slew of people, such
as rapists, pederasts, traitors, murderers, and thieves—likeable somehow” much further below), which is *not*, of course,
in any way, shape, or form even remotely what Rick’s “to genuinely like absolutely
everything” words signify. Viz.:
• {1st copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-08 syd Being sick; April 10 2024.
[https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-syd-ballina-2024].
[Syd said]: “So, both liking and being likeable”.
Rick [9:17 AM]: Think about it: If you like
everything and everyone/ you find everything and everyone likeable (including yourself), then how can you not feel
good, how can you not enjoy and appreciate being alive? But to genuinely like absolutely everything and everyone?
Almost inconceivable. Like disease. Can I like an illness? Or an infection? (tying it back to your present ailments
to make things non-hypothetical).
[Syd said]: “Actualism is still not a priority over sickness like this, wherein my attention is
fully on to resolving it. But I’ll try to be aware of the fear passion, because it doesn’t help. Definitely a
newbie in this regard”.
Rick [9:24 AM]: Ha, maybe by seeing that
everything is related, everything has something in common. That is, we’re all cousins. What do we (everything in
the universe) have in common? We all exist. A virus exists, a human exists, a tree, a dog, a cloud, a pebble, etc
[Syd said]: “(...)”.
Rick [9:26 AM]: (...).
__________
• {2nd copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-08 RV meeting: awareness; go one step below;
April 11 2024.
Rick [10:38 AM]: There is more to say/
explore on this liking/ likeable mode. It’s important. It would seem to be intimately connected to the ability to
feel good/ enjoy and appreciate. Likewise, the converse—not liking/ unlikeable—connects very much to feeling bad/
not enjoying & appreciating
[Syd said]: “Yes. They are the same. It feels good (great in fact) to be liking/ likeable (no
matter what). Whereas yearning (for example) feels bad. And every time I catch myself going off track, I become aware
of it and pull myself back on track”.
Rick [11:29 AM]: Yes, it feels good to like
something/ someone. But also, one cannot feel good unless one is liking/ likeable. The very moment that something
unlikeable enters one’s consciousness/ awareness, is the very moment that one is no longer feeling good.
__________
• {3rd copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-08 RV meeting: awareness; go one step below;
April 11 2024.
Rick [2:39 PM]: To like everything and everyone
unconditionally. This must relate back to those Two Perfections we’ve discussed before. Because on the one hand,
there is so much to dislike about the world, so much that is wrong with it, so much to improve. On the other hand,
everything is perfect just the way it is, nothing needs to be improved. You can’t improve upon perfection, after
all. To fundamentally like absolutely everything, that’s so mind-blowing. Relates back to embracing, welcoming,
endorsing, approving, and saying YES! to everything.
[Richard]: “I say to people to ‘embrace death’ (as in unreservedly saying !YES! to being
alive as this flesh and blood body) as a full-blooded approval and endorsement. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’
... um ... a rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing—let alone unreservedly
saying !YES! to the rapist”.
Of course, if you like everything, then it’s only natural to embrace, welcome, approve, and endorse
it all. It would only then be natural to feel good about it all. That said, Richard has remarked that one must be
completely dissociated to embrace, endorse, or say !YES! to a rapist:
RICHARD: “The word ‘acceptance’ has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given
it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’
or ‘love’ ... um ... a brutal rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing—let
alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist. So much for everyday ‘acceptance’ and/or ‘love’ as a viable
modus operandi. One has to be totally dissociated (full-blown enlightenment) before one can unreservedly say !YES! to
the rapist—because then it is but ‘Lila’ (‘God’s and/or Goddess’s Divine Play or Sport’)”.
Richard, on the one hand, doesn’t accept or tolerate—much less embrace or welcome or endorse or
approve of or say YES! to—a whole slew of people, such as rapists, pederasts, traitors, murderers, and thieves. Yet
he finds all them likeable somehow.
RICHARD:“It is a re-run of that hoary one of being tolerant—another New-age belief is: ‘Be
accepting’. What balderdash! Does anyone accept a murderer? A rapist? A pederast? A traitor? A thief? Nobody does
these things, they simply mouth regurgitated pap and fondly think themselves to be wise and righteous people”.
So, we shouldn’t unreservedly say !YES! to everything and everyone?
RICHARD: “It is not a matter of ‘dealing with it’—peace-on-earth only becomes apparent to
the one who says !YES! to life on earth”.
Yet as rapists, pederasts, traitors, murderers, and thieves comprise this thing called “life on
earth”, then should we not say !YES! to them and all they do as well??
[Richard]: “[O]ne does want to be alive (else one would have committed suicide long ago) and all
that it takes is to fully acknowledge this and thus unequivocally say !YES! to being here now as this flesh and blood
body—and this affirmation is an unconditional agreement/ approval of life itself as-it-is”.
Again, given that life “as-it-is” entails the existence and effects of pederasts, rapists,
thieves, murderers, and traitors, not to mention disease, injury, and so on, then how can one possible
“approve”?
Bear in mind that the approval—unreservedly saying !YES!—of such things is tantamount to
disassociation:
RICHARD: “The word ‘acceptance’ has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given
it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’
or ‘love’ ... um ... a brutal rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing—let
alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist. So much for everyday ‘acceptance’ and/or ‘love’ as a viable
modus operandi. One has to be totally dissociated (full-blown enlightenment) before one can unreservedly say !YES! to
[i.e., approve of] the rapist—because then it is but ‘Lila’ (‘God’s and/or Goddess’s Divine Play or Sport’)”.
[square-bracketed ‘i.e. approve of’ inserted by Rick].
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
As Rick has quoted five times from The Actual Freedom Trust website without indicating where he has
elided some text and/or without any identification detail let alone any attributive references (i.e., URLs) the
following is the full context for his first edited-without-indication quotation). Viz.:
• June 12 2000
RESPONDENT: Also how does one ‘accept
the world as it is, with people as they are’, even though one sees them all as unacceptably nursing malice and
sorrow, bringing forth wars etc., etc.
RICHARD: I do not advise anyone to ‘accept
the world as it is, with people as they are’ ... I always put the question this way: ‘How can I live happily and
harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?’ Which means: how is it possible to enjoy and appreciate
being here, each moment again, as this flesh and blood body? Or: in what way can one live in complete fulfilment and
total contentment for the remainder of one’s life? With the purity and perfection of a pure consciousness
experience (PCE) firmly in mind as one’s guiding light one asks, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’
Incidentally, the word ‘acceptance’ has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given
it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’ ... nineteen years ago ‘I’, the
persona that I was, looked at the physical world and just knew that this enormous construct called the universe was
not ‘set up’ for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments of reprieve. ‘I’ the persona
realised there and then that it was not and could not ever be some ‘sick cosmic joke’ that humans all had to
endure and ‘make the best of’. ‘I’ the persona felt foolish that ‘I’ had believed for thirty two years
that the wisdom of the ‘real-world’ that ‘I’ had inherited – the world that ‘I’ was born into – was
set in stone. I ceased accepting, allowing, permitting or tolerating or being resigned to suffering there and then.
Which is why I say to people to embrace death (as in unreservedly saying !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood
body) as a full-blooded approval and endorsement. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ ... um ... a rapist,
for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing ... let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the
rapist.
So much for ‘acceptance’ as a viable modus operandi.
(Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 10, 12 June 2000).
The elided “Which is why...” preface to Rick’s further above [quote] “[Richard]: I say to people to ‘embrace death’...” [unquote] truncated sentence—in conjunction
with overlooking the preceeding “I ceased accepting, allowing, permitting or tolerating or being resigned to suffering there and
then” proviso, and ignoring the “I do not advise anyone to ‘accept the world as it is, with people
as they are’” qualifying context at the very beginning—is the means by which Rick convinces himself,
mentally, and is thereby able to baldly proclaim, regarding feeling-being ‘Richard’ and ‘his’ modus vivendi,
immediately after his snippet version [quote], “Of
course, if you like everything, then it’s only natural to embrace, welcome, approve, and endorse it all”. [unquote].
Almost needless is it to add how nowhere on The Actual Freedom Trust website are the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] to be found.
The full context for Rick’s second unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:
• July 02 2000:
RESPONDENT: Okay, let me assume for a
moment that there is such a thing as evil. Are you familiar with the saying ‘what you resist will persist’? It
comes from the adage that ‘where you place your energy is what will grow’ which can be expressed using the terms
of physics as ‘when you push something you transfer your energy to that which is pushed’ (the law of conservation
of energy). When we place our energy on unconditional acceptance/ love of all that is, that is what will grow. When
we place our energy on evil and attempting to push it away then that is what will grow.
RICHARD: The word ‘acceptance’ has a lot
of currency these days and popular usage has given it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’.
Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ or ‘love’ ... um ... a brutal rapist, for just one example, never
for one moment are approving and endorsing ... let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist. So much for
everyday ‘acceptance’ and/or ‘love’ as a viable modus operandi.
One has to be totally dissociated (full-blown enlightenment) before one can unreservedly say !YES! to
the rapist ... because then it is but ‘Lila’ (‘God’s and/or Goddess’s Divine Play or Sport’). (Richard, List C, No. 09, 02 July 2000).
