Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/21/12 11:01 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 5/31/12 7:25 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 5/31/12 7:29 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 5/31/12 7:56 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 5/31/12 8:04 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 5/31/12 4:56 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 5/31/12 4:56 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 5/31/12 11:27 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/1/12 4:04 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/1/12 5:49 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/1/12 5:59 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/1/12 8:04 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/1/12 8:00 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/2/12 5:18 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 5/31/12 11:25 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/1/12 12:24 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/1/12 5:28 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/1/12 6:27 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 5/31/12 7:36 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Felipe C. 6/1/12 12:38 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Tommy M 6/1/12 4:20 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/1/12 8:32 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/1/12 8:40 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/1/12 9:41 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/2/12 3:19 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/2/12 3:36 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/2/12 3:42 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/2/12 8:40 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/2/12 7:35 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/2/12 8:51 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/2/12 9:19 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Bruno Loff 6/3/12 2:54 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Andrew . 6/3/12 3:46 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/3/12 6:10 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Bruno Loff 6/3/12 6:19 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/4/12 5:08 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Daniel Johnson 6/4/12 5:00 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Bruno Loff 6/5/12 11:55 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Tommy M 6/5/12 4:42 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/5/12 5:30 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/3/12 10:21 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Stian Gudmundsen Høiland 6/3/12 2:58 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/3/12 6:20 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Tommy M 6/4/12 1:37 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/4/12 9:45 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Tommy M 6/5/12 4:39 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Felipe C. 6/3/12 1:11 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Bruno Loff 6/3/12 2:23 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Stian Gudmundsen Høiland 6/3/12 3:01 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/3/12 6:31 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Felipe C. 6/3/12 6:57 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/3/12 9:07 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/4/12 3:17 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/4/12 9:38 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/4/12 9:49 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/4/12 9:48 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/4/12 9:53 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/4/12 10:01 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/4/12 10:49 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/4/12 11:09 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Andrew . 6/4/12 11:15 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/5/12 9:45 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/5/12 9:49 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/5/12 9:58 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Adam . . 6/5/12 10:23 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Jon T 6/5/12 11:18 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Adam . . 6/6/12 10:22 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Stian Gudmundsen Høiland 6/6/12 12:10 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Adam . . 6/6/12 12:26 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Felipe C. 6/6/12 1:19 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Andrew . 7/15/12 8:07 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Nikolai . 6/6/12 3:52 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/4/12 10:02 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Jeff Grove 6/4/12 9:22 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Jeff Grove 6/2/12 4:16 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Oliver Myth 6/1/12 2:26 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/1/12 7:58 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/1/12 8:44 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/2/12 9:56 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/3/12 7:48 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 1/6/13 10:02 AM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 7/15/12 1:23 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom Change A. 6/2/12 9:57 PM
RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom D. Justine J 6/3/12 6:47 AM
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/21/12 11:01 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 6:23 AM

Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Best wishes to All!

I am happy to release the second part of my 'Justine's Memoirs On Actual Freedom', as 'JUSTINE'S REFLECTIONS ON ACTUAL FREEDOM'.

Soon (within a week), I will submit to my esteemed readers, 'ELABORATION ON ACTUAL FREEDOM', a mammoth work on Actual Freedom.

May all auspiciousness come to us all.

JUSTINE.


***

You can read and download the e-book from the below given links too:

1. Scribd Portal:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95410536/Justine-s-Reflections-on-Actual-Freedom


2. Google Docs:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-B_O_ms6bsYVkZLTndzMUdQLWs

PFA.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 7:25 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 7:17 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
D. Justine J:
Best wishes to All!

I am happy to release the second part of my 'Justine's Memoirs On Actual Freedom', as 'JUSTINE'S REFLECTIONS ON ACTUAL FREEDOM'.

Soon (within a week), I will submit to my esteemed readers, 'ELABORATION ON ACTUAL FREEDOM', a mammoth work on Actual Freedom.

May all auspiciousness come to you all.

JUSTINE.


***

You can read and download the e-book from the below given links too:

1. Scribd Portal:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95410536/Justine-s-Reflections-on-Actual-Freedom


2. Google Docs:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-B_O_ms6bsYVkZLTndzMUdQLWs

PFA.



Hi Justine,

I know you didn't ask me permission to print my name there as someone singing praise of you and your 'memoirs' so I am assuming you didn't ask anyone else. You might want to consider asking permission first. As my quote seems to be taken out of context (it was posted to thank you for your honesty in what you wrote in a thread at DhO, not your memoirs), can you please take my name out. I haven't read your book yet to warrant any of my own recommendations and 'praise' regardless of whether I will have agreed with what you have written or not after reading it.

Sincerely,

Nick
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 7:29 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 7:29 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Also, I'd be interested for the sake of being clear about terminology (as is the case here at the DhO and pragmatic dharma in general) what you mean by 'enlightenment'. What did it mean to be 'enlightened' in your own words? What was the ongoing experience like? How was it different to not being 'enlightened'? What was arising still in experience and what was not?

Nick
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 8:04 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 8:04 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
D. Justine J:
Best wishes to All!

I am happy to release the second part of my 'Justine's Memoirs On Actual Freedom', as 'JUSTINE'S REFLECTIONS ON ACTUAL FREEDOM'.

Soon (within a week), I will submit to my esteemed readers, 'ELABORATION ON ACTUAL FREEDOM', a mammoth work on Actual Freedom.

May all auspiciousness come to you all.

JUSTINE.


***

You can read and download the e-book from the below given links too:

1. Scribd Portal:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95410536/Justine-s-Reflections-on-Actual-Freedom


2. Google Docs:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-B_O_ms6bsYVkZLTndzMUdQLWs

PFA.



Hi Justine,

I know you didn't ask me permission to print my name there as someone singing praise of you and your 'memoirs' so I am assuming you didn't ask anyone else. You might want to consider asking permission first. As my quote seems to be taken out of context (it was posted to thank you for your honesty in what you wrote in a thread at DhO, not your memoirs), can you please take my name out. I haven't read your book yet to warrant any of my own recommendations and 'praise' regardless of whether I will have agreed with what you have written or not after reading it.

Sincerely,

Nick


Hi Nick,

I ask your pardon.

I will take away your name. I need some time space for technical reasons.

Regards,

Justine
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 4:56 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 4:20 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Thank you Justine.

I have come across many interesting claims in your book. The following one really is perplexing.

Whenever I keep a particular photo on my desk top of Richard I get
into involuntary weeping. Last week I cried for more than 20 minutes,
in my closed room. That clears away lot of blocks in me. Page 37


What are the 'blocks'? How is this 'crying' not affective?
Edit: It appears that neither you know of why it happens:

 But one thing I can’t understand. Even after
becoming actually free, why tears well up in
me, whenever I think of Richard, as well as my
beloved daughter, where I see these two have
undergone an extraordinary and enormous
suffering to reach a rare height of illumination. Page 43




Also on a more personal interest level would you comment on soemthing I have expressed. perhaps it will explain why you still 'cry' at seeing photos of Richard and your daughter.

'Objectification': My current thinking from my ongoing current experience has shown that the mind will create 'objects' in the field of experience (sense contact-eyes/sight, ears/sound, nose/smells, tongue/taste, body/touch-surface and within) via a narrowing of mental focus, which segregates 'parts' from the 'whole' field of experience. This in turn leads to more 'objects' arising within the field of experience to juxtapose with more 'objects', segregated from the whole, giving rise to an 'attention bounce'.

This illusory 'attention bounce' has the mind's attention jumping/flickering from one perceived/conceived 'object' to another 'object' back and forth. A thought may become an 'object', a sensation an 'object, a sound an object, even the notion of 'seeing' and 'hearing' and a sense of 'me-ness', also another kind of 'object', which feels more like a 'subject'; a subjective experience for the 'object' to be related to in some way. But really, it is just another part of the 'objectification' of 'parts' of the whole.

Essentially, attention bounces around and gives off a sense of 'duality': "'I' am experiencing 'this'!" Subject and object. This 'objectification' process gives rise to the subjective experience of 'self' in many differing manifestations, all in my own experience seen to be unsatisfactory and illusory. This 'objectification' or conceiving of 'objects' for a subjective experience to arise and relate to has the mind create an 'object' from a mass of floating particles and atoms and terms/names it 'hearing', 'seeing', 'a chair', 'a man', 'a woman', 'hatred', 'self', 'thoughts of want', 'shitty sensations in the chest', etc and sets up all of these 'objects' for the subjective experience of 'me-ness' to arise as an established relationship with said 'objects'.


With HAIETMOBA, one trains the mind to recognize pure sense contact without this 'objectification' occurring for those fleeting moments at a time until those moments grow into longer periods of lack of 'objectification'/ segregating of conceieved 'parts' of the field of experience.


When the whole field of experience is now segregated into 'parts', there are now 'parts' for the mind's attention to bounce back and forth with. When the entire field of experience is experienced as simply 'the whole field of experience', without that attention bounce segregating via 'objectification', there is simply 360 degree ongoing experience of a soup of sensations which can be explained in conventional terms as seeing, hearing, smelling, sensing, tasting, thought hitting mind, all cognised as a mass of mixed up sense contact with none of it being segregated and 'named' 'seeing', 'hearing', etc.


Does your ongoing experience involve the mind habitually landing on 'objects' conceived and segregated from the whole field of experience (i.e. a photo of Richard, a thought of my daughter", the 'irksome' behaviour of other people, thought of 'bodiless peace') and then react in some way towards said 'object'? How is this still perceived as apperception? And if not, then would it be safe to say your ongoing experiecne is not 24/7 apperception?

When one first becomes aware of something, there is a fleeting instant of the clean perception of sensum just before one recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception) and also before one identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Clear perception is in that instant where one converges one’s eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing...it is the split-second just as one affectively subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and SEGREGATING it from the rest of pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place...just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ ...this fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness...could be called...in a word: apperceptiveness. (Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness)"


Nick
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 4:56 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 4:30 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
 Though I am actually free, my central longing is for ‘bodiless
peace’. This element periodically predominates in me, in spite of my
knowing that physical death is very insignificant thing. I have much to
learn from Richard on this. Page 42


Central longing (craving) for 'bodiless (formless) peace. What does this sound like?
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 7:36 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 7:36 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Hi Nick,

Your request is done. Your appreciations on my honesty are deleted in all uploaded versions. Once again sorry for the inconvenience caused.

J.
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 7:56 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 7:56 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
Also, I'd be interested for the sake of being clear about terminology (as is the case here at the DhO and pragmatic dharma in general) what you mean by 'enlightenment'. What did it mean to be 'enlightened' in your own words? What was the ongoing experience like? How was it different to not being 'enlightened'? What was arising still in experience and what was not?

Nick


By 'enlightenment' I mean the same traditional spiritual enlightenment.

In my words, it is experience of light, clarity, peace, and bliss, sense of arriving destination.

It gave relaxation and surrender to something supreme.

It was different to 'not being enlightened' - choking and suffocation in darkness was absent.

Entity was still arising in experience, elimination of self was not there. So, it was not fulfilling like Actual Freedom.

Justine
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 11:25 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 11:25 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
What are the 'blocks'? How is this 'crying' not affective?
Edit: It appears that neither you know of why it happens:



The blocks are the residue of my enlightened days. This crying is not 'affective', because I am sure that this entity is a fiction and the process of deleting the identity cannot happen instantly. Though the shift is irrevocable, the brain neuronal conditionings are not like switching OFF, of the button of a machine.

But one thing I can’t understand. Even after
becoming actually free, why tears well up in
me, whenever I think of Richard, as well as my
beloved daughter, where I see these two have
undergone an extraordinary and enormous
suffering to reach a rare height of illumination.


Yes. I say it is involuntary weeping. As a human being I am not ashamed to accept that fact, and also i find it helps in the dissolution of the self into Actuality.


Also on a more personal interest level would you comment on something I have expressed. perhaps it will explain why you still 'cry' at seeing photos of Richard and your daughter.



Nick, on certain occasions, all the intellectual dissections and barriers are thrust aside by some invisible energy. For me I am always conscious of 'Richard's Energy' 24x7. This i have discussed with Richard himself in person. He has acknowledged that 'Richard's Energy' is a fact experienced by some other people also. For me that energy has a very sharp action in my body mind towards the unshakeability of the Pristine Actuality. I am still in the journey towards my destination.


Does your ongoing experience involve the mind habitually landing on 'objects' conceived and segregated from the whole field of experience (i.e. a photo of Richard, a thought of my daughter", the 'irksome' behaviour of other people, thought of 'bodiless peace') and then react in some way towards said 'object'? How is this still perceived as apperception? And if not, then would it be safe to say your ongoing experiecne is not 24/7 apperception?



My previous answer applies to this question too.

Regards,
Justine.
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 11:27 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 11:27 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Central longing (craving) for 'bodiless (formless) peace. What does this sound like?


OBLIVION !

J.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 12:24 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 5/31/12 11:54 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
D. Justine J:
What are the 'blocks'? How is this 'crying' not affective?
Edit: It appears that neither you know of why it happens:


The blocks are the residue of my enlightened days. This crying is not 'affective', because I am sure that this entity is a fiction and the process of deleting the identity cannot happen instantly. Though the shift is irrevocable, the brain neuronal conditionings are not like switching OFF, of the button of a machine.


So it appears then that there is not 24/7 apperceptive awareness flowing, correct? There is an 'object' of consciousness (pic of Richard and daughter) which is triggering something within, a subjective experience (now not forming as full blown 'affect' yet still establishing a fabricated relationship with the 'object'). I'd call this the residue of 'being'. Shadow being. You can do something about that if you wish. Send me a PM if interested. By the way, I would still call your 'weeping' the identity, residual or not. Maybe more to look into still. Why does it still arise? Because it is 'residue' is not a good answer.

But one thing I can’t understand. Even after
becoming actually free, why tears well up in
me, whenever I think of Richard, as well as my
beloved daughter, where I see these two have
undergone an extraordinary and enormous
suffering to reach a rare height of illumination.


Yes. I say it is involuntary weeping. As a human being I am not ashamed to accept that fact, and also i find it helps in the dissolution of the self into Actuality.


Dissolution of 'self? So there is still a residual felt sense of 'self' that needs to be dissolved via 'weeping'? There are approaches you could do to further progress to complete dissolution quicker if so inclined. PM me.

Also on a more personal interest level would you comment on something I have expressed. perhaps it will explain why you still 'cry' at seeing photos of Richard and your daughter.


Nick, on certain occasions, all the intellectual dissections and barriers are thrust aside by some invisible energy. For me I am always conscious of 'Richard's Energy' 24x7. This i have discussed with Richard himself in person. He has acknowledged that 'Richard's Energy' is a fact experienced by some other people also. For me that energy has a very sharp action in my body mind towards the unshakeability of the Pristine Actuality. I am still in the journey towards my destination.


"Invisible energy'? I do not see currently past the 6 sense doors (the all). How is this 'invisible energy' expericned? Via the 6 sense doors or beyond them? Is this just one's own 'conceptual idea' and 'belief' overlaying some sensation that is triggered at the sight or in the presence of the 'object' named 'Richard'? What is your destination? I thought AF was the destination? Is there another one?


Does your ongoing experience involve the mind habitually landing on 'objects' conceived and segregated from the whole field of experience (i.e. a photo of Richard, a thought of my daughter", the 'irksome' behaviour of other people, thought of 'bodiless peace') and then react in some way towards said 'object'? How is this still perceived as apperception? And if not, then would it be safe to say your ongoing experiecne is not 24/7 apperception?


My previous answer applies to this question too.


You didn't answer any of the questions. Which seems suspect and unpragmatic seeing as you are trying to spread the word here on a pragmatic dharma site. Why not oblige and continue to be honest? I am not talking down to you nor talking up to you. I'm talking at the same level as you having already passed through baseline shifts on the way to what I once considered AF. I'm trying to see what your experience is like. But if you wish to simply leave it like that, so be it. I hope you do, for the benefit and inspiration of others, continue to share with us here the details of what I am asking about. I think it would shed light on the reality of your 'AF' to talk about it like so, make it real and attainable for all your readers:

Does your ongoing experience involve the mind habitually landing on 'objects' conceived and segregated from the whole field of experience (i.e. a photo of Richard, a thought of my daughter", the 'irksome' behaviour of other people, thought of 'bodiless peace') and then react in some way towards said 'object'? How is this still perceived as apperception? And if not, then would it be safe to say your ongoing experiecne is not 24/7 apperception? Also does it still do all of this just without a sense of 'affect' arising like before? No tangible felt sense of 'affect' yet an odd experience of 'sort of affect but not really affect' (like your weeping)?

Avoiding the questions could possibly lead to others (those not already fully on board the good ship actualis) to simply thinking you are not wanting to share for some reason or other. This is a taboo free area. Feel free to let loose (not that you haven't already in your memoirs).


Nick
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 4:04 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 4:00 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
D. Justine J:
Central longing (craving) for 'bodiless (formless) peace. What does this sound like?


OBLIVION !

J.


Sounds like a 'longing' (desire) for peace (ongoing existence) that is bodiless (formless/immaterial). *cough**cough*!
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 5:28 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 5:24 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
So it appears then that there is not 24/7 apperceptive awareness flowing, correct?


The apperceptive awareness is flowing 24x7 without obstruction.

There is an 'object' of consciousness (pic of Richard and daughter) which is triggering something within, a subjective experience (now not forming as full blown 'affect' yet still establishing a fabricated relationship with the 'object').


They are not triggers. It is not subjective experience. 'Weeping' is a side effect of some main event. Pl. don't give prime place for it.

Dissolution of 'self? So there is still a residual felt sense of 'self' that needs to be dissolved via 'weeping'?


'Self' need not and cannot be dissolved 'only' by 'weeping'. There are other vital things connected to altruistic self immolation, where 'weeping' is a pleasant outlet, and an insignificant side-effect.

"Invisible energy'? I do not see currently past the 6 sense doors (the all). How is this 'invisible energy' expericned? Via the 6 sense doors or beyond them? Is this just one's own 'conceptual idea' and 'belief' overlaying some sensation that is triggered at the sight or in the presence of the 'object' named 'Richard'? What is your destination? I thought AF was the destination? Is there another one?


Electricity is an invisible energy. But its impacts are known to us through the 6 sense doors and beyond them. Still no one has actually seen electricity and never will. Pristine Actuality is much more true than electricity. With the confidence born of Perfection, one can reach that realm without any effort of struggle, through altruistic self-immolation.
RICHARD IS NOT THE OBJECT TO REACH. THE PLACE WHERE RICHARD REACHED IS MY DESTINATION. One can call it 'Richard's Place'. AF is a word. How did you think AF is a destination, or another one to it?


You didn't answer any of the questions. Which seems suspect and unpragmatic seeing as you are trying to spread the word here on a pragmatic dharma site. Why not oblige and continue to be honest? I am not talking down to you nor talking up to you. I'm talking at the same level as you having already passed through baseline shifts on the way to what I once considered AF. I'm trying to see what your experience is like. But if you wish to simply leave it like that, so be it. I hope you do, for the benefit and inspiration of others, continue to share with us here the details of what I am asking about. I think it would shed light on the reality of your 'AF' to talk about it like so, make it real and attainable for all your readers:


Well. If you think, I have not at all answered any of your questions, I am sorry about my inability to help you. If you find me suspect and unpragmatic, again sorry Nick, I can't help it. I am not trying to spread any word. I delight in sharing myself with others. Some people find my words delightful. It is for them I write. I have no political or any other interest. I am not STRIVING towards honesty or its opposite. I am pleased to share myself with my maximum capability to one and all. AF is the most easiest thing on this Earth.

I am not avoiding questions. Yes, Dho is a taboo free area. I feel free to share myself with all.

For PM you are always welcome through jkoperumcholan@gmail.com.

Regards,
Justine.
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 5:49 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 5:45 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
D. Justine J:
Central longing (craving) for 'bodiless (formless) peace. What does this sound like?


OBLIVION !

J.


Sounds like a 'longing' (desire) for peace (ongoing existence) that is bodiless (formless/immaterial). *cough**cough*!


Man is mortal. Only matter is immortal. If you want to be lingering here indefinitely, do it Nick, it is your choice!

May all auspiciousness come to us all!

Regards,
Justine.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 6:27 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 5:53 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
D. Justine J:
So it appears then that there is not 24/7 apperceptive awareness flowing, correct?


The apperceptive awareness is flowing 24x7 without obstruction.


Are you sure of that? Your memoirs paint a different picture. So you have reached the 'meaning of life' stage that Richard talks of? If you were truly 'apperceptive', I don't think you would be talking about the variety of 'reactive' patterns you describe in your behaviour (in your memoirs).


There is an 'object' of consciousness (pic of Richard and daughter) which is triggering something within, a subjective experience (now not forming as full blown 'affect' yet still establishing a fabricated relationship with the 'object').



They are not triggers. It is not subjective experience. 'Weeping' is a side effect of some main event. Pl. don't give prime place for it.


Yeh, can't see the weeping occurring without a trigger. It might not 'feel' or be sensed as subjective, but I would label it like so because it is some sort of reaction towards an 'object', and quite an extreme one at that. Sensation in the chest being triggered?

Dissolution of 'self? So there is still a residual felt sense of 'self' that needs to be dissolved via 'weeping'?


'Self' need not and cannot be dissolved 'only' by 'weeping'. There are other vital things connected to altruistic self immolation, where 'weeping' is a pleasant outlet, and an insignificant side-effect.


I'll ask again: So there is still a residual felt sense of 'self' that needs to be dissolved via 'weeping'? Do you still experience some sort of residual sense of tangibly felt sense of 'self' still that dissolves when you have wept?

"Invisible energy'? I do not see currently past the 6 sense doors (the all). How is this 'invisible energy' expericned? Via the 6 sense doors or beyond them? Is this just one's own 'conceptual idea' and 'belief' overlaying some sensation that is triggered at the sight or in the presence of the 'object' named 'Richard'? What is your destination? I thought AF was the destination? Is there another one?


Electricity is an invisible energy. But its impacts are known to us through the 6 sense doors and beyond them. Still no one has actually seen electricity and never will. Pristine Actuality is much more true than electricity. With the confidence born of Perfection, one can reach that realm without any effort of struggle, through altruistic self-immolation.
RICHARD IS NOT THE OBJECT TO REACH. THE PLACE WHERE RICHARD REACHED IS MY DESTINATION. One can call it 'Richard's Place'. AF is a word. How did you think AF is a destination, or another one to it?



How is this invisible energy experienced via the senses? Is the experiecne accompanied by a conceptual overlay of the idea of 'invisible energy'? So you are not 'AF'? Or your AF is not the same as Richard's current ongoing state?Can you clarify for the DhO?

These questions are to distinguish what Richard and yourself are calling 'actually free' Out of curiosity, I am asking you about details of your experience. I have had a baseline shift which does not have me 'weeping' nor experiencing affect nor 'being irked' by others like before. I notice aspects of the ongoing experience which are starting to drop away which i am seeing that you seem to still experience. I am asking you to clarify your experience so that we can simply stop fussing over what 'actually free' is supposed to look like, where we can simply drop the dogmatic conceptual overlays of "I am the first in the world" silliness and simply describe frankly what is occuring/has occured without the need to inject it all with mystic overtones.

By your descriptions, I found myself last year where you seem to currently be untill a month or so ago. Now there are some differences (which are improvements as I see it) between what you describe and where I find myself. i'm trying to suss out if this is the same thing that you describe or not and whether further investigation may be needed. Plus I think your version of 'apperception' is not the same as what I consider pure apperception. I don't think one would be 'weeping' or feeling 'irked' by other people's behaviour, as well as some of the other things you have expressed in your memoirs if you were truly 24/7 apperceptive, non-stop.

Perhaps we can talk about the differences in our 'versions'. What is apperception for you, and how would the experience of 'being irked' for example be seen apperceptively? If experience was apperceptive, then wouldn't the objects of 'being irked' not even be objects for the experience of 'being irked' and thus no experience of 'being irked' would arise?

And again if you will: Does your ongoing experience involve the mind habitually landing on 'objects' conceived and segregated from the whole field of experience (i.e. a photo of Richard, a thought of my daughter", the 'irksome' behaviour of other people, thought of 'bodiless peace') and then react in some way towards said 'object'? How is this still perceived as apperception? And if not, then would it be safe to say your ongoing experiecne is not 24/7 apperception? Also does it still do all of this just without a sense of 'affect' arising like before? No tangible felt sense of 'affect' yet an odd experience of 'sort of affect but not really affect' (like your weeping)?

Nick
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 5:59 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 5:59 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
D. Justine J:
Man is mortal. Only matter is immortal. If you want to be lingering here indefinitely, do it Nick, it is your choice!


Where did I say i 'want to be lingering here indefinitely'? You said this:


 Though I am actually free, my central longing is for ‘bodiless
peace’. This element periodically predominates in me, in spite of my
knowing that physical death is very insignificant thing. I have much to
learn from Richard on this. Page 42


Though actually free, you desire a bodiless (formless/immaterial) peace. Meaning you wish for some sort of 'peace' that does not entail a body. This sounds like a stage along the way to full awakening in buddhist contexts.


Nick
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:00 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:00 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Also does it still do all of this just without a sense of 'affect' arising like before? No tangible felt sense of 'affect' yet an odd experience of 'sort of affect but not really affect' (like your weeping)?


You are quite right, Nick. I need not brood for answer for all of your other queries. Here you have succinctly put in my real position. Thanks for your interest in me.

With kind regards,

Justine
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:04 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:04 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Though actually free, you desire a bodiless (formless/immaterial) peace. Meaning you wish for some sort of 'peace' that does not entail a body. This sounds like a stage along the way to full awakening in buddhist contexts.


Quite True, Nick.

Justine.
Felipe C, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 12:38 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 12:26 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, Justine, thanks for your new e-book.

I have a question.

You say in your book:

I have a final secret for fast progress to become actually free. I am
looking for a right person to transfer it. I can’t divulge it publicly
because it needs a certain central sincerity and abidance. Just making
it public will defuse its workability, and may bring disaster to
innocent ones. It is such a simple thing, that’s why I hesitate. But I
will share it with at least one before I go.


