If the shoe fits, wear it. And LadyShea, please don't show your disrespect for this man just because you think he's woo
Why on Earth should I refrain from calling 'em as I see 'em? As you just said "if the shoe fits, wear it". Milton is a total woo peddler and fraud...that's his fitting shoe.
Because your prejudice is showing and it doesn't look pretty. Your fitting shoe is that you are extremely judgmental, but you don't see it because you're not looking in the mirror.
I am not pre-judging. I waded knee deep in woo, seeking truth, for years.
I think we already covered the fact that this will be done by Scientists! who will mathematically determine which ones are hurtful and which ones are not. This is NOT authority because in the new world, everyone will want what is best.
Well of course. And as everyone knows, we all agree on what is best. Just look at Congress.
That is just the free-will environment, NA. It causes anything that might be considered problematical for the system, and will magically disappear once we have agreed to do what Lessans says.
The change in our vocabulary takes place not
only as a consequence of the perfect harmony in which children will
be raised in their formative years, but also because everyone will be
made conscious that whenever one uses a word that places another in
a category of plus, he seriously hurts some individual by putting him
in a category of minus
Very hurtful then to call his observations astute. It hurts me deeply by putting my observation in a category of minus.
We're all different to a degree, but that isn't what hurts us. What hurts us is the disrespect that is shown by others to us because someone may be superior to us in certain things. That's where the words we use play an important role in how we feel about ourselves and the respect we are all deserving of, not just those in high places.
This disrespect seems to not exist when it is Lessans explaining why he is so incredibly clever: in that case it is merely stating the obvious. But if anyone wants to claim they are smarter than him that is a Major Ill that can only be adequately solved by eradicating the very words used from the vocabulary.
I feel very hurt and disrespected when you assume that Lessans observations are so very astute, as it puts my observations in a category of minus, which deprives me of the respect that is my due. Because you have this category in your head, which by the way is occupied solely by your father, you are not even giving my observations the time of day! Surely we should stop calling one persons observations astute, as they imply a judgement and a hurt on all the other peoples observations before we have even examined them?
If the shoe fits, wear it. And LadyShea, please don't show your disrespect for this man just because you think he's woo
Why on Earth should I refrain from calling 'em as I see 'em? As you just said "if the shoe fits, wear it". Milton is a total woo peddler and fraud...that's his fitting shoe.
Because your prejudice is showing and it doesn't look pretty. Your fitting shoe is that you are extremely judgmental, but you don't see it because you're not looking in the mirror.
I am not pre-judging. I waded knee deep in woo, seeking truth, for years.
I am happy that you've found a way to navigate through life, but you're hard-nosed position is working against you in this situation. Just like Richard Milton said in the excerpt I posted, which I'm sure you didn't read:
One especially strange aspect of
belief in western culture is that we habitually use the word belief to
mean two entirely different things depending on whether we are
speaking of belief in an everyday sense (I believe in parliamentary
democracy) or in the scientific sense (I believe in the atomic theory of
matter). It is normal in our culture to take the second statement as
meaning that the empirical evidence and theoretical background of
atomic theory are such that any rational person who analyzes the facts
must be compelled to accept the theory.
We also think that this
process of ‘scientific’ acceptance is different in kind from the ordinary
acceptance of everyday things: a person might be right or wrong to
believe in the value and the effectiveness of parliamentary democracy
because it is a matter of opinion, but he or she cannot be wrong to
believe in atomic theory because it is a matter of fact. Yet the
psychological process of acceptance is actually the same in each case:
it rests simply on the fact that the conclusion seems to be irresistible,
even to the well-informed mind. This appearance of being irresistible
can in itself be a self-evident justification for belief — just as it is
‘obvious’ that two and two must make four, and just as it was obvious
to Babylonian scientists that the Earth is flat.
The problem that this
psychological process can present, as we saw earlier, arises because our
perception — and hence what appears obvious — is to some extent
determined by our beliefs. It means that all observers, scientists as
well as savages, employ a kind of mental inertial guidance navigation
system which takes over our routine mental processing; an intellectual
autopilot whose perpetual heading is star of our convictions, and
which filters our perceptions to ensure that they conform to those
convictions. It is as though our perceptions reach our minds through
a screen — a matrix that is dynamically adaptive to our world view
and that can selectively modify the contents of our field of vision in
the service of that world view.
