A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was really funny TLR. Thanks for the comic relief because you can't be serious that this is what I sound like.

Well of course not. You're nowhere near that concise, rational or coherent in real life. And nowhere near as straightforward about how yours is nothing more than an argument from faith.

***

I rather suspect Clutch's point was to express amazement/amusement/consternation that peacegirl has managed to string people along for 60 pages (and counting) of yet another thread.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I rather suspect Clutch's point was to express amazement/amusement/consternation that peacegirl has managed to string people along for 60 pages (and counting) of yet another thread.

Nothing to be amazed about really. People find lunatics amusing. peacegirl is a big joke.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's very true. It's premature to give him credit before you know for sure he was right, and it's premature to jump to the conclusion that he was wrong. Just don't rush to judgment, that's all.

I think peacegirl is the only person here who is not aware that everyone has made judgement. It is amazing how profound her delusion is.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Rinse and repeat as necessary.

More like "Rinse and repeat unnecessarily."

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's very true. It's premature to give him credit before you know for sure he was right, and it's premature to jump to the conclusion that he was wrong. Just don't rush to judgment, that's all.

If you agree that it is premature to give him credit before we have some reason to believe that he is due such credit, then why did you tell us that this was exactly what we needed to do?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was really funny TLR. Thanks for the comic relief because you can't be serious that this is what I sound like.

1.He described correctly how conscience works

2.He explained in detail how conscience works

3.It would appear circular if you refuse to read his proof.

4.But you have to seriously consider that his observations were right

5.Well, he had incredible insight, and through his reading he was able to accurately identify what conscience needs in order to allow an individual to perform "evil" acts.

6.His observations came from observation which makes it capable of being tested empirically.

7. If his inductive reasoning is correct because he accurately describes the way something works across the board, then it's not probable, it's actual. If I give an accurate description of what I observe, then it's not based on probability; it's based on certainty.

8. No, he doesn't have to specify his actual observations. All he needs to do is show why his observations are correct by first describing how conscience works, and then explaining what causes it to be strengthened or weakened.

9.His claims are supported because his observations were correct.

10. Lessans' observations were based on years and years of reading which allowed him to recognize patterns in human behavior just like someone can see patterns in math that others can't see.

11. But he did identify exactly how conscience works which did not require empirical testing to identify

12. You need to give him more credit as someone who was extremely insightful and precise in his observations, which makes his premises accurate

13. You have to appraise this work on the basis of his keen observations and his sound reasoning. You are going to have to trust that he was right in order to move forward. Ultimately this discovery will be confirmed empirically.

14. I'm sure empirical tests could be done to support all of Lessans' claims.

.

Yes, you sound exactly like that

[LadyShea]

I'm off to recalculate the speed of light

[thedoc]

Are you Sirius?

[Vivisectus]

I am lounging about in my translucent robe and sexy jacket, hoping to catch Mrs. Sectus' eye. Not much happening so far, but hey, the kids are sure showing a lot of enthusiasm for doing their homework in their room!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you agree that it is premature to give him credit before we have some reason to believe that he is due such credit, then why did you tell us that this was exactly what we needed to do?

I never said that you have to accept these principles on face value. My goal is to try to help you to understand WHY these observations are accurate. (sorry TLR ).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

.

Yes, you sound exactly like that

What else can I do when you're not allowing me to even get to Chapter Two? All I can do is vouch for him until you see the truth of this knowledge for yourself.

[LadyShea]

I don't have the authority to allow or disallow you to do anything. You can move on, but doing so when there are serious problems on the table reinforces that you will continue to weasel.

And saying "It's not a contradiction" and "It's not a problem" ain't going to cut it.

Also, if the ideas stood on their own merit you wouldn't need to "vouch for him". Just a thought

[LadyShea]

Here ya go

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define "where you are" in a meaningful way. If everything from scratching an itch to breathing is defined as "movement" -which is considered the only alternative to suicide- then the term movement is completely meaningless and vapid, and creates a self referential (circular) definition. That is piss poor reasoning.

I am not looking for a new home, new husband, new wardrobe, etc. because I am content (satisfied) with "where I am" for the time being. I do not consider this movement...however under Lessans definition it is movement. Which again, totally vapid.

His definition of "there" being the next moment sets up a false dilemma, because one need not act or choose at all to move into the next moment. So Lessans was defining everything that isn't suicide as movement (although you said suicide is movement) which makes the whole thing meaningless.

His "proof" is nothing more than defining things in a way that they refer back to themselves and that is circular.

This is not sound reasoning.

LOL, you can't even hope to backpedal away from this one or move this goalpost.

