How I Achieved Actual Freedom
May 05, 2008
GARDOL: Concluding my critical examination ... lastly this exchange with a
RICHARD: Curiously enough, while Gardol portrays that respondent as being perceptive, he completely disagrees with their (accorded) perceptiveness in his very next sentence ... here it is again, from above, juxtaposed for convenience:
As the word perceptive, in this kind of context, usually has the nuances of somebody being discerning, percipient, perspicacious, and so on, Gardol’s readily apparent contradictoriness raises the question as to just what the word perceptive really means to him.
GARDOL: I found the arguments on both sides highly instructive.
RICHARD: As Gardol’s entire diatribe has been negatively critical, of each and every thing which he presumably characterises as being Richard’s side of the argument, his (once again) readily apparent contradictoriness also raises the question as to just what the word instructive really means to him ... certainly not the usual informational/ educative/ enlightening/ edifying connotations it carries.
GARDOL: When I first started reading this website I regarded Richard’s writing as beautiful ...
RICHARD: As beauty, being wholly affective in character, has no existence whatsoever in this actual world then it speaks volumes about Gardol’s ... um ... discernment, percipience, perspicaciousness, and so on, that he would regard Richard’s writing as beautiful.
GARDOL: ... and full of intelligence.
RICHARD: As the word intelligence carries connotations of being discerning, percipient, perspicacious, and so on, then it is meaningless (given the above readily apparent ignorance of matters pertaining to such perceptiveness) that Gardol regarded Richard’s writing as full of intelligence ... quite meaningless, in fact.
GARDOL: I wondered why people contended with him so much, about so many trivial matters too.
RICHARD: As Gardol’s entire diatribe pivots around an extremely trivial matter (the academic epistemological argument, which exercised the minds of several and various respondents, is so inconsequential as to be of no account at all) then he need wonder no more ... he does not need to look any further than into himself so as to find out what motivated those people to contend with Richard so much, and about so many trivial matters, too.
RICHARD: As Gardol’s recently self-publicised test of an actualist’s intelligence was that of setting a task which virtually any librarian would be capable of performing it amounts to nothing that he no longer regards the only actually free person he has come across as being full of intelligence/ more intelligent than most ... nothing whatsoever.
GARDOL: This would make sense as ‘the parasitic entity’ inhabiting most
human bodies reduces intelligence.
RICHARD: As that is the exchange referred to at the beginning of first part of this diatribe (about Gardol having, curiously enough, snipped off the very informative Q&A which immediately precedes the part he quoted above) then here is the passage in full:
As can be readily seen the restoration of the initial Q&A makes it quite apparent that Richard, upon being asked a specific question which precisely relates to Gardol’s obvious interest in [quote] ‘greater intelligence’ [endquote], reports that it is not actually a case of more (aka greater) versus less intelligence but a matter of capability (a crippled versus freed intelligence) ... and as that report from actuality is, of course, quite at odds with Gardol’s feeling-fed preconceptions it was perfunctorily snipped-off.
Just in case that is not clear enough ... as the wisdom of the ages (erroneously) has it that a greater intelligence operates in the enlightened/ awakened state of being then, in order for an actual freedom from the human condition to be superior to enlightenment/ awakenment, it (logically) follows that an even greater intelligence needs must operate.
Put succinctly: cognitive dissonance makes it axiomatic that the fact must always cede to the truth.
Feb 25 2009
Update (eleven months later): In the my-assessment-of his-intelligence section of his comeback, on the 18th of January 2009, Gardol did an abrupt about-face and adroitly shifted the focus off his earlier interest in [quote] ‘greater intelligence’ [endquote] by a not-at-all-subtle insinuendo that it really does not make much difference [quote] ‘what kind of intelligence’ [endquote] it is that Richard has as he cannot make full use of it. Vis.:
As he has no intention of showing any such example – being too creeped out as he intimates, by his paranoiac-like vision of a crazy female zealot flying halfway around the globe in a murderous rage and tracking him down via his actual name and address, to ever do so – it is apparently sufficient unto the day just to publicly express a [quote] ‘strong desire’ [endquote] to do so and then ... !Voila! ... ‘tis good as done.
Needless is it to add that there are no examples of tunnel vision – an ‘inability to see more than a single or limited point of view’ (Oxford Dictionary) – anywhere at all in Richard’s fully-referenced duly-annotated point-by-point commentary/ confutation of Gardol’s four-part harangue/ rant?
May 05, 2008
GARDOL: I had questions about the HAIETMOBA, and kept searching the site for answers, since I could not get answers from Vineeto or Richard.
RICHARD: As they pertain to Gardol’s (purported) persistence in searching The Actual Freedom Trust website for answers here, then, are those three questions (which came at the very end of his 4,992-word email):
And there, in a nutshell, the crux of the issue is laid bare ... namely: for all of Gardol’s (purported) persistence in searching the website for answers he demonstrably has no comprehension of even the most basic, or essential, elements which set actualism distinctly apart from the two other alternatives (materialism and spiritualism).
The first question, for instance, comes complete with the (mainly spiritual) assumption that thought, and not feelings, are the problem ... yet it is writ large all throughout website that feelings (at root the instinctual passions), and not thought per se, are the problem.
Also, the initial query in the third question is of similar ilk ... it comes replete with the nonsensical assumption that unconditional happiness (aka uncaused happiness) is the outcome of a meaning system. Vis.:
As the follow-up query in the third question refers to a cause (for feeling happy or perfect) which is described earlier then that description is particularly illuminating in regards his dearth of even the most basic, or essential, comprehension:
And, lastly, here is some of the background information to the second question:
‘Tis no wonder that Gardol elected to base his sledgehammer-and-blowtorch repudiation of the whole website and enterprise on the academic epistemological argument which exercised the minds of several and various correspondents ... for to have done otherwise would have required comprehending just what it is that is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust website.
Here is a useful word:
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.