Things that are not central to my goal in Clew, or are not simple enough to warrant further attention … but still nevertheless worth tracking as a reminder of what sidetracks and unnecessary tangential explorations are possible.

Sep 19-20, 2022 (naivete)

  • Tapping into pure intent via becoming Naiveté has a similar feel:

    RICHARD: Apperception is very much like what one sees with one’s peripheral vision as opposed to the intent focus of normal or central vision. This moment of soft, ungathered sensuosity – apperception – contains a vast understanding, an utter cognisance, that is lost as soon as one adjusts one’s mind to accommodate the feeling-tone and subverts the crystal-clear objectivity into an ontological ‘being’ … a connotative ‘thing-in-itself’. –

  • The moment that softness/gentleness (which itself resulted from my investigation of a trigger and the concomitant chipping-away of a part of “me”) segued into humility a flashing red light popped up as if to give me a warning sign. I took a step back and looked at the feeling, and saw it to be the other side of pride (pride was involved in that trigger). At that point it became tricky to distinguish humility from a naive disposition (gentleness, softness). But, having now seen the spiritual lure of humility (as Richard says, humility is just a trick “I” use to survive 1 ), I can better distinguish it now.

  • From “Sep 14, 2022” above:

    The clew (or the end of it that is close to the PCE) is accessed by seeing (via contemplation and curiosity) if this moment is the same[^same] (over time), with only events on it changing (over time).

    I’m going to now say that: the clew (or the end of it that is close to “me”) is accessed by reinvigorating this gentleness/softness.

    As if pure intent, then, is a connection from this gentleness/softness to the stillness of this moment.

Sep 24-28, 2022 (investigation)

  • I believe I made the connection between pure intent and what happens during investigation of the Social Identity. It comes down to seeing the third alternative derived from the purity of the stillness, and using that to (concomitantly) see through the opposites (the non-naive parts of ‘me’):

    RICHARD: In actualism the third alternative always applies. ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’, ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’, ‘Virtue’ and ‘Sin’, ‘Hope’ and ‘Despair’, ‘Gratitude’ and ‘Resentment’, and so on, all disappear in the perfection of purity. Purity is the hall-mark of the stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe … which is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. Unless the factuality of the existence of the third alternative is firmly grasped, one is forever fated to shuttle back and forth between the opposites.

    • Srid to Rick:

      Yes. I like how you framed not only ‘myself’ but also ‘society’ as center-stage. In a way, they are both the same thing (as Richard says “I” am Humanity and Humanity is “me”) … hence, it is impossible to “deprogram” oneself without accessing something outside of that center-stage.

      So ‘outside of myself’ means not only ‘outside of myself’ but also ‘outside of society’,

  • VINEETO: Whereas when ‘I’ based ‘my’ values on pure intent, other people’s opinions of me became less and less important.

    Essentially, by default, ‘I’ am tapping into ‘society’ (as if it is an agent), even though ‘society’ is, ultimately, ‘me’ (i.e.: it is ‘my’ creation). What needs to happen, for ‘me’ to self-immolate, is to tap into pure intent instead (unlike ‘society’, however, pure intent is outside of ‘myself’ and is not ‘my’ creation). Consequently, this would obviously bring about a difference in ‘my’ values and, thereby, impact personality/disposition. Now, all of this happens in the background of enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. It naturally becomes easier to enjoy life when one’s balls are not as strongly chained to ‘society’.

Sep 29 (method)

[The empasis here is more on the identity aspect than the feeling aspect]

  • Realize, experientially (i.e., in my own consciousness), that 'I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me'
  • Realize, experientially (i.e., in my own consciousness), that it is “my” choice as to how “I” feel (how “I” am).
  • “I” am feeling happy, by sheer common-sense, as a result. “I” am feeling as such, as a background state, regardless of what is happening (the ‘foreground’). “I” am almost being naive; consequently interactions become spontaneous and intimate.
  • Notice (see HAIETMOBA & Affective Awareness) as “I” retreat back to “my” default or sub-optimal way of being … what triggers it off (see Diminishment). Acknowledge the appeal in staying as that; root out (see On-the-job real-time experiencing) the fundamental beliefs (one may come across the “You can’t change human nature” mother-belief). Now effortlessly restore (see also: Rememoration) that autonomous background state, the felicitous “me”, once again by common-sense (aka. Seeing the silliness).
  • Keep this autonomous background state, the felicitous “me”, for as long as possible. Make Pure Consciousness Experiences more likely. It is after all something “I” can do right now without procrastinating (as is the case with triggering PCEs or self-immolating)

I’m absolutely convinced that this is the gist of the Actualism Method. Interestingly, whenever I had read the AFT descriptions of the method, I would always interpret it as if it is something a split “I” would have to do so as to control/manage the other split “me”. Whereas, what happened today was I took a step back and engaged a meta-awareness … and this only became possible after steps 1 & 2 in that list above were actualized.



‘I’ think and feel that ‘I’ am so important that ‘I’ must live forever. It is a pernicious belief with its roots buried deep in self-importance and self-aggrandisement. It is where conceit meets arrogance and become meekness and humility … and seeks its post-mortem reward.

‘I’ will do anything to survive.

Links to this page