Could someone help clear something up? What exactly is the difference between the 'good' emotions, which are sought to be eliminated along with the 'bad' ones, and 'felicitous' ones, which are sought to be cultivated?

Also, not sure if this is related: why, upon AF, is what remains[1] a constant fun, wonder, joy, naïveté, and not merely a complete neutrality - that is, a lack of those things, along with the lack of all emotions[2]? As I understand it, even those felicitous feelings/emotions fade in a PCE/AF.

And to perhaps connect the two: what is it about the felicitous feelings that leads to the PCE?

[1] as far as i understand; correct me if i am mistaken!
[2] for example, the Buddha in the sutras never shows any hint of having fun, he is just ridiculously precise, logical, etc. not meant as a comparison of Buddha vs. AF people, but as an example of what i mean.

We try to repress the bad feelings (hate, depression, melancholy, loneliness, malice and sorrow), "I" am fearful, "I" am on my guard or cling to the good feelings (love, trust, compassion), "I" need to be loved, I am compassionate. These feelings occur instinctively to our changing environment creating feeling feed thoughts, caught up in this cycle we waste this moment.

By being attentive we can evoke naivete and sincerity and start to clearly see the purity and perfection that permeates this moment. This intimacy promotes felicitous feelings which are an affective imitation of a PCE. This peak experience can provide the pure intent the driving force to achieve a PCE

functionally speaking, the former (the 'good' feelings) are identity-reinforcing while the latter (the felicitous feelings) are first identity-loosening, then identity-abandoning; phenomenologically speaking, the former (the 'good' feelings) feel (generally) blissful while the latter (the felicitous feelings) feel joyous (and feel less and less at all the more felicitous they become).

while it is blissful to sustain oneself in bliss, it is supremely joyous to go out of existence.



upon an actual freedom from the human condition of fear and malice and sorrow, what remains is not a constant fun, wonder, joy, naivete (or any other actually felicitous qualities which are approximated by felicitous feelings) but is an unobstructed potential (in a manner of speaking only) for those conditions to present themselves at any given moment (as there never occur other conditions which would hinder those conditions' arising; there is never, for example, any irritation here whatsoever, and i mean this entirely unequivocally - there is nothing that self-liberates).

in the actual universe, nothing lasts but nothing is lost.



have a look at the correspondence richard had with 'no. 110' on the actual freedom mailing list back in 2006. i suggest beginning at 11 may (direct link) and reading carefully through to 13 june (which ends with the words 'seamless inherence').

of course, a pce could demonstrate what is described there directly.



they more than fade.. they vanish entirely.



as 'i' am 'my feelings' (and 'they' are 'me'), and as felicitous feelings are first identity-loosening (they demonstrate, experientially, that 'i' do not have to hold tight to the reins in order for things to be fine, and well, and safe) then identity-abandoning (as not holding tight to the reins demonstrates, experientially, that the reins could very well be lost completely), can you now understand what it is about felicitous feelings that leads to the pce?

it is both ridiculously safe and fun to be here.. where all of us are, as humans, but a poorly-placed footstep away from paralytic injury, and a missed heartbeat or two from utter oblivion.

tarin

Hi Tarin,

I am re-arranging a selection of your words into smaller bits (and italicizing them) to facilitate my reading of them:

[indent][indent]upon an actual freedom
from the human condition
of fear and malice and sorrow,
what remains is
not a constant fun, wonder, joy, naivete
(or any other actually felicitous qualities which are approximated by felicitous feelings)
but
is an unobstructed potential
(in a manner of speaking only)
for those conditions to present themselves
at any given moment
(as there never occur other conditions
which would hinder those conditions' arising;

there is never, for example,
any irritation here whatsoever,
and i mean this entirely unequivocally -
there is nothing that self-liberates).[/indent][/indent]

Based on your words above,
there is recognition that
(physical) pain, failed actual effort, inability to actually resolve
(actual events, such as not being able to square a building, save a life, prevent xyz)
are also
unobstructed potentials,
and also
uncomplicated ("unhindered") by an identity,
which identity could,
for example,
imaginarily multiply a pain coordinate
into a complex
coupling an actual event and an imaginary event,
i.e., my banged thumb hurts (actual) + "I" must be cursed (imaginary) = complex conjugate (self-pity-pain)
which coupling could be lengthened and magnified over the time of one's life
and further complex conjugations could be likely to follow as an identity's habitual complication.

