Bruno Loff:Here I claim the following. The subtext is that whenever someone feels hurt, it is their own responsibility.
But it is their own responsibility, mostly if you consider some previous Richard's line from the same conversation:
R: Yes, then whatever you do – if you do not intentionally set out to hurt other people – you do freely. What can happen is that they may become hurt into the bargain ... but it is up to them to deal with that. It is their hurt, when all is said and done.
Bruno, do you feel equally responsible (or even "bad" or sorry) when you cause some hurt unintentionally than when you do it intentionally? If you still feel responsible for that hurting, even if you did that unintentionally, why do you think is that?
Also, remember the context, which is a conversation between Richard and someone interested in practicing Actualism, and he's giving him advice. Remember that Richard claims that this practice leads to harmlessness, which is the complete or virtual absence of malice. When you don't feel malice is impossible to hurt someone's feelings intentionally (by insulting, belittling, lying, deceiving, etc.). From that premise, there's no need for remorseful, sorrowful, empathetic or compassionate patches, because the root cause is extirpated or virtually extirpated when you reach AF or VF.
Bruno Loff:The subtext is that whenever someone feels hurt, it is not important to understand if someone else has done something wrong,
Again, if in the emotional hurting was no intention to hurt on the sender, where is the burden of that "wrong"? Assuming --since the context is a case where someone feels emotionally hurt-- that by wrong you mean "a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked. b. Unfair; unjust." and not "1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous."
Granted, an AF person would not feel the "wrongness" of a certain situation but he would rather analyze it and its potential results, and appreciate the silliness of saying this or that to other persons, for instance (it would be silly because it unnecessarily hurts other people and, also, hurting other people's feelings puts one in physical danger). Anyway, as Claudiu just wrote, there is no mention of the importance or no-importance of the understanding of the "wronging".
Bruno Loff:because feelings are never legitimate (they are never appropriate as a response).
They are an appropriate and legitimate response from and to the blind nature's program, but consider that that program includes a very high dose of chemical and visceral impulses (suddenly and easily getting mad or hurt with delayed or with no intelligent judgement) and self-centeredness (everything seems related somehow to "me"). Every human equipped with that program will tend to see "wrong" things where there aren't, don't you think?
Richard's response is not that feelings aren't legitimate or appropriate but, instead, that they will always lead to more hurt in oneself and in others.
Bruno Loff:And because they are never legitimate, the position of legitimacy is held by the person that doesn't have feelings, over the person that does (i.e., X).
As emotional wrongs and hurts usually come from beliefs, and we feeling beings are very moral people (following those beliefs) and AF persons are amoral (having no beliefs), all this really falls into subjectivity.
But, anyway, when you accuse Richard of "dodging blame, and fitting everything into his worldview", for instance, you are coming from your own interpretation as a feeling being. Could you put yourself in Richard's position for a little and assess such a situation when someone feels hurt and you are incapable of feeling malice (therefore, incapable of creating intentional hurt)? Could you at least try to formulate an informed opinion (from remembering a PCE, for instance) of Richard's position just as you have your informed opinion of you as a feeling being (because you've been one all this time and know exactly how it is/feels)?
I say this because it's important to start from facts rather than suppositions when talking about our capacity to hurt and be hurt.
I can personally tell how I feel as a "hurter" when I am basketful of good/bad feelings and in a walk in a park (maliciously judging people around, for instance) vs how I feel/am when in a EE/PCE (delighting with people and things as they are).
I can also personally tell how I feel how I feel as a "hurt" when I am basketful of good/bad feelings and in a walk in a park (fearfully thinking people is judging me maliciously, for instance) vs how I feel/am when in a EE/PCE (delighting with people and things as they are).
So, I could really put myself in both positions and, besides from judging a given situation about Richard vs the world for its own elements, I also have experiential and solid evidence of how it is to being "hurter"/hurt in both cases: feeling being / suspended feeling being.
In other words, I also can see how it's a lot more probable that the responsibility of the hurting is in "Feeling Being Felipe" rather than the "PCE Felipe" in a hypothetical "Feeling Being Felipe" vs "PCE Felipe" situation, because I've been expending two years investigating both and I recognize the tendencies and potentials of both of them.
Note that those kinds of observations (both studying how it is to be a feeling being and a suspended one) also gives a deep understanding of the hurting process itself. That insight gives one a common sense of how people and their feelings works, because they are very similar to me. Along with being less self-centered, one can actually and naturally care and act in sensible ways in the world, or at least try one's best to do so. Since Richard's description have lead me to see that, I can see where he's coming from when says all that, instead of trying to interpret his written words negatively or positively according to my beliefs and feelings.
See, this is very different from what you said previously: "Actualists copy many features of Richard's way of thinking simply because they are... contagious".
Bruno Loff:All I can say is: If your (physical, mental or verbal) actions bring harm to others, may you have the luck to see it happen
Why leave that to luck? How about attention?
Bruno Loff:the humility to admit you were wrong
Just as pride obscures your assessments (by denying your faults and responsibilities, for instance), humility --which means humiliating oneself-- could also do so but in the opposite way (by appropriating more faults and responsibilities than the really deserved). How about honesty?
Bruno Loff:And the fortitude to change your ways.
I'd add sincerity and common sense.
Regards,
Felipe