A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So where is this place you've found where people don't use their own intellectual capacity in determining truth from falsehood, and what are they using instead?

Spacemonkey, I know your game. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to get more armor to be used against me. People here have made me look like an idiot. It's not hard to do when you're discussing a discovery that has not yet been properly investigated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sometimes people overestimate their abilities in determining the truth of something.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, like you and Lessans for instance.

I knew you would come back with the same words I've used on you. Very childish.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nageli, the leading authority of his time, thought Mendel was a semi-amateur because he disagreed with the very core of Mendel's discovery. Now who would disagree with Nageli when he was the father of genetics, yet he ended up being wrong.

I'm not going to engage in any further discussion on this topic.

But I feel the professional duty to remind you -- AGAIN -- that this is a falsehood, or at least, a very misleading claim.

[traumaturgist]

[quote=peacegirl;1116262][quote=Spacemonkey;1116241]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People here have made me look like an idiot. It's not hard to do when you're discussing a discovery that has not yet been properly investigated.

I knew you would come back with the same words I've used on you. Very childish.

Actually, no. You've made yourself look like an idiot consistently by exhibiting the very bestiality of thought people like me attempt to militate against. Allow me to explain:

Here's what you do: you make statements about transforming the world and whatnot and make naive, uninformed assumptions about the world and human nature. Then, when people call you out on your statements you hide behind this dude Lessans, nailing yourself to your pretty little cross and go on and on about how nobody understands him, his contribution to thought is wasted on all of us, etc. etc. and absolutely refuse to take any sort of responsibility for the statements you make.

In terms of logical principle, I don't even care what you believe; I don't need to know a single thing about Lessans to take issue with your bestiality of thought, which equates you with an animal who sniffs out some corner of thought and opinion somewhere, drops a little compressed loaf of ignorance, and trots off on its merry way without looking back, without responsibility, without consciousness.

It is precisely this that makes you an intellectual windowshopper, incapable of manufacturing your own wares. At least some parrots learn to open their cages after a while.

Now you can follow with your typical retort and admonish what you see as my anger, rage, bla bla bla...but the fact of the matter is you will never know whether I am angry or laughing my ass off as I compose this. Anything you assume is just a projection of the little three-pence drama continually unfolding in your head. And I don't care who the characters are or what the plot is - in fact, it's better I don't know. What I do know, however, is that every sentence you type in these forums from this moment is like a dead fly in my drink - insubstantial, annoying, but existentially hilarious.

You're either the most fundamentalist believer (apart from atheists) I have ever seen, or the most successful troll in the history of the internet.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't mean intellect actually. Everyone has intellect. I meant intellectual capacity. There's a difference. Sometimes people overestimate their abilities in determining the truth of something. You think you proved Lessans wrong yet you aren't even close to being a leading authority on this subject, which is disturbing to say the least.

What Peacegirl really means is that people should not give any credence to anything they might have learned before. Lessans needs to be aproached as if each person was a 'Tabula Rasa' since Lessans claims that all knowledge that preceded him is incorrect. It says so in the book, so Peacegirl believes it must be true. The fact that Lessans was uneducated and ignorant of most of the fields of knowledge that he claims is incorrect, has no bearing on Peacegirl's belief that he was correct in his criticism. It is simply not possible to critique a body of knowledge without first learning what that knowledge is, and Lessans was totally ignorant of almost everything.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Careful observation, sound reasoning, and empirical testing.

Unfortunately there is no evidence of any of this in Lessans work.

[LadyShea]

Uh, peacegirl?

I have not put the title of the book online because I don’t want people finding me on google. They will join here and try to take over the thread. I just hope the moderators won’t let that happen.

Signature

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com

You put the title of the book in your signature, meaning it's on every post, and therefore bumped up on Google

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still have absolutely no undertanding of this book yet you come off like you do. You don't grasp the two-sided equation, not even a little bit. And the fact that you said doctors wouldn't need credentials to practice in the new world, is laughable.

First I didn't say that, Lessans did.

