Hi Tommy,

Please first read my "I'm sorry" post so you know where I'm coming from.

In any case, I'm not interested in how you got to AF, but more interested in what it's like.

What happened when you went into AF? And is it really true, once you get there, you *know* for a fact that this is the way to be? Is there actual, undeniable proof which cannot be refuted?

Also, is this permanent? You get to the point of AF and there is no way back?

And, final question, do you really not feel any feelings at all? Did this happen right away, like an on off switch, or did things gradually change,

Here's the main question: what is it actually like in AF?

I'm sorry if I insulted you in the past (see my I'm sorry post), it was never personal.

I just hope you could respond to my questions and maybe be open to a discussion, ok?

Since this seemed to be an issue before: AF is not a state in which there are no sensations. You still see things; you still hear things; if your hand touches a table there will still be the sensation of touch.

There are no emotions though.

Simon, I think you're still confusing me with Tarin Greco. He has better hair than me.

I recommend changing the title of your thread for the attention of Tarin as it seems you mixed us up at some point, I claimed AF wrongly a few weeks ago but Tarin is the real deal and has been AF for, I think, around two years now. He's well worth talking to and asking about AF 'cause he knows his stuff and was the first of the whole pragmatic crowd, as far as I know, to get it.

Whether you were insulting me personally or not, I stick by what I said about hoping you can find some way to be happy in your life. Words are just words, no big deal, nothing taken personally and if anything it actually turned out to be something useful in my own practice. Live and learn, fuck it.

Take care.

Forgive me from getting into this a bit more, but is there a difference between emotions and feelings in AF?

Thanks Tommy.

I'll focus more on Tarin.

Ah I remember English wasn't your first language, correct? "Feeling" has two relevant definitions:

1. the function or the power of perceiving by touch.
2. an emotion or emotional perception or attitude.

They are very different. There is still touch (definition #1) in AF. There is no emotion (definition #2) in AF.

You might want to stop using the word 'feeling' and start using either 'the sense of touch' or 'emotion', depending on what you want to say, as 'feeling' can be potentially confusing.

Would you like to rephrase your question, now?

Well, it comes down to something I find very difficult to explain.

Look at the letters on the screen, particularly the black.

The way you perceive those is based on a feeling. It's not a feeling *about* black letters on the screen, it's the feeling *of* black letters on the screen.

The way you perceive it is based on your personal feeling of that. That's why people see the world differently.

Imagine you take the feeling of the black of the letters, and added in some yellow. Would these letters look differently?

This is a level I want to get at. Each and everything you see, hear, feel, smell and touch is based on a personal feeling. Which is different from another person's feeling. That's how people have different views of the world.

Do *those* feelings disappear in AF as well?

Just a wild guess (sort of a shot in the dark)...are you describing some form of synaesthesia? The color of a letter produces a body sensation of some kind corresponding to the color?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaesthesia

Nope. It's something that everyone does.

Look at a letter on this screen right now. Your personal perception of it is based on your feeling *of* black. And this is true of all your perceptions of all your senses.

Ah. That is very subtle.

I'll put it this way: Without any distortion whatsoever, there is just what the senses perceive. In the case of black letters, let's call it "actual black". This is the black you see in a PCE or when AF. This depends upon the way your physical eye/brain works. If you are color-blind, for example, and looking at something red, it will look different to you than to someone else. This is the bare physicality. This is not something you learn how to do - it's just the way your body works.

With a self/Self in play, anything and everything is subtly distorted. If I am really incredibly bored, for example, things will look more washed out than if I am vividly paying attention - "washed out black." This is not how your body works - this is a learned reaction to/perception of what is already there. Depending on what mood you are in, things might subtly change. If you look at a person when you are terrified they might start to seem demonic or something, yet if you look at them in a good mood they might just look interesting. Your eye is seeing the same thing, but the reaction to what the eye is seeing distorts what is seen.

It is usually pretty subtle... though sometimes it gets really obvious. Like once, when talking to this girl, I got very nervous, and my visual field went totally wonky. The center became super crisp and felt like it was zooming in, while the edges were all distorted and stretched, making it seem like the center was far away (while zoomed in at the same time)...

The latter set of things do disappear in AF. You just see what is there (namely, what your body sees), without any distortion. It is called "clear perception" or "apperceptiveness" in the following excerpt:


[link]

There is a clear distinction though: there is what the eye sees, which is not based on your personal feeling of what it is you are seeing, and then there is the personal feeling of what the eye sees, which is usually subtle but can sometimes be gross (like my encounter w/ the girl). At AF, what the eye sees remains, while personal feelings of what the eye sees go away.

Is that what you meant by 'feeling'? Does that help to answer your question?

No. Really, this I discovered and have been unable to communicate.

The sound of someone clicking a tictac out of it's box. The color of that person's skin. The way the air feels.

Let's take the last one. A pleasant breeze of air on your skin.

You feel it as being pleasant.

But there's also the moment the air touches the skin. And the way you feel that, is based on a feeling.

The moment the air touches the skin, air comes in contact with skin producing a sensation. It's based on the way your skin sensors work and the way the air hit those skin sensors. In a PCE - that's it - just the sensation - air hitting skin. That doesn't go away.

Out of a PCE - the sensation is pasted over and distorted, perhaps being ignored entirely. That goes away - that distortion.

The word 'feeling' you are using - how does it differ from 'sensation'?

You got it. It's just like when you see the color red. Or hear a clicking sound. Or smell an awful thing. Or taste something.

Taking away all the emotions *about* it, there are the feelings *of* it, which you seem to get Beoman.

But those *are* feelings. And Richard states that he has no feelings.... at all.

That got me thinking, can you imagine?

So, when you say 'feeling', do you mean the following?


If so, then that is not what Richard means when he says he has no feelings. Those don't go away.

That's exactly what I mean. From whom was that quote?

It's the same for all the senses.Seeing the color red. Hearing a certain voice. Smelling a certain smell. Etc..

That is exactly it. Those are feelings, essentially. Emotions, feelings, sensations, are basically all the same thing.

When Richard says he has no feelings at all, he apparantly was incorrect.

That's a relief, because that;s where I saw part of the insanity of AF. And I still habe problems with it, but this is now clear.

How many people can look at the color red and notice that their perception of it is personal, and based on the feeling of red. I really don't see red the same way you do.

From me, lol, just a little above in the thread.


Yes, they work similarly.


Not at all. The feeling of an emotion is of an entirely different nature than the bare sensation of the wind on your skin. The fact that they feel like the same thing just shows how insidious the emotions really are.

I know what you mean, though. I felt the very same way - that the feeling of an emotion felt just the same as the sensation of the wind on my skin, for example. You'll have to look more closely.


He has no emotions. He still experiences the wind on his skin (given it is windy...).


Indeed, that is why I strove to make it clear to you that you do not stop experiencing sensations upon AF.


Probably not. But there are two reasons for this:

1) We have different emotional attachments to the color, e.g. you think it is the most glorious, splendid color of them all, and I think it is vile and disgusting. So, looking at some red cloth, you would say it is 'glorious', 'beautiful', 'amazing', 'brilliant', etc., and I would say it is 'ugly', 'drab', 'horrible', etc.
2) Your eye functions differently than my eye.

The only actual difference (the one left upon AF) is #2. The differences from #1 are just imagined, and those all disappear upon AF. Learning how to tell which is which is an important part of the path to AF... and you will be surprised just how much the senses are distorted by this 'self'.

No, that's not quite it.

There's this red cloth and you can have all these feelings about it.

In fact, thoughts are based on feelings, not the other way around Modern psychology see thoughts as the cause of feelings. Get rid of the thoughts, the feelings will go.

Very screwed up.

The feeling is the problem. Get rid of the feeling and the exact same thoughts are no longer a problem.

Each and everything you see. hear, smell, taste, see, or any senses beyond that, adhere to one rule:

The reality is there. The sound, taste, smelll, visual, actually exists.

Your personal way of perceiving those things *is based on a feeling*.

I cannot call anyone qualified in this endeavour who doesn't seen this.

Smell something. You might like it. that is based on a feeling. But the smell itself also is.

You might here the sound of some fireworks exploding. You may or may not like it, that is based on a feeling. The way you actually hear it, is based on a feeling as well.

So, unless Richard has found a way to function without that, he was either:

a) lying
b) unaware of this level of functioning
c) in a state where those feelings don't exist either.

c) might is impossible.

Feelings and emotions are essentially the same thing. A sensation in your body,

You can have the feeling of excitement. If you're smart enough, you can see where this feeling is located.

You can have the emotion of love. You can see where it is located.

And you can see how there essentially is no difference between feelings and emotions.

And maybe you now see that any perception you have, is based on a feeling.

So what goes away in AF, and what remains?

Are you begginning to see the flaws of AF btw?

Richard claims he has no feelings. But functioning without the feelings *of* things is impossible.

So either he didn't notice that or he's a fraud.

But saying that he has no feelings at all (he did say this). This is something that factually is, if you really examine it, impossible.

So when Richard says he has no feelings, he is either lying or not recognizing what is going on. In any case, it's impossible to be true.

what feeling is the smell based on?

That's for you to discover.

Smell something, anything, and notice that you have feelings *about* it. Set that aside. There is the feeling *of* the smell. This determines your particulour way of smelling that thing.

That is a feeling.

It is impossible to perceive anything without your personal feeling of it.

So you smell something you like. You feel great. Good thing, That is your response to it.

But on the very basic level, the smell you smell, is based on a feeling. It can't not be. That really is impossible.

Your whole is built on feelings.

I will not smell that same smell the way you smell it. The difference? The personal feeling OF, not ABOUT that smell.

When Richard says he has no feelings, he either didn't get this level or he was bs-ing us all.

no, he never said he didn't experience these feelings *of* things, just that he didn't experience feelings *about* these sensations

he distinguishes between the feelings *of* as actual and the feelings *about* as affective

Just throwing this into the fray.

The word feeling describes two things. The smell itself is a feeling, as in a physical sensation. The liking or disliking of it is a feeling, as in an emotional reaction.


The word feeling describes two things. The sound itself is a feeling, as in a physical sensation. The liking or disliking of it is a feeling, as in an emotional reaction.


Or he is using the word 'feeling' differently than you.


Yes. That is a feeling, as in an emotional reaction.


Yes. That is a feeling, as in an emotional reaction.


There is essentially no difference between the feeling, as in the feeling of excitement, and the feeling, as in the emotion of love. Both are emotional reactions.


The perception of touch depends on the 'feeling', as in the physical sensation, of touch. This is a different use of the word 'feeling' than the 'feeling', as in the emotional reaction, of exhilaration.


You don't have feelings, as in emotional reactions - feelings of excitement, feelings of exhilaration, feelings of freedom/of despair/of love.

You do have feelings, as in physical sensations - feelings of the air on your skin, or the feeling of the sound of fireworks exploding hitting your ear, etc.


Not yet, since this has so far been an exercise in using the word 'feeling' properly.


He said he has no feelings, as in emotional reactions, e.g. feelings of exhilaration/excitement/etc.


Indeed.


Or he is using the word 'feeling' differently than you.


He said he has no feelings, as in emotional reactions, e.g. feelings of exhilaration/excitement/etc.


Indeed.


Or he is using the word 'feeling' differently than you.

----------

Maybe this will help. Sometimes, in the English language, the same word describes two different things. Take the noun 'address'. It can either mean the place where someone lives (e.g. 123 Fake Street), or a speech given to a group of persons (e.g. the president's inaugural address). These are two different things.

Say that someone's job is to give speeches to different groups of people. He gives addresses all day, every day. Suddenly he is fired. You could say, "he now no longer gives addresses." However, this doesn't mean he no longer gives his address (as in place of residence) out if somebody needs to mail him a letter. He stopped giving addresses, as in speeches, but not his address, as in his place of residence.

Likewise with feeling. The noun 'feeling' can mean two things. It can either mean a physical sensation (air on skin), or an emotional reaction (exhilaration). These are two different things. When someone says they no longer have feelings, it can either mean they no longer experience physical sensations (i.e. they are in a coma, and would actually be quite unlikely to be able to even type that sentence in), or that they no longer experience emotional reactions (i.e. no more exhilaration). In Richard's case, it means the latter - no more emotional reactions - and not the former - no more physical sensations.

Beoman, you get my point. And I do hope this is the perspective Richard takes on.

When somone says "I have no feelings", as Richard has, it's very distorting, causing confusing and incorrect. If you take the true definition of feeling, he is actially stating an imposibility.

I am surprised noone else figured this out.

The actaul meaning of feelings should have been made clear by him. So he either didn't do that for whatever reason, or he didn't get it.

There are so many flaws in AF, and this may or may not be one of them. But it sure is sloppy.