I love it when Peacegirl explains that Bias is the reason that only one person, whose father wrote the book, who has invested a lot of time and effort into it and who has significant emotional reasons for believing in it, believes that there is anything worthwhile in the book at all.
I think you misunderstood my point. I was on the woo side for several years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton
Yet the
psychological process of acceptance is actually the same in each case:
it rests simply on the fact that the conclusion seems to be irresistible,
even to the well-informed mind. This appearance of being irresistible
can in itself be a self-evident justification for belief — just as it is
‘obvious’ that two and two must make four, and just as it was obvious
to Babylonian scientists that the Earth is flat.
Nonsense. Obviousness is the anti-thesis of following the evidence.
I think we already covered the fact that this will be done by Scientists! who will mathematically determine which ones are hurtful and which ones are not. This is NOT authority because in the new world, everyone will want what is best.
Actually, the first-blow determinations will be made by lawmakers. There will, however, be no laws. There will be lawmakers, yes, but no laws.
What is it you don't understand Stephen? I thought you read that Chapter. Just shows me, once again, how you are trying to twist things to make him look bad. My question is why are you trying to do this?
Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World
p. 197 However, the lawmakers will not be
completely displaced because they will serve a useful purpose. They
will have the job of analyzing every possibility of hurt that could occur,
and make it known. Whereas before we were controlled by the fear of
punishment which allowed those who thought they could beat the laws
to attempt things without any regard to who got hurt, we are now
prevented from desiring to disobey a law that is just because the fear
of being excused for hurting others offers no satisfaction when all the
principles are understood.
<snip>
p. 269 In every nation there will be a group of lawmakers who will analyze every possibility of hurt that is not on the surface, and a part of this group
will do the same for the United Nations of the world.
<snip>
p. 272 Consequently, all that has to be done to satisfy
every communist nation is to allow these profits to be spent in a
manner that will benefit each individual, not just certain groups; and
this is easily accomplished with the help of our lawmakers, those who
search for what is and what is not a hurt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Scientists -- who in a free will environment cannot even be trusted to construct an unbiased experiment regarding how vision works -- will be charged with recommending how many children couples should have.
What are you talking about Stephen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Recommending, mind you, not commanding. However, the recommendations will be followed for to do otherwise would be to strike a first blow (if, of course, the lawmakers say so), which is unthinkable in the novus ordo seclorum.
In this case it's not about striking a first blow; it's about consideration just like we all try to do even in this world. Many things we do in life are not determined by legalities. To do what is right is often the moral imperative, and nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenMaturin
But the scientists will not be toiling alone. Oh, mercy me, no! Working shoulder to shoulder with them in the International Bureau of Welfare will be ...
wait for it ...
LAWYERS!!!!11ONE@!
That's right, lawyers! This is miraculous and a true revolution in thought for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there will be no lawyers in the Golden Age! Yes, that's correct -- there will be no lawyers, but there will be lawyers!!
There will no lawyers to serve as defender or prosecutor because there will be no lawsuits. But they can serve other functions. Oh my gosh, how confused can someone get. Don't worry Stephen, you will be not be displaced. I will personally pick you to serve in the new role of analyzer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenMaturin
In the immortal words of the imaginary conversant from the super secret hidden writings, "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."
This is the most transparent book you could ever read. No imaginary conversant super secret hidden writings here. Just pure ignorance on your part for misunderstanding every single thing he's written.
I think you misunderstood my point. I was on the woo side for several years.
That even makes my response more poignant. You have negative feelings toward the woo side, and have gone to the other side in the extreme. You need to find a middle ground. You refuse to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt because you probably don't want to be fooled again. I don't want to speculate, but my guess is that you were hurt by the quacks that claimed to be knowledgeable. I am truly sorry for any pain you might have experienced, but please don't cast a wide net and include Lessans' discovery in this woo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton
Yet the
psychological process of acceptance is actually the same in each case:
it rests simply on the fact that the conclusion seems to be irresistible,
even to the well-informed mind. This appearance of being irresistible
can in itself be a self-evident justification for belief — just as it is
‘obvious’ that two and two must make four, and just as it was obvious
to Babylonian scientists that the Earth is flat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Nonsense. Obviousness is the anti-thesis of following the evidence.
He was right. No one has followed Lessans' evidence because people have already ascertained, ipso facto, that they are right. which is why it is so hard for them to understand why I can't just admit Lessans was wrong, and be done with it.
I hope you all read this very carefully (and if you read it already, read it again) because it describes you all to a T. If the shoe fits, wear it. And LadyShea, please don't show your disrespect for this man just because you think he's woo.
I don't want to speculate, but my guess is that you were hurt by the quacks that claimed to be knowledgeable
.
I would like to point out that to call people quacks is to put them into a minus category, and that it to implies that there are non-quacks who are more trustworthy and whose advice should be treated as more valuable. Surely this is depriving them of the respect they are due, and also a great hurt!
In the immortal words of the imaginary conversant from the super secret hidden writings, "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This is the most transparent book you could ever read. No imaginary conversant super secret hidden writings here.
That is from the chapter on the death discovery, which you never released to us but was found partially intact on Google Books leading you to take it down. Hence, the "super secret" crack.
Are you telling us an actual person actually said to Lessans "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."? That sounds like an imaginary conversation. If it was a real person, who was he and what is he doing now?
I think we already covered the fact that this will be done by Scientists! who will mathematically determine which ones are hurtful and which ones are not. This is NOT authority because in the new world, everyone will want what is best.
Well of course. And as everyone knows, we all agree on what is best. Just look at Congress.
That is just the free-will environment, NA. It causes anything that might be considered problematical for the system, and will magically disappear once we have agreed to do what Lessans says.
But it's true Vivisecus, all in good time my sweet, all in good time.
In the immortal words of the imaginary conversant from the super secret hidden writings, "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This is the most transparent book you could ever read. No imaginary conversant super secret hidden writings here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
That is from the chapter on the death discovery, which you never released to us but was found partially intact on Google Books leading you to take it down. Hence, the "super secret" crack.
Stop it LadyShea, it was not from the death chapter. Stephen didn't read or know anything about that chapter. He is trying his hardest to make this book suspicious. It's as simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Are you telling us an actual person actually said to Lessans "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."? That sounds like an imaginary conversation. If it was a real person, who was he and what is he doing now?
LadyShea, whether it was imaginary or not doesn't take away the validity. Think VALIDITY. You are losing the point because you are focusing on details. Please hear me out because I have always been a skeptic, but this has gone too far. You must give him the benefit of the doubt if you are EVER going to recognize the truth of this knowledge. I am routing for you because I can see how hard you are trying to understand this world, as I was. I was just given information to work with, and I'm trying desperately to give you a lifeline, but you keep pushing it away.
I don't want to speculate, but my guess is that you were hurt by the quacks that claimed to be knowledgeable
.
I would like to point out that to call people quacks is to put them into a minus category, and that it to implies that there are non-quacks who are more trustworthy and whose advice should be treated as more valuable. Surely this is depriving them of the respect they are due, and also a great hurt!
You are so lost that I can't even attempt to address your confusion. I'm sorry Vivisectus, but I am going to have to bypass your post. Hopefully you will understand this knowledge from others who gave me a chance before attacking me. It does make me sad because in the beginning of this thread you were the one who showed interest. It's unfortunate how things have a way of turning out. What can I say.
That even makes my response more poignant. You have negative feelings toward the woo side, and have gone to the other side in the extreme.
For someone who thinks psychiatry is the height of quackery you sure like to go Freud on people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You need to find a middle ground. You refuse to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt because you probably don't want to be fooled again.
I wasn't fooled to begin with. I approached it all with an open mind, analyzed it, debated and discussed with adherents and detractors, and found it to be nothing but unsupported, and unsupportable, assertions. Lessans writings are in the same category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't want to speculate
Sure you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
but my guess is that you were hurt by the quacks that claimed to be knowledgeable.
So, along with my distraught childhood, you believe I was hurt by quacks, and probably religious folks, too, leading to my hatred of believers. You should write a book detailing all these traumas you think I've been through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am truly sorry for any pain you might have experienced, but please don't cast a wide net and include Lessans' discovery in this woo.
If the shoe fits, eat the pudding.
Seriously Miss Open Mind, how much did you study Scientology before concluding it was a cult? Have you investigated Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, faith healing, astrology, spirit channeling, astral travel, Christianity, and the type of magic Wiccans and others believe to be possible? What is your critical analysis of all of them? What led you to conclude they are or are not true?
(That list is not exhaustive of the topics I have looked into)
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He was right. Certain things appear self-evident to "scientific" minds
Oh? Give a specific example of something "scientific" minds accept as self-evident.
I hope you all read this very carefully (and if you read it already, read it again) because it describes you all to a T. If the shoe fits, wear it. And LadyShea, please don't show your disrespect for this man just because you think he's woo.
Page full of
Seriously skeptic, do you think your answer added to the conversation in any real way? I hope this is not some kind of joke on me.
I don't want to speculate, but my guess is that you were hurt by the quacks that claimed to be knowledgeable
.
I would like to point out that to call people quacks is to put them into a minus category, and that it to implies that there are non-quacks who are more trustworthy and whose advice should be treated as more valuable. Surely this is depriving them of the respect they are due, and also a great hurt!
If someone is lying, he is a quack. It is a real description because he is doing certain things that are meant to deceive for his benefit. You obviously don't understand this knowledge in the slightest. In your confusion, you are trying to discredit what Lessans recognized because you are not in the position to receive his knowledge. I am not going to defend him because you have misunderstood what he was saying. You are going to have to make the effort if you are so inclined.
In the immortal words of the imaginary conversant from the super secret hidden writings, "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This is the most transparent book you could ever read. No imaginary conversant super secret hidden writings here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
That is from the chapter on the death discovery, which you never released to us but was found partially intact on Google Books leading you to take it down. Hence, the "super secret" crack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Stop it LadyShea, it was not from the death chapter. Stephen didn't read or know anything about that chapter. He is trying his hardest to make this book suspicious. It's as simple as that.
What chapter is this passage from then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lessans
"Do you mean that I lived through every period of history?"
"Yes you did, only, of course, you don't know who you were or whether you were a male or a female."
"This is just too fantastic. In other words, once it is understood that man's will is not free and what this means, our people, the Jews, cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor can we feel sorry for the dead because we are not dead?"
"You must remember that anybody living who lost someone loved in this carnage will never get over it. However, when he fully realizes that all evil came into existence because God needed it to develop mankind, and now that we are developed it will be forthwith removed, he won't ever be able to blame another because there won't be anything left to blame. It might take 2000 years for this knowledge to come to light because it may blind those who have been looking for a different type of solution, something in accordance with their own opinion. It was the same thing that gave Mendel posthumous recognition. In our Golden Age, the inception of which will take place as soon as this discovery is confirmed valid by our world leaders, we will fall mutually in love, raise our families in complete health, security, wealth and happiness, live to a ripe old age without overpopulating the earth, and die only to be born for the same happiness again and again. Well, isn't this the most wonderful knowledge to behold? God has the whole world in His hands, and what wonderful hands they are! Is God a reality and is He good? You bet your life He is."
"It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."
"So will all mankind, once everything sinks in."
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Are you telling us an actual person actually said to Lessans "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."? That sounds like an imaginary conversation. If it was a real person, who was he and what is he doing now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
LadyShea, whether it was imaginary or not doesn't take away the validity. Think VALIDITY.
So it was an imaginary conversant? You said there were none in the book.
I don't want to speculate, but my guess is that you were hurt by the quacks that claimed to be knowledgeable
.
I would like to point out that to call people quacks is to put them into a minus category, and that it to implies that there are non-quacks who are more trustworthy and whose advice should be treated as more valuable. Surely this is depriving them of the respect they are due, and also a great hurt!
You are so lost that I can't even attempt to address your confusion. I'm sorry Vivisectus, but I am going to have to bypass your post. Hopefully you will understand this knowledge from others who gave me a chance before attacking me. It does make me sad because in the beginning of this thread you were the one that was very interested, which gave me the impetus to continue. Isn't it strange how things turn out?
Are you sure it was me you were talking to? You really are warping reality a LOT more than I thought, unless you confuse me for someone else.