Unsurprisingly, the words [quote] “like
everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen.
The full context for Rick’s third unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:
• It Is Either Silly Or Sensible
R: About being judgemental: It is only a belief – a New-age belief resurrected from the old
scriptural injunction: ‘Judge not that ye be judged thyself’. What is wrong with appraising a situation or person
or an event? One can not live without evaluating, so the injunction merely makes one feel guilty. Nobody lives
according to it anyway – it is an unliveable bit of nonsensical doctrine that frankly does not make sense.
Q(1): It’s funny about how I handle this judging business ... what follows is that I can’t
do it in any practical way.
R: It is a re-run of that hoary one of being tolerant ... another New-age belief is: ‘Be
accepting’. What balderdash! Does anyone accept a murderer? A rapist? A pederast? A traitor? A thief? Nobody does
these things, they simply mouth regurgitated pap and fondly think themselves to be wise and righteous people. These
commandments just have not worked – they have had thousands of years to demonstrate their efficacy at producing
peace on earth and they have failed miserably. Most of the New-age stuff is a re-hash of the old ‘tried and true’,
which is, actually, ‘the tried and failed’.
Q: When someone tells you not to be judgemental, they actually mean: ‘Your opinion doesn’t
count’. Their own opinion is, of course, valid – but you are not to question it. It is a clever way of gagging
you.
R: One woman accused me, years ago, of being judgemental. I said: ‘Of course I am, I do not
hold that belief.’ I am neither a New-age aficionado nor a Christian so I can be as judgemental as all get-out ...
not that I use the word, personally. Try ‘appraisal’; that will get you away from the moralistic overtones. One
does an appraisal of a person, a thing or an event: ‘That’s useful; that’s not. That is silly; that is sensible’.
Of course one does this. How on earth can one conduct one’s affairs without appraising, without reviewing, in some
way?
It is helpful to rid oneself of the concept of ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ and utilise ‘silly’
and ‘sensible’. You will be a lot better off. For example: It is silly to be unhappy, it is sensible to be happy. (Richard,
Audio taped Dialogues, Silly or Sensible).
Again, the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen.
The full context for Rick’s fourth unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:
• March 29 2000
RICHARD: It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the
East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth.
RESPONDENT: I agree. Life on earth is not
highest on the agenda. It is too much to deal with. Who can deal with it?
RICHARD: It is not a matter of ‘dealing
with it’ ... peace-on-earth only becomes apparent to the one who says !YES! to life on earth. (Richard, General Correspondence, Page 08, 29 March 2000).
Once more, the words [quote] ”like everything“ [unquote] are nowhere to be seen.
The full context for Rick’s fifth unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:
• June 24 2003
GARY: Which brings me to a point: in my
investigations of what it means to be a human being, I have been struck with how much of human socializing is based
on commiseration – sharing a common plight and grievance, and additionally sharing feelings and emotions: whether
it be returning to work on Monday, the state of the economy, the price of gasoline, how unfairly the work place is
treating you, etc., etc. Human beings seems to revel in their complaints and gripes, and a sense of resentment is the
cement that seems to bind people together in many social situations. Indeed, it is the raison d’être for political
groups and political causes of various types.
RICHARD: Aye ... this is something I come
across almost on a daily basis and it is amazing how many people tell me that I am being ‘optimistic’, or ‘positive’,
or ‘up-beat’, or that I am ‘forever trying to talk things up’. For example, I might comment upon what a great
day it is and, as sure as eggs are eggs, the plighted person will find fault (even if only ‘it won’t last’) ...
or I may say how marvellous it is to be living in a technologically advanced society (take contemporary surgical
procedures, for instance, or current dental practice) and a whole litany of doom and gloom comes forth.
Even sitting at a caff by myself, with snippets of nearby conversations drifting by from
time-to-time, it is remarkable how much of the content of social chit-chat is, as you say, gripe, grievance,
complaint, and resentment ... and the last-named is the key to it all (the basic resentment of being alive in the first place).
Until one wakes up to implications and ramifications of the factuality of already being here on this
planet earth anyway, whether one wants to be or not (‘I didn’t ask to be born’), one is fated to forever seek
consolation and commiseration in the arms (both metaphorically and literally) of another similarly afflicted. Yet the
simple fact is that, despite the ‘I didn’t ask to be born’ rhetoric, one does want to be alive (else one would
have committed suicide long ago) and all that it takes is to fully acknowledge this and thus unequivocally say !YES!
to being here now as this flesh and blood body ... and this affirmation is an unconditional agreement/ approval of life itself as-it-is.
I did not ask to be born either (truisms can be so trite) ... but I am ever-so-glad that I was. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Gary, 24 June 2003).
As the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen in the
above exchange, either, then the only reason for posting the four follow-up quotes to the initial truncated version
is to convey an impression of feeling-being ‘Richard’ being able to [quote] “fundamentally like absolutely
everything” [unquote] as ‘his’ modus vivendi.
Which, of course, is simply not true.
To continue: the fourth and fifth copy-pasted messages at the Zulip forum read as follows. Viz.:
• {4th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 RV meeting: pure contemplation; April 11 2024.
Syd [5:27 PM]: I had an interesting meeting today (...). Liking/ likeable (liking oneself): I
started off getting confirmation that I’m on the right track. Vineeto wondered if I’m not connecting liking/
likeable to naivete. I do, as I see an element of near-innocense on liking the other (overriding instinctual
passions). Vineeto confirmed my report of spontaneous social interactions as being on right track. Richard brought up
the ‘naivete spot’ thing where how once you go past (override) the instinctual passions you come to area where
you are both liking and likeable. People don’t like themselves as they (instinctually) are. Naivete is where they
can like themselves. All of this made sense to me, indeed, especially in relation to the recent social identity
exploration cum instinctual passion awareness and the eventual discovery of naivete. What a freedom is it indeed to
discover the naive part of me that can be liking and likeable regardless of how the other feels towards me.
__________
• {5th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything*; April 12 2024.
[Syd said]: “Richard brought up the ‘naivete spot’ thing where how once you go past
(override) the instinctual passions you come to area where you are both liking and likeable. People don’t like
themselves as they (instinctually) are. Naivete is where they can like themselves”.
Rick [2:46 AM]: Yes, people dislike all kinds
of things, including themselves. Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
And on and on Rick went, message after message after message (all twenty-five of them appended
further below) despite Syd not buying into his “like
everything” strawman-derived red-herring question from the get-go. For example:
• [Rick said]: “It’s not a
philosophical question. I’m enquiring into the nature of your experience. Did you like everything?”
• Syd [7:51 AM]: Unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human
creatures. This is what “liking”, as I’ve been using, refers to. Do you unwaveringly like your wife (as a
fellow human being, a female at that), no matter how much of an (affective) problem she may create? Instead you want
to know whether you can like rape. {from the 7th copy-pasted message}.
__________
• Rick [8:27 AM]: “[Syd said]:
“I’m trying to nudge you towards actually being liking/ likeable”. I appreciate that. Now, are you trying
to nudge me towards actually liking everything or just some things? (...). As I said before, my wife’s tantrums
aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do in fact manage to get to a point where I like my wife’s tantrums, what
about everything else? Can one get to a state—specifically, naive state—where [one] likes everything, no
exclusion? Or will one still dislike things?
• Syd [8:32 AM]: “liking everything
or just some things”; “like my wife’s tantrums”.
Neither of what you wrote above is what is meant by ‘liking’. Here’s what the word means:
unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures. Naivete is a state of being
wherein you are unwaveringly liking your fellow humans. {from the 7th copy-pasted message}.
__________
• [Rick said]: “As I said before, my
wife’s tantrums aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do in fact manage to get to a point where I like my wife’s
tantrums, what about everything else?”
• Syd [9:18 AM]: No, by ‘resolve’ I mean enjoy and appreciate her company. Not ‘like
[your] wife’s tantrums’. First principles, once again. See a pattern? These two things are not identical.
Please fix your comprehension skills first: “unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow
human creatures”. {from the 7th copy-pasted message}.
• Rick [9:57 AM]: “Syd said:
(...)”. All this because you have erroneously “guessed” that I am trying to find a way out without
over-riding the instinctual passions. “Syd said: (...)”. There’s nothing clear about guessing. It’s a
stab in the dark. And you missed.
• Syd [10:01 AM]: It wasn’t just a guess; there were many indicators along the way. Look,
this is not litigation. I’m just trying to help you out. But if you are not curious about what I discovered
recently, and discussed with Richard/ Vineeto, about unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human beings—as distinct
from liking one’s wife tantrums or liking “everything else”—so be it. I would be better off spending my
time on something else. I can see why Richard/ Vineeto impresses upon enjoying & appreciating as the first thing
to do. The identity is rather cunning that it’d rather distract itself with anything but that. I went through it
myself; cf. the “bad habits”. {from the 7th copy-pasted message}.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
So as to add some clarity to this “likeable/ liking” subject I have written the following
brief description. Viz.:
• [Richard; 23/04/2024]: In early January, 1981, feeling-being ‘Richard’ had ‘his’ first
memorable experience of being naiveté—the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’—and
‘he’ was particularly struck by the experiential fact of finally being likeable (albeit a likeable persona mind
you), and, thusly, a liker of ‘his’ fellow human beings also as they too were (potentially) likeable as well.
