May 05, 2008
GARDOL: But let’s look at the next exchange:
[Respondent]: ‘Secondly, what difference does it make whether Richard is the first to find actual freedom ...’.
[Richard]: ‘It makes no difference whatsoever who was the first to find an actual freedom from the human condition as it is what
is found that makes a difference ... as expressed thisaway (also only a few weeks ago): [Co-Respondent]: ‘Questioning your ‘priority’
of discovery is tantamount to rejecting ‘peace on earth’. [Richard]: ‘It matters not one jot who discovered an actual
freedom from the human condition – somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any area of human endeavour as a
matter of course – as what does matter is the discovery that, in order for the already always existing peace-on-earth to be
apparent, identity in toto becomes extinct’. [endquote].
While he says ‘It matters not one jot ...’ if you read all of his arguments and attempts to prove this point ...
RICHARD: It is unmitigated dishonesty to categorically state that Richard [quote] ‘attempts to prove
this point’ [endquote] as he makes it compellingly clear that he is not in the business of proving it to anyone. Vis.:
• [Respondent]: ‘I have previously read the link supplied and the proof that you offer is not a proof for
the uniqueness of your actual freedom (...) just because you say so does not make it so.
• [Richard]: ‘You do seem to be under some misapprehension: I am not in the business of proving to you (or anyone else for
that matter) that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience ... I am simply providing a
report of how I know it is’. List AF Respondent 56, 20 Oct 03
Here is a useful word:
• ‘mendacity: the quality of being mendacious [lying; untruthful; false]; habitual lying or deceiving; an
instance of this; a lie, a falsehood’. (Oxford Dictionary).
GARDOL: ... while also denigrating his questioners ...
RICHARD: The particular instances Gardol refers to here, en passant, are specified by him as follows
(from further below):
• [Gardol] ‘(...) he denigrates his questioners on this subject with words like ‘addled’, ‘straight-jacketed’,
‘invidia’, and ‘knee jerk reaction’. [endquote].
And here is the text in question (also from further below) so as to see those instances in their context:
• [Respondent]: ‘(...) why do people spend so much time debating it?
• [Richard]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Is it an addled addiction to the snake-oil ‘cures’, a strait-jacketed fixation on
logical impossibilities, an entrenched credulity that life is the pits and the universe sucks, which gives rise to this peculiar
question or something else ... something else like, for instance, an ingrained dubiety
(just-who-does-this-man-think-he-is-anyway), or even invidia, perchance? Or is it, and maybe even more likely, nothing other than
a knee-jerk reaction to the price of admission? [endquote].
First, as the word addled refers to being unsound and/or muddled, when used figuratively, the first quizzical
response looks something like this:
• [example only]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Is it an unsound and/or muddled addiction to the snake-oil
‘cures’ which gives rise to this peculiar question ... ?’ [end example].
Second, as the term straight-jacketed means severely restricted, when used figuratively, the second quizzical
response looks something like this:
• [example only]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Is it ... a severely restricted fixation on logical
impossibilities which gives rise to this peculiar question ...?’ [end example].
Third, as the word invidia is a catch-all word for envy and/or jealousy of, and spite and/or resentment at,
another’s success the fifth quizzical response looks something like this:
• [example only]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Is it ... something else like, for instance, envy and/or
jealousy of, and spite and/or resentment at, another’s success, perchance?’ [end example].
Fourth, as the term knee-jerk can mean either automatic/instinctive or stereotypical/predictable, when used
figuratively, the last quizzical response looks something like this:
• [example only]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Or is it, and maybe even more likely, nothing other than an
automatic/ instinctive or stereotypical/ predictable reaction to the price of admission?’ [end example].
Thus, as is plain to see, Gardol’s condemnatory judgement of [quote] ‘denigrating’ [endquote] for those
four instances is not really warranted ... apart from which, they are only quizzical generalisations, anyway (coming as they do
immediately after a clear expression of not actually knowing), and are not directed at any particular person or persons.
Here is a useful phrase:
• ‘make a mountain of a molehill: attribute great importance to something, esp. a difficulty or
grievance, which is really insignificant’. (Oxford Dictionary).
GARDOL: ... and attempting to disprove their points ...
RICHARD: Ha ... there is no mere [quote] ‘attempting’ [endquote] going on as he does indeed
disprove – ‘show the fallacy or non-validity of’ (Oxford Dictionary) – each
and every one of their points.
GARDOL: ... you might conclude that it matters to him much
more than one jot.
RICHARD: No ... not if Gardol were to have been honest, that is, and included the Q&A which
follows the very next exchange in that email. Vis.:
• [Respondent]: ‘Why make the statement about the pristine newness in the first place?
• [Richard]: ‘The following perspicacious observation from an earlier co-respondent brought forth as good an answer as any:
[Co-Respondent]: ‘Do I understand correctly from your mail, that your being unique in this is not what is important: that you
merely wanted to stress with it that you bring something that is entirely new? [Richard]: ‘Yes. The on-going experiencing of the
already always existing peace-on-earth is entirely new to human experience ... everybody I have spoken to at length has
temporarily experienced such perfection, in what is called a pure consciousness experience (PCE), but nobody has been able to
provide a clear, clean and pure report as an on-going actuality. Usually the PCE is interpreted and/or translated according to
selfish personal desires, and by corresponding cultural conditioning, as a variation of the many types of an Altered State Of
Consciousness (ASC) which perpetuates the ‘self’ as the ‘Self’ (by whatever name) in some spurious after-life ‘Peace
That Passeth All Understanding’. And thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse
and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides have gone on forever and a day ...’. List AF, Respondent 101, 02 Sep 05
Besides which, just because Gardol [quote] ‘might conclude’ [endquote] that it matters much more than one
jot it does not miraculously turn it into a fact that it does ... let alone provide an even remotely valid basis for the further
conclusion of the ‘inconsistent’ condemnation (below).
GARDOL: Did I say contradictory?
RICHARD: Gardol was, of course, more sensationalistic than just that ... he said ‘very contradictory’.
• [Gardol]: ‘What makes the psychic eye of his parasitic entity so special that it could establish this
fact? I did not understand, and it struck me as very contradictory ...’. [endquote].
How someone can admit to non-understanding yet, in the next breath, be so condemnatory out of that very
ignorance is simply risible.
GARDOL: Also inconsistent.
RICHARD: Hmm ... Richard cares enough about his fellow human beings’ welfare to thoroughly attend,
in some considerable detail, to the concerns of those to whom that topic was important and yet Gardol adjudges him to be
inconsistent solely on the basis that he [quote] ‘might conclude’ [endquote] that it matters to Richard much more than one
Just so there is no misunderstanding here is another version of that perspicacious observation (as in that
Q&A above Gardol was not honest enough to include) with the relevant text highlighted:
• [Respondent]: ‘... and you just get cut when your status as the one and only is questioned.
• [Richard]: ‘And here you are again coming out with the same egocentric charges ... even though I re-posted the following
perspicacious observation to you on October 31 2003 (I will highlight the relevant text this time around): [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do
I understand correctly from your mail, that *your being unique in this is not what is important*: that you merely wanted to
stress with it that you bring something that is entirely new? [Richard]: ‘*Yes*. ...’. List AF, Respondent 56, 31 Jan 05
| Contents | Part One; Section Four |
RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX
RICHARD’S HOME PAGE
The Third Alternative
(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)
Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and
any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with
its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the
beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’
and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity,
beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The
Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity