Actual Freedom – A Diatribe from Gardol Yack

How I Achieved Actual Freedom
by Gardol Yack
Part Two; Section Two

May 05, 2008

GARDOL: Richard seems to get a little squirmy when someone tries to pin him down.

RICHARD: By now it must be strikingly obvious that, as what Richard seems to do (according to Gardol) and what Richard really does do (as textual referral evidences) are two entirely different things, this long-winded diatribe of Gardol’s is not at all in accord with what is actually the case.

GARDOL: It makes me wonder why he exhibits so much defensiveness and denial, when he supposedly has no ego or self to defend.

RICHARD: As Gardol is yet to show that any defensiveness and denial – let alone ‘so much’ – really exists his wondering is but another rhetorical flourish (all style no substance).

GARDOL: He gets accused of this frequently ...

RICHARD: And there is no prize for guessing who is the latest accuser to have jumped upon that facile bandwagon.

GARDOL: ... and he always denies acting defensively ...

RICHARD: Of course he does ... he would be doing his fellow human being no favour were he to just roll over and play dead (leaving them to continue suffering).

GARDOL: ... but Richard doth protest too much, methinks.

RICHARD: ‘Tis a strange world indeed where somebody responding honestly to faux accusations, in meticulous detail by way of demonstration, then gets accused of defensiveness and denial ... it is truly a ‘no-win’ set-up.

GARDOL: Here comes a respondent making a good effort to pin him down:
[Respondent]: ‘Let’s say that Peter did not suggested you to make this site’.
[Richard]: ‘You must be referring to this: [Co-Respondent]: ‘One wonders what would you do without the internet? [Richard]: ‘I would be doing what I was doing before I came onto the internet, presumably, which was writing about my experience on a portable typewriter and putting the pages in a loose-leaf folder in a drawer. In fact, if it were not for Peter coming into my life and expressing interest in what was in the loose-leaf folder, and suggesting I put sections of it out on the internet for feedback, it may very well have been that you and I would not be having this discussion today’. [endquote].
[Respondent]: ‘Then you die and another one rediscover the AF. He claims to be the first because nobody here in Europe for example have ever heard about Richard in Byron Bay’.
[Richard]: ‘Then when this (abstract) person goes public it would sooner or later be drawn to their attention that there has been another ... and they would be delighted that Richard had written about his experience as they could then compare notes, as it were, and thus advance human knowledge’.
[Respondent]: ‘So the same situation might happen with someone before you he gained AF but did not made it public. Why is this impossible?’
[Richard]: ‘As an actual freedom from the human condition requires an all-inclusive altruism to effect – and altruism wipes away selfism completely – it would be a contradiction, not only in terms, but in effect to not pass on a report of the discovery of the already always existing peace-on-earth to one’s fellow human beings. Put simply: because of the inherent character of fellowship regard here in this actual world if this (abstract) person ‘gained AF but did not made it public’ – that is, kept it to themselves – it ain’t an actual freedom from the human condition. There are times I am particularly well-pleased not to be a logician ... and this is one of them. [endquote].
I would feel well pleased if Richard could just follow a logical question with a logical response.

RICHARD: The reason why Richard does not just give logical answers is because his expertise lies in providing experiential responses ... which, due to the newness of actualism, there is a dearth of.

Besides which, a similar (experiential) explanation to that had already been made elsewhere without the respondent in question coming back with fanciful allegations of evasiveness (aka squirmy) ... on the contrary, they judiciously said [quote] ‘none of this really matters’ [endquote]. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... I have scoured hundreds and hundreds of books during the last eighteen years. This is all very new in human history.
• [Respondent]: ‘It remains possible that others (...) simply ‘kept quiet’, because of the existing mores (and danger!).
• [Richard]: ‘I think not. The courage required to effect extinction of identity is enormous ... the perceived danger from the zealots amongst the denizens of the ‘Land of Lament’ is small beer compared to that experience. Anyone too craven to face the opprobrium of their peers would be too pusillanimous to go all the way in the first place’.
• [Respondent]: ‘(...) However, none of this really matters. It is an (apparent) fact that no one, throughout human history, has written of an ‘actual freedom’.
• [Richard]: ‘Yes, as far as I have been able to ascertain. I would be pleased to come across such writing and delighted to meet such a person ... so as to compare notes’. List AF, Alan

GARDOL: Here we have a man retired and on a pension, living comfortably in Byron Bay, and he cannot understand why someone else experiencing actual freedom might not be able to get the word out.

RICHARD: As such a person would have to be incapable of speech (as in dumb), incapable of sign language (as in quadriplegic), incapable of binary replies (as in yes/no gesturing), incapable of writing (as in illiterate), incapable of dictation (as in incommunicado), incapable of ghost writing (as in unintelligible) – in effect, incapable of any form of communication, whatsoever – that is a ludicrous accusation.

For what it is worth: for all Gardol’s huff-and-puff about logic he has, apparently, overlooked the same thing as that logic-driven respondent did ... to wit: in order for Peter to have suggested a website, for the wider promulgation of an actual freedom from the human condition, the word must have, ipso facto, already got out (been communicated meaningfully to him, at the very least, if not to others).

As it so happens, as is mentioned in ‘Peter’s Journal’ (which Gardol says, further on, he purchased and read), he become cognisant of the discovery through another informing him of it (who in turn heard about it from yet another) who also informed others at that time (most of whom, if not all, informed others) and then informed even more as time went on ... word-of-mouth is a very, very effective means of dissemination.

And as Gardol also says, further on, that he purchased and read ‘Richard’s Journal’ as well he most certainly would have known that Richard was not at all reticent about sharing his experience with his fellow human being ... the articles numbered 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 all testify to this as they each contain the gist of the many and various discussions held, on that very topic, with many and various peoples.

Here is a useful word:

• ‘bull-artist: someone who speaks nonsense while trying to impress’. (Probert Encyclopaedia of Slang).
• ‘bull-artist: a person who habitually exaggerates, flatters, or talks nonsense’. (American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms).

Incidentally, the word bull, in this context, has nothing to do with either the male bovine animal, of popular usage, or its ordure. Vis.:

• ‘bull [Old French boul, boule, bole: fraud, deceit, trickery; modern Icelandic bull: nonsense; also Middle English bull bul: falsehood; to befool, mock, cheat]: trivial, insincere, or untruthful talk or writing; nonsense’. (Oxford Dictionary).

As a matter of related interest (and mainly because Gardol later on introduces the word spin as if the mere assertion that something is spin is a valid argument): a few years ago Mr. Harry Frankfurt (a professor emeritus at Princeton University) wrote, in a 67-page essay on the topic of bull, that it is impossible for a liar to lie unless they think they know the truth (meaning that a person who lies is thereby responding to the authority of truth) whereas the bull-artist cares nothing for either truth or falsity, inasmuch the only thing which concerns them is getting away with what they say (meaning that they do not reject the authority of truth, as a liar does by opposing themselves to it, but pay no attention to it at all), and that this makes them potentially more treacherous than any liar because a society where bull is rife is thus in danger of rejecting the possibility of ever knowing how things truly are (as it follows that any form of argument and/or analysis is only as legitimate, via being held to be true, as it is persuasive).

GARDOL: Well, maybe someone achieved actual freedom but due to hardships of environment or circumstances, they had to spend most of their time working on food shelter and clothing, and did not have the spare time to get their book written.

RICHARD: Ha ... so that is what a logical response looks like, eh?

GARDOL: Maybe someone spent five years writing a book, and then got buried in an earthquake, book and all.

RICHARD: What Gardol is doing there is (conveniently) overlooking the fact that there are other ways of communicating than only with a book.

GARDOL: Shift happens, as they say.

RICHARD: And thus does the logical response trail away into the vagary whence it came.

| Contents |  Part Two; Section Three |



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