"On Saturday the 29th of October 2011 at approximately 3pm, I became actually free[1]."

Weren't you already? I remember you being acknowledge as actually free much earlier than this. Were you faking? Or were you misguided?

Also, are you faking again? Or being misguided again?

...huh?

Oh, wait, I confused you with Tarin, I apologize. Consider my comment non-existent.

Mindfulness is needed when one is just looking to jump on another so that they feel empowered and superior in some way.

Or these things were never true and I just made an honest mistake.

And perhaps AF is lacking if it cannot stop the paranoia that still speculates about the motives of others, ignores their apologies and jumps to the conclusion that all human beings are "just looking to jump on another so they feel empowered and superior in some way". its common knowledge that memory is fallible, its errors are not always the thoughts of meanspirited beings.

Since this is your first post, you may not be aware that there is something of a backstory involved with Simon L and his ever-changing opinions regarding AF. You may also be unaware that "AF" is often used as a convenient label and that this category on the site was recently changed to "Practices Inspired by Actualism", not "Actual Freedom", as many of us on here do not follow the practices described on the AFT website preferring instead to continue practice with techniques from the Buddhist tradition.

To address your points, it is you who has interpreted Nikolai's response as "paranoia that still speculates about the motives of others, ignores their apologies...etc." I see no factual basis for your claims in this regard. Conclusions were not jumped to, as far as I can see Nick stated a fact which can be taken away and tested for oneself, something I would recommend doing before judging the value of the statement.

The apology which Simon made was directed at me as he confused me for Tarin, another person entirely.

Also, since it's your first post here I'd like to draw your attention to something from the homepage of the Dharma Overground:



If you're interested in practice, post a thread and tell us what you're up to and the sort of stuff you've done in the past.
If you want to debate and disagree about something, post a thread in the appropriate category and go for it.

Welcome to the DhO.

(To Alan: ) I'd just like to clarify what I think happened here.

It makes no difference to Nick's point whether Simon L apologized later[1]. Simon's initial post ("Weren't you already? I remember you being acknowledge as actually free much earlier than this. Were you faking? Or were you misguided?... Also, are you faking again? Or being misguided again?") certainly seemed to me like it was made "just looking to jump on another", at least in the context of the other posts he made recently to this board (see this thread, for example). The fact that Simon's post was against a person of his own imagination (a 'Tarin' who was now re-claiming AF, after having claimed it before - a 'faker'?) doesn't change the fact that the content of his post seemed malicious. I do not think Simon was being (seemingly) meanspirited because his memory failed him, but because of the content of the post in the first place.

Nick also did not say that all human beings are "just looking to jump on another so they feel empowered and superior in some way", so I'm not sure why you thought he was.

As Tommy said, if you'd like to post about your practice, post it in a practice thread category (e.g. in the "Insight and Wisdom" category), and if you'd like to debate about the merits of practice, post it in the "Dharma Battleground" category (which is where I've now moved this sub-thread to).

[1] The apology was not for being malicious, but for mistaking one person for another.

This sub-thread has been split from this practice thread and moved to the Dharma Battleground category.

Or is it a healthy skepticism due to inconsistent claims of many who are "AF".

Text has trouble carrying context...maybe give him the benefit of the doubt? I guess mindfulness is needed when presupposing the motivation behind others' actions, especially to the degree of feeling that you know their motivations so well as to lecture?

Only passing your favor forward!

Your response seems to intentionally ignore the overt implication. It in no way seems that Nick was actually making a statement about mindfullness, but using that statement to camouflage and insert his real point. Tommy, stop pretending you don't understand basic communication strategies.

You honestly believe no conclusions were jumped to? So he knew for certain the motives of Simon?

yes, that one line of text doesn't necessarily carry any context, but as others have pointed out, people's posting history can provide some context.

also, speaking of overt implication, Simon's comment implied something when he asked whether tommy was faking or misguided, when tommy specifically said misguided, but you didn't seem to notice that implication, which adds some credibility to nikolai's comment. there seems to be some subtext to these conversations focused on the legitimacy of actual freedom and people's claimed states, i suggest we discuss that directly, maybe you should start a thread?

Would you mind describing what you believe to have been Nick's "real point"?

It's a matter of knowing how both these people, Nick and Simon L, communicate in writing, their history and interactions with others on this forum, and how much effective, practical, practice-based information they've contributed to this site since they joined it. Admittedly there are assumptions being made on my part based on these points, which, as you know, is a basic problem of communication and I acknowledge that. I do try to be as objective and factual as possible but if you've misinterpreted what I've written then it's something we can clarify and discuss further, rather than us both jumping to conclusions...

Whether Nick's comment has some motive or another behind it is something you'd need to take up with him, personally I viewed the comment in the light of the points I mentioned above and with the knowledge that Nick has attained "AF" which does seem to change the way in which one communicates information.[1] I do understand though how that sort of response could be taken out of context, but I think you've really got the wrong end of the stick here.

[1] Having spent five days in a PCE I mistook for "AF", I noticed a difference in the way I wrote and what I wanted to communicate but since it wasn't the same as AF I can't really say a lot about it. Perhaps some of the AF'ers could say more about this, I know that End In Sight wrote a thread about it which I'll try to find and link to.

I vote that everyone talks more about what matters (which is how to find a bit more peace) and less about Richard and AF and etc.

Discussions about Richard and AF achieve about as much as discussions about politics and world events, and can aggravate the participants about as much.

Just my opinion.

I second that.

Daniel

I believe I was trying to describe something like this:



It is obviously not as extreme as what George Orwell describes (nor are the reasons similar in any way to what he describes in the rest of the essay this is excerpted from), but there is something to the observation that adopting a highly formalized style is much quicker and in some ways simpler to use, despite being stylistically poor. And, for whatever reason, it is easy for me to write in such a way.

Sometimes I notice this complication: subtexts are sometimes read into particular phrases that I write, based on the assumption that I picked those phrases to communicate those subtexts, not considering the possibility that I picked those phrases in order to convey my point fairly quickly, and that those were the phrases I happened to find at hand. (This is a problem of my own making, and I have tried to remedy it.)

However, I believe this entire issue is idiosyncratic to me.


EDIT: Perhaps the fact that I think about things this way ("what words / phrases are at hand right now?" vs. "what do I want to write?") indicates something significant.

I third it. My comment was to direct simon back to practice which is the point of the DhO. Back to practicing! Woot!