Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

IRENE to Vineeto: Perhaps you could ask yourselves: Do I actually enjoy another person’s company as I had believed? Do I actually live peace if I find myself getting a kick out of the one-up-man ship I find myself engaged in since stepping onto this ‘wide and wondrous path of peace and harmony’. This was exactly the reason why I saw through Richard’s ‘peaceful’ living; it was (and is) expressed in glee for winning yet another argument, especially the one-up-man-ship he is so proud of having eliminated.

RICHARD: It was this paragraph that prompted me to write this response to your E-Mail to Vineeto and Peter ... I just found it irresistible. Firstly:

I am not ‘proud of having eliminated’ any one-up-man-ship at all, for I have not needed to do so ... my life is so infinitely superior to anyone else’s that I have met or read about. Thus I am very pleased at my expertise and prowess in being able to win an argument, with anyone who defends the status-quo, because when I win, they win ... it is the ‘Tried and True’ that gets defeated. When I enter into a discussion with someone I am well aware that it may very well turn into a debate ... for these are contentious issues that I speak of. Society’s ‘Holy Cows’ are under sustained scrutiny ... what you so rightly call ‘being attacked’.

As for ‘getting a kick’ ... what I experience is far more gratifying than such a petty return. I am inordinately pleased when the grip that the human nature has on a person falls away ... the delight far exceeds merely ‘getting a kick’.

*

IRENE to Peter: [Richard is] somebody who professes to be – yet again – the best, the wisest, the most advanced, more innocent and harmless than anybody ever before him.

RICHARD: May I offer a word of advice here? Do not ever do or achieve anything outstanding that would lead to you or humankind bettering itself ... some malcontent somewhere will pop up and tell you that you are ... [insert whatever sour-grapes here] ... in order to make themselves feel better. It is called ‘The Tall Poppy Syndrome’.

RESPONDENT: Richard, do you see that your conversational style is confrontational?

RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do you see your stupidity?
• [Richard]: ‘As that falls into the category known as ‘the fallacy of many questions’ (as in the classic ‘have you lost your horns’ and the more popular ‘have you stopped beating your spouse’ examples) your query cannot be answered as-is’. (Friday 12/08/2005 11:05 AM AEST).

RESPONDENT: That a discussion quickly becomes a debate with requests for evidence, proofs, repetitious put-downs, requests for withdrawal of an accusation or allegation etc.

RICHARD: Since coming on-line in 1997 I have asked for a withdrawal of an accusation, allegation, etcetera, on four occasions. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... what you contribute here smacks of delusion, of false and contradictory claims.
• [Richard]: ‘So as to substantiate your statements, would you care to demonstrate where I am deluded; where I am false; where I am contradictory? Either that or withdraw your easy-to-say throwaway lines’.

Here is the second occasion:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Apparently one must not question your authority or authenticity.
• [Richard]: ‘Au contraire ... I do indeed welcome questioning: [Richard]: ‘I welcome rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion and invite people to either agree or disagree (those who are neutral on the subject will just ignore it). I have been doing this for eighteen years now and have had the full gamut of scorn and derision and ridicule and flattery and gratitude and compliments ... and indifference. But I would not be where I am now if I had kept it all to myself. All those people who over those years pointed out flaws in my then ‘wisdom’ aided me immensely as far as I am concerned. [endquote].
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Your actions speak otherwise at times.
• [Richard]: ‘If you will provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion I will most certainly attend to them.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘If you will excuse me, I don’t feel like going through your years of correspondence to find an instance, 2, 3 or 200.
• [Richard]: ‘No, I will not excuse you: you made the allegation – ‘your actions speak otherwise at times’ – thus it is up to you to substantiate it.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘That’s not to say it would be that hard.
• [Richard]: ‘Good ... then it will not be ‘that hard’ to provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion, eh?
*
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Not all the times ... just some times.
• [Richard]: ‘Again ... if you will provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion ‘just some times’ I will most certainly attend to them.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Again ... you’ll have to excuse my lack of thoroughness.
• [Richard]: ‘Again ... I will do no such thing: either provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion ‘just some times’ or withdraw the allegation’.

Here is the third occasion:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... [Richard’s condition] is an outgrowth of the sickest ego-maniacal-self-inflating-inflationary-egotistical-narcissistic solipsism ...
• [Richard]: ‘I will draw your attention to the following: ‘solipsism: the view or theory that only the self really exists or can be known’. (Oxford Dictionary). It would appear that you have, basically, two choices: either produce some (referenced) quotes from The Actual Freedom Trust web site to that effect or unreservedly withdraw each and every commentitious allegation you have just made ... specifically that Richard’s condition is: 1. ... an outgrowth of the sickest solipsism. 2. ... an outgrowth of an ego-maniacal solipsism. 3. ... an outgrowth of a self-inflating solipsism. 4. ... an outgrowth of an inflationary solipsism. 5. ... an outgrowth of an egotistical solipsism. 6. ... an outgrowth of a narcissistic solipsism. Not all that surprisingly I will not be holding my breath waiting’.

And here is the fourth occasion (just recently):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘He [Richard] can be right or scizophrenic.
• [Richard]: ‘There are two main ways the word ‘schizophrenic’ is used. For some examples: ‘schizophrenic: 1. (psychiatry) characteristic of or having schizophrenia; 2 (transf. & fig.) characterised by mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements, attitudes, etc’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of, relating to, or affected with schizophrenia; 2. of, relating to, or characterised by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of schizophrenia: relating to or resulting from schizophrenia; 2. offensive term: an offensive term meaning characterised by conflicts and contradictions (insult)’. (Encarta Dictionary). As only a psychiatrist – who, unlike a psychologist, is a medical doctor as well – has the necessary professional qualifications to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia (and who would be able to spell the word correctly) it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. As it is you who makes the allegation it behoves you to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally’. (Tuesday 9/08/2005 2:01 PM AEST).

If those four instances, in a period spanning eight years, constitutes a style that is confrontational in your book then all I can say is ‘guilty as charged M’Lud’.

As for requests for evidence, proofs: am I to take it that, according to you, anyone can say whatever about anything without substantiating it?

RESPONDENT: Do you think that is a sensible way to discuss things?

RICHARD: If asking another to substantiate what they are saying is not a sensible way to discuss things then the word ‘sensible’ may as well be expunged from the lexicon.

RESPONDENT: Or is it that you want to set the other person right, by verbal thrashing.

RICHARD: If asking another to substantiate what they are saying represents verbal thrashing, where you come from, then I am well-pleased not to be there.

RESPONDENT: You are incredibly defensive.

RICHARD: I am meeting each of your claims and allegations squarely and sensibly ... if you call that being ‘incredibly defensive’ then stop making such claims and allegations and I will have nothing to be what you call ‘incredibly defensive’ about.

RESPONDENT: The fact is you display defensive behaviour; and that fact may be an indication that your motivation is indeed one of self-denial and protection. All that I hear from you and that I read from you confirms this to me. That is my point of view. The facts seem to support my point of view.

RICHARD: Shall I give an outrageously simple example to demonstrate a point? If I were to say to a female ‘you are a male; that is my viewpoint which I hold to be correct and true’ and if she then said to me ‘no I am not a male’ I could then rightfully say, according to your above rationale, ‘you are being incredibly defensive’ (if I kept on presenting my correct and true viewpoint to her and she kept on denying it, that is).

Is this not silly?

RESPONDENT: Could it be that you especially like winning against/beating up on supporters of enlightenment?

RICHARD: Maybe – just maybe – it is that I am arraigning the trillions and trillions and trillions of words contained in the Sacred Scriptures of all cultures. If so, then how would agreeing with them succinctly explain the root cause of human suffering ... especially when there is so much misinformation – and disinformation – bandied about? I do like to discuss peace-on-earth even though I fully comprehend that it is impossible to combat the ‘wisdom’ of the ‘Greater Reality’ ... for their anti-life ‘wisdom’ is cynical, and cynicism decries actuality. For a person to acknowledge a fact would require that they betray their basic belief, their fundamental faith, their core certitude, their tragic trust:

They would have to admit that life-on-earth is in itself inherently perfect ... and this would go against their pre-digested judgment so dearly held firmly to their bosom.

