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

GARDOL: In this next line of questioning, we get to the heart of the matter.

RICHARD: As the next line of questioning focuses solely upon the (logical) principle that the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent then it becomes abundantly clear just what it is that Gardol thinks the heart of the matter really is.

Which means, of course, that this entire 18,679-word diatribe of his – with which he declares he is providing an adequate signpost for future humans who come upon this path – revolves around nothing other than a (futile) academic epistemological argument.

GARDOL: Two people here frame it brilliantly.

RICHARD: As the first of those two people frames it with an out-and-out lie (that actualists think the absence of knowledge of a predecessor is proof that there was no predecessor), and as the second person frames it with an out-and-out misrepresentation (that it is a question of likelihood rather than experiential certainty), then it becomes abundantly clear just what it is that Gardol thinks framing something brilliantly really is.

Here is a useful word:

• ‘gormless: lacking common sense or initiative; unintelligent’. (Encarta Dictionary).

GARDOL: See how Richard spins.

RICHARD: So as to gain at least some inkling, of whatever it is Gardol has in mind with that bald proclamation, here is what several dictionaries have to say:

• ‘spin: to provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion’.
• ‘spin doctor: a person who publicises favourable interpretations of the words and actions of a public figure, especially a politician’. (American Heritage Dictionary).

• ‘spin: a bias or slant on information, intended to create a favourable impression when it is presented to the public; an interpretation, a viewpoint’.
• ‘spin doctor: a political spokesperson employed to promote a favourable interpretation of events to journalists’. (Oxford Dictionary).

• ‘spin: to present information in a way meant to influence public opinion’.
• ‘spin doctor: somebody whose job is to present to the public the policies, actions, or words of a person or organisation in their best possible light’. (Encarta Dictionary).

• ‘spin: a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation presented for the purpose of influencing opinion’.
• ‘spin doctor: a person (as a political aide) responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view’. (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary).

So, basically what Gardol is proclaiming, as a fact, is that Richard is providing an interpretation of a statement or event, especially in a way meant to sway public opinion and/or is putting a bias or slant on information so as to create a favourable impression and/or is presenting information in a way meant to influence public opinion and/or is presenting a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation for the purpose of influencing opinion.

GARDOL: [Respondent No. 60]: ‘Another example of neo-solipsistic-like thinking in actualism: I know I am the first because I don’t know of any who might have been there before me. Absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one’.
[Respondent]: ‘Would you, likewise, propose that when Neil Armstrong claimed to be the ‘first man to walk on the moon’ that he was being ‘solipsistic’? ( ... ) Maybe he should be known as ‘first man to walk on the moon, as far as we know ...’.
[Respondent No. 60]: ‘ Even if the two claims WERE similar ... The question is whether the absence of knowledge of a precedent is proof of the absence of a precedent. Strictly speaking, yes, the absence of knowledge of a previous moon-walk is not certain proof that there never was one before Armstrong. Armstrong, apparently a sane and reasonable man, would have no problem acknowledging this in principle. It then becomes a question of likelihood. If anyone can get Richard (or his more ardent followers), by hook or by crook, to acknowledge that it is a question of likelihood rather than experiential certainty, I will run stark naked and screaming across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for your entertainment pleasure’.
[Respondent]: ‘Would it be enough to qualify for an acknowledgement ‘that it is a question of likelihood rather than experiential certainty’ if Richard said that there is a possibility (no matter how unlikely) that there was another person prior to him to discover and live a permanent actual freedom? No 60, my intent in posing this question to Richard is not to be entertained by you running stark naked and screaming across the Sydney Harbour Bridge (so, don’t do it for my sake) – rather that statement indicates the importance of the question to you (and others encountering actualism). Richard, knowing that you say you are the first to live an actual freedom, do you admit that it is at least possible, no matter how unlikely, that someone else before you lived an irreversible actual freedom for some indeterminate time in their life?
[Richard]: ‘If you look at the (above) exchange you will see that the crux of the topic under discussion is that a sane and reasonable person would have no problem acknowledging that, in principle, the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent. Whilst I am not sane I am indeed reasonable and I hereby unambiguously acknowledge that the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent ... which (logical) principle I have acknowledged before.
Here is but one example: [Richard]: ‘... given that you dismiss the extraordinary way of knowing as believing that I know it may be pertinent to point out that I am well aware of the proposition made by Mr. Karl Popper that, logically, nothing can ever be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen) ...’. Now, to have to personally verify every single person, thing or event in order to satisfy the demands of this logical principle only serves to show the limiting strait-jacket that such an abstract logic is as it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands of such theoretical thinking (an academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in practice’). In practice, then, any (apparently) previously unknown discovery is a new discovery by default until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise ... which practice is what has sometimes been called ‘the probabilism theory’ (or ‘the probabilist theory’) upon which 99% – if not 100% – of all human endeavour is sensibly based. For example: ‘probabilism (Philos.): the theory that there is no absolutely certain knowledge, but that there may be grounds of belief sufficient for practical life’. (Oxford Dictionary).
Thus the [quote] ‘another example of neo-solipsistic-like thinking in actualism’ [endquote] referred to at the top of this page is but (another) facile argument based upon a misrepresentation as I have never said [quote] ‘I know I am the first because I don’t know of any who might have been there before me/absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one’. [endquote] ... here is what I have actually said (at least 48 times): [Co-Respondent]: ‘You claimed once that you are the only one to have discovered what you discovered ...’. [Richard]: ‘For as far as I have been able to ascertain ... yes. I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for over twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail’. [endquote].
As ‘for as far as I have been able to ascertain’ is but a variation on your ‘as far as we know’ phrasing – to which your co-respondent answered [quote] ‘strictly speaking, yes ...’ [endquote] – it looks as if it is a beat-up you are responding to. [endquote].
Here Richard looks like he has actually capitulated on one small point.