Why so serious? Your comment reminds me of the discourse of some tantric gurus who enclose their teachings saying that they are the secret (and quickest!) way to enlightenment; they even require esoteric initiations to be prepared for such a practice. I thought AF and the Actualist practice were about being down to earth, and not some kind of mystery.

The great thing about the DhO is the diversity and openness of practices offered here, which are derived not only from great masters of different traditions but also from the practitioners who post in this forum. I think the majority here can (and would be glad to) understand the methods you propose, and take them or leaving them according to their aims and preferences.

Why do you think anything you share with us would lead to "disaster to innocent ones"? If AF is such important thing for the achievement of World's peace, would you share that practice for the benefit of humanity? If not, what are you specifically afraid of?

Thanks in advance!
thumbnail
Oliver Myth, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 2:26 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 2:26 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 143 Join Date: 6/10/11 Recent Posts
Justine, please take my name out of the book too. I was referencing a quote, not your book, and you did not ask permission.

Thank you.
Oliver
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 4:20 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 4:20 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Justine:
I have a final secret for fast progress to become actually free. I am looking for a right person to transfer it. I can’t divulge it publicly because it needs a certain central sincerity and abidance. Just making it public will defuse its workability, and may bring disaster to innocent ones. It is such a simple thing, that’s why I hesitate. But I will share it with at least one before I go.

I find it quite ridiculous that you would choose not to disclose such an apparently effective method. Surely the same risks are present, although perhaps to a lesser extent, should a person choose to apply the "gradual (then sudden) way". Were this the case then we could all be accused of being irresponsible and defusing the workability of these techniques.

If your "final secret for fast progress" is what I think it is, then it's actually Richard's "secret" since he expounds upon here:

RESPONDENT: I’d be awfully interested. You haven’t written much about it.

[Richard]:‘There is a rapid (and sudden) way to actual freedom and a gradual (then sudden) way ... and the rapid (and sudden) way does by-pass self-examination. There are certain dangers inherent:

[Richard]: ‘After living in the condition of virtual freedom for sufficient time to absorb all the ramifications of a blithesome life, it is highly likely that the ultimate condition can happen.

‘I’ do not make it happen, because ‘I’ cannot make it happen. What is more ... ‘I’ am not required to make it happen. An actual freedom happens of itself only when one is fully ready, and not before. One has to become acclimatised to benignity, benevolence and blitheness, because the purity of the actual is so powerful that it would ‘blow the fuses’ if one was to venture into this territory ill-prepared. To precipitously apprehend the vast stillness of infinitude would be too much, too fast, too soon ... one could go mad with the super-abundance of pleasure that pours forth’. (‘Richard’s Journal’ ©1997 The Actual Freedom Trust. Page: 150).

The rapid (and sudden) way is certainly possible – given sufficient pure intent – yet even so there needs to be a tidying-up of social mores and habitual patterns ‘after the event’ anyway ... an actual freedom does not miraculously remove every little detail. It does make the fine-tuning a breeze, though’
.


I am tempted to tamper with this ‘rapid (and sudden) way to actual freedom’ despite your warning.

RICHARD: With the absolute certainty/ total absence of choice of the PCE the invocation of destiny (oblivion/ extinction) is the deadly simple and fascinated contemplation of the fact that, as physical death is the end of ‘being’ anyway, it might as well happen sooner rather than later. (The oblivion/ extinction of ‘being’ at physical death is entirely without benefit in regards peace-on-earth whereas the oblivion/ extinction of ‘being’ at this moment in time is entirely beneficial to the host body and of a facilitatory benefit to all other bodies).

The fascinated contemplation – ‘fascinated’ as in a moth to a flame – morphs into a pure contemplation (as in an apperceptivity) upon it becoming startlingly apparent as an experiential actuality that this moment in time has no duration.
What this means, to an identity for whom time moves (as in past/ present/ future), is that the keep-it-safe extinction of ‘being’ (cunningly projected into some future moment) will be happening now when it does take place. (Time has no duration in actuality; now, being eternal, is already always dynamic in that everything happens now; nothing ever happens in past/ present/ future time).

As now is the way, then now is the means; as now is the means, then now is the end ... !Bingo! ... it is no longer possible to distinguish between life being lived and life doing the living as any such cause and effect has vanished without a trace (it never was anyway as time, as in past/ present/ future, has no existence in actuality).

This is ‘my’ moment of glory; this is ‘my’ crowning achievement; this makes ‘my’ petty life all worthwhile; this is ‘my’ most noble sacrifice for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear; this is ‘my’ legacy for all humankind; ‘my’ reward is to go blessedly into the oblivion ‘I’ have secretly craved all along.

‘My’ extinction made all this possible.

Regards, Richard.
P.S.: The key-word is: inevitability

[Link]

You're participating in and contributing to a site focused on pragmatism and the 'nuts & bolts' of these techniques, your unwillingness to share your "secret" and allow others to test and verify it for themselves makes it impossible to conduct any sort of investigation. If AF is indeed able to bring about peace on earth, would it not be in the best interests of all peoples if the techniques with which it can be brought about were disclosed? The final responsibility lies with the person choosing to apply the techniques, the best any of us can do is to provide sufficient information on the potential 'side-effects' and advise people, based on our own experience, what sort of things are likely to be encountered if it's applied.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 5:18 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 6:02 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
D. Justine J:
Also does it still do all of this just without a sense of 'affect' arising like before? No tangible felt sense of 'affect' yet an odd experience of 'sort of affect but not really affect' (like your weeping)?


You are quite right, Nick. I need not brood for answer for all of your other queries. Here you have succinctly put in my real position. Thanks for your interest in me.

With kind regards,

Justine


I see. Thankyou for the reply. The following is from my own experience. It is my take on apperception.

This 'sort of but not really affect' (sensations in the gut, chest, throat etc but without that tangible felt sense of mental affect forming off of it ) occurs because of the residual and unchanged way the mind conceives of 'objects' from the whole field of experience. A sticky lunging 'consciousness' then has some 'object' to land and stick on, form around. The 'object' and consciousness forming around it co-arise. A situation, a thought, soemthing seen within sight, a sound, a thought about what is seen or heard, a sensation.

A 'part' has been conceived/fabricated by the mind from the soup of sensations/sense contact and given 'form' and a 'name'. From here we have all our baseline shifts and changes that still show 'reactive patterns'. The 'reactive patterns' may go through some serious changes though via baseline shifts. From full blown compounding 'me-ness', affective moods and a gnarly attention bounce/wave to 'sort of affect but not quite affect thus not affect', 'shadow being' a subtler attention wave/bounce or no tangible attention bounce. The stage before the 'meaning of life' stage of actually free? I don't know what that even means, but I do know it is possible to end the 'naming and 'forming' (the sticky objectifying reactive kind). This is the direction I am personally headed; the end of fabrications of mind ('objects' and whatever degree of 'subjective' reaction).

From the landing of 'consciousness' on a conceived/fabricated 'object', an evaluation of it then occurs. Good, bad, meh. And now that one has had a baseline shift (early AF?), the fully forming 'affect' does not compound like before. Perhaps there is some slight mental overlay, such that it would trigger 'weeping'. But it does not look like an emotion or affective mood nor a 'feeling me' anymore and thus it is impossible to call it like so. But there is still a mental 'reaction' towards the fabricated 'object' (pic of Richard or daughter). The process of fabricating 'object' and reacting to it does still occur. The reaction has changed though. But it still is part and parcel of the fabrication/objectification process as far as I am concerned, and still inherently unsatisfactory.

This conceiving of an 'object' is not apperception but what occurs after its recognition to overlay and hide it. The mind can return to recognition of apperceptive awareness post 'objectification', but that would then mean the mind becomes aware of the fleeting instant of the clean perception of sensum just before one recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception) and also before one identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. And the segregated 'object' would cease being a 'segregated 'object'. (see Richard's quote below)

The 'feeling memory' still operates if there is a 'sort of affect but no quite affect' arising. The only difference is that the 'subjective' reaction (and it is subjective still even though there is no 'subjectively felt experience' now) towards the fabricated 'object' has changed somewhat. I myself see this still operating to a lesser degree than before, with long periods of no 'segregating' nor fabricating 'parts' of a 'whole'. Conceiving of 'objects' from the field of experience, the all , like a 'picture of Richard' conceived as 'object', establishing a relationship with it resulting in the seriously changed 'subjective' reaction, a strange 'weeping' that is 'sort of like affect but not quite like affect thus not affect'. Still a 'subjective' reaction as far as I am concerned even though it doesn't feel like it.

This 'objectification', the way of fabricating 'objects' for the mind to establish a relationship with, is the 'segregating' mechanism and deeply engrained habit that arises post-apperceptive awareness. Apperceptive awareness has none of this segregation of 'parts'/'objects' occuring. Without the segregating, there is just a soup of sense contact where none of the sense doors are being singled out to be 'lingered on', be 'named' and 'objectified'. Itt simply is a continuous 'unobjectified' mass or onslaught of sense contact from every angle, 360 degrees, all mixed up, all simply a continuum of distinctions within distinctions within..etc. yet, the mind/body organism still functions perfectly fine. Just without the whole fabricated 'object/subjective reaction' overlay.

This is what I consider 'apperceptive'. Here, there is complete freedom from the 'object/subjective reaction' conundrum regardless of how the 'subjective reaction' has changed and become more manageable via past baseline shifts. The end of name and form. Just a soup of sensations, without the concept of 'soup' overlaying it all. If you drop the 'objectification' and the fabricating of 'parts' of the field of experiecne, you might discover the 'meaning of life' stage Richard talks of? Then again, I don't know what he really means. All the same, you might discover complete freedom from 'being irked' and the 'weeping' and the 'sort of affect but not quite affect thus not affect' weirdness, a conscious functioning consciousness without 'object'...booya.

When one first becomes aware of something, there is a fleeting instant of the clean perception of sensum just before one recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception) and also before one identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Clear perception is in that instant where one converges one’s eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing...it is the split-second just as one affectively subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and segregating it from the rest of pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place...just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ ...this fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness...could be called...in a word: apperceptiveness. (Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness)"


Edit: The whole fabrication/objectification/attention bounce/wave/subjective reaction to 'object' is smoke and mirrors. it isn't actual. It is illusory. It isn't real. It is complete fluff. So if you find the mind cementing the idea that all of this bollox is 'real'' then drop it, drop the illusion, like a hot coal. There is no such thing as a 'object' beyond the invented concepts of one's own mind. Let the brain cognise what it cognises, but drop the illusory fabricated overlay.

My experience may shift in future so the above description may be subject to change.

Nick

Edited x 4 for extra info and flow.
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 7:58 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 7:58 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Hi,

I have requested my Technical Assistant, to remove the entire page of Appreciations.

Regards,

Justine
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:32 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:32 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Hi Tommy,

I am more concerned like you that many should become actually free. But as you have quoted Richard's words, there are severe practical constraints, offering shortcuts, publicly even with sufficient warnings. And what a great gift that there is the normal way as envisaged by AF genitors. And it works successfully for many. Pure Intent is the basic thing.

Regards,

Justine
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:40 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:40 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Hi Felipe C,

Thank you.

AF has no tantric base. It is very down to earth indeed. Your words reveal your naivete. I appreciate your good thoughts. And of course, AF is available for anyone to take up with Pure Intent.

Regards,

Justine
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:44 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 8:44 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Hi,

My Technical Assistant just now informed me that the whole page of 'Appreciations' has got deleted.

J.
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 9:41 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/1/12 9:41 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Why so serious? Your comment reminds me of the discourse of some tantric gurus who enclose their teachings saying that they are the secret (and quickest!) way to enlightenment; they even require esoteric initiations to be prepared for such a practice. I thought AF and the Actualist practice were about being down to earth, and not some kind of mystery.


Richard also used to say that he wants to focus on "women" because where the women go, men go there inevitably or something like that. Then people came to know that Richard has got a new partner in Vineeto who used to be with Peter earlier.

Maybe Justine also wants to focus on someone.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 3:19 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 2:58 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Aman, there is no need to insinuate such things. Why not ask Justine straight up in place of projecting your own projections?


Justine, Can I run something by you.

This 'invisible energy' you mention. Is it a tangibly felt sense of 'benevolence, purity, immeasurable friendliness'?

I would say such 'invisible energy' cannot be experienced as something 'beyond' 'the all', the 6 sense doors and their corresponding 'objects'. However, the use of language can confuse and convey different ideas to different people. This could have a direct cause and effect relationship on on how one practices and reads into other people's writings and descriptions. It could lead to misunderstandings on what to perceive, drop and/or see through etc.

I would say that what you experience as an 'invisible energy' sounds awfully similar if not exactly the same as the experience of a non-objectified/non-segregated field of experience. Such an ongoing experience could be tagged with many descriptive phrases; the universe experiencing itself, the all, a flow of benevolence, benignity, a flow of immeasurable friendliness. No fabricated 'parts', nor any 'thing' being singled out to be 'objectified' yet the field of experience (the all) is experienced as this tangible sense of benevolence and immeasurable friendliness, this mind/body organism sans a subjective reaction towards fabricated 'objects'. I would say the non-segregating nature of that ongoing experience is what allows such benevolence and immeasurable friendliness to shine forth.

I can see why it might be termed 'invisible energy'. From my own conditioning I could term it "the all", the 6 senses. Yet the language used may convey that those 6 senses have been segregated from the field of experience and placed in categorized boxes and thus given 'form' and shape, thus being 'objectified' in the process. Fertile ground for the arising of a 'feeling me'. How else does an 'affective feeling' arise? Does it arise without an 'object'? Without some fabricated 'object' taken from the field of experience (the all)? I would say never. I would say 'the all', the 6 senses when experienced without any segregating going on, without any sense door being 'objectified' and given 'form' and 'name' is what you are terming 'the invisible energy'.

When in Richard's presence, such an experience may be triggered by a mind who takes Richard seriously in a certain way (e.g the originator of all of these wonderful changes) and thus the mind is triggered to move towards that sweet non-segregating recognition of continuous apperceptive awareness. Thus the association with Richard made more tangible and 'real'?

What would you say?

Sincerely,

Nick
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 3:36 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 3:36 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
This 'invisible energy' you mention. Is it a tangibly felt sense of 'benevolence, purity, immeasurable friendliness'?


Nick, you have literally and very beautifully put it. It is EXACTLY so! It is a tangibly felt sense of 'benevolence, UTTER PURITY, and immeasurable friendliness to the entire core of Infinitude.

When in Richard's presence, such an experience may be triggered by a mind who takes Richard seriously in a certain way (e.g the originator of all of these wonderful changes) and thus the mind is triggered to move towards that sweet non-segregating recognition of continuous apperceptive awareness. Thus the association with Richard made more tangible and 'real'?


Wonderful. ...'that sweet non-segregating recognition of continuous apperceptive awareness' ... That's it. It doesn't matter whether being in his physical presence, or being miles and miles and miles away. It is there.

Another thing Nick. Pl don't get confused about my tears. They are tears of Joy. Weeping seems a profane word!

May all auspiciousness come to us all!

Regards,

Justine
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 3:42 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 3:42 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
D. Justine J:

Wonderful. ...'that sweet non-segregating recognition of continuous apperceptive awareness' ... That's it. It doesn't matter whether being in his physical presence, or being miles and miles and miles away. It is there.

Another thing Nick. Pl don't get confused about my tears. They are tears of Joy. Weeping seems a profane word!


Thanks for the reply, Justine. Thank you for the clarification. I do though have a word of advice. Since there is a the wide spread notion that 'actual freedom' is a state of no 'affective feelings' arising anymore, it might be more informative for your readers to be much clearer in the language you use. Tears of joy could be read by others as affective thus running the risk of injecting into their projections of you, the idea that you are talking out your arse. i say this jovially and without ill will. For those people who might have such an adverse reaction, and thus have yet another obstacle to overcome on the way to freedom from their own misery, how would you describe an affectless occurence of 'tears of affectless 'joy'?


Sincerely,

Nick
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 8:40 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 4:19 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
D. Justine J:

Wonderful. ...'that sweet non-segregating recognition of continuous apperceptive awareness' ... That's it. It doesn't matter whether being in his physical presence, or being miles and miles and miles away. It is there.

Another thing Nick. Pl don't get confused about my tears. They are tears of Joy. Weeping seems a profane word!


Thanks for the reply, Justine. Thank you for the clarification. I do though have a word of advice. Since there is a the wide spread notion that 'actual freedom' is a state of no 'affective feelings' arising anymore, it might be more informative for your readers to be much clearer in the language you use. Tears of joy could be read by others as affective thus running the risk of injecting into their projections of you, the idea that you are talking out your arse. i say this jovially and without ill will. For those people who might have such an adverse reaction, and thus have yet another obstacle to overcome on the way to freedom from their own misery, how would you describe an affectless occurence of 'tears of affectless 'joy'?


Sincerely,

Nick


Dear Nick,

We weep when we lose our dear ones. We do get tears of joy when we reunite. Richard won't do this both. That's why he is unique. But still, we read in his web site, that Richard too cried on certain occasions. Well Nick. I accept your advice of good will. Thanks for your guidance. Now I understand the pressures and the language burdens of our esteemed readers, through your indications. I will take care of this while I present my views. Again, thanks for your interest in me.

Regards,

Justine
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 7:35 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 7:35 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
Aman, there is no need to insinuate such things. Why not ask Justine straight up in place of projecting your own projections?


Telling the truth is not insinuating anything. You have asked Justine straight up about what you think of his experience and what did you get? He goes around and around trying to project his experience as Actual Freedom when it clearly is not freedom.

Some of the AF claimants just use it to project themselves as somewhat alpha and try to attract opposite sex using that. Ironically, they also claim to have deleted instinctual passions in toto! Their behavior is not very different from so many spiritual gurus from the past which they are very fond of putting down.

What happens is that they just suppress their desires/passions and go to great lengths to try to hide them and present it as some sort of freedom or whatever. Some of the claimants also write rudely and then go on to say that they are completely calm and collected when doing so!
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 8:51 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 8:07 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Nikolai .:
Aman, there is no need to insinuate such things. Why not ask Justine straight up in place of projecting your own projections?


Telling the truth is not insinuating anything. You have asked Justine straight up about what you think of his experience and what did you get? He goes around and around trying to project his experience as Actual Freedom when it clearly is not freedom.


I have asked Justine about his experience and he has replied to some of the questions in the affirmative. If he is affirming what I have compared my own experience to, he is indeed talking about liberation from much mental unsatisfactoriness, and if one's objective is to do the same, then i would recommend going for it with full gusto.

Some of the AF claimants just use it to project themselves as somewhat alpha and try to attract opposite sex using that. Ironically, they also claim to have deleted instinctual passions in toto! Their behavior is not very different from so many spiritual gurus from the past which they are very fond of putting down.


This is based on what evidence? hearsay? videos? cassettes? seeing it with your own eyes? written responses?

You do realize that each person generally projects their own 'reading' and 'interpretation' onto someone else's text and if they do not receive the usual cues that play to one's own affective needs and if such affective needs are not met, then that person will generally have a negative affective response towards what they have read. All because of their own tendency to project their 'feelings' onto what they read rather than read logically and rationally. When one projects, the way the mind interprets the written text is often warped by the mind's own self-created affective overlay filtering all the information that is received.

What happens is that they just suppress their desires/passions and go to great lengths to try to hide them and present it as some sort of freedom or whatever. Some of the claimants also write rudely and then go on to say that they are completely calm and collected when doing so!


And you would know this how? Concerning 'rude', it might be interesting to do the following experiment to learn how one's own mind filters what one takes in through an affective overlay of one's own creation.

Experiment:

1/ read the following with an agitated and angry voice in mind**

I think you are projecting and you do this a lot without realizing it. i think you need to start focusing on this deeply engrained habit so that you can then see how habitual and automatic it is.




2/ continue to read the following but now with a jovial, happy, and calm voice in mind.**

I really think you have expended too much energy in the past on hating those you classify as frauds. it is time you focused purely and 100% on improving your own mind rather than fussing over the minds of others.




3/ now continue to read the following with an extremely rude and arrogant voice in mind.**

If you are feeling a stinging sensation in your chest after reading this little experiment, and your mind is shaking with agitation over it, thinking of ways to respond, then I apologise for causing you any discomfort. It was only an experiment and I meant none of it.


Notice how the mind may read each sentence a little differently due to the obvious triggers. Each person does this but with their own projected affective overlaying filters of their own creation, even without help from colour coding triggers.

Note: as I typed all of this, I was calm and experienced absolutely zero ill will towards you. This is the truth. Now if you see it differently on your end, then I can only assume you have read everything filtered through your own mentally fabricated affectively coloured lenses.

Sincerley,

Nick




Edited a few times for perfection. ;-)


Edit: Notice how this little emoticon ;-) plays to your affective needs and makes the line above more acceptable. If I hadn't used it, then " Edited a few times for perfection" may have been read a little more arrogantly. Cues for triggers for triggers for cues. What a tangled web we weave!
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 9:19 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 9:09 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
I have asked Justine about his experience and he has replied to some of the questions in the affirmative. If he is affirming what I have compared my own experience to, he is indeed talking about liberation from much mental unsatisfactoriness, and if one's objective is to do the same, then i would recommend going for it with full gusto.


This is what you understand of it. My understanding is different and I don't consider it to be freedom but yes, it could be called some liberation from some mental unsatisfactoriness. But this is far from what Actual Freedom is touted to be.

Nikolai .:

This is based on what evidence? hearsay? videos? cassettes? seeing it with your own eyes? written responses?

You do realize that each person generally projects their own 'reading' and 'interpretation' onto someone else's text and if they do not receive the usual cues that play to one's own affective needs and if such affective needs are not met, then that person will generally have a negative affective response towards what they have read. All because of their own tendency to project their 'feelings' onto what they read rather than read logically and rationally. When one projects, the way the mind interprets the written text is often warped by the mind's own self-created affective overlay filtering all the information that is received.


Just like you have come to an understanding of Justine, the same way I come to my understanding. You have your own 'reading' and 'interpretation' and I have my own.
thumbnail
Jeff Grove, modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 4:16 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 4:16 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 310 Join Date: 8/24/09 Recent Posts
the past couple of posts have been great explanations Nik and spot on, its interesting that Justine is still experiencing this movement of mind that he associates with Richard and the reliance on the mantra about the actual having no vibes

thankyou you Justine for putting your story out there

cheers
Jeff
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 9:56 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 9:56 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
"Richard also said that a documentary is likely to be made on him by a kind and caring lady, an English Professor, in India."

Page 21

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95410536/Justine-s-Reflections-on-Actual-Freedom

That documentary is not going to be made by that English Professor lady as now she is totally opposed to anything related to AF and she doesn't even want her name to be associated with it.
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 9:57 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/2/12 9:57 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Do you know who hacked Richard's PC hard disc?
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 2:54 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 2:54 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
Nick:

Aman:
Their behavior is not very different from so many spiritual gurus from the past which they are very fond of putting down.

This is based on what evidence? hearsay? videos? cassettes? seeing it with your own eyes? written responses?


I believe this to be true based on direct, first-hand testimony of things done and said, from someone who has had direct contact with Richard.

For me it is a good indicator that the purification of the senses is no warranty of skillful behavior. And, if I further take into account the second-hand testimony from that same person, this is much too mild a way of putting things.

Nick: You have exposed very clearly how an affective feeling tone can influence the interpretation of the written word, and it is commonly known that such an influence can distort the intended meaning of the person who has written the text.

The influence of feelings on interpretation, in this forum, is sometimes used to imply that a person who has no experience of such a feeling tone somehow has a better access to "what is really going on," as if their interpretation of the world was no longer an act of interpretation, but instead an occurrence of direct seeing; or, at least, that the account of someone who has purified their senses is more reliable, more accurate, with respect to "what is really going on."

Based on this assumption, people who have purified their senses apparently think, to some degree, that the interpretations of those who haven't done so are something they are justified in disregarding.

Just to show that I am not pulling this out of my ass, here are some quotations from people who have purified their senses to a high degree (my emphasis):

Quotes by people who have purified their senses:

(Tarin) an identity blind to its feelings is a callous one and is discernable by a dissociated sense of presence and (as is the case with feeling beings in general, callous or otherwise) a lack of sensitivity to what is actual.

(Jeff) Attain a PCE experience the wonder of this moment this will give you immediate insight as to why its not a subjective experience, (...)

(Tarin) as i remember clearly life run by the capricious whims of an identity, i know for myself that an account concomitant with those factors is deeply unreliable... particularly when those factors are out in full force.

(Jill) Since we love analogies on this forum let me make another…let’s say feelings are like homemade fruit juice that gets produced somewhere in the house. The house is the person, the individual. The house knows that there is usually fruit juice sitting around, but doesn’t know how or where it is made. One AF house comes along and says, “I know for sure that there can never be any more juice in my house. I have gotten rid of its source. There is no juice to be seen right now and none to be produced ever again.” The inquiring house says, “But how do you know that your juice is really actually completely gone? Maybe you just don’t see it, it’s behind some stuff in the fridge, or you’ve just stopped drinking it and have learned to ignore it completely.” The problem is that the inquirer has not seen the juice machine and not seen how the juice is made from this juice maker. To him, the home made juice production is like a default characteristic of the house—“emotions are always there, they’re part of being human.” As a result, it is impossible for him to imagine how the source of the juice could possibly be thrown out, but that is exactly what the AF person has done—trace the emotions back to their source, come to understand exactly what they are and how they arise, and then throw out the emotion-producer altogether. It’s not that the AF person has just stopped seeing and drinking the juice. The AF person has dismantled the source of feeling, and in order to have done so, had to understand more about emotions than we people who feel them, live with them and react to them all day long.

(Nick) Note: as I typed all of this, I was calm and experienced absolutely zero ill will towards you. This is the truth. Now if you see it differently on your end, then I can only assume you have read everything filtered through your own mentally fabricated affectively coloured lenses.


