A revolution in thought

[sadie]

Originally Posted by Crumb

In reality, Eskimos do not have an inordinate amount of words for snow. Just FYI.

Hey, you're right! Didn't know that! Thanks.

[sadie]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He thought we literally project words onto reality (part of his "eyes are not a sense organ" thing) and therefore are conditioned to think "beautiful" to be an objectively real thing, rather than a subjective descriptor.

Which, of course, is complete bullshit.

I don't even understand this idea, but I shall accept your judgment because I really don't want to wade through 1000 pages to find her explanation of what appears to be nonsense.

Sorry. if, like you guys, I had read the thread a little at a time over two years, it wouldn't seem so laborious, but....reading "The World According to Lessans" is much too tedious for someone who is only mildly interested.

BTW, Peace/Halo's thread on PR is still going strong, so we may catch up to FF yet. It puzzles me why people keep posting and posting and posting when all they have to do is scan this thread to understand that trying to get Peacegirl/Halo to admit that her father may have erred is a hopeless endeavor.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by sadie

I'm assuming we're talking about perception and he wasn't one of those loons who believes that thoughts literally create reality? My tenant is one of those folks and she spends 1 hour a day visualizing in detail the man she wants to meet. Her explanation has to do with quantum reality, vibrations, and the Universe loving us. I'm urging her to join a bowling league or a club for free thinkers, most of whom seem to be men.

Lessans made some pretty fine distinctions in 'Words not Reality', while he didn't claim that words created the actual object, he did claim that words created the appearance of that object. When a man looked at a woman, according to Lessans, in reality he just sees a woman (female of the species), who is not distinguished in any way as attractive or not. It is only culture that has trained people (via. words) to see other people as attractive or not, when according to lessans there is no such distinction. He also carries this same argument to education in claiming that there are no smart or dumb people, just people, all with equal abilities. Here he was probably feeling butthurt about his own lack of education and was trying to put himself on the same level as those who had great accomplishments in education.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by sadie

I don't even understand this idea, but I shall accept your judgment because I really don't want to wade through 1000 pages to find her explanation of what appears to be nonsense.

Sorry. if, like you guys, I had read the thread a little at a time over two years, it wouldn't seem so laborious, but....reading "The World According to Lessans" is much too tedious for someone who is only mildly interested.

BTW, Peace/Halo's thread on PR is still going strong, so we may catch up to FF yet. It puzzles me why people keep posting and posting and posting when all they have to do is scan this thread to understand that trying to get Peacegirl/Halo to admit that her father may have erred is a hopeless endeavor.

There are two big threads.

[LadyShea]

It puzzles me why people keep posting and posting and posting when all they have to do is scan this thread to understand that trying to get Peacegirl/Halo to admit that her father may have erred is a hopeless endeavor.

I like seeing her paint herself into corners. I like to debate. I still have hope she will either undergo a deconversion or flame out really spectacularly

[peacegirl]

For what it's worth, I found this video thought provoking. I'm not looking for any kind of response.

Awakening As One | uniting the way to the new world

[sadie]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans made some pretty fine distinctions in 'Words not Reality', while he didn't claim that words created the actual object, he did claim that words created the appearance of that object. When a man looked at a woman, according to Lessans, in reality he just sees a woman (female of the species), who is not distinguished in any way as attractive or not. It is only culture that has trained people (via. words) to see other people as attractive or not, when according to lessans there is no such distinction. He also carries this same argument to education in claiming that there are no smart or dumb people, just people, all with equal abilities. Here he was probably feeling butthurt about his own lack of education and was trying to put himself on the same level as those who had great accomplishments in education.

Hmmm, this may be troubling, but I think I may "get" what Lessans is saying and may agree with him to some degree. I guess it all depends upon whether or not aesthetic taste is learned or not. It obviously is related, but I vaguely recall reading that there are certain characteristics that are considered universally more appealing to people from diverse cultures. Youth is one for obvious reasons having to do with reproduction, but I think there are other qualities related to symmetry of features, etc.

As for his claim that "there are no smart or dumb people", that does strike me as asinine. However, if he is saying that our cultural biases influence our perceptions, of course he is correct. People who owned slaves wouldn't be able to even consider that black people could be equal in intellectual abilities as their masters. Same with women, who were considered the intellectual equivalent of children in many cultures throughout history. Today, we often underestimate the talents of people who haven't gone to college, which is unjust.

