I've decided to start a thread where I can reply to queries directed to me that appear in other threads, so as not to derail the other threads too much (like Tommy's thread is getting derailed now, and like the original Jan Frazier thread was derailed again due to my conversation with Katy about having split the thread).

Please reply to the appropriate post you are referring to, not the last post, so as to keep the thread tree relevant.

First item - Katy's post to me in Tommy's thread.

Katy, from the way your post is worded, I get the sense that your "autopilot of [your] own since of righteousness" ([link]) is starting up again.


I am practicing the "making sense of things" aspect of Actualism (e.g. talking about what pure intent/PCE/actual freedom is and isn't especially as compared to spirituality) and the "human condition in action" aspect of Actualism (e.g. seeing how people interact, the feelings that arise in my as a result of these interactions, the feelings that I notice others acting from).


Not in PCEs, no, but varying degrees of closeness to it.


You are really making a very big deal out of something that I did not do out of any sort of emotion or sense of superiority that you seem to think I did. I honestly did not see how what I did could have angered or upset anybody, and I saw some benefit to it, so I did it. That was simply it. As soon as I noticed that you got immensely upset over it, and understood why you were upset (which took Oliver and Jasmine chipping in), I immediately sought to placate you, as is my reflexive defense conditioned in me by society (feel bad when you upset others, attempt to placate the other person so they stop being angry at you). I even apologized, which is funny given how insistent you were on me apologizing later on.

I also agreed, on 7/31/12 7:15PM, to not moderate threads I participate in:

Which you must have somehow missed because on 8/2/12 10:10 AM you spoke as if it was still up in the air:

This sort of thing seems to happen pretty often, especially with parents and their children: a child does something without seeing why it would be wrong or hurt anybody, and the child's fellow humans (usually his/her parents) punish him/her as a result. One memory that this brought up in me was when, as a child, I found some curved nail scissors and wondered if they would make curved cuts in paper. So I took a random piece of paper and cut it up and noticed it did! I found this interesting so I showed it to my mother. Apparently, it was a doctor's prescription... she immediately scolded me and I immediately felt remorseful for my actions.

Now, the whole punishment part of this seems remarkably silly. As soon as I could (thanks to Oliver and Jasmine), I understood what upset you, Katy, and that understanding caused me to re-evaluate my actions and decide not to do them anymore. Then for the next several days you continued to attempt to punish me by pursuing me, repeatedly stating the actions I had taken, and insisting that I apologize... all for what? And you seem to continue to be doing this now.

I found it telling that you talked about your interaction with me as if you were training an animal to behave properly. This is how the human condition works: use 'bad' feelings to dissuade one from doing things one doesn't like (remorse, regret, apology, etc...) and use 'good' feelings to persuade one to do things one does like (forgiveness, acceptance, etc...) Yet it seems far simpler to me to just communicate as fellow human beings, without intending to hurt one another nor being hurt by the other.

This is what I was referring to when I asked why we couldn't just move on.

I am curious to know why you would say "Tommy's thread is getting derailed now"?

The way I see it is that my question to him, and the further development, is an organic progression of the thread. Tommy talked about something similar to what you (and AFers) talk about Pure intent. That "derailing" has helped in bringing forward the confusion regarding the usage of Pure Intent (for Nick) and for me, now further questions about what it entails and why that word is used in first place. I see it as an organic development of the stuff that Tommy was posting originally.

Cheers

Hey RT,


You're right, the bits on pure intent are pretty relevant. I was more referring to the convo between me & Adam, me & Andrew (& James), and now Katy has chipped in as well. Although from those more obvious ones I did wonder whether the pure intent posts were on-topic, but you make good points as to why they are. Thanks for bringing it up.

- Claudiu

Hi Claudiu,



Ok. So it could be useful to just stay with actual words, letting go of additions. This may keep things actual and fresh to this moment.

c:
Ok, when you are participating here how does closeness to "PCE" happen and how has actual "PCE" happened for you elsewhere? Do you mind describing the circumstances and experience of the last PCE you had and about how often these happen?


