February 7 2025

VINEETO: Hence the expression that the planet grows human beings neither requires conjecture nor searching for the origin of flora, fauna and human beings in outer space.

HENRY: I was initially trying to capture that I was observing (more) directly the matter that everything is composed of without the influence of feeling-fed narrative. Though the irony is that describing it as star-dust is reintroducing narrative as in ‘stars act as a forge for the creation of heavier forms of matter via fusion, which are then spread throughout the universe and condense into planets.’ Already this is treading into scientific theory which I haven’t researched deeply.

However, I did have a chuckle when I saw that ‘theoretical models’ were part of the evidence, and it made it apparent that the theorizing since then has also been a model (though many of the aspects of evidence above are directly observable with the right equipment).

VINEETO: Hi Henry,

Well spotted, “spread throughout the universe” is clearly based on belief in an expanding of the universe. You are also alert to “‘theoretical models’” and probably already keep in mind that atoms and molecules and their smaller derivations are all theoretical thingymajigs. (see Richard, Abditorium, Sir Brian Pippard).

‘Vineeto’ was initially quite delighted with the wonderful images from the Hubble telescope and collected many on the computer until one day Richard told ‘her’ that all images are artificially coloured, ‘translated’, if my memory serves me correctly, from measurement based amongst other input on ‘Doppler shift’ and red shift, both from the assumption that stellar object are ‘moving away’ in an expanding universe. As such the colouring is most likely not how these galaxies actually look like. ‘She’ soon lost interest after that information. I also found this curious quote in the Helioseismology link –

“The derived velocity law implies a supermassive object in the centre of the galaxy with 3×10⁶ solar masses. This provides strong evidence for the presence of a massive black hole {!!} in the centre of the Milky Way.”

Reading these ‘scientific’ presentations requires a lot of care and caution to sort any possible factual information from the generally believed narrative.

HENRY: Further, on reflection it’s apparent that part of that theory is dependent on big bang theory, as the supposition is that the universe ‘started out’ in a theorized pre-matter form, transforming into plasma and ‘elementary particles’ (which exist theoretically as well) and then which condensed into “mostly hydrogen, with some helium and lithium.”

VINEETO: Ha, exactly. The first article you linked to states “Astronomers estimate that the universe could contain up to one septillion stars”. This limited number (despite its size) can only be confidently stated when one believes the universe to be finite in time and space (in order to leave room for god(s) to reside).

HENRY: From here, the lighter gases would eventually fuse to form the myriad of forms of matter we see today. However, with no big bang there’s no ‘beginning’ and so this chain of events doesn’t have to occur to produce that myriad of forms.

We do know that fusion occurs, it can be generated(?) in the lab (albeit for a short time), and it does produce heavier elements. But there is plenty of room for theory around the edges…

VINEETO: You do seem to get the drift – as Richard said, facts are thin on the ground.

HENRY: Because of all this, I understand what you mean as far as this planet growing us as being directly observable, whereas “the sun is powered by fusion and therefore this is all stardust” is an abstraction based on a theoretical understanding. In me, it took the form of a meme – I first heard the phrase in a Moby song: Moby ‘We Are All Made of Stars’ <snipped lyrics and interviews> That famously solipsistic argument. So that indicates somewhat his attitude toward the universe.

VINEETO: As you demonstrate they are hopelessly steeped in non-material /spiritual fantasy and some are “famously solipsistic” as well.

HENRY: All in all, it’s a reminder for me of the dynamics described in one of my favorite passages of Richard’s:

Richard: “Pure perception takes place sensitively just before one starts feeling the percept – and thus thinking about it affectively – which 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’ … with all that is implied in this identification and the ramifications that stem from that.” (Richard, Articles, Attentiveness, Sensuousness, Apperceptiveness).

In one instant was a quite pure experience (though there was still self present) and then I ‘translated’ the experience into a form that ‘I’ understood.

VINEETO: This is a good description of what happened and you made a very valiant attempt to describe it that I recognized the significance and close-to-purity of this experience for you.

Cheers Vineeto

February 7 2025

VINEETO: Whereas I cannot honestly say that I am “star-dust” (as in “gaseous swirls of matter (as seen in nebulae) condensing into varying forms of stars, small planets, gas giants, etc”). In other words, I am the universe experiencing itself as a human being, I am not the universe per se, as in “gaseous swirls of matter”.

HENRY: On rereading I see that part of the issue is ‘identifying with’ the objectified star-dust, which is a form of projection, whereas it is direct to say “I am this human body, composed of the same matter which composes the rest of the universe, grown on earth.

I can see how looking out & identifying with something distant & grand becomes self-aggrandizement (which is where the mystique and power of the Moby song comes from).
Regardless of where I came from, I am now this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now.

VINEETO: Hi Henry,

Don’t be too hasty with that statement. It is only factual when ‘I’ and ‘me’ are in abeyance.

”‘Identifying with’ the objectified star-dust“ would be an additional removal (to being an identity) from actuality so it is beneficial to recognize that and decline whenever it happens.

As ‘I’ am my feelings ‘I’ cannot disidentify from what ‘I’ am, and any dissociative attempt to do that is counterproductive. ‘I’ and ‘me’ have to become extinct for one to be here permanently as “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now”.

HENRY: I’m interested in how this relates to the lack of centre upon actual freedom:

Richard: “…it is ‘I’ who, being a central figure in ‘my’ scheme of things, proposes that there is an outside to this material universe. There is not. This universe has no edges … which means that there is no centre either. With no centre to existence we are nowhere in particular.

Being here, as an actuality, is to be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywhere all at once.” (Richard, Articles, List A, No. 12 #No. 01)

VINEETO: As you are not “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now” unless you are in a PCE, this question cannot be answered as is. In a PCE you may experience to be “nowhere in particular” and get a glimpse of what it is to “be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywhere all at once.” It is marvellous, albeit it can be somewhat disorienting at first.

HENRY: The star-dust, nebulae, etc. is not really ‘out there,’ as there is no separation without identity… something for me to ponder.

VINEETO: Exactly. It’s grand when you recognize that the universe is “not really ‘out there’” and then can experientially verify it over and over.

Cheers Vineeto

February 8 2025

VINEETO: As ‘I’ am my feelings ‘I’ cannot disidentify from what ‘I’ am, and any dissociative attempt to do that is counterproductive. ‘I’ and ‘me’ have to become extinct for one to be here permanently as “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now”.

VINEETO: As you are not “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now” unless you are in a PCE, this question cannot be answered as is. (Actualism, ActualVineeto, Henry, 7 February 2025a).

HENRY: This was awesome to read, thank you for setting me straight on this. I’ve been trying to force something which wasn’t happening, it explains a lot of the dissociation that I’ve experienced over the years. It’s like the actualism equivalent of stolen valour, trying to ‘be’ something that I’m not!

VINEETO: Hi Henry,

I am pleased that you got this in one – it’s a big and essential realisation to distinguish between the ‘outer’ world created by the identity within and the actual world. The identity creates a veneer pasting it over everything you see, hear, touch and smell.

RESPONDENT: When a person is not experiencing either ASC or PCE, what is one experiencing?

RICHARD: Put simply: the normal, everyday reality that 6.0+ billion identities are pasting as a veneer over actuality.

RESPONDENT: Is the ‘actual’ person NOT seeing the ‘actual’ world? NOT hearing the ‘actual’ world? NOT smelling, tasting, and touching the ‘actual’ world?

RICHARD: The flesh and blood bodies – all 6.0+ billion of them – are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching (and proprioceptively sensing) the actual world.

RESPONDENT: I haven’t noticed people walking into walls or failing to respond when called. What’s happening?

RICHARD: The facsimile walls and calls (the veneered reality) are sufficient for the purpose thereof.

RESPONDENT: I won’t presume that my understanding based on my experience matches yours, but I find it intriguing that you used the phrase ‘pasting as a veneer over actuality’. I understand that all 6B+ persons are experiencing the ‘actual’ world ...

RICHARD: All 6.0+ billion *flesh and blood bodies* are experiencing the actual world ... the entity, or being, residing in the body can only experience their ‘outer world’ reality. Here (from the footnote in this e-mail you are responding to):

• [Richard]: ‘(...) ‘I’/‘me’, a psychological/ psychic entity, am busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose. This entity, or being, residing in the body is forever cut-off from the actual – from the world as-it-is – because its inner world reality is pasted as a veneer over the actual world, thus creating the outer world reality known as the real world ...’. [endquote].

(Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 123, 30 August 2006).

I like your sense of humour with the “stolen valour” expression – in fact when you are adapting “stolen valour” you are fooling nobody but yourself. To be “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now” there is no other way but to give ‘your’ “full-blooded endorsement” to ‘your’ demise –

Respondent: I can’t say. It seems like it was the energy/order that happened simply re-aligned. It is almost as if that is calling one, though there is fear to answer that call ... .

Richard: Does the fear increase if you allow yourself to consider that the words ‘it is almost as if that is calling one’ are the same-same as saying: this utter fullness is this brain’s destiny; this is what one is here for?

Respondent: No, the fear abates. There is order in the perspective you express. Thanks for putting it like that.

Richard: Okay ... this is important, vital, pivotal: ‘I’, the thinker, know that ‘I’ cannot do it ... ‘I’ cannot disappear ‘myself’. Only the ‘utter fullness’ can, and the ‘utter fullness’ is ‘calling one’, each moment again, and it is only when ‘I’ fully comprehend – totally, completely, fundamentally – that to be living this ‘utter fullness’ is to be living ‘my’ destiny will one be able ‘to answer that call’.

This full-blooded endorsement means it then becomes inevitable. (Richard, List B, No. 25f, 18 June 2000).

And because the means to the end is the same as the end (enjoyment and appreciation) this is going to be a fun adventure. Remember to dust off, i.e. awaken, your dormant naiveté and you will experientially know what I mean.

Richard: Maybe it is suffice to say at this stage that I do stress how essential the pure intent of naiveté is ... yet because ‘naïve’ and ‘gullible’ are so closely linked (via the trusting nature of a child in concert with the lack of knowledge inherent to childhood) in the now-adult mind most peoples initially have difficulty separating the one from another. Perhaps it may be helpful to report that, when I first re-gained naiveté (which is the closest a ‘self’ can approximate to innocence) at age 33 years, I would exclaim to whoever was prepared to listen that ‘it is like being a child again ... but with adult sensibilities’ (naïve but not gullible). I was soon to discover, however, that being child-like is not it – children are not innocent – and that innocence is totally new to anyone’s experience (it is just that a child is more prone to readily allowing the moment to live one, from time-to-time, than a cynical adult is).

Thus the pure intent of naiveté provides the collateral assurance ‘I’ require to safely give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) and to let go the controls. Yet it is the direct experience itself which is the fundamental factor when it comes to making the curious decision to abandon both one’s present course and that of one’s peers and plunge into the adventure of a lifetime. (…)

This is what is important. (Richard, List B, No. 25f, 22 June 2000)

Cheers Vineeto