Anyway, I'm sure these topics were reviewed somewhere in this 1000 page thread, so I apologize if I am being redundant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by sadie

Hmmm, this may be troubling, but I think I may "get" what Lessans is saying and may agree with him to some degree. I guess it all depends upon whether or not aesthetic taste is learned or not. It obviously is related, but I vaguely recall reading that there are certain characteristics that are considered universally more appealing to people from diverse cultures. Youth is one for obvious reasons having to do with reproduction, but I think there are other qualities related to symmetry of features, etc.

In one respect both you and Lessans are correct that the concepts of beauty, and likes and dislikes, are to a degree, learned responses, but lessans took it further and attributed it to the brain projecting these qualities, through the eyes, onto a screen of 'Undeniable Substance', in that external objects were more of a blank screen and had no qualities of their own. This was also tied into his idea of efferent vision, and why that was so essential to the rest of his conception. Conditioning, or the learning of different qualities, is an internal process that happens inside the mind of the person ,Or animal, being conditioned. Any one who has raised children will be familiar with the process where another child will say they don't like something and the first child will then copy that dislike without trying it for them selves, most often happens with food.

[sadie]

Originally Posted by thedoc

In one respect both you and Lessans are correct that the concepts of beauty, and likes and dislikes, are to a degree, learned responses, but lessans took it further and attributed it to the brain projecting these qualities, through the eyes, onto a screen of 'Undeniable Substance', in that external objects were more of a blank screen and had no qualities of their own. This was also tied into his idea of efferent vision, and why that was so essential to the rest of his conception. Conditioning, or the learning of different qualities, is an internal process that happens inside the mind of the person ,Or animal, being conditioned. Any one who has raised children will be familiar with the process where another child will say they don't like something and the first child will then copy that dislike without trying it for them selves, most often happens with food.

Thanks for the clarification....uh....if it's possible to clarify such a theory. Ya gotta admit, Lessans did have a lively imagination.

Believe it or not, I may have liked the guy. He is the type of person my mother used to refer to as a "queer duck" (queer in the sense of weird, not gay) Meaning, strange, but harmless. Besides, any adult who is beloved has to be a worthwhile person.

Nah....I must retract that last sentence. I just thought of Dick Cheney.

[n.v.]

Originally Posted by sadie

. . . I guess it all depends upon whether or not aesthetic taste is learned or not. It obviously is related, but I vaguely recall reading that there are certain characteristics that are considered universally more appealing to people from diverse cultures. Youth is one for obvious reasons having to do with reproduction, but I think there are other qualities related to symmetry of features, etc. . . .

It could be that facial and other body symmetry tends to go along with robust health, which could translate to sexual attraction cues. Also certain body shapes and posture can tend to translate to robust health and hence reproductive and functional success, translating again to sex-attraction cues.

My first post here and it's about sex. How ironic considering how rarely I get laid.

[sadie]

Originally Posted by n.v.

It could be that facial and other body symmetry tends to go along with robust health, which could translate to sexual attraction cues. Also certain body shapes and posture can tend to translate to robust health and hence reproductive and functional success, translating again to sex-attraction cues.

My first post here and it's about sex. How ironic considering how rarely I get laid.

Well, I've always had a wide pelvis, even when I was quite slender. Men should have been beating a path to my vagina, but, alas, I was only moderately successful as a sex goddess.

Hmmm....I never noticed, but maybe my buttocks aren't symmetrical?

[n.v.]

I don't know. How confident looking is/were your buttocks?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by sadie

Thanks for the clarification....uh....if it's possible to clarify such a theory. Ya gotta admit, Lessans did have a lively imagination.

Believe it or not, I may have liked the guy. He is the type of person my mother used to refer to as a "queer duck" (queer in the sense of weird, not gay) Meaning, strange, but harmless. Besides, any adult who is beloved has to be a worthwhile person.

Nah....I must retract that last sentence. I just thought of Dick Cheney.

He really wasn't a queer duck at all. He was a perfectly normal human with the same desires and goals as anyone else. He just had unusual analytical abilities. He did not small talk or gossip, so he may have been thought of by some people as being aloof in social situations. When you say he had a lively imagination, it sounds condescending. I hope you didn't mean anything by it. A better way to describe him is being a visionary.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He just had unusual analytical abilities.

Yes, 'unusual' is certainly an appropriate word, though I can think of others.