The point of the post is that you can take any word that involves a value-judgement and give it the same treatment as the word "Beautiful" or "Educated", and with the same justification. Lessans just selected a few that he did not like for obvious reasons.
A similar thing happens in the part that discusses the idea that there is an objective way to decide which desire should get right of way. Lessans says that whichever requires another to do something for your satisfaction should always yield to a desire that requires nothing from the other. He seems to be totally blind to the fact that he just more or less arbitrarily decided which is which: take the example of the one bed - two beds problem. Desiring to sleep alone can be seen as requiring another to sleep alone as well. It all depends on your point of view.
Lessans seems to be completely blind to the fact that there is no objective basis for his distinctions, and that he is merely making a list of his preferences and attempting to glorify them as part of some all-encompassing system.
It is funny: not only is he not as smart as he thinks, he is also not smart enough to spot any issues, and this allows him to happily blunder off into bigger and bigger idiocies.
In the immortal words of the imaginary conversant from the super secret hidden writings, "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This is the most transparent book you could ever read. No imaginary conversant super secret hidden writings here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
That is from the chapter on the death discovery, which you never released to us but was found partially intact on Google Books leading you to take it down. Hence, the "super secret" crack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Stop it LadyShea, it was not from the death chapter. Stephen didn't read or know anything about that chapter. He is trying his hardest to make this book suspicious. It's as simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What chapter is this passage from then?
His answers were directly related to Chapter Six. He constantly quotes from this chapter without understanding the context in which it was written, not even one whit. His goal is to try to ruin it for Lessans by using all kinds of tactics that you know are false. But do you question Stephen? Of course not because he is on your side, and therefore is above reproach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lessans
"Do you mean that I lived through every period of history?"
"Yes you did, only, of course, you don't know who you were or whether you were a male or a female."
"This is just too fantastic. In other words, once it is understood that man's will is not free and what this means, our people, the Jews, cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor can we feel sorry for the dead because we are not dead?"
"You must remember that anybody living who lost someone loved in this carnage will never get over it. However, when he fully realizes that all evil came into existence because God needed it to develop mankind, and now that we are developed it will be forthwith removed, he won't ever be able to blame another because there won't be anything left to blame. It might take 2000 years for this knowledge to come to light because it may blind those who have been looking for a different type of solution, something in accordance with their own opinion. It was the same thing that gave Mendel posthumous recognition. In our Golden Age, the inception of which will take place as soon as this discovery is confirmed valid by our world leaders, we will fall mutually in love, raise our families in complete health, security, wealth and happiness, live to a ripe old age without overpopulating the earth, and die only to be born for the same happiness again and again. Well, isn't this the most wonderful knowledge to behold? God has the whole world in His hands, and what wonderful hands they are! Is God a reality and is He good? You bet your life He is."
"It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."
"So will all mankind, once everything sinks in."
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Are you telling us an actual person actually said to Lessans "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."? That sounds like an imaginary conversation. If it was a real person, who was he and what is he doing now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
LadyShea, whether it was imaginary or not doesn't take away the validity. Think VALIDITY.
So it was an imaginary conversant? You said there were none in the book.
No, I realize that I didn't know all of the conversations my father had. Stop it Ladyshea. You are grasping at straws in your effort to prove Lessans wrong in whatever way you can. You are ruining it not just for others, but for yourself. You are losing this battle. I hope you give it up because you will never understand this knowledge otherwise. I am asking you, temporarily, to stop judging this work by your method of proof. I hope you can do that because so much is relying on you to acknowledge that he may be right for others to want to follow your lead.
I don't want to speculate, but my guess is that you were hurt by the quacks that claimed to be knowledgeable
.
I would like to point out that to call people quacks is to put them into a minus category, and that it to implies that there are non-quacks who are more trustworthy and whose advice should be treated as more valuable. Surely this is depriving them of the respect they are due, and also a great hurt!
If someone is lying, he is a quack. It is a real description because he is doing certain things that are meant to deceive for his benefit. You obviously don't understand this knowledge in the slightest. In your confusion, you are trying to discredit what Lessans recognized because you are not in the position to receive his knowledge. I am not going to defend him because you have misunderstood what he was saying. You are going to have to make the effort if you are so inclined.
You ain't here for the hunting are you honey?
What you are describing is a fraud. Many quacks believe in their quackery with all their quacky little hearts.
By labelling them as quacks and other people as non-quacks, you are putting them in a minus category, implying that their advice on how to treat cancer is somehow less trustworthy than, say, that of an oncologist. Surely this is a great hurt, and yet another thing that wont be there in the brave new world!
Time is of the essence and you're all squandering it due to misplaced skepticism.
Peacegirl seems to be in some kind of hurry for this 'Golden Age' of her's to come about, I would guess the book sales are not going well. One of the things that really should be examined is the actuall 'Golden age' as described by Lessans. Do we, as a society, want to live under the conditions described? Certainly eliminating war would be a good thing but are the sacrifices of our personal freedoms and relationships too high a price? Would you want to marry and spend the rest of your life with the first person you were sexually attracted to? Lessans describes a world of extremes in many areas and many of the conditions are not the ideal world in my opinion. I enjoy the freedoms I have and I am not ready to give them up for a lot of empty, unprooven promises.
Let's try this again. Does anyone even want to be part of this 'Golden Age' as described by Lessans?
Would is help to use larger type in a brighter color?
Provide the chapter and page for this passage, please, peacegirl. Remember, I have a copy of the book (sans the death chapter called Our Posterity) so will be checking.
Quote:
"Do you mean that I lived through every period of history?"
"Yes you did, only, of course, you don't know who you were or whether you were a male or a female."
"This is just too fantastic. In other words, once it is understood that man's will is not free and what this means, our people, the Jews, cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor can we feel sorry for the dead because we are not dead?"
"You must remember that anybody living who lost someone loved in this carnage will never get over it. However, when he fully realizes that all evil came into existence because God needed it to develop mankind, and now that we are developed it will be forthwith removed, he won't ever be able to blame another because there won't be anything left to blame. It might take 2000 years for this knowledge to come to light because it may blind those who have been looking for a different type of solution, something in accordance with their own opinion. It was the same thing that gave Mendel posthumous recognition. In our Golden Age, the inception of which will take place as soon as this discovery is confirmed valid by our world leaders, we will fall mutually in love, raise our families in complete health, security, wealth and happiness, live to a ripe old age without overpopulating the earth, and die only to be born for the same happiness again and again. Well, isn't this the most wonderful knowledge to behold? God has the whole world in His hands, and what wonderful hands they are! Is God a reality and is He good? You bet your life He is."
"It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."
"So will all mankind, once everything sinks in."
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His answers were directly related to Chapter Six.
Who's answers are related to chapter six? How is this an answer to my question?
I asked you to cite the passage above, which you stated was not from the final chapter on death, and which I said was from the final chapter on death, which Maturin had found "large swaths of" on Google Books back in June and from which he quoted that passage.
Did you lie when you said "it was not from the death chapter. Stephen didn't read or know anything about that chapter".?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He constantly quotes from this chapter (6) without understanding the context in which it was written....
But do you question Stephen? Of course not because he is on your side, and therefore is above reproach.
What would I question him about?
Maturin hasn't actually misquoted Lessans. You may not like his interpretations, but that doesn't make what he says false.
No, I realize that I didn't know all of the conversations my father had.
And we have said from the beginning that the imaginary dialog was problematic. You responded several times that he actually had every single conversation reported in the book. You have no evidence of that, you believe it on faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are ruining it not just for others, but for yourself. You are losing this battle. I hope you give it up because you will never understand this knowledge otherwise. I am asking you, temporarily, to stop judging this work by your method of proof. I hope you can do that because so much is relying on you to acknowledge that he may be right for others to want to follow your lead.
How many times are you going to use this tired old butthurt?
I cannot "ruin it" for anyone, nobody is going to "follow my lead", I am not being relied upon to acknowledge anything, this is not a popularity contest and I am nobody's boss, guru, or leader.
So, are you done ad homming and using diversionary tactics? Do you plan to refute my points on the circularity and meaninglessness of the "movement in the direction of greater satisfaction" argument rationally? How about the non incompatibility of several forms of determinism?
I thought you wanted to discuss the principles...why do you let yourself get led down these paths?
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Linear Mode
