A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by fragment

No.

But it doesn't matter, allow me to ask a modified question.

How can someone have a "burden of responsibility" "when a more satisfying option is available"?

They would have the burden of responsibility if that’s what they volunteered for. By shirking it they would be hurting those who depended on them as in the previous example. Just as in the world we are living, making a commitment to do something and then fail to deliver would cause most people to have a twinge of conscience. It would just be even stronger under the changed conditions knowing that nobody would blame them for this failure because they would know what they did was beyond their control. IOW, a more satisfying option (i.e. the option to walk away from what they know is their responsibility) would give them no satisfaction at all and therefore impossible to choose.

[peacegirl]

I hope people disregard the jokes that ruined this thread. Think about it. If we could even prevent teen suicides as a result of the horrible things said on social media, wouldn’t you want to prevent this? It’s a no brainer.

[davidm]

OK, peacegirl, work with me now, and we’ll get three succinct paragraphs that sum up the discovery nicely, with an addendum that for full details, please read the book.

I realize this is made a little harder as we will be workng off the Corrupted Text, rather than the Authentic Text, of which, as we all know, ChuckF is the True Steward. Still, I’d say the task is doable, even if somewhat Sisyphean in its rock-rolling monotony.

However, for the addendum, we should point to the Authentic Text for the relevant explication.

#TrueStewardship

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

OK, peacegirl, work with me now, and we’ll get three succinct paragraphs that sum up the discovery nicely, with an addendum that for full details, please read the book.

I realize this is made a little harder as we will be workng off the Corrupted Text, rather than the Authentic Text, of which, as we all know, ChuckF is the True Steward. Still, I’d say the task is doable, even if somewhat Sisyphean in its rock-rolling monotony.

However, for the addendum, we should point to the Authentic Text for the relevant explication.

#TrueStewardship

I am giving you grace for your lack of understanding. It’s okay. You can move on without giving this thread another thought. You have my blessing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am giving you grace for your lack of understanding. It’s okay. You can move on without giving this thread another thought. You have my blessing.

I’m going to produce the paragraphs anyway, and they’ll be absoolutely “spot-on” correct, to borrow your own lingo — indeed, my summary upthread was already correct — and still you won’t agree that what I write is correct, because of the giant chip on your shoulder and also because you’ve been corrupted by the Corrupted Text. But help is nigh, peacegirl — I sugget you get in touch with ChuckF, the true steward of the Authentic Text, who will help you see the light.

#TrueStewardship

[davidm]

Incidentally, my aunt is still pissed at you for murdering her beloved Manchester terrier, Adolf. She expects some monetary recompense from you.

[LarsMac]

Well, I reckon I've seen all I need to see here.
Y'all have a nice day.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

She expects some monetary recompense from you.

Dewey, Cheatham & Howe, LLP

Motto: "If we don't win your case, we'll eat a bug!"

[davidm]

OK, peacegirl, I punched my summary up a bit. See what you think:

We are always moving in the direction of look, here comes a rabbi, hence we have no free will, because we are not free to choose the course of less juicy, juicy cunt. However, this also means no one can make us do what we don’t want to inverse square, because the light is at our eyes even before it gets there.

We often find greater satisfaction in giving a blow job if we are one of three categories of homos, or in juicy, juicy cunt if we are not. Hence, we must strike a first blow or lash out in retaliation for any idiot nonsense babble about light. (We must do these things, because they give us more juicy, juicy cunt and look, here comes a rabbi.) But, once it is recognized we have no free will, we will stop blaming and punishing people for striking a first blow and instead all young people will go about scantily clad and get married for life to the first one they have sex with.

Once it is universally understood that no one will be blamed or punished for juicy, juicy cunt, no one will want to strike rabbi, because striking a rabbi prevents him from being beaten in a debate by Seymour Lessans. This is because our conscience will not permit us to share a bed if we are married. Indeed, after the Great Transition, dogs will stop trying to recognize their masters by sight alone and environmental homos will stop giving blow jobs, since for them light is at their eyes even before it gets there. At this point world peace will reign.

Is that better?

Keep in mind that I’m actually trying to help you craft a succinct, two- or three-paragraph summary of the “discovery” that you can use in the future during your apparent campaign to post on every message board forum in existence. Of course, at all these boards, you always get the same question — “can you summarize the discovery?” — and you are never able to do it. Pease don’t protest that the “discovery” cannot be summarized, because of course it can. The main points of the most difficult stuff ever invented or discovered, like calculus or quantum mechanics, can be summarized. So you can work with me to craft a concise explanation of Lessans’ work, or I can go back to making fun of your posts as the mood strikes me. It’s your choice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

OK, peacegirl, I punched my summary up a bit. See what you think:

We are always moving in the direction of look, here comes a rabbi, hence we have no free will, because we are not free to choose the course of less juicy, juicy cunt. However, this also means no one can make us do what we don’t want to inverse square, because the light is at our eyes even before it gets there.

