A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Wow, that site's a hoot!

I especially like how he proposes to tell you how to distinguish between organic and inorganic minerals.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL

That's your interpretation. Where did he specifically state "my brilliant ideas?"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said he described what he saw in the material world. How could he see a potentially perfect conscience in the material world when, according to him, our conscience is not currently at the highest temperature? I am only questioning your claim.

He observed the workings of conscience which came from the real world. Based on his astute observations, he saw how our collective conscience is not working at full throttle and how it can be made to function at its highest capacity. He gave concrete examples in Chapter Three to show exactly what happens in an accident in today's world, and how the changed conditions will prevent conscience from allowing someone to take the kinds of risks that could get someone injured or killed. This is God's law. Our manmade laws cannot accomplish this. They can deter some people with threats of punishment, but these laws cannot stop those who are willing to risk their lives and the lives of others, for the satisfaction of certain desires.

[LadyShea]

That's your interpretation. Where did he specifically state "my brilliant ideas?"

You're right, he didn't use those exact words. Good thing I didn't say it was a direct quote or anything.

[peacegirl]

Yes, he is claiming special knowledge and you are so sure he doesn't have any that you have lost your objectivity. You have already decided that he has to be wrong (after all, look at the forums I've been to and they thought the same thing). Isn't that your reasoning? Well, it's completely biased and wrong, and it's hard to talk to you when half the things you say about him are filled with misinterpretations and untruths.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not my reasoning at all. I have given you my reasoning for deciding he was wrong...namely the fallacies and mistakes and arrogance and crackpottery displayed in his work.

You are the one whose thinking is flawed. There are absolutely no fallacies or mistakes in the book. Therefore, there is no crackpottery except in your head.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do use your experiences around the web to try to demonstrate to you that my negative response to the book is not unique, is not an aberration.

Remember, the majority doesn't always have it right. I didn't say you were an aberration, but your confrontational style is quite abrasive and demeaning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're right, he didn't use those exact words. Good thing I didn't say it was a direct quote or anything.

It doesn't matter that you "didn't give a direct quote or anything." You implied it, and there was nothing about that quote that implied he thought his ideas were brilliant. You're so off base, it is sickening at this point. If there's no one else sincerely interested in the book, I am done. I'm wasting my time talking to you. It's a total washout. As far as you're concerned, this is all lulz and you won't get off your high horse until someone of great stature endorses it.

[LadyShea]

It doesn't matter that you "didn't give a direct quote or anything." You implied it, and there was nothing about that quote that implied he thought his ideas were brilliant.

What are you talking about? The most important discovery in the world, going to be seen as the coming of the Messiah, a benefit to all of mankind, the end to all evil....those words indicate he thought his ideas were brilliant.

You're so off base, it is sickening at this point. If there's no one else sincerely interested in the book, I am done. I'm wasting my time talking to you. It's a total washout. As far as you're concerned, this is all lulz and you won't get off your high horse until someone of great stature endorses it.

What makes you believe I give a single shit about "great stature"? Who do you think could endorse this that I would pay attention to unless he/she also provided hard evidence?

I will look at evidence, peacegirl, and very good evidence that he was right is the only thing that could convince me Lessans was anything but a crackpot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? The most important discovery in the world, going to be seen as the coming of the Messiah, a benefit to all of mankind, the end to all evil....those words indicate he thought his ideas were brilliant.

You're so out in left field, you don't even know what you're saying. If this knowledge can prevent war and crime, most people would consider this a very important discovery. These laws are going to be a benefit to all mankind, but these are not his laws. These laws would be equivalent to the Messianic era (or the Golden Age of Man) that has been predicted in the Bible.

In view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which will
beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah...

Your comments are obnoxious. He was not proud. He did not consider his thoughts brilliant, although the law that he discovered is truly amazing.

You're so off base, it is sickening at this point. If there's no one else sincerely interested in the book, I am done. I'm wasting my time talking to you. It's a total washout. As far as you're concerned, this is all lulz and you won't get off your high horse until someone of great stature endorses it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you believe I give a single shit about "great stature"? Who do you think could endorse this that I would pay attention to unless he/she also provided hard evidence?

There will be people who will read this book with enthusiasm and love it, I have no doubt. It might be someone of great stature, of great celebrity, or it may go viral as people begin to spread the word of this discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I will look at evidence, peacegirl, and very good evidence that he was right is the only thing that could convince me Lessans was anything but a crackpot.

Let me say again that it is your loss. You have not studied this work, and your confused thinking, as part of the bandwagon that has formed in here against Lessans, has given people a false impression of how very profound this work is. I am not worried because I know what he has, and soon enough people are going to read it and want to be instrumental in any way they can. Sorry it won't be you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There will be people who will read this book with enthusiasm and love it, I have no doubt. It might be someone of great stature, of great celebrity, or it may go viral as people begin to spread the word of this discovery.

Maybe it will, but what makes you think I care about that?

Lots of celebrities have endorsed all kinds of crackpot ideas, such as Scientology and past life regression. Lots of crap goes viral...The Secret was nonsense yet it was a best seller with all kinds of devotees. Does any of that make the endorsed ideas any more true?

ETA: The Secret also posits a law of nature!

the universe is governed by a natural law called the law of attraction which is said to work by attracting into a person's life the experiences, situations, events, and people that "match the frequency" of the person's thoughts and feelings.The Secret (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're so out in left field, you don't even know what you're saying. If this knowledge can prevent war and crime, most people would consider this a very important discovery.

The key word here is the 'if' at the start of the second sentence. Unfortunately for you, the answer to that 'if' is:
No - this purported 'knowledge' can do no such thing - so it's not important after all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me say again that it is your loss.

Okay

You have not studied this work, and your confused thinking, as part of the bandwagon that has formed in here against Lessans, has given people a false impression of how very profound this work is.

Who has gotten a false impression from me and the bandwagon, do you think? I would hope people read your website and your posts for themselves, and come to their own conclusions, otherwise they are not displaying critical thinking skills...which I value highly.

So if anyone reading this is influenced by me, I am telling you now to please know that my words are only my opinion and you should come to your own opinion. You can read the first 3 chapters at Decline and Fall of all Evil.com

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not worried because I know what he has, and soon enough people are going to read it and want to be instrumental in any way they can. Sorry it won't be you.

Your own family hasn't tried to be instrumental in any way they can, they prefer to stay busy other ways, what makes you think strangers will be different?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There will be people who will read this book with enthusiasm and love it, I have no doubt. It might be someone of great stature, of great celebrity, or it may go viral as people begin to spread the word of this discovery.

Or it may continue to be ignored by everyone but yourself as worthless self-aggrandizing crackpottery. My money's on the latter. The empirical evidence of your ten years of abject failure and rejection supports my position.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

“Of course not; I just told you that the fiery dragon must be killed
to get the key. First, I must prove that man’s will is not free so we
can come face to face with the fiery dragon (the great impasse of
blame), and I will prove it in a mathematical, undeniable manner.
Then I shall jab him in the right eye, then the left, then I shall cut out
his tongue. I took fencing lessons for the job. And finally I shall
pierce him in his heart. Then when I have made certain he is dead.”

The amazing thing is that this prose is so idiotically archaic that it is hard to believe that anyone would take it seriously. Lessans was stuck so far back in time, both with his understanding of the world, but also in his style of writing that it is hard to see how anyone could consider that he had any understanding of Human nature. He was a first order clown who wrote a joke of a book, but it was only 'funny sad'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maybe it will, but what makes you think I care about that?

I never said you did. I am saying that, due to your extreme skepticism, you have thrown out this treasure of knowledge prematurely.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lots of celebrities have endorsed all kinds of crackpot ideas, such as Scientology and past life regression. Lots of crap goes viral...The Secret was nonsense yet it was a best seller with all kinds of devotees. Does any of that make the endorsed ideas any more true?

Of course not. That's not what I'm even implying.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ETA: The Secret also posits a law of nature!

New agers throw the word "frequency" around quite a bit. The law of attraction can be dangerous because it puts the blame on the individual for not attracting into their life what they want. They gave an example where a driver who had nothing to do with an accident (he was the victim) must have invited it, or drew it to him, due to his thoughts. That really bothered me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The key word here is the 'if' at the start of the second sentence. Unfortunately for you, the answer to that 'if' is:
No - this purported 'knowledge' can do no such thing - so it's not important after all.

Now you too Ceptimus? Please stay neutral. I don't need another person adding to the circus this thread has become.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay

Who has gotten a false impression from me and the bandwagon, do you think? I would hope people read your website and your posts for themselves, and come to their own conclusions, otherwise they are not displaying critical thinking skills...which I value highly.

So do I, probably more so than you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So if anyone reading this is influenced by me, I am telling you now to please know that my words are only my opinion and you should come to your own opinion. You can read the first 3 chapters at Decline and Fall of all Evil.com

Thanks for advertising the website.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not worried because I know what he has, and soon enough people are going to read it and want to be instrumental in any way they can. Sorry it won't be you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your own family hasn't tried to be instrumental in any way they can, they prefer to stay busy other ways, what makes you think strangers will be different?

They haven't had an opportunity. Yes they are busy but they will help. Considering you use criticial thinking skills, these skills have flown out the window because your analysis of my family is wrong, just like your analysis of who my father was. My family will get involved as much as they can, once they get the book. I can't give even to my family what's not available yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Or it may continue to be ignored by everyone but yourself as worthless self-aggrandizing crackpottery. My money's on the latter. The empirical evidence of your ten years of abject failure and rejection supports my position.

Spacemonkey, I know your position. If you have no more interest in this non-discovery, as you call it, and you have no more questions because you think you know it all, then leave it at that. There is nothing that you're adding to the conversation. You're just making the same assertions you've made from day one. No progress whatsoever.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said you did. I am saying that, due to your extreme skepticism, you have thrown out this treasure of knowledge prematurely.

LadyShea's skepticism is not of the extreme variety. It is rather perfectly normal skepticism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

New agers throw the word "frequency" around quite a bit.

Well, thank goodness you've never had any issues with the word 'frequency'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I know your position.

And you know that unlike your own, mine is supported by evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you have no more interest in this non-discovery, as you call lit, and you have no more questions because you think you know it all, then leave it at that.

Oh, I have plenty of questions. They're just not ones you're willing or able to answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that you're adding to the conversation. You're just making the same assertions you've made from day one. No progress whatsoever.

You are once again describing yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LadyShea's skepticism is not of the extreme variety. It is rather perfectly normal skepticism.

Well, thank goodness you've never had any issues with the word 'frequency'.

I'm with you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you know that unlike your own, mine is supported by evidence.

Oh, I have plenty of questions. They're just not ones you're willing or able to answer.

You are once again describing yourself.

Now we're back to playground tactics. This is getting us nowhere fast.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, why don't you just stop complaining about everyone else on the thread and just explain the book as if everyone agrees with you. The more you worry about everyones understanding the more you get bogged down and stuck on trying to get everyone to agree. You could simply explain the discovery and the two sided equation since you don't believe that anyone else understands it, but you will need to do it outside the book as that seems to be the source of much confusion. Demonstrate your clear understanding of the principles in the book.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intermission: Something to think about

Angelina Jolie inspires women to maim themselves by celebrating medically perverted double mastectomies

And then there's sanity:
The quack view of preventing breast cancer versus reality and Angelina Jolie

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LadyShea's skepticism is not of the extreme variety. It is rather perfectly normal skepticism.

No, I think it's misplaced skepticism, just like yours is. You WILL NOT give him the benefit of the doubt because of your insistence that compatibilism is correct. You are defendnig your position at all costs. This, to me, means you never actually listened with a sincere effort to learn. You never planned on listening to what he had to say the minute you were determined to prove that the eyes are a sense organ. Admit it Spacmonkey; you had no intention to understand his reasoning; just to support yours. Your goal was to prove him wrong and be seen as the one who brought Lessans down () which is why you followed me from forum to forum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

New agers throw the word "frequency" around quite a bit.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, thank goodness you've never had any issues with the word 'frequency'.

You're funny.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

And then there's sanity:
The quack view of preventing breast cancer versus reality and Angelina Jolie

It depends what you define as sanity Cynthia. The medical profession has lost it's bearings.