Almost needless is it to point out how a persona who cannot unreservedly like themselves—even at
the deepest core of their very ‘being’—cannot unconditionally like any other persona either (all of whom are,
likewise, ‘rotten to the core’ as well)?
It was a particularly summery summer’s day and ‘he’ had been wet-mixing the clay ‘he’ had
dug out of the ground, at select sites near-by, in a two-metre wide and one-metre deep pit which ‘he’ had lined
with paling-fence type boards—situated just outside his pottery studio at the ex-farmhouse property where ‘he’
was living and working at the time—in a process somewhat similar to treading grapes in the traditional manner. The
shovelful-sized clods of clay had been soaking in this pit, topped-up with water via a hose from the nearby windmill
from time-to-time, for more than two weeks and was deemed ripe for stomping into a thoroughly mixed and buttery
smooth consistency. And ‘he’ had been joined in this clay-pit by a young lad who, aspiring to be a potter
himself, came to the studio for a few hours on an almost daily basis to practice his craft and “study under the
master-potter”, so to speak, and make something worthy out of his previously dissolute life.
The ‘being naiveté’ experience occurred as feeling-being ‘Richard’ was climbing out of the
clay-pit, onto the closely-cropped grass surround, so as to converse with ‘his’ then-wife and mother of their
four children and the young apprentice’s wife (she was the lass who had introduced the term jamais-vu into ‘his’
vocabulary and compared notes pertaining to same from time-to-time), who, attracted by all the shouts of merriment as
the clay was being stomped as per the time-honoured treading-the-grapes tradition, had wandered out from the pottery
studio’s office-cum-gallery to partake of all the fun and frivolity.
And it was as ‘he’ was clambering out onto the grassy sward—both ‘he’ and the young lad
were stark naked and covered in creamy wet clay—that ‘his’ heightened state of awareness (a state of amazement,
marvelment, and delightment, due to the exuberant joy stemming from making a living as an adult playing with mud and
the sheer joie de vivre of life itself) slipped into being a childlike state of wide-eyed wonderment best expressed
by the word naiveté.
And as ‘he’ stood there, delightedly extolling the virtues of being naiveté itself, ‘he’
enthusiastically encouraged ‘his’ rapt audience to reach down inside of themselves intuitively (a.k.a. feeling it
out) going past the rather superficial emotions and/or feelings (generally in the chest area) into the deeper, more
profound passions and/or feelings (generally in the solar plexus area) until they came to a place (generally about
four-finger widths below the navel) where they intuitively feel they elementarily have existence as a feeling being
(as in ‘me’, at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself), and, having located ‘being’ itself,
gently and tenderly sense out the area immediately below that (just above and/or just before and almost touching on
the sex centre) where they would find themselves both likeable and liking (for here lies sincerity and/or naiveté)
and here is where they can, finally, like themself (very important) no matter what, for here is the nearest a ‘self’
can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’, and, moreover, here lies tenderness and/or sweetness and
togetherness and/or closeness because here is where it is possible to be the key which unlocks the potency of
naiveté.
And as ‘he’ continued standing there on the greensward, extolling the virtues of being naiveté
itself, ‘he’ realised ‘he’ had just dedicated ‘his’ life to the priceless pursuit of innocence itself—of
becoming the manifestation of this innocence here on earth, of being the personification of innocence in this
lifetime—and, thence, to extolling the virtues of the giving of ‘himself’ to this worthy cause, in a way which
‘his’ previous dedication to art and artistry (‘he’ had lived it, breathed it, been consumed by it,
twenty-four-seven) couldn’t even begin to compete, as nothing, but nothing, could ever be as worthy of devoting one’s
life to as the pristine perfection and peerless purity presently unfolding all about.
For out of nowhere and everywhere—the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the
infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, had by now been operating more and
more freely—came a magically scintillating wonderland, dynamically enveloping all and sundry in its sparkling
embrace, and ‘he’ vanished unto oblivion in the twinkling of an eye (i.e., ‘he’ went into abeyance for the
duration, ‘he’ realised later, after the event).
And thusly did ‘he’ enable this flesh-and-body to be here today (April 2024), as pure intent
personified, tapping out with two-fingers this rather quaint clay-pit tale of long-ago times.
Ain’t life grand!
*
Well now, that should put the whole burnt toast strawman-diversion to rest.
As it is now the second time that Rick has been misusing (and altering without reference) Richard’s
quotes to bolster his paraphrastic
point of view it is no longer advisable to take him as quoting Richard from the website in good faith.
Below the dotted line are the 30 messages (painstakingly copied by Richard for reference) from Rick
demonstrating how he developed and cemented his theme of “liking everything”
before he posted his embellished narrative on the Discuss Actualism forum.
Cheers Vineeto
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
• {6th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything*; April 12 2024.
[Rick said]: “Yes, people dislike all kinds of things, including themselves. Is naiveté a state
where people can like everything, no exclusions?”
Syd [7:37 AM]: I did not arrive at naiveté through liking everything I dislike. It was accidental,
actually, but the conditions were in place. The sequence, as you remember, went like this: || I felt bad | I kept
getting back to feeling good, but same triggers would happen again | I had identity crisis | Which lead me to take a
good look at the social identity, all the way to instinctual passions | I made it my goal to be aware of instinctual
passions, and decline going down the path | This is where, magically, I started noticing that I can (and do) like the
very people who otherwise would make me feel bad (by way of instinctual passions) ||. In particular note that I
arrived at this “liking” only after bypassing/ overriding the instinctual passions. And then I saw how this
is near-innocence part (naiveté) of me in action. So, if you “dislike [something]” you gotta first become
aware of the instinctual passions (that evoke this dislike), and then by-pass/ over-ride (ie., go one step below) it,
before you can come across the naive part of yourself where you can be liking and likeable.
Rick [7:41 AM]: Very good. So, what would you say to this: “Rick said: Is naiveté a state where
people can like everything, no exclusions?”
Syd: How about you find out?
Rick [7:41 AM]: :neutral smiley:
Syd: That’s the best approach I’d say. Have the conditions in place first. Feel good, enjoy
& appreciate—which necessitates being aware of instinctual passions and over-riding them. Then you can find out
(not before).
Rick [7:45 AM]: Did you find out?
Syd: That question didn’t even occur to me.
Rick7:46 AM: And now it appears before you.
__________
• {7th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything*; April 12 2024.
Syd [7:48 AM]: I understand you are interested in finding out. I’m saying I never was/ nor am I
interested in finding that out. You do understand the list of things that I have as priority in Ballina, and how this
question is not in that list, right? Furthermore, you comprehend that my trip in Ballina is about experientially
making progress, not just entertain questions I’m not interested in the first place?
[Rick said]: “I’m asking about *your* experience of naiveté. Given that you experienced it, I
asked the following: Is naiveté a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?”
Syd [7:48 AM]: Also, I came across naiveté (experientially) only 4 days ago. And Richard did like
what 20 years ago? He has written a lot on that subject, but I don’t think Richard was able to answer your
question. I’m not sure if I can either, even if I try to ‘think’ my way through it like a philosopher.
[Rick said]: “It’s not a philosophical question. I’m enquiring into the nature of your
experience. Did you like everything?”
Syd [7:51 AM]: Unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures.
This is what “liking”, as I’ve been using, refers to. Do you unwavering like your wife (as a fellow human
being, a female at that), no matter how much of an (affective) problem she may create? Instead you want to know
whether you can like rape.
[Rick said]: “So, you did not like everything? What was it that you did not like?”
Syd [7:55 AM]: Everything indicated by the instinctual passions. Hence, over-ride it to come across
the liking/ likeable aspect of you. For e.g., your wife pisses you off. Can you go one step below that instinctual
passion and find her liking/ and thus have you become likeable?
[Rick said]: “So you did not like ‘Syd’ who is the instinctual passions (and the
instinctual passions are ‘Syd’). ‘He’ you did not like. Now, with my wife. No, I don’t see how to do that
(though I’m looking out for a way to do that). I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike. Is that the only
thing that you disliked—the instinctual passions?”
Syd [8:00 AM]: Richard put it better than that: “Syd said: I started off getting confirmation
that I’m on the right track. Vineeto wondered if I’m not connecting liking/ likeable to naiveté. I do, as I see
an element of near-innocence on liking the other (overriding instinctual passions). Vineeto confirmed my report of
spontaneous social interactions as being on right track. Richard brought up the ‘naivete spot’ thing where how
once you go past (override) the instinctual passions you come to area where you are both liking and likeable. People
don’t like themselves as they (instinctually) are. Naiveté is where they can like themselves. All of this made
sense to me indeed, especially in relation to the recent social identity exploration cum instinctual passion
awareness and the eventual discovery of naiveté. What a freedom is it indeed to discover the naive part of me that
can be liking and likeable regardless of how the other feels towards me”.