A pattern arises: to disregard external input justified on the presupposition that oneself can see more clearly (rather than just having a different perspective).

The grounds for making such an assumption are that feelings make people see less clearly, or even that "feelings are the main source of misinterpretation." This is a difficult matter, because it is known to everyone who has done a minimum of introspection (the vast majority of adults) that one can see distortedly because of the effects of feelings. However, to take this simple fact and conclude that "I can see more clearly because I have no feelings" is to presuppose that the MAIN source of distortion is feelings. Something which is, quite simply, not based on evidence, and hence should not be used as a justification for disregarding the perspective of a "feeling being". (I have ranted about this in the past: link)

For instance, in response to your correct observation that emotional cues in written text can help lead a "feeling being" to a more or less favorable opinion of what is written, I would suggest that the affective layer is not the only mechanism by which your mind judges a text favorably or not. In fact, such an appreciation of the written word is dependent on many factors, and those seem to me unavoidable, if any appreciation is ever to take place.

For instance, I expect that favorable versus unfavorable evaluation of a text will depend on any of the following: use of vocabulary and closeness to the use of English one is used to, being written in the mother tongue vs. second tongue, apriori agreement/disagreement of the text to one's own opinions, and even whether the room we are reading the text in is warmer rather than cooler.

The fact that you single out the affective process in all of this probably says more about your opinions, than it says about the processes guiding the interpretation of written text.

The way I see it: subjectivity is utterly impossible to avoid. Cognition is itself an act, rather than a passive seeing; the distinctions you have recently been mentioning so often are actions, in that they are actively created in your brain, rather than being an intrinsic part of whatever else is happening.

To give a simple example: there is no such thing as the color green; "seeing green" is a creation of the human brain in response to certain stimulus. I hope this simple and yet fundamental example illustrates how fundamentally subjective is the act of cognition. I think your "mentally fabricated affective colored lenses" bit suggests that it might not be very clear to you that, regardless of your level of attainment, you are still seeing through colored lenses (even if perhaps not affectively colored).
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 3:46 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 3:38 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
Well observed Bruno, I have often had those lines from MCTB about 'getting enlightened first then sort your stuff out' come to mind when reading about attainments and the conditioning that keeps a person very much 'that person' intellectually.

I think something Kenneth Folk said about being hard-wired to respond to the messianic tone of the AFT (my word not his, but same sort of idea) is applicable.

Other things I think also are related to that hardwiring;

1) high attainment automatically brings with it a higher intellectual capability. (the idea that jhana and wisdom are linked can be debunked pretty quickly despite the good buddha having 'said it' )

2) high attainment can thus be trusted to guide others

3) it is remiss of a non-attainment person to think otherwise than one who is a post-attainment person.

It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes;

John W. Gardner
The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.


for the record though, I ask HAIETMOBA every five minutes, sincerely applying felicity and innocuity in the hope that a pure intent brings about a PCE so I can work out what all the fuss is about ;-)

(shamelessly following Nicks lead on the winky emoticon)
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:10 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 4:49 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
I think your "mentally fabricated affective colored lenses" bit suggests that it might not be very clear to you that, regardless of your level of attainment, you are still seeing through colored lenses (even if perhaps not affectively colored).


Hi Bruno,

Help me understand the coloured lenses I have on. ;-) ....:-)......:-0

Here is what i said which seemed to trigger your interpretation of me.

Note: as I typed all of this, I was calm and experienced absolutely zero ill will towards you. This is the truth. Now if you see it differently on your end, then I can only assume you have read everything filtered through your own mentally fabricated affectively coloured lenses.

I meant it. I had no sense of 'arrogance' nor 'being' rude' nor 'being spiteful' nor this nor that. it was simply something that was triggered in the mind and written down. No ill intentions were there at all.

If Aman came back and said "you are behaving rudely and arrogantly", then i can only truly and honestly assume it was how he feels about what I wrote. How could it not be? How would his interpretation not be an interpretation filtered through an affective overlay? What are my coloured lenses here? Seems pretty straight forward. That is if you believe that I had nothing of the sort as the trigger for what I wrote i.e being rude and arrogant. What other possibility is there for someone accusing another's text as 'rude and arrogant', when that person who wrote the text had zero intention nor arisings of it being like so? Misunderstandings, cultural stuff, language barriers, pre-conceived ideas of the person/s, lack of emotional cues....but all triggering an affective overlay still, no?

Note: Aman has NOT reacted like this thus this is only hypothetical.
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:19 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:19 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
Bruno Loff:
I think your "mentally fabricated affective colored lenses" bit suggests that it might not be very clear to you that, regardless of your level of attainment, you are still seeing through colored lenses (even if perhaps not affectively colored).


Hi Bruno,

Help me understand the coloured lenses I have on. ;-) ....:-)......:-0


^_^ I already gave an example with the color green. It really isn't complicated or sophisticated (although I do think it is profound), so there isn't really anything I can help you understand. Here is another trivial example: If you have heard a song before, in hearing it you will recognize it. The experience is different, although the sound coming out of the speakers is pretty much the same.

Here is what i said which seemed to trigger your interpretation of me.


My interpretation is not certain (also it is not of you, but of an opinion you may hold). But the sentence you quote is similar to the other sentences I have quoted above, or points in the same general direction, in that it emphasizes the affective coloring as if it was something that "colors" otherwise "uncolored" experience. But all experience is colored, inevitably. Distinctions themselves color experience.

Nick:

Note: as I typed all of this, I was calm and experienced absolutely zero ill will towards you. This is the truth. Now if you see it differently on your end, then I can only assume you have read everything filtered through your own mentally fabricated affectively coloured lenses.

I meant it. I had no sense of 'arrogance' nor 'being' rude' nor 'being spiteful' nor this nor that. it was simply something that was triggered in the mind and written down. No ill intentions were there at all.


I don't dispute that you had no ill will, but this was not my point at all. Actually when I first selected that sentence for quoting, I had only outlined "I can only assume (...) lenses."

Nick:

If Aman came back and said "you are behaving rudely and arrogantly", then i can only truly and honestly assume it was how he feels about what I wrote. How could it not be? How would his interpretation not be an interpretation filtered through an affective overlay?


In general, interpreting someone's behavior as arrogant doesn't necessarily follow from one's own affective reactions. There are situations where people are arrogant, in that they can accurately be called arrogant, and such an evaluation is simply a matter of calling something by its name. I don't think you were arrogant at all, and I guess Aman probably doesn't either, but this isn't what I am pointing to at all. (However it is what you are repeatedly pointing too, see belowemoticon

Nick:
What are my coloured lenses here?


For instance that you specifically chose to single out this hypothetical possibility (that Aman would think you had ill will), and that you preventively judged that your only possible conclusion in that case would be that Aman is reacting affectively to your writing. Notice that I am not disputing the adequacy of this conclusion, I am pointing out the fact that you thought about it.

That which triggered you thinking about it: that is your colored lenses. I guess you have been reading and thinking about affective filters and actualism and so on in the last year or so, and this makes you more alert to such matters and more prone to bring them up in conversation.

This too is a lens, and although it is not an "affective lens", it could still accurately be called a "mentally fabricated colored lens," because it is a active product of the way your mind works, and it does color what you see and how you think and how you respond to things (just like affect).

Nick:
Seems pretty straight forward. That is if you believe that I had nothing of the sort as the trigger for what I wrote i.e being rude and arrogant. What other possibility is there for someone accusing another's text as 'rude and arrogant', when that person who wrote the text had zero intention nor arisings of it being like so? Misunderstandings, cultural stuff, language barriers, pre-conceived ideas of the person/s....but all triggering an affective overlay still, no?


While all those things will trigger an affective overlay in people who have that, all those things can, by their own, cause someone to misjudge someone else's actions as being arrogant. Given that these things are all mixed up in the mind, and that in your hypothetical scenario a combination of them could have gone into evaluating you as "arrogant," that you choose to pick one of them (the affective reaction part) and give it exclusive relevance, suggests to me that you think that emotion has a foremost role in the arising of wrong views; that it is the main determining factor [1]. What prompted me to write was that I don't see any evidence for that, which for me puts it in the category of "opinion."

I think of this particular opinion as an actualist version of the idea of "Truth," a.k.a. "I can see reality better than they can," a mode of self/group-promotion very common in spiritual circles. For instance:

Richard:
If by ‘psychological error’ you mean belief, bias, bigotry, favouritism and so on and so on ... once seen it is gone forever (if it returns it was not actually seen).


Smiley, smiley, smiley :-)

Bruno

[1] Again, this is my impression of what you said implies about your own views, but I am not certain. My uncertainty was established by the conscious use of the word "suggests" rather than "implies."
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 7:48 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:45 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
"Richard also said that a documentary is likely to be made on him by a kind and caring lady, an English Professor, in India."

Page 21

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95410536/Justine-s-Reflections-on-Actual-Freedom

That documentary is not going to be made by that English Professor lady as now she is totally opposed to anything related to AF and she doesn't even want her name to be associated with it.


Sorry Aman,

I think it is about a kind Indian lady, being English Professor, and a co-author of a Book, by R.
thumbnail
D Justine J, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:47 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:47 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 120 Join Date: 1/15/12 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Do you know who hacked Richard's PC hard disc?


I don't know. Nor am I interested with such things.

J.
Change A, modified 9 Years ago at 1/6/13 10:02 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 10:06 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
D. Justine J:
Sorry Aman,

I think it is about a kind Indian lady, being English Professor, and a co-author of a Book, by R.


No need to be sorry about it.

Then I guess that there were two Indian English Professor ladies interested in Actualism, one of them who is still interested in making a documentary and the other one who has moved away from Actualism.

That would mean that the documentary about Richard is still in the pipeline.

The one you are talking about doesn't have her first name beginning with "S", right? And if you don't mind, which book are you talking about?
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 10:21 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 10:21 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
The way I see it: subjectivity is utterly impossible to avoid.


Absolutely right.

But those who claim that they have no self/Self/being may not understand this. They have put a lot of time and energy into it and this simple thing will be too difficult for them to understand. This is their false persona and this is how they play the game. They just take a different path to take a shot at the goal. They don't know that they are still competing for a shot and also trying to reduce the chance of other players.

But they stand exposed when they want to focus on a particular group or try to tell others that they are no good at even something as basic as kicking a ball.
Felipe C, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 1:11 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 11:18 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Nice post, Bruno, food for thought.

I just want to put my two cents out. What I extract from the AFers and from my own experience is that a feeling being is more likely to misinterpret something because he has an involuntary inclination to do so based on feelings and beliefs. Language is a product created and used by feeling beings, and therefore charged with affective connotations. This inclination is not always conscious, but is definitely a powerful one. As the brain is naturally wired to firstly receive the input information with the amygdala, is common to react to the use of some words before even trying to understand them. It's entering a dark room and seeing a snake and react, and every action after that is going to be conditioned by the fear {even after you turn on the lights and realize that is a rope} because the chemicals are there and you are in a position of instinctive defensiveness.

When one reduces these instinctive responses, then words lose their affective charge, or, more accurately, one is progressively dropping the tendency to see connotations and increasing the tendency to see denotations in them.

You say in your examples...

apriori agreement/disagreement of the text to one's own opinions


Opinions are often formed by beliefs supported by feelings. Even if one doesn't agree with that, then there's another layer which is the attachment to the opinion. To wit, the opinion {a powerful impulse, actually} of having to defend my opinion, which is a pretty affective and identity-based thing to do.

and even whether the room we are reading the text in is warmer rather than cooler.


The only way I see this may be relevant is that the warmer or cooler room puts me in a certain mood, which is another affective inclination to interpret the weather, unless the room is so warm that causes dehydration and impedes the cognitive faculties.

The other examples were

use of vocabulary and closeness to the use of English one is used to, being written in the mother tongue vs. second tongue


I've seen Tarin and Trent accepting the possibility of misinterpretation and rephrasing their words to match the capabilities and familiarity of the interlocutor, or acknowledging when their writing was unclear or ambiguous. I don't think anybody can deny this possibility, AFer or not.

In this forum, the 'affective lenses' argument comes into picture when someone feels offended or insulted by someone, and not when there is a miscommunication or misunderstanding in terms of denotative meaning of the words.

Given that a feeling being has that inclination to read the affective {and therefore subjective} part of language, and that has a great tendency of not only creating personal and sociocultural identities but also another to defend and attach to them, would we at least agree that a feeling being is more likely to misinterpret words and phrases in this kind of forums?
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 2:23 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 2:23 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
Hey Felipe, I agree with all you wrote, except maybe this:

Felipe:
Given that a feeling being has that inclination to read the affective {and therefore subjective} part of language, and that has a great tendency of not only creating personal and sociocultural identities but also another to defend and attach to them, would we at least agree that a feeling being is more likely to misinterpret words and phrases in this kind of forums?


