AF term clarification

AF term clarification Daniel M. Ingram 5/10/10 12:21 PM
RE: AF term clarification Ruth Laura Edlund 5/10/10 4:46 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/10/10 7:52 PM
RE: AF term clarification Ruth Laura Edlund 5/10/10 9:56 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/10/10 11:01 PM
RE: AF term clarification Ruth Laura Edlund 5/11/10 8:38 AM
RE: AF term clarification tarin greco 5/11/10 2:06 AM
RE: AF term clarification Ruth Laura Edlund 5/11/10 8:40 AM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/11/10 1:04 PM
RE: AF term clarification Ruth Laura Edlund 5/11/10 1:46 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/11/10 2:24 PM
RE: AF term clarification Ruth Laura Edlund 5/11/10 3:42 PM
Something Else I Don't Understand Ruth Laura Edlund 5/11/10 3:42 PM
RE: Something Else I Don't Understand tarin greco 5/15/10 11:49 AM
RE: Something Else I Don't Understand Ruth Laura Edlund 5/25/10 9:16 AM
RE: Something Else I Don't Understand Trent . 5/25/10 4:21 PM
RE: Something Else I Don't Understand Ruth Laura Edlund 5/25/10 7:03 PM
RE: Something Else I Don't Understand Trent . 5/25/10 7:26 PM
RE: Something Else I Don't Understand Ruth Laura Edlund 5/25/10 7:48 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/11/10 4:26 PM
RE: AF term clarification tarin greco 5/12/10 2:41 AM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 5/24/10 3:47 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/24/10 5:33 PM
RE: AF term clarification aaron . 5/24/10 7:02 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/25/10 1:02 AM
RE: AF term clarification aaron . 5/25/10 4:27 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/25/10 4:50 PM
RE: AF term clarification aaron . 5/26/10 5:06 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/26/10 5:16 PM
RE: AF term clarification aaron . 5/27/10 5:43 PM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 5/24/10 11:41 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/25/10 12:58 AM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 5/25/10 10:51 AM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/25/10 4:40 PM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 5/25/10 6:08 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/25/10 7:19 PM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 5/25/10 8:56 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/26/10 2:12 AM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 5/26/10 11:29 AM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/26/10 5:47 PM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 6/4/10 5:56 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 6/4/10 7:29 PM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 6/5/10 6:04 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 6/5/10 8:19 PM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 6/5/10 8:47 PM
RE: AF term clarification Luciano de Noeme Imoto 8/13/10 1:48 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 8/13/10 3:32 PM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 8/13/10 4:13 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 8/13/10 5:13 PM
RE: AF term clarification Change A. 8/13/10 6:49 PM
RE: AF term clarification Luciano de Noeme Imoto 8/19/10 10:16 AM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/10/10 4:38 PM
RE: AF term clarification Brian . 5/13/10 2:55 PM
RE: AF term clarification Trent . 5/13/10 5:04 PM
RE: AF term clarification Tom Tom 5/15/10 5:52 AM
RE: AF term clarification tarin greco 5/15/10 12:04 PM
thumbnail
Daniel M Ingram, modified 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 12:21 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 12:21 PM

AF term clarification

Posts: 3268 Join Date: 4/20/09 Recent Posts
On the recurring AF theme, and just to clarify some standard AF jargon:

I think the following words and phrases, used routinely in AF, need clarification, as from them could easily be inferred things that may not have been intentionally implied.

1) Perfection: I find this one too broad and prone to projection and idealism on nearly every front.
2) Freedom from the Human Condition: specific aspects need to be clarified, particularly in a Dharma-esque context. Clearly mortality, old age, pain, sickness, and death apply to the flesh and blood body of the AF person, as do miscommunication, the vagaries of the law, human interactions that go awry despite whatever intentions or lack thereof, adverse physical circumstances such as natural disasters, oil spills, and hurricanes, as well as taxes, bills, etc.
3) Harmlessness: most relative definitions of harmlessness should include the impact of being alive, eating, driving, consuming resources, stepping on bugs, carbon footprint, etc. meaning sum total harm caused by ones presence, AF or otherwise. I find the term too naive, idealistic, self-centered and misleading. This is my eco conditioning at work, but the points remain.
4) A list of differences between the Real and the Actual, terms that have specific meanings in AF jargon that are not standard elsewhere, should be summarized for easy digestion, particular with some eye to the standard lingo here, as slogging through Richards endless repetitive pontification to get to the actual points is painful, pun intended.

All of these lack the rigor I typically like and just as bad as standard New Age or Fluffy Spiritual jargon, in my opinion, and I think that it is possible to do better than the writings of Richard, who is not much of a technical jargon stickler, and bring the spirit of that paradigm to whatever innovations and valid points are swimming in that thick terminological soup.
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 4:46 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 4:27 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
At the risk of sounding very foolish, I must ask, what is the AF definition of an "emotion," if you know? I haven't worked my way through his website yet to pin down this fairly important term.

I should add that I ask this because in looking the "Precis of Actual Freedom" (http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/aprecisofactualfreedom.htm) the description of "feelings" is said to include both desirable and undesirable "emotions/passions" and this seems somewhat tautological, but excludes "felicitous feelings" which I thought Richard was saying he still experiences....

The felicitous feelings sound to me like the brahma viharas...

OK, here is his definition of "feeling":

The three ways a person can experience the world are: 1: cerebral (thoughts); 2: sensate (senses); 3. affective (feelings). The arising of instinctually-sourced feelings within the body automatically produces a hormonal chemical response in the body, which can lead to the false assumption that they are actual. Given that the base feelings are malice and sorrow (resentment, anger, revenge, jealousy, hate, etc. and sadness, depression, melancholy, loneliness, etc.) we desperately seek relief in the ‘good’ feelings (love, trust, compassion, togetherness, friendship, etc.). When the ‘good’ feelings fade or disappear – as they inevitably do after the disappointments of life, some people resort to the imaginary world of Divine Love, Gods and Goddesses to escape from or transcend the bad feelings. To live life as a ‘feeling being’ is to be forever tossed on a raging sea, hoping for an abatement to the storm. Finally, after a particularly fierce storm, one ties up in port to sit life out in safety or putters around in the shallows, so as not to face another storm again. We are but victims of our impassioned feelings – but they can be eliminated. Feelings are most commonly expressed as emotion-backed thoughts and as such we can free ourselves of their grip upon us.


I'm looking at the passage very carefully and I don't see that he says what a feeling IS. He says that the source is instinct, and that the consequence is a chemical response, and he names some feelings but I don't see that he says what they ARE.

and here is his definition of "emotion":

The root core of human emotion is the instinctual program of fear, aggression, nurture and desire, instilled by blind nature to ensure the survival of the species. This operating program is almost constantly functioning, sensing and monitoring both real and imagined dangers, and perpetually gives rise to a complex range of feelings – feelings are most commonly expressed as emotion-backed thoughts. These emotions are upheld to be natural and indeed they are. Given they are part of the same instinctual package, fear and aggression are as natural to humans as are nurture and desire.

Usually we divide emotions into groupings of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and try either to repress or deny the bad ones – fear and aggression – while giving full vent and validity to the good ones – nurture and desire. Unfortunately, this attempt to curb fear and aggression has had no lasting or substantial success, as is evidenced by the all the wars, murders, rapes, tortures, domestic violence, corruption, suicide, despair and loneliness that is still endemic on the planet. Good and evil, Love and hate, compassion and selfish indifference, etc. come inseparably in pairs as is testified by the continual failure of humans to live together in anything remotely resembling peace and harmony. Eastern religions point to the essential duality of the human emotions but, by assiduously practicing denial and transcendence, merely create a Grander vision whereby they, the God-men and women, become earthly representatives of the ‘Divine Good’ and do battle with the ‘bad’ and the Diabolical, thereby merely perpetuating the whole sorry saga.

Up until now, no one has dared to attempt the elimination of not only the instinctual emotions of fear and aggression, but nurture and desire as well – the whole of the instinctual programming. It was always imagined, and reinforced by a blind adherence to Ancient Wisdom, both Eastern and Western, that it was only the ‘good’ that kept the ‘bad’ in check and prevented us from running amok. This well-meaning experiment of repressing, denying or transcending the ‘bad’ instinctual emotions has been tried for some 5,000 years and has proved a resounding failure to bring anything even remotely resembling peace on earth.

Better to be rid of the whole package of instinctual emotions – for something extraordinarily magical lies in the direct sensate, sensuous and sensible experience of the purity and perfection of the physical universe.


There appears to be a distinction between instinctual emotions and non-instinctual emotions.
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 4:38 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 4:36 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Daniel M. Ingram:

1) Perfection:
2) Freedom from the Human Condition:
3) Harmlessness:
4) A list of differences between the Real and the Actual,


The AFTrust web site has a glossary, in case you have not found it while "swimming in the soup." They typically use terms from the Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionary and supply a few-paragraph commentary to further elucidate terms / differences in terms.

Perfection: http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/glossary/glossary-n.htm#perfection

Human Condition: http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/glossary/glossary-h.htm#humancondition

Harmlessness: http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/glossary/glossary-h.htm#harmless

Real: http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/glossary/glossary-n.htm#real
Actual: http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/glossary/glossary-a.htm#actual

Emotion: http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/glossary/glossary-e.htm#emotion

Enjoy,
Trent
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 7:52 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 7:52 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:
but excludes "felicitous feelings" which I thought Richard was saying he still experiences....


Richard cannot feel felicitous feelings, as he is free from feeling entirely.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
I'm looking at the passage very carefully and I don't see that he says what a feeling IS. He says that the source is instinct, and that the consequence is a chemical response, and he names some feelings but I don't see that he says what they ARE.


I'm not exactly sure where you're finding confusion. Are you asking which chemicals constitute which feelings? Are you asking what feelings are phenomenologically (implying that you are unaware of your own)? Perhaps this example helps: if you drink a glass of wine, you have new chemicals (alcohol) in your body, and that alters your perceptions and presumably your feelings in some fundamental way. This is just an immediate way of recognizing that chemicals introduced to or native to the body phenomenologically translate into feeling tones in those whom they are extant. And as far as knowing what a feeling is from that point of view, it would just be common sense; such as "happy" feels this way or "sad" feels that way as a generality; which is to say all feelings share a common quality (or perhaps are indeed the same-same thing).

Ruth Laura Edlund:
There appears to be a distinction between instinctual emotions and non-instinctual emotions.


If I am not mistaken (and I may be), Richard makes a distinction between raw instincts (fear, nurture, aggression, desire) and cultural derivatives. For example, love would be a derivative of the instinct to nurture. For an example: I know a person who distinguishes between several types of love, such as: love for friends, love for parents, love for companion, etc. It's a differentiation for the person on how a certain amount of certain chemicals translate to certain feelings. I never learned or created such classifications as this person did, and years ago, really only knew of two types of love (family/friends, companion). Another way of thinking about it that may make sense is if you consider feelings to be on a continuum, so that "nurture" is 10 units of a certain chemical, love is 20 units of that chemical, infatuation is 30 units, and so on. Some people may only recognize / name feelings for the 10 unit and 30 unit feelings, leaving out the label for 20 units, whereas some may take it the other direction and even label the differences in feeling tone at 15 units and 25 units.

Enjoy,
Trent
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 9:56 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 9:29 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:
I'm not exactly sure where you're finding confusion. Are you asking which chemicals constitute which feelings?
No, I am not asking that. Richard does not say that chemicals *constitute* feelings, he says they are a *consequence* of feelings.
Trent H.:
Are you asking what feelings are phenomenologically (implying that you are unaware of your own)?
No. You may infer that, but it was not implied. I am aware of my own feelings *as I define them* (which may or may not be how Richard defines them). I am asking what Richard's (or, more broadly, what AF's) definition of a "feeling" is.
Trent H.:
Perhaps this example helps: if you drink a glass of wine, you have new chemicals (alcohol) in your body, and that alters your perceptions and presumably your feelings in some fundamental way.
No, that example does not help. It also uses the word "presumably" which does not help. I am trying to identify what the presumptions are here in order for me to understand the definition.

Alcohol as a chemical creates physiological changes, which sounds like those changes would be sensory, and not "feelings" whose definition is still not clear to me. Let me give you a counter-example. Suppose I see a glimpse of a shape that looks like a sabre-tooth tiger. The image goes from my eyes to my amygdala *first* without hitting my cerebrum, and my amygdala sends a message to my kidneys. My kidneys send a squirt of adrenalin into my body. My heart races in response, and I "feel" fear. That's the way I think these things happen. In the passage cited Richard is saying that the feeling produces the adrenalin, if I am understanding him correctly. Hence the confusion.
Trent H.:
This is just an immediate way of recognizing that chemicals introduced to or native to the body phenomenologically translate into feeling tones in those whom they are extant.
No, Richard's passage said that the chemicals were a *consequence* of the feelings, *not* the other way around. I think this is an important distinction, and it is part of what has me confused.
Trent H.:
And as far as knowing what a feeling is from that point of view, it would just be common sense; such as "happy" feels this way or "sad" feels that way as a generality; which is to say all feelings share a common quality (or perhaps are indeed the same-same thing).

"It would just be common sense" isn't a definition. "Common sense" suggests a presumption or assumption, not a definition, and I am trying to understand what that is. What common quality does AF believe that all happy and sad feelings share?
Trent H.:
If I am not mistaken (and I may be), Richard makes a distinction between raw instincts (fear, nurture, aggression, desire) and cultural derivatives. For example, love would be a derivative of the instinct to nurture. For an example: I know a person who distinguishes between several types of love, such as: love for friends, love for parents, love for companion, etc. It's a differentiation for the person on how a certain amount of certain chemicals translate to certain feelings. I never learned or created such classifications as this person did, and years ago, really only knew of two types of love (family/friends, companion). Another way of thinking about it that may make sense is if you consider feelings to be on a continuum, so that "nurture" is 10 units of a certain chemical, love is 20 units of that chemical, infatuation is 30 units, and so on. Some people may only recognize / name feelings for the 10 unit and 30 unit feelings, leaving out the label for 20 units, whereas some may take it the other direction and even label the differences in feeling tone at 15 units and 25 units.

Enjoy,
Trent

Agape versus eros has been around for an awful long time.
Has Richard eliminated all survival instinct? What would happen if someone pushed his head underwater (sorry that's kind of an odd example)? Would he not fight for air?

More generally, are "feelings" the same thing as "emotions"?
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 11:01 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/10/10 11:01 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:
No, I am not asking that. Richard does not say that chemicals *constitute* feelings, he says they are a *consequence* of feelings.


Okay. I think that the chemicals are what constitute feelings and are a consequence of the identity becoming triggered by a stimuli (internal or external).

Ruth Laura Edlund:
No. You may infer that, but it was not implied. I am aware of my own feelings *as I define them* (which may or may not be how Richard defines them). I am asking what Richard's (or, more broadly, what AF's) definition of a "feeling" is.


Okay.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
No, that example does not help. It also uses the word "presumably" which does not help. I am trying to identify what the presumptions are here in order for me to understand the definition.


Okay. May I ask, why does understanding "the presumptions" matter so much, pragmatically speaking? It seems as though I could walk up to people on the side of the street and ask "what is a feeling" and generally people would describe various aspects of various subjective states (hence my mentioning of "common sense"). And that is plenty enough knowledge of them to speak conversationally about them, or am I mistaken?

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Alcohol as a chemical creates physiological changes, which sounds like those changes would be sensory, and not "feelings" whose definition is still not clear to me. Let me give you a counter-example. Suppose I see a glimpse of a shape that looks like a sabre-tooth tiger. The image goes from my eyes to my amygdala *first* without hitting my cerebrum, and my amygdala sends a message to my kidneys. My kidneys send a squirt of adrenalin into my body. My heart races in response, and I "feel" fear. That's the way I think these things happen. In the passage cited Richard is saying that the feeling produces the adrenalin, if I am understanding him correctly. Hence the confusion.


The changes would be both sensory and emotional (for those with emotions); it is not like the alcohol (which would be in your circulatory system) decides what part of the brain to "flood." Next, your example makes since to me, and you seem to grasp what "fear" is as a feeling, meaning that you seem to understand the term just fine. I cannot speak to the details of the passage that is causing your confusion, as it was not written by me and, upon close inspection, does not sound accurate to me either for the same reason you mention.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
No, Richard's passage said that the chemicals were a *consequence* of the feelings, *not* the other way around. I think this is an important distinction, and it is part of what has me confused.


Okay. I think that the chemicals are what constitute feelings and are a consequence of the identity becoming triggered by a stimuli (internal or external).

Ruth Laura Edlund:
"It would just be common sense" isn't a definition. "Common sense" suggests a presumption or assumption, not a definition, and I am trying to understand what that is. What common quality does AF believe that all happy and sad feelings share?


I am aware that "it would just be common sense" is not a definition for "feeling." And yes, common sense does typically suggest an assumption / presumption. In this case, however, the use of the phrase "common sense" is not assuming anything. It is a fact that human beings are born with the instinctual passions, emotions, feelings, and are by large statistical majority able to speak about them in self-aware manner. Hence, the *sense* of being aware of one's feelings to a degree acute enough to speak of them which is quite *common* to the human species. Ergo, the usage of "common sense."

"Actually free" individuals, as far as I know, do not "believe" in general, but as 'I' sussed out the differences and commonalities between happy and sad feelings (among other feelings), 'I' became quite aware that all feelings / passions / instincts / emotions share a common tactile physical sensation (one that is gritty and tension-ridden when compared to the senses), as well as a common instinctively felt quality of "this is me," ('I' am my feelings and my feelings are 'me') and perhaps other commonalities which do not immediately spring to mind.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Has Richard eliminated all survival instinct? What would happen if someone pushed his head underwater (sorry that's kind of an odd example)? Would he not fight for air?


Yes, he has; as have I. Since I cannot speak for Richard, but as I am also devoid of survival instinct, I will speak for myself and perhaps that will satisfy. I would fight for air with all the strength I had available, if I thought that would be the way to survive. However, I may also play dead if I thought that was a better tactic to saving my life. Or perhaps other alternatives based on the circumstances. The point is that the loss of survival instinct does not mean a predilection for foolishly insalubrious activity or any sort of desire to toss away one's life. It is quite simple: I like being alive.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
More generally, are "feelings" the same thing as "emotions"?


I use them interchangeably, and never drew/draw a difference between the two.

Enjoy,
Trent
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 8:38 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 12:17 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:
Okay. I think that the chemicals are what constitute feelings and are a consequence of the identity becoming triggered by a stimuli (internal or external).

We think somewhat differently. I agree that feelings start with a stimulus, either a sensory perception (external) or a thought. I believe that the stimulus triggers a chemical which in turn gives rise to the feeling, which I would describe for purposes of this discussion as "a perception of a sensation inside the body." (I might further add that I think of an emotion as "a thought about the feeling"). You are thinking that the chemicals ARE the feelings? And that feelings and emotions are the same thing?


Trent H.:
Okay. May I ask, why does understanding "the presumptions" matter so much, pragmatically speaking?
Because I am trying to determine whether we are misunderstanding one another, disagreeing with one another, or even agreeing with one another without realizing it.
Trent H.:
It seems as though I could walk up to people on the side of the street and ask "what is a feeling" and generally people would describe various aspects of various subjective states (hence my mentioning of "common sense"). And that is plenty enough knowledge of them to speak conversationally about them, or am I mistaken?
Yes, but aren't you and I trying to speak on a more precise level than "conversationally"? I am seriously seeking to understand whether AF has anything useful for me, and in order to do so, I need more than a conversational understanding.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Alcohol as a chemical creates physiological changes, which sounds like those changes would be sensory, and not "feelings" whose definition is still not clear to me. Let me give you a counter-example. Suppose I see a glimpse of a shape that looks like a sabre-tooth tiger. The image goes from my eyes to my amygdala *first* without hitting my cerebrum, and my amygdala sends a message to my kidneys. My kidneys send a squirt of adrenalin into my body. My heart races in response, and I "feel" fear. That's the way I think these things happen. In the passage cited Richard is saying that the feeling produces the adrenalin, if I am understanding him correctly. Hence the confusion.

Trent H.:
The changes would be both sensory and emotional (for those with emotions); it is not like the alcohol (which would be in your circulatory system) decides what part of the brain to "flood."
Alcohol is a disinhibitor (among other things). As I understand the way that it works, it does not create new feelings, simply makes people under its influence less likely to suppress feelings that are already in existence. I don't regard nonsuppression as a *change.*
Trent H.:
Next, your example makes since to me, and you seem to grasp what "fear" is as a feeling, meaning that you seem to understand the term just fine. I cannot speak to the details of the passage that is causing your confusion, as it was not written by me and, upon close inspection, does not sound accurate to me either for the same reason you mention.
The passage was written by Richard and comes directly from the AF website, FWIW.

Trent H.:

I am aware that "it would just be common sense" is not a definition for "feeling." And yes, common sense does typically suggest an assumption / presumption. In this case, however, the use of the phrase "common sense" is not assuming anything. It is a fact that human beings are born with the instinctual passions, emotions, feelings, and are by large statistical majority able to speak about them in self-aware manner. Hence, the *sense* of being aware of one's feelings to a degree acute enough to speak of them which is quite *common* to the human species. Ergo, the usage of "common sense."

"Actually free" individuals, as far as I know, do not "believe" in general, but as 'I' sussed out the differences and commonalities between happy and sad feelings (among other feelings), 'I' became quite aware that all feelings / passions / instincts / emotions share a common tactile physical sensation (one that is gritty and tension-ridden when compared to the senses), as well as a common instinctively felt quality of "this is me," ('I' am my feelings and my feelings are 'me') and perhaps other commonalities which do not immediately spring to mind.


OK. First, I don't know that I would run feelings/passions/instincts/emotions together. Richard has a quite distinct definition of emotion from his definition of feeling (both of which I have quoted above). Let's go back to the sabre-tooth tiger, but this time I don't see the tiger. I am sitting by a campfire listening to a story about a sabre-tooth tiger. I look at the big spear next to me, and I have the thought that "I am safe from the tiger," which is a thought that creates a sense of security (not-fear). Second, I personally do not perceive an instinctively felt quality that feelings are "me." My feelings are only one of the aggregates of a "self" which is empty, impermanent, etc. etc. Third, I think that some feelings are associated with a release of tension, not a sensation of tension, although I will grant you that some feelings are associated with tension.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Has Richard eliminated all survival instinct? What would happen if someone pushed his head underwater (sorry that's kind of an odd example)? Would he not fight for air?

Trent H.:
Yes, he has; as have I. Since I cannot speak for Richard, but as I am also devoid of survival instinct, I will speak for myself and perhaps that will satisfy. I would fight for air with all the strength I had available, if I thought that would be the way to survive. However, I may also play dead if I thought that was a better tactic to saving my life. Or perhaps other alternatives based on the circumstances. The point is that the loss of survival instinct does not mean a predilection for foolishly insalubrious activity or any sort of desire to toss away one's life. It is quite simple: I like being alive.


I have some doubts that, in a true crisis situation requiring extremely rapid decisions, even an actually free person could consider his or her alternatives "devoid of a survival instinct." I was once in a life-threatening situation and found myself doing things that, in retrospect, were extremely clever and extracted me from the danger, but I certainly was not consciously considering alternatives, in fact I behaved exactly counter to the "convention wisdom" of the situation. My amygdala was clearly in control (and served me well). It is true that I was much younger and, I daresay, less mindful than I am now* when the event occurred, but my point is that I learned that night that the survival instinct runs very, very deep indeed and I do not know what about the AF process that could eliminate a mechanism so programmed into the organism.

If you have experienced a life-threatening situation since becoming actually free, of course, that is another matter, but it sounds above like you were speaking hypothetically. I also have to speak hypothetically because, although I have been in mortal peril, I was not actually free at the time (nor am I now, of course).

Thanks for answering my questions. It has been helpful.

Ruth

*And I make no great claims to mindfulness now....
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 2:06 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 2:06 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:

We think somewhat differently. I agree that feelings start with a stimulus, either a sensory perception (external) or a thought. I believe that the stimulus triggers a chemical which in turn gives rise to the feeling, which I would describe for purposes of this discussion as "a perception of a sensation inside the body." (I might further add that I think of an emotion as "a thought about the feeling"). You are thinking that the chemicals ARE the feelings? And that feelings and emotions are the same thing?


the feeling which you here think of an emotion as being a thought about is a passion (an emotion is a thought that 'i' have about an instinctual passion).

what an actual freedom is is the extinction of instinctual passions (via 'my' consensual self-extirpation).

Ruth Laura Edlund:
I am seriously seeking to understand whether AF has anything useful for me, and in order to do so, I need more than a conversational understanding.


it's the unequivocal end of fear and desire, if you find such a thing useful.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Alcohol as a chemical creates physiological changes, which sounds like those changes would be sensory, and not "feelings" whose definition is still not clear to me. Let me give you a counter-example. Suppose I see a glimpse of a shape that looks like a sabre-tooth tiger. The image goes from my eyes to my amygdala *first* without hitting my cerebrum, and my amygdala sends a message to my kidneys. My kidneys send a squirt of adrenalin into my body. My heart races in response, and I "feel" fear. That's the way I think these things happen. In the passage cited Richard is saying that the feeling produces the adrenalin, if I am understanding him correctly. Hence the confusion.


without the instinctual passions, there would be no 'i' to feel fear in any situation. further, richard's claim, if i understand him correctly, may be that his kidneys would not send a squirt of adrenalin into his blood (both are his body) in the first place. me, i don't know, but for his perspective on the matter, consider this passage from his archived correspondence:


RESPONDENT: There are 4 brains in the human body: intellectual, emotional, motor and instinctive. Why are the all emotional and instinctive brains’ functions considered as ‘unuseful’ and the others (thinking and moving) as useful? It’s a point I don’t understand.