Syd [8:01 AM]: So, yes, I don’t like myself as I instinctually am. Being naive is where I can like
myself/ and like others.
[Rick said]: “I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike”.
Syd [8:01 AM]: Become aware of the instinctual passion (aggression). Go one step below (with the
intention of getting back to feeling good) ... Profit!! (you may well come across liking): [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/profit].
Rick [8:03 AM]: And my question was, when you came across this “liking”, did it apply to
everything, without exclusion (instinctual passions aside)? Or, were there things you disliked?
Syd [8:04 AM]: Why would you want to put “instinctual passions aside”?
Rick [8:04 AM]: I put them aside because you already said that, when naive, you did not like them. So
we know that there’s at least one thing you do not like when being naiveté.
Syd [8:05 AM]: You can’t put them aside, it is totally relevant. When you remove instinctual
passions out of the equation, there’s no point to talking about liking.
Rick [8:05 AM]: No point? Doesn’t liking epitomize the naive state?
Syd [8:08 AM]: Yes, for e.g., if instinctual passions played no part in your relation with your
wife, there would not be anger, and you’d be feeling good (and then liking). Are you still committed to feeling
good? If so, in what way does your question help towards that goal such that you can get back to feeling good from
being angry (instinctual passion of aggression) with your wife? I feel like you are neglecting first principles. You
are shooting these questions from the void, but they don’t arise from the first principle of feeling good.
Rick [8:10 AM]: My wife’s tantrums are just one of the many, many things I dislike. I also dislike
bladder infections, and paying taxes, and not getting enough sleep, and torn rotator cuffs, and so on and so on. I
also dislike thieves, and pederasts, and squatters, and all the other things Richard mentioned. I have a long list of
things I dislike. Hence my interest in a state where one, from what I understood, liked everything.
Syd [8:14 AM]: How about you find out? Then, it goes back to the above. As well as: “Syd said:
Feel good, enjoy & appreciate—which necessitates being aware of instinctual passions and over-riding
them”. So, feel good—enjoy & appreciate—no matter what happens, including when: || your wife throwing
tantrums | having bladder infections (unless pain becomes extreme) | paying taxes (this can be a delightful cognitive
activity, actually) | not getting enough sleep (at least feel good) | torn rotator cuffs (unless pain becomes
extreme) | dealing with thieves (Richard reported one incident of a purse-snatcher) | pederasts in news | dealing
with squatters ||. Which, among that list, is your most frequent issue? That’d be a best place to start.
Rick [8:14 AM]: To start what? Going from disliking them to liking them?
Syd [8:16 AM]: To find out whether you can unwaveringly like your fellow human creature/ your fellow
human creatures (wife, thieves, pederasts, squatters), which is what “liking” refers to. Just make feeling
good your priority. This is where you’ve gone astray. Fix that shit. That’s where you start. Stop masturbating to
intellectual concerns regarding “liking everything”. Start from where you are—disliking (instinctual
disgust), and get back to feeling good. Go bottom up, not top down.
Rick [8:19 AM]: The question was I thought exceedingly basic and entirely the opposite of
intellectual. I was just asking about your experience and whether you liked everything or maintained a dislike for
some things. See?
[Rick said]: “Yes, people dislike all kinds of things, including themselves. Is naiveté a state
where people can like everything, no exclusions?”
Syd [8:21 AM]: The question is purely intellectual, because giving you a straight answer (either
way) is not going to make a dent into actualism method, as you will continue to get pissed at your wife. Nothing’s
gonna change fundamentally. See the problem?
Rick [8:23 AM]: You make a series of assumptions. I make no assumptions. I simply asked a
straightforward question to which I am yet to receive a straightforward answer.
Why? I don’t know. If it’s hard to say/ answer, you could just say so.
Syd [8:25 AM]: Simple explanation is that I’m trying to nudge you towards actually being
liking/likeable, rather than go astray for yet another time. You’ve been at it for what 15 years?
Rick [8:26 AM]: 20 years this September
Syd [8:27 AM]: You might also want to ask yourself: in what way is your investment into having this
particular question answered going to resolve the below? (i.e.," Now, with my wife. No, I don’t see how to do
that (though I’m looking out for a way to do that). I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike”).
Rick [8:27 AM]: “[Syd said]: “I’m trying to nudge you towards actually being liking/
likeable”. I appreciate that. Now, are you trying to nudge me towards actually liking everything or just some
things? “Syd said: You might also want to ask yourself: in what way is your investment into having this
particular question answered going to resolve the below? (i.e., “Now, with my wife. No, I don’t see how to do
that (though I’m looking out for a way to do that”). I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike)”.
As I said before, my wife’s tantrums aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do in fact manage to
get to a point where I like my wife’s tantrums, what about everything else? Can one get to a state—specifically,
naive state—where [one] likes everything, no exclusion? Or will one still dislike things?
Syd [8:32 AM]: “liking everything or just some things”; “like my wife’s
tantrums”.
Neither of what you wrote above is what is meant by ‘liking’. Here’s what the word means:
unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures. Naiveté is a state of being
wherein you are unwaveringly liking your fellow humans.
Rick [8:34 AM]: I got that. Liking human beings: :check_mark: What about everything else?
Syd [9:04 AM]: Find out for yourself—that’s part of naiveté ... wonderment, the not-knowing.
Syd [9:09 AM]: “Syd said: You might also want to ask yourself: in what way is your investment
into having this particular question answered going to resolve the below? (i.e., “Now, with my wife. No, I don’t
see how to do that (though I’m looking out for a way to do that). I only see the anger, which, like you, I
dislike”).
I just noticed that you side-stepped this question entirely :smiley: And your answer is a
non-sequitur
[Rick said]: “As I said before, my wife’s tantrums aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do
in fact manage to get to a point where I like my wife’s tantrums, what about everything else?”
Syd [9:18 AM]: No, by ‘resolve’ I mean enjoy and appreciate her company. Not ‘like [your] wife’s
tantrums’. First principles, once again. See a pattern? These two things are not identical. Please fix your
comprehension skills first: “unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human
creatures”.
Rick [9:20 AM]: I like my wife sometimes, and sometimes I don’t, particularly when she’s angry or
throwing a tantrum. “Rick said: What about everything else?” “Syd said: Find out for yourself—that’s
part of naiveté ... wonderment, the not-knowing”.
If I asked you how the weather was over there, you could tell me. I ask whether you like everything
when being naive, and you cannot tell me. Why? If you unwaveringly liked humans when naive, that’s wonderful. My
question was whether you (unwaveringly) liked everything or whether there were things you still didn’t like.
Syd [9:20 AM]: You are still evading that question. For clarify, I shall rephrase it: In what way is
your investment into having this particular question answered going to make you enjoy and appreciate your wife’s
company come what may (including the moments of throwing a tantrum)?
Rick [9:24 AM]: This is the one question I have not answered: “Syd said: You might also want to
ask yourself: in what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to resolve the
below?”
My interest /investment in the question, at this point, is twofold: 1. What am I aiming for? My like
or dislike of humans is not my main preoccupation. I dislike all manner of things, not just humans. To focus solely
on just one of my dislikes, to the exclusion of all my other dislikes, seems misplaced. 2. There is now a delightful
curiosity and bafflement at the evasive nature you are displaying, and I’m more interested/invested than ever.
Syd [9:25 AM]: So: “Rick said: Is naiveté a state where people can like everything, no
exclusions?” (“no exceptions” is the more common phrasing).
It is really very simple. “Syd said: In what way is your investment into having this particular
question answered going to make you enjoy and appreciate your wife’s company come what may (including the moments
of throwing a tantrum)?” “Rick: 1. What am I aiming for? My like or dislike of humans is not my main
preoccupation. I dislike all manner of things, not just humans. To focus solely on just one of my dislikes, to the
exclusion of all my other dislikes, seems misplaced”.
Could you explain where exactly in that complicated answer above you have indicated the connection to
enjoying and appreciating your wife’s company come what may (including the moments of throwing a tantrum)? Because
I only see word soup.
Rick [9:31 AM]: “Syd said: In what way is your investment into having this particular question
answered going to make you enjoy and appreciate your wife’s company come what may (including the moments of
throwing a tantrum)?”
I do not know [precisely] in what way this investment into having this particular question answered
is going to make me enjoy and appreciate my wife’s company come what may. I’m collecting information about the
state of naiveté. Whether that data will benefit me in the future or not, who is to say? Now, can you supply the
information I requested? If you are unable to because you do not know, then that is understandable.
If you do know, then why not share it?
Syd [9:37 AM]: “Rick said: Is naiveté a state where people can like everything, no
exclusions?” and “I do not know [precisely] in what way this investment into having this particular
question question answered is going to make me enjoy and appreciate my wife’s company come what may”.
In that case, I suggest making feeling good come what may your No. 1 priority over anything else,
including “collecting information about the state of naiveté”. Unless you do, nothing I say in response
will be actually helpful or productive, and you will continue to gloss over the distinctions I made above (such as
this).
Rick [9:39 AM]: I am not glossing over the distinction. I am highlighting and emphasising the
distinction, if anything. “Syd said: These two things are not identical. Please fix your comprehension skills
first: unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures”.
I know. One thing is not the other. Does naiveté mean that one can like both? Let’s go to a
different question. Simple question—do you *experientially know the answer* to the following? “Rick said: Is
naiveté a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?” Note, I’m [no longer] asking you the
question I asked at the beginning of this thread. I’m just asking whether you know or not.
Syd [9:49 AM]: Yet your original reply to me indicated that you do not see the distinction (nor are
willing to see it): “Syd: In what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to
make you enjoy and appreciate your wife’s company come what may (including the moments of throwing a
tantrum)?” “Rick: Now, with my wife. No, I don’t see how to [enjoy and appreciate her company come what
including the moments of throwing a tantrum] (though I’m looking out for a way to do that). I only see the anger,
which, like you, I dislike. As I said before, my wife’s tantrums aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do in fact
manage to get to a point where *I like my wife’s tantrums*, what about everything else?”
Instead of attempting to make use of my time here to get an understanding of that very distinction
(with the goal of enjoying & appreciating the company of your wife, for example, come what may) you are
demonstrating more interest in “collecting information about the state of naivete” by distracting yourself
over “everything else”. This is why you are going at it for almost 20 years.
I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything
else” still falls under the instinctual way of being. That is to say, you are trying to find a way out without
over-riding the instinctual passions (ie., going one step below).
Naiveté cannot be discovered that way. Hence, why I’m engaging with you here the way I do.
Rick [9:54 AM]: I have asked a singular question in a variety of ways: “Is naiveté a state where
people can like everything, no exclusions?” or “It’s not a philosophical question. I’m enquiring into
the nature of your experience. *Did you like everything?”*
Such a simple question. Is it that you do not know whether there were things you didn’t like during
your experience of naiveté? I have by now directly addressed every single question you posed to me. The one question
I have asked of you, all this while, since the very beginning, you have deliberately declined to answer. I won’t
ask it anymore at this time. If you see your way around to answering it at some point, it would be most appreciated.
Syd [9:55 AM]: Yes, see: “Syd: I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s
tantrums” and “like everything else” *still falls under the instinctual way of being*. That is to say,
you are trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions (ie., going one step below)” and
“Syd: Naiveté *cannot be discovered that way*. Hence, why I’m engaging with you here the way I do”.
You really have to grasp this, and think outside the box. Also, I’m not a machine or AI that you
can pose any questions to and get answers right away. I also care ... care that others become free. It is as as clear
as a day, as I explained above (ie., “I’m guessing ...”) you are going off-track.
Rick [9:57 AM]: “Syd said: Yes, see: Syd: I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s
tantrums” and “like everything else” still falls under the instinctual way of being. That is to say,
you are trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions (ie., going one step below)” and
“Syd: Naiveté cannot be discovered that way. Hence, why I’m engaging with you here the way I do. You really
have to grasp this, and think outside the box”.
All this because you have erroneously “guessed” that I am trying to find a way out without
over-riding the instinctual passions. “Syd said: It is as as clear as a day, as I explained above (ie., “I’m
guessing ...”) you are going off-track”. There’s nothing clear about guessing. It’s a stab in the dark.
And you missed.
Syd [10:01 AM]: It wasn’t just a guess; there were many indicators along the way. Look, this
is not litigation. I’m just trying to help you out. But if you are not curious about what I discovered recently,
and discussed with Richard/ Vineeto, about unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human beings—as distinct from liking
one’s wife tantrums or liking “everything else”—so be it.
I would be better off spending my time on something else.
I can see why Richard/ Vineeto impresses upon enjoying & appreciating as the first thing to do.
The identity is rather cunning that it’d rather distract itself with anything but that. I went through it myself;
cf. the “bad habits”.
Rick [10:02 AM]: “Syd said: But if you are not curious about what I discovered recently”.
On the contrary! I am [exceedingly curious and am] endeavouring to learn about precisely what you
discovered. And you, for some reason, will not divulge. “Rick said: I’m asking about your experience of naiveté. Given that you experienced it,
I asked the following: Is naiveté a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?” and “Rick said: It’s not a philosophical question.
I’m enquiring into the nature of your experience. Did you like everything?”
Syd [10:04 AM]: In a way, your question was answered. Understand the distinction. “Syd said:
Yes, see: I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything else”
still falls under the instinctual way of being. That is to say, you are trying to find a way out without over-riding
the instinctual passions (i.e.., going one step below)” and “Naiveté cannot be discovered that way. Hence,
why I’m engaging with you here the way I do. You really have to grasp this, and think outside the box”.
“Rick said: All this because you have erroneously “guessed” that I am “trying to find a way out
without over-riding the instinctual passions”.
This is your response to my drawing the distinction. That doesn’t indicate you are
“exceedingly curious”. I’ve copied pasted this 3 times now!
Rick [10:07 AM]: You are telling me *how* to discover naiveté. I never asked *how*, I asked
*what*.
Specifically, what is it that you discovered? Did you discover that naiveté means liking everything, or only liking
some things? We can get to the *how* once we explore the *what*.
Syd [10:08 AM]: The distinction is about ‘what’ as well. Squint your way, focus on the bold
text. First bold text.
Rick [10:08 AM]: I will copy back the bold text so that we see the same thing ... “Syd said: I’m
guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything else” *still falls under
the instinctual way of being*. That is to say, you are trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual
passions (i.e.., going one step below)” and “I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s
tantrums” and “like everything else” *still falls under the instinctual way of being”*. and
“Naiveté *cannot be discovered that way*”.
I see you (erroneously) guessing something and then telling me how naiveté is not to be discovered
like that.
Oh hold on!
I may see something...
Syd [10:11 AM]: There’s no guessing required here, actually, it is easy to see from what you
described as how you envision “liking” your wife’s “tantrums”. Not the same as what I
discovered.
Rick [10:12 AM]: Bear with me ... I think I see you may be correct about something. What its
implications are, we shall see ... “Syd said: I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s
tantrums” and “like everything else” *still falls under the instinctual way of being*”.
Can I say that you are guessing whether the dislike I have for my wife’s tantrums is instinctually
similar to the dislike I have for other [unlikeable] things?
Syd [10:14 AM]: No, that’s unrelated. By “still falls under” I mean you are looking at
these through the instinctive lens of instinctual passions, because you have not so far over-ridden then (go back one
step) which first requires being aware of them with the intention of getting back to feeling good. Which explains why
you think naiveté is about “liking your wife’s tantrums” (as opposed to liking her as a fellow human
being) or “liking everything”. Naiveté is a state of being, from which it is possible to be liking/
likeable (as a state of being).
Rick [10:17 AM]: Good. So, naiveté is not a state of being wherein everything is liked. There are
some things, like “tantrums” that are still disliked in the naive state, correct?
Syd [10:17 AM]: Again, you are instinctively looking at it through instinctual lens.
Rick [10:18 AM]: Let’s establish one thing. Naiveté = unreservedly liking humans, yes?
Syd [10:18 AM]: Richard and Vineeto described an aspect of naiveté (during the Covid-19, climate
change, etc. conversation) ... there’s an element of openness, “I do not know”. This is what is markedly
lacking here.
Rick [10:19 AM]; That’s perfectly fine. Am I to understand that you “do not know”?
Syd [10:20 AM]: “Rick said: There are some things, like “tantrums” that are still
disliked in the naive state, correct?”
This indicates you wanting to “know” (ahead of over-riding the instinctual passions)
something that is not even relevant to know (because by the time you discover naiveté, it becomes a non-question).
Rick [10:21 AM]: And since you overrode the instinctual passions, do you know?
Syd [10:21 AM]: It is easy for me to directly answer your question (I know the answer), and then
have you go your way for another 20 years of “collecting information about the state of naiveté”.
Rick [10:22 AM]: Hallelujah! One question in the bag. Simple question from earlier: “Rick said:
Let’s go to a different question. Simple question—do you experientially know the answer to the following? Is naiveté
a state where people can like everything, no exclusions? Note, I’m [no longer] asking you the question I
asked at the beginning of this thread. I’m just asking whether you know or not”.
Syd [10:22 AM]: “Syd said: This indicates you wanting to “know” (ahead of
over-riding the instinctual passions)”. “Rick said: And since you overrode the instinctual passions, do you
know?”
Yes, and I’m going to continue having fun keeping you in suspense, until you comprehend the
distinction above.
Rick [10:22 AM]: “Rick said: And since you overrode the instinctual passions, do you know?”
“Syd said: Yes ...”.
Thank you
“Syd said: I’m going to continue having fun keeping you in suspense, until you comprehend the
distinction above”.
Okay, next up. Comprehension of some-such “distinction”. (And I’m pleased that you’re
having fun, even if it is at my expense/suspense). Can you please clarify the distinction you are trying to make? (I
too have been having fun, by the way ... yes, even with, or perhaps because, of the suspense).
Syd [10:31 AM]: I tried a few times, like here[*].
[*]
[https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-syd-ballina-2024/topic/04-11.20Rick.3A.20liking.20*everything*/near/432807363].
Rick [10:32 AM]: “Syd said: By “still falls under” I mean you are looking at these
through the instinctive lens of instinctual passions, because you have not so far over-ridden then (go back one step)
which first requires being aware of them with the intention of getting back to feeling good”. A *distinction*
requires at least *two things* which are disparate/ distinct. What in the above is item 1, and what is item 2?
Because I’m failing to see how the above in any way relates to the question I’ve been asking since the very
beginning of this thread.
Syd [10:34 AM]: Difference between the two:
• You are angry. Try to “like” your wife as a fellow human being (anger still in-situ);
try to “like” her tantrums; etc.
• You are angry. Be aware of it, go one step below (you are no longer angry). Serendipitously come
across a state of being wherein you like her (and are likeable), no matter what she gets up to (including throwing
tantrums).
Rick [10:37 AM]: You are providing instructions. “Try to ‘like’...”, and “Be
aware...”, are instructions pertaining to achieving a state wherein I like a human being. While all well and
good, I do appreciate the instruction/ advice for attaining a state wherein I like a human being, my question at the
outset was about something else entirely.
Syd [10:38 AM]: They are descriptions of what happens, not instructions for you.
Rick [10:39 AM]: Thank you for clarifying that they are descriptions and not instructions. I still
see that they are describing the attainment of a state wherein I like a human being, whereas my question at the
outset was about something else entirely.
Syd [10:39 AM]: When you understand the distinction between the two, the next step is to comprehend
how your question is within the frame of the first bullet point {i.e., •}, ergo irrelevant to naiveté (second
bullet point).
Rick [10:40 AM]: Thank you, that is helpful. I am to understand that liking/ disliking things—other
than humans—is irrelevant to naiveté?
Syd [10:41 AM]: Suppose the answer is:
• Yes. In what way, will this lead to you enjoying and appreciating the company of your wife or
doing taxes?
Suppose the answer is:
• No. In what way, will this lead to you enjoying and appreciating the company of your wife or
doing taxes?
Rick [10:42 AM]: There’s an element of openness, “I do not know”. Let’s see, eh? :grey_question:
“Syd said: So, if you “dislike [something]” you gotta first become aware of the instinctual passions
(that evoke this dislike), and then by-pass/ over-ride (ie., go one step below) it, before you can come across the
naive part of yourself where you can be liking and likeable”. I note here (your first message in this thread),
where you said that if I disliked “something” then it was possible to, eventually, come to where I can
“be liking”. Please note that you specifically said “something”—and “something”
could, of course, be anything—which means this transition from disliking to liking need not be limited to humans.
Perhaps you meant to say: [example]: So, if you “dislike [a human]” you gotta first become aware of the
instinctual passions (that evoke this dislike), and then by-pass/over-ride (ie., go one step below) it, before you
can come across the naive part of yourself where you can be liking and likeable.
Syd [11:09 AM]: I said “dislike [something]”. But not “like something”; instead,
I said, “be liking [and likeable]”.
IMO, it is best to find your way to naiveté through enjoying and appreciating, rather than thinking
your way in.
__________
• {8th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything*; 12 April 2024.
Rick [11:24 AM]: “Syd said: I said “dislike [something]”. But not “like
something”; instead, I said, “be liking [and likeable]”. Thank you, I’m aware. You advised: If I
dislike something I gotta first become aware of the instinctual passions that evoke the dislike [of that thing],
before I can come across the naive part of myself where I can be liking. Liking what? Not that something?
Syd [11:41 AM]: If you dislike doing taxes, become aware of your objections (maybe fear), decline
going down that route, and enjoy and appreciate this moment of doing taxes. If you dislike your wife giving tantrums,
become aware of your feelings all the way to instinctual passions, become aware and of it, decline going down that
path, go one step below passions and meet the other as a fellow human being (while enjoying and appreciating). You
may come across liking/ likeable here as I did.
__________
• {9th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything*; 12 April 2024.
Syd [12:07 PM]: I’m in a library now. “Rick said: Liking what? Not that something?”
Correct, not necessarily that “something” (whatever that is). As to “Liking what”—it
is a fellow human being, and not some “object” of one’s passions. Moreover, it feels good (great indeed)
to be (unconditionally) liking as that. After all, does it not feel terrible giving the other person power to dictate
your moods? Why let Ms. Impossible or Ms. Karen tell me/you how to go about experiencing life? Ms. Impossible/ Ms.
Karen could benefit from the liking ambiance I generate; regardless, I’m now likeable (to myself) and sometimes to
others as well. And I enjoy being liking/ likeable, thus it generates that spontaneous interactions I described on
couple of occasions. This gives impetus to maintain this naive state of affairs perpetually, and by coming back to it
whenever there’s deviation. This where even powerful instincts like libido can lose the game.
__________
• {10th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything*; 12 April 2024.
Syd [12:12 PM]: The other thing I noticed about naiveté is this: I see the old Syd (the social
identity, primarily) as I intuitively have been feeling myself retreat, the more naive I’m. This makes sense
because social identity is largely resting on the instinctual passions. But it such a refresher to see this: because
I don’t have to endlessly whittle away my social identities. Just get back to being naive. Whenever I get triggered
into feeling bad, it is a sign of those old identities returning, but with lesser intensity each time; I become aware
of it, and come back on track.
__________
• {11th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything*; 12 April 2024.
Rick [12:55 PM]: “Syd said: If you dislike doing taxes, become aware of your objections (maybe
fear), decline going down that route, and enjoy and appreciate this moment of doing taxes”. If you are doing
your taxes and disliking it, then you are not enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. Can you actively
dislike something—anything—while enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive?
Syd [12:56 PM]: No.
Rick [12:56 PM]: Is enjoyment and appreciation a necessary aspect of naiveté?
Syd [12:59 PM]: It goes along with it.
__________
Rick • {12th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything*; 12 April 2024.
[1:00 PM]: Right. In other words, if one is not enjoying and appreciating this moment of being
alive, one cannot say they are experiencing the nearest-to-innocence a human being can possibly experience. Yes?
Syd [1:01 PM]: Yes. Moreover, Vineeto said being naïveté is superior to feeling good.
__________
• {13th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything*; 12 April 2024.
Rick [1:07 PM]: Now look: “Rick said: Can you actively dislike something—anything—while
enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive?” “Syd said: No”.
Therefore, if you actively dislike something—anything—then you cannot be in a state of naiveté,
since enjoyment and appreciation is a necessary aspect of naiveté. And one cannot actively dislike something—anything—while
enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. Dislike means no enjoyment and appreciation. No enjoyment and
appreciation means no naiveté. “Rick said: if one is not enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive,
one cannot say they are experiencing the nearest-to-innocence a human being can possibly experience”.
Syd [1:10 PM]: To bring it all back to where the rubber meets the road (lest it be a detached
intellectual exercise), if you are not feeling good about doing taxes—you are not enjoying and appreciating (never
mind naiveté). It really is simple, start from here: feel good about doing taxes. Then enjoy doing it. Then appreciate it.
You will come up with objections; deal with them (become aware; decline going down the path). You gotta do this
“sweat work” before you think about naiveté.
Rick [1:11 PM]: If you are actively disliking something, you are not feeling good, you are not
enjoying it, and you are not appreciating it
Syd [1:11 PM]: I personally had to go through identity crisis. Something like that needs to happen, I’d say.
Rick [1:12 PM]: Do you disagree? If you are actively disliking something, you are not feeling good,
you are not enjoying it, and you are not appreciating it.
Syd [1:13 PM]: Sure. Now feel good about doing your taxes.
Rick [1:13 PM]: I dislike doing my taxes. Should I like doing my taxes? For things that I dislike, should I like them?
Syd [1:15 PM]: You do the same as I did with ‘the most boring job’ here. [https://syd.ca/pce-reports].
Rick [1:15 PM]: Do I need to like them in order to feel good while doing them? “Syd said: I was
able to work on the task most effectively, and while enjoying[*] it thoroughly”. [*][https://syd.ca/felicity-innocuity].
The task. Before you didn’t like it, then things took a magical turn, and you liked it
[thoroughly].
Syd [1:17 PM]: “Syd said: I started appreciating the various nooks and crannies of ‘the
brain in operation’. At this meta level, the interest-level of the task did not matter—because the very fact that
the brain is working on it in its intricate levels was so wonderful to observe”. Enjoy being alive and doing the
very act of doing taxes. If you feel like this is an obligation (as indicated by your word “need”), why
even bother doing any of this?
Rick [1:17 PM]: Or did you enjoy it without liking it? “Syd said: If you feel like this is an
obligation (as indicated by your word “need”), why even bother doing any of this?” need = necessary,
as in, requisite.
Syd [1:18 PM]: We can masturbate and dissect this all day and yet you will never succeed at enjoy
doing the taxes.
Rick [1:20 PM]: I’m not masturbating, but I am dissecting. Because there is something here that
doesn’t add up.
Syd [1:20 PM]: Stop doing that, and just feel good. You have already lost the plot (where you said
need to like something before feeling good). You are basically putting conditions on feeling good.
Rick [1:21 PM]: “Syd said: You have already lost the post (where you said need to like
something before feeling good)”. Oh good. So you can feel good without liking something.