Do I remember correctly that you mentioned feeling a dullness in the chest you felt around Tarin when you met him last year? (I think you expressed this in the yahoo group area, an area to which someone linked a DhO thread, but which is since not accessible as far as I can tell. Certainly correct me if I am wrong and provide the language if you will.) When you are close to "PCE" and in "PCE does the chest area have a particular feeling?

Claudiu, Rotten Tomato has asked some fresh questions about "Pure Intent" in Tommy's thread. Can you answer them either here or there?

Hmm, I guess the biggest differences would simply be whether I am posting from a calm/felicitous place, or from a more agitated place. If I'm posting from a calm place then words flow more smoothly and there is an awareness of pure intent to some degree. If posting from a more agitated place this is not present. What has been helpful in my participation here is to see why I get agitated from reading certain posts. I try to figure out what part of 'me' has been offended/feels itself to be in danger, and to replace that intuitive reactionary feeling with simple sensibility - that is, making sense of things in a simple and rational way. If successful then there is no more agitation and I am able to speak more freely.


They do not happen often. There are many, many experiences I have and that I can easily repeat of increased sensory perception, increased awareness of pure intent, increased felicity, a sort of 'flip' where things become more 3D and it's as if I'm moving through the static world instead of the world seeming to move with me... but there's always a bit of 'me' present with those experiences, so I cannot call them PCEs.

There are a few candidate "moments of perfection", potentially. These last a few seconds where I am sort of taken away by just a particular sight or a particular thing happening. After which I sort of snap out of it and resume normalcy. But these are not long enough to offer a significant glimpse of what a PCE would be like.

There is one candidate full-blown PCE, though which lasted for 30 seconds or so. The biggest difference between this one and the experiences I listed was a more direct sense that things actually existed. It's like something flipped me forward into another sort of experience. The most immediate impression I had was like everything was alive, almost, like there was something shimmering in the air (though not in a Vipassana-like way). But it was too short to say for sure. I also notice it didn't have much impact on me.

Now, I don't think this indicates that I have been failing at actualism practice. Here I might point out that the purpose of actualism is not to have PCEs, per se, but rather, to become actually free. As Vineeto put it to me, the PCEs gave her the experiential information needed in order to progress on the path, but no progress was made during the PCEs themselves - as progress is the identity changing in order to agree more and more to self-immolation, no progress can happen in a PCE as there is no identity present to change. The PCE also is where the connection to pure intent is born, which is vital. The interesting thing in my case is that I have gotten this connection to pure intent up and running without any obvious full-blown PCEs.

So, armed with pure intent and the intention to become actually free, I'd say I'm progressing just fine, figuring out what makes 'me' decide to be unhappy and instead opting for seeing the silliness of that and diverting attention to pure intent.


That's correct, yea. The post is still available here. Relevant part quoted here:



Nothing especially, no.

Next up: Nikolai talking about politics. A reply from this thread.


Hmm given those stories about sex originated from John Wilde, I'd say you heard it from him, ultimately. I don't know why you'd consider John Wilde a reliable source in particular, but I also know that John Wilde shared his top-secret information with Bruno Loff, who was convinced of their accuracy. So was it the fact that Bruno told you that makes it seem a more reliable source? If not, I don't know who it could be. I would just ask you to not base too much of what you think on hearsay.


You might want to consider that the stories you heard are simply not true.


You just said you became aware of some "bizarre and contradictory behaviour"... how would such behavior happening make the approaches of the AFT effective at all?


In my opinion, all they are doing is all I am doing, namely, delineating distinctions that are important for one who wants to become actually free.


Well, okay, but there is a reason I am pursuing actual freedom and not anything else, at the moment. I do agree that it is a choice. It's more important for now to show it's something different, at least. As you implied, it's silly to prop up a path as superior if it's the same thing.


I think it would be counter productive for there to be a split where there is none. But anyway I don't like avoidance, lack of honesty, and lack of clarity either.


I'll say it plainly here: it would be the best thing in the world if others were also experiencing an actual freedom! It would be far, far better for that to be the case than not.


What's at stake is that people will be unable to become actually free because they won't know what it is. But if people don't want to hear about it, I'm definitely not going to keep talking about it.


I welcome honest comparisons. I really do. Yet I spoke to Tarin, Trent, and you about it, and none of you are willing to compare, in depth and exquisite detail, your experiences with Richard in order to figure out what is actually the case. So, who is leaving no room for honest comparisons?


It's not about rhetoric. I can see why if you think it's about rhetoric you would have the views that you do.


It's also not political.


Okay.

- Claudiu

Hi Claudiu - Thanks for answering those questions.

I could not say this better for myself:


Some things resonated in you effort and experience with mine. My experience has been a cross between actualism earlier and sati and jhana later, and now I do not think about terms so much as just trying to express experience in words. So I am inclined to reply to some of your own points and see where the conversation goes (from my own experience (not comparatively nor in conflation)), but don't want to confuse anyone. For example, what V told you, I can relate to experientially. What do you think?

Did you get to talk to Peter when you went to Australia? If not, why not?

Hmm, well so long as we keep in mind that we might have different goals ultimately, even if our paths share some of the same goals, I think we could share our experiences without confusion or conflation. I might offer questioning/advice based on my own experiences, and I expect you might do the same, and I think that could be fine. Let's see where it goes!

- Claudiu

I did not. I also did not get to talk to Pamela or Tom or any of the others; I only met Richard and Vineeto. This was because I only came in contact with Richard and Vineeto (and some waiters & waitresses etc.) so speech with anyone else would have been difficult.

What prevented you from being in contact with Peter?

A combination of him not being there and me not asking to see him.

Did you ask to see Vineeto? Why didn't you ask to see him? Did you ask about him from either Richard or Vineeto?

Did you write somewhere that you are going to write your report about your visit somewhere or am I mistaken? If not, then is it in the pipeline?

No, I asked to see Richard (in that initial email on the actual freedom yahoo group), and Vineeto happened to be there as well.


It didn't seem particularly important.


I was not really thinking about Peter most of the time. He did briefly come up once or twice. From what I understood, Peter is keeping quiet while things settle down for him (for similar reasons that Richard kept quiet for 5 years after becoming actually free). I was also told that Peter and Justine were the only two people out of that batch to become actually free without knowing about it/explicitly intending it beforehand (it happened to Peter while he was explaining something he noticed to Richard, and to Justine in his sleep), and that they were also the ones having the most trouble with the transition (from newly free to meaning-of-life free).


I did say I will write a report and I probably will, but I haven't been working on it recently.

Ok, so it seems that the trouble of transition from being actually free to meaning-of-life free might have kept Peter away. Peter hasn't written anything for a long time anywhere on the web.

Justine has been writing quite a bit and let's see how his writing transitions when he gets to the meaning-of-life freedom.

Understood, and have been there.

Just a couple of related aspects that I've found it pays to contemplate and observe:

Firstly, the presence of "intuitive reactionary feelings" per se doesn't necessarily mean that there's no fidelity to the truth of a situation. Similarly, the absence of those feelings doesn't necessarily mean that there is. (Nor vice-versa, of course).

The important aspect of this is that if "replacing" those "intuitive reactionary feelings" becomes an end in itself (which it can), then so-called rationality can just as easily become a whore to the absence of uncomfortable feelings as it can to the presence of them.

In other words, there's a difference between (a) rationality that is both a cause and a consequence of clear comprehension, and (b) pacification resulting from rationalisations.

Since we're all human, we're all prone to this. It's something I think is useful to watch out for over the years.. and it's fully consistent with your aims. (And not just yours, of course).

Cheers,
Jack

Cheers! It's a busy week, but I'll follow your descriptions of your experience (including what's already here) and check in when there's a moment.

