|
(List D refers to Richard’s List D
Vineeto’s Correspondence with Syd on Discuss Actualism Forum
SYD: In hindsight, I’ll say that I don’t know what the fuck I was writing about. (1) kinda makes sense, but I couldn’t even bother to re-read my own (2) and (3). VINEETO: Hi Syd, I went back to your “attempt at verbalizing my understanding” of sincerity to find out what “kinda makes sense” to you and why in hindsight the latter part does not make sense –
The question is, now understanding the fact of being in a state of mild dissociation, have you intently changed this state by remembering whenever feelings arise, that I am my feelings and my feelings are me? I ask because that would increase being more genuinely sincere than continuing the ‘mild dissociation’.
What you were doing here, was to equate (via link) a Seinfeld episode to Richard’s report in the Audio-taped dialogue about “put the emotion into a bind”, by a slight of hand calling it “do the opposite”. ‘Putting the emotion in a bind’ is not the opposite to dissociating from one’s feelings. It is the third alternative. Neither expressing nor repressing means not to feed them by either endorsing them (express) or rejecting them (repress) – and when a feeling gets no support it withers. Having equated ‘putting in a bind’ with “doing the opposite”, and linking it to a satirical farcical show, ‘you’, the cunning identity, successfully pushed aside the impact Richard’s report could have had. I am breaking it down in detail because one can learn as much about sincerity by recognizing and understanding insincerity in action (in hindsight) and thereby adjusting one’s course. Your follow-up summary in point (2) was fairly accurate but the slight-of-hand-action most likely prevented it to be a sincere successful process. Hence your point (3) never eventuated in practice.
 (Richard, Audio-taped Dialogues, Be Totally Rid of Emotions and Passions)
* VINEETO: There is also a page in Richard’s Catalogue SYD: I found this: VINEETO: Claudiu responded lucidly to your quote and questions from this link. Did you also follow up the other 10 references in that catalogue page I can also recommend Adam-H’s post from today SYD: My current understanding is that, for a feeling-being – the application of ‘sincerity’ (at least initially when practicing the actualism method) is a matter of being genuine (authentic, guileless, etc.) in regards to what is happening (especially affectively) such that we see clearly (without nescience or ignoration) as to how both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (and the instinctual passions that sustain them) stand in the way of feeling good, which understanding is to automatically result in action (in getting back to feeling good). VINEETO: I don’t know if this is only a shortened way to describing the actualism method or if you are not aware that “getting back to feeling good” is not the whole story? There is a sequence to ‘feeling good’ –
And here is the text of the tool-tip right next to “feeling happy and harmless” – given that you mention “being naiveté” –
SYD: Beyond that I don’t yet understand what ‘being sincerity’ means (never mind ‘being the
key’ to ‘being naiveté’) – except it is interesting to note that Richard says that “being sincere [..] is to have the pure intent” — or
what being ‘true to facts and actuality’ means. VINEETO: In order to move from feeling good to feeling happy and harmless to feeling excellent one needs to keep this in mind –
This can only be done with sincerity because one’s instinctual reaction would be to bury the disturbing incident, whatever it was. * There is another reason why I emphasise there is more than ‘feeling good’ to the process of
becoming actually free. It is because you only yesterday (17 Feb 2026) presented a 1000+ word excerpt from Geoffrey
answering questions after he became actually free I say deceivingly deliberately because just a day before (16 Feb 2026) you were not aware that
‘good’ feelings such as lust (which are as harmful and ‘self’-enhancing as ‘bad’ feelings) are not part of ‘feeling good’, and Claudiu explained it
to you in a brilliant post Perhaps you are personally content to only get back to feeling good, but please do not promote it as the entire actualism method. What’s the word? Reductionism? Cheers Vineeto
