A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Then don't read it. I have an idea. Why don't you just go take a nap, or something, and quit with the whining?

As Peacegirl would say 'did you even read the rest of the post?' and it's not every post that puts me to sleep, just your's. In spite of what you say I'm going to keep on wining, in fact I'm having a nice glass of 'Taylor Cream sherry' right now, sweet but not too sweet.

[Angakuk]

Of course I read the entire post. In my response I simply skipped over all the whine and went right to the cheese.

[thedoc]

I'm partial to 'Swiss', I would guess yours is 'Limburger'.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All that defended by someone who is about as intelligent as the author...

peacegirl is no Lessans. As poorly educated and dense Lessans was, by his own accounts he did read other books. The same can not be said for peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure, then they become supported assertions and/or valid claims.

How do you know that? What critical analysis did you do? What criteria do you use to analyze claims?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And a lot of them have a very dark side meaning they are destructive.

Truth is not sometimes dark and destructive?

Oh? Hmm, I have hung around skeptics and science minded people and actual scientists for over a decade, and have family in this group as well like my dad, and not a single one has ever told me they hold to "free will". They are all some form of determinist, especially under the rather widely encompassing definition of "antecedent state of affairs" definition.

Has anyone in this group at argued for libertarian free will?

[The Lone Ranger]

Name one neurophysiologist who thinks that there's such a thing as "free will."

Go on, I dare ya ...


("Free will" is the sort of thing that makes neurobiologists break out into peals of laughter.)

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Name one neurophysiologist who thinks that there's such a thing as "free will."

Go on, I dare ya ...

("Free will" is the sort of thing that makes neurobiologists break out into peals of laughter.)

Yes, but can any neurobiologist predict the behavior of any one person? A group of people? Knowing we don't have free will is different than the knowledge and information needed to predict or control behavior.

[Angakuk]

Probably not, but I don't think that was the point. I am pretty sure that TLR's point was to counter peacegirl's claim that free will was one of those things that scientific minds accept as self-evident.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, you still don't get it. Quack is a description of someone who is lying because he is misrepresenting his product or service. Beauty and ugliness are in a whole different category because they actually condition people to being attracted or repulsed by the very features that are being described by the words themselves.

I already made clear that this is not the case: I am quite good friends with a person who has a thriving practice in unadulterated quackery. He believes in it with all his heart. He is not misrepresenting anything: he just believes that scientists are meanies who are too biased to see that his quackery works. Does that not sound familiar?

The point is that you could say the same thing about any value judgement, with the same amount of justifcation. The only difference is that "beautiful" is one of the ones that your daddy didn't like, along with "Educated", and probably "Ignorant", "Crackpot", and "Pompous ass" as well.

[Vivisectus]

[quote][QUOTE=peacegirl;1010728]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it's to remove the standards that are standing in the way of your understanding.

Ah, you have to abandon altogether any standard that, when applied, makes you reject this work?

You are probably right, but I don't think you realize what you have just said

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead of this getting easier it's getting harder. Why are you saying that people will have no personalities? That's not true. You have misinterpreted what he wrote and you're putting the blame on him, not yourself.

As far as astute observations go, people will not make claims unless they can back them up. In addition, the motivation to make claims just to get attention (like the trolls we see online) will be a thing of the past. So you're wrong again. No surprise.

People will not make claims they cannot back up? I guess there is one good thing in the new age then: it will not have this book in it!

[LadyShea]

In fact the only people I have ever heard argue for "free will" were Christian apologists.

Obviously the term is used loosely to mean "I made a choice", not unlike the way Lessans used it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

I'm not warping anything.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

As I wrote in my other post, as long as no one can be hurt (especially children) by showing favoritism by telling one child he is good and another he is bad (which the one who hears the other being called good, will take it to mean he is not good). Using these terms to children indicate an intrinsic flaw that they have. These are fine words to use as personal descriptors if you are not using them in these situations. For example, to say to a child, you're a bad boy, is very detrimental because it gives the child a feeling that he is a bad person. It's much better to describe what it is specifically that you are upset about, without attacking him as an individual. Children easily pick up on this kind of discrimination.

