Ladyshea is not being bitter, she's being cynical. You've mentioned the trolls that come online. People turning up and pronouncing a mystery without any personal introduction are quite common too, and routinely disappointing.
I get that, but please don't put everyone in the same category, or else you'll lose the baby with the bathwater.
Asking you to say something more about yourself and to introduce the ideas briefly is, I find, a very good way of distinguishing baby from bathwater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Who was asking for a commitment?
You were, here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
but please refrain from making premature conclusions, as best as you can.
and here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
but I do require some interest. If you are interested I would not hesitate to give you the link to an amazing discovery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I was only sharing a book that is online.
But you didn't share the book. That's pretty annoying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never expected the caustic reaction I got.
Sad as it may be, I think the onus is on the poster to distinguish herself from all the woo bathwater out there when diving straight in with the message at a new forum.
Have you not found this at other forums?
Joe
What I have found on the most part are people who want me to give a synopsis of the book, which is very difficult to do. I can tell you that it is knowledge that lies locked behind determinism, but the definition the author poses is different than the conventional definition. People for the most part don't want to read anything they fear might turn out to be fraudulent.
I hope you'll stay and participate peacegirl. I guarantee your ideas will be examined and critiqued, which most scholarly types consider a good thing. As to whether you'll appreciate the criticisms or be able to handle having to defend the work, well so far I wouldn't lay odds on that.
I don't mind hanging around if people work with me by reading certain pages that I ask them to, otherwise there is absolutely no basis for communication. It would be like talking two different languages because you would be using a term one way and I another.
Feel free to copy and paste selections as well. You do own the rights, and other than copyright violations doesn't care how much of a piece you post here.
Preferably you will only quote enough to clarify things or get your point across.
You still haven't actually shared the book or the ideas within it. I'm not going to click any links that posters haven't bothered to blurb out enough for me to pique my interest.
Heck, I don't read most links or play most videos, even from people whose interactions I believe are sincere and who I respect their contributions.
So. What is so revolutionary about this thought?
What is so revolutionary is the fact that this law of our nature has the power to prevent war, crime, and hatred between men when applied on a global scale. I know this sounds crazy, but it's true. This author made this discovery back in 1959 and it took him years to understand the significance and magnitude of what he had uncovered.
First, it is imperative that you understand why man's will is not free, according to the author. Secondly, you will need to understand the other principle that leads to the core of his discovery. You will then be able to follow the extension of this principle into all areas of human interaction.
Guilty as charged. I am here to share a book and I didn't think it necessary to beat around the bush by introducing myself (which has nothing to do with the content) and doubt if it would change anyone's skepticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
People are less likely to immediately brush off ideas presented by people they know and like, just as they are more likely to be hostile to the sudden appearance of strangers selling or offering something they didn't seek. This is communicating with humans 101 stuff.
You're right about that. Coming from your perspective, it must be pretty weird to have someone come online claiming they have a book that can change the world.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Are you really surprised that you appeared to be just another nutter with an idea?
I think you are trying to help me, so thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Yes, I am surprised because I am me; I am not other people and have no idea how many others come online with big ideas that don't hold weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
This is the Internet, which you've been on a while now, apparently, and it exists on the Earth, which you have also been on for some time.
You can hardly type any single word into Google without coming across some Big Idea! From 2012 prophecies, to the Time Cube, to proposed nations where sex slavery is legal and encouraged, to quack medicine and the various Spooky Mulders. People knock on our doors with soap or salvation or Opportunities! to sell. How do you not know this?
Look, if you want to bungle around the web for a few more years hoping someone will become enlightened by osmosis, by all means continue what you are doing. If you want this idea to be seriously considered and examined by seriously smart people, pick up some basic social skills.
You may think I am a bitch, and you might be right depending on your definition of bitch, but I am actually trying to help you.
I don't think you're a bitch now that I've come to know you a little bit better.
What is so revolutionary is the fact that this law of our nature has the power to prevent war, crime, and hatred between men when applied on a global scale.
If it has to be understood and applied, is it really a "law of our nature"? How would one go about "applying" it to others? What if someone doesn't want to apply it?
I had a scan through, and so far it is not very promising. Determinism leads to a logical lack of blame, and since all human actions are ultimately deterministic, we would no longer need such things as blame. All that needs to happen is for everyone to feel that all actions are determined, and all evil will work itself out because we learn to see them as determined reactions to stimuli, not as evil.
Wrong, you cannot scan this book and think you have understood it. It's impossible. Do you understand why man's will is not free, according the definition being presented? Do you know what the two-sided equation is? If you can't answer these pivotal questions, you cannot give an accurate review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivsectus
This person has obviously never lived in a real-life commune. The problem is that you can have the most marvelous system, but unfortunately a single jerk can bring a system full of idealists to a grinding halt and ruin the whole show.
This is not about idealism, nor could a person bring this system down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivsectus
Also, this system does not account for the variance in natures that you see in the human condition - deterministic or not, all people are not the same. This is not determined by their environment alone, but by a combination of environment and their genetic make-up.
That is true, but the conditions of the environment can be changed in such a way that the desire to hurt others is prevented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivsectus
Criticism - this takes the author 62 pages of woolly prose. There is a lot of talk that rejecting his ideas mean that you have a closed mind - something of which I will probably soon be accused.
No, it is just pointing out how some people respond. That is why the introduction was necessary so that the people who have a closed mind need not read the book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivsectus
My conclusion so far is that this is woo woo. I may look at it later, possibly as an antidote to insomnia.
Your conclusion is based on absolutely nothing. I urge you to carefully read the first two chapters before any other reading is done, which the author stressed; or don't read the book at all which is okay with me. But please don't read the book in a haphazard fashion because many things will be taken out of context and you will have more reason to criticize that which you don't understand.
You still haven't actually shared the book or the ideas within it. I'm not going to click any links that posters haven't bothered to blurb out enough for me to pique my interest.
Heck, I don't read most links or play most videos, even from people whose interactions I believe are sincere and who I respect their contributions.
So. What is so revolutionary about this thought?
What is so revolutionary is the fact that this law of our nature (emphasis added)
What law of our nature?
Quote:
has the power to prevent war, crime, and hatred between men when applied on a global scale.
Yeah, but what about the wimmins?
Quote:
I know this sounds crazy, but it's true.
WHAT sounds crazy? What war, crime, or hatred has it prevented to date?
Quote:
This author made this discovery back in 1959 and it took him years to understand the significance and magnitude of what he had uncovered.
What author? What significance? What magnitude?
Quote:
First, it is imperative that you understand why man's will is not free, according to the author.
So, why is man's will not free?
Quote:
Secondly, you will need to understand the other principle that leads to the core of his discovery.
What other principle?
Here is something that might help you when you are talking to people:
Quote:
1de·tail
noun di-ˈtāl, ˈdē-ˌtāl
Definition of DETAIL
1
: extended treatment of or attention to particular items
I'm not going to read the book or click the link (thanks, LS). You can either show your work or go away. Or you can stay and be vague. Whatever. I'm here because I am interested in discussions with some other posters. If I wanted to read books or articles, listen to music, or watch videos, I would go to sites about that. Bring your discussion here.
This vagueness is not increasing my interest in this idea. It is annoying.
There is a lot of talk that rejecting his ideas mean that you have a closed mind
That's one of the hallmarks of woo right there.
To me, an open mind is not trying to interject one's ideas into what one is reading, but reading to understand what the author is saying. It is not an easy subject to begin with, so it was necessary to preface this work this way.
When all you provide is a cart, it is rather hard to put a horse behind it.
--J.D.
I liked that. The reason I didn't come right out and give the link is because on a few other websites the link has been removed unless I have given at least 2 or more posts, or if someone asks me for the link. Some administrators definitely consider that spam, which is unfortunate.
Oh look, a clue-by -four. They consider it spam because it looks just like spam. Maybe you should consider a tactic change.
That is why I was waiting for anyone to show interest before putting some unknown link on my first post.
I can but I think it would confuse people. I am asking anyone who is interested in participating to read pages 46-59. That would give us a way to begin the discussion. I am not asking people to read 500 pages, just 13 to start. Is that reasonable?
You still haven't actually shared the book or the ideas within it. I'm not going to click any links that posters haven't bothered to blurb out enough for me to pique my interest.
Heck, I don't read most links or play most videos, even from people whose interactions I believe are sincere and who I respect their contributions.
So. What is so revolutionary about this thought?
What is so revolutionary is the fact that this law of our nature (emphasis added)
What law of our nature?
Quote:
has the power to prevent war, crime, and hatred between men when applied on a global scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Yeah, but what about the wimmins?
Sorry if I'm not always politically correct.
Quote:
I know this sounds crazy, but it's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
WHAT sounds crazy? What war, crime, or hatred has it prevented to date?
None, because this discovery has not been studied by scientists that could confirm its validity.
Quote:
This author made this discovery back in 1959 and it took him years to understand the significance and magnitude of what he had uncovered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
What author? What significance? What magnitude?
Lessans is the author. The significance and magnitude of what this law of our nature is able to accomplish once it becomes a permanent condition of the environment.
Quote:
First, it is imperative that you understand why man's will is not free, according to the author.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
So, why is man's will not free?
That's why you need to read pages 46-58. He spells it out very clearly. Once you read this, I can answer you in a way that will hopefully make sense.
Quote:
Secondly, you will need to understand the other principle that leads to the core of his discovery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilderness
What other principle?
That nothing can make man do anything against his will. Most people think that this is what gives man free will, but that is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Here is something that might help you when you are talking to people:
Quote:
1de·tail
noun di-ˈtāl, ˈdē-ˌtāl
Definition of DETAIL
1
: extended treatment of or attention to particular items
I'm not going to read the book or click the link (thanks, LS). You can either show your work or go away. Or you can stay and be vague. Whatever. I'm here because I am interested in discussions with some other posters. If I wanted to read books or articles, listen to music, or watch videos, I would go to sites about that. Bring your discussion here.
This vagueness is not increasing my interest in this idea. It is annoying.
I have been there and done that, and I cannot discuss the principles of this book without an underlying understanding of what he means by certain terms. It is exhausting to paraphrase what he very succinctly explained. It's up to you if you want to read the book. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't him drink.
The reason I didn't come right out and give the link is because on a few other websites the link has been removed unless I have given at least 2 or more posts, or if someone asks me for the link. Some administrators definitely consider that spam, which is unfortunate.
Just for the record, we only prohibit commercial spam, so you were never in danger of being banned here. I'm actually quite pleased to find someone promoting a pet philosophy who actually wants to stay and talk about it instead of posting and running.
Don't you think it's deceptive for you, though, to be intentionally coy about your link just so you can squeeze under a forum's spam barrier? If you know they would consider your posts spam, why post at all?
I read the pages you suggested peacegirl. So, now can we discuss your thoughts on it? Obviously you are seeing something really profound, to have spent so much time compiling and editing and promoting.
Just for the record, we only prohibit commercial spam, so you were never in danger of being banned here. I'm actually quite pleased to find someone promoting a pet philosophy who actually wants to stay and talk about it instead of posting and running.
I have only read one paragraph and I swear to all that's good and pure, if someone doesn't correct the word in bold below like right now there'll be hell to pay!
Quote:
Since time immemorial the two opposing forces of good and evil
compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God
responsible for all the good in the world and Satin responsible for the
evil (...)
I had a scan through, and so far it is not very promising. Determinism leads to a logical lack of blame, and since all human actions are ultimately deterministic, we would no longer need such things as blame. All that needs to happen is for everyone to feel that all actions are determined, and all evil will work itself out because we learn to see them as determined reactions to stimuli, not as evil.
Wrong, you cannot scan this book and think you have understood it. It's impossible. Do you understand why man's will is not free, according the definition being presented? Do you know what the two-sided equation is? If you can't answer these pivotal questions, you cannot give an accurate review.
People keep telling me that about books lately. Yes I do, actually, I just do not agree that what he says follows, follows. Nor do I agree that in a blameless society the desire to hurt will disappear.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivsectus
This person has obviously never lived in a real-life commune. The problem is that you can have the most marvelous system, but unfortunately a single jerk can bring a system full of idealists to a grinding halt and ruin the whole show.
This is not about idealism, nor could a person bring this system down.
I disagree. A single person who develops, say, a desire for rape and subjugation can wreak havoc on it. You can say that such a person will simply not occur in your system, but this is a moot point as it will have to start with them already on it (nor do I believe that they would not arise.)
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivsectus
Also, this system does not account for the variance in natures that you see in the human condition - deterministic or not, all people are not the same. This is not determined by their environment alone, but by a combination of environment and their genetic make-up.
That is true, but the conditions of the environment can be changed in such a way that the desire to hurt others is prevented.
This does not change the nature of people. Some people derive pleasure out of hurting others, not because of environmental reasons, but for physical ones. Determinism is admitting that our thoughts are the expression of brain chemistry - this can be abnormal in many ways and for many reasons.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivsectus
Criticism - this takes the author 62 pages of woolly prose. There is a lot of talk that rejecting his ideas mean that you have a closed mind - something of which I will probably soon be accused.
No, it is just pointing out how some people respond. That is why the introduction was necessary so that the people who have a closed mind need not read the book.
Well, it frustrated the hell out of me. I was internally shouting at the pages saying "yes yes yes i KNOW what determinism means, get on with it!"
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivsectus
My conclusion so far is that this is woo woo. I may look at it later, possibly as an antidote to insomnia.
Your conclusion is based on absolutely nothing. I urge you to carefully read the first two chapters before any other reading is done, which the author stressed; or don't read the book at all which is okay with me. But please don't read the book in a haphazard fashion because many things will be taken out of context and you will have more reason to criticize that which you don't understand.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough - here is what I gather from the first 2 chapters after a slow read.
Once we accept determinism on the authors terms, blame becomes useless for man has no free will. This does not negate responsibility, but it simply acknowledges the fact that we do not choose our preferences.
If everyone accepted this, then it should remove all satisfaction derived from wrong-doing. You know that all hurt you cause, you cause yourself because no-one can make you do so. You also know that anyone who hurts you does so because their will is not free. There is no blame, nothing is making you do deleterious things.
It seems to hinge on this scenario, in which we are contemplating person a moving over to person b to accupy the space they occupy. This action will hurt person b.
Quote:
Remember now, you haven’t hurt me
yet, and you know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing,
no one can compel you to hurt me unless you want to, for over this
you have mathematical control; consequently, your motion from here
to there, your decision as to what is better for yourself, is still a choice
between two alternatives — to hurt me or not to hurt me. But the
moment it fully dawns on you that this hurt to me, should you go
ahead with it, will not be blamed in any way because no one wants to
77hurt you for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond
your control, ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND
YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN
FORCE YOU TO HURT ME AGAINST YOUR WILL —
UNLESS YOU WANT TO — you are compelled, completely of
your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me
because it can never satisfy you to do so under these changed
conditions.
This only applies to someone with a brain chemistry that matches the writer, who is obviously a nice, kind and gentle man. I however have 2 objections: moving into this system, you will start with a fair amount of people who are none of the above. Also, there is no guarantee that no people with a desire to hurt other people will arise.
Imagine the above scenario, only turn person B into a small child and person A into a pedophile. It immediately becomes clear that there is a huge payoff for person A to hurt person B, because of the sexual satisfaction it would bring. The knowledge that this is choosing to hurt that person would not change a lot - many pedophiles know perfectly well that their desires lead to pain.
The lack of blame would not work either, because it is not retaliation that keeps this problem going, it is some sort of environmentally or otherwise induced abnormality in their brain chemistry.
It sounds lovely, but I am of the opinion it is doomed to fail, and I think there is a good reason the glorious revolution never happened.
Re: A revolution in thought
doesn't care how much of a piece you post here.
The reason I didn't come right out and give the link is because on a few other websites the link has been removed unless I have given at least 2 or more posts, or if someone asks me for the link. Some administrators definitely consider that spam, which is unfortunate.
Linear Mode
