A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You ignore me when I ask you to point out a nonsequitur. You can't even do that. You don't think people see your dishonesty?

You seem to have a problem differentiating between cannot and will not, there is a difference, especially when you have a track record of failing to understand what has been posted, or ignoring it. You have consistently dodged questions and comments, or failed to comprehend what has been posted. One thing you should consider when you make a post like you just have, lurkers can review the rest of the thread and see what has been posted, and where you have lied about what you and others have actually posted on the thread. You don't seem to realize that just because you post something does not make it so, when the previous posts still exist, and you can't edit or delete other members posts.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not about any kind of reincarnation. There is no relationship between the person who dies and the person who is born. You are so confused, it's futile for me to discuss this subject with you.

No, I'm not confused, you dimwit, you are confused. That's why I deliberately conflated "non-reincarnating" with "reincarnation," to create an oxymoron. I explained to you years ago that this is the exact same thing maintained by Clark and Stewart -- that there is no relationship between the person who dies and the person who is born. I explained this to you over and over and over -- and here you still misrepresent what I say! If you sent the sacred chapter 10 to Clark and Stewart, they would agree with it. They say the same thing. You could actually have allies, at least on this one point. Is it possible you don't want allies, because you prefer to play the martyr?

But here's what I think. You don't understand Chapter 10 either, so you can't evaluate it in relation to the writings of Clark and Stewart. You don't understand anything about what you promote. You're a fraud through and through.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never intended to mean that light is not at the eye David. That would be logically impossible, but his claim of efferent vision precludes this impossibility because light is not what is bringing the image. I refuse to continue the conversation with you.

Nope, that's exactly what he said: the eye is not a sense organ, so the light only needs to be at the object and not at the eye. This is why, according to him, if god turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, because the light is at the sun, not at the eye. And that is why, according to him, we would have to wait about eight minutes for the light to arrive on the earth in order to see our neighbors, because it would take that long for the light to arrive at the objects in question: the neighbors.

This is wrong and stupid, of course, but it is not logically impossible. What is logically impossible is your change to what he wrote -- insisting that light is instantly at the eye even though it isn't. YOU invented that, and that is indeed logically impossible.

Finally, as has been explained to you about 18,000 times by now, science does NOT say that an image travels! Light travels, and that's it.\

Anyhow, we now see conclusively that you yourself never understood "discoveries" two and three as well as failing to grasp "discovery" 1. That's why you can't recast it into a formal argument: you don't understand it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You seem to have a problem differentiating between cannot and will not, there is a difference, especially when you have a track record of failing to understand what has been posted, or ignoring it. You have consistently dodged questions and comments, or failed to comprehend what has been posted. One thing you should consider when you make a post like you just have, lurkers can review the rest of the thread and see what has been posted, and where you have lied about what you and others have actually posted on the thread. You don't seem to realize that just because you post something does not make it so, when the previous posts still exist, and you can't edit or delete other members posts.

You've convinced yourself that Lessans is wrong and you now you need to continue to bash him in order to feel right. Where is the proof that he was creating nonsequiturs? You are dodging my question and comments. Why is that? When Lessans becomes known, this thread (if it still exists) will be a true testament of my fortitude in the face of so much vitriol.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're the most corrupt individual I've ever met; using your intellect in such a deplorable way.

Aw, shucks.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How disgusting can an individual be?

Dunno. Let's find out!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot and you will not falsely accuse me of something I did not imply.

Ain't no worming your way out of this one, breh. You wrote that homosexuality is part of the environment, just like hatred, crime, poverty and war. Thus, you likened homosexuality to hatred, crime, poverty and war, exactly as I said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a jaded lawyer who has nothing better to do than to laugh at others in order to bring yourself up.

And you're a hateful bigot.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're no prince Maturin.

That's true. However, I am not a hateful bigot like you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Nope, that's exactly what he said: the eye is not a sense organ, so the light only needs to be at the object and not at the eye.

That's not right because he said "nothing other than light" in his 6th book.

Originally Posted by davidm

This is why, according to him, if god turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, because the light is at the sun, not at the eye.

It is true that the light would be at the sun, but due to efferent vision we would already be within optical range, therefore the light would be at the eye.

Originally Posted by davidm

And that is why, according to him, we would have to wait about eight minutes for the light to arrive on the earth in order to see our neighbors, because it would take that long for the light to arrive at the objects in question: the neighbors.

That is true. We could not see our neighbors yet we could see the sun. That is why we would see the Sun turned on, but not see the person next to us for 8 minutes.

Originally Posted by davidm

This is wrong and stupid, of course, but it is not logically impossible. What is logically impossible is your change to what he wrote -- insisting that light is instantly at the eye even though it isn't. YOU invented that, and that is indeed logically impossible.

It would be instantly at the eye [in the efferent account] if the conditions of size and brightness have been met.

Originally Posted by davidm

Finally, as has been explained to you about 18,000 times by now, science does NOT say that an image travels! Light travels, and that's it.

Light does travel but what Lessans is disputing is the belief that the nonabsorbed photons bounce off the object and travel through space/time until they reach the subject and get interpreted in the brain as an image.

Originally Posted by davidm

Anyhow, we now see conclusively that you yourself never understood "discoveries" two and three as well as failing to grasp "discovery" 1. That's why you can't recast it into a formal argument: you don't understand it.

That's not true. What I will not do is reduce this discovery into something so simplified that it belies its true value.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Of course you did. The post is too old to edit, so you won't be able to do a scrub-a-dub-dub like you did with your hateful anti-Muslim post.

Anti-Muslim post? What the hell!

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Ain't no worming your way out of this one, breh. You wrote that homosexuality is part of the environment, just like hatred, crime, poverty and war. Thus, you likened homosexuality to hatred, crime, poverty and war, exactly as I said.

Breh, I never included homosexuality in the same sentence as war, crime and poverty. I never wrote that homosexuality is part of the environment, just like hatred, crime, poverty and war as if to say homosexuality is on the same par as these other things. This is insane. Anyway, I already clarified what I meant and that should be good enough, but of course you will continue to press the issue because you have nothing else.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not about any kind of reincarnation. There is no relationship between the person who dies and the person who is born. You are so confused, it's futile for me to discuss this subject with you.

re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.

Decline and Fall of All
Evil
The Most Important Discovery
of Our Times
Seymour Lessans
Compiled and edited by Janis Rafael

CHAPTER TEN
OUR POSTERITY


"Wouldn’t it make
you feel wonderful to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge,
equivalent to two plus two equals four, that there is nothing to fear in
death not only because it is impossible to regret it, but primarily
because (don’t jump to any hasty conclusion) you will always be here.
We have been unable to see this hidden law because our reasoning has
prevented it. Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide
and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it
cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover
atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which
it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the
average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no
one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in
death because we will be born again and again and again."

"In reality, the conditions are exactly the same before your birth as
after your death. Since you cannot see this world through the
consciousness of another, when you die what consciousness exists
belongs to all those living. They are the ones who say him or her
because this relation is seen through their consciousness, and they are
still living. Since you are no longer conscious of your existence when
dead, and since it is mathematically impossible to see this world
through the consciousness of another, only through your own
consciousness, and since everybody who is still alive has their own
consciousness, it is obvious that the next person conceived and born
after your death is not him or her, because this can only be in relation
to your consciousness which is not here anymore once you died, but
YOU, not the person who just died, but an individual who grows and
develops and becomes conscious of his existence and individuality.
Consequently, this allows us to make an undeniable observation.
Because there is no such thing as the past, and consciousness can only
be your consciousness (never that of another) which can only exist in
the present, your consciousness, not your body, will always be here
during every moment of time because it is not a personal
characteristic like the shape of your nose, but that which applies to the
living substance of all mankind. This all pervasive consciousness can
only be your consciousness because you are an individual expression
of God’s consciousness which pervades the universe and continues to
exist in the potential of a protoplasmic state. Consequently each child
born comes into the world with this I or ego which, since it is just an
individual expression of the germinal or protoplasmic ego, continues
to exist after the body dies; and the very moment after death his ego,
the feel of himself as an individual existing which has never died
because it exists as the potential of germinal substance from which all
self consciousness is derived, is born into the viable substance of any
A and B combination."

Reincarnation does not claim any connection between the individual who dies and the individual who is born, with the exception of the transfer of a "life force" that Lessans calls "germinal substance". Essentially Lessans description of being born again and again is the same as the description of reincarnation, Peacegirl you have just failed to understand either concept.

Lessans claimed to be able to make "astute observations" that no-one else could see. I would really like to know what he was smoking or shooting up, when he made those astute observations, it must have been some really good stuff.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anti-Muslim post? What the hell!

Breh, I never included homosexuality in the same sentence as war, crime and poverty. I never wrote that homosexuality is part of the environment, just like hatred, crime, poverty and war as if to say homosexuality is on the same par as these other things. This is insane. Anyway, I already clarified what I meant and that should be good enough, but of course you will continue to press the issue because you have nothing else.

Yes, others will continue to press the issue, because you continue to lie about it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, I'm not confused, you dimwit, you are confused. That's why I deliberately conflated "non-reincarnating" with "reincarnation," to create an oxymoron. I explained to you years ago that this is the exact same thing maintained by Clark and Stewart -- that there is no relationship between the person who dies and the person who is born. I explained this to you over and over and over -- and here you still misrepresent what I say! If you sent the sacred chapter 10 to Clark and Stewart, they would agree with it. They say the same thing. You could actually have allies, at least on this one point. Is it possible you don't want allies, because you prefer to play the martyr?

But here's what I think. You don't understand Chapter 10 either, so you can't evaluate it in relation to the writings of Clark and Stewart. You don't understand anything about what you promote. You're a fraud through and through.

There was no conflating non-reincarnation with reincarnation. There were no oxymorons. If Clark and Stewart had the same discovery, great! It will help reassure a lot of people as to why there is nothing to fear in death itself, although we will always miss our loved ones who have passed on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not about any kind of reincarnation. There is no relationship between the person who dies and the person who is born. You are so confused, it's futile for me to discuss this subject with you.

re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.

Decline and Fall of All
Evil
The Most Important Discovery
of Our Times
Seymour Lessans
Compiled and edited by Janis Rafael

CHAPTER TEN
OUR POSTERITY


"Wouldn’t it make
you feel wonderful to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge,
equivalent to two plus two equals four, that there is nothing to fear in
death not only because it is impossible to regret it, but primarily
because (don’t jump to any hasty conclusion) you will always be here.
We have been unable to see this hidden law because our reasoning has
prevented it. Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide
and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it
cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover
atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which
it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the
average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no
one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in
death because we will be born again and again and again."

"In reality, the conditions are exactly the same before your birth as
after your death. Since you cannot see this world through the
consciousness of another, when you die what consciousness exists
belongs to all those living. They are the ones who say him or her
because this relation is seen through their consciousness, and they are
still living. Since you are no longer conscious of your existence when
dead, and since it is mathematically impossible to see this world
through the consciousness of another, only through your own
consciousness, and since everybody who is still alive has their own
consciousness, it is obvious that the next person conceived and born
after your death is not him or her, because this can only be in relation
to your consciousness which is not here anymore once you died, but
YOU, not the person who just died, but an individual who grows and
develops and becomes conscious of his existence and individuality.
Consequently, this allows us to make an undeniable observation.
Because there is no such thing as the past, and consciousness can only
be your consciousness (never that of another) which can only exist in
the present, your consciousness, not your body, will always be here
during every moment of time because it is not a personal
characteristic like the shape of your nose, but that which applies to the
living substance of all mankind. This all pervasive consciousness can
only be your consciousness because you are an individual expression
of God’s consciousness which pervades the universe and continues to
exist in the potential of a protoplasmic state. Consequently each child
born comes into the world with this I or ego which, since it is just an
individual expression of the germinal or protoplasmic ego, continues
to exist after the body dies; and the very moment after death his ego,
the feel of himself as an individual existing which has never died
because it exists as the potential of germinal substance from which all
self consciousness is derived, is born into the viable substance of any
A and B combination."

Originally Posted by thedoc

Reincarnation does not claim any connection between the individual who dies and the individual who is born, with the exception of the transfer of a "life force" that Lessans calls "germinal substance". Essentially Lessans description of being born again and again is the same as the description of reincarnation, Peacegirl you have just failed to understand either concept.

There is no transfer of the life force. You are using this term incorrectly and have no clue what you're talking about. Lessans is not describing reincarnation because nothing is transferred from one individual to another after death.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans claimed to be able to make "astute observations" that no-one else could see. I would really like to know what he was smoking or shooting up, when he made those astute observations, it must have been some really good stuff.

This is a difficult chapter to grasp. You have proven that you are incapable of grasping such difficult concepts. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between an individual who dies and a baby that is born. Reincarnation is the transfer of a soul from one person to another. This is not even remotely related.

re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

But here's what I think. You don't understand Chapter 10 either, so you can't evaluate it in relation to the writings of Clark and Stewart. You don't understand anything about what you promote. You're a fraud through and through.

Remember the thirty or so different answers she gave to LadyShea's straightforward and repeated inquiry about the "germinal substance"? Good times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never wrote that homosexuality is part of the environment, just like hatred, crime, poverty and war as if to say homosexuality is on the same par as these other things. This is insane.

Deny what you are if it makes you feel better about yourself, but know that you aren't fooling anyone.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I will not do is reduce this discovery into something so simplified that it belies its true value.

You could reduce Lessans book to a single blank page and that would reflect it's true value.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no transfer of the life force. You are using this term incorrectly and have no clue what you're talking about. Lessans is not describing reincarnation because nothing is transferred from one individual to another after death.

This is a difficult chapter to grasp. You have proven that you are incapable of grasping such difficult concepts. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between an individual who dies and a baby that is born. Reincarnation is the transfer of a soul from one person to another. This is not even remotely related.

re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations

Could you explain, in greater detail, what Lessans meant when he used the term germinal substance?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Remember the thirty or so different answers she gave to LadyShea's straightforward and repeated inquiry about the "germinal substance"? Good times.

Deny what you are if it makes you feel better about yourself, but know that you aren't fooling anyone.

You are an impossible person to deal with. You have an agenda, which is to derail this thread at all costs. You are so sure Lessans was wrong you feel justified in the way you are treating his memory and me. It's despicable. I can't stop you. I hope you don't regret it one day. I never wrote a sentence like the one you're describing. You have not shown it to me because it isn't there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

this thread will be a true testament of my fortitude in the face of so much vitriol.

Yes, you have certainly demonstrated your ability to play the martyr.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Could you explain, in greater detail, what Lessans meant when he used the term germinal substance?

It is the substance that carries the potential for life which is the I or ego that eventually becomes YOU.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, you have certainly demonstrated your ability to play the martyr.

Having fortitude has nothing to do with martyrdom. That is all in your head.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You could reduce Lessans book to a single blank page and that would reflect it's true value.

You're despicable.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you don't regret it one day.

Regret calling out a hateful homophobic bigot? Nope, I don't think that'll ever happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never wrote a sentence like the one you're describing.

Translation: "My hateful homophobic bigotry lost its character as hateful homophobic bigotry because I spread it out over two sentences."

show spoiler

[thedoc]

Decline and Fall of All
Evil
The Most Important Discovery
of Our Times
Seymour Lessans
Compiled and edited by Janis Rafael

CHAPTER FIVE
PREMARITAL RELATIONS

P. 138

"let me begin by defining in a mathematical,
undeniable manner what we mean exactly by the word ‘love,’ otherwise
we will be unable to have a solid basis for communication. In actual
reality the word love symbolizes a conscious or unconscious desire in
varying degrees for a sexual relation of some kind and this is easily
proven by the fact that it is impossible for a boy and girl to be
attracted to someone no matter how physically appealing this
individual might be considered if they know in advance that this
person was born without any sexual organs which knowledge makes
them aware that this anomaly of nature is incapable of giving or
receiving sexual satisfaction."

P. 151

"Since the meaning of love before intercourse takes place is the
possibility of sexual gratification,"

Lessans certainly has an interesting take on Love.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're despicable.

Can I put that on my resume?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is the substance that carries the potential for life which is the I or ego that eventually becomes YOU.

And that is just another way of saying "life force".

Prana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This might be instructive,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

[But]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Regret calling out a hateful homophobic bigot? Nope, I don't think that'll ever happen.

Translation: "My hateful homophobic bigotry lost its character as hateful homophobic bigotry because I spread it out over two sentences."

show spoiler

That makes it OK then.