We often find greater satisfaction in giving a blow job if we are one of three categories of homos, or in juicy, juicy cunt if we are not. Hence, we must strike a first blow or lash out in retaliation for any idiot nonsense babble about light. (We must do these things, because they give us more juicy, juicy cunt and look, here comes a rabbi.) But, once it is recognized we have no free will, we will stop blaming and punishing people for striking a first blow and instead all young people will go about scantily clad and get married for life to the first one they have sex with.

Once it is universally understood that no one will be blamed or punished for juicy, juicy cunt, no one will want to strike rabbi, because striking a rabbi prevents him from being beaten in a debate by Seymour Lessans. This is because our conscience will not permit us to share a bed if we are married. Indeed, after the Great Transition, dogs will stop trying to recognize their masters by sight alone and environmental homos will stop giving blow jobs, since for them light is at their eyes even before it gets there. At this point world peace will reign.

Is that better?

Keep in mind that I’m actually trying to help you craft a succinct, two- or three-paragraph summary of the “discovery” that you can use in the future during your apparent campaign to post on every message board forum in existence. Of course, at all these boards, you always get the same question — “can you summarize the discovery?” — and you are never able to do it. Pease don’t protest that the “discovery” cannot be summarized, because of course it can. The main points of the most difficult stuff ever invented or discovered, like calculus or quantum mechanics, can be summarized. So you can work with me to craft a concise explanation of Lessans’ work, or I can go back to making fun of your posts as the mood strikes me. It’s your choice.

The people in this thread already made up their mind and they are compelled to mock me until this discovery is recognized. Then they'll STFU! This started because you didn't like his claim regarding the eyes. You've decided to now laugh at anything and everything he's written. The chapter on love was just an extension of the principles. He was showing that making a partner obligated can ruin the very thing they want, which is to keep the love they had when they first wed. He used humor to create a scenario where love went out the window and how the couple got it back. It served its purpose. I was trying to check something on my computer and linked to this forum. I saw that someone new couldn't make headway from this long thread so I came on to give him a link. I have no desire to hear the same boring insults and mockery all over again. Won't happen.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no desire to hear the same boring insults and mockery all over again. Won't happen.

That's a good attitude. I'd be happier for you if you don't engage the people who are causing you so much grief, including me.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The burden of responsibility is on the reader to meet the author half way.

What a vile and hateful corruption. peacegirl is simply engaging in advance blame of the reader.



peacegirl, we who interpret the Authentic Text reject your blame, and extend to you this magic elixir (call it what you will - corollary, slide rule, or basic principle - THOU SHALL NOT BLAME) and urge you transmute the baser metals of your blameful nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The people in this thread already made up their mind and they are compelled to mock me until this discovery is recognized.

Not me. I tried reading the pdf file, but gave up after a few minutes. There was far too much Hubris to wade through.

If you, yes you, would just post the main idea, it would be a great help. If you can't do that, in this thread, right now, there is zero chance that I will ever know what it is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no desire to hear the same boring insults and mockery all over again. Won't happen.

That's a different story. The usual suspects here are all about insults, and some sort of group mob behavior. It's disgusting, or comical, depending on your point of view.

Since the mob here also believes a man becomes a woman (by just declaring it to be true), I wouldn't put too much energy into their opinions. They are obviously either insane, trolling or delusional.




(pause)




See? Here is a succinct summary anyone can read ---> "Since the mob here also believes a man becomes a woman (by just declaring it to be true), I wouldn't put too much energy into their opinions. They are obviously either insane, trolling or delusional."

If you would post whatever revolution in thought you care about, in this thread, right now, it would give me a reason to read on.


If you do anything else, other than that, you are a waster of time. (which is not a bad thing, but if that is the case, you need to be funny)

[davidm]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Since the mob here also believes a man becomes a woman (by just declaring it to be true) …

Since I am pretty sure no one here believes this, you are stuffing straw and trolling, as usual.

As to your request of her to summarize the discovery, she has been unable to do so since 2011 on this forum, and long before that on other forums. I have summarized it for her, yet she rejects the summary. But I have read her father’s book and my summary is absoloutely accurate. Here it is again:

We are always moving in the direction of what we perceive to be greater satisfaction, hence we have no free will, because we are not free to choose the course of less satisfaction. However, this also means no one can make us do what we don’t want to do, because what we don’t want to do is invariably what we find less satisfying.