Syd [1:22 PM]: Whatever the fuck man. What do you think “feeling good come what may”
means? Just do it.
Rick [1:23 PM]: Yet I asked you: “Can you actively dislike something—anything—while enjoying
and appreciating this moment of being alive?” and you said: “No”. Now you say you can actively dislike
something and still feel good. Do you see how this doesn’t make sense?
Syd [1:24 PM]: I did not say that, and it has become clear that you like masturbating to semantic
games than feeling good. At this point, I’m seriously questioning your whole motives in involving in actualism.
Rick [1:24 PM]:
https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-syd-ballina-2024/topic/04-11.20Rick.3A.20liking.20*everything*/near/432820627
“Syd said: “Now you say you can actively dislike something and still feel good”. and
“Syd said: You have already lost the plot (where you said need to like something before feeling good)”.
You said I lost the plot where I said I need to like something before feeling good. Ergo I need not like something
before feeling good. Ergo I can feel good without liking something
Syd [1:27 PM]: “Syd said: [..] it has become clear that you like masturbating to semantic
games than feeling good. At this point, I’m seriously questioning your whole motives in involving in
actualism”. If you wish to continue interacting with me on this topic, you need to address this first.
Rick [1:27 PM]: What is there to address? You are wrong.
Syd [1:28 PM]: Okay, then, there’s nothing to discuss.
Rick [1:29 PM]: I addressed it. But yes, there’s no point in continuing if that is how things
appear to you. Every additional attempt to be more clear and precise will be further evidence of what you have
already concluded.
Syd [1:31 PM]: You gotta realize what you have been doing is not working. 20 years of nothing. You
need to change gears. Do you seriously expect me to play tag (play along) with 20 more years of this? LOL
Rick [1:31 PM]: Do you not like this exchange?
Syd [1:32 PM]: Like I said, it is empty intellectual / semantic discussion. Not to mention it
ignores the bulk of what we discussed in the houseboat last afternoon. I guess that’s part of my frustration—that
I let myself get dragged into semantic wanking, when I could have spent time doing pure contemplation. I’m
rethinking my investment here.
Rick [1:33 PM]: And to think. All this back and forth because you aroused my curiosity as to why you
could not/ would not/ still will not answer this: “Rick said: Yes, people dislike all kinds of things, including
themselves. Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?” From the very first message in
this thread
Syd [1:37 PM]: There’s no connection here.
__________
• {14th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 syd/rick comm; April 12 2024.
Syd [1:37 PM]: Conclusion. A sensible course of action for me at this point is to not respond to
each and every message of yours—and that’s what I’ll do from this point onwards.
If I see sincerity in action, I’ll try to respond. Otherwise (such as intellectual wanking), I’ll
ignore it. I’ve run out of giving you benefit of doubt. It is up to you as to whether you want to come along or
not, but I’m gonna focus head-fast on my journey ahead, make the usual reports here and make best use of my time in
Ballina.
__________
• {15th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 syd/rick comm; April 12 2024.
Rick [1:39 PM]: Do what you gotta do. Your conclusion is entirely unfounded, of course. “Syd
said: It is easy for me to directly answer your question (I know the answer)”. And yet the question was never
answered. Maybe one day. Maybe not.
Syd [1:43 PM]: It is for the best. I should have ignored that topic from the get-go much like I
ignored this one.
Rick [1:44 PM]: Whatever makes you feel good.
Syd [1:45 PM]: What happened was I got sucked into Rick’s bad habits, and then got frustrated of
having wasted that time (and then blamed Rick).
Rick [1:45 PM]: You wouldn’t have felt it a waste had you enjoyed it.
Syd [1:45 PM]: And I tried to “change” Rick (wasting further time), when I should
have time/energy-boxed it and moved on.
Rick [1:45 PM]: Look. I’ll do you a solid favour. I’ll quit for tonight.
Syd [1:46 PM]: With hindsight, what I would have done is this: “Oh, here Rick goes again
engaged in semantic wanking. Alright, let me do some pure contemplation now”.
Rick [1:46 PM]: It hasn’t been enjoyable for you.
Syd [1:47 PM]: “Syd said: And I tried to “change” Rick (wasting further time), when
I should have time/energy-boxed it and moved on”. Which goes to show that I’m better off changing myself,
rather than try to change others. Again, it’s on me (and I’m the one to change here).
Rick [1:47 PM]: Yes. Your motives were wrong.
Syd [1:47 PM]: “Syd said: A sensible course of action for me at this point is to not respond
to each and every message of yours—and that’s what I’ll do from this point onwards”. Just to clarify, I’m
not rage-quitting. I’ll have my conversation 90% as normal as ever, but don’t be surprised if I neglect the 10%.
Rick [1:48 PM]: Agreed. We’re mutually ending discussion on this. I don’t want to see you not
enjoy yourself.
Syd [1:49 PM]: I’m someone that’s known to be “online too much”—part of which is why
I kept getting distracted yesterday on the houseboat, which Vineeto pointed out (this segues into the
“disciplined thought” part of pure contemplation; I was actually going to respond to your query but got
derailed onto the semantic wanking topic).
Rick [1:49 PM]: I object to the semantic wanking characterisation, but I catch your drift
Rick [1:50 PM]: “Syd said: part of which is why I kept getting distracted yesterday on the
houseboat”. You were online at the houseboat?
Syd [1:51 PM]: No; I was referring to the monkey brain habit that usually results from internet use.
The lack of focus.
Rick [1:52 PM]: “Syd said: (this segues into the “disciplined thought” part of pure
contemplation”. For what it’s worth, I was really trying to maintain disciplined thought process by keeping
rigidly to the topical question presented at the beginning of the thread.
Syd [1:52 PM]: Of course you can apply disciplined thought to any endeavour.
Rick [1:45 PM]: “Syd said: No; I was referring to the monkey brain habit that usually results
from internet use. The lack of focus”. Okay.
Rick [1:53 PM]: “Syd said: Of course you can apply disciplined thought to any endeavour”.
Indeed you can. Going to get off so you can get on some pure contemplation. Or whatever else you might have lined up.
Cheers.
Syd [1:55 PM]: Alright, let’s give this one more try. I’ll start a new topic.
__________
• {16th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything* V2; April 12
2024.
Syd [1:56 PM]: “Syd said: Richard brought up the ‘naivete spot’ thing where how once you
go past (override) the instinctual passions you come to area where you are both liking and likeable. People don’t
like themselves as they (instinctually) are. Naiveté is where they can like themselves”. “Rick said: Yes,
people dislike all kinds of things, including themselves. Is naiveté a state where people can like everything, no
exclusions?”
New approach.
__________
• {17th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything* V2; April 12
2024.
Syd [1:56 PM]: Make it concrete. Give a specific example of this “everything”, that exists
here in Ballina that I can experience.
__________
• {18th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 syd/rick comm; April 12 2024.
Syd [1:57 PM]: I’ll incessantly disrespect the wanking generalities.
Rick [1:58 PM]: As you please
__________
• {19th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking *everything* V2; April 12 202
Rick [1:59 PM]: You tell me. Is there anything—anything at all—that you do not like right now?
Syd [2:00 PM]: I’m worried about my headache/ pressure from time to time (which worry need not
happen, and I have been looking into that).
Rick [2:03 PM]: Well ... let’s back up. You are not in a state of naivete right now. The question
initially was to explore your past experience. Personally, in my default feeling-less-than-good state, there is much
that I dislike. I dislike how messy this house looks, I dislike the fact that I have a lot to do tomorrow. And I
dislike things that I can’t mention publicly here. But in naivete I was simply wondering whether those dislikes for
things featured, or whether they were absent. Right now you don’t like your headache. Would you have liked it when
you were being naive? I’m trying to get a sense of what the experience was like beyond how you felt towards humans.
Much of my resentment is towards things, circumstances.
I remember Richard saying that the one time he felt bad during his OFC virtual freedom, was when it
was cold, wet, and he’d run into car troubles. It wasn’t humans that brought him down, it was inanimate shit.
Syd [2:06 PM]: “Rick said: I’m trying to get a sense of what the experience was like beyond
how you felt towards humans”. I actually wrote about this (I mentioned ‘loneliness’ in particular).
Rick [2:07 PM]: Oh. Absence of humans. Being surrounded by inanimate shit.
Syd [2:07 PM]:
[https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-syd-ballina-2024/topic/04-08.20RV.20meeting.3A.20awareness.3B.20go.20one.20step.20below/near/432394313].
Rick [2:08 PM]: Right. You would have been out of that naive state at the time.
Syd [2:09 PM]: Because instinctually I was craving for connection.
Rick [2:09 PM]: You were liking your fellow human being, that was clear. But not liking much else.
Syd [2:10 PM]: But not liking the act of coming back to the lodge to do some computer programming.
Is that what you are saying?
Rick [2:12 PM]: I don’t know if you were liking that or not. But you weren’t liking your
surroundings in some way, they being absent of humans/ human connection.
[Richard]: “There is an actual intimacy between me and everyone and everything ... actual
intimacy is a direct experiencing of the other as-they-are”.
I know Richard’s talking about an actual intimacy, but I was expecting the intimacy of naivete to
be similar. The affective version of that, maybe. Intimate and liking everyone AND everything.
