|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Near-Actual Caring
RESPONDENT: All is in unity and perfect ... even the fly on the manure pile is Divine. RICHARD: Oh yes ... so ‘divine’, in fact, that in India (where human ordure is oft-times
deposited on top of the ground) this ‘divine’ fly spreads ‘divine’ virulence through ‘divine’ neighbourhoods
causing unnecessary ‘divine’ pain and ‘divine’ suffering. In 1984 I visited India to see for myself and
spent nearly three months living in the slums of what was then called Madras. The sight of tiny children This is how the mind starts seeing itself ... for that is when I actually started to care about my fellow
human ... not merely transcendentally feel that I care. Re: Near Actual Caring CLAUDIU: Hi Alan. In 23080, you wrote:
As you said it would be helpful, I am only too happy to oblige and to point out how you are indeed
continuing to mislead your fellow human beings, the latest post you wrote (Message № 23179; 24 Jul 2016)
being only the latest example. The essential structure of your post is to intersperse reports from your experience with quotes from
Vineeto, thus associating her genuine
By contrast, what you experienced and are now misleadingly recommending to your fellow human beings is nothing but that hoary spiritual “putting the other before oneself”:
The silliness of this putting the other before oneself is explicated in detail on the Actual Freedom
Trust website in the transcript of the Audio-Taped Dialogue aptly titled “Putting The Other Before Oneself”. (Richard, Audio-Taped Dialogues, Putting the Other before Oneself). Needless to say, this will never result in the genuine article that is an actual freedom from the human condition. ALAN: And anyone with a modicum of sensibility (not obscured by personal feelings) will easily appreciate that what I was referring to (near actual caring) and what Richard was referring to (caring for the other as an ongoing modus operandi and the basic instinct of nurture in action) are two completely different things. This is especially obvious given the qualifiers I included – with no reserve, no holding back anything whatsoever – which is not the case in the “caring” which Richard was discussing. (Message № 23190; Tue, 26 Jul 2016) [...remainder of post elided...]. SRINATH: I thought that the final step i.e. self-immolation, could indeed be construed as a putting of others before self. RICHARD: G’day Srinath, First of all, what follows is the text starting at the top of the web page which Claudiu linked to further above – in regards to what he described as “this putting the other before oneself” topic – as part of his engaged response to Alan’s “placing the other’s happiness before my own” depiction of what “giving myself 100% to another” means to Alan when put into practice. Viz.:
As you can see the topic is essentially about being self-centred – with especial attention upon that term referring to each and every ‘self’ being both ego-centric and soul-centric – in respect to the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness, which religio-spiritualists generally equate to self-centredness, via putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’). Now, the incident to which Claudiu responded thusly was when feeling-being ‘Alan’ placed the affective happiness of
feeling-being ‘Joan’ In other words, feeling-being ‘Alan’ prioritised the (potential) affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ – a conditioned happiness, dependent upon the situation and circumstances, and of a temporary nature – over the (potential) actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan – an unconditioned happiness, due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only, and of a permanent nature – which happiness also has the priceless advantage of having no trace of any malice whatsoever to later supplant it. (Incidentally, note well how no mention is made of the then-current affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Alan’ – voice-recorded at-the-time as being “I am *so happy and excited* that I am going to meet the person I am closest to on the intimacy scale (...) I know it is going to be *a very enjoyable* day” [emphases added] – having the obvious potential of being at least sustained, at that then-current level, if not even further enhanced). Furthermore, and given that Alan portrays that prioritising of affective happiness over an actual happiness as being a “near actual caring” further above, it is pertinent to point out that an actual caring is epitomised by an ever-present preference for the self-imposed suffering of one’s fellow human being to come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. For instance:
Thus the “caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” that Vineeto
wrote about (as quoted by Claudiu much further above) – which appears to have become known as a ‘near-actual caring’ these days – is
self-evidently a caring which prioritises an actual happiness over an affective happiness any day of the week (else it be a gussied up real-world
caring And now that the incident in question has been brought to its due notice then your above thought – as in, “I thought that the final step i.e. self-immolation, could indeed be construed as a putting of others before self”, that is – can be addressed in an applied fashion. SRINATH: Otherwise what would be the reason for calling it biological altruism? A mother who throws herself in front of a train to protect her baby is clearly doing this. RICHARD: Here is a typical example of what is to be found on The Actual Freedom Trust web site in regards to ‘self’-immolation, in toto, and the word ‘altruism’.
And again:
The only way in which the above text [quote] “could indeed be construed as a putting of others before self” [endquote] is by having the word “others” quite uncharacteristically refer to ‘this body and that body and every body’. For example:
Here, then, is the 64-dollar question to ponder: did feeling-being ‘Alan’ put ‘his’ body and the body inhabited by feeling-being ‘Joan’ and every other body on the planet before feeling-being ‘Alan’ in that incident whereby ‘he’ placed the affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ before the actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan (otherwise depicted as “giving myself 100% to another” in Message № 23179) by forgoing ‘his’ second attempt at ‘self’-immolation there-and-then? * Lastly, as a feeling-being does not give themself 100% to another feeling-being via placing that other feeling-being’s happiness before their own then it is most certainly misleading to present that age-old religio-spiritual practice of ‘putting the other before oneself’ as if it were the way to go about doing so. More to this point: it is a matter of public record that on the first occasion in which the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was finally able to give ‘himself’ completely to a woman – totally and utterly – she was so busy fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer she never even noticed there was no longer any aspect of that ‘me’ hiding from view and/or holding aloof in an ultra-cautious and/or ever-futile reserve (as in, who or what on earth had ‘he’ been saving ‘himself’ for all that long while). Viz.:
You will surely notice how giving oneself 100% is all about the ending of self-centredness – self-centred as in being both ego-centric and soul-centric – and has nowt to do with placing another’s happiness before one’s own [a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’]. * Incidentally, neither will being in love do the trick either (as was amply demonstrated by the instigator of the ‘mother of
all kerfuffles’ back in January 2012). * Re: Near Actual Caring CLAUDIU [to Alan]: (...). However, it is clear that what you experience and refer to with the term “near-actual caring” is not the experience the term properly refers to. The following snippets from the quotes you provided help demonstrate the essential difference:
[...remainder of post elided...]. RICHARD [to Srinath]: (...). Furthermore, and given that Alan portrays that prioritising of affective happiness over an actual happiness as being a “near actual caring”, it is pertinent to point out that an actual caring is epitomised by an ever-present preference for the self-imposed suffering of one’s fellow human being to come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. For instance:
Thus the “caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” that Vineeto wrote
about (as quoted by Claudiu much further above) – which appears to have become known as a ‘near-actual caring’ these days – is
self-evidently a caring which prioritises an actual happiness over an affective happiness any day of the week (else it be a gussied up real-world
caring [...remainder of post elided...]. SRINATH: Excellent science article on empathy which I found very relevant to my work. Also it aligns with near-actual caring: Attachment: Nautilus – Issue 35: Boundaries: How to Avoid Empathy Burnout [by Jamil Zaki; April 7, 2016; "Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s pain without feeling it themselves"]. .... but not the last self-love bit which came out of the blue! [bracketed insert added]. (Message № 232xx; Slack Digest 03Aug16; 02:29 PM) ADDENDUM: Actually I’m seeing that the article for the most part doesn’t align with near-actual caring or naive intimacy. But it does advocate not taking on emotional contagion, pragmatism and boundaries – which I suppose are sensible real world ways of care-giving. (Message № 232xx; Slack Digest 04Aug16; 02:22 AM) G’day Srinath, As the above article on ‘Empathy Burnout’ (a near-cousin to ‘Compassion Fatigue’) which you link to, and publicly
commend as being an [quote] “excellent science article” [endquote] on the ‘Nautilus Magazine’ web site Essentially, what the author describes as [quote] “a third way” [endquote] to the self-preservation of becoming empathetically calloused, with its blunted responsiveness, and the crushing risk which the burden of empathically caring imparts – which third way he specifically references as being [quote] “detachment” [endquote] mind you – is a therapeutic distancing technique similar to and/or drawn from and/or based upon [quote] “Buddhist-inspired compassion meditation training” [endquote] whereby savvy social behaviourist-type therapists and counsellors consciously shed a pattern of feeling the other’s emotional pain (which vicarious-feeling is what the word empathy has referred to ever since it was coined, in 1908, to translate the 1858 German word Einfühlung into English) and replace it with patterns of motivation and even positive emotion ... to wit: “a key feature of successful therapy is therapists’ communication of warmth and understanding toward their patients”. A non-empathic warmth, that is, engendered by an intellectual understanding drawn from impressions based upon verbal and visual cues alone. The following half-a-dozen or so paragraphs from that ‘Empathy Burnout’ article more or less convey these essential aspects (with over a dozen key features highlighted, for convenience in referencing those essential aspects, and explanatory info inserted within curled brackets). Viz.:
As your reassessment now has you seeing how the article [quote] “for the most part” [endquote] does not align with a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster – a caring which prioritises an actual happiness over an affective happiness any day of the week (inasmuch an actual caring is epitomised by an ever-present preference for the self-imposed suffering of one’s fellow human being to come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later) – it is somewhat intriguing to contemplate just what constitutes the least part, of the above scholastical research by Mr. Jamil Zaki (all duly referenced by the in-accord judgments of Ms. Allison Basinger, Ms. Rene McCreary, Ms. Katherine Miller, Ms. Tania Singer, et aliae), which evidently still remains aligned in your eyes. Incidentally, despite stating upfront that “patients thrive from emotional connection with nurses, social workers, and therapists”, the central theme of this article which you commend as being [quote] “very relevant to my work” [endquote] is all about depriving those patients of what they thrive upon – that “emotional connection” popularly known as empathy (as in, “vicariously sharing another person’s feeling”, that is) but artfully designated “emotional contagion” in academe – and providing said patients with what the caregivers thrive on, instead, via a remarkably deft sleight-of-hand vis-à-vis what the word empathy has referred to since it was coined 108 years ago (so as to translate into English what the German Einfühlung has meant for 158 years). Here is a possible reason why:
Hence also the high rates of ‘empathy burnout’, of course, as the relationship betwixt helper and helpee – as per the ‘Helper Therapy Principle’ (proposed as “an age-old therapeutic approach” by Dr. Frank Riessman; pp. 27-32, ‘Social Work’, Vol 10‹2›, 1965) – is oft-times of a symbiotic nature. * Given that psychiatry has had at least 150+ years By way of illustration, here is an instance of what feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ had in mind regarding “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” (which you represent with the “near-actual caring” term). First, a select quote:
Hence it came to pass one fine evening that feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ realised, with a profound visceral impact, how ‘she’ had never actually cared – although ‘she’ certainly felt caring (in fact ‘she’ had a deeply-ingrained and ongoing feeling of caring about all the misery and mayhem) – and upon that realisation transforming itself into an actualisation (as per the intimacy-yearning process detailed in the ‘Direct Route Mail-Out № 05 email part-quoted at the top of this page) it activated “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” and there was indeed action which was not of ‘her’ doing ... to wit: the ending of ‘her’ and all ‘her’ subterfuge and trickery (just to stay in keeping with the above wording purely for effect). Thus Vineeto is emphatic that unless this “near-actual caring” term refers to “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” with a marked-action effect, such as is illustrated above, it is to no avail to utilise such terminology. The other example provided (at the top of this page) similarly instances a marked-action effect of “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” inasmuch ‘she’ was sitting amongst a group of people, as one of many, wherein ‘her’ sole interest was that everyone present, including ‘herself’ as one of those present, enjoyed themselves and obtained the maximum benefit from their meeting due to an abeyance of the ‘doer’ and the ascendancy of the ‘beer’ (i.e., an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom). Needless is it to add that instances such as these are beyond the ken of social behaviourist-type therapists and counsellors
(and especially those who slyly avoid ‘empathy burnout’ via shedding the very empathy their patients thrive on)? * SRINATH: Excellent science article on empathy which I found very relevant to my work. Also it aligns with near-actual caring: Attachment: Nautilus – Issue 35: Boundaries: How to Avoid Empathy Burnout [by Jamil Zaki; April 7, 2016; "Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s pain without feeling it themselves"]. .... but not the last self-love bit which came out of the blue! [bracketed insert added]. (Message № 232xx; Slack Digest 03Aug16; 02:29 PM) ADDENDUM: Actually I’m seeing that the article for the most part doesn’t align with near-actual caring or naive intimacy. But it does advocate not taking on emotional contagion, pragmatism and boundaries – which I suppose are sensible real world ways of care-giving. (Message № 232xx; Slack Digest 04Aug16; 02:22 AM) As the above article on ‘Empathy Burnout’ (a near-cousin to ‘Compassion Fatigue’) which you link to, and publicly
commend as being an [quote] “excellent science article” [endquote] on the ‘Nautilus Magazine’ web site [...remainder of post elided...]. SRINATH: Richard, I had originally not read the article too carefully, which is why I withdrew it. RICHARD: G’day Srinath, Ha ... it would be handy for me to bear in mind, then, for future reference, that commendatory sets of words such as “Excellent science article on [an aspect of psychiatry] which I found very relevant to my work” that are followed by an equivalency set of words such as “Also it aligns with [an aspect of actualism]” are meretricious ways of conveying that you have “not read the article too carefully” (let alone its purportedly equivalent actualism counterpart), eh? All joking aside ... whilst the vested interest in finding an equivalency in one’s own area of expertise is readily
understandable Also, and as it is germane to what prompted me to compose my initial post in the first place, this is an apt place to advise that what the words [quote] “withdrew it” [endquote] convey to a reader is at odds with what the words [quote] “for the most part” [endquote] conveyed in that follow-up chat-message you allude to. Viz.:
If, in fact, you had indeed withdrawn it then your follow-up chat-message would have looked something like this;
And had that actually been the case there would have been no post from me on the topic (and neither would this current to-ing and fro-ing of emails be occurring) as the self-centred/ self-centric – and thus naturally self-justifying/ self-perpetuating – professionally-oriented theses generated so proliferatively by social behaviourist-type therapists, counsellors, and their ilk, cannot possibly add anything of an illuminative nature to a discussion about a caring which is notable by the marked absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity (and thus actively self-annulling/ self-terminating) in its operation. SRINATH: Yup, should definitely have not clicked ‘send’. RICHARD: Okay, and by this you make it unmistakably clear you are now seeing that the article in its entirety – and not only for the most part – does not align with a near-actual caring. In other words, there is no corresponding other part – a ‘for the least part’ as it were – of the article which is in alignment. (As far as I am concerned this would have been the end of the matter – and any remainder simply a case of attending to the detail which iconoclastic posts have a tendency to spawn ad minutiae – but because the general thrust of your responses, below, is indicative of still considering aspects of professional caring to be relevant to a near-actual caring, this post has become far more extensive than might otherwise have been the case). SRINATH: To explain: I jumped to the conclusion that the article was referencing aspects of caring that other empathy researchers have talked about and which I was previously aware of e.g. perspective taking, theory of mind, problem solving etc. RICHARD: I see ... so the real reason you advised that the article “aligns with” near-actual caring, in your first chat-message, was because of those particular aspects of caring – namely [quote] “perspective taking, theory of mind, problem solving etc.” [endquote] – which you were previously aware of and not because of what the article is actually about. (More on this, further below, where you reintroduce those particular aspects of professional caring along with two URLs whence the names to what your etcetera represents can be obtained). By the way, as the article is titled “How to Avoid *Empathy* Burnout” and sub-titled “Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s *pain* without *feeling* it themselves” it is quite a feat to jump to a conclusion which does not include what is expressly presented thereby as its central theme – namely: how empathy burnout, which stems from caregivers affectively feeling their patient’s emotional/ passional pain, can be avoided by obtaining such understanding via non-empathic means – as it is an exceptionally frank summary of the article’s prolix contents. SRINATH: I then realised that most of the article wasn’t about this at all and mostly it was focussed on blocking oneself from feeling caring, sympathy and Buddhist compassion – as you pointed out – and changed my mind. RICHARD: What I actually pointed out was that the article focussed exclusively on avoiding “Empathy Burnout” by consciously shedding empathy, adopting detachment, and replacing that shed pattern of feeling the other’s emotional pain with patterns of motivation and even positive emotion. Or, in Assistant Professor Jamil Zaki’s own words, the article is solely about “How to Avoid Empathy Burnout” via caregivers “understanding a patient’s pain without feeling it themselves” – without “vicariously sharing another person’s feeling” that is – and then “forming a goal to alleviate that person’s suffering” via that non-empathic understanding. And here are those very words of his (made bold for convenience) exactly as quoted above:
I also pointed out how the central theme of the article was depriving those patients of what they thrive on SRINATH: For starters it I have been using the term ‘near-actual caring’ as a proxy for ‘more innocuous caring’ ... RICHARD: And thus does the watering-down process begin – even while the pioneer of what that specialist term refers to is still alive – and by which process thus does identity prevail. As Vineeto’s reports/ descriptions/ explanations of a near-actual caring are scattered