As far as using the word "beautiful" and "ugly", these words do not symbolize objective reality and they are a serious hurt to people who are in the "ugly" category. The word "education" is misleading because it is assigned only to certain people when in reality every person is acquiring an education. Lessans writes:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eleven: The New Meaning of Education

At this juncture, however, and for the purpose of showing you
again how words judge half the human race as uneducated, even those
who graduate college, I shall breakdown and analyze thoroughly Will
Durant’s definition of education in order to show how confusing it
has become to define a word that does not symbolize reality. Bear in
mind that he knew nothing of a new world and had no idea that this
word must come to an end because everybody acquires an education
from the time of their birth. To define education would be equivalent
to defining a human being. We are born human beings, each and
every one of us. To say he is not a human being is to say that he is
not acquiring an education when everything learned, regardless of
what it is, is an education. Nevertheless, let me show you again what
happens with words. I will quote a passage by Durant and then
analyze it as we proceed. Perhaps the reader will be able to understand
more clearly what I am talking about.

<snip>

According to Durant,
these colleges do not produce an educated man and that is why he was
disliked by a great many professors. The implication was that the
schools and universities were actually preventing people from getting
a ‘real education’ which was a harsh criticism since the very purpose of
going to college, or any school of higher learning, was to get a quality
education. They resented his criticizing their method of acquiring
what everybody agrees has actual existence. Are you beginning to
recognize how an assumption for a major premise, and syllogistic
reasoning to give it form, can make something appear realistic? No
one is discussing whether education is or is not a reality, but only
whether the school should have a monopoly on it. Similarly, no one
is discussing whether man’s will is free because its reality is taken for
granted. The arguments are strictly over definition, as if definition
confirms reality which it does not.

<snip>

What he has said is mathematically
undeniable; in other words, what is the need of having a symbol when
every individual is included in the symbol? Are you beginning to
understand what I mean by syllogistic reasoning? Durant’s reasoning
is logical, that is, it gives the appearance of being true simply because
he thinks he sees with direct perception these external values which he
has unconsciously projected, through his eyes, upon differences that
in themselves are undeniable, all because of words that stratify
personal values into what appear externally real. This projection of
values onto real differences in substance has helped to give this
projection credence, and the illusion of reality remains just that, an
illusion.

<snip>

And then because
he doesn’t have the ability to perceive mathematical relations, for
which he cannot be blamed, he blames Spencer for a definition of
education that was so accurate it completely does away with further
need for the word since everybody, regardless of his motion from here
to there, acquires an education from the day of his birth as he learns
to adjust to his particular environment which included, in the world
of free will, the criticism, judgment, blame and punishment of others.
Are you beginning to understand what words have done? These words
or slides have allowed man to be fooled by being able to project
personal values onto substance that has existence in the real world.
By eliminating from our vocabulary all words that judge half the
human race as inferior productions (and we are given no choice in this
matter) — and by knowing what it means that man’s will is not free
— we are able for the very first time to control the external world.
Once it is understood that the word ‘education’ is not a symbol for
anything externally real but is a projection of what someone prefers
for himself, projected onto a screen of specific differences which he
then says are better for everybody because he can define why these are
better since they partake of this value called education, then all words
like culture, mature, educated, etc. become, along with their
equivalents, completely displaced.

<snip>

Just as Spencer’s definition of
education is so accurate that it does away with further need for the
word only because everybody is educated, so does the knowledge of
what it means that man’s will is not free do away with further need for
the word wisdom, simply because everybody then becomes wise. I’m
going to prove that everybody is equal in value, no better or worse, and
the only reason we have never been able to see this equality is because
of words like educated, cultured, good, etc. which projected stratified
layers of value on word slides through our eyes into the external world.
In reality, we are all acquiring an education all through our lives,
which renders that word as useful as the words human and mankind.

