How I Achieved Actual Freedom
May 05, 2008
GARDOL: I had not planned to do this, but for reasons I will attempt to explain later, I have decided to include here my email to Vineeto about HAIETMOBA and other topics. In doing this, I’ll have to put a few of my flaws on display. In my defence I’ll say that I intended to provoke her into a response with my writing, so I threw out some ideas as ‘bait’. As I noted in ‘How I achieved actual freedom. Part One’, she basically gave me a one word response. She did not respond in her usual aggressive manner ...
RICHARD: As she does not – repeat not – usually respond in an aggressive manner, anyway, then Gardol’s back-handed compliment demonstrates that his meanness of character extends to other actualists too.
Here is a useful term:
GARDOL: ... or leave me a reason to continue a dialogue. I wrote this in December, ‘07. It started when I purchased the two ‘Actual Freedom Journals’ and received a thank you email from Vineeto. This started a brief interchange with her that I recap at the start. ‘Hi Vineeto, thank you very much for writing back to me. (...) I have already reached the stage usually referred to as ‘enlightenment’. (...); My Gob [Ground of Being] is an Absolute or Ultimate Ground of Being. It includes everything. Space and time come from Gob. While Richard insists that space and time are actual, he cannot prove that space and time have any existence outside of the mind of the perceivers.
RICHARD: On the contrary, it is remarkably easy to demonstrate ... simply find somebody who has a relative or a friend in a coma – the mind of a comatose person is a non-perceiving mind – and go and visit them: it will be noticed that space and time (and matter) are still happening regardless of their non-perception of it all. Or go and be with someone in ‘Samadhi’ or ‘Dhyana’, or some similar cataleptic trance state, and although they will asseverate that space and time (and matter) do not exist, when they come out of their exalted state, it will be noticed that space and time (and matter) were happening all the while. Or be with somebody on their death-bed and afterwards it will be noticed that space and time (and matter) keep on keeping on.
As their perception of space and time (and matter) is non-existent in all three instances – yet space and time (and matter) keeps on keeping on regardless – then the same applies to one’s own perception of space and time (and matter) in similar circumstances ... ergo: one is not necessary for the planet earth to exist; one is not necessary for the satellite moon to exist; one is not necessary for the central sun to exist; one is not necessary for the galaxy to exist; one is not necessary for the universe to exist.
Put concisely: one is not necessary for space and time (and matter) to exist.
Even more to the point, find someone with expertise in ancient rocks and fossils ... palaeontology shows that space and time (and matter) existed long before human beings and their perceiving minds appeared on the scene.
As the ancient rocks and fossils existed prior to human beings, and their perceptive minds, it shows that human beings are not needed for the planet earth to exist; it shows that human beings are not needed for the satellite moon to exist; it shows that human beings are not needed for the central sun to exist; it shows that human beings are not needed for the galaxy to exist; it shows that human beings are not needed for the universe to exist.
Put succinctly: human beings are not necessary for space and time (and matter) to exist.
Feb 25 2009
Update (eleven months later): In the wanted-my-questions-addressed section of his comeback, on the 18th of January 2009, Gardol focuses solely upon the ‘the mind of a comatose person is a non-perceiving mind’ example, ignores the remainder of the above multi-point demonstration, and dismissively opines that Richard thinks observing such a person proves something. Vis.:
And that is all there is to it, folks, that depreciatory half-line is the sum total of what transpired upon finally, finally getting his questions addressed – after repeated and insistent importuning – for this is the sentence which immediately follows:
Richard understands perfectly well the point Gardol made (in both his rant and his follow-up emails) – plus, having been that Ground Of Being (which Gardol refers to as ‘Gob’) night and day for eleven years, his understanding is experiential – yet that intimate understanding does not negate the fact that palaeontology indubitably shows that space and time and matter existed long before human beings, and their perceiving minds, appeared on the scene.
May 05, 2008
GARDOL: From my own perspective as an enlightened person I can agree that space actually exists. But space exists only in relation to the mind of the observer. Outside of the mind or minds of the perceivers, space does not exist, ‘actually’ or otherwise. Space exists because a mind or minds exist to perceive it. You cannot prove that space or the universe exists a priori. When Richard tries to prove the ‘Actual’ existence of form, he resorts to ontological arguments ...
RICHARD: He does not resort to anything – a search for the word palaeontology, on his portion of the web site, will demonstrate just why not – let alone to [quote] ‘ontological arguments’ [endquote].
Incidentally, here is what that term generally refers to:
That is because this is what the word ontological represents:
As it almost goes without saying that Richard has no interest whatsoever in matters metaphysical then, presumably, Gardol is meaning an ‘a priori’ argument (as in inductive reasoning/ reasoning independent of experience) ... as distinct from an ‘a posteriori’ argument (as in deductive reasoning/ reasoning dependent on experience).
If so, he is barking up the wrong tree as Richard repeatedly reports that it is experience – direct experience (apperceptive awareness) in fact – which informs of the actual existence of form (aka matter).
GARDOL: ... for example: [Richard]: All time and space and form are physical as opposed to the Timeless and Spaceless and Formless being metaphysical. That is, time and space and form are material inasmuch as material means physical (corporeal), or substance (existing), or concrete (tangible), or objective (perceptible), or substantial (palpable) ... in a word: actual. Therefore the words material and form are interchangeable words given that I am mainly directing my discussions in relation to the claims of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality and metaphysicality wherein time and space and form have no inherent existence. The properties of time and space are that they are material (actually existing) and the property of form is that it is material (matter) in its specific meaning as actual things (solid stuff) or active force (energetic stuff). [endquote]. Here he blithely ignores the fact that all the words he uses to describe the ‘actual’ (such as physical, tangible, concrete and corporeal) have no foundation outside of the mind of the perceivers.
RICHARD: First and foremost, that quote is not an example of the proof of the actual existence of form (aka matter), as is patently obvious, because he is clearly answering a question about whether space is a form of matter. Vis.:
Second, it is thus irrelevant whether or not the words he uses to describe the physical (as opposed to metaphysical) have foundation outside of the mind of the perceivers.
Third, Gardol’s reliance upon pejorative tags – such as ‘he blithely ignores’ (above) and ‘he resorts to’ and ‘tries to prove’ (further above) and ‘he believes’ (below) – to suggestively carry his baseless argument again demonstrates his proclivity for style over substance.
Here is a useful word:
RICHARD: This is what [quote] ‘believes’ [endquote] really looks like in action:
As palaeontology shows that space (and time and matter) existed long before human beings, and their perceiving minds, appeared on the scene it can be nothing other than a belief that space exists only in relation to the mind of the observer/ that outside of the mind or minds of the perceivers space does not exist.
RICHARD: He does indeed have proof – experiential proof – that those words do describe actual properties of the universe ... and it is unmediated (apperceptive) proof, too.
GARDOL: ... but he repeatedly states it as fact.
RICHARD: What he does repeatedly report is that it is direct experience (unmediated awareness) which informs of the actual properties of the universe.
Indeed, the word actualism was deliberately chosen as being an eminently suitable name as its ascribed meaning aptly describes that very fact. Vis.:
No. 18, 14 Aug 2001
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.