A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

From the time we were small children our relatives, parents,
friends and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and
dislikes regarding things that definitely exist in the external world.
The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc. heard over
and over again with an inflection of pleasure as to someone’s physical
appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of
physiognomy and developed negatives which also contained the degree
of feeling experienced. Similarly, an entire range of words heard over
and over again with an inflection of displeasure as to someone’s
physical characteristics, took a picture of the similarities between this
type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree of
feeling experienced below this line of demarcation.

As time went on
a standard of beauty was established. Not knowing what the brain was
able to do, we were convinced that one group of similarities that were
seen with our very eyes contained a lesser value than the opposite
similarities. We were unaware that the brain had reversed the process
by which these negatives were developed and then projected onto the
screen of undeniable differences a value that existed only in our head.
It would not be long before this child would be conditioned to desire
associating with the one type while avoiding the other and as he would
get older you would not be able to convince him that an ugly or
beautiful person did not exist as a definite part of the real world
because he has witnessed these differences with his eyes. The
confusion between what is real and what is not comes from the fact
that these words not only describe real differences that exist in the
world, but they also create external values when there are no such
things. I will give you an example of this by using a movie projector.

is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I
am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the
switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall.
But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl
is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain
regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided
up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a
screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative
plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well
just take a look, there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly
duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word
slide) and all you see are the differences in substance because the
projected values have been removed.

Since we were taught that the
eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light it was
impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed and was a
part of the real world, and when we changed the standard hidden in
the word all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person
may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were
allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally. Scientists,
believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed
what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was
possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently
everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through
which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if
the relation which is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an
inaccurate negative which is then projected realistically upon
undeniable substance. The word beautiful has absolutely no external
reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular
physiognomy a beautiful girl is created when no such person exists.

Obviously there is a difference between the shape and features of
individuals, but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals
that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected
through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which
makes the projection appear real. By having the words beautiful, ugly,
gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain
will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain
specific differences only because of the words which is then confirmed
as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful
women with his eyes, but in actual reality all he sees are different
shapes and different features. This beautiful girl is not striking his
optic nerve which then allows him to see her beauty but instead he
projects the word onto these differences and then photographs a
fallacious relation.

The brain records all relations, whether true or
false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact that man had
five senses which were connected in some way with the external world,
and since four of these were accurately described as sense organs, that
is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for
Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by
including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he
never understood their true function.

The belief in the eyes being a sense organ has allowed innumerable
words to come into existence which caused people to be judged an
inferior production of the human race. Can you imagine what would
happen if we lived in a world where all such words were removed, where
nobody, including ourselves would be judged in terms of ugliness,
homeliness, prettiness and so forth. Remember, however, when these
negatives of external value are removed, this doesn’t stop us from
seeing differences that appeal to us more but instead of saying — “She
is the most beautiful girl I have ever seen,” which places other girls in
a stratified layer of lesser value, we are compelled to say — “She
appeals to me more than any girl I have ever seen” which makes it
obvious that the value we see exists only for us.

The first expression
requires that ugly girls exist because certain type features are
considered superior, while the second expression only observes that
other girls appeal to us less which makes everybody equal in value
except to particular individuals. By removing all the synonyms that
describe people as good looking, nobody is hurt, but by removing all
the antonyms that have been judging half the human race as bad
looking this entire group is brought up to a level of complete equality
and respect. However, it is mathematically impossible to expect you
to give up that which is also a source of satisfaction although the
change does not depend on those who are happy in their pride and
self-importance, which includes everyone to a degree, but on those
who are seriously hurt and who are shown how they, too, can become
happy. And are we given a choice when to continue using these words
after we have learned the truth only reveals our ignorance, for which
we will never be blamed? How is it possible to criticize people for
believing the earth is flat, man’s will is free, and his eyes a sense organ
when we know for an absolute fact that they have never learned the
truth?

