Hey Nick,
Thanks for that nice reply and answering my questions point-by-point. I will do my best to answer from my own experiential understanding as well as my intellectual understanding of actualism and the actual world, without distorting what it is you have said. Please let me know if I have misrepresented anything. I also admit to having little experience of what I consider apperception - no hours-long full-blown PCE - so I go mostly on my experience of pure intent, which I have experienced in overwhelming amounts and which informs me somewhat as to the nature of the actual world.
---
First I'll just point out what sounds similar so that no one can say I am avoiding the similarities
Nikolai .:
There is simply an innate affectless friendliness about the ongoing experience with everything when it flips to this way of experiencing. Not just other beings, but with all of experience. A lack of barriers and filters. Friendliness means a sense of affectless intimacy with whatever experience and whatever aspects of it are occuring. This simply seems innate and a fairly accurate way of conceptualizing and conveying it. The immeasurableness of it is because I don't think it can be measured in anyway.
Allowing for the fact that what you call affectless might be different than what I call affectless, your description here of affectless friendliness does sound similar to the benevolent quality of pure intent that I notice.
Nikolai .:
Though I simply know it can be even more pristine than the pristineness that it could be termed. I recognise the difference. It's like when you think, wow this is pristine, but then you experience something else which the term 'pristine' fits better.
In my experience pure intent has this quality as well. It's like wow, this is so amazingly pure... and then it gets even purer in a totally unimaginable way.
Nikolai:
I re-read all the above and it misses the mark slightly, but it is the best I can do. All very refined and very subtle that I don't think imagining it will do it justice at all.
Likewise with the purity I am talking about... it simply cannot be imagined. I was walking home today and I experienced such a goodly dose of it that I could hardly contain myself. I was elated, giddy... quite amazing.
Nikolai .:
I don't have a felt sense of 'time' flowing. I could be sitting in front of the laptop for hours (rotations of the clock hands) till i realise how many rotations I've been sitting for. ... There really is only movement, of the clock hands, the earth, the clouds, my feet as I run to class.
Likewise the more pure intent I am currently experiencing, the less time is felt to 'flow'.
b) What causes you to go into it?
b) By remembering the purity of it.
Likewise, for me, remembering the purity of pure intent immediately leads to a noticing of pure intent which immediately leads to an allowing for more and more of pure intent.
d) From one split second to the next, the mental overlays will drop away and experience is instantly recognised as much more pristine and without any slight dulling effect. The immeasurable friendliness of such an experience returns as well instantly. This quality i do not think can be imagined.
This is similar to when I experience more purity. The senses do indeed become cleaner/more pristine/more interesting, and that non-affective benevolence comes into play.
---
I actually thought I would end up leaving more text in for similarities, but I noticed a good amount of differences too. I'll explain below. What I learned for myself in Australia (that is, I wasn't told to think this way, but I figured this out on my own) is that if one is to compare two things it's more informative to look at the differences instead of glossing over them for preference for the similarities... after all, if differences are always glossed over and similarities are looked upon explicitly then everything will seem to be the same. And there are a few things in your report that indicate to me you are indeed likely experiencing something other than what Richard calls a PCE.
What I am pointing out may not be satisfactory to you due to the way you might be used to 'practicing'/living, namely not conceptualizing, not objectifying, and it's evidenced in the way you said various descriptions "hold no weight". The more I go down the path to an actual freedom the more I see that certain things which might be considered just conceptualizations that don't matter, ultimately, are the actual important experiential things, and are what set actual freedom apart from other sorts of ways of existing, some of which are termed Enlightenment.
So let me attempt to go into full detail as to what doesn't add up if considering your report is that of a PCE. I will try to indicate the relative importance of each difference clearly. I don't doubt that you are experiencing what you say you are, it just doesn't seem to be apperception. Also I would recommend reading the entire report before making up one's mind about it as disagreements may arise at first that are addressed later.
Nikolai:
1) To be clear, you are saying that in your own experience, first there is the initial sense experience, second there is the mentally overlaid object, and third from that object arises affect of all kinds including the feeling-being? EDIT: That is, the second mentally overlaid object is not affective, but affect (among other things) arises from it in the third step?
This is the way i currently see it. I'm saying it all co-arises. As soon as the mind overlays the initial sense experience with a mental representation (the object of consciousness), a relationship conditioned by memory and habitual reactive patterns arise towards the 'objects'. These reactive patterns could be termed affective, or almost affective (what was being called shadow being) in my own experience.
