A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans didn't know what he was talking about, and Peacegirl only knows what Lessans knew.

Lessans taught peacegirl everything he knew, and still ... peacegirl knows nothing. But she did learn how to talk about it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

This is how crazy this thread has become. Thedoc has become the spokesperson for the book, and the synopsis he gave on this page is utterly ridiculous. Sadie, if you want to listen to his summary, go right ahead, but it's all wrong. The most glaring error he has made is when he keeps saying there will be no more diplomas, as if people will not be adequately trained. It's the exact opposite. Everything he says is a misunderstanding, yet he thinks he knows the book better than I do.

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never ever implied that external objects are more of a blank slate with no qualities of their own. Objects have very distinct qualities.

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

The child may be conditioned to say "no" to a particular food because of the stimulus of hearing other children say they don't like it, but he cannot be conditioned to dislike a certain food if, after tasting it, he actually likes the taste. Anyone can be conditioned to be repelled by something if they associate that something with something bad such as being yelled at, or fear of some kind.

Where the eyes are concerned, Lessans shows how we can be conditioned to seeing certain features as more beautiful (which we believe is a personal descriptor since we see this "beauty" with our very eyes) because of how this projecting function of the brain works. This does not occur with the other senses. This is an injustice because people equate being born "ugly" as just one of those unfortunate things, like being born without arms or legs.But this does not mean people won't have personal preferences, and that without these words everyone will be seen as the same (as the doc falsely believes). They just won't be conditioned by words which describe certain features as being being beautiful or more desireable and others as ugly or less desireable.

When the words used to identify some people as beautiful and others ugly are eliminated, we can eliminate this injustice once and for all. Look what's happening to young girls who grow up hating themselves, and being overly critical and self-absorbed. Unfortunately, we can't eliminate this problem unless we get to the source of the problem. In time what will be found appealing to different individuals will not be based on this conditioning process. This change can only occur with a new generation of children who will not be exposed to these words, for we can't undo the conditioning that has already taken place.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

I'm getting my proof this week. It will take another two weeks or so to get my first order of books. She can order the book directly from me. I can give her a better price than Trafford or any of the resellers. I am not putting the full .pdf online right now. After seeing what David did to it, I'm still shell shocked and won't do that again for quite some time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm getting my proof this week. It will take another two weeks or so to get my first order of books. She can order the book directly from me. I can give her a better price than Trafford or any of the resellers. I am not putting the full .pdf online right now. After seeing what David did to it, I'm still shell shocked and won't do that again for quite some time.

Don't forget to send me the free copy you promised.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't forget to send me the free copy you promised.

What? You need a paperweight, or a door stop?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't forget to send me the free copy you promised.

I will send it to you because I promised, but I'm wondering why I should. You'll probably just tear it up and throw it in the trash.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will send it to you because I promised, but I'm wondering why I should. You'll probably just tear it up and throw it in the trash.

No, No! If spacemonkey were to get these two threads printed and bound and if he could get you to autograph them, it would be art!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will send it to you because I promised, but I'm wondering why I should. You'll probably just tear it up and throw it in the trash.

No, I will do exactly what I promised I would do with it.

[LadyShea]

The most glaring error he has made is when he keeps saying there will be no more diplomas, as if people will not be adequately trained.

You've been asked to prove this thinking erroneous by posting Lessans words to the contrary. He stated clearly that each individual will decide for themselves if their training is adequate, and that there would be no licensing body.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lessans

In the new world when an individual leaves a university he will not
depend on any graduation, but on whether he thinks he is ready for
his chosen occupation. Our slide rule demonstrates that when he is
not given the right by the school and state to use drugs, perform
operations, and give other kinds of treatment, then he must be
absolutely honest with himself about how much he really knows
regarding the long term and immediate effects of medicine, surgery,
tests, etc., because it becomes mathematically impossible for him to
shift his responsibility to anyone but himself. Therefore, a doctor will
be prevented from prescribing medicine, or performing an operation,
unless he is absolutely certain he knows what he is doing for if a
patient should be hurt as a consequence of his ignorance he knows he
will never be blamed for this hurt.

How is what thedoc said an error when these are Lessans exact words?

Originally Posted by Lessans

In the new world no diplomas will ever again be issued because the right to practice medicine on the bodies of considers himself qualified. Each person will judge his own qualifications

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've been asked to prove this thinking erroneous by posting Lessans words to the contrary. He stated clearly that each individual will decide for themselves if their training is adequate, and that there would be no licensing body.

The words aren't wrong but the meaning behind them is completely wrong. If you had understood anything regarding this discovery you would have known why licensing bodies allow people to do certain things that they may not be qualified for. This was explained so clearly in the book, it boggles my mind that these questions even come up.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Three: The End of Carelessness

p. 104 As for whether we need permission from the government to drive?
In our present environment we need a license and before this is
granted we are given certain tests to see if we qualify which means that
part of our responsibility has already been shifted. In other words,
people who are really not qualified to sit behind a wheel are made to
think that they are by receiving permission, and should someone make
the comment, “You shouldn’t be allowed to drive,” the response would
be, “The government thinks so or I wouldn’t have been given a
license.”

In the new world there will be no such thing as a license to
drive because man has become of age and can now assume
responsibility for himself, therefore, the only person to tell you that
you are sufficiently trained and ready will be you yourself. No driver
henceforth will ever again be issued a license by a government agency
to determine his qualifications. This means that the division of the
Department of Motor Vehicles which determines the eligibility of a
new driver by administering a passing or a failing grade will be
permanently displaced. The fact that certain inadequate standards
were set up for others to determine our qualifications allowed many
unqualified people to assume they were qualified because they passed
the required exam. We will never again have to prove to anyone but
ourselves that we are qualified to drive and our vehicle is in good
condition.

We can see very clearly why our responsibility must
increase to the maximum degree since this is the only way we can
prevent what we don’t want. Where before we couldn’t wait to pass
the test so we could finally go wherever we wanted, we will not be that
anxious to sit behind the wheel until we know for sure we can drive
without causing collisions or delays. Even driving instructors will
never tell us when they think we are ready because they would not
want to assume this responsibility. Their job will be to teach us all the
causes of accidents and delays, and show us how to handle a car
properly. They will have a thorough course of training which will
include all the causes of accidents through carelessness, but it will be
up to us to determine whether we are capable of driving without
hurting anyone by comparing our ability with the tough driving
standards set up by the driving schools. There will be no need for
statutory speed limits that try and force compliance because nobody
will desire to drive at a speed that endangers others. The speed limit
will serve as a general guideline to indicate the maximum reasonable
and safe speed to travel, as well as to alert the driver of dangerous road
and weather conditions.

Today we say — “Obey the laws or else you
will be punished.” Tomorrow we say — “Don’t obey the laws of good
driving if you don’t want to, but if someone gets hurt as a
consequence it will be impossible to blame anybody but ourselves.”
Therefore, every suggestion to guide the new driver in the right
direction will be willingly heeded because of this fear that someone,
other than ourselves (this is the least consideration in the new world),
could be seriously hurt.

[LadyShea]

How is what thedoc said an error?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is what thedoc said an error when these are Lessans exact words?

I said thedoc is wrong in the way he has interpreted every single thing written in this book. Yes, it is true that each person will judge only himself as to whether he is qualified, but the standards he uses to judge himself will be much more stringent than any licensing body because he cannot shift his responsibility if something goes wrong. If he was responsible for injuring someone, he wouldn't be able to live with himself so the only way to avoid this situation from arising is to prevent it by performing only those procedures that he is thoroughly capable of.

p. 314 In the new world
no diplomas will ever again be issued because the right to practice
medicine on the bodies of people will be granted to anyone who
considers himself qualified. Each person will judge his own
qualifications and if he wishes to risk hurting others who will not
blame him, this is his business. If someone wishes to open an office
and hang out a shingle no one is going to question him, but the full
responsibility of hurting others with his treatments must rest on his
own shoulders once the school pulls out the props that allowed him to
shift his blame. When a student has learned all that the school is able
to teach of genuine knowledge, he will also have drawn a mathematical
line of demarcation between this kind of learning and the knowledge
that is a matter of opinion.