Here I really don't know. I would agree, perhaps, that practice leading towards a diminished emotional reactivity might lead a specific person to be less likely to misinterpret, or overinterpret, the written word. And I say might, because personally, although my emotional reactivity is somewhat diminished, I am not so sure I am less prone to misinterpreting written text (perhaps in different ways). Also I am not sure about connotative vs. denotative: I am still quite capable of interpreting connotatively, though perhaps I don't react as much as I did to that layer of meaning. However, I would hesitate a lot before extending this to a general appreciation of "people without affect" versus "people with affect."

For example I can think of two specific acquaintances of mine, such that the most passionate of the two (let's call him X) is much more capable of interpreting the world accurately and deeply, than the least passionate (say, Y). While X sometimes gets mad and reacts quite emotionally to something someone said, whereas Y is much calmer and composed, it turns out that X is much better informed, has had a much broader range of experiences, and perhaps is simply more intelligent than Y. These are the determining factors involved in the formation of his more accurate understanding, not the gripping force of his passions.
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 3:01 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 2:51 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 296 Join Date: 9/5/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
Hey Felipe, I agree with all you wrote, except maybe this:

Felipe:
Given that a feeling being has that inclination to read the affective {and therefore subjective} part of language, and that has a great tendency of not only creating personal and sociocultural identities but also another to defend and attach to them, would we at least agree that a feeling being is more likely to misinterpret words and phrases in this kind of forums?


Aha! I read through these (now off-topic) posts and immediately saw that this was the point of conflict! *pats himself on the back for being so smart*

To Bruno I'd like to put that "emotional reactivity" does not equate (at all) "affective faculty".

No matter whether the view is somehow/what correct or not, I don't think you appreciate the depth and enormously-long-tentacly-nature of the actualist view of the affective faculty. I say this only because I know that I can adopt this particular position and see how it would make sense to express what (some) actualists are expressing.

Bruno Loff:
While X sometimes gets mad and reacts quite emotionally to something someone said, whereas Y is much calmer and composed, it turns out that X is much better informed, has had a much broader range of experiences, and perhaps is simply more intelligent than Y. These are the determining factors involved in the formation of his more accurate understanding, not the gripping force of his passions.

Not according to (my understanding of) the actualist view.
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 2:58 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 2:57 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 296 Join Date: 9/5/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:

But those who claim that they have no self/Self/being may not understand this. They have put a lot of time and energy into it and this simple thing will be too difficult for them to understand. This is their false persona and this is how they play the game. They just take a different path to take a shot at the goal. They don't know that they are still competing for a shot and also trying to reduce the chance of other players.

But they stand exposed when they want to focus on a particular group or try to tell others that they are no good at even something as basic as kicking a ball.


What is this? (hint)
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 5:08 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 5:21 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:

For instance that you specifically chose to single out this hypothetical possibility (that Aman would think you had ill will), and that you preventively judged that your only possible conclusion in that case would be that Aman is reacting affectively to your writing. Notice that I am not disputing the adequacy of this conclusion, I am pointing out the fact that you thought about it.

That which triggered you thinking about it: that is your colored lenses. I guess you have been reading and thinking about affective filters and actualism and so on in the last year or so, and this makes you more alert to such matters and more prone to bring them up in conversation.


No. i don't consider myself to be an 'actualist'. Neither have I been reading about it. I'm talking about it strictly from my own experience. I also, in the same frame of mind as Tarin, do not know what the hell Richard is talking about. (so I cease from associating myself with him and his AF from now on, though i wont cease comparing my own experience with those who visit the DhO and discussing it with them pragmatically and openly). I am talking from my own experience of not experiencing affect as I once did. I guess the current baseline are my coloured ray bans......wait for it.............;-)

This too is a lens, and although it is not an "affective lens", it could still accurately be called a "mentally fabricated colored lens," because it is a active product of the way your mind works, and it does color what you see and how you think and how you respond to things (just like affect).


I guess you are right. Still my point about Aman possibly reading me as rude or whatever, is more for him to see if it is what he was doing. if it is, it is good, in my books, to become aware of it in a practice related context.


Nick:
Seems pretty straight forward. That is if you believe that I had nothing of the sort as the trigger for what I wrote i.e being rude and arrogant. What other possibility is there for someone accusing another's text as 'rude and arrogant', when that person who wrote the text had zero intention nor arisings of it being like so? Misunderstandings, cultural stuff, language barriers, pre-conceived ideas of the person/s....but all triggering an affective overlay still, no?


While all those things will trigger an affective overlay in people who have that, all those things can, by their own, cause someone to misjudge someone else's actions as being arrogant. Given that these things are all mixed up in the mind, and that in your hypothetical scenario a combination of them could have gone into evaluating you as "arrogant," that you choose to pick one of them (the affective reaction part) and give it exclusive relevance, suggests to me that you think that emotion has a foremost role in the arising of wrong views; that it is the main determining factor [1]. What prompted me to write was that I don't see any evidence for that, which for me puts it in the category of "opinion."


I'm saying that the affective reaction is arising as a result of "Misunderstandings, cultural stuff, language barriers, pre-conceived ideas of the person/s", not as another option. I don't think one is able to separate the 'interpretation of rudeness and arrogance" from an affective overlay...ever as I see in my current expericne with a lack of affect, I will not intepret a text as someone else has as being "rude and arrogant" and I see that being from the absence of an affective overlay. Though i stand to be corrected and open to being wrong and open to seeing that yes, due to current experience I am seeing things in a different light (and if one wishes to call those tinted glasses by all means call them that).

I am speaking from a different place these days and still am getting used to it I think. Someone else's rudeness and arrogance may not come across to me in their writing unless it is explicit i.e. words of abuse etc. I just read their words and respond as I see fit without such an affective overlay of "how rude and arrogant!'. So, yes, I guess I am speaking and seeing through from my own raybans but also taking into account and comparing with the oldschool oakley's with yellow lenses that I had on previously.

I think of this particular opinion as an actualist version of the idea of "Truth," a.k.a. "I can see reality better than they can," a mode of self/group-promotion very common in spiritual circles. For instance:


I don't think I have ever had such an opinion. Is this your impression? I have never called myself an 'actualist' and Richard certainly doesn't consider me one. This i know. Where have I said "I can see reality better than they can" or insinuated it? Or is it something that one is overlaying onto what I have said due to other people and one's impression of them? Maybe what I said has no 'agenda' like so nor based on such ideas. I still stand behind what I have said, but am open to wearing my raybans openly. Stress-free unwarping raybans! ..........wait for it............wait for it..........................;-)


:-0

Nick

Edit: Just curious, is it hard to figure out if I'm serious when i use all the emoticons?
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:20 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:20 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Even with his better writing skill than mine, Bruno hasn't been able to get his point across which is a valid one. I knew this will be so and because of that, I didn't want the debate to continue on endlessly.
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:31 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:31 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
For example I can think of two specific acquaintances of mine, such that the most passionate of the two (let's call him X) is much more capable of interpreting the world accurately and deeply, than the least passionate (say, Y). While X sometimes gets mad and reacts quite emotionally to something someone said, whereas Y is much calmer and composed, it turns out that X is much better informed, has had a much broader range of experiences, and perhaps is simply more intelligent than Y. These are the determining factors involved in the formation of his more accurate understanding, not the gripping force of his passions.


Good example. I was also of the same opinion as Felipe but now I think I was wrong. By becoming more calmer than in the past using different techniques doesn't mean that one can interpret the world accurately than someone else. What it will result in is that compared to oneself, one will interpret the world more accurately not than everyone else in the world. Someone might have much better capability without using any of the different techniques to remain calm, peaceful, happy and harmless etc.

Some people using different techniques/methods may start seeing themselves as better than others which is also similar to the "holier than thou" attitude of spiritualists.
Felipe C, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:57 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 6:56 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Of course, it's always difficult to speak in generalizations. With 'more likely' I just wanted to establish the importance of the 'affective variable' in probabilistic terms, specially when one is immersed in written communication where the message is just there, without other kinds of contextual information.

When one has some beliefs and those are dependent of and fueled by powerful feelings, then the 'I' is often looking at things with a defense-offense perspective. When there is no 'I' {and if you accept the notion of 'I am my feelings and my feelings are me'}, there is nothing to defend because there is no defender, and thus communication becomes a more impersonal act. I think this is important if one wants to look at things or words 'more objectively', or at least is more likely to happen if the 'I' is absent.

Allow me the following hypothetical {and maybe crazy} case... A and B are human clones with exactly the same information, intelligence, health, etc, but A is no longer a feeling being and B is still under the influence of the 'affective faculty'. Which one is more likely to misinterpret written communication {specially, misinterpretation in the form of personal offense and insult, which was the origin of this debate}?
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 9:07 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/3/12 9:07 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Of course, it's always difficult to speak in generalizations. With 'more likely' I just wanted to establish the importance of the 'affective variable' in probabilistic terms, specially when one is immersed in written communication where the message is just there, without other kinds of contextual information.

When one has some beliefs and those are dependent of and fueled by powerful feelings, then the 'I' is often looking at things with a defense-offense perspective. When there is no 'I' {and if you accept the notion of 'I am my feelings and my feelings are me'}, there is nothing to defend because there is no defender, and thus communication becomes a more impersonal act. I think this is important if one wants to look at things or words 'more objectively', or at least is more likely to happen if the 'I' is absent.


I think that the 'I' you talk of that becomes absent is just the subjective experience of it. The person who doesn't have the subjective experience of 'I' still keeps on living a somewhat normal life. Another person who doesn't know about him may not find him to be too different. But the person who has lost the subjective experience of 'I' will think of himself as being totally different. Someone may start claiming him to be the first one in the history of mankind and other such grandiose claims. But in his behavior he may still do the same things as what another human with his subjective sense of 'I' intact does or maybe even worse in some instances. I think that the 'self' remains no matter what one's subjective experience tells and what anyone may claim to be because if there is no trace left of the self, that body will not live to tell the tale. Until there is a body, there is some remnant of self that remains. This is the real world scenario. Now on to the hypothetical one.

Felipe C.:
Allow me the following hypothetical {and maybe crazy} case... A and B are human clones with exactly the same information, intelligence, health, etc, but A is no longer a feeling being and B is still under the influence of the 'affective faculty'. Which one is more likely to misinterpret written communication {specially, misinterpretation in the form of personal offense and insult, which was the origin of this debate}?


In this hypothetical scenario, the answer would be B.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 3:17 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 3:15 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:

But in his behavior he may still do the same things as what another human with his subjective sense of 'I' intact does or maybe even worse in some instances. I think that the 'self' remains no matter what one's subjective experience tells and what anyone may claim to be because if there is no trace left of the self, that body will not live to tell the tale. Until there is a body, there is some remnant of self that remains. This is the real world scenario. Now on to the hypothetical one.


I'd call it conditioning whether cultural, upbringing, past experiences habits etc. etc, cause and effect, effect cause, cause and effect etc.
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 1:37 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 1:37 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Even with his better writing skill than mine, Bruno hasn't been able to get his point across which is a valid one. I knew this will be so and because of that, I didn't want the debate to continue on endlessly.

Do you not think, since nobody other than you and Bruno seems to be seeing this "point", that there may be a better way of explaining it? Also, since you "knew this will be so", why would you bother in the first place?

Live and let live, what difference does any of this make to you?
thumbnail
Daniel Johnson, modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 5:00 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 5:00 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/16/09 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:

No. i don't consider myself to be an 'actualist'. .... I have never called myself an 'actualist' and Richard certainly doesn't consider me one.


I know the AFT writings aren't very popular these days, but when I have used the term actualist, this is the definition I've used:

Peter:
... An actualist is someone who is actively, intently, stubbornly, full bloodedly, whole-heartedly and totally consumed in the pursuit of an individual actual freedom from the Human Condition. An actualist is concerned with action not advocacy, and with practical implementation and radical change, not theoretical observation and superficial adaptation.

An actualist is a relentless pursuer of what is factual and what is actual.

An actualist is one who devotes his or her life to actualizing peace on earth in the only way possible and gets to have the adventure of a lifetime on the way...

An actualist mixes, mingles, works with and lives with, one’s fellow human beings as-they-are in the world-as-it-is.


*note that the terms "actualist" and "actual freedom" are not capitalized nor trademarked nor indicated to be proprietary in any way within this quote.

By this definition, I'd think there would be very few people on these boards who are not actualists. Perhaps I've practiced too much naivete emoticon
thumbnail
Jeff Grove, modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:22 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 5:26 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 310 Join Date: 8/24/09 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:

To give a simple example: there is no such thing as the color green; "seeing green" is a creation of the human brain in response to certain stimulus. I hope this simple and yet fundamental example illustrates how fundamentally subjective is the act of cognition. I think your "mentally fabricated affective colored lenses" bit suggests that it might not be very clear to you that, regardless of your level of attainment, you are still seeing through colored lenses (even if perhaps not affectively colored).


Hi Bruno,

You raise an important point and one I have contemplated as there is much evidence that colour is an illusion but consider an animal that can see colour does that equate to the animal having a subjective consciousness (e.g. a bee). I have no idea but much of the research depends upon the interpretation of the evidence, type of animal, etc.