VINEETO: I say deceivingly deliberately because just a day before (16 Feb 2026) you were
not aware that ‘good’ feelings such as lust (which are as harmful and ‘self’-enhancing as ‘bad’ feelings)
are not part of ‘feeling good’, and Claudiu explained it to you in a brilliant post SYD: Thanks for the replies! Yes, my understanding of all this is “still developing”. I’ve read all of the 11 references in the ‘sincerity’ catalogue. VINEETO: Hi Syd, Let me spell out what has become clear so far regarding your “still developing” “understanding of all this” –
SYD: Feeling good, the earthly-cum-still feeling about being here (rather than somewhen/ somewhere else), is quite enjoyable to me. I have not made up my mind, one way or the other, as to whether I can get complacent about it all and stop going further. I remember Richard’s “bester” quote, and ‘uplevelling’ one’s baseline. Why would I not uplevel my baseline? Why would I, eventually, not want to get as close to the PCE as possible? We shall see. Feeling good 24x7 is already rather radical to contemplate and actually succeed at being. VINEETO:
SYD: By the way, FWIW, Richard has often written words implying that actualism method == feeling good, for example (though here he also treats ‘feeling good’ and ‘felicitous/ innocuous feeling’ equivalently!): (…) VINEETO: Now, one can regard one’s intent as a compass to determine one’s present aims in life. As such, your compass is firmly set on feeling good (as defined above) and therefore you automatically assess everything according to that compass setting. Hence you can’t see the benefit, both personally or for others, in pursuing that aim of becoming harmless (it would be moralistic). SYD: Re: commentary regarding the original post – I thought it
was interesting how for ‘Geoffrey’ (especially in hindsight, after becoming newly free) it amounted to enjoying
& appreciating. He didn’t even explicitly consider ‘out from control VF’ for instance. I also took
particular note of how for ‘him’ there was no ‘morality’ or ‘pressure’ or ‘effort’ (even an explicit
‘commitment’) and it was all easy and ‘natural’ (quite probably because of PCEs, via his “the
correct application of the [actualism] method was through the ‘naive remembrance’/the ‘presentiation’ of the
PCE“ characterization of the actualism method). VINEETO: What you are still to experientially comprehend is that for Geoffrey “‘enjoying
and appreciating this moment of being alive’ just made sense. It was never an ‘effort’ for me. And it didn’t
require a ‘commitment’. It just made sense. Because your compass is presently set on ‘feeling good’ (including hedonically pleasant ‘good feelings’), being or becoming harmless does not make sense to you. ‘You’, the instinctual-social identity, consider it a moralistic restriction put on you. You said in your post regarding sincerity – SYD: I can see that a quality of ‘innocence’, as in “lack of guile [i.e., sly or cunning intelligence] or corruption; purity”, by definition naturally exists in being sincere. (…) VINEETO: Until your present (compass) setting changes by you further developing to understand what makes sense in a wider, less ‘self’-centric way, there is no way any theoretical contemplation on the “quality of ‘innocence” or “being naiveté”. This won’t be anything other than conjecture and imagination. You will only end up fiddling with the words and the method [i.e. appropriate actualists’ words for the purpose of self-presentation] in order to fit your present (compass) orientation (such as to put scare-quotes on innocence, thereby pollute what it means in the attempt of making it something ‘you’ the identity could achieve. It isn’t –
SYD: Okay, so sincerity = staying true to the facts. I get it.
That’s enough for me for now. VINEETO: For your compass to ever change its needle from your present ‘point North’ (your affectively perceived facts) you will need to comprehend, with the whole of your ‘being’, that ‘I’ am the problem, ‘I’ stand in the way of peace-on-earth and in the way of actuality becoming apparent – only then will you see the sense in doing whatever you can to act with a self-less inclination rather than in a ‘self’-enhancing way.
SYD: Also, the ‘bind’ makes sense for instinctual passions.