And I don't know what private correspondence you might be referring to, and don't want it to be discussed here .. but here's a proposal you might find interesting:

If you can arrange to have me rigged up to a polygraph (maybe through your university?), and are willing to cover my travel, accommodation and basic living expenses for the minimum duration necessary, I'm willing to sit the test and answer to everything I've written in public. I'd also be willing to answer any specific questions you come up with (or verify anything else I might say to you in person, outside the public arena), on the condition that:

* Any content that hasn't already been made public remain private (only the veracity of my answers can be published).
* All references to relevant third parties be withheld from publication.

Now, this obviously can't establish the veracity of anything I've learned by 'hearsay', but what it can and will do is establish that I myself am not intentionally bullshitting anyone about anything.

Can't be fairer than that.

If you're interested in taking me up on this, May next year would be a good time for me. (You have my email address).



Good idea in general.

I'd add to this (sincerely and in good faith, addressed to you in particular): don't let too much of what you experience become entangled with someone else's conceptual schema or political-psychological agenda. Explore the experiences, learn from the experiences, but hold the associated ideas and affiliations lightly. If/when the latter turns to shit, you don't want your own valuable experiences to seem corrupted by association. (Benefit of several people's hindsight).

Cheers,
Jack.

An interesting proposal, but as I understand it a polygraph is not very reliable. That is: I wouldn't gain any new information, whatever the result is (be it 'pass' or 'fail'), except that maybe you were telling the truth or maybe you were good at passing them, if you pass, or maybe you were bullshitting or maybe you got unlucky, if you fail.

The proposal to meet in person is an interesting one, though, which I will consider. How much notice would you need before May?


I don't, actually... we haven't communicated via e-mail, as far as I can tell.

Fair enough; I don't know much about what they measure or how, but figured it'd be at least worth more than a "trust me".



Not much... but it'd be helpful if I knew by, say, February -- one way or the other -- so I could plan around it.



Oh, OK. I thought I responded by email to one of your messages (addressed to me) on the Yahoo AF group. No matter; I'll send you a PM.

Cheers,
Jack.

Ok, I'll let you know by then. A lot can change in 6 months.


Ah yea I had the 'daily digest' option for a while so I didn't get any email addresses during that point.

- Claudiu

Sure… let's see how things turn out.

Just one more suggestion (with benefit of hindsight) before I leave you to it:

Now that you know how to tap into that which you call "pure intent"[1], I suggest that you explore it intimately, see how it manifests for you; see how it affects your life and the people around you. Test it rigorously. Use your own words and ideas to comprehend and describe it. Even if you map your own experiences into AFT language for communication purposes, try not to let that replace your native model making faculty. (You might see different aspects of this; you might find different relationships between this and other things; you might see new and better directions to go with it; you might find better ways to explain and communicate it, etc, etc, etc). And be sure that the naïvete, benignity and purity you're using as your guiding light really is independent (not just in theory) from anyone else (let alone from any "magical prodigies" they engender). That way the value of what you're experiencing and practising is entirely independent of what any other person is, says, does, or is believed to exemplify. And if your experiences and opinions then happen to concur precisely with theirs, in all particulars, so be it!

At a glance, what I'm suggesting here (ie. making an effort to keep this "pure intent" the core of your experience distinct from any proprietary language, concepts, or social-political-psychological influences (other than mine :-)) might seem a bit a bit guarded, and not very 'naïve' or 'free'.. but I think you'd find that it actually preserves your naivete (in a good sense) and your freedom in the long run.

(Can but suggest...)

Cheers,
Jack.

[1] "Pure Intent": There are different ways to talk about it, all containing implicit assumptions that will be problematic for someone else, but my understanding of where you're coming from is: It's what happens when a benign, naïve, native intelligence manifests as a direct apprehension of what's actually there, together with reflective amazement at the fact that it is actually there. The purity, immaculacy, perfection that we've all raved about are just some of the many words that could be used to describe the intrinsic qualities of what's actually there (including the simple but amazing fact that it is there). From most baselines (especially ordinary ego mode), it's hard not to be strongly impressed by the sheer reality/ actuality/ palpable existence of what's encountered.. so I understand why you'd emphasise those aspects when you try to distinguish it from (what you perceive as) everything else.


[A few edits for clarity, accuracy and flow]