A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's wonderful that you both find competence sexy, but this has nothing to do with his statement that love and marriage have to do with physical attraction.

Have to do?

He said ONLY.

ONLY.

ONLY.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a person is depressed, he may move in that direction, but to call that a compulsion where he has no control is another story. People kill themselves because living in emotional or physical pain is intolerable and they want to be relieved of that pain.

You said that if "by doing something that he felt compelled to do was going to kill his family, he would be able to control that compulsion". How then do you account for those people who don't control their compulsions but rather, under those compulsions, actually kill their families? According to you that should never happen as the threat of death to their families would cause them to control the very compulsion that led them to kill their families.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because once it is scientifically accepted that man's will is not free and it is recognized that we can have a better world in a blame free environment (he's not advocating that we stop blaming until we become citizens, or it could make matters worse for ourselves), we will want to do what is necessary to achieve what was never before possible. We don't have to become citizens if we don't want to, but why wouldn't we want to when we realize that we now have the ability to create a world of peace and brotherhood. Think about this: In the new world, if no one strikes a first blow, do we need anyone to hold them accountable? If no one strikes a first blow, do we need to strike back or turn the other cheek? Do you see why you're putting the cart before the horse?

All of that is pure speculation and not at all relevant to the question I asked. What is it that you think has the power to prevent us from holding people responsible for the actions alone, without reference to whether those actions were free or not free? You have stated repeatedly that we can hold people responsible for their actions if they don't have free will. I want to know why you think that is true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess we're back to square one. You don't seem to understand his proof of determinism which is why you are asking that question. You may never accept his evidence, and I can't help that. If you accept the premise that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, then we have no choice but to choose that which is the least undesirable or that which is the most desirable under our particular circumstances. This is a universal law. You cannot move in the direction that you believe is worse for yourself if something better comes along. For example, doing something that is sacrificial may benefit you in some way; maybe you are saving someone's life or doing something altruistic, which is also a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. Even teenagers who self-mutilate are getting some kind of pay-off whether it's to distract them from their emotional pain, or as a form of self-punishment. They may get greater satisfaction in hurting themselves because they feel they deserve to be punished (which may warrant professional help), or maybe it's to get negative attention because that's the only way they will get noticed. Whatever their motive is, they see that choice as the better option than what any other option offers them at that moment in time.

In short, you have no evidence for your claim.

[koan]

Man's will is not free
but....
"no one can cause or compel you to do anything against your will — unless you want to, because over this you have mathematical control."(p77)

Where is the mathematical control?
All Lessans has done is substitute "want" for "will" and not resolved the issue in any way shape or form. By changing the word used to describe something you do not change the action or thought it describes. Lessans never deals with why each person has control over what they uniquely want. It's the same as having control over your will to decide how to act on what you want. If you control the want you control the will. Non sequitur. His conclusions do not follow.


This is the same problem he fails to resolve in his argument against the word "ugly." The words can be removed from the language but the thing it describes still remains. Even if you convinced people their eyes are not sense organs (the sole purpose of which argument is to support removal of the word "ugly") you still have blind people who will use their other organs to decide whether or not they like someone. You could remove the word "stupid" from the dictionary, yet when people read Lessans book (how they do this without eyes is still a mystery to me) the majority of people will perceive stupidity and just not have the perfect word to describe it.

Killing words does not kill ideas.

[koan]

An important non sequitur in Lessans "logic" leading to freeing the world of all evil:
"In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive some satisfaction from this,"(p78)

Wrong. Much of the hurt that is done to others is with complete ignorance that anyone in the world has feelings of importance. I'm not sure what Lessans did in his relationships with others but he seems to think that everyone who hurt him had taken the time to think about it first. His solution relies upon that. In reality, many assholes are completely oblivious to the concept that pursuing their ambitions is a)hurting anyone b)happening in a world in which other people even have feelings. There is the occasional person who acts maliciously because they get joy from seeing someone else turn red with rage but that is the minority of injustice.