Syd [2:13 PM]: 1. Why do you think I wasn’t liking my surroundings in some way once I was back at
the lodge? 2. What do you think I did to enjoy and appreciate it?
Rick [2:14 PM]: 1. You said you were lonely. 2. You became aware of your loneliness and got back to
enjoying and appreciating, I presume.
Syd [2:16 PM]: More pertinently, nowhere in that step 2 was I thinking to myself “I must like
everything” as my mind was occupied with a) becoming aware [of what is preventing enjoyment], and b) get back to
enjoying and appreciating. Neither was I abusing the liking/ likeable terminology for solo activities.
Rick [2:17 PM]: I’m sure you weren’t. Can we be clear? At one point were you experiencing being
naive? Or has it been on and off, in and out.
Syd [2:18 PM]: Yes, when I enjoy and appreciate doing these activities, I was being naive. It ebbs
and flows of course (in relational context in particular) as I iron out the triggers.
Rick [2:19 PM]: I want to focus on the moments you were experiencing being naivete.
Not what led up to it, and not what happened afterwards. During those moments, did you have the
capacity to dislike anything at all? Or was everything likeable? I know you unreservedly liked all humans. Did
anything bother you, I guess I could ask.
Syd [2:22 PM]: Are you asking, whether during these moments whether I had the capacity for my
enjoyment to diminish?
Rick [2:22 PM]: Or was everything good just the way it was. My experience is that things need to be
improved, made better, things are lacking.
Syd [2:22 PM]: “Rick said: Or was everything good just the way it was”. No, I did not have
a perfection experience (yet), but close.
Rick [2:23 PM]: Ah. Okay. I think I have been equating the naive state with a perfection experience
and so was trying to draw out from you details regarding a perfection experience. Hence my query about finding
everyone AND everything likable, worthy of endorsement, approval, and embrace.
Syd [2:25 PM]: What is your plan to become actually free exactly?
Rick [2:27 PM]: To feel good right now. My plan to become actually free is to feel good right now.
So, my goal is to feel good right now.
__________
• {20th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 12
2024.
Rick [2:35 PM]: I was contemplating a possible strategy for feeling good. I noticed that feeling bad
for me has often been associated with things that I didn’t like. I have been contemplating the possibility of
actually liking everything, without exception. Going from disliking something, to liking it. Is that even possible? I
don’t know. Hence my curiosity regarding your experience of naivete. If you start from disliking someone, and then
go on to liking them, could the same be done with absolutely everything else? That’s been my reflections.
Syd [2:42 PM]: I see. That seems like the identity being cunning at distracting itself from just
feeling good (“If only I got this Grand Perspective, everything will fall in place...”).
Rick [2:42 PM]: Horseshit. Why would it/ I not want to feel good.
Syd [2:43 PM]: You tell me
Rick [2:43 PM]: Of course I want to feel good.
Syd [2:44 PM]: This explains why I found your question unproductive (in V1). I went through my own
version of it remember? “Bad habits”.
Rick [2:45 PM]: Do you also find me asking about the weather there “unproductive”? It’s a
question of curiosity. If you started avoiding the question about what the weather was like, for you to impertinently
tell me, right off the bat: “Syd said: How about you find out?” I’m going to look askance. I begin
wondering whether I’m not communicating clearly.
__________
• {21st copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 RV meeting: pure contemplation; April 13
2024.
Syd [04-13]: Large part of today was spent regressing, thanks to the continuing head ache. Although
this time I wasn’t worried about the future (anxiety), my worries today have been more subtle and about the present
(concerns—“I just want this pain to to be over!”). This underlying current affected my enjoyment and put
a dent on the mood. I sat down to read my prior reports, and this part[*] (in addition to the “background
E&A” emphasis) of the 04-04 report caught my attention: “Then we talked about how it is about feeling
good this moment. The aforementioned ‘bad habits’ of mine involve future moments, hence I’m not in this moment,
never mind feel good about it. Otherwise it would feel forced”.
[*]
[https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-syd-ballina-2024/topic/04-04.20RV.20meeting.3A.20Bad.20habits.2C.20feel.20good.2C.20vibes.
And I’m back to feeling good again.
The particular ‘bad habit’ went like this: “I should be feeling good, but I’m not; I want
to feel good, which means feeling good is something that is necessarily going to happen next moment”. Once I saw
it, poof.
(Of course, the head ache subsides always in the evening; so that too helped).
Now that I’m feeling good, I can easily tap into naivete (liking/ likeable) with the concomitant
‘forgetting’ of instinctual Syd ....
I see how it works. Vineeto (and Richard) would now say, “Now you appreciate it”.
Syd: Note: naivete can be accessed through this mechanism (ie., by over-riding instinctual
passions): “Syd said: Vineeto mentioned a connection to having apperception happen. I don’t remember what
this was in response to. She said that, *being aware of instinctual passions* (as I noted above)—and thereby *going
one step below* and *dealing with the world directly* (be it a person or object or event or whatever)—can lead to
apperception since that is the mind’s awareness of itself”.
__________
• {22nd copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13
2024.
Rick [8:48 AM]: [https://discuss.actualism.online/t/burnt-toast-thats-that-sh-i-dont-like/965/1].
__________
• {23rd copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13
2024.
Rick [9:23 AM]: ^Tongue in cheek essay on this liking/ disliking business.
Rick [10:19 AM]: “Syd said: That ‘background E&A’ ... is ... the affective mimicry of
that perfection you refer to”. Since you see me referring to just that, then [what] makes you say I’m not
interested?
Syd [11:52 AM]: What is your understanding of ‘background E&A’ and how are you going about
it whilst doing, say, taxes?
__________
• {24th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13
2024.
Rick [12:04 PM]: I understand “background E&A” to be enjoying and appreciating this
moment of being alive, but in the background, as opposed to the foreground. Which means one may not be enjoying and
appreciating this moment of being alive on the surface level, but below that, in the background it’s possible to
enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive. I don’t know how to go about this while paying taxes. The
instructions and advice that you provided and that I read on the AFT appear insensible and incomprehensible to me.
__________
• {25th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13
2024.
Rick [12:19 PM]: “Syd said: What is your understanding of ‘background E&A’ and how are
you going about it whilst doing, say, taxes?” I also see this ‘background E&A’ as relating to everything
being perfect in the “ultimate sense”. In the relative or local sense, things can and do often suck. When
things suck, you can’t enjoy them. In this ultimate sense, nothing sucks. Since nothing sucks in the ultimate
sense, everything can be enjoyed (from that ultimate sense of things). If I can see a way to access this
“ultimate” sense of things, I expect I’ll be in business.
__________
• {26th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13
2024.
Syd [5:33 PM]: You enjoy & appreciate doing taxes in a way no different to my ‘Microsoft EE’.
Don’t you enjoy and appreciate the various cognitive/ brainy activities involved in doing taxes?
__________
• {27th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13
2024.
Rick [6:52 PM]: “Syd said: You enjoy & appreciate doing taxes in a way no different to my
‘Microsoft EE’. Don’t you enjoy and appreciate the various cognitive/ brainy activities involved in doing
taxes?” No, the whole business I find to be distasteful. Some bits are naturally less bothersome than other
bits. Anyways, taxes this season are done. Seeing the final amount I owed to the government at the end especially
sucked. I neither enjoy nor appreciate knowing that I’m losing so much money for the enrichment of this government.
I don’t like it. Need to see how, ultimately speaking, such a thing is perfect. I like perfect things.
__________
• {28th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13
2024.
Rick [9:00 PM]: Related: RICHARD: “As simply as possible, then: it is impossible to be miserable
(or in any other way infelicitous) *where* the pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness
which this universe actually is abounds...”.
And thus where perfection doesn’t abound—i.e. where it is not seen or experienced—then one may
be miserable. Happiness is inherent to that perfection.
RICHARD: “Happiness is not a product of good or bad ... it is inherent to perfection”.
Happiness/ harmlessness is a direct effect of perfection.
CO-RESPONDENT: “(...) why is happiness inherent to perfection?”
RICHARD: “Simply because both the qualities ... intrinsic to the properties ... of that
perfection ... and the values ... inherent to those properties and qualities [of that perfection] can only have a
felicitous (and innocuous) effect”.
__________
• {29th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13
2024.
Rick [6:55 AM]: Rick said: [https://discuss.actualism.online/t/burnt-toast-thats-that-sh-i-dont-like/965/1].
^ Tongue in cheek essay on this liking/ disliking business.
[https://discuss.actualism.online/t/burnt-toast-part-2/967/1].
^ Part 2 if interested. :warning: Warning: walls of text.
__________
• {30th copy-pasted message}: syd-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13
2024.
Syd [6:21 PM]: When all is said and done, the proof is in the pudding: are you able to feel good
(about simply being alive) whilst doing taxes? I’d say: drop everything (including reading AFT) and do just this:
feel good 24x7 about simply being alive (regardless what you are doing—that doesn’t matter)
Rick [9:01 PM]: How?
Disregard—I’ll figure it out
__________
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless
Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual
Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity
|