throughout her ‘Direct Route Mail-Out’ emails 1. When feeling-being ‘Vineeto’s everyday feeling of caring first shifted into what has since become known as a near-actual caring the qualitative difference was so marked in its effect ‘she’ initially mistook it to be an actual caring (as per ‘her’ memories of PCE’s). 2. This shift occurred when ‘she’ transitioned from ‘her’ pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom into being out-from-control – a dynamic, destinal virtual freedom – for the remaining four-and-a-half weeks of ‘her’ life (albeit with a melodramatic three-day out-of-control interlude towards the end). 3. Due to ‘her’ naïve intent to be as intimate and without prejudice as possible – which, in conjunction with the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity that is part-and-parcel of being out-from-control had resulted in the actualism method segueing into the actualism process – ‘her’ cheerful and thus willing concurrence allowed pure intent to dynamically pull ‘her’ evermore unto ‘her’ destiny. (Hence the “dynamic, destinal virtual freedom” nomenclature). 4. This moment-to-moment experiencing of a caring which is not self-centred/ self-centric provided ‘her’ with the experiential convincement that actualising such caring, via ‘self’-immolation, was the only solution to the human condition; this ‘hands-on’ understanding as a dynamically present feeling-being – an impressively distinct contrast to having been abeyant during PCE’s – left ‘her’ with absolutely no choice (lest ‘she’ be forever “rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic”). 5. Since a near-actual caring is, of course, epitomised by a vital interest in the suffering of all human beings coming to an end, forever, as a number one priority, then ‘her’ single-minded focus was essentially centred upon the most immediate way of ensuring this long-awaited global event could begin to take effect the soonest ... to wit: bringing ‘her’ own inevitable demise, at physical death, forward into a liminal imminence. 6. Because the means ‘she’ elected to utilise towards these ends was the near-actual intimacy which goes hand-in-hand with a near-actual caring (per favour that afore-mentioned absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity which typifies being out-from-control) it is apposite to defer to what Vineeto herself wrote on the 20th of January 2010, only fifteen days after her pivotal moment/ definitive event, as its refreshingly simple directness speaks for itself. Viz.:
(Incidentally, her words “to give them what they want most” refers to my oft-expressed
emphasis on the necessity of a female replicating my condition – for those oh-so-vital ‘core of civilisation itself’ reason SRINATH: ...[I have been using the term ‘near-actual caring’ as a proxy for ‘more innocuous caring’] i.e. an affective caring that is more innocuous/ harmless than say an out-and-out emotional fusion with another person. RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:
Thus, as an actual caring is epitomised by an ever-present preference for the self-imposed suffering of one’s fellow human being to come to an end forever, sooner rather than later, then why would a near-actual caring not *self-evidently be a caring which prioritises an actual innocuity over an affective innocuity any day of the week* but would instead be, for example, a gussied up “affective caring that is more innocuous/ harmless than say an out-and-out emotional fusion with another person” masquerading as a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster? SRINATH: I would like some guidance on this and I’ve discussed in later in the post. RICHARD: As a general rule-of-thumb, then, always be aware of the propensity for watering-down unequivocal reports, descriptions and explanations meticulously conveyed with precise meaning given to terminology – a propensity rife within the human condition – via many and various rationalisations and/or justifications and/or simplifications and/or appropriations and/or arrogations and/or confabulations and/or deconstructions (and all manner of such ‘self’-survival shenanigans too numerous to list). SRINATH: Regarding ‘the least part’ of how this article has anything to do with near-actual caring (or more accurately something down the track from near-actual caring) ... RICHARD: To interject purely on a point of order: as your reassessment had you seeing [quote] “that the article for the most part doesn’t align with near-actual caring” [endquote], in that follow-up chat-message of yours, it necessarily implied you were, therefore, seeing that the other part, the least part of the article, does align with near-actual caring. Thus I would have expected your above sentence to begin something like this:
As there is a distinct difference between being in alignment (in correspondence and/or concordance and/or tallying) with, or matching, a near-actual caring and merely having “anything to do” with it – plus, least of all, being more accurately depicted as “something down the track” from it – you are substantially watering-down the impact your “for the most part” words had in that follow-up chat-message of yours. (I will say it again for emphasis: were it not for the impact your “for the most part” words occasioned there would have been no post from me on the topic and neither would this current to-ing and fro-ing of emails be occurring). SRINATH: ...[Regarding ‘the least part’...] it had to do specifically with the empathy burnout bits and not misguidedly taking on another person’s feelings as a means to helping them. RICHARD: What your words convey most of all is that the other part – the least part of the article which you were seeing does align with near-actual caring – had to do specifically with an assumption on your part that a near-actual caring is a non-empathic caring. Also, I cannot help but notice how the very act of empathy itself – vicariously feeling what another person feels about themself (about their situation: their past, their present, their prospects; plus the circumstances besetting them and their lot in life itself), so as to viscerally know and affectively comprehend the emotional/ passional makeup of their current state-of-being, rather than forming an intellectual understanding drawn from impressions based upon verbal and visual cues alone – is considered by you to be acting “misguidedly” as a means to helping them. (And I say “considered by you” advisedly as nowhere in that article is the very act of empathy itself criticised but, rather, it refers repeatedly to the effect an empathic rapport can have – often called secondary trauma – upon the empathiser due to their own unresolved issues being triggered. As it is widely-known that it is people with unresolved issues who are more inclined to gravitate toward the helping professions – plus the article specifically states that “Surveys of career helpers find they are more likely to report family histories of abuse or substance dependence than professionals in finance, music, and science” – the optimal solution is, of course, to screen-out the helper thus afflicted rather than discard the empathy which the helpee thrives on). Now, as the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was in an out-from-control virtual freedom for
something like five months – although not named as such This acutely-empathic characteristic of the near-actual caring which prevails in the out-from-control way of being is, by virtue of not being self-centred/ self-centric, universal in its scope. As such there is no way the (self-centred/ self-centric) professional caring depicted in that article [quote] “aligns with” [endquote] a near-actual caring as that universality itself is the very potency required to effect the universal solution to the human condition – the ‘self’-sacrificial extirpation of blind nature’s instinctual passions by the feeling-being formed thereof cheerfully and thus willingly ‘self’-immolating for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – as contrasted with a personal (re)solution within the human condition, of otherwise unresolved issues, in those cases of successful helper-helpee transactions by way of the empathic rapport the helpee thrives on. SRINATH: Obviously if this was just a repressive blocking out action, then it would have not be harmless. In this case even any proposed alignment of this article with innocuity is off the mark. RICHARD: Hmm ... as these are the 4th and 5th times, so far, you have used the words harmless and innocuity (or innocuous) in relation to near-actual caring an impression is being conveyed that the main distinction, for you, betwixt actually caring and affectively caring is the absence of malice in the former and the presence of same in the latter. Here is how you expressed it in regards to near-actual caring (from further above):
The question which immediately arises is: a “more innocuous caring” than ... than
what? Than a less innocuous caring? Less innocuous than what? Than an innocuous caring? Is there such an item as a non-innocuous caring that it
need be qualified thataway? As in a nocuous In all those years when an identity was in residence in this flesh-and-blood body I cannot recall any instance of ‘him’ being nocuously (i.e., maliciously) caring ... let alone such as to initiate aspirations of developing a “more innocuous caring” (i.e., a more harmless type of caring). Nor can I think of anyone I know about, personally, who is nocuously (i.e., maliciously) caring ... the very word ‘caring’, in and of itself, implies benignity; being considerate, being helpful, being of a beneficial nature, being well-wishing (a.k.a. benevolent), and the such-like. SRINATH: Further to my point about any ‘least part’ validity, if the original
definition of empathy is retained as you pointed out RICHARD: And there is that watering-down process in action again (whereby the words empathy and sympathy, for the most obvious example, can become interchangeable in your eyes). * Nevertheless, I will first provide a ‘technical point’ explication of both why I wrote of [quote] “a remarkably deft sleight-of-hand vis-à-vis what the word empathy has referred to since it was coined 108 years ago (so as to translate into English what the German Einfühlung has meant for 158 years)” [endquote] and why I provided that word’s etymology, and its literal meaning, and not any one or any number of dictionary definitions ... to wit: the English ‘empathy’ is an accurate translation of the German ‘Einfühlung’ which, in turn, is an accurate translation of the Greek ‘empatheia’ inasmuch they all refer to ‘in’ + ‘feeling’ (pathos=feeling) as in, ‘feeling-in’ or ‘feeling-into’. Therefore, not only do terms such as “perspective taking” and “theory of mind” and “problem solving” *not* refer to what the
word empathy has referred to since it was coined in 1908 (so as to translate into English what the 1858 German Einfühlung meant) nor does that
deceitfully-misnamed Put succinctly: unless empathy involves ‘in + feeling’ (i.e., feeling-into) there is no empathic rapport and any names or titles – such as ‘Cognitive Empathy’, for an obvious example, in those aspects of professional caring that are the real reason you advised that the article “aligns with” near-actual caring – which thereby advertise the presence of that empathy the helpee thrives on yet are totally devoid of same are not only misnamed but are deceitful as well (and outrageously so, in fact, as it borders on malpractice). * Now, back to your rendering of the words empathy and sympathy largely interchangeable: here is the etymology, and literal meaning, of the latter word from the same source. Viz.:
As the word sympathy (‘syn’ + ‘feeling’) literally means ‘together-feeling’ or ‘jointly-feeling’ or ‘feeling-alike’ – as in, two feeling-beings feeling the same, or similar, feelings – it is distinctly different to the word empathy (‘in’ + ‘feeling’) literally meaning ‘feeling-in’ or ‘feeling-into’ (as in, one feeling-being vicariously feeling another’s feelings). And so endeth another attempt at watering-down what a particular word or term specifically refers to. SRINATH: ... and then any claims of alignment with harmlessness is null and void. RICHARD: Hmm ... here is that “alignment with harmlessness” criteria again (only this time in respect to watered-down meanings of words). SRINATH: Perhaps expanding the meaning of empathy is a ‘crafty re-definition’ as you say. RICHARD: Oh, there is no “Perhaps” about it ... in view of how both the title and the sub-title of the article are composed it is indeed crafty. ’Tis a bait-and-switch trick (and possibly with the added bonus of being ‘click-bait’ as well) insofar as the bait is ‘Avoid Empathy Burnout’ – a noble aspiration – and the switch is ‘shed empathy’ (only first re-define it to mean “emotion contagion”) rather than resolve the therapists’ unresolved issues which occasion their burnout via repeated triggering of same. Given that ‘contagion’ has undesirable connotations – as in ‘contagious diseases’ for instance – then to liken empathy to a carrier of infections (whereby the helper is direly ‘infected’, as it were, by the disease-stricken helpee via the empathic connection forged as a necessary part of the therapeutic process) is to render therapy virtually useless because ... (1.) the helpee is deprived of the empathy they thrive on ... and (2.) the helper, viewing the helpee as a potential infectious agent, keeps them at arm’s length (emotionally) ... and (3.) the helper has unresolved issues clouding their area of (supposedly) professional expertise ... and (4.) the helper’s diagnosis and, thus, prognosis, is further compromised by being engendered via a non-empathic intellectual understanding drawn from impressions based upon verbal and visual cues alone. SRINATH: On the other hand, words are always evolving from their original usages. RICHARD: Which is why I provided that word’s etymology, and literal meaning, and not any one or any number of dictionary definitions (which also provide a record of usage changes over time; its 1858 usage, for instance, was in respect to aesthetics). I have had over 35 years, now, of interacting with errant egos – plus nigh-on 25 years of dealing with slippery souls – and have learned through experience that judicious pre-emption saves a lot of unnecessary to-ing and fro-ing of emails. SRINATH: Often there isn’t even a consensus from the start ... RICHARD: As there was consensus from both the 1858 start of the German ‘Einfühlung’ (‘in’ + ‘feeling’) and the 1908 start of the English ‘empathy’ (‘in’ + ‘feeling’) that is beside the point in this case. SRINATH: ... never mind their etymological root meaning. RICHARD: You may very well “never mind” the root meaning, if you so choose, of the English ‘empathy’, the German ‘Einfühlung’, and the Greek ‘empatheia’, but I do mind it ... and mind it well. You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to facilitate clarity in communication ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. SRINATH: More specifically, terms in scientific research, have to be defined much more strictly and standardised for application. RICHARD: Yet even though the title “How to Avoid *Empathy* Burnout” and sub-title “Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s *pain* without *feeling* it themselves” were written by an assistant professor of psychology – the words “by Jamil Zaki” and the date “April 7, 2016” feature immediately below – whose research focuses on the cognitive and neural bases of social behaviour, at the Stanford Social *Neuroscience* Laboratory, he did not use the word empathy in any such “defined much more strictly and standardised for application” manner as it is patently obvious he was using it in the way it has been referred to since it was coined 108 years ago (so as to translate into English what the German Einfühlung has meant for 158 years) ... namely: ‘in’ + ‘feeling’. Incidentally, if the contents of that article are representative of what constitutes [quote] “scientific research” [endquote] these days then the educational standards of the higher institutes of learning leave a lot to be desired. SRINATH: If – as many researchers have pointed out, and which this article has only
touched on in a narrow way – ‘empathy’ has become a catch-all and poorly operationalised term, which collapses within it: theory of mind,
affect, cognitive perspective taking, mentalization etc. RICHARD: First of all, I cannot help but notice that you have shifted from saying the above “aligns with” near-actual caring to now saying it is “compatible with” near-actual caring. Nevertheless, as those aspects of professional caring are the real reason you advised that the article “aligns with” near-actual caring, in your first chat-message, it is obviously necessary to access those URLs to discover what your “etc.” represents – both immediately above (viz.: “theory of mind, affect, cognitive perspective taking, mentalization etc.”) and much further above (viz.: “perspective taking, theory of mind, problem solving etc.”) – so as to be as fully informed as possible as to what you are referring to. As no such professional caring terms, as above, are to be found at the second URL the following is what features at the first URL. Viz.:
Arranged numerically, in the sequential order presented above, purely for the ease of comparison:
As only three of your (combined) examples feature in those six aspects of professional caring, above, a comparative listing in that same sequential order is as follows:
(I am presuming, of course, that by “mentalization” you were referring to her “cognitive empathy” term and, as your “affect” and “problem solving” terms did not match those items listed 1-to-6, further above, I have arbitrarily numbered them 7 and 8 for want of any other option. And, speaking of which, I do find it cute how right after after declaring that “terms in scientific research have to be defined much more strictly and standardised for application” you immediately demonstrate a singular lack of not only standardisation, as per № 3, but strictness as well inasmuch “affect” is so vague as to mean almost anything related to the affections and “problem solving” can, and does, have a wide range of application in all manner of disciplines). Anyway, as those six aspects of professional caring are, of course, self-centred/ self-centric – and thus self-justifying/ self-perpetuating by nature – then the real reason you advised that the article “aligns with” near-actual caring, in your first chat-message, adds nothing of an illuminative nature to a discussion about a caring which is notable by the marked absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity (and thus actively self-annulling/ self-terminating) in its operation. Nor is there anything else presented at either of the two URLs – not even one single solitary item – which “aligns with” near-actual caring, either, and no matter how diligently a reader might peruse the material made
public knowledge there, under the rubric ‘empathy’ SRINATH: ...[it seems that at least some of these domains that scientists consider (incorrectly or not) under the rubric of ‘empathy’ are compatible with near-actual caring] i.e. A near actually caring or even an actually caring person will be able to use perspective taking, problem solving to help someone more effectively – without the distorting effects of sympathy, commiseration, affect etc. RICHARD: Hmm ... this leaves me wondering, of course, as to whether or not the “etc.” after those three named items incorporates empathy itself as a distorting effect for professional carers. Bearing in mind that one of those duly accredited “scientists” wrote that ‘How To Avoid Empathy Burnout’ article – and given the inclusion of “sympathy” as one of the three named distorters of professional caring – it quite likely does. In regards to your assertion that an actually caring person will be able to use ‘Perspective Taking’ to help someone more effectively I will first re-present here what is presented as the third trait, listed under that very title, at the first URL. Viz.:
As an actually free person cannot possibly see through another person’s eyes and view their own “feelings” from that other person’s perspective – there are, of course, no such “feelings” to view from any specified perspective – nor recognise that others can look through the actually free person’s eyes and view their own “feelings” thereby either (an actually free person neither looks through eyes nor is able to view that which has no existence in actuality) this is evidentially yet another instance where you have “not read the article too carefully” (let alone its relevant actualism counterpart), eh? If I might suggest? Rather than make assertions, about how even an actually caring person will be able to use that ‘Perspective Taking’ aspect of professional caring – which those duly accredited “scientists” consider under the floating signifier ‘empathy’ – to help someone more effectively, why not try giving those web pages, at those URLs you sent this particular actually caring person to, a thorough read-through from his perspective first? In other words: pourquoi pas prêcher par l’exemple, mettre en pratique ce que l’on prêche? (why not lead by example, put into practice what we preach?) * Now that I have your attention I will say again here, with added emphasis this time around, the essential point of my initial
post: given that psychiatry has had at least 150+ years Or, couched in terms of the ‘Perspective Taking’ aspect of that professional caring you so obviously favour over all else, the impressively experiential ‘perspective’ of near-actual caring is the choiceless convincement that the only solution to human suffering is the actualising of an actual caring via ‘self’-immolation. Viz.:
SRINATH: Apologies if I have missed answers to the questions below, that you may have
