A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[No one decided the necessary developmental stages LadyShea, but if you understood why man's will is not free you would understand why man could not reach this turning point in history without first going through the experiences that led to where we are now. My father could never have made this discovery without reading history and seeing certain patterns in man's development.

.

So thru the study of history, Lessans saw the prophecies that lead him to the dicoveries, and now (Thru you Peacegirl) he is revealing this knowledge to the world. Sounds so wonderful and Messianic, you must be very proud of him.

I just hope he doesn't wait too long to come back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you kidding me? How did he determine he was seeing patterns in general human behavior rather than the patterns in Edward Gibbon's thinking via his interpretations of historic events?

He was reading to understand history. What you're saying means that no one can read a historical account and learn from it because it's never going to be factual enough.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Historical analysis is inherently interpretative, and Gibbon was just one guy and certainly not above criticism or controversy.

Regardless, Lessans was able to see patterns in human behavior from this historical version among others. He would never have made this discovery without reading Durant's work. Does this mean we can't learn from philosophy either? This is where skepticism has gone to a whole new level, and it's turning against you LadyShea because you are accusing Lessans before you even understand the book. This discussion has been anything but objective, even though you think you've been asking the right questions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a working mind and you haven't found any holes, so you're wrong again.

Your refusal to acknowledge holes doesn't mean you haven't fallen down them, and are trapped.

Real time efferent vision is the largest.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Real time efferent vision is the largest.

I thought we weren't allowed to talk about that on this thread?

[LadyShea]

My lolbertarian free will allows me to say whatever I want.

[peacegirl]

Stop it right there. There are principles that can be detected from observing a few. We cannot observe every single apple that falls from a tree, but we can make a general observation from the fact that we never see apples fall upwards. You are dismissing his observations because you just can't believe that he was right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But, as I have explained over and over again, every person can observe apples falling down every time that is an empirical observation.

Didn't I say that that empirical proof (the success of these principles) is the only thing that counts in the final analysis? You're singing to the choir.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody has shared Lessans observations, nor can anyone seem to duplicate them because he didn't tell us what or who he observed. He didn't observe behaviors or individuals. You can't compare empirical observations to non-empirical.

LadyShea, the reason this is so difficult is because he had the knowledge, the insight, and the perception to see things that others couldn't. Atomic energy was hidden until it was finally discovered by an individual who was capable of seeing the mathematical relations involved. You are telling me he's wrong without even taking the time to study the book in its entirety. That is not what a good investigator does. You are rushing to judgment. Maybe you're afraid to let your guard down. You refuse to accept, even temporarily, that these premises are correct so we can move forward. You, of all people, are going to ruin it for yourself and others due to misplaced skepticism.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 25

Now stop to think about this for one moment. A discovery has
been made that will go down in history as that which will change the
entire world of human relations for the better, yet because it
challenges a theory which is held by many world religions, there is a
hostile reaction when it is questioned. This is a perfect example of
how this preemptive authority of false knowledge which is passed along
from generation to generation by theology, by government, and by
various other sources does not even allow a person to open his mind
to hear the explanation.

The theologians I contacted, though they
admit they pray to God for deliverance from evil also believe it is
impossible for man to accomplish this apparent miracle. In a sense
they are right because the law that was discovered is equivalent to the
law that inheres in the solar system, over which we have no control.
Any system of established dogma, religious or otherwise, which
shackles man’s mind and prevents scientific investigation needs to be
discarded, so that the truth can be uncovered.

This is much easier
said than done because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will
is not free was buried deeper than atomic energy, and presents
problems that are almost insurmountable. Convincing a few people
of this truth is one thing; convincing the entire world is something
else. Supposing the very people whose understanding it is necessary
to reach refuse to examine the facts on the grounds that the discovery
could not be valid because it starts out with the premise that man’s
will is not free.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was reading to understand history. What you're saying means that no one can read a historical account and learn from it because it's never going to be factual enough.

Certainly people can learn something from reading about history. I am huge history nerd myself.

However, as historical analysis is inherently interpretive and prone to bias one must be careful not to accept any one historian's work as the entirety of the facts, or the only point of view, and one shouldn't extrapolate too much from any one person's work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless, Lessans was able to see patterns in human behavior from this historical version among others.

He was able to see patterns in what was reported to have been human behavior. There's a difference. Did Lessans research the primary sources himself, by chance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would never have made this discovery without reading Durant's work. Does this mean we can't learn from philosophy either?

Sure we can. We can't expect to know everything about philosophical thought from reading Durant though.

Didn't he call up Durant and berate him for being wrong?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where skepticism has gone to a whole new level, and it's turning against you LadyShea because you are accusing Lessans before you even understand the book.

I am not accusing him of anything, I am explaining why all your explanations and "support" offerings are failing to convince, and aren't terribly impressive to me. Should I respect Lessans more because he read a 200 year old work 7 times? Does that make him smarter, better, stronger, or more likely to be correct? No, it means he read something numerous times...it's not evidence of anything else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discussion has been anything but objective, even though you think you've been asking the right questions.

I am asking the questions I have. I make no claims to objectivity, I am coming from my own subjective place.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, the reason this is so difficult is because he had the knowledge, the insight, and the perception to see things that others couldn't. I already said that these observations would have been seen by the average person if they were not hidden. Atomic energy was hidden until it was finally discovered. I know you will find something to argue about. It seems like that's all this thread is about, telling me he's wrong without even understanding the principles. That is not what a good investigator does. You haven't been a bit curious. It amazes me that you, of all people, is going to ruin it for yourself because your skepticism has gone to an extreme.

Yes, yes, it's all very sad that it's my own fault that you can't argue Lessans positions rationally (and must resort to special pleading like this) and that he failed to offer convincing support for his assertions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your refusal to acknowledge holes doesn't mean you haven't fallen down them, and are trapped.

Real time efferent vision is the largest.

This just confirms to me that you are very biased investigator.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, the reason this is so difficult is because he had the knowledge, the insight, and the perception to see things that others couldn't. I already said that these observations would have been seen by the average person if they were not hidden. Atomic energy was hidden until it was finally discovered. I know you will find something to argue about. It seems like that's all this thread is about, telling me he's wrong without even understanding the principles. That is not what a good investigator does. You haven't been a bit curious. It amazes me that you, of all people, is going to ruin it for yourself because your skepticism has gone to an extreme.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, yes, it's all very sad that it's my own fault that you can't argue Lessans positions rationally (and must resort to special pleading like this) and that he failed to offer convincing support for his assertions.

I guess we're finished then.

[LadyShea]

I guess we're finished then.

Unless you keep responding to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Certainly people can learn something from reading about history. I am huge history nerd myself.

However, as historical analysis is inherently interpretive and prone to bias one must be careful not to accept any one historian's work as the entirety of the facts, or the only point of view, and one shouldn't extrapolate too much from any one person's work.

It is true that history can be slanted, especially those who want to rewrite history to serve an agenda. Lessans was reading a well known author who had the most comprehensive account of what occurred to cause the fall of Rome. This was not the only book he read. If anyone is interested in reading the history of this six volume tome, it's online. Here's the link.

The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless, Lessans was able to see patterns in human behavior from this historical version among others.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was able to see patterns in what was reported to have been human behavior. There's a difference. Did Lessans research the primary sources himself, by chance?

No he didn't. Oh my goodness LadyShea, if you can't let your guard down for one second, we can't go on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would never have made this discovery without reading Durant's work. Does this mean we can't learn from philosophy either?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure we can. We can't expect to know everything about philosophical thought from reading Durant though.

Of course not. He read lots of philosophy, but it was reading Durant's book, The Mansions of Philosophy, that led to his discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Didn't he call up Durant and berate him for being wrong?

He called Durant to share his observations. He didn't berate Durant for being wrong.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Hiding Place pp. 37-38

Durant is now deceased but over 20
years ago I phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that
was hidden behind the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He
replied, “You must be on the wrong tack, but take what you think you
have to Johns Hopkins University for an analysis.” I not only
contacted that university but many others, to no avail.
It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly
involved in my discovery.

To give you a little background, it was
November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would
change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a
priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and
the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t
understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at
the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason.

Up until that
time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not
rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the
subject came up I began to see the connection. That night in a dream
I kept hearing this phrase, “The solution to all the problems plaguing
mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is
free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day
I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions
of Philosophy. When I completed it I remarked, “He really doesn’t
know what he is talking about and Spinoza is right, man’s will is not
free.” Then, after nine strenuous months I shouted, “Eureka, I have
found it!” and I have had no rest ever since.

After opening the door
of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free,
I saw another sign that read — ‘Hidden behind this door you will
discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long awaited
Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months
in the deepest analysis I made a finding that was so fantastic, it took
me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind.
I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where skepticism has gone to a whole new level, and it's turning against you LadyShea because you are accusing Lessans before you even understand the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not accusing him of anything, I am explaining why all your explanations and "support" offerings are failing to convince, and aren't terribly impressive to me. Should I respect Lessans more because he read a 200 year old work 7 times? Does that make him smarter, better, stronger, or more likely to be correct? No, it means he read something numerous times...it's not evidence of anything else.

You're right, but it shows that he did not pull knowledge out of his hat. He was a voracious reader and if it wasn't for historians and philosophers that came before him, he would have never made this discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discussion has been anything but objective, even though you think you've been asking the right questions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking the questions I have. I make no claims to objectivity, I am coming from my own subjective place.

Then why can't you put your subjectivity aside to give Lessans a chance? If this thread is going to be used as a Lessans' bashing session, then there's no reason for me to be here.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1008753]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So far we can say that the conversion rate of people who read it into people who think it is a load of nonsense is pretty much 100%,

Conversion rate? That's like saying the conversion rate of those who were under Hitler proved that Hitler was right because the majority agreed with him. This is a sick analogy, but I have to drive home my point somehow. The truth of this knowledge is not based on these forums, therefore the conversion rate means nothing in so far as the accuracy of Lessans' observations.

Congratulations! You have invoked Hitler (or the nazi's) in an internet discussion! According to the well-established Rules of the Internet, you have now lost the debate and thread is over

I am merely referring to the fact that no-one - here, elsewhere on the internet, people in real life around you, your closest family - believes in this stuff. The ratio of people who are exposed to this and think it is bull is 100%, unless we count you.

Only if he is correct, for if he is not correct this discovery will never be recognized. Truth always wins in the long run.

Then so far the indications are that he was not correct, as not a single solitary person gives it an iota of credence.

And truth does not always win in the long run. That is a rather trite cliche. If it did, you would be able to tell me if the Catiline Conspiracy was a setup engineered by Cicero to gain fame and power, there was a genuine coup being planned that Cicero somehow managed to get wind of. The fact is that we will never know.

[LadyShea]

LOL, put my subjectivity aside? You are asking me to take myself out of my own analytical processes.

Who is it you are trying to convince? If it's me, then you have to deal with who I am. If it's not me, you'll have to come to terms with the subjective mentality of whomever you are dealing with.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is because you don't think this way, but for those who do, it becomes a cat and mouse game to see who wins.

So not everyone works that way predicted huh? Amazing - almost as if you cannot reduce all human reactions to a simple system like this book!

[Vivisectus]

Good old Gibbon! I can see how his sonorous cadences would have appealed to your dad. A lot of his conclusions may have been almost exclusively based on his own biases and presuppositions, but at least he could write, and what he wrote sounded important, by jove!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So far we can say that the conversion rate of people who read it into people who think it is a load of nonsense is pretty much 100%,

Conversion rate? That's like saying the conversion rate of those who were under Hitler proved that Hitler was right because the majority agreed with him. This is a sick analogy, but I have to drive home my point somehow. The truth of this knowledge is not based on these forums, therefore the conversion rate means nothing in so far as the accuracy of Lessans' observations.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Congratulations! You have invoked Hitler (or the nazi's) in an internet discussion! According to the well-established Rules of the Internet, you have now lost the debate and thread is over

I never heard of that well-established rule. Do I get kicked out?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am merely referring to the fact that no-one - here, elsewhere on the internet, people in real life around you, your closest family - believes in this stuff. The ratio of people who are exposed to this and think it is bull is 100%, unless we count you.

There is no ratio of people except to few philosophy forums I've been on. There are very few people who even know about this book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you seriously think the percentage would be much better with more exposure?

Only if he is correct, for if he is not correct this discovery will never be recognized. Truth always wins in the long run.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then so far the indications are that he was not correct, as not a single solitary person gives it an iota of credence.

Not a single solitary person understands this discovery. You couldn't even tell me what it is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And truth does not always win in the long run. That is a rather trite cliche. If it did, you would be able to tell me if the Catiline Conspiracy was a setup engineered by Cicero to gain fame and power, there was a genuine coup being planned that Cicero somehow managed to get wind of. The fact is that we will never know.

I didn't mean this kind of truth.

[LadyShea]

I never heard of that well-established rule.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're singing to the choir.

The crazy is fun, but it's the mixed metaphors and malapropian ramblings that keep me coming back.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Durant is now deceased but over 20
years ago I phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that
was hidden behind the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He
replied, “You must be on the wrong tack, but take what you think you
have to Johns Hopkins University for an analysis.” I not only
contacted that university but many others, to no avail.
It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly
involved in my discovery.

To give you a little background, it was
November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would
change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a
priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and
the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t
understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at
the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason.

Up until that
time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not
rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the
subject came up I began to see the connection. That night in a dream
I kept hearing this phrase, “The solution to all the problems plaguing
mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is
free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day
I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions
of Philosophy. When I completed it I remarked, “He really doesn’t
know what he is talking about and Spinoza is right, man’s will is not
free.” Then, after nine strenuous months I shouted, “Eureka, I have
found it!” and I have had no rest ever since.

After opening the door
of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free,
I saw another sign that read — ‘Hidden behind this door you will
discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long awaited
Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months
in the deepest analysis I made a finding that was so fantastic, it took
me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind.
I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.[/I]

the brown acid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So not everyone works that way predicted huh? Amazing - almost as if you cannot reduce all human reactions to a simple system like this book!

This book does not reduce all human reactions to a simple system. You can't even begin to envision how different the world will be, so the comparison is useless.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I recall someone mentioning this early in the thread; probably LadyShea. But it doesn't state that people should never use the name Hitler in a discussion. He just said that people can overdo it.

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.[4] The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.[5]

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Time for another intermission. Hope you like it.

Ana Vidovic: Valses Venezolanos 2 y 3 - Antonio...

&feature=related

[Vivisectus]

Not a single solitary person understands this discovery. You couldn't even tell me what it is.

No, not a single person agrees. You just equate understanding with agreement, because your belief in this book is a cast-in-stone dogma. A signed affidavit from God, Buddha and Oprah Winfrey would not change your mind on this.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I recall someone mentioning this early in the thread; probably LadyShea. But it doesn't state that people should never use the name Hitler in a discussion. He just said that people can overdo it.

OMG it's meant to be humorous.

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress