A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

As usual, your reading comprension sucks. I said — and Lessans said — that we still stop blaming AFTER it is recognized that we have no free will. Also, you are lying. There is nothing in the chapters you want everyone to read, which discuss the “two-sided equation,” that talk about changing the economic system. That stuff comes LATER in the book, and the change of the economic systen is held to be a CONSEQUENCE of the change in human relations, not the CAUSE of it, as you are now implying. I am sure I understand Lessans’ book better than you do, which is why I can summarize the “discovery” and you can’t.

[Stephen Maturin]

For our trillions of lurkers, as ChuckF showed us via the clear and unequivocal prose of the Authentic Text, the discovery is actually located behind the door marked "My penis is like a phallic symbol."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

For our trillions of lurkers, as ChuckF showed us via the clear and unequivocal prose of the Authentic Text, the discovery is actually located behind the door marked "My penis is like a phallic symbol."

Indeed, this is the Allegory of the Ur-Penis, which peacegirl ham-handedly excised from the Authentic Text in pursuit of her bowdlerized version, The Corrupted Text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

As usual, your reading comprension sucks. I said — and Lessans said — that we still stop blaming AFTER it is recognized that we have no free will. Also, you are lying. There is nothing in the chapters you want everyone to read, which discuss the “two-sided equation,” that talk about changing the economic system. That stuff comes LATER in the book, and the change of the economic systen is held to be a CONSEQUENCE of the change in human relations, not the CAUSE of it, as you are now implying. I am sure I understand Lessans’ book better than you do, which is why I can summarize the “discovery” and you can’t.

My reading comprehension is fine. He did not say that we stop blaming after it is recognized we have no free will. In fact, he said that could make matters worse. He gave an example in Chapter Two where Spinoza didn’t blame his sister and was cheated out of his inheritance. He also wrote that the economic system must change BEFORE these principles can work.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He also wrote that the economic system must change BEFORE these principles can work.

There, right there. What principles? Is it impossible for you to state what principles you mean?

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

From the first thread (where it was ignored):

The more I hear about this, or rather "don't hear" about it, the more I think it's some serious bullshit.

Nor random bullshit, not mean spirited bullshit, not trickery or deceptive bullshit, but some serious bullshit.

[LarsMac]

OK, so, let me see if I have this.
The real catch in life is that we all make decisions that really aren't our decision because we really have no free will, therefore, we're not really deciding anything. We are merely doing what our programing tells us to do. So we should just accept that the guy who did us wrong really didn't mean to, because he had no free will.
So, we forgive everybody for not choosing to not do unto us, because they really have no choice in the matter.
???

What am I missing?

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

OK, so, let me see if I have this.
The real catch in life is that we all make decisions that really aren't our decision because we really have no free will, therefore, we're not really deciding anything. We are merely doing what our programing tells us to do. So we should just accept that the guy who did us wrong really didn't mean to, because he had no free will.
So, we forgive everybody for not choosing to not do unto us, because they really have no choice in the matter.
???

What am I missing?

Is that seriously the gist of it?

How hard could it be to just say that right up front?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

There, right there. What principles? Is it impossible for you to state what principles you mean?

I have explained the principles for years now. They don't want to believe he made a fantastic discovery that will change the world for the better. They would rather mock him. It's more fun. He demonstrates why will is not free because we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction or preference when comparing alternatives. It's impossible to move in the direction of what we (not others) prefer less over what we prefer more is available. This is why it's an immutable law because there are no exceptions. This is not the conventional definition of determinism which is causing great confusion: This definition states that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or external to it. We give consent to everything we do, even if it's the lesser of two evils. I already posted this excerpt. Did you read it?

Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.



That we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction along with the fact that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink) leads to the two-sided equation. It's right there in Chapter Two.

“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is
not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that
nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not
to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe what
miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to reveal a
third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay the fiery
dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my discovery, reconcile
the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other
cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Is that seriously the gist of it?

How hard could it be to just say that right up front?

Well, I don't know. I had to struggle with trying to read that stuff a few times and finally sit down with a joint or two and think some more on it, before I came up with that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

The more I hear about this, or rather "don't hear" about it, the more I think it's some serious bullshit.

Nor random bullshit, not mean spirited bullshit, not trickery or deceptive bullshit, but some serious bullshit.

Conscience does come into play under these conditions such that one cannot justify what one could justify in a free will (punitive) environment. It's actually fascinating to know that human conduct can be controlled because will is not free, the opposite of what many people believe. If will was free there would be nothing to prevent what someone wants to do, even kill people if it gives him satisfaction. Under the changed conditions, there is no satisfaction to be gotten.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained the principles for years now. They don't want to believe he made a fantastic discovery that will change the world for the better. They would rather mock him. It's more fun. He demonstrates why will is not free because we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction or preference when comparing alternatives. This is not the conventional definition which is causing great confusion:
It's the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Nothing can force us to do anything external to the will. We give consent to everything we do, even if it's the lesser of two evils. I already posted this excerpt. Did you read it?

Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.



That we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction along with the fact that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink) leads to the two-sided equation. It's right there in Chapter Two.

“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is
not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that
nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not
to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe what
miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to reveal a
third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay the fiery
dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my discovery, reconcile
the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other
cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.

OK, I see where you're trying to go with this, but I reject the basic notion that someone forcing us to do something is taking our will from us.

When you do something that someone is forcing you to do, you have decided that the action you are being forced to do is against your will and is the responsibility of that other person.
But it is not.
You have made the decision that the outcome presented by the antagonists is less painful to you than the result of you're refusing to submit.
You make the choice, and then must accept the consequences. Otherwise, you have simply sloughed off the responsibility of your actions to that other person, momentarily relieving yourself of that responsibility.
This will then leave to feel the guilt later, and then try to find another responsible party on whom to put the blame.
Accepting the responsibility frees you of that cycle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Well, I don't know. I had to struggle with trying to read that stuff a few times and finally sit down with a joint or two and think some more on it, before I came up with that.

You got it wrong. We are deciding every day all day. Maybe you should refrain from smoking when it comes to something this deep. It might backfire.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LarsMac;1391157]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained the principles for years now. They don't want to believe he made a fantastic discovery that will change the world for the better. They would rather mock him. It's more fun. He demonstrates why will is not free because we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction or preference when comparing alternatives. This is not the conventional definition which is causing great confusion:
It's the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Nothing can force us to do anything external to the will. We give consent to everything we do, even if it's the lesser of two evils. I already posted this excerpt. Did you read it?

Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.



That we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction along with the fact that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink) leads to the two-sided equation. It's right there in Chapter Two.

“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is
not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that
nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not
to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe what
miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to reveal a
third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay the fiery
dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my discovery, reconcile
the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other
cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.

Originally Posted by Lars

OK, I see where you're trying to go with this, but I reject the basic notion that someone forcing us to do something is taking our will from us.

I didn't say our will was being taken from us. I said that barring physical force (which has nothing to do with our will; it's someone else's will), our will CANNOT be taken from us. If we don't want to do something, nothing can make us do it.

Originally Posted by Lars

When you do something that someone is forcing you to do, you have decided that the action you are being forced to do is against your will and is the responsibility of that other person.
But it is not.
You have made the decision that the outcome presented by the antagonists is less painful to you than the result of you're refusing to submit.
You make the choice, and then must accept the consequences. Otherwise, you have simply sloughed off the responsibility of your actions to that other person, momentarily relieving yourself of that responsibility.
This will then leave to feel the guilt later, and then try to find another responsible party on whom to put the blame.
Accepting the responsibility frees you of that cycle.

You are close to understanding the principles, but you're not quite there yet. How could you be? This is your first time here.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

What am I missing?

Well, for one thing, Hitler and Tim McVeigh are not to blame for anything they did because their will was not free ("Would you blame a robot?" as peacegirl herself wrote).

However, ChuckF is entirely to blame for his actions/omissions in these threads because . . . reasons.

On the scientific front, "the speed of light would need to be recalculated" based on Seymour Lessans's views regarding the function of dog eyes. peacegirl has gone back and forth multiple times on the issue of recalculating light speed, and I don't know where she currently stands.

Also, there are "internet checkers" that vet online statements for accuracy and remove inaccurate statements. To her credit, peacegirl (I think) no longer believes in internet checkers.

Moreover, there's the immortality-via-pronoun-usage thing.

In the final analysis, it's not really possible to trust anything peacegirl says about her dad's writings. There are dozens of examples here of peacegirl vehemently disagreeing with direct quotes from what she claims are daddy-o's statements.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

There, right there. What principles? Is it impossible for you to state what principles you mean?

The Two-sided Equation. Chapter Two

If you want to skip parts of the chapter (which I don’t advise), go to page 77. If you have questions I’ll try to help you.


https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

[LarsMac]

[quote=peacegirl;1391159]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

I didn't say our will was being taken from us. I said that barring physical force (which has nothing to do with our will; it's someone else's will), our will CANNOT be taken from us. If we don't want to do something, nothing can make us do it.

You are close to understanding the principles, but you're not quite there yet. How could you be? This is your first time here.

Well, your daddy wasn't the first person to come up with such a line of thought, actually. He just came up with a different way of looking at it.

[davidm]

Yes, peacegirl, we get it.

Everyone is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction; hence, they have no free will.

The flip side of this is that no one can make you do, what you don’t want to do, because doing what you don’t want to do provides less satisfaction.

Hence it is pointless to blame anyone for dong something bad, because although it was bad, they thought it would provide them with greater satisfaction when they did it, hence they had to do it.

Once it is UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD (after a great transition period or whatever) that no one can be blamed for what they do because they are compelled, so to say, of their own free will to do it, everyone will stop blaming everyone else for what they do.

But once that happens, no one will strike a first blow against anyone else, because their conscience will not permit it, because striking a first blow for which they know in advance they will not be blamed or punished will provide less satisfaction than not striking the first blow.

If no one strikes a first blow, no one will retaliate, since they will have no reason to retaliate, since no first blow has been struck.

[Stephen Maturin]

Yep, after all this time it still delivers the lulz:

Then on August 13, 1979 a lawsuit, number 792103 was filed in Washington, D.C. at the United States District Court against President Carter by me. As I look back on my complaint it was equivalent to suing a psychiatrist for not allowing me to show him that his profession is coming to an end because he really doesn’t know what he is doing. Word for word, the complaint goes as follows:

The United States Government:

Because Jimmy Carter refused to grant an audience for the purpose of demonstrating how a scientific discovery can now unite all nations in a harmonious agreement that will break the vicious cycle of inflation and solve to everybody’s satisfaction the problems that are costing the people billions of dollars in rising prices and excessive taxes, and because this refusal violates my rights and his oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States which obviously includes doing everything in his power to solve these problems even to the extent of allowing someone outside the political arena to show him the answer, I, Seymour Lessans, representing the taxpayers who want to see a permanent solution, am taking Jimmy Carter to court as the only alternative to prove before 12 top ranking scientists, not political scientists, that his failure to faithfully execute his oath of office by investigating this discovery is a crime of the greatest magnitude and reason enough for the people who hired him and pay his salary to remove him from office. However, such removal is wholly unnecessary in view of the fact that no political party has the knowledge to cope with these complex problems. Therefore, if Mr. Carter will allow a demonstration in his office within 60 days from the date of this complaint, there will be no need to go to court and he will be completely amazed and pleased with the solution even though it renders obsolete the age of politics, an age of opinions and promises by politicians who are voted into office only because we didn’t know what else to do.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, peacegirl, we get it.

Everyone is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction; hence, they have no free will.

The flip side of this is that no one can make you do, what you don’t want to do, because doing what you don’t want to do provides less satisfaction.

Hence it is pointless to blame anyone for dong something bad, because although it was bad, they thought it would provide them with greater satisfaction when they did it, hence they had to do it.

Once it is UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD (after a great transition period or whatever) that no one can be blamed for what they do because they are compelled, so to say, of their own free will to do it, everyone will stop blaming everyone else for what they do.

But once that happens, no one will strike a first blow against anyone else, because their conscience will not permit it, because striking a first blow for which they know in advance they will not be blamed or punished will provide less satisfaction than not striking the first blow.

If no one strikes a first blow, no one will retaliate, since they will have no reason to retaliate, since no first blow has been struck.

And that would, indeed, be a wonderful world.
Trouble is, that there are going to be plenty of people out there who will strike the first blow just for the pure unadulterated fuck of it, without giving a shit whether it makes sense or not.


your dad had far too much faith in the common sense of the Human Animal, Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LarsMac;1391163]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, your daddy wasn't the first person to come up with such a line of thought, actually. He just came up with a different way of looking at it.

It doesn't matter if you give him credit or not. It's not about that. He said many times that this knowledge belongs to the world because it's a reality, not a figment of our imagination.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

And that would, indeed, be a wonderful world.
Trouble is, that there are going to be plenty of people out there who will strike the first blow just for the pure unadulterated fuck of it, without giving a shit whether it makes sense or not.


your dad had far too much faith in the common sense of the Human Animal, Peacegirl.

That's not true. We are all part of the laws that created us, including conscience. We cannot escape our nature, just like any species can't escape the laws that created them. When there is no justification to hurt others, the choice to do so would be out of one's reach. I know it's hard to believe because we see people hurting each other left and right. It seems like a fairy tale to believe that anything can be different. But there is a solution to the misery that humankind is experiencing and it's within reach.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yep, after all this time it still delivers the lulz:

You're pulling out all the stops in your little arsenal, but you can't hurt him no matter how hard you try. People will see through you. You're just an impotent troll who has nothing better to do than pick on people who are easy targets.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. We are all part of the laws that created us, including conscience. We cannot escape our nature, just like any species can't escape the laws that created them.

98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love

Um,...
Huh?!?