<skip>

Honesty will always be the best policy in
every case that is presented to him. The statement “I don’t know” is
not a sign of ignorance when you really do not know, but a sign of
wisdom.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said thedoc is wrong in the way he has interpreted every single thing written in this book. Yes, it is true that each person will judge only himself as to whether he is qualified, but the standards he uses to judge himself will be much more stringent than any licensing body because he cannot shift his responsibility if something goes wrong. If he was responsible for injuring someone, he wouldn't be able to live with himself so the only way to avoid this situation from arising is to prevent it by performing only those procedures that he is thoroughly capable of.

So what thedoc said was perfectly accurate, but you object because he didn't make any attempt to make the idea sound plausible, or to explain Lessans' reasoning for making such a suggestion in the first place.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said thedoc is wrong in the way he has interpreted every single thing written in this book. Yes, it is true that each person will judge only himself as to whether he is qualified, but the standards he uses to judge himself will be much more stringent than any licensing body because he cannot shift his responsibility if something goes wrong.

BullShit, this has only been asserted by Lessans and has in no way been demonstrated to be true. It is all dependent on Lessans concept of conscience being correct and this, as well, has not been demonstrated or proven to be true. Lessans whole body on knowledge is just a "Pig in a Poke", people are expected to just accept it on Lessans say so with nothing else to support it. The book is nonsense, and Lessans supposed proof is nonexistant. The whole thing is totally unsupported.

[thedoc]

Conscience is not a God given constant, what about those who do not believe in God, do you think they have the same concept of right and wrong as believers. And which is more accurate or better? God's conscience or the conscience that man has by nature?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is what thedoc said an error?

I already answered you. He is taking this out of context to make people think that no diplomas and no licenses would allow people to be untrained and get away with anything they want. This is the exact opposite of what would happen. He has no idea what he's talking about. And this is the person that people are turning to for his opinion? This is insane.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

BullShit, this has only been asserted by Lessans and has in no way been demonstrated to be true. It is all dependent on Lessans concept of conscience being correct and this, as well, has not been demonstrated or proven to be true. Lessans whole body on knowledge is just a "Pig in a Poke", people are expected to just accept it on Lessans say so with nothing else to support it. The book is nonsense, and Lessans supposed proof is nonexistant. The whole thing is totally unsupported.

You are so committed to Lessans being wrong (you've been attacking me for two years already), that you cannot admit that you might be wrong. It would crush you to know that your understanding of this book is nil, absolutely nil. You are not only a little bit wrong, you are 100% wrong in everything you say, and you're attacks on me and Lessans are completely slanderous.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered you. He is taking this out of context to make people think that no diplomas and no licenses would allow people to be untrained and get away with anything they want. This is the exact opposite of what would happen. He has no idea what he's talking about. And this is the person that people are turning to for his opinion? This is insane.

He didn't take it out of context though. He stated Lessans exact words. You said those quoted word were "in error".

You are aware that "out of context" does not mean "interpreting words in a way I don't like", right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He didn't take it out of context though. He stated Lessans exact words. You said those quoted word were "in error".

You are aware that "out of context" does not mean "interpreting words in a way I don't like", right?

LadyShea, let it go, okay? You said that you like to debate to the degree that you want to see me burn out. I am not a Supernova, and your argumentation will not cause me to disappear. You also are of the impression that Lessans must be wrong, but you have no proof. You just spout off assertions that assert Lessans must be wrong. I really have no desire to talk to you further. Yes, that is where my flame is flickering. My discussion with you will get me nowhere not because Lessans is wrong, and you're right, but because your mind is made up and if LadyShea says something is wrong, it must be wrong. You hold yourself up as some kind of authority and you're not even close (I know you will disagree but it doesn't matter; it is so obvious to me). You don't know that much even though you are trying to be objective. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and this applies to you. The very fact that you bring up thedoc as knowing more about the book than I do makes me puke LadyShea. He is so far removed from the kind of person that would understand the book (he has gotten nothing right in two years; shouldn't that tell you something?) it is a travesty. Because of this, I'm done talking to you.

[LadyShea]

Not burn out, flame out.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered you. He is taking this out of context to make people think that no diplomas and no licenses would allow people to be untrained and get away with anything they want. This is the exact opposite of what would happen. He has no idea what he's talking about. And this is the person that people are turning to for his opinion? This is insane.

This is the fatal flaw in Lessans theory, the assumption that everyone would have the capability to know and understand all that is needed to be proficient in whatever profession they might choose. Not everyone has the same talents and abilities, and the current system of Licenses, and diplomas, and certificates weeds out those who do not have that capability. Lessans prescription for the "Golden Age" is not "Flowers for Algernon", everyone will not automatically become Geniuses, mentally deficient people will still be mentally deficient and incapable of higher learning. would you want someone with poor math skills to do your taxes? that is what Lessans system would allow. Some people mught not have the understanding to know that they do not have the necessary knowledge and ability. If a person sincerely believes that they know all they need to know, even a perfect conscience will not prevent them from starting a practice, of which they are incompetent.

Lessans himself is the perfect counter example to the system he is proposing. Lessans wrote a prescription for world peace, but Lessans did not have the knowledge and understanding to do so. Lessans did not even understand that he didn't have that knowledge and understanding. Lessans himself disproved his own theory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not burn out, flame out.

As if that makes a difference.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so committed to Lessans being wrong (you've been attacking me for two years already), that you cannot admit that you might be wrong. It would crush you to know that your understanding of this book is nil, absolutely nil. You are not only a little bit wrong, you are 100% wrong in everything you say, and you're attacks on me and Lessans are completely slanderous.

I see that a dictionary was not among the effects that your father left you on his death, what I post on this forum is NOT SLANDER. It's not even Libel since it is my opinion. And if what I write is based on some clearly (as in readable, if not in meaning) written post, it's not even untrue, and falsehood it the real basis for slander or libel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered you. He is taking this out of context to make people think that no diplomas and no licenses would allow people to be untrained and get away with anything they want. This is the exact opposite of what would happen. He has no idea what he's talking about. And this is the person that people are turning to for his opinion? This is insane.

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is the fatal flaw in Lessans theory, the assumption that everyone would have the capability to know and understand all that is needed to be proficient in whatever profession they might choose. Not everyone has the same talents and abilities, and the current system of Licenses, and diplomas, and certificates weeds out those who do not have that capability.

That's what examinations are for, to test whether people meet the standards of their profession. If not, they would not profess to know. Once again, you are making a fool of yourself because you don't understand this book at all.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans prescription for the "Golden Age" is not "Flowers for Algernon", everyone will not automatically become Geniuses, mentally deficient people will still be mentally deficient and incapable of higher learning. would you want someone with poor math skills to do your taxes? that is what Lessans system would allow. Some people mught not have the understanding to know that they do not have the necessary knowledge and ability. If a person sincerely believes that they know all they need to know, even a perfect conscience will not prevent them from starting a practice, of which they are incompetent.

You are making all kinds of assumptions. No surprise. Who said anything about people becoming geniuses or mentally deficient people being capable of higher learning? Your interpretation is so distorted, I can't believe anyone with any objectivity at all would take you seriously. What you're missing is that there will be stringent tests that will determine someone's capability. You are imagining that people will take advantage and practice professions that they aren't capable of. How can they want to take advantage when they know that they didn't pass the required exam? They can't because to do so, and to hurt others with impunity, would not give them any satisfaction, whereas in today's world they could justify it by saying they were given a license which could allow them to practice even if they were not totally qualified.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans himself is the perfect counter example to the system he is proposing. Lessans wrote a prescription for world peace, but Lessans did not have the knowledge and understanding to do so. Lessans did not even understand that he didn't have that knowledge and understanding. Lessans himself disproved his own theory.

Oh be quiet. All you have done these two years is spout off your dislike for Lessans. Nothing you have ever said has invalidated his claims. You understand squat.