[sadie]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He really wasn't a queer duck at all. He was a perfectly normal human with the same desires and goals as anyone else. He just had unusual analytical abilities. He did not small talk or gossip, so he may have been thought of by some people as being aloof in social situations. When you say he had a lively imagination, it sounds condescending. I hope you didn't mean anything by it. A better way to describe him is being a visionary.

Well, I guess we will have to wait 100? 500? years or so until we can determine if he was a visionary or simply had a vivid imagination.

As for "queer duck" it is not necessarily insulting. Einstein, for instance, was definitely odd because he was so oblivious to the world surrounding him. I read once about how his students, as a special surprise, cooked an elaborate meal for him which consisted of unique foods from his homeland. You guessed it....he didn't notice. He came in, sat down, and started talking about his latest ideas, completely oblivious to what he was eating or the preparation involved. If he wasn't famous and well-respected, he could be defined as a classic "queer duck", what with his goofy hair and baggy pants and always losing his car.

I feel badly when I hurt your feelings in regard to your Dad. I know you loved him deeply and I when I chat with others, I tend to forget that. However, as I have already told you, his ideas seem preposterous to me and that conclusion drives the conversation most of the time.

[sadie]

Originally Posted by n.v.

I don't know. How confident looking is/were your buttocks?

I have no idea. How does one tell if one's buttocks look confident? You mean "alert and proud"? If so, they may have been at one time, but I suspect they are slouching now and fairly lethargic. I'm not sure because I avoid full-length mirrors and the arthritis in my neck prevents me from twisting around and looking down at it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by sadie

I don't even understand this idea, but I shall accept your judgment because I really don't want to wade through 1000 pages to find her explanation of what appears to be nonsense.

Just wondering why you would accept their judgment more than mine? There are gaps in their explanation and understanding so why would you depend on these people as your council on this topic, and not go to the source itself? That's what the people here encourage, yet when it comes to the book the rules seem to change.

Originally Posted by Sadie

Sorry. if, like you guys, I had read the thread a little at a time over two years, it wouldn't seem so laborious, but....reading "The World According to Lessans" is much too tedious for someone who is only mildly interested.

Sadie, you're only mildly interested because of all the negative feedback. Please remember that their understanding and interpretation of what is written is half baked. I don't care what they are going to say in rebuttal to this post; they do not have a complete understanding of this knowledge at all. Much of the antagonism comes from Lessans' second discovery. Their refutation to his first discovery was not at all a slam dunk. Their were a lot of assumptions being made, and the sad part is that they thought they had a solid refutation that negated these principles.

Once they believed that their response was more valid than Lessans' observations, they disregarded the book as being nothing more than hot air. Now think about this carefully. If this knowledge is genuine, and it can do what it claims, how can people give it a quick onceover and be done with it? Can you understand my position? It's really heartbreaking for me to see how this discovery is being treated. That's why I can't continue to discuss it here. If you ever want to read the book, I will get it to you at a steep discount. I really would love for you to read it and make up your own mind. Opinions that do not come from the original source eventually turn into truth, and this is a dangerous thing.

Originally Posted by Sadie

BTW, Peace/Halo's thread on PR is still going strong, so we may catch up to FF yet. It puzzles me why people keep posting and posting and posting when all they have to do is scan this thread to understand that trying to get Peacegirl/Halo to admit that her father may have erred is a hopeless endeavor.

Sadie, again I am urging you not to waste your time reading this thread. It's boring and so much of it is filled with vitriol, belittling, and mean comments for no reason other than they didn't like Lessans' second discovery on the eyes. As far as the other thread, those people are worse than here. They won't give me a chance at all. All of them have made their minds up way earlier than in here. You can see how easy it is for these forums to give a false portrayal of what they have not even read. And for those who did read it, there is so much misunderstanding. Thedoc completely ravaged his explanation to you as to why words like beautiful and ugly are coming to an end. Moreover, he never said there are not differences in intellectual capacity, but words have made people feel that only certain types of intelligence get more respect, whereas other types do not. This is what is coming to an end; the disrespect as a result of words only.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by sadie

Well, I guess we will have to wait 100? 500? years or so until we can determine if he was a visionary or simply had a vivid imagination.