It worked for panic, back in December. Neither repressing nor expressing (of which there are innumerable cunning
forms) works with any instinctual passion, to weaken them. VINEETO: Just to make it clear, actualism is not a materialistic, therapeutically ‘self’-healing technique. Perhaps the following two quotes help you understand –
In fact, the whole sequence from July 13 2004 to July 15 2004a is worth reading because the respondent’s questions encompass what represent for him the values of materialism. Cheers Vineeto
SYD: Vineeto, thank you for ‘spell[ing] out’ (it is straightforward for me to understand). I see a misunderstanding regarding ‘harmlessness’. It is obvious to me that it is impossible to
be feeling good if I’m also not harmless. Per Richard, “The word harmless, in actualism lingo, refers
to the innocuity which ensues in the absence of malice (just as the word happiness refers to the felicity which ensues in the
absence of sorrow).” Furthermore VINEETO: That is certainly a pleasant surprise. Even though you mentioned that you “see
the sensibility in everything” of what I said
SYD: So, in my understanding, the difference between ‘feeling good’ and ‘felicity & innocuity’ lies in the intensity à la Richard’s ‘bester’ characterization or ‘uplevelling’. Ergo, my compass of feeling good naturally involves, felicity-thus-innocuity and happiness-thus-happiness. Finally, sincerely knowing how I am, each and every moment (see the two ‘Bonus’ quotes here VINEETO: I see that even though you said above that “being happy & harmless are […] inseparable” you still say that “I personally put happiness before harmlessness” and “felicity-thus-innocuity” in that sequential order, and you confirmed it in your most resent post on harmlessness –
It seems that your statement that both are “inseparable” is merely paying lip-service at present. For instance, if in a situation you have to choose between not creating harm even though it might impinge on your happiness, you would choose harmlessness over personal happiness? Given it has been your “priority no. 1” all these years there is a good chance that being harmless will only be a choice if it suits your happiness. That is where putting everything on a “it doesn’t really matter” basis is of vital significance. Of course, the way I understand harmlessness is that it includes considering the wider context and ramifications one’s words and actions for the people involved. However, if you look at the sequencing issue in a less logically/ mathematically way but more how you experience yourself (with ever more fine-tuning of your affective attentiveness for both categories) then you might eventually discover that when you are even feeling a smidgen of maliciousness, (righteous) anger, indignation, or similar feelings, you cannot call yourself being genuinely happy. In a sincere assessment of the experience of happiness and of harmlessness, there is no sequence, they are one and the same. Hence the actualism method means diminishing the impact and influence of one single package of the instinctual passions and gradually reducing both malice and sorrow. Any attempt in separating them is and prioritising one over the other means ‘I’ create an excuse to prefer one to the other and thus corrupt the meaning of both happiness (as in including narcissistic, hedonistic or ‘self’-centric happiness) and harmlessness (for instance dutiful, morally superior, pacifistic behaviour adjustments, or that one sometimes needs aggression to survive), with the result that it perverts the actualism method so that ‘I’ can remain in control. Since you have re-introduced the ‘Harmlessness’ thread today, and I found a clarifying post
from Claudiu SYD: So, obviously, I know that absence-of-malice is nothing to do with morality at all. VINEETO: Good. That means nothing prevents you now from paying attention to be more considerate, respectful, amicable and inclusive of the consequences of your actions on other people, in order that genuine happiness can flourish. It’s fun. * VINEETO: What you are still to experientially comprehend is that for Geoffrey [Emphasis by Syd]
SYD: Yes. This is at the forefront of my mind, above all else. VINEETO: Most people do require a sincere commitment at the start because it not always
makes sense at the beginning to give up sorrow and malice. There are obstacles like old habits and attitudes (such as
apparent your correspondence with Andrew Geoffrey himself recommended such a commitment when asked –
* SYD: Okay, so sincerity = staying true to the facts. I get it. That’s enough for me for now. VINEETO: For your compass to ever change its needle from your present ‘point North’ (your affectively perceived facts) you will need to comprehend, with the whole of your ‘being’, that ‘I’ am the problem, ‘I’ stand in the way of peace-on-earth and in the way of actuality becoming apparent – only then will you see the sense in doing whatever you can to act with a self-less inclination rather than in a ‘self’-enhancing way. SYD: Here, are you enticing me to self-immolate, like, today? Because I don’t think I’m ready yet. As you know, I’m not yet fully ready to give up on (some) ‘good’ feelings (even though the compulsion has started weakening). This needs some more looking into, and thus time, if I’m to comprehend “with the whole of [my] ‘being’”. VINEETO: No, that was not my intention. You snipped out the explanatory quote from Richard with the words “self-less inclination” – perhaps the reference was too subtle for you.
To spell it out – I suggested, as before, to put everything on a preference basis. SYD: You also wrote that my comment on “a quality of
‘innocence’” is a “theoretical contemplation”, but this is not true as I did not
describe it outside of an ongoing experience of such quality (the straightforwardness of acknowledging the facts of
the matter). But again, I need time to comprehensively look into all these feelings standing in the way. The compass
is still stuck on some ‘good’ feelings (and thus ‘bad’ feelings, cf. Richard on ‘addiction’ to James).
Presently, I’m applying dollops of sincerity (including experiencing how “I” am those feelings), along
with the intent to be genuinely happy (à la the ‘happiness’ aspect; VINEETO: To start with the first sentence of your previous post –
Can you see that you wrote ‘innocence’ in scare-quotes and then equated it (“by definition”) with being sincere? There would be no need for Richard to use a different word, if innocence and sincerity were the
same, wouldn’t there? And there would be no need for you to put the word in scare-quotes, as one puts ‘I’ in
scare quotes to refer to the purity-corrupting identity, if you weren’t somewhat aware, somewhere in the back of
your mind, that you are indeed perverting and cheapening the meaning of the purity of innocence, thereby brushing
aside what Richard said – “innocence is entirely new to human history”. It is pertinent to understand that innocence does not, and never has, “by definition naturally [existed] in being sincere”? In your tendency to make descriptions of an actual freedom your own as an identity, sincerity goes out the window. For emphasis – ‘you’ can never ever enter actuality where nothing dirty can get in. What ‘you’ presently do instead is diminish it, cheapen it, corrupt it, in order that it may be possible for ‘you’ to achieve it. For actuality to become apparent ‘you’ will have to disappear, and there will never ever be innocence either in scare-quotes or “by definition” for ‘you’ – the instinctual-passional entity which is rotten to the core. It would be advisable to develop some sensitivity and nuanced way of thinking and acting, taking note of the differences in the words and the reason why Richard was so particularly careful in his descriptions. Such sensitivity as in general consideration, tact and delicacy, respect, discernment (outside your accustomed, automatically ‘self’-centric way of thinking) can stand you in good stead on the way to becoming more harmless. I like to make one more point while on the subject of sensitivity, consideration and respect –
when you copy a 1000+ word text from Geoffrey and publish it on the forum for everyone’s benefit, please do
not alter the text and manipulate the first impression for people by yellow-highlighting your own personal
preference. It is neither considerate nor respectful to both Geoffrey and the readers If you post a quote because you have a personal insight or comment, write it underneath. It’s akin to selling someone a second-hand book with the text already underlined by the previous owner, interfering with the reader gaining a first clean impression now influenced by the preferences of the previous owner. This is even more important with a report from an actually free person to maintain the purity of the original reporting from the actual world, which is generally not experienced by feeling beings and therefore can give them valuable insight when they read it with their whole ‘being’ which allows the possibility that this could happen –
SYD: This ‘innocence’ is not a feeling (as in, “Whoa, look at me, I’m such an innocent angel”) or a moral-feel-good-ism, but a simple matter-of-fact quality of how “I” can approach everything perceived or felt. VINEETO: The word ‘sincere’ will do just fine for this experience – genuine
sincerity is void of ego-enhancing pride else it is not sincerity. The word ‘sincere’ will do just fine for this
experience – genuine sincerity is void of ego-enhancing pride else it is not sincerity. It is also genuine
attentiveness as defined in Richard’s above quoted article. SYD: ‘I’ am also naturally cunning, however, so allowing
this quality naturally involves recognizing and ceasing all those should-nots, can-nots, will-nots, etc. inasmuch as
they mask the simple facts of the situation. VINEETO: Exactly. It involves all the tricks ‘I’ get up to in order so that ‘you’ can remain in situ. Therefore I made you aware that when you put innocence in scare quotes it is a watering-down process, perverting the purity of the meaning of innocence (as in “entirely new to human history”). * SYD: Also, the ‘bind’ makes sense for instinctual passions.
It worked for panic, back in December. Neither repressing nor expressing (of which there are innumerable cunning
forms) works with any instinctual passion, to weaken them. VINEETO: Just to make it clear, actualism is not a materialistic, therapeutically ‘self’-healing technique. SYD: I’ve read the whole sequence from July 13 2004 to July 15
2004a and still I’m unable to comprehend how neither repressing nor expressing strong passions (via, for instance,
the innumerable cunning expressions thereof) can be considered materialistic or therapeutic. VINEETO: When I wrote this I was under the misapprehension, which you clarified at the beginning of this post, that harmlessness was not yet part of your intent, having labelled it ‘moralistic’. Without the sincere intent to apply the actualism method as intended (feeling good being both happy and harmless), just picking some techniques from it would only be a materialistic, therapeutically ‘self’-healing technique. Cheers Vineeto
SYD: Hi Vineeto – With Ms. Morel (formerly ‘WomanFromNov’),
right after falling in love, I was more than putting my personal happiness first, in fact that’s all (my own
emotions) I could think of. She felt that caring and sharing from my part was lacking, and I didn’t consider her
perspective much (which is no wonder as I was panicking all the time). So yes, that’s a stellar example putting
personal happiness over harmlessness. (…) VINEETO: Hi Syd, I will stop you right here. When you say you have been “putting personal happiness over harmlessness” you are under the erroneous impression that you have done half of what the actualism of becoming happy and harmless represents by simply following your drives and urges. I wonder if you read, and digested, what Claudiu wrote to you –
In other words, if being happy does not contain being harmless, or if being harmless does not contain feeling happy, it ain’t actualism. It is what everybody is already doing, and it hasn’t worked. I can only recommend to read my post Until then there is no benefit for me to comment further on your writing. I cannot do the thinking for you. Cheers Vineeto
VINEETO to Claudiu: He [Syd] says he is “referring to above in my “established happiness as no. 1 priority”” – but there is not [quote] “established happiness as no. 1 priority” [endquote] that I can find. So what is that “established happiness” referring to? And then he talks about a “personal happiness” which was in the first paragraph I responded, which is a different thing to the “established happiness as no. 1 priority”? It gives me knots in the brain. Perhaps you have more success in following all this – I lost
interest for now. VINEETO: Hi Syd, Let me expand why I said to Claudiu that I lost interest in further communication for now. It is not merely because the communication is sometimes at cross-purposes, it is because the situation seems to me like an aeroplane that doesn’t get off the ground, for as long as I can remember. Adam gave a wonderfully sincere and observant description how he not only detected his own modus operandi regards actualism and exposed it by publicly admitting and describing it – he also concluded that “I’ve been having an experience lately of ‘determination’ in a good way” and “having this realization is not going somewhere new in and of itself, it will just be another high unless I actually walk the walk”. Here is Adam’s description of his own original self-deceiving modus operandi –
Since you came to the forum many undetected misunderstandings and misinterpretations came to light, which several people, including myself endeavoured to explain to you. One example in particular is where Claudiu patiently and expertly made it clear that –
Now despite this brilliant exposition of the actualism method in practice, you concluded your first paragraph saying –
Whatever your private distinctions are between “personal happiness” and “priority No. 1 happiness”, even in a hindsight report you are keeping the word “happiness” as a substitute for pursuing your desires – and then present another definition what it should really mean, (presently work in progress in the planning and ‘good intentions’ department) when you intend, one day, to genuinely become happy and harmless. You even admit that there was no realisation which called for action to change, rather present an argument for stalling and postponement –
This very belief, that it “doesn’t happen overnight” has kept ‘you’ firmly in the place where you started from, going round and round in circles, as Adam so honestly and illuminatingly described as his own previous modus operandi. This is all (most likely unconscious) eye-washing, lip-service, mind-games, and I no longer want to contribute to it. With all the valuable information you received, I’ll wait for it to gestate, germinate and come to fruition in a life-changing sincerity, which cuts right to the root of your self-deception – and this is something only you can do, by yourself and for yourself. Cheers Vineeto
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual
Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