already given. I have found it hard to answer any of these definitively. RICHARD: There is no scale involved – there are no degrees of near-actual caring – just as there is no scale involved in an actual caring (a person actually free from the human condition is automatically an actually caring person by virtue of being sans identity in toto and, thus, is the purity and perfection of infinitude personified). Similarly, an out-from-control feeling-being is automatically as near to actually caring as a feeling-being can be per favour the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity and, thus, in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to be dynamically operative. SRINATH: But I may have missed that it was intended originally as a distinct ‘high-point’ for an identity. RICHARD: It is not “intended” (be it “originally” or otherwise), period – as in some ideal ethical or moral state, planned or devised and arrived at by training or discipline or skill acquisition or whatever – as it is, rather, what ensues upon transitioning from a still-in-control virtual freedom to an out-from-control virtual freedom. SRINATH: Am I to understand that it is the absolute zenith of caring that a feeling being can experience ... RICHARD: As the word “zenith” implies some sort of scale it would be more useful to consider just what an extraordinary state of being it is where the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity allows the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to dynamically operate in both word and deed. SRINATH: ... and that it is a necessary condition for self-immolation to take place? RICHARD: There is no “necessary condition” for ‘self’-immolation to take
place – and it is so dead easy to become actually free it is, literally, all much ado about nothing SRINATH: If so it may be better to use the term more harmless caring, ... RICHARD: Again, the question immediately arises: a “more harmless caring” than ... than what? Than a less harmless caring? Less harmless than what? Than a harmless caring? Is there such an item as a non-harmless caring that it need be qualified thataway? As in a harmful (i.e., malicious) type of caring? SRINATH: ...[it may be better to use the term] innocuous caring, ... RICHARD: As the term “innocuous caring” implies a non-innocuous type of caring to distinguish it from, in that manner, is there such an item? As in a nocuous (i.e., malicious) type of caring? SRINATH: ...[it may be better to use the term] naive caring for caring that stops short of near-actual caring? RICHARD: Going by the contents of that article – and particularly those aspects of professional caring numbered
1-to-6 further above – there is certainly a difference between the sophisticated caring of the trained professionals and the unsophisticated Howsoever, as to be in that consistent state of wide-eyed wonder, amazement, marvel, and delight (i.e., naïve sensuosity) SRINATH: Is it reasonable to consider a harmlessness scale of sorts where the beginnings of harmless is on one end and near-actual caring is on the other? RICHARD: The word harmless, in actualism lingo, refers to the innocuity which ensues in the absence of malice – just as the word happiness refers to the felicity which ensues in the absence of sorrow – and it is only in either a PCE (where the feeling-being is abeyant) or upon an actual freedom (where the feeling-being is extinct) that there is a total absence of malice and sorrow. It is possible, though, to be virtually harmless (virtually malice-free) in the meanwhile. A virtual freedom is described as being as happy and harmless (as free from sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible, come-what-may, whilst remaining a ‘self’. There are two types of virtual freedom – a pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom (where application of the actualism method has become ‘second nature’ so to speak) and a dynamic, destinal virtual freedom (where the actualism method has segued into the actualism process) – and it is the latter, an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom, that near-actual caring features. So, essentially, you are asking about a “scale of sorts” where the still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom (which is where “the beginnings of harmless” occurs) is on one end and the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom (which is where “a near-actual caring” takes place) is on the other end. As a scale of any sort requires gradations from the one end to the other end – and there are no gradations between the pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom and the dynamic, destinal virtual freedom (between being still-in-control and being out-from-control) – your “Is it reasonable to consider...” query is a non-sequitur. SRINATH: Q2) If, for example, I am experiencing an EE with increased naivete and a naive intimacy for someone AND in such a situation care about this person with diminished affect, would it be fair to say that I have a caring in line with near actual caring, but more distal or down the track for it? RICHARD: Just for starters: if you are experiencing a naïve intimacy with another during an excellence experience (EE), with increased naïveté, it would save you a bit of typing by referring to it as an IE (an intimacy experience). Viz.:
Then your query would look something like this:
Nevertheless, I am none too sure what “and care about this person with diminished affect” refers to because in both an EE and an IE – either of which are so close to being a PCE as to be known as near-PCE’s (as in the quoted text above) – both the ‘bad’ feelings (malice and sorrow) and the ‘good’ feelings (love and compassion) are so “diminished” anyway as to be virtually non-existent (else it not be an IE or EE) and the ‘congenial’ feelings (felicity and innocuity) are, thereby, maximal. Thus I would expect your query to look something like this:
However, I am having some difficulty following your “but more distal or down the track for it” train of thought. For example (regarding “but more distal...”):
For instance (regarding “...or down the track”):
Thus the “...but more distal or down the track for it” part of your query seems to refer to two quite distinct phenomena (with the former referencing anatomical, dental, or geologic features and the latter referring to either time or progress). All of which leaves me with the [quote] “a caring *in line with* near actual caring” [emphasis added] portion of your query – wherein the highlighted ‘in line with’ phrasing appears to be quite similar to your [quote] “aligns with” [endquote] terminology – as the crux of the matter. As a near-actual caring is unique (due to both the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity and its dynamically destinal character) no other type of caring – no matter how many types you may conceive of – can ever be in line with it as it is in a different paradigm. SRINATH: [Keeping in mind that a near-actual caring represents the apogee of caring as an identity and not merely caring in a more innocuous manner]. RICHARD: As the word “apogee” is but a variant on your usage of ‘zenith’ further above – and your “more innocuous” implies ‘less innocuous’, ‘innocuous’, and ‘nocuous’ types of caring – I will pass on your “Keeping in mind...” monition. SRINATH: Q3) I take that it would not be possible for someone who has a high degree of agency – say when they are feeling good or great to experience a near actual caring? RICHARD: As the term ‘agency’ of necessity implies an agent (i.e., a doer) when used in reference to human beings * To explain further: when out-from-control – out from being under control of the ‘controller’;
that self-centred/ self-centric ‘doer’ (i.e., the ‘doer’ of deeds; the ‘actor’ of acts; the ‘speaker’ of words; the ‘thinker’ of thoughts; the ‘feeler’
of feelings) – the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative via the full concurrence
of the ‘beer’ And the words “primary impetus of agency” (‘impetus’ as in, “being dynamically operative”, that is) are used advisedly as, with the ‘doer’ abeyant and the ‘beer’ ascendant, the modus operandi of this mutual agency is indeterminable due to an incapacity to distinguish between the one and the other. I have written about this quite extraordinary state of affairs before (albeit expressed as “unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’” due to those words of mine being read/ heard by a ‘doer’ and not a ‘beer’). Viz.:
And again, via the spoken word (where ‘R’ = Richard; ‘Q’ = Devika; ‘Q(1)’ = Peter) back in 1997, where words such as ‘impetus’ and ‘momentum’ feature interchangeably, the term ‘cause and effect’ is utilised to good advantage, and a third alternative is referenced in regards to being “neither controlled nor uncontrolled”. Viz.:
Lastly, because the terms ‘doer’ and ‘beer’ are utilised in religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical literature to refer to ‘ego’ and ‘soul’, respectively, it is apposite to point out here that those terms are *not* being used thataway when referring to the doer being abeyant, and the beer ascendant, in either a near-PCE – else IE’s and EE’s would instead be ASC’s (i.e., egoless) and thus not near-PCE’s – or when in an out-from-control virtual freedom. The following exchange (also back in 1997) explicates why this ‘doer = ego’ and ‘beer = soul’ attribution is experientially contraindicated inasmuch agency is inextricably part-and-parcel of being a sentient creature. Viz.:
(I have gone into the topic of agency way beyond the scope of your query so as to forestall the most obvious questions arising had I left it at my one-paragraph response). SRINATH: Is it possible for someone who is in an EE and not out-from-control to experience near actual caring during the duration of the EE? RICHARD: • [Correction]: As to be having an EE (or an IE) is to be out-from-control then the critical criterion, which you have
evidentially been looking for throughout this email exchange, is the ascendant beer being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence
inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative (whereby the actualism method segues into the actualism process) and pulling one evermore unto
one’s destiny”. SRINATH: Q4) Can someone in a PCE have near-actual caring ... RICHARD: As the entire affective faculty is in abeyance in a PCE (else it *not* be a PCE) it is simply not possible, period, for the caring inherent to a PCE to be anything other than an actual caring. SRINATH: ... or does the identity have to present and not in abeyance? RICHARD: Yes ... you are aware, are you not, that an identity and its feelings are one-and-the-same item (as in the ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ expression which returns 112 hits on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site)? Furthermore, you are aware, are you not, that a PCE is a direct experience of an actual caring? As a PCE provides an experiential understanding of what an actual caring is – and that direct experiencing is streets ahead of any of my descriptions and explanations – it is the benchmark par excellence. As such it is the quintessential point of reference upon which all terms of reference – and especially, for example, a near-actual caring – can be reliably and confidently sourced. In the meanwhile, I will leave you with what I wrote, much further above, about the first time feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ experienced a near-actual caring as it very effectively conveys just how extraordinary a near-actual caring is.