We often find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow against someone, or in lashing out at someone who has hurt us. Hence, we must strike a first blow or lash out in retaliation for any harm done us (we must do these things, because they give us greater satisfaction and we have no free will). But, once it is recognized we have no free will, we will stop blaming and punishing people for striking a first blow or lashing out in retaliation, because we know they can’t help themselves.

Once it is universally understood that no one will be blamed or punished for striking a first blow or for retaliating, no one will want to do those things, because striking a first blow or retaliating will provide less satisfaction than refraining from these activities. This is because our conscience will not permit us to strike a first blow or retaliate if we know in advance we will not be blamed or punished for doing so. Indeed, once people stop striking a first blow, retaliation will be superfluous anyway, since there will be nothing to retaliate against. At this point world peace will reign.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Since I am pretty sure no one here believes this, you are stuffing straw and trolling, as usual.

As to your request of her to summarize the discovery, she has been unable to do so since 2011 on this forum, and long before that on other forums. I have summarized it for her, yet she rejects the summary. But I have read her father’s book and my summary is absoloutely accurate. Here it is again:

We are always moving in the direction of what we perceive to be greater satisfaction, hence we have no free will, because we are not free to choose the course of less satisfaction. However, this also means no one can make us do what we don’t want to do, because what we don’t want to do is invariably what we find less satisfying.

We often find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow against someone, or in lashing out at someone who has hurt us. Hence, we must strike a first blow or lash out in retaliation for any harm done us (we must do these things, because they give us greater satisfaction and we have no free will). But, once it is recognized we have no free will, we will stop blaming and punishing people for striking a first blow or lashing out in retaliation, because we know they can’t help themselves.

Once it is universally understood that no one will be blamed or punished for striking a first blow or for retaliating, no one will want to do those things, because striking a first blow or retaliating will provide less satisfaction than refraining from these activities. This is because our conscience will not permit us to strike a first blow or retaliate if we know in advance we will not be blamed or punished for doing so. Indeed, once people stop striking a first blow, retaliation will be superfluous anyway, since there will be nothing to retaliate against. At this point world peace will reign.

Terrible summary. Stop misleading people David.

[peacegirl]

FX, this is for you and any guest who recognize trolls. I am not going to pursue a discussion here for obvious reasons. If anyone finds this discovery interesting, I hope you learn more. This has been a tough learning experience for me, but it taught me how cruel people can be when unleashed in an "anything goes" venue.

Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought eBook Sample - Decline and Fall of All Evil

https://www.declineandfallofallevil....-8-26-2019.pdf

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Terrible summary. Stop misleading people David.

No, it’s not terrible, and you know it’s not. You even said earlier that parts of it were fine. Even YOU had to admit that. You just don’t want me, or ANYONE, to nail the nut of the book, because then you can’t play the great martyr possessing secret, mystical, hermetic knowledge that no one but you and Dad are smart enogh to understand. Your whole schtick is entirely self-defeating. Don’t you think fX just noticed how you FAILED TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY FOR HIM? But I just did, and it’s accurate, and yet you reject it because you can’t help yourself. I guess you’re “compelled of your own free will” to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is to sabotage yourself.

If you were TRULY interested in putting forth this knowledge, you would accept my SINCERE invitation to work with me to cobble together a summary that you find to be correct, one that you can use in the future when people ask you the inevitable question, as FX just did: Can you summarize the main goddamn point of the work for me? You already upthread agreed that some parts of my my summary were fine. When you criticized the rest, you did so inaccurtately, as I pointed out in another post, to which you never directly responded. So woirk with ne, and let’s get the language right.

Remember: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS CONSTANTLY ASKING OTHERS TO SUMMARIZE THE MAIN POINT OF THE BOOK FOR YOU. How in hell can you ask others to do that, when you can’t do it yourself?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, it’s not terrible, and you know it’s not. You even said earlier that parts of it were fine. Even YOU had to admit that. You just don’t want me, or ANYONE, to nail the nut of the book, because then you can’t play the great martyr possessing secret, mystical, hermetic knowledge that no one but you and Dad are smart enogh to understand. Your whole schtick is entirely self-defeating. Don’t you think fX just noticed how you FAILED TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY FOR HIM? But I just did, and it’s accurate, and yet you reject it because you can’t help yourself. I guess you’re “compelled of your own free will” to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is to sabotage yourself.

