A revolution in thought

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When someone tells me I am wrong just because...I can't deal with it.

No one has told you that you are wrong 'just because.' Evidence and explanations that demonstrate which points are wrong and why has been provided at every turn, despite your obstinate refusal to do the same.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you say that you totally got Chapter Two, and you are absolutely convinced it is wrong, then there is nothing more we can discuss because your mind is made up. If you say you aren't sure that what you got is a complete understanding, then we have something left to talk about.

This doesn't strike me as a very pragmatic requirement for the discussion of a philosophical idea, especially not one that is labeled by its proponents as 'revolutionary.' More importantly, this is the direct opposite of how the discussion of a new scientific idea works. When you discover a new fact or explanation in science, you've got to be prepared to defend that and advocate it even in the face of people who do not want to be convinced, who do not want to believe what you're telling them. You have to be able to convince them anyway. That's where evidence comes in, which you have refused to supply or have admitted you don't have at every turn.

Nor is any presented in the work directly, at least not in any of the portions I or others have read,* we are only given assertions and 'observations' stated as incontrovertible, undeniable fact, even when they are flatly contradicted by actual evidence. Do you see why everyone is so frustrated by your behavior here, by your repetition in the face of questions and criticism?

*While I realize that ideally this should have no bearing on the perceived validity of a new idea, I cannot express strongly enough just how poorly written this work is. If there is a world-changing idea hiding in there somewhere, an editor is desperately needed if there is any hope of it reaching and being appreciated by a broader audience.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you now saying that words like beautiful and ugly people are accurate descriptors?

They are accurate descriptors of one's subjective mental experience-being pleased or displeased by what they are seeing or hearing or feeling. That's what I have been saying all along.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I question you for your actions, what is the first thing you do? Come up with an excuse. Do you disagree with this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm not talking about you personally. I am saying this is a psychological dynamic that people often use when the authorities question their actions.

I didn't think you were talking about me personally.

You used a very general "you" as if you think coming up with excuses is the default go to for most people. You have generalized about a lot of traits, such as prioritizing acceptance and having a fragile self image, and I think you believe more people have these traits than actually do.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it isn't a descriptor of a subjective experience, that's just the point. The experience has been manipulated.

I disagree.

It is a subjective experience, one of the individual subject being pleased when seeing or sensing something . I have supported my position, can you support yours?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can't be because the word itself creates a standard for everyone.

No, it doesn't. Nothing in the definition of the word has anything to do with standards for everyone, and nobody in my experience feels the word beautiful is anything but subjective.

How in the world do you justify making such broad generalizations, especially when you have zero supporting evidence?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You may feel it's subjective, but it's not.

It is. It is subjective in both definition and in common use

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it was truly subjective, you wouldn't have been conditioned already. None of us can remove ourselves from this conditioning.

Evidence that I have been conditioned?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You are broadly applying to all people his observations when they are based on a tiny sampling of people. You are inappropriately generalizing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not even going to respond to that.

Why not? I think it's a fair point that the author was extrapolating from his insignificant sampling of people, to all people. You even go on to say he was observing "How the brain works in general".

Do you understand why generalization is fallacious reasoning?

A conclusion drawn from an insufficient number of facts, instances, examples, or statistics results in an error of reasoning.source

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As much as I appreciate your questions, that remark is below the belt. He is doing no such thing.

Yes, he is. It is not below the belt, it is an astute observation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, people think that certain concepts are real because they give it a name. They take for granted that heaven and hell exist, or that we have souls and spirits. These words do not represent anything in the real world, and yet many believe they have absolute existence.

Naming a concept doesn't necessarily mean people think they're real. Sure, some people believe some named concepts are real, and they may think an equal number of named concepts are not real.

I do not think God is real, but most people, including the author apparently, think the word God represents an actual thing. Those same people probably do not think The Flying Purple People Eater is real, even though it has been given a name.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it existed externally, we wouldn't be conditioned by the word itself. The light would bounce off of this beautiful person and would be seen as an image in the brain. If you really want to understand what he's saying, you need to read this chapter again. I can't keep repeating myself. I'm sure I'm boring a lot of people.

Well I am not returning to the source of the confusion again and again and you are either unwilling or unable to explain the concept in a way that makes any sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He observed how the brain functions in general.

How exactly is that done?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that children in this society feel so insecure, that if you don't tell them they look beautiful, they would begin to doubt themselves.

You don't know that is true for children in general. You can't even know that is true for any number of children. You may think it, you may believe it, it may be self evident to you, but none of those things make it a true statement.

Are you starting to see, AT ALL, why we need evidence? Anyone can assert anything they want, but without evidence, or even well reasoned logical support, it's no more important than an opinion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have read the first two chapters and I have done so carefully - and I have shown you my conclusion. I am not aware of any text in the first two chapters that deals with this objection.

Can you show me where and how I am wrong.

He observed that people always need a justification when it comes to hurting someone but it's not always easy to see. If someone hurts someone unintentionally, they don't need a justification because they didn't realize it was a hurt. Often, people who hurt other people for no good reason appear to have no justification for doing this. But if you trace back far enough, the justification will be uncovered. For example, men that rape women don't appear to have a justification. They are just monsters in the eyes of society. Their justification may stem from hatred for their mothers for abusing them as children and now they want to control all women through this vicious act. If this is not a good enough explanation for you, you will need to temporarily accept this premise in order to move on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I disagree. I explain my actions, I clarify the thought processes that went into the decisions to act, but I don't think I've "come up with an excuse" since I was a kid. IOW I strive to be careful in my actions, and that care tends to pay off in that I don't feel any need to "come up with an excuse"

That's great that you are careful before making decisions. But if there has ever been a time that you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you would know that feeling of being accused of doing something you shouldn't be doing. Most children will immediately search for an excuse so they won't get punished or to at least lessen the punishment they know is coming to them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I read this in the book as well. But the reason for my verbalizing a justification after the fact does not mean that a justification had to have been part of the decision-making process. It may well have been - but it does not need to be.

It's not on a conscious level oftentimes. It's not like we say I'm going to hurt this person and, by the way, what's my justification? Sometimes we hurt people for no obvious reason, as I just mentioned, but it's always in the background somewhere. Please understand that in order to remove the justification to hurt others, we need to remove the hurt that is done to you. The minute someone hurts you, it becomes a justification to hurt someone else; not necessarily directly, or even right after the fact; but anger often builds and eventually, like a pressure cooker, it explodes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most children will immediately search for an excuse so they won't get punished or to at least lessen the punishment they know is coming to them.

How did you reach a conclusion regarding "most children" ?

Non punitive parenting is a p. big movement, have you looked into it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

No one has told you that you are wrong 'just because.' Evidence and explanations that demonstrate which points are wrong and why has been provided at every turn, despite your obstinate refusal to do the same.

This doesn't strike me as a very pragmatic requirement for the discussion of a philosophical idea, especially not one that is labeled by its proponents as 'revolutionary.' More importantly, this is the direct opposite of how the discussion of a new scientific idea works. When you discover a new fact or explanation in science, you've got to be prepared to defend that and advocate it even in the face of people who do not want to be convinced, who do not want to believe what you're telling them. You have to be able to convince them anyway. That's where evidence comes in, which you have refused to supply or have admitted you don't have at every turn.

You're right about having to convince them anyway. I'm trying my hardest although I know people don't accept his observations regarding the eyes, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Originally Posted by Kael

Nor is any presented in the work directly, at least not in any of the portions I or others have read,* we are only given assertions and 'observations' stated as incontrovertible, undeniable fact, even when they are flatly contradicted by actual evidence. Do you see why everyone is so frustrated by your behavior here, by your repetition in the face of questions and criticism?

His observations are undeniable. Science has accepted its model of sight as fact; it is sacrosanct. It's an explanation of what they believe is happening, and they believe their explanation is airtight. But there is reason to believe the eyes are efferent. I tried to explain how Lessans came to his conclusions, but people just keep asking how could Lessans offer an alternative model, and be taken seriously, when he was not an astrophysicist or a neurophysicist?

Originally Posted by Kael

*While I realize that ideally this should have no bearing on the perceived validity of a new idea, I cannot express strongly enough just how poorly written this work is. If there is a world-changing idea hiding in there somewhere, an editor is desperately needed if there is any hope of it reaching and being appreciated by a broader audience.

I'm sorry if you feel this way, but the world-changing idea is not hiding at all. In Chapter One the important points are on pp. 46-59; in Chapter Two the two-sided equation is on pp. 77-93; 28 pages in all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did you reach a conclusion regarding "most children" ?

Non punitive parenting is a p. big movement, have you looked into it?

Yes, I know that, and it's great that this movement is taking hold. I was using children as an example of how human nature works. If someone is accused of something (it doesn't have to be children), especially if the accuser is in the position to punish that person for his wrongdoing, the one accused will quickly search for a reasonable excuse as to why he did what he did. He wouldn't dare say I did this because I wanted to, for this would get him punished for sure. I think I will begin posting Chapter Two so that people can more easily grasp what it is I'm getting at. Please take your time.

[LadyShea]

but people just keep asking how could Lessans offer an alternative model, and be taken seriously, when he was not an astrophysicist or a neurophysicist?

They asked how he can offer an alternative model without a shred of evidentiary support.

Who here said anything about needing to be and "astrophysicist or neurophysicist" to speak about the anatomy and functions of the eye?

[peacegirl]

DECLINE AND FALL OF ALL EVIL:

CHAPTER TWO: THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

***[Note: I'm trying to keep this chapter together, so would people wait
until I'm finished posting? Then we can discuss this intelligently.]

Once it becomes established as an undeniable law that
man’s will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we
cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like
Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore,
we must begin our reasoning where he left off which means that
we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will,
corollary, slide rule or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT
BLAME, and transmute the baser mettles of human nature into the
pure gold of the Golden Age even though it presents what appears
to be an insurmountable problem, for how is it possible not to
blame people who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do
this if they didn’t want to.

The solution, however, only requires
the perception and extension of relations which cannot be denied;
and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for
anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God which will
unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch
your breath in absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately
solve every problem we have not only without hurting a living soul
but while benefiting everyone to an amazing degree. However, the
problems that confront us at this moment are very complex which
make it necessary to treat every aspect of our lives in a separate,
yet related, manner. God, not me, is finally going to reveal the
solution.

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 while endowing man with free will so that
this separation could be reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some
other force of darkness as an explanation for the evil that existed
illustrates how religion tried desperately to cling to the belief in a
merciful God. But this dividing line between good and evil will no
longer be necessary when the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame,
demonstrates that once it becomes a permanent condition of the
environment, all the evil (hurt) in human relations must come to a
peaceful end. The absolute proof that man’s will is not free is the
undeniable fact that we are given no alternative but to move in this
direction once it is understood that this law can control man’s
actions only by obeying this corollary for then everything that came
into existence which caused us to blame and punish must, out of
absolute necessity, take leave of this earth. Mankind will be given
no choice; this has been taken out of our hands, as is the motion of
the earth around the sun.

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we
work our problem backwards which means that every step of the
way will be a forced move which will become a loose end and only
when all these ends are drawn together will the blueprint be
complete. It is only by extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not
Blame, which is the key, that we are given the means to unlock the
solution. An example of working a problem backwards, follow
this: If you were told that a woman with a pocketbook full of
money went on a spending spree to ten stores, paid a dollar to get
in every one, a dollar to get out, spent half of what she had in each
and came out of the last place absolutely broke, it would be very
easy to determine the amount of money she had to start because the
dollar she paid to get out of the last store which broke her must
represent one-half of the money spent there. Consequently, she
had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in, giving her three
just before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get out of the
penultimate store, this added to the three gives her four which
represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this
process eight more times it is absolutely undeniable that she must
have begun her spending spree with $3,060.

As we can see from
this example, when a key fact is available from which to reason it
is then possible to solve a problem, but when it is not, we must
form conjectures and express opinions with the aid of logic. At
first glance it appears impossible not to blame an individual for
murder, or any heinous crime, but when we extend this key fact it
can be seen that these acts of evil are not condoned with the
understanding that man’s will is not free, but prevented.
Regardless of someone’s opinion as to the rightness or wrongness
of the answer I just gave, or their opinion when considering the
impossibility of removing all evil from our lives which would have
to be based upon a logical conclusion, we know that the answer is
correct because there is positive proof.

By a similar process of working our problem backwards we can
officially launch the Golden Age which necessitates the removal
of all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so
that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants
to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an
equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our
infallible slide rule which God has given us as a guide. By now I
hope you understand that the word God is a symbol for the source
of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between
good and evil using the word God only as a symbol for the former.
Actually no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to
me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain
compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction and for me
to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will it
was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning
of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to
get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did
not know whereof he spoke.

To say that God made me do this is
equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this
direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true.
Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned.
Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun; regardless of
how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire does not
negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of
what words I employ to describe God does not change the fact that
He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a difference
between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the
description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is a part of
the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing
and say this is God, therefore we must assume because of certain
things that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a
discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or
believed that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the
solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun,
moon, earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there
some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction?
Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free, and at
the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical
demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction
although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just
as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always
been just as harmonious as the solar system only we never knew it
because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and
man which is now being permanently removed. This discovery
also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This
means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone.
Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation for nothing in
this universe when seen in total perspective is evil since each
individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that
choice hurts another as a consequence.

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into
existence not because of my will, not because I made a discovery
(sooner or later it had to be found because the knowledge of what
it means that man’s will is not free is a definite part of reality), but
only because we are compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do
you really think it was an accident the solar system came into
existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from
the earth so we don’t roast or freeze; an accident that the earth
revolved just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions;
an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an
accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did?

To show
you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that controls every aspect
of this universe through invariable laws that we are at last getting
to understand, which includes the mankind as well as the solar
system, just follow this: Here is versatile man — writer,
composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian,
architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief,
etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature
and lack of development to believe that it is since it was
impossible not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into
existence out of necessity and then permitted to perceive the
necessary relations as to why will is not free and what this means
for the entire world, which perception was utterly impossible
without the development...and absolutely necessary for the
inception of our Golden Age. In all of history have you ever been
confronted with anything more incredible?

In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our
control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are
able to see, for the very first time, how it is now within our power
to prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into
existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full
significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting
the opposite principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ by refusing to defend
himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his
inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because the
one was willing to cheat to get what she wanted while he was
willing to be cheated rather than hold her responsible.

Spinoza
made matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of
time he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction
to let her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both of
them were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction.
Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this knowledge nor did
the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that man’s
will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with
a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated
from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to
be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be
thrown out for being an atheist but not for being a God-intoxicated
man.

The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me.
I know that the sun is also a reality but when the heat gets
unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison
between Spinoza and myself. He was a gentle man, I am not. He
refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to
him because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help
herself. I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning the
other cheek when someone can get the advantage by not turning it.
He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take what
belonged to me I’d fight him tooth and nail.

Turning the other
cheek under these conditions could make matters worse, which is
why many people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly
possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes
back to the justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth.’ I personally would get greater satisfaction defending
myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have
done, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a
scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind is compelled, for
greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should
be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean
that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have
discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this point
that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it
takes us; something that investigators like Durant have never done
because the implications prevented them from opening the door
beyond the vestibule. The fact that man’s will is not free only
means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater
satisfaction. If you sock me I might get greater satisfaction in
socking you back. However, once man understands what it means
that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your
realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this
knowledge is understood we will be compelled to continue living
in the world of free will, otherwise, we would only make matters
worse for ourselves.

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone
who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in
my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that
man should not be blamed for anything he does which is true only
when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he
doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ
also received incursions of thought from this same principle which
compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being
nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his
enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him
to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But
they knew what they were doing and he could not stop them even
by turning the other cheek.

Religion was compelled to believe that
God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza
and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil
when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for
people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed
against them? And how was it possible for those who became
victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective? Is
it any wonder man cried out to God for understanding? The time
has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two
opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and
proceed with the investigation. Let me show you how this
apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.

If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him
to retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that in order to
do either he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and
by turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then
he is given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by
the laws of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our
basic principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you
will, is not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to
prevent man from desiring to hurt others when not to makes
matters worse for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the
very first blow.

Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural
to seek some form of retaliation for this is a source of satisfaction
which is the direction life is compelled to take. Therefore this
knowledge cannot possibly prevent the hate and blame which man
has been compelled to live with all these years as a consequence of
crimes committed and many other forms of hurt, yet God’s
mathematical law cannot be denied for man is truly not to blame
for anything he does notwithstanding, so a still deeper analysis is
required. Down through history no one has ever known what it
means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit the world,
but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is absolutely
no way this new world, a world without war, crime, and all forms
of hurt to man by man can be stopped from coming into existence.
When it will occur, however, depends on when this knowledge can
be brought to light.

We have been growing and developing just like a child from
infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age
without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could
have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also
going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established,
beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my
discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this
impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely
impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any
wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this
point? If you recall, Durant assumed that if man was allowed to
believe his will is not free it would lessen his responsibility
because this would enable him to blame other factors as the cause.
“If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it
was the fault of the machine which had slipped a cog in generating
him.” It is also true that if it had not been for the development of
laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of right and
wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of this
coming Golden Age.

Yet despite the fact that we have been
brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for
doing what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone
of all law and order up to now, although we are about to shed the
last stage of the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point);
the force that has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the
mankind systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of
satisfaction, or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we
perceive these mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL
IS NOT FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE
DOES. This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that
the mathematic corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to
anything after it is done — only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies to
something before it is done, and not after. Does this mean you can
blame after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to
the same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial;
how to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of
our penal code?”

“It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The
reason it doesn’t apply to anything after it is done — only before
— is because God’s commandment, Thou Shall Not Blame, has
the power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code
was previously necessary as part of our development.” At this
juncture, I shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the
reader of important facts that must be understood before
continuing.

To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic
corollary — Thou Shall Not Blame — (for this seems
mathematically impossible since it appears that man will always
desire something for which blame and punishment will be
necessary), it is extremely important to go through a de-confusion
process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact
revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to
reveal this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that
man does not have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt
another unless he wants to.

As history reveals, even the most
severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to
others what he makes up his mind not to do. He is not caused or
compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and
heredity but prefers this action because at that moment of time he
derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a
normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no
control. Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel
man to do to another that which he makes up his mind not to do
(this is an extremely crucial point), he is nevertheless under a
compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything
he does.

This reveals that he has mathematical control over the
former (you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him
drink) but none over the latter because he must move in the
direction of greater satisfaction. In other words, no one is
compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in
a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things
he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse in
his opinion and he must choose something to do among the various
things in his environment or else commit suicide.

Was it possible
to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do
when unafraid of death, which was judged the lesser of two evils?
They were compelled by their desire for freedom to prefer non-
violence, turning the other cheek as a solution to their problem.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what
he did against his will because the alternative was considered
worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous
words and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and
unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because
everything man does to another is done only because he wants to
do it which means that his preference gave him satisfaction at that
moment of time, for one reason or another.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is
absolutely nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything
else that causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The
environment does not cause him to commit a crime, it just presents
conditions under which his desire is aroused, consequently, he
can’t blame what is not responsible, but remember his particular
environment is different because he himself is different otherwise
everybody would desire to commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act
on his desire whether it is a minor or more serious crime he doesn’t
come right out and say, “I hurt that person not because I was
compelled to do it against my will but only because I wanted to do
it” because the standards of right and wrong prevent him from
deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only
evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his
desires.

Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to
absorb part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to
absolve his conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others
in many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why he
was compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do. You see it
happen all the time, even when a child says, “Look what you made
me do” when you know you didn’t make him do anything. Spilling
a glass of milk because he was careless, and not wishing to be
blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to shift the
responsibility to something that does not include him. Why else
would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or
something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is
also true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and
punished for carelessness — which is exactly what took place —
makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the
blame and punishment he doesn’t want.

A great confusion exists
because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another
he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help
myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the
implications which turned philosophers off from a thorough
investigation. In the following dialogue, my friend asks for
clarification regarding certain critical points.

“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve
this enigmatic corollary but it seems to me that this knowledge
would give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others
without any fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that
his will is not free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an
attempt to shift his responsibility or use any other excuse he feels
will sound believable for the same reason?”

This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate
reasoning because it is mathematically impossible to shift
responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something,
when you know in advance that you will not be blamed regardless
of what you do, because the world knows your will is not free.

Because of this general confusion with words through which you
have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at first
glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift
his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being
blamed to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under
control by the fear of punishment and public opinion which judged
his actions in accordance with standards of right and wrong; but
this is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning simply
because it is mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility,
to excuse or justify getting away with something, when you know
that you will not be blamed for what you do.

In other words, it is
only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting
someone, or for doing what is judged improper, when you are held
responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for
doing something considered wrong by others. In fact, the very act
of justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the
person or people to whom you are presenting this justification must
judge the behavior unacceptable in some way, otherwise, there
would be no need for it. They are interested to know why you
could do such a thing which compels you for satisfaction to think
up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate
their unfavorable opinion of your action. If you do what others
judge to be right is it necessary to lie or offer excuses or say that
your will is not free and you couldn’t help yourself, when no one
is saying you could help yourself? Let me elaborate for greater
understanding.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right about having to convince them anyway. I'm trying my hardest although I know people don't accept his observations regarding the eyes, and there's nothing I can do about it.

In fact, there is. Showing demonstrable evidence and testable, repeatable hypotheses are two very good things you could do. If, however, you decide to simply keep repeating that Lessans' statements are "undeniable observations" as you do below, then you are right, there is nothing you can do to keep his work and your defense from being mocked and ridiculed and dismissed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations are undeniable. Science has accepted its model of sight as fact; it is sacrosanct. It's an explanation of what they believe is happening, and they believe their explanation is airtight.

This is a perfect summation of what you have been doing wrong here, which is the same thing Lessans does wrong in his book. First, you simply repeat that it is true, using the term 'undeniable' no less. Then you talk about how hide-bound and resistant to change the established theories of science are, going so far as to put it in religious terms. At no point do you offer the very things that the current model of sight is actually based on: evidence. That, in a word, is what the claims of Lessans lack, and what the current model has. That, in a word, is what would be needed to accept Lessans' claims, not only about sight and the eye, but about words, sex, psychology, blame, free will, and essentially his entire book. Evidence.

Do you understand what the problem is here? I sincerely doubt you do, as I sincerely doubt you understand the distinction between observations and assertions well enough to tell them apart, which cuts right to the heart of what the problem is.

But there is reason to believe the eyes are efferent.

You have yet to present any such reasons. Why are you holding them back?

I tried to explain how Lessans came to his conclusions, but people just keep asking how could Lessans offer an alternative model, and be taken seriously, when he was not an astrophysicist or a neurophysicist?

No one ever told you that your views are invalid because you do not hold a degree in a relevant or even tangentially-related field. And, in point of fact, you did not 'try to explain' anything, you simply repeated the same assertions Lessans makes in his book, effectively ignoring any specific objections and continuing on as if you had dealt with them. You have not.

[Kael]

In addition, your hypocrisy in asking vivisectus to keep his posts short only to follow shortly after with an entire chapter is noted, and not appreciated. The book has been linked to. Everyone that wants to can access to it. Posting the whole thing is merely another obfuscating tactic, allowing you to fall back to a position of umbrage and martyrdom when people quite understandably object.

Would you be so kind as to keep your posts short?

[Stephen Maturin]

Indeed. I mean, if peacegirl really has a complete understanding of this knowledge, then all we're asking is for her to explain, in her own words, the two-sided equation. It's strange to us that she has not done this.

[DaveT]

"We tried our best, doc, but we just couldn't save the teal deer. "

"What is the cause of death?"

"Exhaustion!"

[davidm]

Teal Deer, dead of exhaustion

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I tried to explain how Lessans came to his conclusions, but people just keep asking how could Lessans offer an alternative model, and be taken seriously, when he was not an astrophysicist or a neurophysicist?

People did nothing of the kind, liar. They repeatedly showed, via such examples as Jupiter's moons, that his theory of sight was wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations are undeniable. Science has accepted its model of sight as fact; it is sacrosanct. It's an explanation of what they believe is happening, and they believe their explanation is airtight.

Scientists have accepted this lunatic's model of sight as fact; as sacrosanct fact? WTF are you smoking? Name me one scientist who thinks that the eye is not a sense organ, or that we see things without any time delay owing to the finite speed of light!

There are no scientists who believe or espouse this rubbish.

[davidm]

Ooop! Dread double post.

[Stephen Maturin]

By "its model" I think she means the standard scientific model. You know, the one in which the eye is a sense organ. I believe she's trying to say that science accepts "its" model as fact even though Mr. Lessans' observations are "undeniable."

I think.

[davidm]

Oh, I see. She writes as badly as Lessans. She is saying that science accepts its own model of sight (as opposed to Lessans' lunacy) as a sacrosanct fact.

In other words, she is slandering scientists and misrepresenting science again, a field of endeavor that is largely self-correcting because its findings are always tentative and never sacrosanct. Some individual scientists may hold tenaciously to some view x, but if models improve and rule out view x in favor of view y, then view y holds say until view z comes around. The pessimistic meta-induction counsels us to suspect that all our current theories (this is mainly in physics) will eventually be shown to be wrong.

None of this gives the slightest aid or comfort to Lessans, however, who does not even have a theory. Or rather, as the saying goes, his "theory" is so bad, it is not even wrong.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

In other words, she is slandering scientists and misrepresenting science again, a field of endeavor that is largely self-correcting because its findings are always tentative and never sacrosanct.

Yep, pretty much.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by davidm

Scientists have accepted this lunatic's model of sight as fact; as sacrosanct fact? WTF are you smoking? Name me one scientist who thinks that the eye is not a sense organ, or that we see things without any time delay owing to the finite speed of light!

There are no scientists who believe or espouse this rubbish.

You're misreading peacegirl's post. It should be read as: "Lessans' observations are undeniable, but science has accepted its model of sight as fact."

I would be more tolerant of Lessan's observations if he were making a psychological or philosophical distinction between sight and other senses, but peacegirl seems to insist that sight is not a sense even though this observation is contrary to evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

In addition, your hypocrisy in asking vivisectus to keep his posts short only to follow shortly after with an entire chapter is noted, and not appreciated. The book has been linked to. Everyone that wants to can access to it. Posting the whole thing is merely another obfuscating tactic, allowing you to fall back to a position of umbrage and martyrdom when people quite understandably object.

Would you be so kind as to keep your posts short?

I am posting the chapter because there is absolutely no way I can discuss a topic this deep without people having read the chapter. How many times do I have to say that? To read a chapter from a book does not take the same kind of energy it takes to answer a long post. I am not going to be here for much longer, and I don't want people to be left with the feeling that this was all a bunch of hot air. I want to be able to discuss this chapter with people who have read it, otherwise, we're going to be wasting a lot of time. People will find loopholes in my answers and tell me there is nothing to this revolution in thought. If you don't want to read Chapter Two, that is your prerogative, but others will, I hope. If no one wants me to post this chapter, and no one wants to go to the link except for Vivisectus, then what's the point? Does anyone here want me to finish posting? Should I break the pages up even more? Tell me what I should do? And for your information, if I was using this as an obfuscating tactic, I certainly wouldn't be doing what I'm doing. I would give an incomplete synopsis just to confuse everyone and I would continue to answer in ways that are obscure. Kael, that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.