RESPONDENT: Probably because you feel betrayed by them, or worse, inferior to them due to your own inability to become enlightened despite spending 11 years, night and day at it.

RICHARD: No, my objective is to have fun talking about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and I thoroughly enjoy describing how I experience life on this planet and to enquire into how it is for the person I am discussing with. You and I are, after all, both in this game of life together with 6.0 billion fellow human beings ... and it is fascinating to compare notes, as it were, on what sense has been made out of what it is to be here as living, breathing human beings.

It is such fun being alive, eh?

RESPONDENT: You took the opportunity to knock me down a peg or 2 in your special happy and harmless way.

RICHARD: Oh? I was not aware you had put yourself above others ... as this is what you had said about yourself:

• [Respondent]: ‘Who cares about Richard’s opinion of himself. Like someone said, opinions are like assholes ... everyone’s got one. Richard is entitled to his and I am entitled to mine and you have heard mine. That said, my opinion is as worthless as his or yours. (Wed 22/10/03 4:02 AM).

How a worthless opinion can be knocked down a peg or two by a worthless opinion has got me beat ... here is another self-report you made:

• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t hold anything I say or another says as correct, or incorrect for that matter. Neither should you. Especially what I say. Especially what Richard says. Nor do I put myself on a plane with Richard. Nor do I put him above or below me or you. (Wed 22/10/03 4:46 AM).

How a neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement can be knocked down a peg or two by a neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement is beyond my ken ... and here is another:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard claims to know how to solve the world’s problems. I don’t make such preposterous statements. I make other preposterous statements. (Thu 23/10/03 5:36 AM).

How a preposterous statement can be knocked down a peg or two by a preposterous statement is about as clear as mud to me ... as is you saying, in the second passage quoted that, not only you do not put yourself on a plane with me you neither put me above nor below you or another, yet in this current e-mail can be making a big issue out of me (apparently) knocking you down a peg or two from your neither-above-nor-below plane from my neither-above-nor-below plane.

RESPONDENT: Obviously that which is actual is neither correct nor incorrect. Obviously. But we are not talking about what is actual ... we are talking about your communication. I started by agreeing with another correspondent; who later changed his mind somewhat, that your communication is of a unpleasant nature.

RICHARD: It is indeed ‘unpleasant’ to have someone point out a fact that pulls the rug from under another’s elaborate belief system slyly dressed up as truth and masquerading as being genuine, authentic and valid ... I would be the last to deny that.

Yet it is the fact which pulls the rug ... not me.

RESPONDENT: It is contemptuous of the point of view of others ... no let me rephrase that ...

RICHARD: May I make a trivial suggestion? Why not delete that and start again? Computers are really good in this respect ... no trees get wasted upon throwing rejects into the waste-paper basket.

RESPONDENT: ... your communication tends towards contempt at times when other people than you attempt to communicate a point of view that does not agree with yours.

RICHARD: Upon second thoughts: do not delete your rejects as it shows how you re-phrased what you were going to spontaneously say into what your ‘point of view’ dictates you must say.

RESPONDENT: You even go to the extent of claiming NOT to have a point of view. You are EXTREME ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? I am not extreme at all ... and a simple example will demonstrate. That which is actual is not ‘extreme’: it is simply evident. For example, if I were to say ‘this is a computer monitor’ I am reporting a fact which is not ‘extreme’ by any criterion. And when I say ‘this is a computer monitor’ no one tells me I am being ‘extreme’. No way ... Richard is only ‘extreme’ when he points out a fact that pulls the rug from under another’s elaborate belief system slyly dressed up as truth and masquerading as being genuine, authentic and valid.

It is the fact which pulls the rug ... not me.

RESPONDENT: ... and I happen to like extreme people who find that extremity inside themself (I use the term deliberately) rather than adopting the extremity of somebody else. Those people; the adopters, I have little time for; as you are fond of saying you do not suffer fools gladly ... neither do I.

RICHARD: You must be very detached from yourself then, eh?

RESPONDENT: I guess I must separate the teaching from the teacher ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? I do not either have a ‘teaching’ nor am I a ‘teacher’ ... what I do is offer a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, plus an unambiguous report of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings.

For an example: I always make it clear that I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day ‘teacher’ (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’.

What another does with the method, my report, my descriptions, my explanations, and my clarifications is their business, of course, yet it goes almost without saying, surely, that if what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is indeed read as being yet another unliveable ‘teaching’ from yet another bodiless ‘teacher’ then that person will be but pissing into the wind each and every time they write to me.

RESPONDENT: ... just like your oft criticized punching bag, Jiddu Krishnamurti, said to his followers after screwing his best friends wife.

RICHARD: So, just because you experienced your worthless opinion being knocked down a peg or two by a worthless opinion, or your neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement being knocked down a peg or two by a neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement, or your preposterous statement being knocked down a peg or two by a preposterous statement, and despite not putting yourself on a plane with me nor putting me above or below you or another, still experienced being knocked down a peg or two by a person you do not put yourself on a plane with nor put above or below you or another, you somehow manage to liken me to a bodiless ‘teacher’ notorious for distancing themselves from their unliveable ‘teaching’ wherever and whenever the tyre met the road, eh?

O what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to deceive.

RESPONDENT: And thus does all the games and gamesmanship of the supposedly Enlightened or those in a ‘state vastly superior to Enlightenment’ amongst us mere mortals, continue unabated.

RICHARD: Ha ... you will find this to be of interest then:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It is just a matter of being ‘there’, awake to what one is actually doing. We touch things all of the time, but our thoughts are what wastes the energy needed to ‘be there’ in totality.
• [Richard]: ‘This is precisely what I am getting at ... wanting to be ‘there’, and not here, is to chase immortality in a metaphysical dimension. I am suggesting that one turn one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposite direction ... and be here. But be fully here as an actuality and not a reality. This is where this body is: here at this place in space and now at this moment in time. Nobody wants to do this because it entails acknowledging death’s oblivion. *I am mortal*. Death is the end. Finish. If you do not become free here and now whilst this body is breathing you never will. [emphasis added].

When I typed ‘I am mortal’ into my search engine and sent it through all my correspondence it returned 71 hits ... which can only mean we are on the same plane after all and that I am, in fact, a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day ‘teacher’ (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’.

And thus does another neither-this-nor-that-or-either Advaita Shuffle bite the dust.

RESPONDENT No. 10: When we learn from history, Richard, we repeat it in a different way. However, it is always a step away from what we ‘thought’ it would be. Learning is a function of non-action. We see; we intake; act; and then we see; we intake; act. To learn from history is to study, make a choice, and then act – a robots way. That is the way of our world. Do you see my word meaning?

RESPONDENT: In my opinion, for Richard to see the true meaning of your words will depend upon whether or not he ‘sincerely wants’ to.

RICHARD: As I already explained that I intimately know the ‘true meaning’ of his words am I to take it that you, too, brushed past my first sentence and focussed on the second?

RESPONDENT: My bet is that he wants to debate it.

RICHARD: Oh, you would easily win your bet because if you look, even casually, you will see that my co-respondent brushed past my first sentence and chose to debate my second sentence instead ... and I am obliging him as I am retired and on a pension and have all the time in the world to do whatever with. How about you: do you wish to debate ... or discuss?

RESPONDENT: Richard, I certainly do not wish to debate you. You lose me after the first sentence. Like now, I still don’t know the actual issue. Is it your first sentence, ‘ending the play’, or is it the second sentence, ‘sincerely ending the play’, or is it that the question ‘when do we end the play’ was not a sincere question, or is it that No. 10 used ‘we’ instead of ‘you’ to avoid seeming egotistical, or is it that you learned from history, or a few other issues that have come into the picture since I first asked what the issue is?

RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’ and will continue to be the issue until ‘the play’ is ended.

RESPONDENT: Me thinks that the issue with you changes from one point to another point ... not in a discovering sort of way, but in a debating way. If you could make one point and stick with it until it was completed, you might be easier to understand.

RICHARD: The ‘issue’ with me never changes, and the ‘one point’ I essentially make in all my posts I do indeed ‘stick with’, through thick and thin ... and I have made my agenda quite clear on many an occasion. For just one example:

• [Respondent]: ‘You appear to be a very three dimensional person, and I think that you deliberately complicate and argue the issues so that you can debate them (and win). LOL’.
• [Richard]: ‘If you would care to cease cackling for a moment and even casually peruse the sequence (all of the above) and elsewhere you will find that it is the other person that ‘deliberately complicates’ the issue through prevarication and obfuscation ... and not me. ‘Tis you who is prattling on about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s usage of the word ‘creation’ meaning only ‘no psychological time’ when it is clearly not the case at all ... which case is also evidenced by your ‘you appear to be a very three dimensional person’ and your ‘you just cannot prove, Richard, that there is nothing beyond the blood and bones body which may exist in another dimension’ . Whereas I am always out-in-the-open and up-front in my agenda: It is possible to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body only’.

If you cannot see that ‘ending the play’ points to the same thing as ‘it is possible to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth’ then you and I may as well cease corresponding forthwith

RESPONDENT: But, every step along the way, you appear to want to trap your ‘opponent’.

RICHARD: Perhaps you may be inclined to provide an example, from this current sequence betwixt you and I, so I can see for myself where you see my words as me wanting to trap you into experiencing the already always existing peace-on-earth for yourself?

Alternatively, you might want to expand on your use of the word ‘opponent’ as there are no opponents here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: For someone who says he wants peace on earth, you sure spend a lot of time in confrontation – setting verbal traps on everybody.

RICHARD: Now here is a curious oddity: I happened to discover that it is possible to be happy and harmless, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, yet when I share this discovery with my fellow human beings some of them become quite miffed and start arguing/debating with me rather than reading with both eyes open.

‘Tis all rather cute, non?

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’. Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, Alan

GARDOL: (...) After getting Vineeto’s brief and unhelpful reply, I went back to the website. I spent so much time slogging through all the verbal quarrelling that I felt like I had gotten an addiction. I spent more and more time getting less and less reward. Then a shift occurred in my brain, in which I began to perceive the respondents on the list as more and more intelligent, while Richard appeared less and less so.

RICHARD: As that shift in Gardol’s brain enabled him to perceive, for instance, two respondents (one lying and the other misrepresenting) as brilliantly framing the heart of the academic epistemological matter – as well as enabling him to perceive Richard as being the culpable one in regards to spin – it is no wonder that he went on to, not only often perceive Richard as wilfully ignoring, or simply not seeing, the intent he could perceive in a respondent’s question, but to also perceive Richard as jettisoning questions and comments he perceived as being perceptive ... and, as well as that, to then perceive Richard as, not only accusing respondents of using the same tactics he perceived Richard as using, but to also perceive Richard as living in denial.

Here is a useful word:

• ‘fantasist: a person who fantasises [visualises in fantasy, represents in the fancy]; a writer of fantasies’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: I noticed that I could often see the intent of a respondent’s question, while Richard would react to some word or phrase ...

RICHARD: As Gardol provides no textual evidence whatsoever for that (fantastical) allegation – and as it has been amply shown thus far that none of his other allegations have been even remotely true – there is no demonstrable reason at all to take his word for it that Richard would [quote] ‘react’ [endquote] to some word or phrase.

GARDOL: ... and either wilfully ignore the intent, or simply not see it.

RICHARD: As Gardol provides no textual evidence whatsoever for those (fantastical) allegations – and as it has been amply shown thus far that not even a single one of his other allegations has even been remotely true – there is no demonstrable reason at all to take his word for it that Richard would [quote] ‘either wilfully ignore the intent or simply not see it’ [endquote].

GARDOL: I saw many perceptive questions and comments jettisoned by Richard ...