If you were TRULY interested in putting forth this knowledge, you would accept my SINCERE invitation to work with me to cobble together a summary that you find to be correct, one that you can use in the future when people ask you the inevitable question, as FX just did: Can you summarize the main goddamn point of the work for me? You already upthread agreed that some parts of my my summary were fine. When you criticized the rest, you did so inaccurtately, as I pointed out in another post, to which you never directly responded. So woirk with ne, and let’s get the language right.

Remember: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS CONSTANTLY ASKING OTHERS TO SUMMARIZE THE MAIN POINT OF THE BOOK FOR YOU. How in hell can you ask others to do that, when you can’t do it yourself?

Stop with your poor me. I don't believe you are honest in your desire to understand this knowledge. You didn't like his claims since day one, so you created lulz at my expense. Yes, I am compelled, of my own free will (this is not a contradiction unbeknownst to you), to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not to give anymore of my precious time to the trolls in this thread. No one, not even Einstein himself, could deal with you people.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

FX, this is for you and any guest who recognize trolls. I am not going to pursue a discussion here for obvious reasons. If anyone finds this discovery interesting, I hope you learn more.

If you can't be bothered to post it, then you are just a waste of time. I don't care if you copy and paste it, that you simply won't put what you think is so important in your post, that's enough to simply move forward, and never think about it again.

I'm not mocking or rejecting anything, because you literally put nothing in your post. There is nothing there.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop with your poor me. I don't believe you are honest in your desire to understand this knowledge. You didn't like his claims since day one, so you created lulz at my expense. Yes, I am compelled, of my own free will (this is not a contradiction unbeknownst to you), to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not to give anymore of my precious time to the trolls in this thread. No one, not even Einstein himself, could deal with you people.

LOL, what “poor me,” you idiot? I am trying to help you because it amuses me to see that I can do, what you cannot: Explain your father’s work! I know EXACTLY what Lessans means by his “compelled of my own free will,” even though it’s an idiotic choice of words. He means just what I said he means, that we are compelled always to move in the direction of greter satisfasction, but the flip side of this is that no one can make us do, what we don’t want to do, because what we don’t want to do is less satsfiying. Of course that’s it, and you know it!

[Sock Puppet]

Perhaps a haiku?

We blame and strike blows,
Compelled, though we could stop, and
Trust our eyes too much.

[Stephen Maturin]

Needs moar dogs, but a damned fine effort!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Not me. I tried reading the pdf file, but gave up after a few minutes. There was far too much Hubris to wade through.

If you, yes you, would just post the main idea, it would be a great help. If you can't do that, in this thread, right now, there is zero chance that I will ever know what it is.

-FX- makes a damned fine point here, peacegirl. This is an issue you've had since at least 2002 when you were posting at that old Graveyard of the Gods forum. You've had the same issue everywhere you've posted from those days to these. And yet, so far as I can tell, you've never even acknowledged the issue, much less attempted to remedy it.

It's long past time that you asked yourself, what is the common factor in all the many message board experiences you have had during your lengthy online sojourn to bring your compilation of Seymour's books to light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no desire to hear the same boring insults and mockery all over again. Won't happen.

That's good, and you're quite right. There's no "headway" to be made here. Per the unconscious playbook you've apparently always followed, you started pissing in the proverbial punchbowl as soon as you arrived here. The results were, well, identical to every other location at which you followed the unconscious playbook. Why you kept coming back for more - here and elsewhere - remains a mystery to me. A mere martyrdom complex and/or psychological need to be on the business end of verbal abuse simply doesn't cut it explanation-wise in your case.

Well, no matter, really. You're not staying, so we won't have Dick Nixon peacegirl to kick around anymore.

And yet . . .

[davidm]

Dogs can’t recognize
Masters by sight, but photons
Are faster than light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

If you can't be bothered to post it, then you are just a waste of time. I don't care if you copy and paste it, that you simply won't put what you think is so important in your post, that's enough to simply move forward, and never think about it again.

I'm not mocking or rejecting anything, because you literally put nothing in your post. There is nothing there.

FX, I made the right decision. As soon as you showed a disinterest, Chuck and Maturin come in for the kill. I gave you the link to the audio and the 3 chapters of Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought. That should be enough to get a feel of what this is about. The discovery lies behind the door marked man’s will is not free. David’s synopsis made it seem that if we stop blaming, we will suddenly have world peace. Do you see how dumb that sounds? I don’t know if he wrote that as a joke but I wouldn’t put it past him. That is not how world peace will be achieved without major changes to the economic system.