Re: The Intimate Ambiance Experiment Audio Recordings CLAUDIU: G’day Richard, Something caught my eye on a second read-through of your latest email:
Particularly, the mention of intimacy experience, as something distinct from an excellence experience, and yet being intimately related to that which is known as being out-from-control. Yet a google search through the Actual Freedom Trust site shows only three distinct phrases where you mentioning intimacy experiences, besides the above, all of which incidentally appear on your Selected Correspondence page regarding the Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom:
And:
And:
To compare, Google provides 13 (non-unique) results for both <site:actualfreedom.com.au ‘intimacy experience’> and <site:actualfreedom.com.au ‘intimacy experiences’>, while providing 90 (non-unique) results for the same with ‘intimacy’ replaced with ‘excellence’. Could you go into more detail as to what intimacy experiences are, how they differ from excellence experiences, and what role they play in being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being? Did they feature in feeling-being ‘Richard’s wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom? *
Incidentally, this may be a good a time as any to publicly state that, based on re-evaluation derived from recent correspondences, as during the time I previously considered I may have been out-from-control, I was not consistently feeling excellent, come-what-may, I can now say I have never genuinely experienced being out-from-control... and, as such, nor can I say I have ever experienced a near-actual caring. Cheers, RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, In the same way that excellence experiences (EE’s) were a notable feature of feeling-being ‘Richard’s virtual freedom
experiencing circa March-September 1981, although of course not named as such back then, so too did intimacy experiences (IE’s) play a similarly
significant role even though increasingly overshadowed by the insistent emergence of love – and, especially, Love Agapé – in the later months
due to a marked lack of precedence and, thus, of any praxeological Just as the term ‘excellence experience’ came from feeling-being ‘Grace’ – who was exacting in evaluating ‘her’ differing ways of being a ‘self’ so as to not illude herself that ‘she’ was more progressive than was really the case – so too did the expression ‘different-way-of-being’. What gradually became more and more apparent was that a prevailing feature of ‘her’ differing ways of being was the degree of intimacy involved. The gradations of ‘her’ scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent,
and The term ‘intimacy experience’ became part of the actualism lingo after a particularly instructive event in late spring, 2007, when at anchor upriver whilst exhorting feeling-being ‘Grace’ to no longer reserve that specific ‘way-of-being’ for those memorable occasions when ‘she’ was alone with me and to extend such intimacy to also include ‘her’ potential shipmates in order to dynamically enable the then-tentative plans for a floating convivium – which were on an indefinite hold at that time – to move ahead expeditiously (this was in the heady context of feeling-being ‘Pamela’ having already entered into an on-going PCE a scant five days beforehand due to ‘her’ specifically expressed concerns to me over the lack of intimacy between actualists). At some stage during this intensive interaction feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, who had been intently following every nuance, every twist and turn of the interplay, had what ‘she’ described as a ‘shift’ taking place in ‘her’ whereupon the very intimacy being thus exigently importuned came about for ‘her’ instead. To say ‘she’ was astounded with the degree of intimacy having ensued is to put it mildly as ‘her’ first descriptive words were about how ‘she’ would never have considered it possible to be as intimate as this particular way of being – an intimacy of such near-innocence as to have previously only ever been possible privately with ‘her’ sexual partner in very special moments – when in a social setting as one of a number of persons partaking of coffee and snacks in a sitting room situation. Intuitively seizing the vital opportunity such intimate experiencing offered ‘she’ took over from me and commenced
interacting intensively in my stead – notably now a one-on-one feeling-being interchange – and within a relatively short while feeling-being
‘Grace’ was experiencing life in the same, or very similar, manner as feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ (hence that 4th of December 2009 report As for your query regarding how the intimacy experience (IE) differs from an excellence experience (EE): qualitatively they are much the same, or similar, insofar as with both experiences there is a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant – whereupon naïveté has come to the fore, such as to effect the marked diminishment of separation, and the main distinction is that the IE is more people-oriented, while the EE tends to be environmental in its scope. In other words, with an EE the ‘aesthetic experience’ feature, for instance, or its ‘nature experience’ aspect, for
example, tends to be more prominent, whilst with an IE the ‘fellowship experience’ characteristic, for instance, or its ‘convivial experience’
quality, for example, comes to the fore. In either type of near-PCE – wherein the experiencing is of ‘my’ life living itself, with a
surprising sumptuosity, rather than ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, quite frugally by comparison, and where this moment is living ‘me’ (instead
of ‘me’ trying to live ‘in the moment’) – the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable
yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence For instance, the degree of intimacy experienced with minera, flora and fauna upon strolling through some botanical gardens
with either near-PCE occurring – as in, with rocks, trees and birds, for example – is to the same gradation as when in a social setting such as
a typical sitting room situation (as in, with ashtrays, flowers and humans, for instance) yet it is the ‘fellow human being’ element which
exemplifies the already astounding diminishment of separation which ensues upon the blessed And that latter point – the felicitous advent of naïve intimacy – is another way the IE differs from the EE inasmuch if a near-PCE is initiated via intensive interaction with a fellow human being/ with fellow human beings it takes on the properties of an intimacy experience (IE) whereas if the near-PCE is triggered via interacting intensively with the world at large (as in, an aesthetic experience, a nature experience, a contemplative experience, for example) it takes on the properties of an excellence experience (EE). The role they play in an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom (entitled ‘The Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom’ on that web page to distinguish it from the still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom entitled ‘The Pragmatic, Methodological Virtual Freedom’) is, essentially, in enabling the actualism process to take over. In effect, the actualism process is what ensues when one gets out from being under control, via having given oneself prior permission to have one’s life live itself (i.e., sans the controlling doer), and a different way of being comes about (i.e., where the beer is the operant) – whereupon a thrilling out-from-control momentum takes over and an inevitability sets in – whereafter there is no pulling back (hence the reluctance in having it set in motion) as once begun it is nigh-on unstoppable. Then one is in for the ride of a lifetime! * Re: Near Actual Caring CLAUDIU: Hi Richard, Another query, related to my previous one on how to go out-from-control. You wrote:
This answer leaves me uncertain as to what an excellence experience is as compared to an out-from-control virtual freedom. (Message 23301) RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Yes, although the words [quote] “being... in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to be dynamically operative” [endquote] are what distinguishes the ongoing excellence experience (EE) known as an out-from-control virtual freedom, from an EE itself, the way it is worded – and certainly when read as a standalone Q&A isolated from all the explanations to that effect which precede it – the words “...and thus...” do indeed make for uncertainty. Thank you for pointing this out ... I will amend the paragraph accordingly. But first, just to make it all clear upfront, an excellence experience (EE) – which, just like an intimacy experience (IE),
is so close to a pure consciousness experience (PCE) as to be known as a near-PCE – can happen regardless of one’s modus vivendi In other words, just as it is possible for someone whose manner of living/ way of life is yet to have feeling good (i.e., a general feeling of well-being) established as a bottom-line of on-going experiencing, come-what-may, to have either an EE or IE (wherein the doer is abeyant and the beer ascendant), be they spontaneous or induced, from time-to-time – just as they can have a PCE itself (where identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty is abeyant) – so too can a person yet to be able to describe their modus vivendi as either “feeling as happy and harmless (as free of sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible” or “feeling excellent/ perfect for 99% of the time” such as to be designated “a pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom” (a.k.a. “a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom”). Indeed, anyone at all can have an IE or an EE – or even a PCE – at any time in their life (albeit totally ignorant of any such nomenclature and what they actually signify). What sets the ongoing near-PCE known as “a dynamic, destinal virtual freedom” apart from ever other way of life/ manner of living is, as is expressed in that paragraph, by being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative – whereby the actualism method segues into the actualism process – such as to be pulling one evermore unto one’s destiny. And here is why the actualism process is imperative:
CLAUDIU: Elsewhere you’ve written that an out-from-control virtual freedom is known as an ongoing EE:
You’ve also written (in an email to me) how an excellence experience is one with a near-absence of agency – with the doer abeyant and the beer ascendant (snipped for brevity):
Further, in your most recent email here you use these same descriptors to describe an out-from-control virtual freedom:
As the critical criterion of whether a feeling-being can experience near-actual caring is “being out-from-control”, being out-from-control is described as a state “with the ‘doer’ abeyant and the ‘beer’ ascendant” and also as “an ongoing excellence experience”, and an excellence experience is described as there being “a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant” (and earlier ‘excellent’ on ‘Grace’s scale being described as relating to “a near-absence of agency; with the doer abeyant, and the beer ascendant"), would it not therefore be the case that a feeling-being having an excellence experience *is* automatically experiencing near-actual caring? RICHARD: Again, although the above words [quote] “...the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative *via the full concurrence of the ‘beer’*...” [emphasis added] do indicate what distinguishes the ongoing EE known as an out-from-control virtual freedom, from an EE itself, the manner in which that Q&A is worded – and certainly when read as a standalone paragraph isolated from all the explanations to that effect which precede it – it does indeed make for uncertainty. CLAUDIU: If not – and this would be the most interesting part – then what is the vital distinction between an EE and an out-from-control virtual freedom such that a near-actual caring features in the latter but not the former? RICHARD: The vital distinction is the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to infinitude – which has nothing to do with any affective felicity and innocuity – being dynamically operative due to the cheerful and thus willing concurrence of the beer. For instance (from 2005):
CLAUDIU: If yes, then was it simply Srinath’s phrasing of someone “who is in an EE and not out-from-control” that led to the “No ...” reply? (i.e. in that case it is not the case that someone in an EE is “not out-from-control” as to be in an EE is to be out-from-control, albeit fleetingly?) RICHARD: Given that it was a case of not being able to answer the question as-asked – to be having an EE (or an IE) is indeed to be out-from-control – then the word “No...” negates the entire query. A minimally-tweaked version would look something like this:
It is more informative, though, to first set the query straight:
Again, I appreciate your feedback. CLAUDIU: What a great time to be alive! RICHARD: Ahh ... ’tis good to know that. Re: Near Actual Caring RICHARD: (...) the topic is essentially about being self-centred – with especial attention upon that term referring to each and every ‘self’ being both ego-centric and soul-centric – in respect to the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness, which religio-spiritualists generally equate to self-centredness, via putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’). Now, the incident to which Claudiu responded thusly was when feeling-being ‘Alan’ placed the affective happiness of
feeling-being ‘Joan’ In other words, feeling-being ‘Alan’ prioritised the (potential) affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ – a
conditioned happiness, dependent upon the situation and circumstances, and of a temporary nature – over the (potential) actual happiness of
flesh-and-blood Alan – an unconditioned happiness, due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only, and of a permanent
nature – which happiness also has the priceless advantage of having no trace of any malice whatsoever to later supplant it. MARTIN: Hello Richard. Isn’t there a combination of conditional / caused happiness and unconditional / non-contingent happiness? RICHARD: G’day Martin, As a caused, or conditional, happiness has a beginning and an end – it is dependent upon situations and circumstances – and an uncaused, or unconditional, happiness is perpetual, aeonian (beginningless and endless) it is self-evident they are categorically distinct; as such, there obviously cannot be “a combination” of the two. Here is what a dictionary has to say:
Put simply: doing something pleasant and/or beneficial – or something pleasurable and/or beneficent happening – is a bonus on top of the sheer delight of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only. MARTIN: For example, even when one’s enjoyment and appreciation is solely to being alive / being here, that may involve enjoyable activities that have a beginning and an end, for example eating something tasty. Shouldn’t one enjoy those activities? RICHARD: Where enjoyment and appreciation are due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only (neither ego-centric nor soul-centric; i.e., no self-centredness whatsoever) – which is what ensues either in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or upon an actual freedom from the human condition – there is the added bonus of pleasurable activities and events to enjoy and appreciate (along with the distinct advantage that unpleasant activities and events do not detract one whit from that sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only). For instance (in regards to that latter, parenthesised, observation):
In other words, an apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity is not dependent upon experiencing sensate (bodily) pleasure; an apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity occurs all the while sensate (bodily) pain is happening as well. MARTIN: But what exactly is the perspective in doing so that maintains an unconditional happiness as being paramount? RICHARD: The very fact of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only – sans both identity in toto/the entire affective faculty – is what maintains (to use your terminology) the paramountcy of an unconditional/ uncaused happiness. Put differently: a non-contingent happiness – a felicity not dependent upon either the situation or the circumstances – is
the default condition There is a lengthy email exchange on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site, starting on May 11 2006, which goes into this ‘happiness is the default condition’ topic in extensive detail. It all began when I reported that happiness is inherent to perfection. Viz.:
As the resultant email exchange extends over 16-17 posts, all told, it will take a while to follow it all the way through. MARTIN: Doesn’t one have to almost focus on the unconditional happiness to the exclusion – or rather not giving much weight to – the various experiences, which may be good or bad? RICHARD: As an unconditional/ uncaused happiness automatically ensues where no self-centredness prevails – either in a PCE (where both ego and soul are abeyant) or upon an actual freedom (where both ego and soul are extinct) – no focus whatsoever is required. Even the relatively (As a virtual freedom involves remaining as happy and as harmless (as free from sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible,
come-what-may, it is thus not dependent upon the situation and the circumstances. In that sense, then, the virtually sorrow-free felicity of a
virtual freedom can also qualify as an unconditional happiness MARTIN: Are they two separate things which co-exist, or does an unconditional happiness encapsulate the caused happiness – I’m asking because you gave the example of delighting in eating a hamburger on the website which is a conditional happiness:
It’s almost as though it doesn’t matter that you’re eating the delicious hamburger (which is a conditional happiness with a beginning and an end), and yet you’re completely delighting in it – this is what I’m struggling to wrap my head around – the way that what is conditional is experienced unconditionally if you like. Sorry if this sounds stupid you’ve probably explained it in that link with the eternal time stuff, but can you put it any more simply? RICHARD: First of all, that part-quote you provided there is an ‘as requested’ response to my co-respondent So I took him step-by-step through the “nuts and bolts”, as asked, of having perception happen of itself whilst he was eating his hamburger (couched in the first person active voice, rather than the second or third person, so he could read it as if it were himself actively engaged in doing it) via advising him to appreciate how this moment – this moment he is biting into his hamburger – is the only moment he is actually alive and to also be aware that, out of all the hamburgers he has ever eaten or will ever eat, only this one he is currently eating actually exists. Viz.:
Of course, were he to have actually put into action those “nuts and bolts” he asked for – the “nuts and bolts” of having perception happen of itself while eating his hamburger – he would have then experientially known what the word ‘apperception’ refers to as per the actualism lingo. Howsoever, his follow-up email readily demonstrated that he was not really interested in the “nuts and bolts”, of having perception happen of itself while eating his hamburger, after all. Viz.:
I have gone into some detail regarding the reason why this passage you part-quoted from was written, and why it was written in that particularised manner, because your immediately following words – [quote] “It’s almost as though it doesn’t matter that you’re eating the delicious hamburger...” [endquote] – convey an impression that those “nuts and bolts” of having perception happen of itself, whilst eating something delicious, were somehow overlooked when you selected that particular section to quote. In other words, were you to receive a report from me about how the unconditional/ uncaused felicity of being alive/ being here
does not “encapsulate” What I can do, however, in regards to your [quote] “the way that what is conditional is experienced unconditionally if you like” [endquote] words, is to draw your attention to the following exchange:
I have emphasised the vital parts of that exchange as more than a few persons have seized on the “scale of 1-10” portion as being meaningful in itself – and thus miss the true import of what is being reported there – as I am none too sure how I can [quote] “put it any more simply” [endquote] than that. (Here is the key to comprehension: by virtue of being this flesh-and-blood body only every last little bit of me is the very stuff of infinitude itself). MARTIN: Do you experience life as a combination of caused and uncaused happinesses, and so still head towards pleasurable activities and experiences? RICHARD: As I would have to be pretty silly to head towards displeasurable activities and experiences – especially when pleasurable activities and experiences are available by the bucket-load (as a bonus on top of the utter delight of simply being this flesh and blood body only) – then drawing your attention to the following passages should be self-explanatory. Viz.:
MARTIN: Does harmlessness have nothing to do with ‘others’? RICHARD: The etymology of the word harmless (harm + less) is rather instructive as it comes, via Middle English, from the Anglo-Saxon word hearm, meaning ‘grief’, from the Old Norse harmr, meaning ‘grief, sorrow’ (plus there is the German Harm, also meaning ‘grief’; the Swedish harm, meaning ‘grief, anger’; and the Danish harme, meaning ‘wrath’). Thus, although the word harm nowadays refers to physical injury/ damage as well – the American Heritage Dictionary lists it as meaning “physical or psychological injury or damage” and the Collins English Dictionary has it meaning “physical or mental injury or damage” – its affective-only origins are also attested by the legal term “grievous bodily harm” (rather than just the words ‘grievous harm’). I have touched upon this before ... for instance (in 2004):
