[true]

We disagree on acceptance.  Acceptance can mean yes I agree and I'll go along with it, or no I don't agree and I'll go along with it, or I don't give a shit and I'll go along with it.  You are supporting I don't give a shit and I'll go along with it at all times.  This doesn't work for me.  I have tried it.  It made me a pawn in a game that I didn't like.  I reserve the right to play a pawn in a game that I like, or to decline if I don't like the game.  I will support I don't give a shit and I'll go along with it only if I really don't give a shit.  I will not try to convince myself that I shouldn't give a shit. 

Today I am in a different place than when I started this thread and it's impossible to recreate the moment I wrote it, so if my responses seem discontinuous, they are.

There are many things I won't go along with in any given moment. I dont support not giving a shit and going along with it at all times. I don't support anything "at all times"? Every time is new and immediate and will not be a reaction from the past/knowledge if one is alive and aware.
I would never suggest to anyone to try and convince themselves to not give a shit. When you see, you simply won't be able to give a shit. Trying to add supposed qualities of seeing to the non-seer is not the way. Not giving a shit, as you call it, is not something to be added, but something that is left when the self (importance) is taken away. And that taking away cannot be done by the self. The self cannot remove the self without continuing itself. Nothing has to be removed. The non-self is. The self is not. This is just seen.

I don't disagree with your acceptance. But we are talking from different places on acceptance.
The actual action of acceptance is very clear and obvious for me - it is or isn't. Whatever comes up in a conversation or inner dialogue or as a thought, no matter how fleeting, is accepted or we wouldn't think it. We can make efforts to not accept such things, but that's just proof that we have, and are, accepting them. Non-acceptance exists as an idea only, not as a reality. You never become aware of something you don't accept. But you don't have to go along with anything that you accept - you can go against it, which will consume alot of energy. The solution is to be the nothing-source which these thoughts are arising in. That's where non-acceptance exists, and yet you wont be able to say or know that when you're there; no such idea will occur to you. So non-acceptance doesn't really exist there either.


"For me freedom is the ability to choose whatever automation I so desire, whether I will go along with something or not, and in what manner I will redefine myself."

I see. Then it's a matter of deconstructing your identity and being able to remain in a somewhat deconstructed state (fluidity) in order to respond to life's situations in a way that benefits you? Is this a fair description? Would the benefit be solely energetic or would it involve something more like getting what you want? Not that it concerns me or that you should answer me, but I'd ask myself that question.