I recently read an article where the colours blue and yellow are the oldest colours the human saw and as such are often related to warm, pleasant affective tones whereas rods developed later in the human eviolution and reds and greens (cant quite remember) are instinctively related to fright and flight (might be the other way round in evolution will try and find the article)

cheers

Jeff
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:38 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:38 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Allow me the following hypothetical {and maybe crazy} case... A and B are human clones with exactly the same information, intelligence, health, etc, but A is no longer a feeling being and B is still under the influence of the 'affective faculty'. Which one is more likely to misinterpret written communication {specially, misinterpretation in the form of personal offense and insult, which was the origin of this debate}?


On further thought, I think that although B may be more likely to misinterpret written communication but it can also happen that A start to think that because he is not under the influence of the affective faculty, that he is always right and others with affective faculty are always wrong and starts to question everything that others have to say which may make A more likely to misinterpret written communication.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:49 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:44 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Felipe C.:
Allow me the following hypothetical {and maybe crazy} case... A and B are human clones with exactly the same information, intelligence, health, etc, but A is no longer a feeling being and B is still under the influence of the 'affective faculty'. Which one is more likely to misinterpret written communication {specially, misinterpretation in the form of personal offense and insult, which was the origin of this debate}?


On further thought, I think that although B may be more likely to misinterpret written communication but it can also happen that A start to think that because he is not under the influence of the affective faculty, that he is always right and others with affective faculty are always wrong and starts to question everything that others have to say which may make A more likely to misinterpret written communication.


Do you think you are always right and think others are wrong much, Aman? Serious question.
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:45 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:45 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Tommy M:
Do you not think, since nobody other than you and Bruno seems to be seeing this "point", that there may be a better way of explaining it?


Maybe Bruno will come up with something.

Tommy M:
Also, since you "knew this will be so", why would you bother in the first place?


I "knew this will be so" after reading responses to my initial post. That is why in the second post, Stian thought I was distancing myself from what I had said.

Tommy M:
Live and let live, what difference does any of this make to you?


Do my posts reduce anyone's chance to live? What difference do my posts make to you?
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:48 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:48 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
Do you think you are always right and think others are wrong much, Aman? Serious question.


You don't have to go far to find the answer. See my reply on 6/3/12 at 6:31 PM to Bruno Loff.

"I was also of the same opinion as Felipe but now I think I was wrong."
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:53 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 9:50 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Nikolai .:
Do you think you are always right and think others are wrong much, Aman? Serious question.


You don't have to go far to find the answer. See my reply on 6/3/12 at 6:31 PM to Bruno Loff.

"I was also of the same opinion as Felipe but now I think I was wrong."


Nice to see some honesty. You have made some absolute statements in the past as if you were the only one who was right.

On further thought, I think that although B may be more likely to misinterpret written communication but it can also happen that A start to think that because he is not under the influence of the affective faculty, that he is always right and others with affective faculty are always wrong and starts to question everything that others have to say which may make A more likely to misinterpret written communication.


Also are you open to person A not having the agenda that you speak of? Or is it that for you everyone like person A must have such an agenda i.e start to think that because he is not under the influence of the affective faculty, that he is always right and others with affective faculty are always wrong and starts to question everything that others have to say?

Nick
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 10:01 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 10:01 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
Nice to see some honesty. You have made some absolute statements in the past as if you were the only one who was right.


I am of the opinion that all opinions are subjective, so I don't put something like "just my 2 cents" like you do because that is a very obvious thing. So I guess from now on, you can keep this in mind whenever you read any post by me because most of the time, you raise questions because of that.

Nikolai .:
Also are you open to person A not having the agenda that you speak of? Or is it that for you that everyone like person A must have such an agenda i.e start to think that because he is not under the influence of the affective faculty, that he is always right and others with affective faculty are always wrong and starts to question everything that others have to say?


Everyone who is alive has an agenda and those who want to either focus on some particular group or want to impart secret teachings to someone have a lot more. Though they may not see themselves as having an agenda and they will vehemently deny it. Also those who want to reach that state or think that it is possible to reach perfection or any such names may not see it as such. That is their subjective understanding and this is my subjective understanding.
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 10:02 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 10:02 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Did you think that I am not honest? Is that why you said "nice to see some honesty"?
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 10:49 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 10:46 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:


I am of the opinion that all opinions are subjective, so I don't put something like "just my 2 cents" like you do because that is a very obvious thing. So I guess from now on, you can keep this in mind whenever you read any post by me because most of the time, you raise questions because of that.



Everyone who is alive has an agenda and those who want to either focus on some particular group or want to impart secret teachings to someone have a lot more. Though they may not see themselves as having an agenda and they will vehemently deny it. Also those who want to reach that state or think that it is possible to reach perfection or any such names may not see it as such. That is their subjective understanding and this is my subjective understanding.

Ok. You were honest, weren't you? I just thanked you for it. How did you get to the idea that I was insinuating you ever being dishonest? .......;-)
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 11:09 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 11:09 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Woah, that is a big arrow. I thought it would be smaller. not sure how to reduce it. But you get my point, no?

Here is some MJ to lighten the mood. Hiii hii!


___________§§§$$§§$§§_
_W_______$$$$$§§§$$§§$§_
_______($$$$$$$§§§$$§§$§§_(§§)_
_E_____($$$$$$$$$$$$§§$$__$§§$)~
________(§§§$$$$§$$$$§§$$§§$§§$§§~
________((_($$§§$§§$§§§§§§§§§$$§§$
_L______))_(§$$$$$$§§$$§§$§§$§§§§§~
_________((_)_((§$$§$$§§$$§§$§§$§§§§((....
_O_________))_)_§$$))_$$$§§§$$§§$§§$§§§§§
___________(__(_))_§$§§§§§$$§§$$§§$§§$§§§
_V_____________(__$_$$§§§§§§$$§§$$§§$§§$§§
_______________)_$_$§$§§§§§§$§§$$§§$§§§§__§
_E________________)$__§§§§§§$§$$_§$$§§___§$§
_______M_________(§___$§§§§§$§§$_§$$___§§§§§§
_________________($§__$§$§§§$$$§§§_$__$§§§§§$§§
_Y_____I__________§§§_§$$$$$§§§§§§§$§§_§$$§$$§§§§
___________________(§__§§§§§§§§§§$§§$$§§_§§$_§§§§§
_O_____C___________(§_$$§§$§§§§§§§§$$§§$§_$§§§§§§
____________________§_$§§$§§§§§§§§$$§§_§§$§§§§§§
_U_____H____________§__$$§§§§$§§§§§§$_§§$§§$§§§
_____________________§_$$§§§§$§§§§§__$§§$§§$§§
_______A_____________§_$$_§§§§§§$§§$$§§$§§§§
_____________________§§§§_§§§§§$§§$$§§$§§§§
_______E_____________§§§$$::::§§$$$§§$$§§$_§
___________________§§§§:§§§§§§__§§$§§$§_§§
_______L_________§$$:§§§§§$$$§___§$§§$§§§§
______________§§:§§$§$$§§$$__$§§$§§§§§§
____________$$§:§§§$§$$$$$§§$$§§$§§$§_§§§
__________$$§:§§$$$$$$§§$§§§§§§§$$___$§§
_______$$$§::§$$$$$$§§$§§§§§§§§§______§§
_____$$$§::§$$$$FL$§§§§§§§$§§$_________§
___$$$§::§§$$$$§§§§$$$§§§§
_$$§::§§§$$§§$§§§§§§§§§
$§§§$§§§§§$$§§§§§§§
§§§§§§§$$§§$§§§§
_§§§§§§§§$§§_§§$
_§§§§§§§§§$§§$_§§§
__§§§§$§§§$§$§§$_§§
___§§§§$§§§$§$§§$_§§
_____$§§§§§§§§§§§$§_§§
______§§§$§§§§§§$§§$§_§
_______$§§§§§§§$$§$$§§_§§
________§§§§$$§§$$§§$$§§_§
_________§$§$$$§§§§§§$$§§$§§
__________$$$$§§$_§§$§§$§§§§§§
___________§$§§$§§_§§§§§§§§§$$§§$§
____________§$§§$§§_§§§§§§§§_$$§§$
_____________§$§§$§§_$§§§§§__§§$§
_________________§$§§$______§§§§
__________________§§§§§_§§__§§§§$
__________________§§§$§§__$§§§§§§§
___________________§$§§$§____§$§§§§
_____________________§§§$§§___§§$§§
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 11:15 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/4/12 11:15 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
now that's what I call an agenda, I knew you were going somewhere with all of this..
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 11:55 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 11:55 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
I think of this particular opinion as an actualist version of the idea of "Truth," a.k.a. "I can see reality better than they can," a mode of self/group-promotion very common in spiritual circles. For instance:


I don't think I have ever had such an opinion. Is this your impression?


I'm sure you're a great guy, I'm a long-time fan emoticon Perhaps that is why I spend my energy disagreeing with you? See: all I have to go by is what you write. I think I was clear as to why I made this point, so let me emphasize where my impression comes from:

Bruno:
[the sentence that you wrote and which I quoted in my first post] suggests to me that you think that emotion has a foremost role in the arising of wrong views; that it is the main determining factor.


Then the sentence "I think of this particular opinion ..." is, as stated, what I think of this opinion (the opinion in boldface above): I think of it as an actualist version of the spiritual idea of wisdom (which non-surprisingly the spiritualist/actualist has in higher supply than the rest of mankind). Even if you think that "emotion has the foremost role in the arising of wrong views," you might still disagree that it "is an actualist version of the idea of Truth."

To make it simple: Do you think that emotion is the main cause of the arising of misunderstandings and/or language barriers, preconceived notions of others, and/or bias, and/or wrong views? (because, like I said, that is what your response to Aman suggests to me) If so, do you concede this is just an opinion, or have you based it on evidence of some kind?

Nick:
Edit: Just curious, is it hard to figure out if I'm serious when i use all the emoticons?


They make me think that you are uninvolved in the debate.

By the way I do not agree with a lot of what Aman has wrote, although I can guess what causes him to write the way he does. For instance, I am nowadays of the opinion that it is possible to be rude, even if one does not experience emotional upheaval; I consider that a lot of ways that Richard has interacted with others to be extremely rude; in a local example, I consider Trent's admonishing reply to Florian, in this thread, to be rude. In spite of being convinced that both Richard and Trent have purified their perception to be devoid of emotion.

And yet let me remind you of what you wrote above:

Nickolay:
Aman:
What happens is that they just suppress their desires/passions and go to great lengths to try to hide them and present it as some sort of freedom or whatever. Some of the claimants also write rudely and then go on to say that they are completely calm and collected when doing so!


And you would know this how? Concerning 'rude', it might be interesting to do the following experiment to learn how one's own mind filters what one takes in through an affective overlay of one's own creation.


(While I don't agree with Aman,) The boldface sentence suggests to me (again I emphasize that the word is suggests, rather than implies) that you think 'rudeness' is a judgement which has an emotional origin, that actually Aman's view that Richard (, say,) is rude can only arise because of him reacting emotionally to Richard's writing; in one further speculative step, it also suggests to me that perhaps you even think that being rude is really not possible while one remains calm and collected. Again, this is just speculation on my part, but perhaps I have gotten it right?

In any case I would repeat my previous point, using "rudeness" instead of "misunderstanding," that there are many possible causes for rude behavior and unskillful behavior in general, other than emotional reactivity (for instance belief, disagreement, lack of context, cultural differences, etc). And perhaps more personally, the fact that you, upon reading Aman's accusation of someone else being rude, propose that he reflect on the role of emotional reactivity in making such accusations, seems to say more about you and your current beliefs, than it says about whether his accusation is legitimate or not (and this is the case even though you are right that emotional reactivity can, by itself, lead a person to think of someone else as rude).

The question of whether it is appropriate to say that Richard is being rude or not is left behind, in favor of introspection at what causes one to make such an assessment; and a very partial kind of introspection, in my opinion.

Forgive me if my sentences are getting longer and more intricate, and I haven't added much to the dialogue.

Bruno
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 4:39 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 4:38 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Tommy:
Live and let live, what difference does any of this make to you?


Aman:
Do my posts reduce anyone's chance to live? What difference do my posts make to you?

I have no idea, do they? It's interesting that you would take a commonly used idiom, "live and let live", and interpret it literally. I have no idea whether you're being sarcastic or whether you were sitting there, straight-faced, while writing it.

As for what difference your posts make to me? None whatsoever, it's just a casual observation; you always seem to end up in some disagreement or another, and it's almost always down to the way in which a person uses words. I'm suggesting that you might want to take a look at the way you interpret peoples posts based on your preconceptions about them, it's something I found myself doing quite a lot in the past, for example: 'looking up' to Dan; thinking CCC was an arsehole; immediately assuming I knew more than a new participant on the DhO; dismissing the opinion of anyone who was pro-AF; just stupid stuff I didn't think to look at more closely but which, as further investigation revealed, were often leading to some sort of misinterpretation, bias or lack of critical analysis/empirical validation of what was being said. In short, I 'got the wrong end of the stick'......joining in with Nick's......pauses........waiting......; ).....yaaaasssssss! emoticon
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 4:42 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 4:42 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
The Loff:
Forgive me if my sentences are getting longer and more intricate, and I haven't added much to the dialogue.