RICHARD: As all I am pointing the finger at is the instinctual passions and the intuitive ‘presence’ they form themselves into – and not the instincts per se – then in your ‘4 brains’ model it is only the ‘emotional brain’ which is the spanner in the works. A readily observable instinctive reaction in oneself, that is not necessarily affective, is the automatic response known as the reflex action (inadvertently touch a hotplate, for instance, and there is an involuntary jerking away of the affected limb) or the startle response.

A classic example of this occurred whilst strolling along a country lane one fine morning with the sunlight dancing its magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; these eyes are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form as the panorama unfolds; these ears are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the early springtime ambience; this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral – there is no thought at all and conscious alertness is null and void – when all-of-a-sudden the easy gait has ceased happening.

These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows in a field nearby and are looking downward to the front and see the green and black snake, coiling up on the road in readiness to act, which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards ... an instinctive response which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals.

There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly.

Cattle, for example, are easily ‘spooked’ by a reptile and have been known to stampede in infectious group panic.


my own experience has been that i can experience a startle response these days but do not any fear whatsoever.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Trent H.:
The changes would be both sensory and emotional (for those with emotions); it is not like the alcohol (which would be in your circulatory system) decides what part of the brain to "flood."
Alcohol is a disinhibitor (among other things). As I understand the way that it works, it does not create new feelings, simply makes people under its influence less likely to suppress feelings that are already in existence. I don't regard nonsuppression as a *change.*
Trent H.:
Next, your example makes since to me, and you seem to grasp what "fear" is as a feeling, meaning that you seem to understand the term just fine. I cannot speak to the details of the passage that is causing your confusion, as it was not written by me and, upon close inspection, does not sound accurate to me either for the same reason you mention.
The passage was written by Richard and comes directly from the AF website, FWIW.


as you are interested in what richard has to say on these subjects, you may be interested in the following passage:


RESPONDENT: If they give you one injection of adrenaline, will you be able to control your angriness?
RICHARD: What ‘angriness’ are you talking off? There is neither anger nor anguish in this flesh and blood body ... do you really take an actual freedom from the human condition to be a suppression, or even a repression, of the affective feelings?
Just for the record, however, when I have a dental injection to anaesthetise the jaw I always make sure the dentist uses a procaine mixture which does not contain adrenaline, which most such mixtures do, because its effect is psychotropic (just as caffeine, a chemical cousin to cocaine, is).


Ruth Laura Edlund:

First, I don't know that I would run feelings/passions/instincts/emotions together. Richard has a quite distinct definition of emotion from his definition of feeling. Let's go back to the sabre-tooth tiger, but this time I don't see the tiger. I am sitting by a campfire listening to a story about a sabre-tooth tiger. I look at the big spear next to me, and I have the thought that "I am safe from the tiger," which is a thought that creates a sense of security (not-fear). Second, I personally do not perceive an instinctively felt quality that feelings are "me." My feelings are only one of the aggregates of a "self" which is empty, impermanent, etc. etc. Third, I think that some feelings are associated with a release of tension, not a sensation of tension, although I will grant you that some feelings are associated with tension.


firstly, breaking down feelings/passions/emotions is just a way of being more specific about the affective faculty.. it was useful for me to understand the distinction richard makes between the experience of (being) the instinctual passions and the experience of (having) emotions (both can be called feelings).

secondly, if you do not perceive the quality by which 'your feelings' are 'you', you are either dissociating or are not looking closely enough. the very sense of 'i' is a basic affective experience (it is an inchoate feeling) which occurs concomitantly with the feelings one feels one has (at root, 'i' am nothing but the blur/the swirl formed by the movement of passions).

thirdly (lastly), you're correct in your above assertion but let me modify part of your above sentence slightly so that it reads: '...I think that some feelings are associated with a release of the sensation of tension...'

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Has Richard eliminated all survival instinct? What would happen if someone pushed his head underwater (sorry that's kind of an odd example)? Would he not fight for air?


i don't know that it's a survival instinct that's eliminated as such, but what is definitely eliminated is the instinctual passion for survival (experienced as an urge to survive).

tarin
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 8:40 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 8:19 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
the prisoner greco:

the feeling which you here think of an emotion as being a thought about is a passion (an emotion is a thought that 'i' have about an instinctual passion).

what an actual freedom is is the extinction of instinctual passions (via 'my' consensual self-extirpation).

What is the AF definition of a "passion"? Does it mean the same thing as a "feeling"? This is not a frivolous question. I am trying to determine whether this is simply a different rhetorical style on your part or if there is a nuance in meaning that can be captured here.

the prisoner greco:


it's the unequivocal end of fear and desire, if you find such a thing useful.

I do, although if "fear" and "desire" are the same thing as "aversion" and "grasping," there's this whole Eightfold Path thing that I'm still trying to wrap my head around, and I'm not sure how the fruits of AF differ from those of the Eightfold Path.

the prisoner greco:


without the instinctual passions, there would be no 'i' to feel fear in any situation. further, richard's claim, if i understand him correctly, may be that his kidneys would not send a squirt of adrenalin into his blood (both are his body) in the first place. me, i don't know, but for his perspective on the matter, consider this passage from his archived correspondence:


RESPONDENT: There are 4 brains in the human body: intellectual, emotional, motor and instinctive. Why are the all emotional and instinctive brains’ functions considered as ‘unuseful’ and the others (thinking and moving) as useful? It’s a point I don’t understand.

RICHARD: As all I am pointing the finger at is the instinctual passions and the intuitive ‘presence’ they form themselves into – and not the instincts per se – then in your ‘4 brains’ model it is only the ‘emotional brain’ which is the spanner in the works. A readily observable instinctive reaction in oneself, that is not necessarily affective, is the automatic response known as the reflex action (inadvertently touch a hotplate, for instance, and there is an involuntary jerking away of the affected limb) or the startle response.

A classic example of this occurred whilst strolling along a country lane one fine morning with the sunlight dancing its magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; these eyes are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form as the panorama unfolds; these ears are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the early springtime ambience; this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral – there is no thought at all and conscious alertness is null and void – when all-of-a-sudden the easy gait has ceased happening.

These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows in a field nearby and are looking downward to the front and see the green and black snake, coiling up on the road in readiness to act, which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards ... an instinctive response which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals.

There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly.

Cattle, for example, are easily ‘spooked’ by a reptile and have been known to stampede in infectious group panic.


my own experience has been that i can experience a startle response these days but do not any fear whatsoever.

The startle response classically includes pulse, respiration, and blood pressure changes. If Richard (or you) does not interpret these physiological changes as "meaning" fear, so be it, but there is a danger that the thing is being defined out of existence, not actually vanishing.

the prisoner greco:


as you are interested in what richard has to say on these subjects, you may be interested in the following passage:


RESPONDENT: If they give you one injection of adrenaline, will you be able to control your angriness?
RICHARD: What ‘angriness’ are you talking off? There is neither anger nor anguish in this flesh and blood body ... do you really take an actual freedom from the human condition to be a suppression, or even a repression, of the affective feelings?
Just for the record, however, when I have a dental injection to anaesthetise the jaw I always make sure the dentist uses a procaine mixture which does not contain adrenaline, which most such mixtures do, because its effect is psychotropic (just as caffeine, a chemical cousin to cocaine, is).

Why does he avoid psychotropics? Because he doesn't like the physical sensations (that most people associate with unpleasant "feelings", and many people also don't like) that they produce? Avoiding psychotropics actually reminds me of one of the five precepts...

the prisoner greco:


firstly, breaking down feelings/passions/emotions is just a way of being more specific about the affective faculty.. it was useful for me to understand the distinction richard makes between the experience of (being) the instinctual passions and the experience of (having) emotions (both can be called feelings).


No, no, no, I was objecting to feelings, passions, and emotions being lumped together, *not* broken down. Saying that "feelings" include both "being" "passions" and "having" "emotions" does not seem to me to be consistent with the definitions I see in AF writings, and seems to be lumping them together again!

the prisoner greco:
secondly, if you do not perceive the quality by which 'your feelings' are 'you', you are either dissociating or are not looking closely enough. the very sense of 'i' is a basic affective experience (it is an inchoate feeling) which occurs concomitantly with the feelings one feels one has (at root, 'i' am nothing but the blur/the swirl formed by the movement of passions).

Actually, I thought (perhaps deludedly) that I was neither dissociating nor failing to look closely enough, but making a distinction that you perhaps missed. The sense of "self" that makes up the "i" consists of aggregates that *include,* but *are not limited to* "feelings" (still somewhat unclear on the distinctions you are drawing now between "feelings," "passions," and "emotions"). Because "feelings" are not constant, neither is the sense of "i" that you postulate is formed by them. Calling feelings a "blur/swirl" unnecessarily solidifies them and gives the sense of a fixed sense of self.

the prisoner greco:
thirdly (lastly), you're correct in your above assertion but let me modify part of your above sentence slightly so that it reads: '...I think that some feelings are associated with a release of the sensation of tension...'

Agreed.

the prisoner greco:


i don't know that it's a survival instinct that's eliminated as such, but what is definitely eliminated is the instinctual passion for survival (experienced as an urge to survive).

Have you been in a life-threatening situation since becoming actually free to determine whether in fact you do not have an urge to survive? I must admit I remain skeptical about this point. If a startle reflex remains, why not a survival "reflex?
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 1:04 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 1:04 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:
the prisoner greco:

the feeling which you here think of an emotion as being a thought about is a passion (an emotion is a thought that 'i' have about an instinctual passion).

what an actual freedom is is the extinction of instinctual passions (via 'my' consensual self-extirpation).

What is the AF definition of a "passion"? Does it mean the same thing as a "feeling"? This is not a frivolous question. I am trying to determine whether this is simply a different rhetorical style on your part or if there is a nuance in meaning that can be captured here.


You state that it is not a "frivolous" question, and so I ask: why is it not frivolous? I asked earlier "why does understanding "the presumptions" matter so much, pragmatically speaking?" and it was dodged. But this question I pose to you (again) is also "not frivolous" to the discussion, as it seems like drawing distinctions between these terms (feeling, emotion, passions) is intellectual masturbation at best.

Is understanding the difference between these three terms really going to make the difference between whether or not you decide you want to be happy and harmless 24/7 for the remainder of one's life (among other things)?

Ruth Laura Edlund:
the prisoner greco:


it's the unequivocal end of fear and desire, if you find such a thing useful.

I do, although if "fear" and "desire" are the same thing as "aversion" and "grasping," there's this whole Eightfold Path thing that I'm still trying to wrap my head around, and I'm not sure how the fruits of AF differ from those of the Eightfold Path.


I think that "aversion" alludes to or is a type of fear and "grasping" alludes to or is a type of desire, but as I see it, fear can also include things like anxiety, terror, dread, and general unease. And desire can also include things like lust, envy, possessiveness, and so forth.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
the prisoner greco:


without the instinctual passions, there would be no 'i' to feel fear in any situation. further, richard's claim, if i understand him correctly, may be that his kidneys would not send a squirt of adrenalin into his blood (both are his body) in the first place. me, i don't know, but for his perspective on the matter, consider this passage from his archived correspondence:


RESPONDENT: There are 4 brains in the human body: intellectual, emotional, motor and instinctive. Why are the all emotional and instinctive brains’ functions considered as ‘unuseful’ and the others (thinking and moving) as useful? It’s a point I don’t understand.

RICHARD: As all I am pointing the finger at is the instinctual passions and the intuitive ‘presence’ they form themselves into – and not the instincts per se – then in your ‘4 brains’ model it is only the ‘emotional brain’ which is the spanner in the works. A readily observable instinctive reaction in oneself, that is not necessarily affective, is the automatic response known as the reflex action (inadvertently touch a hotplate, for instance, and there is an involuntary jerking away of the affected limb) or the startle response.

A classic example of this occurred whilst strolling along a country lane one fine morning with the sunlight dancing its magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; these eyes are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form as the panorama unfolds; these ears are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the early springtime ambience; this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral – there is no thought at all and conscious alertness is null and void – when all-of-a-sudden the easy gait has ceased happening.

These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows in a field nearby and are looking downward to the front and see the green and black snake, coiling up on the road in readiness to act, which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards ... an instinctive response which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals.

There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly.

Cattle, for example, are easily ‘spooked’ by a reptile and have been known to stampede in infectious group panic.


my own experience has been that i can experience a startle response these days but do not any fear whatsoever.

The startle response classically includes pulse, respiration, and blood pressure changes. If Richard (or you) does not interpret these physiological changes as "meaning" fear, so be it, but there is a danger that the thing is being defined out of existence, not actually vanishing.