I did understand what Lessans was saying in the book and that was just a bit scary, it had me questioning my own sanity. The problem is that I did not see how Lessand got from one point to another because there was usually no connection between the statments he made and the conclusions that he claimed those statments proved. BTW I still have a PDF of the book on my computer, I just am not enough of a masochist to open it again. Most of Lessans arguments would be something like this, "All Frogs are Green, Therefore you cannot pick an apple from a tree". And to anyone who understands that and agrees, first read Lessans book, second you have my deepest sympathy.

[Vivisectus]

Fascinating. In the new thread, which is rapidly going down the road of the old one, and which has not even reached the sexy jackets and the efferent eyes, there is this marvellously thoughtful post:

I’ve always found the free will debate interesting but, ultimately, unrelated to serious ethical questions. On the one hand, it can be seen as a zero sum equation. A serial killer is not responsible for his bloody spree but neither is the jury that sentences him to die. Whatever debate we end up having about ethics will be the same either way.

On the other hand… I think reasonable people are rarely confused about ethics in reality. Sure its difficult to quantify, describe and defend in the parlance of academia but someone threatens your child…. and the world gets real simple real fast.

I believe moral responsibility exists. But not as some metaphysical truth. It doesn’t scale. It’s an emergent function of culture that we assume for identity and name in order to place certain events into an acceptable narrative…. if that makes sense.

A healthy person is one who thrives within his environment. In every sense. Since we are social species navigating obstacles will often mean recourse to social solutions. And a number of compromises will be necessary due to the competing interests that arise in any group. Morality, at least consensus morality, seems to be those social solutions that select for the most efficient advantage of the group..

On a more personal level I think morality is even more narrative at its core. A person arrives at adulthood with a strange melange of preferences informed from a vast and mysterious inheritance. We don’t really have time to understand how old and strange our minds really are. But we typically need to create a self image that satisfies some basic criteria. And we need to use whatever selection of raw materials we happen to have lying around.

Morality, by my impression, is disturbingly post hoc. In terms of personal relationships, global politics and virtually everything in between. Most rhetoric I hear is not about how to inform future choices for maximum benefit. Its about spinning the past into a story that flatters or excuses or vilifies. Ergo the emphasis on blame. I don’t say this to be cynical, just an honest observation.

I’m sympathetic, on occasion, to certain post modern thinkers who say the whole idea is obsolete.

Completely missed by PG here, and not even acknowledged. Pearls before her swinish indifference towards anything but the glorification of her daddy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm not going to engage in any further discussion on this topic.

But I feel the professional duty to remind you -- AGAIN -- that this is a falsehood, or at least, a very misleading claim.

It is not a falsehood Lone Ranger that Mendel's discovery went unrecognized.

Citations tell us something important about resistance to new ideas in science, but, when used as a key source, they may give rise to incorrect generalizations. To begin with, citation analysis tells us nothing about important papers which were never accepted for publication. If the maximalist position is correct, a careful historical search for such rejected contributions may yield a rich, if heart-rending, harvest. The close misses of Aristarchus, Strato,13 Waterston, and others, seem to support this view. Also, we know that some highly original contributions have been ignored for decades (e.g., Mendel,14 Rumford), centuries (e.g., Bernoulli, Da Vinci), sometimes even millennia (e.g., Aristarchus' heliocentric theory and Chinese contributions to science and mathematics). Citation data have not been around long enough to detect such instances of delayed recognition.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/history.htm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fascinating. In the new thread, which is rapidly going down the road of the old one, and which has not even reached the sexy jackets and the efferent eyes, there is this marvellously thoughtful post:

Completely missed by PG here, and not even acknowledged. Pearls before her swinish indifference towards anything but the glorification of her daddy.

I'm not getting into this with you Vivisectus. You learned nothing, understood nothing, and now are expressing nothing. So go your merry way. I'm not interested in starting up a conversation with you again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

First I didn't say that, Lessans did.

I did understand what Lessans was saying in the book and that was just a bit scary, it had me questioning my own sanity. The problem is that I did not see how Lessand got from one point to another because there was usually no connection between the statments he made and the conclusions that he claimed those statments proved. BTW I still have a PDF of the book on my computer, I just am not enough of a masochist to open it again. Most of Lessans arguments would be something like this, "All Frogs are Green, Therefore you cannot pick an apple from a tree". And to anyone who understands that and agrees, first read Lessans book, second you have my deepest sympathy.