[peacegirl]

It is true, however, that we are so conditioned by these words that
even their removal will not make us like someone more who appeals
to us less. But when children are brought up without ever hearing
these words there is no telling to whom they might be attracted
without being adversely judged. For example, if two boys decide to
approach two girls having never been conditioned with words like
beautiful and ugly, they might be attracted, without envy, each to the
other, but when their head is filled with fallacious standards of value
that have been concealed in words, it is obvious that they will prefer
the one that conforms more closely to this standard of perfection or
beauty because this meets with greater approval and less criticism.
This approval by others is in no way an external value, in other words,
your approval of what I do has a value for me, but unless I want this
it has no value for me at all. If I don’t like the criticism I will try to
conform to a standard that avoids what I don’t like, but this is a
relation between myself and what exists outside of me.

“Well, is it a fallacious value when certain differences are admired
and respected more by the majority of the world? For example, is it
a fallacious value when — pardon the fallacious expression — a
beautiful girl attracts a millionaire who desires to marry her because
of her beauty? I’d say these values are pretty real regardless of whether
we call these differences by one name or another, right? If one
thousand males have to choose between two females and the entire
thousand pick one in preference to the other do you mean to say that
the differences that attracted them are not a part of the external
world?”

“Of course these differences are a part of the external world just as
the difference between the moon and the sun is a part of the external
world, and just as the difference between a cat and a rat is externally
real, but this has nothing to do with value. In other words, if you
choose a cat as a pet because you like felines, this has personal value
for you. There are some people who like rodents and would pick the
rat as their choice, which has personal value for them. In reality, there
is no such thing as an external value. If you are drawn to hire an
individual because he meets certain requirements or if he judges for
himself that he qualifies (as will happen in the new world), this only
means that he is more valuable to you, the employer; and if one
thousand people think the same way this doesn’t mean that the
differences they prefer have external value although the differences in
substance are externally real. Value is nothing other than a word to
describe what you personally want or like.”

“Do you mean that one man’s meat is another man’s poison... and
doesn’t this go back to the idea that beauty is in the eyes of the
beholder? I’m still confused as to why this expression isn’t correct
when it is expressing someone’s personal taste.”

“There is quite a difference between both expressions because meat
and poison are external realities but, as we have learned, beauty has no
external reality whatsoever. I may not like certain types of meat but
I don’t create the meat with a word to symbolize its existence whereas
the word beauty does this by placing a greater value on certain specific
differences (that undeniably exist and are a part of the external world)
which value only has existence for the internal world, that is, for what
you personally like or desire. For example, if I call one shaped nose,
aquiline, and another, straight, then I am accurately symbolizing an
external difference, but if I say a straight nose is beautiful and an
aquiline nose is ugly, then I am projecting through my eyes an
internal value that has no external existence onto a screen of
differences that are externally undeniable. Consequently, when any
words are used that contain an internal value, something that you
recognize as having more value for you which are then projected as a
part of the external world, it is then made to appear that this value
exists outside of you because you see it with your very eyes. Can you
imagine what would happen if we lived in an atmosphere where there
were no values that were imposed as standards by the unconscious or
conscious judgment of others?”

Supposing two girls living on earth presently called ugly were
placed on a planet where no such word exists, there would be
absolutely nothing to prevent them from living a normal life because
the males there would never judge them in terms of ugliness, for no
such thing exists except as a projection of our realistic imagination.
What one man may like when no words such as beautiful and ugly are
present to condition him — and there is no criticism for the choice
that appeals to him most — might be a girl that has a stocky build,
small breasts, and protruding ears. Here on earth these girls are
handicapped from the day of their birth because their particular
features have been assigned more or less value as a result of these
differences. They are constantly judged not in any personal or direct
manner but in a way that cannot easily be corrected because they are
seen through this kaleidoscope of negatives that transforms them
realistically into what they are not.