I cannot speak for Tarin, but the passage of Richard's above plainly says that he did not experience "physiological changes" and went on to list a number of those changes that did not happen.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
the prisoner greco:


as you are interested in what richard has to say on these subjects, you may be interested in the following passage:


RESPONDENT: If they give you one injection of adrenaline, will you be able to control your angriness?
RICHARD: What ‘angriness’ are you talking off? There is neither anger nor anguish in this flesh and blood body ... do you really take an actual freedom from the human condition to be a suppression, or even a repression, of the affective feelings?
Just for the record, however, when I have a dental injection to anaesthetise the jaw I always make sure the dentist uses a procaine mixture which does not contain adrenaline, which most such mixtures do, because its effect is psychotropic (just as caffeine, a chemical cousin to cocaine, is).

Why does he avoid psychotropics? Because he doesn't like the physical sensations (that most people associate with unpleasant "feelings", and many people also don't like) that they produce? Avoiding psychotropics actually reminds me of one of the five precepts...


I am not sure why he would avoid it either, but he must not like something about adrenaline's effect, eh?

One of the nice things about being benevolent and innocent is that one is also free to be amoral without having to worry much (if at all) about silliness such as the five precepts. It is a fun freedom indeed!


Ruth Laura Edlund:
the prisoner greco:
secondly, if you do not perceive the quality by which 'your feelings' are 'you', you are either dissociating or are not looking closely enough. the very sense of 'i' is a basic affective experience (it is an inchoate feeling) which occurs concomitantly with the feelings one feels one has (at root, 'i' am nothing but the blur/the swirl formed by the movement of passions).

Actually, I thought (perhaps deludedly) that I was neither dissociating nor failing to look closely enough, but making a distinction that you perhaps missed. The sense of "self" that makes up the "i" consists of aggregates that *include,* but *are not limited to* "feelings" (still somewhat unclear on the distinctions you are drawing now between "feelings," "passions," and "emotions"). Because "feelings" are not constant, neither is the sense of "i" that you postulate is formed by them. Calling feelings a "blur/swirl" unnecessarily solidifies them and gives the sense of a fixed sense of self.


There are two selves in a normal person: the ego, who one thinks one is, and the soul, who one feels one is. The "soul," is the primal affective self or identity. The ego (as has been demonstrated by various people) cannot operate if the instinctual, primal, affective, soul self is removed, which demonstrates that it is the core of the sense of self which also underlies the ego. In other words: there is no need to "unnecessarily solidify" anything, as the feeling sense of self is indeed quite "solid" unless removed. Note that it does not matter what one is feeling, that feeling will also carry a feeling of "me-ness" with it / as it (the feeling and sense of self are not separate). Feelings are indeed constant unless one is in a PCE or an AF, as is the sense of "me" that comes along with those feelings.

Enjoy,
Trent
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 1:46 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 1:34 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:

You state that it is not a "frivolous" question, and so I ask: why is it not frivolous? I asked earlier "why does understanding "the presumptions" matter so much, pragmatically speaking?" and it was dodged. But this question I pose to you (again) is also "not frivolous" to the discussion, as it seems like drawing distinctions between these terms (feeling, emotion, passions) is intellectual masturbation at best.

Is understanding the difference between these three terms really going to make the difference between whether or not you decide you want to be happy and harmless 24/7 for the remainder of one's life (among other things)?

I do not believe that I dodged the question. I gather I did not make myself clear. I would like to have the presumptions and assumptions articulated so that I can see what they are. On this basis I can determine whether I understand what is being said and if so whether I disagree with it or agree with it.

There are probably terms other than "feelings," "emotions," and "passions" whose usage in the AF literature it is necessary for me to understand in order to evaluate the literature, but those are the ones that I have found for starters.
Trent H.:
I think that "aversion" alludes to or is a type of fear and "grasping" alludes to or is a type of desire, but as I see it, fear can also include things like anxiety, terror, dread, and general unease. And desire can also include things like lust, envy, possessiveness, and so forth.

I'm not sure I agree. (I originally posted that I did agree). I think aversion is a very broad term for fear-based mindstates and can include anxiety, terror, and the other things you list. I would definitely include possessive in the category of grasping. General unease sounds like "unsatisfactoriness" to me, i.e. one of the three characteristics of existence.
Trent H.:

I cannot speak for Tarin, but the passage of Richard's above plainly says that he did not experience "physiological changes" and went on to list a number of those changes that did not happen.

You are correct. Although I'm not sure how one can have a startle reflex with only muscular action.
Trent H.:

There are two selves in a normal person: the ego, who one thinks one is, and the soul, who one feels one is. The "soul," is the primal affective self or identity. The ego (as has been demonstrated by various people) cannot operate if the instinctual, primal, affective, soul self is removed, which demonstrates that it is the core of the sense of self which also underlies the ego. In other words: there is no need to "unnecessarily solidify" anything, as the feeling sense of self is indeed quite "solid" unless removed. Note that it does not matter what one is feeling, that feeling will also carry a feeling of "me-ness" with it / as it (the feeling and sense of self are not separate). Feelings are indeed constant unless one is in a PCE or an AF, as is the sense of "me" that comes along with those feelings.

Now you have lost me completely. Why have the terms soul and ego entered this discussion? I have no idea what the sentence "The 'soul,' is the primal affective self or identity" means. I also do not know in what sense you are using the word "ego." Also, why is the feeling sense of self "solid"? Why is the "solidity" not an illusion?

Ruth
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 2:24 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 2:15 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:
Now you have lost me completely.


Oops! This is the DhO and you're presumably accessing it from a computer located in the Seattle metro area (ain't technological connectivity grand?).

Although I cannot say I lost you as you reported, have I helped you find yourself?

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Why have the terms soul and ego entered this discussion?


They are indicative of concepts / schema which people discussing these matters generally have established. With that in mind, they "entered this discussion" so as to be used for the communication of ideas.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
I have no idea what the sentence "The 'soul,' is the primal affective self or identity" means.


Okay, it means that the "soul" is the same thing as the "Self" or "identity" and is rooted in the affective faculties which is primal in origin (sourced in our evolutionary history). Does that clarify things regarding the paragraph the line appeared in?

Ruth Laura Edlund:
I also do not know in what sense you are using the word "ego."


I am using it in this sense: who 'I' think 'I' am. As opposed to the "soul" above which is: who 'I' feel 'I' am.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Also, why is the feeling sense of self "solid"?


As the elimination of the feeling sense of self has taken at the very least -- from "normality" to actual freedom -- something like 3 years (I may be mistaken there). And similarly, from arhatship as defined on the DhO to actual freedom, something like 10 months; it would seem that it is aptly "solid:"

-dense, thick, or heavy in nature or appearance
-of a substantial character; not superficial, trifling, or frivolous
-without separation or division; continuous

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solid)

I am not saying that this self is "solid" in the sense that I suspect you may be taking it; it cannot be sensed via the sense organs as physical or energetic matter, as it is not actually existing in this physical universe.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Why is the "solidity" not an illusion?


I don't recall ever saying that it wasn't "an illusion," so I will let you theorize about that all you want.

Enjoy,
Trent
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 3:42 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 3:38 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:
Ruth Laura Edlund:
Now you have lost me completely.


Oops! This is the DhO and you're presumably accessing it from a computer located in the Seattle metro area (ain't technological connectivity grand?).

Although I cannot say I lost you as you reported, have I helped you find yourself?

emoticon No, because I wasn't lost to myself. However, you ran off to someplace where I couldn't follow.

Trent H.:
Ruth Laura Edlund:
Why have the terms soul and ego entered this discussion?


They are indicative of concepts / schema which people discussing these matters generally have established. With that in mind, they "entered this discussion" so as to be used for the communication of ideas.

Still unclear to me why those concepts/schema were introduced into this discussion.

Trent H.:
Ruth Laura Edlund:
I have no idea what the sentence "The 'soul,' is the primal affective self or identity" means.


Okay, it means that the "soul" is the same thing as the "Self" or "identity" and is rooted in the affective faculties which is primal in origin (sourced in our evolutionary history). Does that clarify things regarding the paragraph the line appeared in?

Are you saying that the soul=self=the primal emotions? So the "soul" as you are using the term would be somewhat like the Freudian "id"?

Trent H.:
Ruth Laura Edlund:
I also do not know in what sense you are using the word "ego."


I am using it in this sense: who 'I' think 'I' am. As opposed to the "soul" above which is: who 'I' feel 'I' am.

OK, I understand this usage. I also think I understand how you define the term soul, but it is not a definition I would have ascribed to it (see my repeated comments about clarifying assumptions).

Trent H.:
Ruth Laura Edlund:
Also, why is the feeling sense of self "solid"?


As the elimination of the feeling sense of self has taken at the very least -- from "normality" to actual freedom -- something like 3 years (I may be mistaken there). And similarly, from arhatship as defined on the DhO to actual freedom, something like 10 months; it would seem that it is aptly "solid:"

-dense, thick, or heavy in nature or appearance
-of a substantial character; not superficial, trifling, or frivolous
-without separation or division; continuous

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solid)

I am not saying that this self is "solid" in the sense that I suspect you may be taking it; it cannot be sensed via the sense organs as physical or energetic matter, as it is not actually existing in this physical universe.

Are you saying that the feeling of the sense of self was "solid" because it took time to eliminate? Wouldn't that make it "persistent" more than "solid"? I was not taking you to mean physical solidity.

Trent H.:
Ruth Laura Edlund:
Why is the "solidity" not an illusion?


I don't recall ever saying that it wasn't "an illusion," so I will let you theorize about that all you want.

Is the solidity an illusion? Or is it not an illusion?
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 3:42 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 3:42 PM

Something Else I Don't Understand

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
It appears that being "happy" is not a "feeling" in the AF world.

Why not?
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 4:26 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/11/10 4:26 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:
Still unclear to me why those concepts/schema were introduced into this discussion.


The purpose was to provide additional context for discussion. If that's not clear, don't worry about it; it may have not been necessary for me to mention it at all.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Are you saying that the soul=self=the primal emotions? So the "soul" as you are using the term would be somewhat like the Freudian "id"?


Not quite. I am saying that the soul = self = feeling / emotion / primal passions / identity / affective faculty in general. I do not think the Freudian 'id' is what I am talking about, though perhaps the 'id' alludes to some aspect of what I am talking about. The primary reason I don't think these terms would be synonymous is because the 'id' was taken to be "unconscious by definition," and it seems silly to even consider that persons are not (at least capable of) being aware of their feelings in action, hence the ability to name and speak about them in the first place.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Are you saying that the feeling of the sense of self was "solid" because it took time to eliminate? Wouldn't that make it "persistent" more than "solid"? I was not taking you to mean physical solidity.


I was not saying that specifically, but that is a way of looking at it. I mean that, generally, the sense of "Me" and/or "I" is rather "persistent" because it feels quite "solid." The trick is seeing through the illusion of it being either solid or persistent, finding which actual physical sensations make up that sense of solidness, and so forth.

Ruth Laura Edlund:
Is the solidity an illusion? Or is it not an illusion?


The actual solidity-- the tactile physical sensations of the chemicals, which constitute the self, as they are in the brain of a human-- is not an illusion. Mistaking that actual tactile physical feeling as being "me" (or failing to even recognize those physical sensations in the first place and thus being fully immersed in the illusion) as a feeling entity whom "has" (among other things) a body (rather than being the body) is an illusion.

Enjoy,
Trent
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 13 Years ago at 5/12/10 2:41 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/12/10 2:41 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:
the prisoner greco:

the feeling which you here think of an emotion as being a thought about is a passion (an emotion is a thought that 'i' have about an instinctual passion).

what an actual freedom is is the extinction of instinctual passions (via 'my' consensual self-extirpation).

What is the AF definition of a "passion"? Does it mean the same thing as a "feeling"? This is not a frivolous question. I am trying to determine whether this is simply a different rhetorical style on your part or if there is a nuance in meaning that can be captured here.


passions are deeply felt, primal feelings (such as fear or aggression), which in latent form merely constitute the inchoate feeling of 'i' (however empty you wish to consider it, and of which the sense of the observer is merely the tip), and which in active form exist as surges of affective energy. when accompanied by the process of story-fabrication, they are diluted and given more form, which produce emotions (such as worry or anger).

some of richard's writings on the topic of how feelings manifest and what they do:
http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/catalogue/naivete.htm

some definitions as found on the af trust website:
http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/emotion.htm

Ruth Laura Edlund:

the prisoner greco:

it's the unequivocal end of fear and desire, if you find such a thing useful.

I do, (...)


you may also find this useful then:
http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedwriting/sw-method.htm

Ruth Laura Edlund:

(...) although if "fear" and "desire" are the same thing as "aversion" and "grasping," there's this whole Eightfold Path thing that I'm still trying to wrap my head around, and I'm not sure how the fruits of AF differ from those of the Eightfold Path.


i've wondered that from time to time, as the parallels were intriguing and yet contradictions were clear (and no one i knew in the buddhist world could report experiencing in the same manner as richard did), but what i eventually ended up doing was ceasing to concern myself with such matters and focusing on actually doing it myself, as it did not actually matter most to me to know whether actualism and the eightfold path lead to the same thing or not (what mattered most to me was to end fear, ill-will, and sorrow entirely).