That such a crock thedoc. You never took the time to read anything; all you did is pull things out of context. You never once asked a relevant question, especially as it relates to his actual discovery. You're all off your #*$(# rockers, and for awhile I was questioning my sanity because of how you all twisted the things I've said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uh, peacegirl?

You put the title of the book in your signature, meaning it's on every post, and therefore bumped up on Google

I know I did, and it's okay. Sooner or later people would find out where I am. I am not planning on staying there long either. I went there because some people already know that man's will is not free, and that makes it somewhat easier for me to communicate this knowledge. And it's moderated so I won't have to hear the garbage that has been spewed at me unfairly in this thread. Calling me such horrible names as well as my father. So unjustified. It was horrendous and I won't go through that again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What Peacegirl really means is that people should not give any credence to anything they might have learned before. Lessans needs to be aproached as if each person was a 'Tabula Rasa' since Lessans claims that all knowledge that preceded him is incorrect. It says so in the book, so Peacegirl believes it must be true. The fact that Lessans was uneducated and ignorant of most of the fields of knowledge that he claims is incorrect, has no bearing on Peacegirl's belief that he was correct in his criticism. It is simply not possible to critique a body of knowledge without first learning what that knowledge is, and Lessans was totally ignorant of almost everything.

This is exactly the kind of garbage thedoc posts. Nothing about the book; only about how wrong Lessans must be. He knows nothing whatsoever about what's in the book. It's a fascinating look at ignorance in full bloom.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly the kind of garbage thedoc posts. Nothing about the book; only about how wrong Lessans must be. He knows nothing whatsoever about what's in the book. It's a fascinating look at ignorance in full bloom.

And I will reiterate: whenever people call you out on your thoughts you always - always try and take things back to the book to avoid actually presenting yourself with an intellectual identity.

For example: you have persistently, steadfastly refused to deal with any of the intelligent issues with which I opened my commentary on this thread. I'll give you yet another example: you state that "some people already know that man's will is not free, and that makes it somewhat easier for me to communicate this knowledge." A huge and unprovable assumption, but that's beside the point because one can easily criticize this statement's logical coherence: if man's will is "not free" as you say, how does it make things easier for you to "communicate this knowledge" (I assume Lessan), since if we are not free we are less likely to embark on the open thinking involved in productively engaging with another's point of view? The alternative seems bleaker - namely, that the kind of knowledge you privilege is tailor-made for relatively non-conscious individuals or species who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of the indeterminate freedom that inheres in Nature. Now, if that's the way you see the world, well, that explains a metric ton of things about you...but synecdochically attributing that to the rest of the race is highly problematic.

I'm not saying my thoughts deserve special treatment, but I'm using them as an example of your continual evasion - evasion, I might add, that doesn't lend any credibility to your defense of Lessans. I submit that where you see "ignorance in full bloom," responsible people see naivete in full retreat. You're in over your head...and you know it.

[LadyShea]

You won't go through it again, you won't discuss with us anymore, we are horrendous twisters that make yourself question your sanity...yet here you are.

[thedoc]

Well at least she is responding to my posts, which is just slightly better than being on 'pretend ignore'.

Peacegirl tell me about your grandchildren, I forget their ages. Mine are from 18 to 3 years old, 7 of them. I just had the 3 year old girl with me today, and it's funny how she reacts to taking a nap. Sometimes she will fall asleep in the car and when I carry her in and put her in bed, asleep, she will get a big smile on her face and snuggle into the blanket.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly the kind of garbage thedoc posts. Nothing about the book; only about how wrong Lessans must be. He knows nothing whatsoever about what's in the book. It's a fascinating look at ignorance in full bloom.