We are all members of the human race and part of the MANKIND
SYSTEM, and we have all acquired an education. Don’t be
intimidated by this lack of understanding because even the most
sophisticated thinkers have been fooled. You will see that when these
word slides are removed, or when man stops using them, it becomes
mathematically impossible to judge what is right for someone else
regardless of what he does for a living, what he desires to study, or
what pastimes he engages in because these activities do not hold
greater value except for the person who partakes in them. How is it
humanly possible for Durant to object at being denied the right to
criticize when his very criticism, as well as the criticism of all others,
is partly responsible for the very things he is criticizing? It is really
no different from a preacher not objecting to doing away with his
preaching against sin when he becomes aware that his preaching
against sin is partly responsible for the sin.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

No it does not. It is very easy to determine who has the right-of-way, and it's just as objective as who has the right-of-way when driving a car. My desire to sleep alone does not involve you at all, but if I tell you what you must do to satisfy my desires, then that does involve you, which gives YOU the right-of-way to refuse my request.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

You're completely wrong Vivisectus. I suggest you get the book and read it more than once. Then you won't have all these complaints.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Seriously, this is you in a nutshell. And you use the excuse for these "bumbling idiocies as your refutation" because you say you understand the book. That's even more idiotic than whatever else you've penned.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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!

Stop playing this game already. You are conveniently misconstruing the word "hurt". Obviously, if someone is lying about a particular product or service, he is hurting the potential buyer, not the other way around. And FYI, there will be no quacks in the new world to distrust, so don't worry your little head that things won't turn out as planned.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I'm not warping anything.

You rather are if you thought I ever thought the book held anything of value.

As I wrote in my other post, as long as no one can be hurt (especially children) by showing favoritism, or using a term to indicate an intrinsic flaw in someone, these are fine words to describe your personal likes or dislikes. But again they have to be used discriminately. For example, to say to a child, you're a bad boy, is very detrimental because it gives the child a feeling that he is a bad person. It's much better to describe what it is specifically that you are upset about, without attacking his character.

What a load of waffle. How does this work on "educated"?

As far as using the word "beautiful" and "ugly", these words do not symbolize objective reality and they are a serious hurt to people who are in the "ugly" category. The word "education" is misleading because it is assigned only to certain people when in reality every person is acquiring an education. Lessans writes:

If this is true then you cannot object to me saying that you calling someone a quack is putting them into a "minus category", to repeat your fathers tortured english. Just because there is no empirical evidence that their treatments work, and just because they never went to medical school does not mean we should notq1 value their advice just as much as we should value the advice of someone who did, because they too have acquired an education, and not having any empirical evidence to back up your claim does not mean that you should not believe them.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

No it does not. It is very easy to determine who has the right-of-way, and it's just as objective as who has the right-of-way when driving a car. My desire to sleep alone does not involve you at all, but if I tell you what you must do to satisfy my desires, then that does involve you, which gives YOU the right-of-way to refuse my request.

Oh but it does. My desire NOT to sleep alone means that I am affected. You are telling me that I must sleep alone. One can THINK of one side of this as active and another as passive, but really that is just an arbitrary decision.

You're completely wrong Vivisectus. I suggest you get the book and read it more than once. Then you won't have all these complaints.

All the rules of the road are a direct reflection of his own likes and dislikes. He fails to see that there are no objective grounds on which to make the distinctions he proposes. Just look at the example from the book we just discussed: you are unable to show what objective grounds are there, except to repeat what is in the book - the very thing I refuted!

Seriously, this is you in a nutshell. And you use the excuse for these "bumbling idiocies as your refutation" because you say you understand the book. That's even more idiotic than whatever else you've penned.

Even a few years of high-school physics would have saved him from hugely embarrassing mistakes. The funny thing is that he never spotted these enormous blunders, because he was too busy learning Gibbon off by heart, because by golly, it is a Big and Important Looking Book, full of Big and Important Sounding Language! I am spotting Patterns! I am not telling you what they are, but I promise you they are Important!!!

It would have been sad if his writing was not so toe-curlingly pompous and self-important. The fact that they are makes it funny again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I'm not warping anything.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You rather are if you thought I ever thought the book held anything of value.

The value of this book has nothing to do with you. You are becoming too self-important for your own good by projecting that I care whether you value this book or not.

As I wrote in my other post, as long as no one can be hurt (especially children) by showing favoritism, or using a term to indicate an intrinsic flaw in someone, these are fine words to describe your personal likes or dislikes. But again they have to be used discriminately. For example, to say to a child, you're a bad boy, is very detrimental because it gives the child a feeling that he is a bad person. It's much better to describe what it is specifically that you are upset about, without attacking his character.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What a load of waffle. How does this work on "educated"?

It has to do with words that contain value judgments. Don't you read your own posts?

As far as using the word "beautiful" and "ugly", these words do not symbolize objective reality and they are a serious hurt to people who are in the "ugly" category. The word "education" is misleading because it is assigned only to certain people when in reality every person is acquiring an education. Lessans writes:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If this is true then you cannot object to me saying that you calling someone a quack is putting them into a "minus category", to repeat your fathers tortured english. Just because there is no empirical evidence that their treatments work, and just because they never went to medical school does not mean we should notq1 value their advice just as much as we should value the advice of someone who did, because they too have acquired an education, and not having any empirical evidence to back up your claim does not mean that you should not believe them.

Hey, you're actually catching on. This is true, especially if their advice is sound. No one, degree or no degree, would ever think of trusting their own knowledge unless they knew, absolutely and positively, what they were talking about, especially knowing that if they hurt you with their knowledge, they would not be blamed for their mistakes.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

No it does not. It is very easy to determine who has the right-of-way, and it's just as objective as who has the right-of-way when driving a car. My desire to sleep alone does not involve you at all, but if I tell you what you must do to satisfy my desires, then that does involve you, which gives YOU the right-of-way to refuse my request.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oh but it does. My desire NOT to sleep alone means that I am affected.

It has nothing to do with whether you are affected. It has to do with whose desire has first dibs.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are telling me that I must sleep alone. One can THINK of one side of this as active and another as passive, but really that is just an arbitrary decision.

It is not. The woman who wants to sleep alone has the right-of-way not to do what you want done (which is to sleep with her) because her desire is not placing any demands on you, but your desire is placing a demand on her.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

You're completely wrong Vivisectus. I suggest you get the book and read it more than once. Then you won't have all these complaints.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All the rules of the road are a direct reflection of his own likes and dislikes. He fails to see that there are no objective grounds on which to make the distinctions he proposes. Just look at the example from the book we just discussed: you are unable to show what objective grounds are there, except to repeat what is in the book - the very thing I refuted!

Your refutation is wrong. You don't even understand this simple observation because you are bent on making him wrong. You are losing all objectivity.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Seriously, this is you in a nutshell. And you use the excuse for these "bumbling idiocies as your refutation" because you say you understand the book. That's even more idiotic than whatever else you've penned.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Even a few years of high-school physics would have saved him from hugely embarrassing mistakes. The funny thing is that he never spotted these enormous blunders, because he was too busy learning Gibbon off by heart, because by golly, it is a Big and Important Looking Book, full of Big and Important Sounding Language! I am spotting Patterns! I am not telling you what they are, but I promise you they are Important!!!

It would have been sad if his writing was not so toe-curlingly pompous and self-important. The fact that they are makes it funny again.

I am telling you and everyone else that I refuse to defend these kinds of posts. I will not engage in conversation if these remarks continue.

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am telling you and everyone else that I refuse to defend these kinds of posts. I will not engage in conversation if these remarks continue.

Is that a promise?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop playing this game already. You are conveniently misconstruing the word "hurt". Obviously, if someone is lying about a particular product or service, he is hurting the potential buyer, not the other way around. And FYI, there will be no quacks in the new world to distrust, so don't worry your little head that things won't turn out as planned.

Yeah you already said this book would not exist there, because no-one would try to spread unsupported claptrap. Quacks do not necessarily lie: many believe in the nonsense they try to peddle.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
As far as using the word "beautiful" and "ugly", these words do not symbolize objective reality and they are a serious hurt to people who are in the "ugly" category. The word "education" is misleading because it is assigned only to certain people when in reality every person is acquiring an education. Lessans writes:

This is just another idea that Lessans had wrong, while it is true that 'Beautiful' and 'Ugly' are usually subjective terms that describe how one person perceives others. The error is to think that calling one person 'Beautiful' is in some way hurtful to others who are not thought of as 'Beautiful'. This is simply not the case, one person can be refered to as 'Beautiful' without any reference to anyone else, to think otherwise is to oversimplify into a simple dichotomy that is not realistic. While 'Beautiful' is usually thought of as subjective it is possible to assign certain objective characteristics to the term, and also Ugly can be objectively qualified.

Education is another matter in that there are usually specific objective characteristics that are used in conjunction with education. Learning, on the other hand, is a more general term that can be applied to anyone seeking knowledge, but education is usually reserved for those who have followed specific programs or scheduel to achieve a level of knowledge on a particular subject.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by rigorist

Is that a promise?

Yes rigorist, that's a promise, including you.

[rigorist]

Is it true that Lessans fapped to some creepy porn?

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The value of this book has nothing to do with you. You are becoming too self-important for your own good by projecting that I care whether you value this book or not.

But you said it made you commit and keep on going a few posts back. Do please make up you mind.

It has to do with words that contain value judgments. Don't you read your own posts?

Still doesn't work. There is nothing intrinsic about your level of education, so it does not work for all value-judgements. Ergo, waffle.

Hey, you're actually catching on. This is true, especially if their advice is sound. No one, degree or no degree, would ever think of trusting their own knowledge unless they knew, absolutely and positively, what they were talking about, especially knowing that if they hurt you with their knowledge, they would not be blamed for their mistakes.

Awesome! So in the new world, we will not distinguish between an oncologist or someone who uses Back Flower remedies if we have cancer, and we also will know which advice is sound and which isn't?

And you have admitted that your calling someone a quack is not justifiable if you believe this stuff. How about calling Lessans observations "Astute"? They put other observations in a minus category...

It has nothing to do with whether you are affected. It has to do with whose desire has first dibs.

LOL ok - your desire to sleep alone requires me to sleep alone as well, and since I get first dibs if your desire requires something off me, I get first dibs!

Her desire places the demand to sleep alone on me.

Your refutation is wrong. You don't even understand this simple observation because you are bent on making him wrong. You are losing all objectivity.

Do you realize how often you just say "no u are the wrongs!" and then fail to support that in any way?

I am telling you and everyone else that I refuse to defend these kinds of posts. I will not engage in conversation if these remarks continue.

I would not want to defend something that is this bumblingly and obviously wrong either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I realize that I didn't know all of the conversations my father had.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And we have said from the beginning that the imaginary dialog was problematic.

Who said?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Some of the dialogue could be on faith, but what difference does it make is my question LadyShea? In the effort to help people understand this book, he used anticipatory questions to make it easier to grasp. What is the dam problem that you're making such a huge issue over? I will say this again: You, in your effort to understand what is true and what is not, have a tendency to be so anal that you cannot see the trees from the forest.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How many times are you going to use this tired old butthurt?

Accepted. I will try not to do this, but if I do it again, just point it out to me and I will make every effort to stop it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

That is so true, and I don't want to put responsibility on you that doesn't belong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

That's why I am not going to converse with people who are constantly attacking me. I gave people enough opportunity to see who I am, and enough is enough. I am not done talking to you LadyShea because you seem truly interested. But please be careful not to attack me just because you don't like what I have to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by rigorist

Is it true that Lessans fapped to some creepy porn?

What the hell is wrong with you rigorist, that is my question. There's plenty of porn on the internet, so why not go find it.

[Vivisectus]

lol Shea is so anal she cannot see the trees from the forest. I guess now the pudding is on the other foot, and if the sexy jacket and translucent robes fit, let them cast the first stone!