RICHARD: As Gardol provides no textual evidence whatsoever for that (fantastical) allegation – and as it has been amply shown thus far that each and every one of his other allegations has been evidently untrue – there is no demonstrable reason at all to take his word for it that many [quote] ‘perceptive’ [endquote] questions and comments were [quote] ‘jettisoned’ [endquote] by Richard.

GARDOL: ... and then I see Richard accuse his respondents of using the same tactics he uses.

RICHARD: As Gardol provides no textual evidence whatsoever for that (fantastical) allegation – and as it has been amply shown thus far that none of his other allegations have been even remotely true – there is no demonstrable reason at all to take his word for it that Richard [quote] ‘accuses’ [endquote] his respondents of using the same tactics which Gardol (fantastically) alleges that Richard uses.

GARDOL: Does he live in denial?

RICHARD: As Gardol provides no textual evidence whatsoever for his (fantastical) allegations – and as it has been amply shown thus far that not even a single one of his other allegations has even been remotely true – his follow-up query has no factual basis (in regards to its formulation) and is thus not worthy of an answer.

GARDOL: He exhibits intelligence in many ways, but when it comes to communication with his fellow humans he just seems lost.

RICHARD: As Gardol provides no textual evidence whatsoever for that (fantastical) allegation – and as it has been amply shown thus far that each and every one of his other allegations has been evidently untrue – there is no demonstrable reason at all to take his word for it that, when it comes to communication with his fellow humans, Richard [quote] ‘just seems lost’ [endquote].

GARDOL: Perhaps happily so ...

RICHARD: And here again is one of those not-so-subtle put-down tags which Gardol noticeably favours (in lieu of substance).

GARDOL: ... but still, you can’t start a revolution in human history if you can’t communicate your message.

RICHARD: As Gardol provides no textual evidence whatsoever for that (fantastical) allegation – and as it has been amply shown thus far that none of his other allegations have even been remotely true – there is no demonstrable reason at all to take his word for it that Richard [quote] ‘can’t communicate’ [endquote] his discovery of an actual freedom from the human condition (aka his message).

GARDOL: Dude.

RICHARD: As the word dude – from the Low German ‘dudenkop’ (stupid head) – generally refers to a tenderfoot, a raw inexperienced person, it is more likely that, via his gratuitous epithet, Gardol is probably wanting to convey that Richard is stupid, as in a fool, for going public with his discovery in the way he has.

Over a quarter of a century’s experience of communicating matters pertaining to consciousness studies has shown, repeatedly, that some peoples are so self-centred that it never occurs to them that the impression they form, from listening to or reading Richard’s words and writings, is not representative of that of each and ever other person (as is evidenced by those expressing appreciation of the value they obtain from that very listening or reading).

In other words: Gardol is oblivious to the fact that his impressions are not universal.

GARDOL: And by communication, I mean the two way kind, not the one way (my way) kind.

RICHARD: Hmm ... and here is an (anonymised) example of Gardol demonstrating what that admonition of his actually means when put into practice:

• [Gardol]: ‘Greetings, concluding my critical examination (...).
• [Respondent]: ‘Gardol, to be honest you sound like nothing more than another spiritual believer to me with the spiritual democracy, transmissions, enlightenment and all the rest of it.
• [Gardol]: ‘Respondent, to be honest, I guess that leaves you and I with nothing to discuss. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/1238).

As that retort brought the fledging conversation to an abrupt halt then that was the end of any communication (be it either the one way or two way kind) whatsoever.

Here is another (edited-for-emphasis) instance:

• [Gardol]: ‘Greetings, concluding my critical examination (...).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Gardol, to be honest you sound like nothing more than another spiritual believer to me with the spiritual democracy, transmissions, enlightenment and all the rest of it.
• [Respondent]: ‘Gardol, I must say that I agree (...) you are just another spiritualist to me.
• [Gardol]: ‘(...) Since you have made up your mind about me (...) I guess I have nothing further to say to you. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/1239).

Gardol would be well advised never to take up residence in a glass house.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless