Actual Freedom – A Diatribe from Gardol Yack

How I Achieved Actual Freedom
by Gardol Yack
Part One; Section Four


May 05, 2008

GARDOL: Let’s continue.
[Respondent]: ‘... and why do people spend so much time debating it?
[Richard]: ‘It has got me beat ... it is simply a fact that somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour (such as discovering the cure for cancer for instance) and why there is so much brouhaha about being able to live in this actual world 24/7, for the remainder of one’s life, now being possible for the first time in human history defies sensibility. Perhaps an analogy might go some way towards throwing some light on this peculiar how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it phenomenon which pops up every now and again ... for example: suppose you were to announce that you had finally found the cure for cancer by discovering the root cause of the disease – hence by eliminating the cause then the effect, the cancer, is no more able to arise/exist and health abounds – and if, upon going public with this discovery, you were to get repeatedly told that you cannot possibly know you were the one who finally made this discovery which many, many people have sought, would you not have to wonder if they were all stark staring mad? Yet, of course, you would not have to ... and why not? Because virtually everybody will readily acknowledge there has been no cure for cancer thus far in human history – excepting snake-oil ‘cures’ that is – and it is the discovery which would be examined for validity and not (in lieu of actually examining the discovery itself for validity) the validity of any how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it explanation ... such as which announcing the long-awaited discovery of peace-on-earth appears to almost mandatorily require the provision of. 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].
Richard says the questioning on this subject has ‘has got me beat’ ...

RICHARD: The ‘it has got me beat’ response is, of course, addressed to why people spend so much time debating it (and not, as Gardol tries to make out, to the questioning itself). Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... and why do people spend so much time debating it?
• [Richard]: ‘It has got me beat ...’. [endquote].

And the reason for that is this simple: there was a period where anyone at all could engage in a two-way discussion, on a daily basis, with a person actually free from the human condition – a unique period which is no longer available – and it simply defies sensibility that those particular respondents would continue to fritter away that vital opportunity on a futile academic epistemological argument.

GARDOL: ... elsewhere he says it has him ‘stumped’.

RICHARD: A computer search for the word ‘stumped’ does not return any instances of what Gardol alleges it does.

GARDOL: He calls it ‘peculiar’ ...

RICHARD: And the entirely valid reason for that is clearly explicated in the cure-for-cancer analogy. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps an analogy might go some way towards throwing some light on this peculiar how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it phenomenon which pops up every now and again ... for example: suppose you were to announce that you had finally found the cure for cancer by discovering the root cause of the disease – hence by eliminating the cause then the effect, the cancer, is no more able to arise/ exist and health abounds – and if, upon going public with this discovery, you were to get repeatedly told that you cannot possibly know you were the one who finally made this discovery which many, many people have sought, would you not have to wonder if they were all stark staring mad? Yet, of course, you would not have to ... and why not? Because virtually everybody will readily acknowledge there has been no cure for cancer thus far in human history – excepting snake-oil ‘cures’ that is – and it is the discovery which would be examined for validity and not (in lieu of actually examining the discovery itself for validity) the validity of any how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it explanation ... such as which announcing the long-awaited discovery of peace-on-earth appears to almost mandatorily require the provision of’. [endquote].

The word peculiar is, of course, meant in this way:

• ‘peculiar: that exclusively belongs or pertains to or is characteristic of an individual person or thing, or group of persons or things’ (Oxford Dictionary).

As is illustrated with this example:

• [Richard]: ‘As for needing to do a door-to-door survey, of every man, woman and child on this planet, before being able to say that one can know there is no other: I am unaware of any such requirement in any other field of human endeavour – such as the eradication of small-pox being announced for example – so why should there be such a requirement in the field of consciousness studies? List AF, Respondent 56, 18 Oct 03

As Gardol goes on to say, further below, that he [quote] ‘won’t touch’ [endquote] that cure-for-cancer analogy, which neatly exposes the remarkable peculiarity of this how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it phenomenon, he again demonstrates his oft-repeated avoidance of attending to the substance.

GARDOL: ... and says it ‘defies sensibility’.

RICHARD: Of course it does ... look, Gardol himself wished for that opportunity to engage in a two-way discussion with a person actually free from the human condition:

• [Gardol to Vineeto]: ‘I wish I had discovered your website a couple of years ago when you had a thriving mailing list’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/1231).

• [Gardol to Vineeto]: ‘Would you please forward my email to Richard so I can find out if he will respond to it in a way that I might find more instructive?’. (Thu 31/01/2008 12:40 AM).

GARDOL: Here we have Richard, who in many ways exhibits intelligence, unable to understand the objections to his claim, and the questioning about it.

RICHARD: Oh no, the reason for the objections and the questioning is so readily understandable even Blind Freddie should be able to see it ... to wit: the price of admission.

GARDOL: Well I can point out four problems just for starters: 1) He makes the claim based first on evidence of the psychic eye and cunning entity inhabiting his body prior to attaining actual freedom.

RICHARD: No, he does no such thing ... Richard reports (1.) that he already knew, from a four-hour PCE prior to the commencement of the path which would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, that such a freedom was entirely new to human experience ... and (2.) that because of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment, before becoming actually free from the human condition, he also knew this condition was entirely new to human experience ... and (3.) that he additionally knew, from penetration deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, that no one had ventured thus far before ... and (4.) that he lastly conducted regular research (aka scouring the books), for 20+ years, to no avail.

Besides which ... those particular correspondents, who started that how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it brouhaha, knew nothing at all about the evidence from penetration deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment – for the quite prosaic reason that the extraordinary way of knowing that an actual freedom from the human condition was new to human experience/ human history had not been made public before then – and were solely focussed on the academic epistemological argument.

For instance (from the person who orchestrated the entire affair):

• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Whether this is true or not is besides the point. There is no way for you to know if one or many of the billions or trillions who came before you, lived in your self professed/ self-coined term of actual freedom . You are engaging in pure speculation making such a claim. (...) I know that your claim is beyond verification ...’. (Re: Question; Thu 16/10/03 12:21 PM).

All of which means that the first of these [quote] ‘four problems’ [endquote] Gardol is so ready to point out, evidently as a way of exhibiting intelligence, is most certainly a non-starter.

GARDOL: 2) He bases it secondly on his limited research into other places and cultures.

RICHARD: No, he bases it secondly on many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as per Item No. 2 just above) ... that regular research was purely for the sake of verification, of what was already known experientially, by another means (for as far as it is possible to ascertain).

Which means, of course, that the second of these [quote] ‘four problems’ [endquote] Gardol is so ready to point out, evidently as a way of exhibiting intelligence, also bites the dust.

GARDOL: 3) When someone makes grandiose claims ...

RICHARD: It speaks volumes about the nature of the human condition that the (well-detailed) account of the discovery of peace-on-earth is so glibly derided as being grandiose. Viz.:

• ‘grandiose: characterised by (esp. affected) grandeur or stateliness; pompous, arrogant; over-ambitious, extravagant, high-flown, high-sounding, pretentious, flamboyant; inf. over-the-top’. (Oxford Dictionary).

There is nothing grandiose about what Richard has to report ... this is what a grandiose claim looks like:

• [Gardol]: ‘... I have already reached the stage usually referred to as ‘enlightenment’. (...) I believe in the Ground of Being. I believe in Gob. Not God. My Gob is an awesome Gob. My Gob is an Absolute or Ultimate Ground of Being. It includes everything. Space and time come from Gob’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/1231).

For the sake of clarity in communication ... if, as Gardol says, he is indeed enlightened then everything (including Richard et al) comes from him.

Here is a useful word:

• ‘wankasaurus (slang): ... a wanker who is worse than most wankers’. (Macquarie Dictionary).

And just so that there is no misconstrual:

• ‘wank: to maintain an illusion: deceive oneself; behaviour which is self-indulgent and egotistical’. (Macquarie Dictionary).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Feb 25 2009

Update (eleven months later): In the his-mind-jumps-to-solipsism section of his comeback, on the 18th of January 2009, Gardol completely ignores his own fully referenced words re-quoted above – [quote] ‘Gob is an Absolute or Ultimate Ground of Being. It includes everything. Space and time come from Gob’ [endquote] – so as to be able to declaim that Richard shows no evidence of understanding even unity consciousness because his mind jumps to solipsism. Viz.:

• [Gardol]: ‘When I read Richards response I see him consistently miss the point. In fact I really doubt now that he experienced enlightenment as he shows no evidence of understanding even unity consciousness. His mind jumps to Solipsism ...’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/4196).

If the term unity consciousness=spiritual enlightenment (as Gardol has asserted), and if the Absolute or Ultimate Ground of Being includes everything (as Gardol has asserted), and if space and time come from that Absolute or Ultimate Ground of Being (as Gardol has asserted), then the application of the term solipsism (as in Metaphysical Solipsism of course) is entirely apt as the solipsistic experience is that space and time and form have no existence outside of the perceptive mind – no independent existence that is – and the solipsistic mind is the Universal Mind ... that Absolute or Ultimate Ground of Being. For instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘... the masters’ teaching is very well beyond ‘Love Agape’ and ‘Compassion’.
• [Richard]: ‘You may find the following informative in this regard:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘What do You understand by being enlightenment?’
Richard]: ‘There is nothing other than The Absolute’. (...)

In other words, in full-blown spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment, there is only ‘That’ (the unmanifest by whatever name) and the manifest – all time and all space and all form – is but a dream/an illusion/an appearance ... meaning that in reality there is neither creation nor destruction, and thus, neither bondage nor liberation/ neither a seeker after liberation nor the liberated’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, Respondent 89,13 May 05).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 05, 2008

GARDOL: ... [When someone makes grandiose claims] people will naturally wonder if that person, like so many others before him, might have a bit of ego or self-importance on display.

RICHARD: The following pertains to that tendency:

• [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 (such as discovering the cure for cancer for instance) – and why some peoples would want to turn that prosaic fact into being an egocentric issue is anybody’s guess’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, Respondent 108, 02 May 06

The most likely guess, of course, is best represented by the following word:

• ‘automorphism: the ascription of one’s own characteristics to another’. (Oxford Dictionary).
• ‘automorphism: the conception and interpretation of other people’s habits and ideas on the analogy of one’s own’. (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
• ‘automorphism: automorphic [patterned after one’s self] characterisation’. (Webster’s Dictionary).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Feb 25 2009

Update (eleven months later): Interestingly enough, in the ego-and-self-importance section of his comeback on the 18th of January 2009, Gardol disclosed that he had got caught up in some [quote] ‘ego and self importance’ [endquote] with his ‘mission’ to do something about The Actual Freedom Trust web site (to repudiate the whole website and enterprise). Viz.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I’ve read Richard’s response to my harangue (...) In retrospect, I do feel somewhat foolish, silly, and a little embarrassed by some of the things I said. I got caught up in some ego and self importance with my ‘mission’. (As if I needed to do something about the Actual Freedom website.) By their fruits ye shall know them ...’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/4196).

Please note that Richard is not, repeat not, prescient ... the fact that his most likely guess (above), about Gardol’s automorphic ascription of his own [quote] ‘ego or self importance’ [endquote] to Richard, came solely out of a profound understanding of the human condition, which an actual freedom from same automatically bestows, and nothing else.

Even more interesting, however, was Gardol’s futile attempt to turn the tables on Richard (via his misapplication of that word Richard introduced, above, back at him as if it were from someone else). Viz.:

• [Gardol]: ‘And the assumptions he made about me. My cunning ‘cherry picking’. Please. (...) Someone called this type of assuming ‘automorphism’. (ibid.).

Why person after person would consider they could try out smart-aleckry on Richard, when the evidence of so many e-mails in the archives demonstrates that each and every such attempt has invariably resulted in each and every one of them coming off a pathetic second-best (if that), simply defies comprehension.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 05, 2008

GARDOL: Or at least some trace of self, secretly deriving gratification from this claim.

RICHARD: That fanciful hypothesising of Gardol’s (about egoic/ selfist gratification/ self-importance) is but incongruous grandstanding because it is made abundantly clear, at numerous places on the website, that Richard was examined by two accredited psychiatrists (one of which was over a three-year period), face-to-face in their rooms – as well as by an accredited psychologist, for the same three-year period, person-to-person in his own home – and professionally diagnosed, by those two experts in the field, as being chronically depersonalised (as in no ‘self’ by whatever name).

These [quote] ‘four problems’ [endquote] Gardol is so ready to point out, evidently as a way of exhibiting intelligence, are looking sillier by the minute ... his next one (immediately below) is a doozie.

GARDOL: 4) As Richard has written a great deal, and espouses many things as ‘fact’, people should examine what constitutes a fact for him.

RICHARD: If this diatribe of Gardol’s is an example of what such an examination is (a deceitful, fraudulent, cherry-picked, sneaky, misleading, ignorant beat-up) then it may very well be the case that he would not recognise a fact even if it suddenly sat up in front of him with a flashing neon sign gaudily displaying the words ‘This Is A Fact’.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Editorial Note: As that tongue-in-cheek response evoked a brief flurry of interest on a public discussion list it is worth noting that if such facetiae as that (even though it be both factually-based and with apposite textual evidence preceding it) is deemed not permissible, upon an actual freedom from the human condition, then what a strait-laced, dull and dreary place the actual world must be, in the minds of those who stridently condemn such expressive jocosity as malicious and aggressive/ combative correspondence, and what a stark contrast that censorious attitude is to its fun-filled, bright and cheery actuality (as evidenced in a PCE).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GARDOL: If we find he draws conclusions with very little evidence on one topic, then we have good reason to doubt his other ‘facts’ as well.

RICHARD: Mmm ... and as Richard has demonstrably drawn no conclusions with very little evidence, on this one topic, then it follows that Gardol has no reason to doubt his others facts as well, eh?

GARDOL: I call it a critical examination, which Richard highly recommends. (see above).

RICHARD: By way of a timely reminder – and just so there is no misapprehension – it has been made as plain as a pikestaff that what Richard does highly recommend (to use Gardol’s phraseology) is making a critical examination of the words he advances so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory – and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about do the facts speak for themselves – then there will be reason to remember a PCE and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written.

And thus does the fourth of those [quote] ‘four problems’ [endquote] Gardol was so ready to point out, evidently as a way of exhibiting intelligence, sink back into the miasmic morass it surreptitiously slimed its way up out of.

GARDOL: He then attempts explain his view by comparing the discovery of actual freedom with the imagined discovery of a cure for cancer. I won’t touch that one ...

RICHARD: There is no mere [quote] ‘attempts’ [endquote] about it – he does indeed explain the remarkable peculiarity of that how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it phenomenon – and because the cure-for-cancer analogy neatly exposes that remarkable peculiarity it is quite telling that Gardol will not touch it.

Here is a useful word:

• ‘wimp-out: feebly fail to act, timidly withdraw from or avoid an undertaking’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: ... but I will comment on his concluding paragraph. In it he denigrates his questioners on this subject with words like ‘addled’, ‘straight-jacketed’, ‘invidia’, and ‘knee jerk reaction’. So someone taking his recommendation to make a critical examination by asking a perfectly sensible and intelligent question ...

RICHARD: Nowhere in that (full) paragraph does it even remotely imply, let alone say, anything at all about asking Richard a question.

GARDOL: ... might get denigrated by Richard ...

RICHARD: No, as was plain to see earlier on, Gardol’s condemnatory judgement of [quote] ‘denigrated’ [endquote] for those four instances is not really warranted.

GARDOL: ... merely for asking. Doesn’t that appear contradictory?

RICHARD: As nowhere in that (full) paragraph does it even remotely imply, let alone say, anything at all about asking Richard a question Gardol’s conclusion (albeit couched as a question) is a non-sequitur.

GARDOL: And what about happy and harmless? Well, it may keep him feeling happy, to denigrate people for asking sensible questions ...

RICHARD: As nowhere in that (full) paragraph does it even remotely imply, let alone say, anything at all about asking Richard a question then Gardol’s follow-up query, being based upon his invalid conclusion, is nothing but a cheap debating trick.

GARDOL: ... but I don’t think it qualifies as harmless.

RICHARD: All Gardol is doing here is, once again, airing his ignorance in public. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The happy and harmless attributes of actual freedom are uncaused ...’. List AF, Respondent 12, 15 Jan 99
• [Richard]: ‘Especially so when this, the actual world, is just here right now ... where uncaused happiness (and harmlessness) lies’. List AF, Respondent 27, 05 Apr 03
• [Richard]: ‘Unconditional happiness can also be described as uncaused happiness ... that is, not dependent upon people, things and events’. List AF, Respondent 28, 15 Apr 04

Just in case that is not clear enough there is this:

• [Gardol]: ‘I do have enough back pain to know that I don’t feel good or happy when that pain arises (...) I only feel happy when something extra fun occurs. So, for a trivial example, when I hear a great song on the radio or internet, for example, I feel happy and great. When the song ends, I feel merely good. What happened that stopped me from feeling happy? That song ended’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/1231).

As contrasted to this:

• [Richard]: ‘... the apperceptive experiencing of an actual happiness/ felicity is not dependent upon a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto experiencing sensual (anhedonic) pleasure ... indeed that apperceptive experiencing of an actual happiness/ felicity occurs all the while sensual (anhedonic) pain is happening. Ain’t life grand!’ List AF, Respondent 110, 30 May 06

Here is a useful term:

• ‘mudslinging: casting aspersions with intent to discredit’. (en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mudslinging).


| Contents |  Part Two; Section One |


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