You agreed that suicide is not remaining where you are, you agreed that committing suicide is movement toward greater satisfaction in direct contradiction of Lessans.

You agreed that suicide is not remaining where you are, you agreed that committing suicide is movement toward greater satisfaction in direct contradiction of Lessans.

Are you telling me that Lessans did not explicitly state that committing suicide is remaining where you are? Are you telling me there is ambiguity in his statement and that it is open to interpretation?

What other meaning is there to understand in that statement? If he meant something else why didn't he say something else?

Backpedal

What do you mean never mind? You wonder why we can't give Lessans the benefit of the doubt. You wonder why we say he was a poor writer. You wonder why we think his reasoning was not sound.

I gave you a clear example of poor writing and poor reasoning and you agreed with ME, in direct contradiction of Lessans, and NOW you want to say "never mind"?

You got some big ass cajones, girl.

Lessans said it was not movement.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If everything is movement in the direction of greater satisfaction then that means the definition of movement in the direction of greater is everything. That is circular. And utterly meaningless.

The only exception to "everything" Lessans gave was committing suicide, but then you decided that it too is included in everything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't have the authority to allow or disallow you to do anything. You can move on, but doing so when there are serious problems on the table reinforces that you will continue to weasel.

And saying "It's not a contradiction" and "It's not a problem" ain't going to cut it.

Also, if the ideas stood on their own merit you wouldn't need to "vouch for him". Just a thought

I'm not going to move if no one is interested. But in order to get the full picture of how these principles would work in real life, you need to see all of the changes that are going to come about. Then, if you still have misgivings you address them. But you don't stay stuck on the first chapter. I've even said that if you feel it's not worth it because you don't know if the premises are correct, pretend they are correct. Or think of it as science fiction. Science fiction can sometimes be accurate predictors of what is possible.

[LadyShea]

The foundational premise is a meaningless tautology. You don't move on from that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here ya go

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His reasoning was so exact, that it's a turn off when you say the things you say instead of being patient and trying to resolve what you are failing to understand.

It is not at all vapid. He is showing that life is made up of constant motion, and this motion is always in the direction of "greater" satisfaction than what the present position offers whether they are tiny motions or larger motions. It's not like we consciously say, "well I've got to scratch an itch because I'm not satisfied with my present position," but this is exactly what is occurring. To repeat: Moving in this direction doesn't always involve choosing between options as I explained in the example I gave with animals. Animals don't choose between options, but they are also moving in this direction because that is the motion of all life. This is an important aspect to understand if you're ever going to grasp his accurate definition of what he means by determinism.

That's okay. They want to move to "there" because they don't like "here", even if they're not sure what "there" is. You're splitting hairs again.

That's true. As long as someone is satisfied with his position, he remains "here". But it doesn't take long for the desire to be aroused to relieve the unconscious feeling of dissatisfaction which prompts someone to make some kind of adjustment. Even the tiniest voluntary movement is an effort to satisfy a feeling that has grown uncomfortable.

Suicide is not movement, at least in this life it's not. Suicide is always an option if one is unhappy with life. He is just pointing out that unless you're dead, life pushes you, or propels you forward in the direction of "greater" satisfaction. But this does not mean that each movement is a completely satisfactory one. It only means that it is more satisfactory than remaining in the position you were previously in.

It is very sound. I don't know where you see any circularity in this at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you can't even hope to backpedal away from this one or move this goalpost.

It is a final move off of the spot that one's on, as the lesser of two evils.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You agreed that suicide is not remaining where you are, you agreed that committing suicide is movement toward greater satisfaction in direct contradiction of Lessans.

It is not in contradiction. It's true that suicide is not remaining where you are. It is getting off of the spot called "here" permanently, in the direction of greater satisfaction, due to a complete dissatisfaction with life, rather than choosing to stay alive.

You agreed that suicide is not remaining where you are, you agreed that committing suicide is movement toward greater satisfaction in direct contradiction of Lessans.

You're getting confused. When someone makes a decision as final as suicide, it means he is very dissatisfied with life. In his mind, he can't see a way out, so he is choosing this option as the lesser of two evils (to live in pain or to die and be free of pain). To him, dying is the better choice in the direction of "greater" satisfaction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you telling me that Lessans did not explicitly state that committing suicide is remaining where you are? Are you telling me there is ambiguity in his statement and that it is open to interpretation?

I'm saying that once you commit suicide, you are remaining where you are. I have never seen a dead person move from "here" to "there", which is life.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What other meaning is there to understand in that statement? If he meant something else why didn't he say something else?

I think you are misinterpreting something that is really not that difficult to understand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's true, and maybe that's part of the motivation to commit suicide, but we're talking about the body remaining where it is and never again having to move to "there" again.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Backpedal

Misunderstanding.

I'm not in disagreement. Remaining "here" by committing suicide is a way to get to "there" (if they believe there's a better place). It is a desire to not have to move to "there" ever again on an Eartly realm. Never mind.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean never mind? You wonder why we can't give Lessans the benefit of the doubt. You wonder why we say he was a poor writer. You wonder why we think his reasoning was not sound.

I'm not seeing the problem here with his writing. You are splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I gave you a clear example of poor writing and poor reasoning and you agreed with ME, in direct contradiction of Lessans, and NOW you want to say "never mind"?

You got some big ass cajones, girl.

LadyShea, there is a big big disconnect here. I never agreed with you. Maybe that's how you interpreted it.

Originally Posted by Lessans

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position,

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again suicide is an action, a movement. It demonstrates dissatisfaction with staying in one position.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it's a movement. It's a movement to get off of the spot of life forever as the lesser of two evils.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans said it was not movement.

Yes, the act of suicide is a movement. It takes getting a gun and shooting yourself or taking pills, or whatever you have to do. Suicide itself is no longer a movement. When you are no longer alive, there is no more moving from "here" to "there", but until then, you are moving constantly in the direction of "greater" satisfaction, because that is the motion of life.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If everything is movement in the direction of greater satisfaction then that means the definition of movement in the direction of greater is everything. That is circular. And utterly meaningless.

Just because everything we do is in the direction of greater satisfaction does not mean that it's circular. It's an observation and a very astute one at that. It is so the opposite of meaningless LadyShea. I think you're trying very hard to discredit him which is why you can't see this simple relation. I just wish you would ask questions instead of telling me he's wrong. Your confrontational attitude makes it hard for me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only exception to "everything" Lessans gave was committing suicide, but then you decided that it too is included in everything.

No, suicide is death. Death is when you cannot move to "there". It's a permanent condition that does not sustain life, which always propels you forward in the direction of "greater" satisfaction.

Death is the permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury.

Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you have to seriously consider that his observations were right if we're going to continue.

No, he doesn't have to specify his actual observations.

You need to give him more credit as someone who was extremely insightful and precise in his observations, which makes his premises accurate.

[quote peacegirl]
I never said that you have to accept these principles on face value.
[quote]

Actually you have been asking everyone to accept his claims 'on face value' throughout both threads, because you have not offered any proof, only Lessans unsurported claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am lounging about in my translucent robe and sexy jacket, hoping to catch Mrs. Sectus' eye. Not much happening so far, but hey, the kids are sure showing a lot of enthusiasm for doing their homework in their room!

Your post is very cold Vivisectus and proves nothing. You are taking on the negative personalities of the people in here. No surprise.

[peacegirl]

I just want to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. There is always something we can be thankful for (hopefully), but there is more we can do in the effort to have peace on earth. I hope you will join me in this effort. God (or the power that governs this universe) is giving us the connection, not Lessans. He was just a messenger. I hope you all join me in this truth. Love, peacegirl

In the Spirit of Thanksgiving - YouTube

&feature=related

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your idiotic post is very cold Vivisectus. You are taking on the personalities of the people in here. How sad!

Where you somehow under the impression that I did not think the book a ridiculous pile of crackpottery?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Where you somehow under the impression that I did not think the book a ridiculous pile of crackpottery?

Yes Vivisectus, considering Peacegirls delicate mantal state that was cold and insensitive, you must remember that Peacegirl considers this book a very serious work of . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . Sorry I'm at a loss for the proper descriptive, . . . . . a little help here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just want to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. There is always something we can be thankful for (hopefully), but there is more we can do in the effort to have peace on earth. I hope you will join me in this effort. God (or the power that governs this universe) is giving us the connection, not Lessans. He was just a messenger. I hope you all join me in this truth. Love, peacegirl

In the Spirit of Thanksgiving - YouTube

Wasn't that nice, lets all have a group hug and sing 'Kum Ba Yah'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Where you somehow under the impression that I did not think the book a ridiculous pile of crackpottery?

Yes I did, and that's why I engaged you in serious conversation. Now forget it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes Vivisectus, considering Peacegirls delicate mantal state that was cold and insensitive, you must remember that Peacegirl considers this book a very serious work of . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . Sorry I'm at a loss for the proper descriptive, . . . . . a little help here.

[quote=peacegirl]
. Or think of it as science fiction.
[quote]

Thanks Peacegirl, but hold the science.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't play with me, I'm not in the mood.

Now that was hurtful, to say you didn't want to play when he made a clear indication that he wanted to play.