Where do you think the expression "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes from? People simply don't realize the harm they cause more often than not. In making that mistake Lessans has failed to even recognize the source of evil let alone provide any hints at its successful removal.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Kudos to whoever got her to say it.

You know, I'm starting to come around to Lessans' way of thinking with regard to education. It seems pretty clear that a college degree, standing alone, doesn't mean much of anything at all. By way of example, peacegirl got a bachelor's degree from a very reputable university without possessing even the most rudimentary reading comprehension skills. The really funny part is that she seems to consider herself extraordinarily intelligent.

She's got a point about Dr. Ruth, though. Who the hell does she think she is, hanging around this forum all the goddamn time! She should cancel her account and get back to sex therapy. Never mind that she's gotta be 90 or so by now! Freeloading is freeloading!

And Dr. Phil has helped countless people! peacegirl wouldn't have said that were it not true. I have no doubt that she'll be able to name, oh, say a hundred of these lucky people.

[koan]

To discuss the nature, origin and possible removal of evil from the world of mankind, you should have at least a rudimentary understanding of the works of Otto Rank, A.M Hocart, Norman O. Brown, Erich Fromm and Ernest Becker.

If you do not want to take the time to learn the work of others don't expect anyone to take your work seriously. They will continue telling you to get lost.

You can not assert something is a new discovery if you don't take the time to find out what others have already said.


(Also, 2+2 can equal 5 (p78) if it is two units of 1.25 plus two units of 1.25)
Just sayin'

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is Dr. Ruth in this forum? I would think she would be out in the world helping people with sexual problems.

Um, Dr. Ruth is not posting at . I simply posted a quote from one of her books to counter your Dr. Phil

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not taking anything away from her or anyone else who has reached this level of accomplishment, but don't tell me that Dr. Phil is not knowledgable in his field just because he doesn't have a Ph.d next to his name.

Yes, Dr. Phil has a PhD. How do you think people get to use the title Doctor? However, he doesn't hold a candle to Dr. Ruth as far as expertise or experience communicating and educating about human sexuality. She's been doing it for 40+ years! She has many books, a website, had her own TV show and in her 80's still teaches.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He has helped countless people, so don't look foolish by criticizing him on this count. I would much rather get help from him than from someone who has 10 degrees but doesn't know how to communicate in a way that makes people want to listen. All the book knowledge in the world means nothing if it can't be applied, and there's no guarantee that a Ph.D. in a particular subject is the best person for the job.

Bumping this

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dr. Phil doesn't even have a license to practice psychology. He was involved in a scandal with a former patient and faced sanctions. His dissertation was on Rheumatoid arthritis...nothing about relationships or sex.

Yes, he holds degrees in psychology including a PhD, but professionally he is a TV personality and author and motivational speaker, not a working counselor and certainly not a researcher or established academic. I can't find any empirical studies published under his name, so could you find that for me since you claim he has done them.

Dr. Phil McGraw: Six Lawsuits and Scandals, Natalee Holloway, Ted Williams & More - The Daily Beast

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes she did, now it's your turn to apologize for a change.

No, when you made that statement "LadyShea mentioned that there was one" I had not mentioned it at all, because you had no votes in your favor at all.

I only stated it today because you got your first real vote today.

[koan]

End of Chapter 2 (the door called Thou Shall Not Blame)
All he has done thus far is state that man isn't responsible for his will but is responsible for his wants. Whereas currently people try to be PC about disliking another in saying "I don't hate you, I just hate the things you do," they, in Lessans' world, are still left with "I don't hate what you do because you can't help it, I just hate who you are." He never explains how having free will and having free want are different. They aren't different. He just went back one step in the origin of free will. Allowing a person to change their want is no different than allowing them to change their will. If a person takes the considerable amount of time that Lessans presumes they do over every action they face (which they don't) he consistently allows them to choose what gives them more satisfaction and consistently insists that they can change what they want.

Apparently reversing the reason for disdain and shifting the source from outsiders to the person themselves will cause such intense feelings of guilt no one will ever hurt another person again. Murderers will thus feel too bad about themselves to ever kill again. Wanna bet?