Every other word we use stratifies
external differences which cannot be denied into fallacious standards
and values that appear realistic only because they are confirmed with
our eyes (with the direct perception of our sense of sight) and our
unconscious syllogistic reasoning, which employ words as realities.
The unhappiness resulting from these words is manifold and manifest
in the very fact that people develop a complex of inferiority and are
forced to compensate by becoming the life of the party, or by making
themselves visible in other ways. Not realizing that it was the word
itself that was the source of the problem, those that were considered
ugly were compelled to go through life feeling less than others in
physiognomic value. How many times have you heard someone
intending to be nice but with a tone of pity remark, “She isn’t pretty
but she has a nice personality,” which becomes the consolation prize.
This girl has to remove herself from the competition and try to get
attention some other way in order to make up for this imaginary lack.

Although you look back with smiling incredulity to the days of
yore and wonder about the many ignorant beliefs that our ancestors
used to imagine were true, is it possible for your professors to believe
that they are not any more educated or intelligent than anybody else?
As a further consequence of these fallacious differences that do not
exist in reality but are only a projection of deceptive relations, they
have been led to believe that they are more important than someone
else, more valuable in the scheme of things, and from this source a
host of evils stem. Have they any conception that these are only
words? In reality no one is more intelligent or educated than anyone
else, as you will soon understand. There are many more words that
will go by the wayside such as brilliant, genius, a brain, etc., because
they do not accurately describe reality for what it is (and will be
discussed in the chapter on education). It is absolutely true that just
as long as others judge you more beautiful or valuable when your
physiognomy conforms to an accepted standard, more educated or
valuable when you learn or do certain things, there is ample
justification to change yourself to suit them which is the reason many
people have nose operations, squeeze their teeth together, develop a
huge vocabulary, walk, talk, and act in definite ways. The individuals
who are considered educated, intelligent, or beautiful may not like to
be told that they are none of these things, but there is a big difference
between the people considered to possess these values and the ones
who do not. It is difficult to contemplate the extent to which we have
all been influenced by words that judge half of the human race as
inferior, and the consequent pain this has caused.

At long last we will be able to know ourselves for what we really
are. If any reader starts out with a feeling of superiority or inferiority
I will guarantee that when he understands all the principles — and he
will — he will end up feeling exactly equal in value with every person
alive…no better or worse. We must remember that mankind has been
developing at a mathematical rate and had to go through the necessary
stages of development in order to reach this stage of his maturity.
Man has been consciously unconscious of the reason for doing things
because of words, nothing else. Psychologists, theologians,
philosophers, as well as all others who read books but do not know the
difference between mathematical and logical relations, think that by
learning a lot of words in various combinations they have been
studying reality. But when we realize that everything had to develop
exactly the way it did, we are comforted in the knowledge that just as
these words came into existence for various reasons, they will soon
depart.

I don’t believe it is possible for me to clarify this more than
it is already by the text itself. However, I suggest this chapter should
be read and listened to several times just in case you haven’t
completely understood it. As a result of this knowledge I have
completely stopped using these words. It may be difficult for you to
stop because they are used to compliment, flatter, and to raise
ourselves by downing others. When you refer to someone as bad
looking it is equivalent to saying, “I am better looking” and most
people use everything they can to elevate their opinion of themselves
in this cruel world of words. However, you will soon see that all these
words must come to an end out of absolute necessity. Let us now
observe what must take place as we extend the knowledge of what it
means that man’s will is not free and his eyes not a sense organ into
the world of love.

[Vivisectus]

and more claims. Yup, that is a whole lot of claims alright. So can you point out the support please?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump for

Bump.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is resistance before I even finish, then that will put an end to the discussion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, but you haven't asked me to continue.

So now you expect others to beg you to continue, as if we hadn't demonstrated our masochistic tendencies already?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not god the last time I checked.

There are some who would dispute that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is resistance before I even finish, then that will put an end to the discussion.

What do you mean "if"?

[ChuckF]

Wow. I guess anybody who was not persuaded by the proof from dog eyes feels pretty silly now, having read the proof by ugly girls.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference
to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over another, but in so
far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch of objects. However,
as her eyes are focused on one of our canine friends I shall repeat the
word ‘dog’ rapidly in her ear. When she turns away I stop. This will
be continued until she looks for him when hearing the word which
indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has
been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is
formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists
in the external world. As she learns more and more words such as cat,
horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these
differences which no one can deny because they are seen through
words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various bits of
substance. This is exactly how we learn words only I am speeding up
the process.

Before long she learns house, tree, car, chair, door,
kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl,
boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she could very easily
point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the
difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be
differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been
developed. She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy,
Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam,
Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My granddaughter can identify her mother
from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is
a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not.

In other words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these differences
again she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any
picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences
that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through
taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are
related to words, names or slides that we project for recognition. If we
would lose certain names or words we would have amnesia because
when we see these ordinarily familiar differences we are unable to
project the words or names necessary for recognition.

When did these trials take place and where is the documentation of these trials? Without proper documentation these stories are just Bullshit and without any foundation, they are just the musings of a deluded old man, with no education on the relevant subjects.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

However, I suggest this chapter should
be read and listened to several times just in case you haven’t
completely understood it.

Translation - keep reading the section till you agree with it, Agreement = understanding.

[peacegirl]

I knew this was going to happen. I braced myself, and now I'm done. I've given you all what I know (to be true). Take it or leave it. There's no point in arguing. I now will only discuss for a short time Lessans' claim that we have no free will, and what this means for the benefit of all mankind. Once I'm finished this, I am completely done with this thread. I will never get into his third discovery with this group, so don't even try.

[Vivisectus]

So no, no support, just claims, take it or leave it. Okiedokie then.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Take it or leave it.

Should I take the unsupported list of dubious claims that contradict well known facts, or leave the list well alone, like all other crackpottery on the internet? What a decision!

[The Lone Ranger]

So, in all this time, you still haven't managed to come up with a single shred of actual evidence in support of these claims.

Thus, all you've got are a bunch of unsupported claims -- not "observations," much less "discoveries."

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I braced myself, and now I'm done.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew this was going to happen. I braced myself, and now I'm done.

Of course you knew what was going to happen, so did everyone else on this thread. You post bullshit on a forum populated by people who know something about science, and get called on it for not supporting it, no surprise. There was no need to brace yourself everything happened just as expected. I, for one, will be disappointed if you stop posting, it has been very amusing to read your posts and be astonished at the things you come up with. Of course your claim to be leaving is just that, an unsupported claim that like all your other claims, will never be supported or carried out.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've given you all what I know (to be true). Take it or leave it. There's no point in arguing.

I have to correct this, you don't know this to be true, you only know that your father wrote it in his book, and without support, no-one can know if any of it is true, but much of it can be shown to be wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I now will only discuss for a short time Lessans' claim that we have no free will, and what this means for the benefit of all mankind.

Good, then I can look forward to several more years of entertainment.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will never get into his third discovery with this group, so don't even try.

Now that is a disappointment, I was looking forward to several years of debate about reincarnation that is not reincarnation.

[davidm]

*Peacegirl scurries off to prepare another huge copy dump of poo-poo from Papa*

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Seymour Lessans

Take a look at this picture. It is of a girl who has an aquiline nose, buck teeth, a receding hair line, heavy bow legs, sagging breasts, a projected rear end, a hair lip, and she lisps and stutters.

[Stephen Maturin]

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew this was going to happen. I braced myself, and now I'm done. I've given you all what I know (to be true). Take it or leave it. There's no point in arguing. I now will only discuss for a short time Lessans' claim that we have no free will, and what this means for the benefit of all mankind. Once I'm finished this, I am completely done with this thread. I will never get into his third discovery with this group, so don't even try.

You could try being honest and actually answering my very relevant and applicable questions. Unless of course you're too busy with all the other highly productive discussion you are busy with right now.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Seymour Lessans

Take a look at this picture. It is of a girl who has an aquiline nose, buck teeth, a receding hair line, heavy bow legs, sagging breasts, a projected rear end, a hair lip, and she lisps and stutters.

The word, by the way, is harelip, not "hair lip."