Thus to be harmless as per actualism lingo (being free of malice) is beneficial both to oneself – plus it feels unpleasant (hedonically) to feel malicious (affectively) anyway – as well to others due to being unable to induce suffering either in oneself or another, via affective vibes and psychic currents, and vice versa. MARTIN: ‘I’ can only think in terms of ‘self’ and ‘other’, where ‘I’ am either selfish or virtuously selfless (which I experience as simply being a re-direction of that narcissistic energy). I don’t think I’ve really understood what harmless means, as I can’t help but either put ‘myself’ or ‘others’ first (as a kind of denial of ‘self’) when I think of being harmless. When I think of “for that body and every body” I can’t help thinking of and instinctually feeling “for that ‘self’ and every ‘self’”! ‘Harmlessness’ feels like something you *do* to another human being – or an effect you have on them – but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow? RICHARD: The word harmless, in actualism lingo, refers to the innocuity which ensues in the absence of malice (just as the word happiness refers to the felicity which ensues in the absence of sorrow). And it is only in either a PCE (where the feeling-being is abeyant) or upon an actual freedom (where the feeling-being is extinct) that there is a total absence of malice and sorrow. In the meanwhile, of course, both malice and sorrow (the ‘bad’ feelings) can be deliberately minimised – along with their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion (the ‘good’ feelings) – so as to consciously maximise those happy and harmless feelings (the ‘congenial’ feelings) and with all of that affective energy, which was otherwise frittered away on those wasteful ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings, now freed-up and channelled into felicity and innocuity a potent combination is forged when such untrammelled conviviality operates in conjunction with a naïve sensuosity. * Do you see how almost all of that paragraph you wrote as a lead-up to your query about being harmless – as in “but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow?” that is – stems from or revolves around that hoary religio-spiritual practice of putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’) so as to counter selfishness? Yet the topic on the web page which Claudiu linked to As being harmless does not feature in religio-spiritual practice – peace-on-earth is not on the religio-spiritual agenda – then the sooner that nonsense about being an unselfish ‘self’ is abandoned the better. Here is another reason why:
MARTIN: What is harmlessness in an unconditional sense? Obviously it can’t be dependent on others at all. RICHARD: As to be actually harmless – which is surely what “harmlessness in an unconditional sense” means – is to be actually free of malice (as distinct from being virtually malice-free) then any listing of what it “can’t be dependent on” is irrelevant, as all what being actually harmless is dependent upon is being actually free of malice. Incidentally, as malice can be (and often is) self-directed – feeling-beings are notorious for self-harm – then to focus solely on others for your “Obviously...” conclusion is to be ignoring half the picture. MARTIN: How does intimacy come about without putting the “(potential) affective happiness of [a] feeling-being” to some extent before ‘oneself’? RICHARD: Have you never heard of mutual happiness? MARTIN: ‘I’ am fundamentally selfish and unless I temper this to some extent there’s no chance of being close to someone or liked as ‘my’ resentful urges are unrestrained (and affect my mood / disposition even if I don’t act out on them). Is becoming actually free a combination of becoming unselfish in a normal sense, and being harmless in an unconditional sense? RICHARD: First of all, each and every identity is “fundamentally selfish” by nature – which is why it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) – insofar as blind nature endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group). (Hence the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness – as per the unliveable ideal of each and every ‘self’ being an unselfish ‘self’ via the nonsensical edict of each and every ‘self’ putting each and every ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ – is basically an institutionalised elaboration of the most primal of blind nature’s instinctual drives, urges, and impulses and, as such, is not at all intelligent). Second, as “being harmless in an unconditional sense” is to be actually free it makes no sense to ask if becoming actually free is a combination of being that and becoming an unselfish ‘self’. Third, rather than having to restrain your “resentful urges” forever and a day – so as to have a chance of “being close to someone or liked” as exemplified by intimacy experiences (IE’s) – why not find out why there is resentment in the first place? Speaking personally, the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago first located the root source of
all ‘his’ anger – the basic resentment at being alive (as expressed in the “I didn’t ask to be born” type of plaint) – and was thus
able to rid ‘himself’ of (full-blown) anger MARTIN: Where is the line between the two? RICHARD: There is no line between the two: being an unselfish ‘self’ is a religio-spiritual practice and becoming actually free is unique to actualism. The former is instinctually-based and the latter is the product of intelligence. MARTIN: If I try to be happy at simply being alive, I feel as though others potentially threaten that ‘unconditional’ happiness and I get a fear response (any happiness I generate is unstable and thus not unconditional). It’s as though I can only enjoy just being alive if I’m undisturbed, or if there’s nothing in the environment that will kick-start the instinctual passions back into action. I can’t see how to separate out the conditional from the unconditional, as events change and have various degrees of good/ bad, pleasant/ unpleasant, peaceful/ potential-to-disturb. The fact that this is the only moment I’m ever alive doesn’t change the fact that events change with varying degrees of good/bad etc. – I am not immune to this just because it’s the same moment (maybe I’m only seeing this intellectually or not getting what you mean by eternal moment). And yes, this particular moment is the only moment I’m actually alive, but that doesn’t change the fact that there will be a next moment (unless I die of course). RICHARD: First, as nowhere on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is it suggested that you “try to be happy at simply being alive” you would be well-advised to set feeling good (a general feeling of well-being) as a bottom-line of experiencing until it becomes ‘second-nature’ to feel good each moment again come-what-may. Second, as there is no “unconditional” for a feeling-being to separate out the “conditional” from it is no wonder you cannot see how to do so. Third, seeing the fact that this is the only moment you are ever actually alive is not meant to change the fact that events change – here in this actual world events are forever changing (it is the way in which life is always fresh, novel, ever-new, never boring) – as the whole point of the exercise is to realise you are wasting the only moment you are ever actually alive by feeling bad (a general feeling of ill-being) when you can be feeling good instead. Fourth, these ever-changing events are not the issue – the issue is how one (affectively) reacts or responds to them – as one cannot change the weather to ensure a sunny day in the park or on the beach (for instance). Lastly, to blame events for how you feel is to make yourself a victim of your own feelings (as if of forces beyond your control) when it is your choice, and your choice alone, as to how you feel, each moment again, as the events change. MARTIN: What about the issue of self-protection? When someone cuts in front of me in line I feel slightly humiliated / embarassed / annoyed. RICHARD: Why do you choose to feel “slightly humiliated / embarrassed / annoyed” when someone cuts in front of you in line when you could choose to feel good (a general feeling of well-being) instead? Put differently: why waste this only moment you are ever actually alive by choosing to not feel good? Moreover, and given that certain persons are prone to cutting in front of others in line, why set yourself up to feel “slightly humiliated / embarrassed / annoyed” for the rest of your life each time that happens? Even more to the point: do you have a vested interest in making yourself a victim? MARTIN: Another example: Perhaps a manager makes a decision at work of how I should do things that will lead to a lot of unnecessary extra work. Or perhaps I am expected to work longer hours at work thus potentially losing free time. Or I no longer have the same level of access to pleasant activities / conditions / experiences. RICHARD: Again, given that certain managers are prone to making such decisions/ expecting you to work longer hours/ preventing you from have the same level of access/ and so on and so forth, why set yourself up to no longer feel good (a general feeling of well-being) as such events occur when it is your choice, and your choice alone, as to how you feel, each moment again, while these events are happening. MARTIN: An unconditional happiness has to encompass all of these issues / ups and downs that would affect my wellbeing in a conventional sense... with no defensiveness or self-pity at losing out. I know a non-contingent happiness would have to work whether one is in a nice environment or in solitary confinement, but I personally can’t help be at least somewhat affected by the vicissitudes. RICHARD: Aye, an unconditional happiness does indeed encompass all those events – including events which have an
effect on physical well-being (senescence alone, in my case, has increasingly engendered such effects of late) – yet experience shows that
certain feeling-beings MARTIN: I can see how the human condition is geared towards seeking conditional happinesses, and that actualism is about making a radical shift – almost like moving to a different dimension – to a non-contingent happiness, and I’m trying to figure out how to do this (bearing in mind billions of people have not been able to discover what you did Richard). RICHARD: Good ... in the meanwhile, until you do figure out how, why not set feeling good (a general feeling of well-being) as a bottom-line of experiencing so it can become ‘second-nature’ to feel good, each moment again come-what-may, sooner rather than later? MARTIN: If I try to be happy now, my instinctual energy wants some stimulation as it operates with a sense of going somewhere. I sort of think ‘well I could be happy now, but what then – just sit here like a lemon?’ (that ‘wanting something more’ or ‘there must be more to life than this’ comes into play even in regards to the actualism method itself!). RICHARD: Well, of course ... after all, the ultimate aim of the actualism method is to uncover, for oneself, the ‘secret
to life’, or the ‘riddle of existence’, or the ‘purpose of the universe’, or the ‘meaning of life’, or whatever one’s quest may be
called.
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The
Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