Ruth Laura Edlund:

the prisoner greco:


without the instinctual passions, there would be no 'i' to feel fear in any situation. further, richard's claim, if i understand him correctly, may be that his kidneys would not send a squirt of adrenalin into his blood (both are his body) in the first place. me, i don't know, but for his perspective on the matter, consider this passage from his archived correspondence:


RESPONDENT: There are 4 brains in the human body: intellectual, emotional, motor and instinctive. Why are the all emotional and instinctive brains’ functions considered as ‘unuseful’ and the others (thinking and moving) as useful? It’s a point I don’t understand.

RICHARD: As all I am pointing the finger at is the instinctual passions and the intuitive ‘presence’ they form themselves into – and not the instincts per se – then in your ‘4 brains’ model it is only the ‘emotional brain’ which is the spanner in the works. A readily observable instinctive reaction in oneself, that is not necessarily affective, is the automatic response known as the reflex action (inadvertently touch a hotplate, for instance, and there is an involuntary jerking away of the affected limb) or the startle response.

A classic example of this occurred whilst strolling along a country lane one fine morning with the sunlight dancing its magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; these eyes are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form as the panorama unfolds; these ears are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the early springtime ambience; this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral – there is no thought at all and conscious alertness is null and void – when all-of-a-sudden the easy gait has ceased happening.

These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows in a field nearby and are looking downward to the front and see the green and black snake, coiling up on the road in readiness to act, which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards ... an instinctive response which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals.

There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly.

Cattle, for example, are easily ‘spooked’ by a reptile and have been known to stampede in infectious group panic.


my own experience has been that i can experience a startle response these days but do not any fear whatsoever.

The startle response classically includes pulse, respiration, and blood pressure changes. If Richard (or you) does not interpret these physiological changes as "meaning" fear, so be it, but there is a danger that the thing is being defined out of existence, not actually vanishing.


that danger is equally as non-existent in my experience as fear, as fear is entirely absent here (including, by the way, its more subtle permutations such as anxiety, worry, unease, and disquietude).

Ruth Laura Edlund:

the prisoner greco:


as you are interested in what richard has to say on these subjects, you may be interested in the following passage:


RESPONDENT: If they give you one injection of adrenaline, will you be able to control your angriness?
RICHARD: What ‘angriness’ are you talking off? There is neither anger nor anguish in this flesh and blood body ... do you really take an actual freedom from the human condition to be a suppression, or even a repression, of the affective feelings?
Just for the record, however, when I have a dental injection to anaesthetise the jaw I always make sure the dentist uses a procaine mixture which does not contain adrenaline, which most such mixtures do, because its effect is psychotropic (just as caffeine, a chemical cousin to cocaine, is).

Why does he avoid psychotropics? Because he doesn't like the physical sensations (that most people associate with unpleasant "feelings", and many people also don't like) that they produce? Avoiding psychotropics actually reminds me of one of the five precepts...


because they induce an effect which he described as being akin to a drug overdose (i have experienced this with caffeine, but the epinephrine-containing anaesthetic i was given by a dentist recently did not do that to me).

Ruth Laura Edlund:

the prisoner greco:


firstly, breaking down feelings/passions/emotions is just a way of being more specific about the affective faculty.. it was useful for me to understand the distinction richard makes between the experience of (being) the instinctual passions and the experience of (having) emotions (both can be called feelings).


No, no, no, I was objecting to feelings, passions, and emotions being lumped together, *not* broken down. Saying that "feelings" include both "being" "passions" and "having" "emotions" does not seem to me to be consistent with the definitions I see in AF writings, and seems to be lumping them together again!


post examples of the definitions you have seen and i will again try to reply in a way that makes sense to you.


Ruth Laura Edlund:

the prisoner greco:


i don't know that it's a survival instinct that's eliminated as such, but what is definitely eliminated is the instinctual passion for survival (experienced as an urge to survive).

Have you been in a life-threatening situation since becoming actually free to determine whether in fact you do not have an urge to survive? I must admit I remain skeptical about this point. If a startle reflex remains, why not a survival "reflex?


i was inches away from being hit by a reckless driver yesterday and would certainly have been had i not deftly swerved my bicycle out of his careening path. i watched in marvel as his gleaming bumper came inches from my rear wheel and felt no panic whatsoever either before, during, or after this encounter.. and as the situation was such that i had no way to confront him (by the time i intended to, he was already in the distance, speeding away to endanger other people), i simply carried on with my plan of travel.. equally unirritated by his dangerously careless attitude. i was having just as perfect a day then as i am having right now here in this actual world.

tarin
Brian , modified 13 Years ago at 5/13/10 2:55 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/13/10 2:55 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 35 Join Date: 11/22/09 Recent Posts
What is meant by "the feeling of being"?

And, not an AF term per se, but has come up recently in discussion: what is meant by "attention wave"?
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/13/10 5:04 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/13/10 5:03 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Brian M:
What is meant by "the feeling of being"?


The general sense of feeling (via affect) that you are alive; a feeling of presence; the feeling of feeling any feeling at all. The end of one's self in totality is the end of 'you' completely. Oblivion is all that awaits 'me' if 'I' have pure enough intent to see things through to the end. It is to find out what "life after death" is all about (not in the physical sense of death, of course).

Brian M:
And, not an AF term per se, but has come up recently in discussion: what is meant by "attention wave"?


The 'attention wave' I think was terminology that came up when Dan and Tarin were talking about these things. It refers to the self / soul / identity / affective faculty and the general perceptual distortion that is caused when it is part of experience (hence the term "wave" which indicates the sense of distortion).

Enjoy,
Trent
Tom Tom, modified 13 Years ago at 5/15/10 5:52 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/15/10 5:52 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 466 Join Date: 9/19/09 Recent Posts
I'm not sure what to make of this AF stuff. What is the difference between a PCE and a basic peak experience? Isn't a peak experience is < nirvana.?

Am I wasting my time trying to put the effort in for 4 paths (a LOT of work) when I could just start from AF in the first place and get results much quicker? ...By not even meditating. Apparently when I get to arahat I'm going to be motivated to do it anyways.

It would be a little easier if the website for it looked a little more professional and didn't have broken links all over the place. Seems a lot easier to trusts a 2500 year old tradition practiced by billions of people than a 30 year old tradition practiced by 20. It would be great if some people could reformulate that website into more precise instructions (that don't say they are completely contrary to current spiritual methods). I like that he says you can stop his methods at any time and still have results without falling into unpleasant cycles.

Every time someone mentions AF I just keep thinking emotionless Ricky Fitts having his pseudo PCE while he's watching his plastic bag and saying he doesn't experience fear.
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 13 Years ago at 5/15/10 11:49 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/15/10 11:49 AM

RE: Something Else I Don't Understand

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:
It appears that being "happy" is not a "feeling" in the AF world.

Why not?


because in the context in which you are likely referring to it used, it is simply a quality of the unaffective state of pure consciousness which totally devoid of feeling altogether (similarly then, one might ask, why is the sky blue and not another colour?[1]).

however, this is not the context it is used in when people interested in practising the actualism method are exhorted to 'be as happy and harmless as is humanly possible'; in that sense, it is definitely a feeling of happiness which is being encouraged, and productively so, as feeling happy (as in feeling felicitous) is imitative of actual happiness, and so its purposeful cultivation will lead to the latter.

tarin

[1] rayleigh scattering, as i understand it.
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 13 Years ago at 5/15/10 12:04 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/15/10 12:02 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Thomas Allen Vitale:
I'm not sure what to make of this AF stuff. What is the difference between a PCE and a basic peak experience? Isn't a peak experience is < nirvana.?


how is a peak experience < nirvana?

Thomas Allen Vitale:

Am I wasting my time trying to put the effort in for 4 paths (a LOT of work) when I could just start from AF in the first place and get results much quicker? ...By not even meditating.


some people say yes, other people say no ... in the face of this contradiction, what will you do?

Thomas Allen Vitale:

Apparently when I get to arahat I'm going to be motivated to do it anyways.


it has been amply demonstrated that not all those who claim to be arahats are motivated to attain an actual freedom.


Thomas Allen Vitale:

It would be a little easier if the website for it looked a little more professional and didn't have broken links all over the place. Seems a lot easier to trusts a 2500 year old tradition practiced by billions of people than a 30 year old tradition practiced by 20. It would be great if some people could reformulate that website into more precise instructions (that don't say they are completely contrary to current spiritual methods). I like that he says you can stop his methods at any time and still have results without falling into unpleasant cycles.


and yet, in trusting either, you would miss the profoundly valuable opportunity to think for yourself.

do you dare step out of the boundaries that you have had drawn for you?



Thomas Allen Vitale:

Every time someone mentions AF I just keep thinking emotionless Ricky Fitts having his pseudo PCE while he's watching his plastic bag and saying he doesn't experience fear.


the character ricky fitts from the movie 'american beauty' is a good (fictional) example of someone who has had a pce and is trying to find his way back to it (hence his obession with video-taping that which he sees 'beauty' in), albeit in a rather circuitous manner (he could instead have been figuring out how to see it all around him at every moment).

in closing, i want to add that i find your uncertainty understandable, even admirable.. but what will prove its worth is what you choose to do with it from here. what is it that you really want? you better want to figure it out (and do it) if you don't know already - in these matters, sincerity of intent (desire) is key.

tarin
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 5/24/10 3:47 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/24/10 3:47 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:

the prisoner greco:


i don't know that it's a survival instinct that's eliminated as such, but what is definitely eliminated is the instinctual passion for survival (experienced as an urge to survive).

Have you been in a life-threatening situation since becoming actually free to determine whether in fact you do not have an urge to survive? I must admit I remain skeptical about this point. If a startle reflex remains, why not a survival "reflex?


i was inches away from being hit by a reckless driver yesterday and would certainly have been had i not deftly swerved my bicycle out of his careening path. i watched in marvel as his gleaming bumper came inches from my rear wheel and felt no panic whatsoever either before, during, or after this encounter.. and as the situation was such that i had no way to confront him (by the time i intended to, he was already in the distance, speeding away to endanger other people), i simply carried on with my plan of travel.. equally unirritated by his dangerously careless attitude. i was having just as perfect a day then as i am having right now here in this actual world.

tarin



I am a former meditation practitioner as well as practiced Actualism. Actualism provided different results than what meditation provided and I didn't have to sit for them. All was well up until the time I almost got into an accident while driving. After that I gave up because I didn't think it was safe enough to continue. I need survival instinctual passion in order to survive because I drive for a living. Maybe those of you who aren't doing jobs where it is needed that much, can keep practicing. I can't unless I have a death wish. At the same time, I have read that driving is not recommended for meditators as well.

On another note, you may be interested in what another former practitioner of meditation/Actualism has to say on his blog: http://harmanjit.blogspot.com/

I found the latest entry on his blog "The Culture of Narcissism, Revisited" especially interesting. The essay that he recommends on it deserves to be read from start to finish by anyone interested in meditation/Actualism.

Harmanjit is the one who had extensive discussion with Daniel in 2007 when he was practicing Actualism and was a supporter. He has moved on now. If you would like to read about the experiences of a former meditator/Actualist, his blog is the one to be checked.

A link to the post where link to the dialogue is posted:

http://harmanjit.blogspot.com/2008/03/die-hard-versus-normal-spirituality_11.html
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/24/10 5:33 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/24/10 5:31 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Hi there,

Aman A.:

I am a former meditation practitioner as well as practiced Actualism. Actualism provided different results than what meditation provided and I didn't have to sit for them. All was well up until the time I almost got into an accident while driving. After that I gave up because I didn't think it was safe enough to continue. I need survival instinctual passion in order to survive because I drive for a living. Maybe those of you who aren't doing jobs where it is needed that much, can keep practicing. I can't unless I have a death wish. At the same time, I have read that driving is not recommended for meditators as well.


I drive daily, as an actually free human being, and also drove daily (sometimes 2-3 hours in Dallas rush-hour traffic) while virtually free. I have found myself to be a far more functional and safe (more cautious, more aware, more conservative in general) to be the way I am now than when I was wrought with the various distractions and delusions of the identity. And so, I wonder...why do you find or suspect it is 'not safe' or less safe?


Aman A.:

Harmanjit is the one who had extensive discussion with Daniel in 2007 when he was practicing Actualism and was a supporter. He has moved on now. If you would like to read about the experiences of a former meditator/Actualist, his blog is the one to be checked.

A link to the post where link to the dialogue is posted:


I did not find a dialogue ("conversation between two or more persons")...I only found a short commentary ("a series of comments, explanations, or annotations") at the link provided. Is this an incorrect link, or a misuse of words?

Best,
Trent
aaron , modified 13 Years ago at 5/24/10 7:02 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/24/10 7:02 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 34 Join Date: 4/11/10 Recent Posts
Hi Trent,

I'm interested in hearing a little more of a "narrative" of how you attained an actual freedom. Progress, insights, practice(s), how it happened that day ect. I'm also interested in hearing any advice you have on getting this thing done sooner rather than later. I know from talking with Tarin that he found some personal modifications along with the actualism method worked for him and I'm wondering if you would have any distinctive things to offer in regards to practice that either may not be exactly what is written on the AFT website or perhaps a highlight on what on offer on the website was most effective. Perhaps this could be a new thread.