There must be some defeciency in reading comprehension because my whole post was about the book and what Lessans wrote in the book, which was almost completely wrong. There is really no need to pick out specific parts of the book, as that has been done before in this thread repeatedly and in more detail than I care to do. Almost a thousand pages of pointing out where Lessans was wrong, and not one bit of accurate rebuttal from Peacegirl. Anyone who has the stamina can easily find numerous examples of reality vs. Lessonology.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

And I will reiterate: whenever people call you out on your thoughts you always - always try and take things back to the book to avoid actually presenting yourself with an intellectual identity.

For example: you have persistently, steadfastly refused to deal with any of the intelligent issues with which I opened my commentary on this thread. I'll give you yet another example: you state that "some people already know that man's will is not free, and that makes it somewhat easier for me to communicate this knowledge." A huge and unprovable assumption, but that's beside the point because one can easily criticize this statement's logical coherence: if man's will is "not free" as you say, how does it make things easier for you to "communicate this knowledge" (I assume Lessan), since if we are not free we are less likely to embark on the open thinking involved in productively engaging with another's point of view? The alternative seems bleaker - namely, that the kind of knowledge you privilege is tailor-made for relatively non-conscious individuals or species who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of the indeterminate freedom that inheres in Nature. Now, if that's the way you see the world, well, that explains a metric ton of things about you...but synecdochically attributing that to the rest of the race is highly problematic.

I'm not saying my thoughts deserve special treatment, but I'm using them as an example of your continual evasion - evasion, I might add, that doesn't lend any credibility to your defense of Lessans. I submit that where you see "ignorance in full bloom," responsible people see naivete in full retreat. You're in over your head...and you know it.

You don't even know me, you're just making sweeping generalizations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There must be some defeciency in reading comprehension because my whole post was about the book and what Lessans wrote in the book, which was almost completely wrong. There is really no need to pick out specific parts of the book, as that has been done before in this thread repeatedly and in more detail than I care to do. Almost a thousand pages of pointing out where Lessans was wrong, and not one bit of accurate rebuttal from Peacegirl. Anyone who has the stamina can easily find numerous examples of reality vs. Lessonology.

No thedoc, this thread has turned into a gang attack. Believe me, anyone who would read the things people said to me throughout these two years, and the resentment they felt just because of his claims regarding the eyes, would see it. It is not surprising that no one here does. It also has shown how persuasive group think is. This discussion was not objective at all. You, of all people, know nothing about the book. The reason you say there is really no need to pick out specific parts is because you don't know what parts there are. You don't even know what the discovery is. You are dependent on group think, like a sheep following the herd.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You won't go through it again, you won't discuss with us anymore, we are horrendous twisters that make yourself question your sanity...yet here you are.

I'm not staying, don't worry.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
No thedoc, this thread has turned into a gang attack. You are dependent on group think, like a sheep following the herd.

Has it ever occured to you that everyone comes to the same conclusion because all the evidence leads to the same conclusion, Lessaos was wrong about everything.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even know me, you're just making sweeping generalizations.

Another evasion. My point is that I don't need to know who you are to critique your faulty logic and dishonest argumentative approaches. Calling "ad hominem," to me, is a copout and has nothing to do with looking at the issues being presented. Have you ever tried to cut out the whole "poor me" defense and actually responding to the points people raise? I think you'd find people much more receptive if you engaged with their critiques of your logic. While I don't think anyone is contesting your right to believe what you want, this forum is about free thought...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I know your game. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to get more armor to be used against me. People here have made me look like an idiot. It's not hard to do when you're discussing a discovery that has not yet been properly investigated.

I was trying to get an answer to a question, but as per usual you are again refusing to answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew you would come back with the same words I've used on you. Very childish.

I was simply and accurately pointing out that the criticisms you make against others apply more to yourself and your father than to anybody else.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/history.htm

"Also reprinted in: Infinite Energy: The Magazine of New Energy Technology"

Phew! For a minute it looked like you were referencing an article from some sort of crackpot, woo-publishing journal about cold fusion and zero-point energy sources!

You really love your crackpots, don't you, peacegirl?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...like a sheep following the herd.

Cattle are to herd as sheep are to flock.



However, the term 'herd' is associated with any group of grazing animals, hence the words goatherd and shepherd.