So, freedom via actuality (an actual freedom)
as derived from your words
is the lack of identity obstructions
to the actuality of an individual's life (actual moments)
in which there are necessarily
infinite potentials
and which kinetic occurrences
are non-constant
and not complex (i.e., lacking imaginary components).

Any person in actuality
cannot complicate (via imaginary conjugates)
actual events with imaginary events.


***UPDATE***
for the avoidance of doubt
there is technical point allowing for imaginary in actuality:
inserting imaginary components
is not the same as
assessing actual probabilities
(i.e., I am going to drive around a curve 1.5x curve's speed limit,
because I can actually feel that the tires have traction/curve is banked/etc.
I intuitively assess the car will not flip or skid out of my control within a certain assured probability
and this assessment improves each time I actually take the curve and test the speed and conditions)
This native probability assessment
is an actual deduction
which a driving animal makes
which can be expressed mathematically
as probabilities.

We exhibit awareness
of actual probabilities
in our actual life
(i.e., the casserole will probably be cooked in time for dinner)
These probability assessments are imaginary,
but they are imaginaries based entirely in actualities

hehe awesome math analogy

So for an actualized person, unwanted and unanticipated physical pain still sucks but just not as much?

Or is it that an AF person feels the pain as yet another phenomenon neither pleasant or unpleasant, wanted or unwanted and then calculates a response based on salubrity, practicality and sagacity?

setting aside whatever it is you mean by 'an actualized person', i'll answer your questions from the perspective of an actually free one (as reflected in my own ongoing experience). to put it most simply: pain hurts but is nothing to fear (or be annoyed about). in a manner of speaking, all of it happens on its own (there is no one here doing anything at all - which is why neither fear nor irritation arise).


the response to pain - which is anhedonically unpleasant (as in: actually painful) - is initially reflexive, after which a further response may be practically determined (if any further response is necessary). not that there is anything to really consider: whether in reflex or calculated response, all of it happens on its own anyway (there is no one here doing anything at all - which is why any experience of - including any response to - pain is anhedonic).

some selections from richard's publicly-archived correspondences address issues which may be of interest to you here.

tarin

i think i understand. for example, feeling proud of an accomplishment is a 'good' feeling, but reinforces the sense of a self that did something to be proud of. feeling satisfied with your life situation requires giving substance to a self that has a life situation to be satisfied about. feeling excited gives substance to future hopes, which are also illusions caused by a self. but one can be happy and in a good mood for no particular reason, and one can be harmless just because there is no reason to want to hurt someone. and when one is in that happy and harmless state, and paying sensuous attention to the environment.. then maybe the self can slip out for a while, eh?

Note that the words 'good' and 'bad' only refer to the moral judgements people apply to the feelings. The so-called 'good' feelings are those emotions widely regarded as 'virtuous', 'righteous', 'sacred', 'noble', 'holy', 'divine', 'true', 'deep', 'beautiful' etc.

Just wanted to clarify that it's not saying there is something good about the 'good' feelings.

Ah thanks for the clarification. I get that, though. I took 'good' to just mean those traditionally deemed pleasant, minus those defined as felicitous (like happy, joyous, etc.) - or, i guess to not use the word 'felicitous', and to test my understanding, those deemed pleasant that reinforce a sense of self.

Thanks, Tarin.

An (my) intellectual grasp of an idea
is no substitute for understanding-in-totality-and-manifested-in-being,
or,
next best thing,
sincere effort-in-practice.