How I Achieved Actual Freedom - Part Two; Section Three

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

GARDOL: Now here comes a real squirmy and bizarre argument from Richard:
[Respondent to Peter]: ‘... how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing?’
[Richard]: ‘Just as a matter of interest: is this American Indian/ Mayan/ Incan/ Aboriginal person (or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples) the first person to become actually free from the human condition ... or was there someone, somewhere, somewhen, before that person as well?’
[Respondent]: ‘You are just goading me into useless banter’.
[Richard]: ‘Not at all ... I am asking a valid question: if (note ‘if’) the, thus far abstract, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition? ‘Tis a simple question, non?’
[Respondent]: ‘So to humour yourself ... Richard ... I haven’t a clue ...’.
[Richard]: ‘Do you realise that you are acknowledging you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether an abstract entity was indeed the first to be actually free from the human condition?’
[Respondent]: ‘I haven’t a clue whether a particular entity was indeed the first ...’.
[Richard]: ‘Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions’.
[Respondent]: ‘You are pathetic Richard ... just pathetic. [endquote].
I think Richard’s reasoning here falls in line with his Karl Popper argument.

RICHARD: All Richard was demonstrating, in that long exchange Gardol has selectively quoted from, was the limiting nature of abstract logic ... as he clearly goes on to say (a little further on from where Gardol snipped the exchange short)

• [Richard]: ‘... given the context (your focus on the ‘claim of being the 1st’ rather than focussing on what has been discovered) is it not a legitimate question to ask if (note ‘if’) the, thus far hypothetical/fictitious, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition? In other words: what does it take to satisfy the straight-jacket demands of abstract logic?’ [endquote].

Quite obviously it is not at all the [quote] ‘real squirmy and bizarre argument’ [endquote] Gardol makes it out to be.

GARDOL: Richard actually takes a sensible question and moves it into a very abstract direction.

RICHARD: No, he takes a hypothetical query, which was directed to another person, and asks a legitimate question ... to wit: is that hypothetical person the first person to become actually free from the human condition (or was there someone, somewhere, somewhen, before them as well)?

In other words: what does it take to satisfy the straight-jacket demands of abstract logic?

GARDOL: Why doesn’t he answer the question directly?

RICHARD: Partly because he was not asked the question (it was a query directed to Peter) and partly because that particular respondent (the one orchestrating the whole abstract epistemological brouhaha) had already stated, in their very first email, that it did not matter to them if it is true or false and, furthermore, they do not even care whether there is any way to verify same. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘I don’t doubt your claims nor does it matter to me if it is true or false but I don’t see how there is any way to verify such a statement nor to even care’. Richard, List AF, Respondent 53, 15 Oct 03

The following exchange three days later, with another respondent, refers specifically to that respondent’s lack of interest/lack of care:

• [Respondent No. 56]: ‘... My question is how do you know this to be true without having met every single person alive or dead? I’ve read the recent correspondence on this issue but I cannot see a clear answer.
• [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... usually I do give a clear answer but when I get told that it does not matter, to my co-respondent, if it is true or false and, furthermore, they do not even care whether there is any way to verify same, I just fail to see the point of doing so’. Richard, List AF, Respondent 56, 18 Oct 03

But the main reason was that, six weeks earlier (the exchange Gardol quoted above took place on 30/11/03), there had been the following reaction to the initial how-do-you-know question:

• [Respondent No. 56]: ‘Extraordinary proof ?? You gotta be kidding me! It’s beyond me how you could expect anyone but the most desperate and vulnerable to buy what you are selling as proof positive that you are the first and only one to be freed of what you dub the ‘human condition’. It is all just a nice tale. It is irrelevant to the masses, period. People just want some food to eat, shelter, some necessities for living and the really screwed up ones think there is more to life than that. You are just offering them a whole lotta useless words saying nothing on this website and in this mail list. A whole lotta noise is all it is. How you could expect anyone to extract any real meaning or value out of this, is really what is extraordinary and not what you are trying to pass off as proof. You should all just get a life and live live live because we/you will all be dust in the wind before long. Do the animals and the birds fret over the meaning of life? Hell no, they are too busy gathering food and raising their young and going about the business of actually and factually living. You should all follow their example and happily live and die as they do. Forget this character Richard (who may very well be a decent human being, I have no idea) and forget his clones, who are busy answering all your enquiries and questions. Just live for god sakes! Forget all this noise’. (Re: Question; Sat 18/10/03 3:40 AM).

This is an apposite place to point out that, by advising peoples to only read the CRO’s (as Gardol expressly does at the end of this diatribe of his) and not read the archived originals in their proper sequence and context, it is all too easy to just ignorantly reach for the keyboard and fire off a totally unwarranted broadside.

GARDOL: I will come back to this abstract person argument shortly.

RICHARD: As it pertains to what Gardol wrote above then here is what he later on came back with:

• [Gardol]: ‘... as far as this ‘hypothetical person’ argument that Richard makes, I think this person really originated in Richard’s mind, and he uses it as a ‘straw dog’ to knock down’. [endquote].

Whereas it is plain to see, in that long exchange Gardol has selectively quoted from above, that the ‘hypothetical person’ did indeed originate in that respondent’s mind. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 53 to Peter]: ‘... how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing?’ [endquote].

| Contents | Part Two; Section Four |

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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.