What you reported is different than my experience. In my experience, sensory input comes first, after which comes affect/the feeling-being, and only after that comes mental representation/objects of consciousness. That is, senses -> feeling-being -> objectification arising from affect, not senses -> objectification -> feeling-being arising from objectification. This is an important distinction. If it is indeed the case that there is senses -> feeling-being -> objectification, then you will see how if your explicit goal is to no longer objectify, you will still be left with senses -> feeling-being, albeit a 'feeling-being' under a different form that one might not even consider a feeling-being/affect because it is so vastly different. And yet in a PCE there is no feeling-being at all.
Nikolai:
And one could say there are simply lots of objects. Some of the objects 'seem' like a subject. The mind is leaping and lunging on many 'objects' at once, the thoughts, sensations, sight, sound etc. Within all these 'objects' a subjective like experience of me-ness or something not recognised as full blown me-ness but unsatisfactory all the same to some degree depending on baseline may arise.
Here you are saying that the experience of me-ness comes out of the mind leaping and lunging on all these different 'objects'. This gives me the impression the feeling-being in your experience is a sort of fragmented entity, not really having any coherency to it, but it only seems like it does because everything is happening at once.
In my experience, the feeling-being is a very coherent entity. It is very much felt to exist... and there's nothing I can really do within my experience as a feeling-being to get rid of it. It is basically everywhere at once, already, before I am even conscious of anything... even these senses are affectively filtered, before I am conscious of them. The only thing it seems possible to do is to tap into this pure intent, which is non-affective (thus existing outside of the feeling-being) yet also non-sensate (meaning I cannot see it... I can only experience it as a sort of hint to the meaning of life). So it's not that it arises out of all these objects (objects -> feeling-being), rather, it is already there, and then objects arise within experience or they don't (I can be thinking or not; meditating in a way to not experience that mental lunging you describe (which I have done before) or not), yet the feeling-being is there nevertheless.
Nikolai:
The immeasurableness of it is because I don't think it can be measured in anyway. Thus is seems pure as the concept of pure can be. Though I guess purity is a way of measuring it. Purity is best defined by the absence of what is considered not pure by myself.
Here I have to disagree. I do agree that the absence of what is considered impure is definitely a remarkable quality of purity... however, in my personal experience, the most remarkable quality purity I talk about when I refer to pure intent is not the absence of what is impure (the absence of 'me')... rather, it is an extremely positive quality. This purity is very much a tangible thing... it is obvious that the purity is there, that it actually exists as something in its own right, and not merely in opposition to 'me'. This is most obvious to me when I experience it in overwhelming amounts, like there's almost too much of it, like it's simply too good, too much. It would be difficult to experience an overwhelming amount of lack-of-impurity.
Nikolai:
For me, what is not pure are the mental movements that on occasion and for short periods arise to causes a slight 'dulling' of the mentioned experienced. I say 'slight dulling' knowing full well others may have a preconceived idea of what 'dulling' may be for them.
We agree on that point at least; those also fit into my experience of what is not pure.
Nikolai:
Over the past year I have had a number of 'refining' shifts' so to speak. Not full blown shifts that have led to very different baselines, but more so a refinement of what was not pure to the point it is hard to describe well so as to hit the mark. Inevitably people will interpret words in the way they experience the way they conceptualise such terms. The best I can say is that it is more a very refined version of 'shadow being' to the point I've stopped thinking of it like so. As the attention wave associated with it is no longer there. Even when not experiencing the pure experience of immeasurable friendliness, perception is much much clearer and more pristine than before. Though I simply know it can be even more pristine than the pristineness that it could be termed. I recognise the difference. It's like when you think, wow this is pristine, but then you experience something else which the term 'pristine' fits better.
I will put a disclaimer up front here and say that I won't be speaking from experience here, but rather, going on Richard and Vineeto's reports. They told me that, the way actual freedom works, is that 100% of the feeling-being is present, all the way through even an out-from-control virtual freedom... and then 100% of the feeling-being vanishes in a few moments, at moment of actual freedom - even at moment of newly free (such as Justine is). So they told me it isn't a gradual diminishing of 'me', but rather, all affect disappearing in the space of a second or so. I understand that Justine reports many things that sound affective in nature, so I'll simply say that I don't have experience of that territory so I can't say much more. But if what Richard and Vineeto were saying is the case with regards to an actual freedom, this is another indication that you are not actually free: the constant refining 'shifts' yet you still experience some sort of very refined 'shadow being', and later on you reported flipping in and out of what you consider apperception. Just another data point. Because I haven't experienced this and it isn't clear how no affect relates to what Justine is experiencing, feel free to disregard this paragraph. I just thought I'd share as much as I know.
Nikolai:
The flipping from the purity to a very refined version of mental movement that adds a very subtle layer of such impurity (the slight dulling effect) only occurs when the mind is seen to 'lunge' and co-arise onto a mentally fabricated overlay.
In my experience it isn't that the mind is lunging onto a mentally fabricated overlay that distracts from the purity, but rather, that some feeling has come up which I have started fueling, and which I am noticing instead of the purity. This goes back to my point about the order that senses, affect, and mental overlay come in.
Nikolai:
I'm not sure why it stil occurs. Ignorance of some aspect of experience for a moment. maybe. A tendency to not pay attention to the sublte initial mind movement to cause more mind movements. It is recognised quite quickly when it occurs, and the mind seems to right itself by simply remembering how the purity is. The subtly refined mind movements then stop. The mind movements are like a thin film over the eyes when experiencing seeing for example, adding a mental quality that seems residually 'affective' but it is not compounding like before so hard to call affect. I recognise though it would have led to full affective experiecne previously so perhaps this recognition makes it seem 'almost like affect'. It is more a very slight dulling effect on sight, a movement back onto the mental representation of some aspect of experience.
My contention is that you aren't addressing the feeling-being directly, but rather objectification, which is leaving the feeling-being around, although vastly transformed (now to the point of it being experienced simply as a very refined 'shadow being' that you have even stopped thinking of as so). As feeling-being naturally leads to objectification, you have to pay attention 100% of the time to make sure that no objectification occurrs... and when you don't ("A tendency to not pay attention to the subtle initial mind movement") the rest of what you describe follows.
Nikolai:
So to say 'I am the body' does not hold weight as 'body' is a thought as is 'the world experienced via the senses' is also a thought that yes, can be vocalised and written down to describe experience and I can say yes, experience is experienced via this body. But 'body' is a concept and thought and I can watch that thought drop away too. It doesn't make a difference really to say these things.
Here's where we start getting to the really important differences, I think. You say that it doesn't really make a difference whether you say these things or not... which I agree with on some level, namely, whether one says it or not doesn't change the fact. However, in my personal experience of the purity of the actual world, tapping into the purity makes it more and more obvious that I am nothing but this body experiencing itself. It's not that the thought "I am a body" arises and then I keep thinking that. The thought can drop away, too. It's more something inherent in the experience of pure intent, itself... it gives a hint as to what I am, existentially, namely, the universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood body. And that is not only conceptual or not only at the level of thought, but at the level of direct experience. But saying "I am the body" does indeed hold weight in that case because that is what I am, and it is even an important point which is why Richard often talks about it.
Nikolai:
To say I am awareness does not hold weight, to say I am the unobjectified world does not hold weight either. To say I am unobjectified consciousness also does not hold weight. ... So, 'I am this body' holds no weight. They are good descriptions of the ongoing experience but, these words as thoughts can also drop away. And the experience goes on, just without the concepts. Thus my reasoning says such absolute statements ultimately hold no weight.
I thought your answer might look like this, which is why I asked, to make sure that that is how you really experience yourself. It seems that whatever you would say about your experience, it ultimately holds no weight, and it's not even anything you think about unless asked. Yet from what I can tell more and more, the entire point, the purpose, of an actual freedom is to experience the meaning of life... and that is an
existential experiencing, meaning, it has to do with what existence
means. And an important part of that is namely, what is this thing that is existing that I am? I am not actually this 'feeling-being', as I feel myself to be... so what am I? It seems pure intent has the answer, and allowing pure intent to operate more and more leads me closer and closer to that answer.
So, far from it holding no weight, for me, what it is that I am or am not, or not thinking about it, it's actually a vital component of this path. This I see as one of the largest differences, and, if you notice, it is not really a phenomenological one. I think boiling everything down to phenomenology is not always appropriate and doing so sort of already shows that you have a particular answer/train of thought in mind. So actual freedom doesn't seem to be about phenomenology, per se, namely, how clear are these senses being experienced, currently. The senses do get clearer, I am not saying they aren't, but that's a side effect of the important thing, the important thing being the meaning of life/what I am.
Nikolai:
[The world] exists as far as it is experienced via the senses of the mind/body organism.
This is another important difference. Another intrinsic aspect to actual freedom, as far as I can tell, is to have the ongoing direct experiencing that the universe does indeed, exist... and not only as far as it is experienced via the senses of the mind/body organism, but in an objective sense, namely: yes, that tree does make a noise if it falls and no one hears it; yes, this universe was here before I was born; yes, this universe will be here when I die, even though I will no longer be experiencing it via these senses. The fact that you do not consider the world to exist any further than your particular sensate experiencing of it indicates to me that you are not experiencing an on-going PCE.
Nikolai:
The word and concept 'exist' can also be seen to arise and pass away. When it passes away, the notion of anything existing does not arise.
Right, whereas a PCE is the direct experiencing that the universe exists, whether the word and concept 'exist' is arising or has passed away.
Nikolai:
'What exists? 'Things' don't inherently exist as 'things'. Though the substance and shape that 'things' are supported by can still be called 'the world' or 'the universe' with all its aspects happily and without problem, I just also recognise that such words and concepts in the mind can drop away in experience. So to make absolute statements about what exists does not ultimately hold weight at the moment.
Right, I figured you would answer that way, as well, which is why I made sure to ask, as it's another important difference. The more I tap into pure intent the more obvious it is that things
do inherently exist as things, regardless of whether I conceptualize them as things or not.
Nikolai:
No, time as a 'thing' does not exist. The concept of time may arise as a thought due to be asked about 'time', and I'll have further thoughts of the clock ticking next to my ear, and how I often am late for school due to not paying attention to the clock so as to leave when the hands are in a particular position. ... It, also like the concept 'exist', can be seen to drop away. Then there is no notion that time exists either via a concept or an actual 'thing'. ... I can say 'I'm late for class', but it doesn't mean I see it as something that inherently exists. Even the idea of a 'moment' being all there is holds no weight when the concept of 'moment' drops away. There is simply 'experience ongoing'.
Here is yet another difference, and indeed it is in these questions that I thought the most important differences would lie. Richard said one of the first things that the newly free people said when they became newly free was that "time is standing still". Note that they didn't say time doesn't exist, that time is only a concept and that concept has dropped away... they said that time is standing still - that is, time does exist, and it is standing still. I don't have much direct experience of this except glimpses here and there, but it's like the flow of time does indeed stop, yet it's not that there isn't time, any more... it's just that the moment is not moving anymore. There is this static arena in which things are actually happening, this very moment. Time, like the universe, does inherently exist, and pure intent (as I talk about it) holds the key to the direct experience of that, as well.
---
Okay then, that's my take on it so far, based on my personal experience and intellectual understanding of this business called actualism. I think there is quite a bit of evidence I've presented here that what you are experiencing, Nikolai, is indeed not what Richard means by a PCE. The fact that it isn't obviously doesn't change anything about what it is you are experiencing, though. If you are pleased with your experience and want to continue going deeper in that direction, that is your choice. In this thread you said you don't care if what you are experiencing is really a PCE, and that is also fine with me. Likewise, in terms of other people, if they are attracted to your descriptions and want to experience that for themselves, then they are fully free to do so.
However, it is pretty clear to me - even more clear now that I have examined your report in depth - that you are indeed not experiencing ongoing apperception as Richard uses the term. And there is nothing wrong with that on the face of it. You are free to do as you please. But I will reiterate again that I do think there is something wrong with insisting that you are indeed experiencing a PCE, that you are indeed actually free, because as I see it, and as I hope I have sufficiently shown, here, you are not.
What this means pragmatically is that if somebody finds the Actual Freedom Trust website and becomes interested in actual freedom, and then comes here and begins taking advice from you, who claim to be actually free, on how to achieve that freedom... they will be led astray. They might not realize it at the beginning, not having a lot of experience with it, and they will slowly start going in a direction that does not lead towards an actual freedom. This is simply confusing and it is very unnecessary and even, I might say, harmful.
There also seems to be a lot of contention on the DhO on this issue, of who is actually free, who isn't, etc. A lot of it comes from not understanding what an actual freedom is, I think. I hope that by posting here I can help to elucidate that so that people can indeed make the choice for themselves.
One might say I have a personal stake in this. Until I visited Richard, I was incapable of seeing the difference. I was very confused and unable to really make a step in either direction. Now, I can far more clearly see the difference between actual freedom and other things such as what you are experiencing. In fact, I think that if I really wanted to, I would have a far better shot at getting to where you are than before, because I wouldn't be confused by all this actualism stuff. So when I see other people similarly unable to make the distinction, it seems to me like I should try to help them figure it out. I find it a bit odd that sometimes when I do this I get very negative reactions. It might be the way I am saying it, sometimes, but maybe there's also something about the message itself that people don't like. All I can do is strive to be a better communicator, and to not be swayed by my desire to have a particular outcome, as I have done before... that way I can speak freely from a place of enjoyment regardless of whether people agree or disagree or even maybe get upset.
So, Nikolai, perhaps I have written my conclusion too soon... what do you think of what I have written? Do you see the differences I have pointed out as being enough of a distinguishing factor, or not? If not, why not? If yes, then what do you plan on doing now? You have the choice, too (to continue as you have been, or to start going for an actual freedom.)
To everyone else, I hope this has been helpful!
- Claudiu