RICHARD: It does not look like that at all ... Richard unambiguously acknowledges that the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘I hereby unambiguously acknowledge that the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent ...’. [endquote].

As he then goes on to demonstrate he has previously acknowledged that (logical) principle – some fifteen months earlier, in fact, than that exchange – there is no way Gardol can make out that Richard capitulates, in the exchange he quoted above, and yet still retain even a shred of credibility.

GARDOL: He agreed in principle that ‘the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent’.

RICHARD: He did no such thing ... he advised that he had previously acknowledged that (logical) principle and provided one instance of having done that very thing so no-one would have to take his word for it that he already had. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... which (logical) principle I have acknowledged before. Here is but one example: [Richard]: ‘... I am well aware of the proposition made by Mr. Karl Popper that, logically, nothing can ever be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen) ...’. [endquote].

Nowhere does he agree [quote] ‘in principle’ [endquote] that the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent ... he unequivocally agrees that it is not.

GARDOL: But then he goes on to talk about Karl Popper, and essentially rates the chances of finding an example of another person preceding him in actual freedom as the same as finding evidence of a ‘one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen’.

RICHARD: He does not – that is what Gardol makes of it – as it is patently obvious that the ‘one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater’ example given, in that one instance provided, was deliberately designed (some fifteen months previously) to show the absurdity of rigidly adhering to the (logical) principle that nothing can ever be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing.

Just to make that point crystal-clear one can ask oneself this: has anyone (including oneself) ever done an exhaustive search of the entire universe – which means everywhere and everywhen – so that one can state, with absolute certainty, that any such being is a fictional creature?

GARDOL: Somehow I think the chances of finding evidence of another human being experiencing a human potential before Richard, exceed by far the chances of finding fictional creature from a humorous pop song.

RICHARD: Now Gardol is straying away from the logical argument (about pure possibility) into the realm of everyday practice (about likely probability) ... which straying, by the way, quite nicely demonstrates the limiting-strait-jacket point Richard is making. For instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘... My question is how do you know this to be true without having met every single person alive or dead?
• [Richard]: ‘As for needing to do a door-to-door survey, of every man, woman and child on this planet, before being able to say that one can know there is no other: I am unaware of any such requirement in any other field of human endeavour – such as the eradication of small-pox being announced for example – so why should there be such a requirement in the field of consciousness studies? Besides which it is a physical impossibility: nobody lives long enough to individually meet, question, and receive an answer, from each and every one of 6,000,000,000 people populating this planet (not to mention the language barrier) and nobody would want to take the time to read through, and verify, each and every 6,000,000,000 of the Q&A’s anyway ... would you? Richard, List AF, Respondent 56, 18 Oct 03

The whole point of the ‘one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater’ example is to illustrate, through its manifest absurdness, the absurdity of what exercised the minds of several and various respondents ... including, of course, Gardol’s.

GARDOL: Basically, Richard agrees to the above stated principle without agreeing that it applies to his case.

RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) Richard did not already know what was experientially evidenced, all those years ago, it would have indeed applied in his case ... which he has readily acknowledged. For instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘I can know of the kind of knowledge you appeal to in such statements as ‘in those six years nobody has ever come back to me with a single instance where somebody else is already actually free from the human condition.’ That kind of knowledge is, I think, familiar to me. But the ‘extraordinary proof’ is not. I can know, along with you, that nobody has left any record of having discovered a cure for cancer, but I cannot know, as you seem to, that one solitary man or woman, somewhere far away in space and time, discovered the cure and died without leaving any record of it.
• [Richard]: ‘I have no knowledge whatsoever that the cure for cancer was not discovered by one solitary man or woman, somewhere far away in space and time, who died without leaving any record of it ... and neither have I any knowledge, for that matter, that Mr. Edmund Hillary and Mr. Tenzing Norgay were not the first to have ascended Mt. Everest, on May 29 1953 (someone from Tibet/ Nepal/ Mongolia/ Wherever may have already done so 10/ 100/ 1000/ 10,000 years ago and just never got around to informing their fellow human beings).
Nor have I any knowledge that someone from, say, Outer Gondwanaland might have not already been to the South Pole long before Mr Roald Amundsen travelled there or whether Mr. Yuri Gagarin was indeed the first human being to leave the planet’s atmosphere or whether Mr. Neil Armstrong was certainly the first human being to set foot on the moon or whether ... and so on, and so on, through the entire Guinness Book Of Records.
In short: your argument is a variation on what is known as an agnostic argument (that nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty) such as what Mr. Karl Popper made popular and stems, as I understand it, from the occasion wherein, prior to the exploration of Australia’s west coast, all (European) swans were white ... meaning that, somewhere, somewhen, in an infinite and eternal universe a purple swan may very well exist.
Or not, of course, which is why, by and large, Mr. Karl Popper’s logic has been discarded as merely abstract and/or irrelevant and/or useless by many thoughtful human beings’. Richard, List AF, Respondent 90, 02 Aug 05

GARDOL: Thus, his very complex answer to a simple question.

RICHARD: Here is what Gardol characterises as a simple question:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, knowing that you say you are the first to live an actual freedom, do you admit that it is at least possible, no matter how unlikely, that someone else before you lived an irreversible actual freedom for some indeterminate time in their life? [endquote].

As Richard already knew what was experientially evidenced, all those years ago, there is no way he could have responded to that complex question with a simple answer.

The following is an example of what a simple question looks like (complete with the equally simple answer its very simplicity readily elicits):

• [example question]: ‘Richard, do you acknowledge that the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent’?
• [example answer]: ‘Yes’. [end example].

This is a good place to draw attention to the following:

• [Richard]: ‘How you conduct your correspondence is entirely up to you, of course, and all I can do is point out that what you choose to write is what determines the response you receive (...)’. Richard, List AF, Respondent 56, 14 Jan 05

In other words, anyone who wants a simple answer must ask a simple question.

GARDOL: Later he goes right back into asserting that he KNOWS he is the first, as you will see in subsequent emails on this subject.

RICHARD: Hmm ... Richard is clearly reporting what he experientially knows and yet Gardol ... um ... spins it into him merely asserting that he does.

Speaking of spin ... this is how the exchange Gardol quoted above began:

• [Respondent No. 60]: ‘Another example of neo-solipsistic-like thinking in actualism: I know I am the first because I don’t know of any who might have been there before me. Absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one’. [endquote].

Now, that is what a real assertion looks like ... because actualism is neither neo-solipsistic-like nor has Richard ever said he knows he is the first because he does not know of any who might have been there before him (as in ‘absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one’).

‘Tis a mad, bad, and sad world whereupon Richard not only gets (falsely) accused of the very thing that particular respondent did but also wherein his wannnabe interlocutor (a cheap-trickster, a sneaky-snipper, a sly-deceiver, an ignorant-judger, a molehill-mountaineer, a fraudulent-justifier, a mud-slinger, a bull-artist and spin-doctor all rolled into one) also does that very same thing ... a double-spin, as it were, of such magnitude as to maybe occasion a shift in their brain in which they begin to see the respondents as more and more intelligent while Richard appears less and less so.

For here are Gardol’s own words (from the latter part of his diatribe):

• [Gardol]: ‘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’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/1231).

GARDOL: When a person KNOWS something, they don’t have to set a very high standard of proof.

RICHARD: Richard set a remarkably high standard ... he reports:

1. That he already knew, from a four-hour PCE prior to the commencement of the path which would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, that such a freedom was entirely new to human experience ... and;
2. That because of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment, before becoming actually free from the human condition, he also knew this condition was entirely new to human experience ... and;
3. That he additionally knew, from penetration deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, that no one had ventured thus far before ... and;
4. That he conducted regular research (aka scouring the books), for 20+ years, to no avail ... and;
5. That he has advertised his discovery in books and on the world-wide web, for over a decade now (and latterly on high-definition video discs), yet nothing of that nature has been elicited ... nothing whatsoever.

GARDOL: Why would they? Talk to any garden variety Christian or religious zealot who says they have some proof that God exists. Usually for their ‘proof’ they will just point out some flaws or gaps in evolutionary theory. It does not really prove the existence of God to anyone but the person who already wants to believe it.

RICHARD: The following may be found edifying:

• [Respondent]: ‘You just cannot prove, Richard, that there is nothing beyond the blood and bones body which may exist in another dimension.
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... and as you cannot ‘prove’ that there is ‘another dimension’ then this is a ‘Mexican Stand-Off’, eh? Howsoever, I have responded to you before on this issue: [Respondent]: ‘As I’ve stated before, you have no proof that your brand of actuality is really all there is to life’. [Richard]: ‘I find variations of this line of debate on the Christian versus Rationalist discussion boards (where the Christians challenge the Rationalists to prove that their god does not exist). It is futile to take up a challenge wherein the challenger first proposes something (such as a god or a goddess or an other dimension) and then says: ‘prove me wrong’. *Needless to say, I do know for myself that there are no gods or goddesses or an after-life outside of passionate imagination*’. [emphasis added]. Richard, List B, Respondent 19, 27 May 01

Now contrast that highlighted sentence with the following highlighted response:

• [Respondent]: ‘What scientific proof do you have that you can transmit information without the use of five senses?
• [Gardol]: ‘I have no scientific proof. *I have proven it to myself, which is all I need*’. [emphasis added]. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/1239).

‘Nuff said?

GARDOL: Same with Richard. He don’t need no stinkin’ proof!

RICHARD: Given that Gardol imposes a different criterion upon Richard, than what he applies to himself, then here is a particularly useful word:

• ‘double-standard: (the application of) a standard, principle, etc., applied more strictly to some people or situations than others’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: He already has his psychic footprints in the imaginary snow, as seen by his psychic eye, and he accepts this truth as discovered by the parasitic and cunning entity that inhabited his body all those years ago.

RICHARD: As Gardol’s worse-than-cheap trick, of slyly shifting the focus onto the text which followed the word ‘furthermore’ – which means ‘in addition, additionally; moreover, esp. used when introducing a fresh consideration in an argument’ according to the Oxford Dictionary – so as to make out that it is the main extraordinary evidence, has already been exposed for the indescribable deceit it is then the following can only help to emphasise how the penetration deeper and deeper into spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment only served to reinforce what was already experientially known:

• [Richard]: ‘This is really quite a simple matter to comprehend: prior to those experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment, whilst paddling a canoe around a group of uninhabited islands in the tropics off the north-eastern Australian seaboard for about three months in 1985, the end of suffering was universally considered to be only possible after physical death (peace on earth was just not possible); those experiences demonstrated just what was required to have that most salubrious condition come about (the extinction of identity in toto and not just ego dissolution); the experiential penetration deeper and deeper into the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself only served to reinforce what was already known from a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) six months prior to the commencement of the path that would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition (that such a freedom was entirely new to human experience)’. Richard, List AF, Respondent 90, 02 Aug 05

GARDOL: How can people even ask for better proof than that?

RICHARD: As the people quoted in this diatribe are (demonstrably) not asking for proof – let alone that fictitious ‘better proof’ Gardol has, by now, fabulated them as asking for – but are (demonstrably) asking how does Richard know/how can Richard know then that conclusion, albeit couched as a (rhetorical) question, is a non-sequitur.

GARDOL: It’s got Richard beat ...

RICHARD: As what actually has Richard beat is why people would spend so much time on a futile debate over an academic epistemological argument, and thus frittering away a unique opportunity to engage meaningfully with a person actually free from the human condition, then Gardol’s (melodramatic) answer to his own (rhetorical) question is nowt but another theatrical flourish.

GARDOL: ... it’s got him stumped.

RICHARD: As a computer search for the word ‘stumped’ did not return any instances of what Gardol alleged it does then that throwaway line (aimed as it is at something fabricated via a description-beggaring deceit) is but a further example of how rhetorical gestures/ theatrical flourishes/ confabulated conclusions are his stock-in-trade substitute for a substantive argument.

| Contents |  Part Three; Section One |

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.

Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997-2008