Cheers!

Aaron
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 5/24/10 11:41 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/24/10 11:41 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:
Hi there,

Aman A.:

I am a former meditation practitioner as well as practiced Actualism. Actualism provided different results than what meditation provided and I didn't have to sit for them. All was well up until the time I almost got into an accident while driving. After that I gave up because I didn't think it was safe enough to continue. I need survival instinctual passion in order to survive because I drive for a living. Maybe those of you who aren't doing jobs where it is needed that much, can keep practicing. I can't unless I have a death wish. At the same time, I have read that driving is not recommended for meditators as well.


I drive daily, as an actually free human being, and also drove daily (sometimes 2-3 hours in Dallas rush-hour traffic) while virtually free. I have found myself to be a far more functional and safe (more cautious, more aware, more conservative in general) to be the way I am now than when I was wrought with the various distractions and delusions of the identity. And so, I wonder...why do you find or suspect it is 'not safe' or less safe?


Aman A.:

Harmanjit is the one who had extensive discussion with Daniel in 2007 when he was practicing Actualism and was a supporter. He has moved on now. If you would like to read about the experiences of a former meditator/Actualist, his blog is the one to be checked.

A link to the post where link to the dialogue is posted:


I did not find a dialogue ("conversation between two or more persons")...I only found a short commentary ("a series of comments, explanations, or annotations") at the link provided. Is this an incorrect link, or a misuse of words?

Best,
Trent


I found it is not safe, I don't suspect it is not safe or less safe. It is a practical experience. I didn't find driving a car through rush- hour traffic or any other kind of traffic to be difficult. I did find driving an 18-wheeler as unsafe, that is what I do for a living. When I'm at work, I drive for more than 10 hours a day and may not get a day off for more than 5 days at a stretch. You can't drive a bigger vehicle without the help of instinctual survival mechanism which make you respond much more quickly in case of an emergency. A truck (an 18-wheeler or similar vehicle in size and behaviour) doesn't respond to you as quickly as a smaller vehicle does.

I wrote "A link to the post where link to the dialogue is posted". In the short commentary that you found at the link provided, there is also a link to the dialogue between Harmanjit, Daniel and Srid. To make it easy for you, here is the link to the dialogue:

http://harmanjit.googlepages.com/conv-sridhar-daniel.html

You may also like to read the essay The Culture of Narcissism Revisited at the following link:

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5rMljbFiemoODRmNWNiYmEtZDFiNS00YmIxLWFjNDItMTE0OTlmODYyNTcw&hl=en
255
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 12:58 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 12:58 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Aman A.:

I found it is not safe, I don't suspect it is not safe or less safe. It is a practical experience. I didn't find driving a car through rush- hour traffic or any other kind of traffic to be difficult. I did find driving an 18-wheeler as unsafe, that is what I do for a living. When I'm at work, I drive for more than 10 hours a day and may not get a day off for more than 5 days at a stretch. You can't drive a bigger vehicle without the help of instinctual survival mechanism which make you respond much more quickly in case of an emergency. A truck (an 18-wheeler or similar vehicle in size and behaviour) doesn't respond to you as quickly as a smaller vehicle does.


Okay. I am curious, what evidence did you find that lead you to the conclusion that it is "not safe?" Based on what you say, I may take caution in driving larger vehicles (which is to say, I have a pragmatic reason for asking).

Aman A.:

I wrote "A link to the post where link to the dialogue is posted". In the short commentary that you found at the link provided, there is also a link to the dialogue between Harmanjit, Daniel and Srid. To make it easy for you, here is the link to the dialogue:

http://harmanjit.googlepages.com/conv-sridhar-daniel.html

You may also like to read the essay The Culture of Narcissism Revisited at the following link:

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5rMljbFiemoODRmNWNiYmEtZDFiNS00YmIxLWFjNDItMTE0OTlmODYyNTcw&hl=en


Thanks for clarification, I will give them a read and perhaps comment at a later time.

Best,
Trent
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 1:02 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 1:00 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Hey Aaron, I will probably write up the answers to your inquiries at a later time, but have a few reasons why I am not doing so currently. In the mean time, is there something more specific you're wondering about?

Regards,
Trent
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 9:16 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 9:16 AM

RE: Something Else I Don't Understand

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
the prisoner greco:
Ruth Laura Edlund:
It appears that being "happy" is not a "feeling" in the AF world.

Why not?


because in the context in which you are likely referring to it used, it is simply a quality of the unaffective state of pure consciousness which totally devoid of feeling altogether (similarly then, one might ask, why is the sky blue and not another colour?[1]).

however, this is not the context it is used in when people interested in practising the actualism method are exhorted to 'be as happy and harmless as is humanly possible'; in that sense, it is definitely a feeling of happiness which is being encouraged, and productively so, as feeling happy (as in feeling felicitous) is imitative of actual happiness, and so its purposeful cultivation will lead to the latter.

tarin

[1] rayleigh scattering, as i understand it.


Here was my original thinking: Richard says that he is "happy and harmless," and Richard says he has no feelings, therefore being "happy" must not be a feeling. However, you are saying that it is definitely a "feeling of happiness which is being encouraged."

So when Richard is "happy and harmless," does he have feelings or not?
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 10:51 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 10:51 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:


Okay. I am curious, what evidence did you find that lead you to the conclusion that it is "not safe?" Based on what you say, I may take caution in driving larger vehicles (which is to say, I have a pragmatic reason for asking).


As I said, it is a practical experience. The said experience was gained while driving on a single undivided highway where there is only a yellow line that denotes the division of one lane from another oncoming traffic lane. Sometimes you only have a split second to manoeuvre your way out of an oncoming truck that is driving very close to the yellow line and you are close to it as well because there is hardly any shoulder. I'm sure that it can be tested out objectively to find out what I experienced is indeed true or not.

I'm sure that your evidence of Actual Freedom is also experiential, isn't it so? Would you like to get your claims tested objectively to see if what you experience is indeed true or not? As it turns out, there is a person right here on DhO who is willing to test someone claiming to be actually free:

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/110874#_19_message_111119

Would you be willing to undergo testing to prove your claims? I hope you don't chicken out like Richard and come up with zillion reasons as to why it will be useless.

Trent H.:
Thanks for clarification, I will give them a read and perhaps comment at a later time.

Best,
Trent


I would be glad to read your comments, especially about The Culture of Narcissism Revisited.
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 4:21 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 4:21 PM

RE: Something Else I Don't Understand

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:

So when Richard is "happy and harmless," does he have feelings or not?


Nopers, as Tarin said, being happy and harmless, in the context of an actually free person, is due to the intrinsic nature of experiencing an actual freedom (being free from sorrow means you're happy, being free from malice means you're harmless). And, again as he said, that is different then feeling one is happy or feeling one is harmless.

Trent
aaron , modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 4:27 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 4:27 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 34 Join Date: 4/11/10 Recent Posts
Hi Trent,

Sure, no prob. As you currently have the distinction of attaining an actual freedom in the shortest amount of time, I'm just very interested in the specifics of how you did it as it may be of benefit to myself and others. Though, from what I gather, it seems it was more your determination and intent than anything specifically relating to technique.

Cheers

Aaron
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 4:40 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 4:40 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Aman A.:

As I said, it is a practical experience. The said experience was gained while driving on a single undivided highway where there is only a yellow line that denotes the division of one lane from another oncoming traffic lane. Sometimes you only have a split second to manoeuvre your way out of an oncoming truck that is driving very close to the yellow line and you are close to it as well because there is hardly any shoulder. I'm sure that it can be tested out objectively to find out what I experienced is indeed true or not.


Okay...I just don't really understand where the instincts are necessary. But, if it is necessary for you as you say it is, then so be it. If I found myself in such a situation, knowing what I know now, I would quit that job as quickly as possible and get back to purifying my intent until self immolation could occur (I did this anyway, by the way, as a matter of expediency and comfort, and my job was safe and sound in an office building). It is really nice to be free of that mess, man...it is worth changing everything for.

Aman A.:
I'm sure that your evidence of Actual Freedom is also experiential, isn't it so? Would you like to get your claims tested objectively to see if what you experience is indeed true or not? As it turns out, there is a person right here on DhO who is willing to test someone claiming to be actually free:


I would be more than willing to undergo experimentation, such as the ones mentioned in the post alluded to. However, David was clearly speaking from a position of close-mindedness at the time (meaning, the otherwise pragmatic objective nature of scientific investigation would be dead in the water), and furthermore implied that such an experimentation would involve acute harm (hence the signing of a waiver). And so, I will pass on this offer in particular.

Aman A.:

I would be glad to read your comments, especially about The Culture of Narcissism Revisited.


I gave it a quick scanning (reading a few lines here and there from each chapter) and it sounded as to be pointed toward spirituality and self help in general as a practice of self aggrandizement and the like. I don't really have any comments on that, as it is a complex topic that has been beaten to death and to which I have little to offer. If I missed the point entirely by scanning rather than reading in full, I'll give it a look at another time.

Trent
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 4:50 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 4:48 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
aaron .:
Hi Trent,
Sure, no prob. As you currently have the distinction of attaining an actual freedom in the shortest amount of time, I'm just very interested in the specifics of how you did it as it may be of benefit to myself and others. Though, from what I gather, it seems it was more your determination and intent than anything specifically relating to technique.


Hey Aaron,

Actually, I think Tarin was quite a bit speedier than I was if the begin point for such a measurement was post-arhat; which is when we both began taking it sincerely (I think Tarin said he did not really take the af stuff sincerely until after arhatship). But I'm of the opinion that it does not matter at all either way. What you mention in the last sentence of your reply is the crux of anyone's practice, as far as I'm concerned; when "determination" and "intent" are heightened to a certain point, I think one of the natural byproducts is to begin creating one's own twists to the methods so as to fit one's predilections.

Trent
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 6:08 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 6:08 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:


Okay...I just don't really understand where the instincts are necessary. But, if it is necessary for you as you say it is, then so be it. If I found myself in such a situation, knowing what I know now, I would quit that job as quickly as possible and get back to purifying my intent until self immolation could occur (I did this anyway, by the way, as a matter of expediency and comfort, and my job was safe and sound in an office building). It is really nice to be free of that mess, man...it is worth changing everything for.


It has to be experienced to understand that instincts are necessary. If quitting my job and sustaining myself with minimal work was an option for me, I would have chucked the job myself. I'm sure that it is really nice to be free of all that mess as I have experienced the fruits myself but I'm sure that it won't last because I won't be able to support myself without a job for too long.


Trent H.:
I would be more than willing to undergo experimentation, such as the ones mentioned in the post alluded to. However, David was clearly speaking from a position of close-mindedness at the time (meaning, the otherwise pragmatic objective nature of scientific investigation would be dead in the water), and furthermore implied that such an experimentation would involve acute harm (hence the signing of a waiver). And so, I will pass on this offer in particular.



I don't think that objective nature of scientific investigation would be dead. There are many instances in the past when scientists were expecting something else but when the results were different, they had to change their viewpoint. Objective data can't be nullified. Regarding the acute harm, it is a normal process when you undergo any type of testing that you have to sign a waiver. That doesn't mean that the probability of occurrence of acute harm is too high. Although I'm not surprised that you will pass on this offer. Probability of one actually free claimant to undergo testing is very slim. Here I would like to add that there is a lot of objective evidence regarding the efficacy of meditation. Numerous tests have been performed on Buddhist monks that show the benefits of meditation.

Trent H.:
I gave it a quick scanning (reading a few lines here and there from each chapter) and it sounded as to be pointed toward spirituality and self help in general as a practice of self aggrandizement and the like. I don't really have any comments on that, as it is a complex topic that has been beaten to death and to which I have little to offer. If I missed the point entirely by scanning rather than reading in full, I'll give it a look at another time.

Trent


Do you consider Actualism to be outside of self-help? Doesn't Richard make claims that are off the scales without any objective proof?
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 7:03 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 6:55 PM

RE: Something Else I Don't Understand

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:
Ruth Laura Edlund:

So when Richard is "happy and harmless," does he have feelings or not?


Nopers, as Tarin said, being happy and harmless, in the context of an actually free person, is due to the intrinsic nature of experiencing an actual freedom (being free from sorrow means you're happy, being free from malice means you're harmless). And, again as he said, that is different then feeling one is happy or feeling one is harmless.

Trent


So you're saying Richard doesn't feel happy because he is happy. Am I understanding this correctly?

Also, I'm not sure I know which comment of Tarin's you're referring to. Do you mean this one?

the prisoner greco:
this is not the context it is used in when people interested in practising the actualism method are exhorted to 'be as happy and harmless as is humanly possible'; in that sense, it is definitely a feeling of happiness which is being encouraged, and productively so, as feeling happy (as in feeling felicitous) is imitative of actual happiness, and so its purposeful cultivation will lead to the latter.


Isn't he was linking actually free persons to feelings of happiness here? Tarin? Oh wait, the "feeling" of happiness is "imitative of actual happiness," but the only definition of actual happiness that I seem to be getting is the absence of sorrow, which seems like a circular definition to me.

I still don't understand this stuff, and I'm trying to.
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 7:19 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 7:19 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Although I'm not surprised that you will pass on this offer. Probability of one actually free claimant to undergo testing is very slim. Here I would like to add that there is a lot of objective evidence regarding the efficacy of meditation. Numerous tests have been performed on Buddhist monks that show the benefits of meditation.


Oh? And would you also be surprised if I told you that I have prepared an essay which has been e-mailed to local professors of neuroscience with the sole intention of engaging in dialogue and study of any kind we suspect would be mutually beneficial?

Aman A.:
Do you consider Actualism to be outside of self-help? Doesn't Richard make claims that are off the scales without any objective proof?


I don't necessarily, but it is nothing about self-help in the normative sense and everything about self-elimination, and as such, is completely contrary to every text I have ever heard of or read of in the industry of self-help, so I don't really see a reason to group them together.

I do not know which claims you're referring to, perhaps you could provide example(s)?

Enjoy,
Trent
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 7:26 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 7:25 PM

RE: Something Else I Don't Understand

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Ruth Laura Edlund:
I still don't understand this stuff, and I'm trying to.


Okay...well, care to answer a couple of questions?

-Why are you trying to understand this stuff?

-Why is this particular definition or understanding or misunderstanding or whatever appraised to be such an integral facet to continuing an investigation into the human condition or one's self? I ask because, often fully understanding these things only comes from experiencing them for oneself, for instance, if you were to recall or experience a PCE, you would understand this immediately...Is this preventing you from understanding important things such as the PCE, pure intent, sincerity, how 'i' am my feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me,' the necessity of altruistic motive, or other?

Best,
Trent
thumbnail
Ruth Laura Edlund, modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 7:48 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 7:48 PM

RE: Something Else I Don't Understand

Posts: 32 Join Date: 1/13/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:
Ruth Laura Edlund:
I still don't understand this stuff, and I'm trying to.


Okay...well, care to answer a couple of questions?

-Why are you trying to understand this stuff?


It may have something of merit to me as a practice (for lack of a better term). I don't want to dismiss the concepts out of lack of understanding.

Trent H.:
-Why is this particular definition or understanding or misunderstanding or whatever appraised to be such an integral facet to continuing an investigation into the human condition or one's self? I ask because, often fully understanding these things only comes from experiencing them for oneself, for instance, if you were to recall or experience a PCE, you would understand this immediately...Is this preventing you from understanding important things such as the PCE, pure intent, sincerity, how 'i' am my feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me,' the necessity of altruistic motive, or other?


Because the definitions appear to be fundamental to the claims being made for the fruits, if you will, of AF, and they seem to be extremely basic as well. There is something bothersome in the definitions that are being presented to me that I can't quite put my finger on.

There are passages in MCTB that are very dense with information, with words used very precisely, that, with some study, proved to be very helpful. I am attempting to approach the AF material with something of the same openness. By analogy to MCTB, to understand those passages it was helpful to understand what was really meant by "impermanence."
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 8:56 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/25/10 8:51 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:


Oh? And would you also be surprised if I told you that I have prepared an essay which has been e-mailed to local professors of neuroscience with the sole intention of engaging in dialogue and study of any kind we suspect would be mutually beneficial?


I don't think that essay of yours will elicit any positive response. Do you want it all at your terms?

What possible harm could an fMRI, Pet scan, EEG, polygraph, and dental equipment do?

Trent H.:
I don't necessarily, but it is nothing about self-help in the normative sense and everything about self-elimination, and as such, is completely contrary to every text I have ever heard of or read of in the industry of self-help, so I don't really see a reason to group them together.

I do not know which claims you're referring to, perhaps you could provide example(s)?

Enjoy,
Trent


Claims of the kind "universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being, universe being infinite" etc. And the one that got deleted: "connection between cortex and brain stem being broken", that one topped all the claims. I wish it was still there. It was the one that made me take notice of Richard's medical knowledge. I found it equally amazing that none of the followers had any problem with it. On the contrary, there were some who were not pleased when it got deleted.
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 2:12 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 2:10 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Aman A.:

I don't think that essay of yours will elicit any positive response. Do you want it all at your terms?


It is interesting that, having no knowledge of what I wrote, how it was written, which type of neuro-scientists it was sent to, their backgrounds or research interests or classes taught and so on, that you can sensibly make such a claim. But, it is your choice to live as sensibly or foolishly as you wanna. The nice thing about naivete and (in my case) innocence is that I just get to wait and see! It's not like I lose anything if they choose not to engage me.

Aman A.:
What possible harm could an fMRI, Pet scan, EEG, polygraph, and dental equipment do?


None that I am aware of, though I'm not sure what the dental equipment is for. Before I undergo any tests, if I do undergo any tests, at any time, I would request an explanation as to why certain tests are being conducted before they are conducted, mostly so that I can learn.

Aman A.:
Claims of the kind "universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being, universe being infinite" etc. And the one that got deleted: "connection between cortex and brain stem being broken", that one topped all the claims. I wish it was still there. It was the one that made me take notice of Richard's medical knowledge. I found it equally amazing that none of the followers had any problem with it. On the contrary, there were some who were not pleased when it got deleted.


And yet it is relatively obvious given even a grade-school level education and significant reflection within the experience, of the experience, that being free from the human condition entails being the universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being and that the universe is infinite, time eternal, matter perdurable, that it's all perfect, that one is innocent, and other claims which seem to be tall orders when one is lacking in naivete. It is oh-so-simple from where I am sitting, and I'm just a kid to the average worldly-wise cynic.

I have found, more and more, that a lack of naivete is the roadblock for most of the peoples whom seem to not understand these things (or be willing to give the experiences a chance to show them). I have a question for you: would you rather be "right" and miserable, or would you rather be "wrong" and happy?

Best,
Trent
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 11:29 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 11:29 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:

It is interesting that, having no knowledge of what I wrote, how it was written, which type of neuro-scientists it was sent to, their backgrounds or research interests or classes taught and so on, that you can sensibly make such a claim. But, it is your choice to live as sensibly or foolishly as you wanna. The nice thing about naivete and (in my case) innocence is that I just get to wait and see! It's not like I lose anything if they choose not to engage me.


It is a lot more sensible claim than claiming the universe to be infinite, time to be eternal, and connection between brain stem and cortex to be severed to name just a few. Though your response is typical of Actualists. When someone questions them, they start to portray them as foolish and don't see the foolishness of themselves and consider themselves as knowing better than anyone else that has previously existed on earth.

Trent H.:
None that I am aware of, though I'm not sure what the dental equipment is for. Before I undergo any tests, if I do undergo any tests, at any time, I would request an explanation as to why certain tests are being conducted before they are conducted, mostly so that I can learn.


This response is lot more sensible than the previous one in which you passed on the offer of undergoing testing solely on the basis of what you think was implied in David's message (acute harm). Now that you have said that there is no harm that can occur while using the said equipment, what 'acute harm' could David do while examining you? Did you think that impure intent in David might be the one to cause 'acute harm' to you? If so, this is another characteristic feature of Actualists. They are very wary of other people doing harm to them. In your previous reply, you said experimentation. I would like to say that it won't be experimentation but examination of the functioning of your brain. Would you now consider undergoing tests proposed by Daniel considering that signing a waiver is normal routine while undergoing such examinations?

Trent H.:
And yet it is relatively obvious given even a grade-school level education and significant reflection within the experience, of the experience, that being free from the human condition entails being the universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being and that the universe is infinite, time eternal, matter perdurable, that it's all perfect, that one is innocent, and other claims which seem to be tall orders when one is lacking in naivete. It is oh-so-simple from where I am sitting, and I'm just a kid to the average worldly-wise cynic.

I have found, more and more, that a lack of naivete is the roadblock for most of the peoples whom seem to not understand these things (or be willing to give the experiences a chance to show them). I have a question for you: would you rather be "right" and miserable, or would you rather be "wrong" and happy?

Best,
Trent


It is not lack of naivete that is the roadblock for most of the people, it is the sensibility to see that Actualism is another belief system which inculcates the above experiences into the brain. It is a meme that infects the brain.

Regarding being "wrong" and happy, I couldn't sustain the castle built out of thin air for long. I'm too rational to be able to do that for any length of time. And no, I'm not living a miserable life.
aaron , modified 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 5:06 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 5:06 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 34 Join Date: 4/11/10 Recent Posts
Hey Aaron,

Actually, I think Tarin was quite a bit speedier than I was if the begin point for such a measurement was post-arhat; which is when we both began taking it sincerely (I think Tarin said he did not really take the af stuff sincerely until after arhatship). But I'm of the opinion that it does not matter at all either way. What you mention in the last sentence of your reply is the crux of anyone's practice, as far as I'm concerned; when "determination" and "intent" are heightened to a certain point, I think one of the natural byproducts is to begin creating one's own twists to the methods so as to fit one's predilections.

Trent

Hey Trent,

I see. I was lumping all of Tarin's actualism exploration(starting in 2006), but your distinction makes sense. Either way the both of you two got actually free amazingly fast. My determination and intent have been growing and I've been experimenting with a personal "twist" recently that has led me to be more consistently happy and harmless. Instead of checking in on how 'I' am feeling(affectively) first when applying attentiveness, I'm first paying attention to what I'm seeing/hearing/feeling(sensately). Then I check in briefly on what is being felt in my chest/stomach/sub-naval area and then I go back to sensuous awareness of what I'm seeing/hearing/sensing. There doesn't seem like much reason to be checking the affective feelings at all most of the time(accept for noticable affective surges) but this approach seems "right" for right now........

Any comments welcome.......of course.

Cheers

Aaron
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 5:47 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 5:09 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Hello Aman,

Aman A.:
It is a lot more sensible claim than claiming the universe to be infinite, time to be eternal, and connection between brain stem and cortex to be severed to name just a few.


Okay, if you say so.

Aman A.:
Though your response is typical of Actualists. When someone questions them, they start to portray them as foolish and don't see the foolishness of themselves and consider themselves as knowing better than anyone else that has previously existed on earth.


As I am not an "Actualist" but am instead a flesh and blood body sans identity, it is up to me to decide, for myself and my life as it is now, what is "best" for me. And although I do care about other humans, it is up to them to live their lives however they want, and I have never claimed to know "better" for them. It is my personal opinion that to live a way other than this is foolish, but I am also free to have opinions, as are you.

Aman A.:
This response is lot more sensible than the previous one in which you passed on the offer of undergoing testing solely on the basis of what you think was implied in David's message (acute harm). Now that you have said that there is no harm that can occur while using the said equipment, what 'acute harm' could David do while examining you? Did you think that impure intent in David might be the one to cause 'acute harm' to you? If so, this is another characteristic feature of Actualists. They are very wary of other people doing harm to them. In your previous reply, you said experimentation. I would like to say that it won't be experimentation but examination of the functioning of your brain. Would you now consider undergoing tests proposed by Daniel considering that signing a waiver is normal routine while undergoing such examinations?


I have never stated that I am infallible, and so if I inaccurately appraise a situation, it is as it is and I am freely able to correct course. I would consider undergoing the tests, as I have said, but based also upon what I mentioned in my last reply.

There may be a reason why (if this is an accurate report) other actually free humans and those on their way to that act in such a way...speaking personally, I am very well aware of just how miserable, cunning and selfish a person can be, because I know how 'I' was and so I take that into consideration. I find no harm is done by "playing it safe" in this way.

Aman A.:
It is not lack of naivete that is the roadblock for most of the people, it is the sensibility to see that Actualism is another belief system which inculcates the above experiences into the brain. It is a meme that infects the brain.


And yet, if it is a belief system for you or them, then you and those you indicate have missed the point entirely.

Aman A.:
Regarding being "wrong" and happy, I couldn't sustain the castle built out of thin air for long. I'm too rational to be able to do that for any length of time. And no, I'm not living a miserable life.


I'm hard pressed to understand how in the world you responded to my two-option multiple-choice question in such a way as to seemingly ignore what was asked, but okay...care to try again?

You say that you could not sustain "the castle built out of thin air for long," and yet, you do not claim to be free of the human condition (do you?). If not, it would appear you have contradicted yourself, no?

Best,
Trent
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 5:16 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/26/10 5:16 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
aaron .:
Any comments welcome.......of course.


Dude, if it seems to be working, then that's great. I can't say too much more because I don't know much about your background, such as how far along you are and the like. If you want to PM me that, I will gladly look over it when the whim takes me. I do have permission to view the google list, by the way, (I have just been waiting to introduce myself / jump in there, as it has not seemed necessary to do so yet) and so you can link me posts / threads if you like. That's all up to you, of course.


