|
How I Achieved Actual Freedom May 05, 2008 GARDOL: And yet still people persisted ... continuing my
discourse: RICHARD: Given that Richard was asked how he knows that a hypothetical person (an intellectual creation, an abstract person, an imaginative entity who had no theoretical existence, even, in the respondent’s skull before coming across the website a few weeks earlier) did not become actually free it is most certainly fair enough – a colloquialism for ‘that’s reasonable’ according to the Oxford Dictionary – as it is patently obvious that only flesh and blood bodies can be actually free from the human condition. Besides which, Gardol’s mere assertion that it is not fair enough (not reasonable) by a long shot does nothing to substantiate his disagreement, anyway. GARDOL: This type of argument wouldn’t even fly in a high school debate class. RICHARD: Ha ... what would really not fly in a high school debate class is the mere assertion that it is not fair enough (not reasonable) by a long shot. Be that as it may ... given that hypothetical persona have a tendency to take on a feeling-fed reality in the normal (imaginative) human psyche, and that the fertile minds of youngsters, who are particularly prone to that affliction (as in larger-than-life imaginary friends), are more than likely to become beguiled by the intuitive presence such a phantom figure psychically emanates – and thus similarly brush aside, as Gardol has done, the fact that only flesh and blood bodies can be actually free from the human condition – then his appeal to what may or may not fly in a high school debate class can hardly be considered reliable grounds for making that assertion. GARDOL: Keep in mind this reference to the ‘hypothetical person’, which goes with the ‘abstract’ person noted above, I will return to that argument. RICHARD: As it pertains to what Gardol wrote above then here is what he returned with:
It is plain to see, in that exchange he quoted above, that the ‘hypothetical person’ first appeared in that respondent’s skull. Viz.:
Moreover, thanks to their imagination that ‘hypothetical person’ appeared in their skull (at some time in the few weeks after they came across The Actual Freedom Trust website) as a male (and not a female) living in a tribe (and not living alone) on the eastern half (and not the western half) of the land-mass nowadays known as New Guinea (the western half is currently called Irian Jaya) in the year 10005 BCE (and not some other date). GARDOL: [Respondent]: ... [but] it seems clear to me that there were many,
many people in the past (let’s say the remote past), who had no access to written records and who lived and died far from any
kind of civilisation. RICHARD: Regardless of what Gardol thinks that hypothetical tribesman of Papua New Guinea twelve thousand years ago did indeed originate in that respondent’s mind ... and, what is more, it actually originated there on some specific date during the few weeks after they came across The Actual Freedom Trust website. GARDOL: ... and he uses it as a ‘straw dog’ to knock down. RICHARD: He did no such thing ... he carefully pointed out that the query was about a hypothetical person – an intellectual creation, an abstract person, an imaginative entity – who had no existence outside of that respondent’s skull. GARDOL: Richard often accuses his respondents of making ‘straw dog’ arguments or bringing up red herrings ... RICHARD: He does not ... he correctly points out, on each and every occasion, that the respondent’s argument is either a straw man or that the respondent has brought up a red herring. GARDOL: ... but he uses both these tactics frequently. RICHARD: As Gardol does not provide the textual evidence to demonstrate that Richard uses both those tactics ever – let alone frequently – then his (unsubstantiated) allegation will just remain there, for ever and a day, looking precisely like the empty rhetoric it is. GARDOL: First, in whose skull did the hypothetical person first appear? RICHARD: The hypothetical tribesman of Papua New Guinea, twelve thousand years ago, first appeared in Respondent No. 90’s skull (some time during the few weeks after they came across The Actual Freedom Trust website). GARDOL: Richard says this: [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, I have
travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from many walks of life; I have been watching TV,
videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been scouring the books (and journals, magazines, newspapers, and latterly, the
internet) for twenty plus years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail ... and I
would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples, so as to compare notes, as it were. [endquote]. RICHARD: He was looking for not only a (singular) flesh and blood body, as in the ‘somebody else’ phrasing which Gardol has self-centredly focussed upon, but also any (plural) flesh and blood bodies as well, as in the ‘such a person or such peoples’ phrasing which Gardol, again quite indicatively, regards as less telling and more abstract ... as well as, and in the main of course, any information whatsoever on an actual freedom from the human condition. It is this simple: because he already knew (by extraordinary means) that an actual freedom from the human condition was new to human experience, what he was looking for (by ordinary means) was any evidence at all to the contrary ... which, by the way, is in accord with the entirely sensible procedure of seeking to falsify something by some other means. GARDOL: Did Richard imagine that some hypothetical person might have achieved actual freedom before him? RICHARD: Of course he did not (only flesh and blood bodies can be actually free from the human condition). GARDOL: Well how else could he have searched for that person, that ‘somebody else’, if he did not first hypothesise that such a person might exist? RICHARD: As he was looking for any evidence, that an actual freedom from the human condition was not (despite the extraordinary evidence) new to human experience, and not just for that ‘somebody else’ whom Gardol has self-centredly focussed upon, that question can also be put as, for instance, how could he have looked for that ‘information on an actual freedom from the human condition’ if he did not first suppose that such information may exist. And the answer in either case is ... he did not specifically suppose anything (he simply looked for any evidence at all which might indicate or would demonstrate that an actual freedom from the human condition was not new to human experience). GARDOL: What did he search for if not a person? RICHARD: He looked for any evidence at all which might indicate or would demonstrate that an actual freedom from the human condition was not new to human experience. For what it is worth: because he already knew that an actual freedom from the human condition was new to human experience what he was primarily scouring the books for, during those years, was any reference to any (temporary) experiences of going beyond enlightenment/ awakenment which any enlightened/ awakened beings may have had as it seemed, at the time that is, quite astounding that none had ever reported having done so. GARDOL: So then the hypothetical person must have first existed in Richards’ skull, not the skulls of his questioners. RICHARD: ‘Tis fascinating to see the progression, in Gardol’s thought process, from (1.) any physical ‘information on an actual freedom from the human condition’ ... to (2.) any physical ‘person or such peoples’ ... to (3.) any physical ‘somebody else’ ... to (4.) a general non-physical ‘some hypothetical person’ ... to (5.) a particular non-physical ‘the hypothetical person’. In other words, as it indeed really does not matter one jot who discovers something in any field of human endeavour, what Gardol is quite effectively demonstrating there is the same, or similar, egocentric and/or self-centred fixation on who was the first (the discoverer) ... complete with the same, or similar, marked lack of interest in what is important (the discovery). Again ... it is no wonder he would not touch the cure-for-cancer analogy. GARDOL: So to accuse this questioner of inventing this hypothetical person ... RICHARD: Gardol is obviously referring to the following part of the quoted exchange (from further above):
First of all, it can be clearly seen that it was the respondent who introduced the word ‘inventions’ into the discussion. Second, there was no accusation anyway ... all Richard did was carefully point out that the respondent’s query was about a hypothetical person – an intellectual creation, an abstract person, an imaginative entity – who had no existence outside of their skull (and who, moreover, did not even exist in their skull before they came across The Actual Freedom Trust website a few weeks earlier). Third, the several and various hypothetical persons already (purportedly) actually free from the human condition prior to 1992, which several and various peoples wrote to Richard about, did not even exist in anyone’s skull prior to 1992 ... just as an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history so too are these several and various hypothetical persons entirely new to human imagination/ intellectual creativity. GARDOL: ... appears both illogical and contradictory, but not inconsistent. RICHARD: As Richard did not accuse the respondent of anything – and is thus neither illogical nor contradictory – Gardol’s gratuitous smear just sits there looking for all the world like the mud it indubitably is. GARDOL: Richard often resorts to tactics like this. RICHARD: As Richard is demonstrably neither illogical nor contradictory Gardol’s mudslinging tactic only leaves him with egg dripping all over his face ... because by drawing attention to resorting to tactics he highlights the fact that this is the second occasion, just in this short section alone, where he has vacuously avowed that [quote] ‘Richard often ...’ [endquote]. And yet there is even more to come ... his next tactic really takes the cake. | Contents | Part Three; Section Two | RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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 |
