Thanks for the reply. Really appreciate it.
I will keep working and look out for more stillness and clarity.
Quickly answering some of your questions:
Adam Bieber:
Do your labeled PCE's really seem "that good" or was there a bit of dissatisfaction or at least questioning "is this really it in a bit of a doubtful tone." yes My previous thought of PCE's always consisted of a great experience but always a person inside doubting or questioning the experience. There is none of this in the PCE yes. It is so satisfying and so interesting and there is no person to question it close but not there yet, sense of observer is miniscule. All you are doing is simply but vastly and fully enjoying sense experience and the ridiculous stillness that is so curiously everywhere Yes.
...Now if you don't think your PCE's match up do you even really want it to not sure, more on that below? Do you want those PCE's to be the best life can be because i think if we're honest, those PCE's were great but not "it." agree Not something that makes life not just tolerable but absolutely and endlessly incredible. Currently, I don't see those EE experiences as PCE's at all mainly because the stillness is not so perfectly clear w/o any effort whatsoever and there is still a someone around operating (an onlooker) no matter how small again see below. Its a little disconcerting but now I have an actual PCE by my side and know that a PCE is what I want life to be like 24/7. Its just great. With a PCE, you are 100 percent sure that it was a PCE not just matching experiences with others or the actualism website i think you could easily claim this about EEs too, if what i have been cultivating should be called those.
Anyway,
This is the meat of what I wanted to ask originally:
1.-You mention there is no sense of observer. Is this the same idea as what happens (sense of observer getting faint) in vipassana? Specifically high E and progressively more complete in later paths? If not, what is different? Is my idea of an MCTB Arahat getting the no-sense of observer thing down, and then using AF techniques to sort of 'top it off' with sensate reality being a reasonable way to get this thing done flawed in any way?
2.-Right now, I am undecided about how permanent I want this to be. I think the subtle hangup I have is that for people dedicated to this practice, the continual experience of a PCE seems to be the summum bonum of life/existence. I can see some moral arguments against this (none that I am completely behind, but they are valid arguments nonetheless). There is no functional morality, which I have no problem with to be honest, but would still like to figure out. This has potential to be another lengthy writeup, so I'll try a simple example:
--I remember Tarin once wrote "if everyone was actually free we would be on caloric restriction to extend our lifespans" (not verbatim). Logically, this makes sense. But how far do you take it?
2.a.---Completely theoretical question for men as I'm not going to claim this is true or not, just take it as an idea: For AF men: If it is proven that a simple procedure to remove your testicles will extend your life expectancy for several years (less testosterone, let's say), is this a no brainer decision? Someone AF shouldn't have any hang ups about the whole gender identity thing, so, yes? Or does 'this flesh and blood body' have conditioned responses to mental content of this kind and, while the AF man would intellectually have no preference, the body might go induce some stress response at the thought of or immediately before the procedure?
2.b.---How does the AF person living in the first world feel about the claim that his existence/lifestyle is supported in some measure by the suffering of the less fortunate (economically, or by how the world is set up)? Is it just sort of the way things are? Would AF people be more or less motivated (if that is possible) than others (perhaps just 'willing or likely') to try to make large scale change in the world? What would an AF society look like, and what of the people who don't want to be AF? Could they coexist? How would the use of violence/force play out between two large groups of people (AF and non)?
Basically these are rhetorical questions with an open ended moral undertone, and I'm wondering how an AF person would respond. Is there room for debate and disagreement between AF people about these things? Would they chose differently?
As I understand it, Richard seems to be living a life of relative leisure on a boat somewhere. I don't know a whole lot more but he's entitled to some privacy, so no big deal. Is this the norm for an AF person?
Say in a few months I bang this thing out and become AF. I will (or my flesh and blood body, after 'me' is done away with) have to make decisions about how to earn a living and what to do with the rest of 'my' time. Practical decisions perhaps guided by something other than personal satisfaction derived from externals. What happens? What parts of the questions I am asking are missing the point?
Thanks,
Daniel