By the way, Ruth and I spoke via the built-in IM chat on the site and seem to have clarified some things. Just wanted to let followers-along know that I won't be responding to her last post due to that.

Regards,
Trent
aaron , modified 13 Years ago at 5/27/10 5:43 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 5/27/10 5:43 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 34 Join Date: 4/11/10 Recent Posts
Hi Trent,

Yes, I see I gave you no context to give any meaningfull comments. Thanks for the offer. I'll get back with you on that later(or not).

Cheers

Aaron
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 6/4/10 5:56 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 6/4/10 5:56 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:


As I am not an "Actualist" but am instead a flesh and blood body sans identity, it is up to me to decide, for myself and my life as it is now, what is "best" for me. And although I do care about other humans, it is up to them to live their lives however they want, and I have never claimed to know "better" for them. It is my personal opinion that to live a way other than this is foolish, but I am also free to have opinions, as are you.


Almost all flesh and blood bodies correspond in a particular manner, perhaps it is the meme that does the talking in a particular way, my opinion by the way.


Trent H.:
I have never stated that I am infallible, and so if I inaccurately appraise a situation, it is as it is and I am freely able to correct course. I would consider undergoing the tests, as I have said, but based also upon what I mentioned in my last reply.

There may be a reason why (if this is an accurate report) other actually free humans and those on their way to that act in such a way...speaking personally, I am very well aware of just how miserable, cunning and selfish a person can be, because I know how 'I' was and so I take that into consideration. I find no harm is done by "playing it safe" in this way.


And yet your flesh and blood body will claim that you are free of fear, right? Who is it that "plays it safe" and for whom?


Trent H.:
And yet, if it is a belief system for you or them, then you and those you indicate have missed the point entirely.


That is your opinion.

Trent H.:
I'm hard pressed to understand how in the world you responded to my two-option multiple-choice question in such a way as to seemingly ignore what was asked, but okay...care to try again?

You say that you could not sustain "the castle built out of thin air for long," and yet, you do not claim to be free of the human condition (do you?). If not, it would appear you have contradicted yourself, no?

Best,
Trent


I think that you won't be hard pressed to understand why I responded like that if I mention to you now that I have had the universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being.

Earlier, while doing a Vipassana retreat, I experienced Jesus and other prophets of all the religions I was aware of as saviours of the world. This happened inspite of me being an atheist/agnostic.

This made me aware of how mind can play tricks on yourself and I came to know that you can experience something if you have been told/read about it. Because of this, I could not sustain "the castle built out of thin air for long". As soon as I had the experience of universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being, I could compare that experience with the Jesus experience and concluded that it is my mind that is playing the trick.

I think that I might have been able to sustain "the castle built out of thin air for long" if I hadn't had Jesus experience. Or maybe not, I tend to be logical.
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 6/4/10 7:29 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 6/4/10 7:29 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Almost all flesh and blood bodies correspond in a particular manner, perhaps it is the meme that does the talking in a particular way, my opinion by the way.


Words are used to communicate, and so agreeing upon shared meanings (whether explicitly or implicitly) has not a thing to do with a "meme ... talking in a particular way" and everything to do with humans deciding to describe things and "talk in a particular way" so as to facilitate mutual understanding. As for shared writing style (such as oft embedding the quoted words of one's respondent into one's reply)-- which may be contributing to your "meme" opinion-- it is simply by choice that this is done. Personally, I noticed that Richard's style of writing was worth emulating (for several reasons) and did so until it became natural to write in a similar fashion.

Aman A.:
And yet your flesh and blood body will claim that you are free of fear, right? Who is it that "plays it safe" and for whom?


This flesh and blood body "plays it safe" because life is worth continuing in as safe and comfortable a manner as is possible. As such, it is not a "who" that is "playing it safe" and not for another "who(m)" either, it is but for its own healthy and luxurious perpetuation.

Aman A.:
Trent H.:
And yet, if it is a belief system for you or them, then you and those you indicate have missed the point entirely.

That is your opinion.


No, that is not my opinion. If the situation is as you have reported, it is a fact that you have missed the point entirely; no opinion necessary.


Aman A.:
I think that you won't be hard pressed to understand why I responded like that if I mention to you now that I have had the universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being.


I am not sure I understand...are you saying that you have experienced a PCE?

Aman A.:
Earlier, while doing a Vipassana retreat, I experienced Jesus and other prophets of all the religions I was aware of as saviours of the world. This happened inspite of me being an atheist/agnostic.

This made me aware of how mind can play tricks on yourself and I came to know that you can experience something if you have been told/read about it. Because of this, I could not sustain "the castle built out of thin air for long". As soon as I had the experience of universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being, I could compare that experience with the Jesus experience and concluded that it is my mind that is playing the trick.

I think that I might have been able to sustain "the castle built out of thin air for long" if I hadn't had Jesus experience. Or maybe not, I tend to be logical.


Okay...to clarify: I was referring to the "the castle built out of thin air" as anything that is not actual, and further implied that-- by your account, not being free from the human condition -- that you are in fact continuing to "sustain the castle" regardless of whether it is a "castle" or is instead a vision of "Jesus." In other words: if you are not free from the human condition, you are perpetuating some sort of delusion regardless of the specific content.

Are you saying that the PCE was the "trick" or that the religious experience was the "trick?"

Best,
Trent
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 6/5/10 6:04 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 6/5/10 6:04 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:


Words are used to communicate, and so agreeing upon shared meanings (whether explicitly or implicitly) has not a thing to do with a "meme ... talking in a particular way" and everything to do with humans deciding to describe things and "talk in a particular way" so as to facilitate mutual understanding. As for shared writing style (such as oft embedding the quoted words of one's respondent into one's reply)-- which may be contributing to your "meme" opinion-- it is simply by choice that this is done. Personally, I noticed that Richard's style of writing was worth emulating (for several reasons) and did so until it became natural to write in a similar fashion.


Meme does the talking in a particular way so as to sustain the delusions such as universe being benevolent, time being infinite and other nonsensical AF philosophy. Richard has mentioned it somewhere on the AF website that those who "read" his words a number of times got the results fast.

Trent H.:
This flesh and blood body "plays it safe" because life is worth continuing in as safe and comfortable a manner as is possible. As such, it is not a "who" that is "playing it safe" and not for another "who(m)" either, it is but for its own healthy and luxurious perpetuation.


This is another of the delusion of AFers that they have no identity.


Trent H.:
No, that is not my opinion. If the situation is as you have reported, it is a fact that you have missed the point entirely; no opinion necessary.


Stating it as a fact won't make it so. There is no basis for the many claims being made by "actually free" people. All you have going for yourself is talk and no substance. Still don't want to go for the tests, right? But I'm sure you will keep the rhetoric going forever.

Trent H.:
I am not sure I understand...are you saying that you have experienced a PCE? ...................Are you saying that the PCE was the "trick" or that the religious experience was the "trick?"


Both experiences were a trick. You are sustaining one of them. I could not sustain either. I am lucky to have had the Jesus trick played on me before the universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being. Otherwise my "cunning" identity may have reduced myself to a "flesh and blood body" by now!
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 6/5/10 8:19 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 6/5/10 8:19 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Aman A.:

Meme does the talking in a particular way so as to sustain the delusions such as universe being benevolent, time being infinite and other nonsensical AF philosophy.


If you say so.

Aman A.:
Richard has mentioned it somewhere on the AF website that those who "read" his words a number of times got the results fast.


I presume Richard stated so because it is common sense that re-viewing information ("studying" as it is often called) helps one to understand things, and understanding aids in actualization ("results").

Aman A.:
This is another of the delusion of AFers that they have no identity.


If you say so.

Aman A.:
Stating it as a fact won't make it so. There is no basis for the many claims being made by "actually free" people. All you have going for yourself is talk and no substance. Still don't want to go for the tests, right? But I'm sure you will keep the rhetoric going forever.


Agreed, stating a fact does not make it a fact; and further, denying a fact does not make it any less factual either.

I find it cute that the "basis" for the "claims" made by "actually free people" is the actual physical universe and the reporting of those conditions, qualities and so forth are done so while free from delusion entirely. As such, the claims are based on much more than just "talk" or the perception of any "substance" in the words spoken.

I said I would take the tests so long as I was well informed, had the time available, etc... Do you read my posts before responding?

Aman A.:
Both experiences were a trick. You are sustaining one of them. I could not sustain either. I am lucky to have had the Jesus trick played on me before the universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being. Otherwise my "cunning" identity may have reduced myself to a "flesh and blood body" by now!


Are you stating that both experiences were delusional? As that seems to be the case, I can only say, again, that you seem to have missed the point entirely.

I have a question, (and I am not implying that the actual world has anything to do with a delusion): would you rather live in a perfect delusional world free from malice and sorrow, or a delusion that includes suffering?

As you do not seem very interested in any sort of practical discussion, I think I may not reply to your next replies (if there are any) unless the nature of exchange is quite different (just as forewarning).

Regards,
Trent
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 6/5/10 8:47 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 6/5/10 8:47 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
After having experienced both Buddhism and Actualism, I would vote for Buddhism.

Metta.
Luciano de Noeme Imoto, modified 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 1:48 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 1:48 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 75 Join Date: 6/2/10 Recent Posts
Hello Trent,

You wrote to Aman:

...And would you also be surprised if I told you that I have prepared an essay which has been e-mailed to local professors of neuroscience with the sole intention of engaging in dialogue and study of any kind we suspect would be mutually beneficial?


Is it possible share your full essay (or its condensed version) mentioned above here or in another place?
Thanks in advance,
Luciano
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 3:32 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 3:32 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Hello,

Luciano de Noeme Imoto:
Is it possible share your full essay (or its condensed version) mentioned above here or in another place?


Nah, I do not think it would be beneficial at all, as it was rather bland and "overview level" due to the intended reader's expected lack of knowledge of the subject (and I'm not even sure if I have it still; I reformatted my computer yesterday and lost some files that were incorrectly categorized).

Trent
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 4:13 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 4:13 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:


Nah, I do not think it would be beneficial at all, as it was rather bland and "overview level" due to the intended reader's expected lack of knowledge of the subject (and I'm not even sure if I have it still; I reformatted my computer yesterday and lost some files that were incorrectly categorized).



Now this response from the professors of neuroscience didn't surprise me at all. And the response has nothing to do with the intended readers lack of knowledge. It has to do with the state of mind that Actual Freedom results in. Anyone who lands himself in AF trap (aka locked into paradise) is bound to do things like this. Tragically, there is no definite way of getting out of this trap. Though I suspect that if you were aware of Mahayana/vajrayana Buddhism before AF, it could have been easier to get out of this. You may still try it if you want to. It is just a suggestion.
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 5:13 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 5:13 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Now this response from the professors of neuroscience didn't surprise me at all. And the response has nothing to do with the intended readers lack of knowledge. It has to do with the state of mind that Actual Freedom results in.


I received no response, silly-- it is just as likely that no one received the e-mail in the first place. Whatever "response" you think happened can only be a product of your fevered imagination. I am wondering, based on your incessant trolling and the nature of past posts: do you have some sort of sick desperation in your life?

Aman A.:
Anyone who lands himself in AF trap (aka locked into paradise) is bound to do things like this.


Are you saying that I incorrectly / carelessly categorized my computer's files because I am locked into paradise?

Aman A.:
Tragically, there is no definite way of getting out of this trap.


The only tragedy I see is that so many of my fellow human beings have yet to jump into this "trap." By the way, if you are implying that there is an obscure way out of this trap ("no definite")-- there is not.

Aman A.:
Though I suspect that if you were aware of Mahayana/vajrayana Buddhism before AF, it could have been easier to get out of this. You may still try it if you want to. It is just a suggestion.


As I was fully enlightened prior to attaining an actual freedom, it goes without saying that I was very well aware of the various schools, including the ones listed above, and ones you did not list.

But hey, I'll take your suggestion anyway; perhaps I missed something, eh? Alrighty then, let's get down to business! Can you direct me to the Mahayana/vajrayana articles or teachers or anything which will instruct me on how to reverse the extinction of Being, delusion, sorrow and ill-will? And heck, if those aren't available, I guess I can settle for some instructions on how to tune-out the palpable stillness and perfection of oblivion.

Best,
Trent
Change A, modified 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 6:49 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 8/13/10 6:49 PM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Trent H.:

I received no response, silly-- it is just as likely that no one received the e-mail in the first place. Whatever "response" you think happened can only be a product of your fevered imagination. I am wondering, based on your incessant trolling and the nature of past posts: do you have some sort of sick desperation in your life?



It is also likely that no one considered it worthy of a response.
Luciano de Noeme Imoto, modified 13 Years ago at 8/19/10 10:16 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 8/19/10 10:16 AM

RE: AF term clarification

Posts: 75 Join Date: 6/2/10 Recent Posts
Hi Trent,

I understand.
Peter also sent an e-mail to contact Mr. Joseph E. Ledoux...
Ce la vie emoticon
Sincerely,
Luciano