I've come to realization that, knowing you are a Naked City fan and will get the reference, you're the John Zorn of verbal noise. Bearing in mind that I'm a big Naked City, and Zorn in general actually, fan, take that as something positive. emoticon
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 5:30 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 5:17 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
Nikolai .:
I think of this particular opinion as an actualist version of the idea of "Truth," a.k.a. "I can see reality better than they can," a mode of self/group-promotion very common in spiritual circles. For instance:


I don't think I have ever had such an opinion. Is this your impression?


I'm sure you're a great guy, I'm a long-time fan emoticon Perhaps that is why I spend my energy disagreeing with you? See: all I have to go by is what you write. I think I was clear as to why I made this point, so let me emphasize where my impression comes from:


Edit: As I typed this reply, my opinion evolved as I saw connections to other aspects of experience.


Bruno:
[the sentence that you wrote and which I quoted in my first post] suggests to me that you think that emotion has a foremost role in the arising of wrong views; that it is the main determining factor.


Then the sentence "I think of this particular opinion ..." is, as stated, what I think of this opinion (the opinion in boldface above): I think of it as an actualist version of the spiritual idea of wisdom (which non-surprisingly the spiritualist/actualist has in higher supply than the rest of mankind). Even if you think that "emotion has the foremost role in the arising of wrong views," you might still disagree that it "is an actualist version of the idea of Truth."

To make it simple: Do you think that emotion is the main cause of the arising of misunderstandings and/or language barriers, preconceived notions of others, and/or bias, and/or wrong views? (because, like I said, that is what your response to Aman suggests to me) If so, do you concede this is just an opinion, or have you based it on evidence of some kind?


My current take is that emotion is not the main cause of the arising of misunderstandings and/or language barriers. Differing cultures, language issues, not reading the words properly, differing understandings of words and meaning, lack of coffee in the morning etc can all be triggers for an interpretation of text.

I believe that such occurences mentioned above can then act as triggers for the arising of affective feelings within someone where that experiencing affect is the norm. For example, there is a misunderstanding. This situation and all the factors involved in it become the 'object' for the mind to linger on. From here jumps all nama and rupa, giving shape and evaluations to said object. From here jumps all contact and vedana and then the arising of affective feelings, emotions and 'me-ness' , the subjective reaction to the 'object', the situation/misunderstanding that has occurred. I think the affective overlay at the end of the sequence is unavoidable and inevitable unless practicing one's practice at the time of said misunderstanding.

Such situations become the 'object' of consciousness triggering 'interpretations' of an affective nature for someone who experiences affect as the norm. If there is an interpretation of an affective nature such as 'rude and arrogant' triggered by a misunderstanding and/or language barrier, this interpretation, I believe, will not be experienced within that person who interprets what is read without a mentally affective overlay influencing said interpretation.

I'm saying a text that triggers an interpretation of 'rude' and 'arrogant' will always be intrpetated like so due to affective feelings informing the interpretation for someone where affect is the norm. For if there were no affective arising, there would be no assessment and interpretation of 'rude and arrogant' as the language would simply be read as information and if there were a 'misunderstanding' it would not trigger an interpretation of an affective nature as the person would not be experiencing the affect to inform that interpretation. I'm saying that when someone who experiences 'affect' as the norm interprets a text as 'rude and arrogant' , it may be based on misunderstandings and/or language barriers or not having drank the morning coffee, but such a situation coupled with the text being read will become 'objectified' and subjectively reacted towards and then reproduced as the response of accusation of 'rude and arrogant'. I don't think one who experiences affect as the norm would come to the conclusion that a text by someone else is inherently 'rude and arrogant' unless there were explicit visual cues that lead to such a conclusion, e.g. words of abuse or other visual cues like an emoticon with the middle finger sticking up.

However, let me say that even if one is not experiencing 'affect' like justine has expressed, and it is quite hard to describe what does still arise, like his affectless affect (the tears of joy), I think the affectless affect is still a product of the 'objectifying' tendency of mind, triggering sensations without the full forming affect still and this trigger can still lead one to evaluate in the same way as a person where affect is the norm as one will still recognize the familiar charge for such an evaluation and interpretation via the residual shadow of it. However, if this is not occurring and it is simply consciousness without object as wella s the co-arising subjective reaction all the time, there will never be such an interpretation as there will not be any charge or full affect to inform it (unless remembering how visual cues like abusive langauge and emoticons conveyed such info).

I am open to being wrong of course. This is simply my current take due to my own experience of pre and post baseline shift. This opinion is subject to change at the drop of a hat. If however, it acts as a trigger for others to be more wary of how they interpret the written text incorporating such investigations into their practice in how the mind 'objectifies', then I stand by everything I have said.

Nick:
Edit: Just curious, is it hard to figure out if I'm serious when i use all the emoticons?


They make me think that you are uninvolved in the debate.


emoticon

By the way I do not agree with a lot of what Aman has wrote, although I can guess what causes him to write the way he does. For instance, I am nowadays of the opinion that it is possible to be rude, even if one does not experience emotional upheaval; I consider that a lot of ways that Richard has interacted with others to be extremely rude; in a local example, I consider Trent's admonishing reply to Florian, in this thread, to be rude. In spite of being convinced that both Richard and Trent have purified their perception to be devoid of emotion.


Yes, it is possible to read that as rude I guess. I didn't but recognize others did via how they responded to him. But I'm saying it is unavoidable and inevitable for someone who has such an interpretation where affect is the norm (or residue of it), to experience such an interpretation without affect informing it. It could be the subtlest of affect arising, a sensation in the chest, throat, coupled with the slightest of mental movements but it is there, unavoidably influencing and informing the interpretation of 'rude' and 'arrogant'. The subjective reaction is unavoidable. Even if the subjective reaction has been reduced to an 'almost affect but not quite affect thus not affect' residue.

And yet let me remind you of what you wrote above:

Nickolay:
Aman:
What happens is that they just suppress their desires/passions and go to great lengths to try to hide them and present it as some sort of freedom or whatever. Some of the claimants also write rudely and then go on to say that they are completely calm and collected when doing so!


And you would know this how? Concerning 'rude', it might be interesting to do the following experiment to learn how one's own mind filters what one takes in through an affective overlay of one's own creation.


(While I don't agree with Aman,) The boldface sentence suggests to me (again I emphasize that the word is suggests, rather than implies) that you think 'rudeness' is a judgement which has an emotional origin, that actually Aman's view that Richard (, say,) is rude can only arise because of him reacting emotionally to Richard's writing; in one further speculative step, it also suggests to me that perhaps you even think that being rude is really not possible while one remains calm and collected. Again, this is just speculation on my part, but perhaps I have gotten it right?


Perhaps i should re-asses how I'm describing what I think. As it has sort of morphed as I have been writing this reply. I believe any mind that 'objectifies' phenomena, regardless of triggers, misunderstandings, language barriers, and experiences a co-arising unavoidable subjective reaction in whatever form, full affect or residue, if the subjective reaction informs an interpretation of 'rude and offensive,' it was informed by affect or its residue. Justine still gets 'irked' by people. Still a subjective reaction, without the full affect forming. His interpretation of them is run through the same 'objectification/subjective reaction' mental overlay.

So, I don't think people with affect as the norm the only ones who will have such interpretations informed by their subjective reaction. Anyone regardless of baseline, full affect or 'affectless affect', they will have such interpretations informed by such a subjective reaction.

Without the 'object/subjective reaction', there is no affect or residue affectless affect to inform the interpretation, unless there are obvious visual cues already mentioned which will lead to an understanding that others may consider such things as 'rude'.

In any case I would repeat my previous point, using "rudeness" instead of "misunderstanding," that there are many possible causes for rude behavior and unskillful behavior in general, other than emotional reactivity (for instance belief, disagreement, lack of context, cultural differences, etc). And perhaps more personally, the fact that you, upon reading Aman's accusation of someone else being rude, propose that he reflect on the role of emotional reactivity in making such accusations, seems to say more about you and your current beliefs, than it says about whether his accusation is legitimate or not (and this is the case even though you are right that emotional reactivity can, by itself, lead a person to think of someone else as rude).


Yes, I think people who profess to no affect can be subjected to the interpretations of others as can those with affect as the norm and interpretations of 'rude' can be triggered by a variety of situations. But for those who still 'objectify' phenomena and thus experience the unavoidable subjective reaction in whatever form, will always interpret according to that affect or affectless affect.

The question of whether it is appropriate to say that Richard is being rude or not is left behind, in favor of introspection at what causes one to make such an assessment; and a very partial kind of introspection, in my opinion.


I am more inclined to lean towards pointing to good practice and interesting and beneficial investigations than defending Richard or tip toeing around others' 'subjective reactions'. My conditioning I guess. If it triggers someone to invesitgate what I am talking about, I'm standing by what I've said.

Forgive me if my sentences are getting longer and more intricate, and I haven't added much to the dialogue.

Bruno


What makes this place great is that we can do that and not have some flame war erupt. You have triggered responses from me and it clarifies what i think and even triggers more investigation within me. I thank you for that. My opinions are subject to change at the drop of a hat.

Nick
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 9:45 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 9:45 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
Ok. You were honest, weren't you? I just thanked you for it. How did you get to the idea that I was insinuating you ever being dishonest? .......;-)


From this: "nice to see some honesty", that might also mean that there is some honesty and some dishonesty.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 9:49 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 9:48 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Nikolai .:
Ok. You were honest, weren't you? I just thanked you for it. How did you get to the idea that I was insinuating you ever being dishonest? .......;-)


From this: "nice to see some honesty", that might also mean that there is some honesty and some dishonesty.


It didn't for me. Are you reading too much into it? Having read what I wrote above, are you creating some 'thing' that has nothing to do with my intention, out of what you have read and thus reacting towards it?
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 9:58 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 9:58 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
It didn't for me. Are you reading too much into it? Having read what I wrote above, are you creating some 'thing' that has nothing to do with my intention, out of what you have read and thus reacting towards it?


Do you see my posts as reacting to what you have to say but when you post something about what I have to say is not reacting?

Perhaps you should consider what Bruno has said:

Bruno: "And perhaps more personally, the fact that you, upon reading Aman's accusation of someone else being rude, propose that he reflect on the role of emotional reactivity in making such accusations, seems to say more about you and your current beliefs, than it says about whether his accusation is legitimate or not (and this is the case even though you are right that emotional reactivity can, by itself, lead a person to think of someone else as rude)."
Adam , modified 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 10:23 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 10:22 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
And perhaps more personally, the fact that you, upon reading Aman's accusation of someone else being rude, propose that he reflect on the role of emotional reactivity in making such accusations, seems to say more about you and your current beliefs, than it says about whether his accusation is legitimate or not


what would "legitimate" rudeness be? can rudeness exist on its own without being defined by someone else reacting to it affectively and calling it rudeness? doesn't the reaction create the "rudeness?"
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 11:18 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/5/12 11:18 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
Adam . .:
what would "legitimate" rudeness be? can rudeness exist on its own without being defined by someone else reacting to it affectively and calling it rudeness? doesn't the reaction create the "rudeness?"



you are such douche adam...
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 3:52 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 3:52 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Nikolai .:
It didn't for me. Are you reading too much into it? Having read what I wrote above, are you creating some 'thing' that has nothing to do with my intention, out of what you have read and thus reacting towards it?


Do you see my posts as reacting to what you have to say but when you post something about what I have to say is not reacting?

Perhaps you should consider what Bruno has said:

Bruno: "And perhaps more personally, the fact that you, upon reading Aman's accusation of someone else being rude, propose that he reflect on the role of emotional reactivity in making such accusations, seems to say more about you and your current beliefs, than it says about whether his accusation is legitimate or not (and this is the case even though you are right that emotional reactivity can, by itself, lead a person to think of someone else as rude)."


Hey Aman,

Ok.

Nick
Adam , modified 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 10:22 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 10:22 AM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
i dont get it
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, modified 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 12:10 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 12:10 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 296 Join Date: 9/5/10 Recent Posts
Adam , modified 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 12:26 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 12:26 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
that's what i thought, but he said the same thing to someone else so i thought there might be an inside joke going
Felipe C, modified 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 1:19 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 1:19 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Yeah, something like that. That Jon is such a dick, anyways. emoticon
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 10 Years ago at 7/15/12 8:07 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 6/6/12 7:49 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
smart-arse comments removed,

Andy.
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 7/15/12 1:23 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 7/15/12 1:23 PM

RE: Justine's Reflections On Actual Freedom

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
D. Justine J:
Sorry Aman,

I think it is about a kind Indian lady, being English Professor, and a co-author of a Book, by R.


No need to be sorry about it.

Then I guess that there were two Indian English Professor ladies interested in Actualism, one of them who is still interested in making a documentary and the other one who has moved away from Actualism.

That would mean that the documentary about Richard is still in the pipeline.

The one you are talking about doesn't have her first name beginning with "S", right? And if you don't mind, which book are you talking about?


After e-mailing Justine to confirm about the name of the lady being talked about, I can confidently say that neither the documentary nor the book is going to see the light of the day because the kind Indian English Professor lady is not interested in Actualism at all. She has had a hard time because of Actualism and has shunned it altogether.

Breadcrumb