|
Does responsibility and seriousness come with being carefree? 
|
|
|
Do you live a moral life? If so, why? Would you lie, cheat and steal? Which morals are your own
and which are seen to exist already? ... If there is no good or evil, right or wrong, why would you want to get rid of human sorrow?? That
in itself is a value inferring that those things exist, are to be avoided, and should be eliminated.
|
|
|
And does your freedom entail the total and complete erasure of the human consciousness that
moves the common herd or just only the moral conditioning – the sense of right and wrong, good and evil?
|
|
|
Does actualism reject the useful application of empirical wisdom such as ethics and
psychology? And I mean empirical (proven results through the scientific method). I mean some very complex ethical issues in my Mental
Health work require me to be able to reason Consequentially (i.e. Utilitarian, Situational Ethics), utilize ethical principles (Social
Work Values, deontological principles), and have a virtue ethic (having pro-social habits – now actualism (and being in the moment with
one’s senses/emotions/thought – which is a part of actualism but not exclusive to actualism) comes in here as it removes the ego/soul
which of course has the pro-social benefit of altruism. Does actualism deny all this?
|
|
|
Richard, as you have used LeDoux, perhaps this [General Sensate Focusing Technique] can be
of service. (snip link). 1) The GSFT was a pointer that peace could be found out side of spirituality – thus a precursor to be being
open to AF. 2) I have broke some habits with it: a) obsessive TV watching. b) smoking. c) overeating. c) and others of a more personal
nature. 3) I have improved my emotional climate: a) I have reduced the intensity and frequency of ‘being angry’. b) I have reduced
the intensity and frequency of anxiety. Perhaps his detailed instruction of how to sensately focus could be of use for a beginning
actualist.
|
|
|
Excellent science article on empathy which I found very relevant to my work. Also it
aligns with near-actual caring: Attachment: Nautilus – Issue 35: Boundaries: How to Avoid Empathy Burnout [by Jamil Zaki; April
7, 2016; "Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s pain without feeling it themselves"]. .... but not the last
self-love bit which came out of the blue! [bracketed insert added].
ADDENDUM: Actually I’m seeing that the article for the most part doesn’t align with near-actual caring
or naive intimacy. But it does advocate not taking on emotional contagion, pragmatism and boundaries – which I suppose are sensible
real world ways of care-giving.
|