Hint: It's not a new concept
Guilt society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shame society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These well worn concepts taken to extremes can lead to
Honor killing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also, Lessans (and peacegirl) only believes he has proven his ideas because he doesn't research anything he's talking about.

The British didn't stop mowing down Gandhi supporters as a result of them not striking back, they stopped because the media judged the British for the massacres of unarmed people. Their embarrassment would not have occurred had the media not told everyone what they were doing to the activists. They wouldn't have had that embarrassment if it wasn't for the blame and judgement directed at them by the rest of the world. If there had been no media present, Gandhi would likely not have succeeded in his lifetime or at all. Gandhi needed blame and blame came to the rescue.

"This is one aspect of Gandhi’s personality that has not received its due attention – his skill in handling the media."
Reassessing Gandhi’s Role in Freedom Movement — Part Two | Indian Realist

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by koan

To discuss the nature, origin and possible removal of evil from the world of mankind, you should have at least a rudimentary understanding of the works of Otto Rank, A.M Hocart, Norman O. Brown, Erich Fromm and Ernest Becker.

If you do not want to take the time to learn the work of others don't expect anyone to take your work seriously. They will continue telling you to get lost.

You can not assert something is a new discovery if you don't take the time to find out what others have already said.

He read Will Durant and Edward Gibbon. What more do you want?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

He read Will Durant and Edward Gibbon. What more do you want?

Don't forget the seven dictionaries.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by koan

End of Chapter 2 (the door called Thou Shall Not Blame)
All he has done thus far is state that man isn't responsible for his will but is responsible for his wants. Whereas currently people try to be PC about disliking another in saying "I don't hate you, I just hate the things you do," they, in Lessans' world, are still left with "I don't hate what you do because you can't help it, I just hate who you are." He never explains how having free will and having free want are different. They aren't different. He just went back one step in the origin of free will. Allowing a person to change their want is no different than allowing them to change their will. If a person takes the considerable amount of time that Lessans presumes they do over every action they face (which they don't) he consistently allows them to choose what gives them more satisfaction and consistently insists that they can change what they want.

This is just one of the things that I don't get about Lessans' alleged discovery. Even if we allow that people can't be held responsible for their actions because they are compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, why shouldn't we hold them responsible for the things in which they find satisfaction. In other words, hold them responsible for having the very desires that compel them to act. If we can hold them responsible for wanting what they want, then it follows that we can also hold them responsible for the actions that are generated by those wants.

[koan]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This is just one of the things that I don't get about Lessans' alleged discovery. Even if we allow that people can't be held responsible for their actions because they are compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, why shouldn't we hold them responsible for the things in which they find satisfaction. In other words, hold them responsible for having the very desires that compel them to act. If we can hold them responsible for wanting what they want, then it follows that we can also hold them responsible for the actions that are generated by those wants.

Yep.

Chapter 3 (The End Of Carelessness)
Apparently all accidents can be prevented if people would be more careful. "Carelessness, just as the word implies is an ‘I do not care’ attitude."(p95)

He also claims that accidents "take place only because man operates on 75% of his potential power which is insufficient to prevent what nobody wants, even though he is doing everything in his power to prevent it."(p95) He arbitrarily assigns the other 25% of our power to understanding man's will is not free. It is arbitrary because he has no proof or basis for the claim we currently work with 75% The magical change occurs "mathematically"(p103) when people suddenly realize that if anything bad happens they will not be allowed to relieve their guilt.

His whole argument for claiming accidents will stop is that he prescribes an increase in self blame and fear of being trapped into responsibility for some tragedy if you are not careful enough. There is a word to describe what he recommends: Agoraphobia

If he bothered to think out how his prescribed changes would manifest in the real world there is no evidence of such consideration.

[koan]

In preparation for summarizing Chapter 4 (The one about eyes not being organs and the subsequent slaughtering of the English language to fix anthropological problems)... does peacegirl believe in evolution?

From the amount of biblical assertion in the book I'm thinking she might not understand certain scientific explanations for how we choose mates.

[Angakuk]

She has, on several occasions, let slip comments that would appear to suggest that she has some issues with evolution. She has also expressed reservations about vaccinations and the practice of medicine in general.

[koan]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

She has, on several occasions, let slip comments that would appear to suggest that she has some issues with evolution. She has also expressed reservations about vaccinations and the practice of medicine in general.

So there is little point in mentioning that beauty is instinctively equated with health and good DNA thereby attracting people because they wish to perpetuate the species in a way that improves upon it?

[Angakuk]

What the hell. Go ahead and mention it. There is, after all, very little point in engaging in any rational argument with peacegirl, apart, that is, from the entertainment value.

[koan]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What the hell. Go ahead and mention it. There is, after all, very little point in engaging in any rational argument with peacegirl, apart, that is, from the entertainment value.

I'll give it a go then

As to what can happen in totally egalitarian societies: for entertainment value

[But]

Originally Posted by koan

End of Chapter 2 (the door called Thou Shall Not Blame)

I only know it as "thou shalt"; is it even correct to say "thou shall" or is it simply a mistake?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Have to do?

He said ONLY.

ONLY.

ONLY.

You can find competence sexy, which may lead to PHYSICAL attraction. All of this has to do with how we judge others according to certain standards that in the new world will no longer be an influence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's been the big question all along. For Lessans idea to work, we must each be born with an identical, fully formed conscience that will trigger guilt feelings proactively to prevent acts which could cause harm. This is the kind of conscience-in-a-box that only a deity can bestow.

peacegirl has been asked to support that humans have an innate, God given conscience that does not differ between people, but just blows it off.

It has also been explained to her that conscience varies between individuals because it is developed as part of one's values system based on experiences and contemplation, but again she blows that off.

I never blew this off. Conscience will develop in an environment that is nurturing. This has everything to do with the environment in which we are born along with our genetic predispostion. Not every child will become a murderer in an abusive environment, because each child is different to a degree genetically, but an abusive environment sets the stage for unhealthy and often violent behavior.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bullshit. She did not. You are wrong. The only supportive vote mentioned by LadyShea came in AFTER all of these posts.

Not true. Now I want an apology. I am loath to talk to you because I can feel your resentment. You are not going to win because Lessans was right, and you can't stand it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not abnormal given the environment we have all been brought up in. It's no surprise that people find men or women who have certain talents as sexy.

Again, talents is just one aspect of personality. People fall in love with people, not just their bodies, not just a single talent...a whole person, with sex organs, AND lots of aspects and thoughts and opinions and traits.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without the kind of experienced psychological compulsion which renders a choice highly resistant to variation in antecent causal conditions (i.e. no 'compulsion' beyond mere causal determination), and without coercion, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices, i.e. such that with exactly the same antecedent causal conditions, one could have chosen otherwise.

Compatibilism says that the former is sufficient, and the latter is unnecessary, for making us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you still have no argument or rational objection against it.

I answered you and I refuse to answer it again unless you admit that there's something wrong with the definition. IT'S NOT USEFUL. The definition you are giving reverts right back to freedom of the will. Freedom from compulsion is not the only thing that's necessary to make one blameworthy. If he can't choose otherwise (beyond the compulsion compatibilists excuse), he is not blameworthy. Who sets the standard that says you could have chosen differently; that you weren't compelled because you have no overriding condition whereby you can't change your actions with new antecedent conditions? It may look free, but that's not enough to prove that one is actually free. It's an illusion. This is an attempt to reconcile these two positions, but coming from the position that I know is correct, I can see the flaw. This has been an attempt to justify blame and punish and yet keep the determinist position because threats of punishment have been the only deterrent up until now that could prevent people from hurting others. But it doesn't always work. This God given principle does work and will prevent the very thing man's laws and threats could never do.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. Now I want an apology. I am loath to talk to you because I can feel your resentment. You are not going to win because Lessans was right, and you can't stand it.

It is true. When you made that statement "LadyShea mentioned that there was one" I had not mentioned it at all, because you had no votes in your favor at all.

I did not mention your getting a vote until yesterday (Friday) morning because you hadn't had a vote until then. You made the statement on Thursday.