As for "queer duck" it is not necessarily insulting. Einstein, for instance, was definitely odd because he was so oblivious to the world surrounding him. I read once about how his students, as a special surprise, cooked an elaborate meal for him which consisted of unique foods from his homeland. You guessed it....he didn't notice. He came in, sat down, and started talking about his latest ideas, completely oblivious to what he was eating or the preparation involved. If he wasn't famous and well-respected, he could be defined as a classic "queer duck", what with his goofy hair and baggy pants and always losing his car.

I feel badly when I hurt your feelings in regard to your Dad. I know you loved him deeply and I when I chat with others, I tend to forget that. However, as I have already told you, his ideas seem preposterous to me and that conclusion drives the conversation most of the time.

I get what you're saying now, and I thank you for your clarification, but the word "queer duck" or "weird" has a bad connotation. Yes, according to others Lessans would not fit in because he had idiosyncracies, but that was only because he didn't conform to this world. I know people will now make fun of him, but that's too bad. He was in another world but only as a visionary. He was different for that reason, but so were many other visionaries. That didn't make him a crackpot. He knew the difference between the two worlds; the one he was living in, and the one he envisioned. As far as being socially adept, he did not enjoy small talk that held no interest for him. It's interesting that you brought up Einstein and how he did not notice certain things. My dad also had a one tracked mind. When he was working on his book, he has such tremendous concentration that a band could be playing next to him and it would not have disturbed his focus.

[n.v.]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. . . As far as the other thread, those people are worse than here. They won't give me a chance at all. All of them have made their minds up way earlier than in here. You can see how easy it is for these forums to give a false portrayal of what they have not even read. . . .

Who's fault is that? Blather on and on in full-strength magical, wishful-thinking mode with apparent spamming/marketing intent, and throw in no formal training on the part of the author. . . then sulk and complain and refuse to answer all the hard questions--pull this amazing feat of lunacy anywhere but a kindergarten classroom and watch what happens, Janis. Good luck.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. . . As far as the other thread, those people are worse than here. They won't give me a chance at all. All of them have made their minds up way earlier than in here. You can see how easy it is for these forums to give a false portrayal of what they have not even read. . . .

Originally Posted by nonverbal"

Who's fault is that? Blather on and on in full-strength magical, wishful-thinking mode with apparent spamming/marketing intent, and throw in no formal training on the part of the author. . . then sulk and complain and refuse to answer all the hard questions--pull this amazing feat of lunacy anywhere but a kindergarten classroom and watch what happens, Janis. Good luck.

Oh be quiet nonverbal. Please be nonverbal instead of talking out of your you know what. You know absolutely nothing about this discovery, so your words are completely empty of content. You are the quintessential person who represents the other forum. That's why I cannot engage with you at all. This is such a lesson to me; the gall and arrogance that you and others hold, is absolutely breathtaking. Now please leave me alone.

[n.v.]

Nonverbal? Who the hell is that? How dare you insult me that way, Janis. I'm smahht. . . really, I am. . . I know how to use verbs and even how to get them to disagree with you.

(Just ribbing you, pg. Easy now.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just wondering why you would accept their judgment more than mine?

Well one very good reason is that Peacegirl does not give any meaningful answers or comments, she just referes people back to the book that they were questioning in the first place. Many others have read and understood the book and can offer a much more clear explination of different points that are in question. In the end Peacegirl has demonstrated in this and other threads that she has no real understanding of the book and even less of the subjects that Lessans was criticizing. Lessans didn't know what he was talking about, and Peacegirl only knows what Lessans knew.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just wondering why you would accept their judgment more than mine? There are gaps in their explanation and understanding so why would you depend on these people as your council on this topic, and not go to the source itself? That's what the people here encourage, yet when it comes to the book the rules seem to change.

Really? Have you sent sadie the .pdf book to read? Is it even available for purchase yet? How do you suggest she go to the source when you have not provided it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My dad also had a one tracked mind. When he was working on his book, he has such tremendous concentration that a band could be playing next to him and it would not have disturbed his focus.

And this was one of Lessans biggest problems, he worked alone and didn't allow anyone to proof read his manuscript, so all his errors are in the book uncorrected, mostly because he didn't even understand that he made mistakes. He should have stopped and listened to the band (the real world) once in awhile.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And this was one of Lessans biggest problems, he worked alone and didn't allow anyone to proof read his manuscript, so all his errors are in the book uncorrected, mostly because he didn't even understand that he made mistakes. He should have stopped and listened to the band (the real world) once in awhile.

That's not what a profound narcissist does. They expect the rest of the world to follow along. Unfortunately for Lessans, he was tone deaf.