A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But then the validity of these ideas is something that is to be taken on blind faith and we are discussing a religion here, not a philosophy or a scientific idea. because once again you answer "It just is so" when I say "But it does not follow that it is so". I already know that you believe this - I want to know why you believe it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a fair question, and I am here to try to answer your questions. I never said "It is just so". I am trying very hard to explain this knowledge but I need some cooperation. 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. If I was just being dismissive I would have left long ago.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am afraid this is starting to look like a very one-sided way of looking at it. You may have to ask yourself whose mind is made up! You equate "Understanding" with "Agreement" - you seem to have already decided the material is infallible, and are not prepared to face potential flaws and/or objections.

I want to answer your questions; that's why I'm still here. I realize that understanding is not agreement, but in order to be in the position to agree or disagree, one needs to understand what is being said. It's all about clarity.

What you say is, basically "You seem to disagree with the material. If you think the problem is with the material, then I have nothing more to say to you as I am not willing to consider that there may be flaws in it. If you think you just need some convincing, I will happily help."

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is the way a believer thinks, not a philosopher, and certainly not a scientist. I am sorry to say that it seems you follow your fathers ideas religiously.

I do because I know they work. If they didn't work I wouldn't be trying so hard to help you understand WHY they work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have gone through the chapters several times, slowly, taking notes as I went along. I think I have spotted some flaws in it - one of which I have brought up - that I think need further examination. For the moment I am not committing myself as to whether Lessans is correct or not.

I don't mind if you are not sure. It's okay to want to investigate further, but don't give up your investigation. What I don't like is when someone has an attitude that he knows for sure there are flaws, so why go any further? I have gotten defensive because of my previous experiences where people had their minds made up and the discussion ended. I'm probably overly sensitive. I'm trying not to be because I realize that we are all individuals.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If we are talking about a philosophy, or a scientific discovery, then we need to deal with the objections - in the case of my first objection, we need to show how and why the removal of blame must lead to the elimination of justification, and that it is justification alone that allows a person to harm another person without provocation, for unless we show these things, we have not dealt with the problem of evil. If I have missed the relevant explanation in the text somehow, please point it out. If there is no relevant explanation in the text, but you can explain why my objection is not valid, then please let me know.

I already explained that there are three ways a person can justify hurting others.

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back
‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew. Blame itself which is a condition of
free will and a part of the present environment permits the
consideration of hurt for it is the price man is willing to pay for the
satisfaction of certain desires; but when blame is removed so that
the advance knowledge that it no longer exists becomes a new
condition of the environment, then the price he must consider to
strike the first blow of hurt is completely out of reach.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If in stead we are dealing with a religious text, however, then such criticisms do not apply - it is simply an article of faith, and believing that all justification is caused by blame and that without justification there can be no harmful deeds is one of things one must believe to be a follower of Lessanism, just as the belief in original sin is an article of faith for Catholics.

No, you are missing the most important element. This is not a matter of accepting his ideas or not, as if you have a choice. You can say I don't agree with these ideas because he's wrong. But once this principle is in effect, you have no choice but to move in the direction of not hurting others. It becomes impossible to hurt another under these conditions because it will give you absolutely no satisfaction. You can't move in this direction when a preferable alternative is available. Let me rephrase this: We cannot choose an alternative (in this case hurting someone with a first blow) when it is the least desirable choice because it will give us less satisfaction, not more. Please try to grasp this because it will change your entire worldview.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But in that case there is little point in discussing the correctness of Lessans thinking, and we should only discuss whether or not we feel it would be desirable for him to be right. A discussion of a religion on scientific grounds is always very short, since there is no scientific reason that I know of to believe any religion to be true. But that does not mean that it needs to be undesirable to believe in a religion - it can have benefits. Why it would be good for people to believe and follow Lessans ideas as you do should then be the topic of our discussions.

So I think you must make up your mind, and decide if we are to view this as a religious belief, or a philosophy / scientific discovery.

Please read this section. I will try to explain the two-sided equation. This is not about a belief. It's about how our nature must choose that which is most satisfying in all of our choices from the minute we are born to the day we die.

At the present moment of time you are standing on this spot
called here, and are constantly in the process of moving to there.
You know as a matter of positive knowledge that you would never
move to there if you were not dissatisfied with here. You also
know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing has the
power, that no one can cause or compel you to do anything against
your will — unless you want to, because over this you have
mathematical control.

And I, who am standing on this spot called
there to where you plan to move for satisfaction from here also
know positively that you cannot be blamed anymore for your
motion from here to there because the will of man is not free. This
is a very unique two-sided equation which reveals that while you
know you are completely responsible for everything you do since
nothing has the power to make you do anything you don’t want to;
and while it is mathematically impossible to shift your
responsibility to some extraneous cause when no one holds you
responsible; everybody else knows that you are not to blame for
anything because you are compelled, by your very nature, to move
in the direction of greater satisfaction during every moment of your
existence.

Now if you know beyond a shadow of doubt that not
only I, who am the one to be hurt, but everyone on earth will never
blame or punish you for hurting me in some way, never criticize or
question your action, never desire to hurt you in return for doing
what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control
since the will of man is not free, is it humanly possible (think very
carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus far —
the scientific discovery referred to) for you to derive any
satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt?

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 hurt 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.

In order to hurt another, man must be
able to derive some satisfaction from this, which means that he was
previously hurt and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows,
absolutely and positively, that he would be blamed by the person
he hurt and others if they knew.

Furthermore, if he knows as a
matter of positive knowledge that no one in the entire world is
going to blame him or question his conduct, is it possible for him
to extenuate the circumstances, to lie, or to try and shift his
responsibility in any way? As was just demonstrated, it is not
possible, just as the same answer must apply to the question, is it
possible to make two plus two equal five. This proves
conclusively that the only time he can say, “I couldn’t help myself
because my will is not free,” or offer any kind of excuse, is when
he knows he is being blamed for this allows him to make this effort
to shift his responsibility.

[LadyShea]

Nevermind

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl's dad

In order to hurt another, man must be
able to derive some satisfaction from this, which means that he was
previously hurt and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows,
absolutely and positively, that he would be blamed by the person
he hurt and others if they knew.

I saw this bloke about to unlock his "S" car outside Chez Escargot last night. "Oh, that car appeals to me very much", I thought. "I want to take it for a drive. That would give me the greatest satisfaction." So I approached the man and said: "Let me drive that appealing car." The man replied: "No way! It's my car, and I'll never let you have it." I pointed at the sky and exclaimed: "Look at that "S" car go!" He looked up. That was my perfect opportunity to slit his throat, take his key and take the car for a joyride.

I never saw that bloke before, so there was no revenge factor, and I can't be blamed, coz I only did what the disadvantaged, underprivileged people naturally do, and I got the greatest satisfaction out of the drive. Killing the owner of the car was the easiest and simplest way to come by it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This so-called beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve which
then allows him to see her beauty but instead he projects the word
onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation.
The brain records all relations, whether true or false, and since it
was considered an indisputable fact that man had five senses which
were connected in some way with the external world and since four
of these were accurately described as sense organs, that is, they
receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for Aristotle
to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by
including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he
never understood their true function.

Honestly, 58 or whatever pages of this bullshit! "The eye is not a sense organ."

[Vivisectus]

I want to answer your questions; that's why I'm still here. I realize that understanding is not agreement, but in order to be in the position to agree or disagree, one needs to understand what is being said. It's all about clarity.

But I DO understand it. You just don't seem to think it is possible to understand Lessans ideas without agreeing with them. So far I am not committing myself either way, but am waiting to see if you can remove the objection I have raised. However, this does not mean that I do not understand.

I do because I know they work. If they didn't work I wouldn't be trying so hard to help you understand WHY they work.

As I said, this is a religious sentiment, not a scientific one. Science follows the evidence.

I don't mind if you are not sure, and you need to further investigate. I welcome that, but I don't like when someone has an attitude that he knows absolutely there are flaws, where his mind is already made up. I have gotten defensive because my previous experiences and I'm probably overly sensitive. I'm trying not to be because I realize that we are all individuals.

It is not my mind that is made up - I have and am still making an effort to approach this in a disinterested way. At the end of my investigations so far, I have spotted a few flaws. One of these I have presented to you, to see if you can address it. If you can, we can move on. If not, we will have to either abandon the ideas, or amend them. That is how rational people assess ideas.

I already explained that there are three ways a person can justify hurting others.

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back
‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew. Blame itself which is a condition of
free will and a part of the present environment permits the
consideration of hurt for it is the price man is willing to pay for the
satisfaction of certain desires; but when blame is removed so that
the advance knowledge that it no longer exists becomes a new
condition of the environment, then the price he must consider to
strike the first blow of hurt is completely out of reach.

I have read this part many times, and I am surprised you seem to think it constitutes evidence. You have not explained anything - you have asserted that it is so. You offer no explanation WHY this is so, and that it is necessary that it is so.

You seem to feel that "Because Lessans says so" constitutes evidence - but it doesn't. If this was an undeniable truth, then surely it would not be hard to explain WHY it is an undeniable truth.

No, you are missing the most important factor. This is not a matter of accepting his ideas or not. You can say I don't agree with these ideas because he's wrong. But once this principle is in effect, you have no choice but to move in the direction of not hurting others. It's not a choice; it's impossible under these conditions because it will give you less satisfaction, not more. We cannot choose an alternative (in this case hurting someone) when it is the least desirable choice. Please try to grasp this because it will change your perspective.

But my objection is with one of the crucial steps that the principle depends on. Before I accept that the principle might work, this objection needs to be dealt with.

I have carefully and succinctly explained what my (first) objection is, and you have not responded to it in any way. All you have done is repeat Lessans ideas, as if by saying them more often you will make them more convincing.

I already know THAT Lessans thinks it is so. I want to know WHY. So far all I see is Lessans asserting the following:

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back
‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew.

...without presenting a shred of evidence WHY this is necessarily so. Blame is not the cause of, nor does it somehow allow, justification. Also, not all harmful acts need be justified in order for them to be perpetrated. Just because you tend to see firemen around fires a lot does not mean you cannot have a fire without them. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

We need to deal with this objection by showing that I am wrong, and that we do have evidence that it is as Lessans says. alternately we can amend the ideas, or we can abandon them. Simply repeating the ideas will not make them more convincing.

[DaveT]

when you call me a liar and other expletives.

See, David, when you call her a fucking liar, or whatever, that "liar" was an expletive, and therefore just vulgar, meaningless filler; you would have done just as well (and saved typing time) by just saying, "You fucking," since the extra word, viz. "liar" is just filler.

Fuck sake. Never thought I'd see the day when somebody who can operate a 'puter would misuse "expletive."

[Doctor X]

The tantrums of peacegirl remind me of an observation Ron "Tater Salad" White made to a female heckler when he mentioned that the base he performed at has 30 some-odd thousand soldier.

Screaming Woman: AND NONE OF THEM ARE A GOOD FUCK!

Ron White: Maybe . . . it's you?

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

I saw this bloke about to unlock his "S" car outside Chez Escargot last night. "Oh, that car appeals to me very much", I thought. "I want to take it for a drive. That would give me the greatest satisfaction." So I approached the man and said: "Let me drive that appealing car." The man replied: "No way! It's my car, and I'll never let you have it." I pointed at the sky and exclaimed: "Look at that "S" car go!" He looked up. That was my perfect opportunity to slit his throat, take his key and take the car for a joyride.

I never saw that bloke before, so there was no revenge factor, and I can't be blamed, coz I only did what the disadvantaged, underprivileged people naturally do, and I got the greatest satisfaction out of the drive. Killing the owner of the car was the easiest and simplest way to come by it.

He could definitely kill this person for his advantage, if he wanted to, but what stops him is the advance knowledge that no one in the world would blame him if he did. If he was truly hurt, such as someone who is stealing for self-preservation, then that would not be gaining at someone else's expense, but to take from someone so one would not be a loser. So obviously in order to prevent this type of stealing, we need to make sure that no one is so desperate that he is compelled to steal, according to his very nature. It would be justified because our nature dictates that we must try and survive at all costs. Please try to discriminate between these two very different scenarios.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could definitely kill this person for his advantage, if he wanted to, but what stops him is the advance knowledge that no one in the world would blame him if he did.

Why would that stop him?

[peacegirl]

I want to answer your questions; that's why I'm still here. I realize that understanding is not agreement, but in order to be in the position to agree or disagree, one needs to understand what is being said. It's all about clarity.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I DO understand it. You just don't seem to think it is possible to understand Lessans ideas without agreeing with them. So far I am not committing myself either way, but am waiting to see if you can remove the objection I have raised. However, this does not mean that I do not understand.

No, if you did understand these questions wouldn't come up.

I do because I know they work. If they didn't work I wouldn't be trying so hard to help you understand WHY they work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As I said, this is a religious sentiment, not a scientific one. Science follows the evidence.

That is true, but you are not the overseeer of truth. If you don't see the relations inplicit in the text, then you are not the one to determine anything.

I don't mind if you are not sure, and you need to further investigate. I welcome that, but I don't like when someone has an attitude that he knows absolutely there are flaws, where his mind is already made up. I have gotten defensive because my previous experiences and I'm probably overly sensitive. I'm trying not to be because I realize that we are all individuals.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is not my mind that is made up - I have and am still making an effort to approach this in a disinterested way. At the end of my investigations so far, I have spotted a few flaws. One of these I have presented to you, to see if you can address it. If you can, we can move on. If not, we will have to either abandon the ideas, or amend them. That is how rational people assess ideas.

It's your responsibility to keep trying as long as I am doing my best to explain. If you continue to say I'm wrong just because... (and believe me there is much of this going on; some of your questions are totally impossible to answer and have nothing to do with the proof), then we have nothing left to talk about and it's sad because we haven't really begun.

I already explained that there are three ways a person can justify hurting others.

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back
‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew. Blame itself which is a condition of
free will and a part of the present environment permits the
consideration of hurt for it is the price man is willing to pay for the
satisfaction of certain desires; but when blame is removed so that
the advance knowledge that it no longer exists becomes a new
condition of the environment, then the price he must consider to
strike the first blow of hurt is completely out of reach.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have read this part many times, and I am surprised you seem to think it constitutes evidence. You have not explained anything - you have asserted that it is so. You offer no explanation WHY this is so, and that it is necessary that it is so.

If you kept reading you would find out, but instead you all push me against the wall because you expect a synopsis in one or two sentences while everyone else can jump ahead when the author asked people not to take things out of context. Do you see the double standard? You are forcing a hand that cannot help but look false.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to feel that "Because Lessans says so" constitutes evidence - but it doesn't. If this was an undeniable truth, then surely it would not be hard to explain WHY it is an undeniable truth.

Vivisectus, what you just said means nothing. You just keep telling me the author is wrong because he didn't prove anything. You are the kind of person who is looking for flaws. You think this is another religion. You even called it Lessanisms. I am not going to waste my time. I will not win no matter what the actual proof is because you aren't really listening.

No, you are missing the most important factor. This is not a matter of accepting his ideas or not. You can say I don't agree with these ideas because he's wrong. But once this principle is in effect, you have no choice but to move in the direction of not hurting others. It's not a choice; it's impossible under these conditions because it will give you less satisfaction, not more. We cannot choose an alternative (in this case hurting someone) when it is the least desirable choice. Please try to grasp this because it will change your perspective.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But my objection is with one of the crucial steps that the principle depends on. Before I accept that the principle might work, this objection needs to be dealt with.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have carefully and succinctly explained what my (first) objection is, and you have not responded to it in any way. All you have done is repeat Lessans ideas, as if by saying them more often you will make them more convincing.

I have, but maybe you did not see it. Like I said, I am not on trial. I will not be interrogated as if I'm a criminal, and that's how I feel. My intent is pure; this knowledge is pure; and if you don't see it because you are forcing me to explain the book with my arm tied behind my back, then it's over. I can see that this is not going to work unless someone steps in and asks questions without making me jump through hoops as a requirement. I have given parts of the book to everyone on a silver platter, and what do I get? No one is going to read this. My hands are tied. I refuse to work any harder than anyone else if you can't meet me half way. I know I'm rambling on and on but I need to get this out.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I already know THAT Lessans thinks it is so. I want to know WHY.

What do you think I've been doing Vivisectus?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So far all I see is Lessans asserting the following:

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back
‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...without presenting a shred of evidence WHY this is necessarily so. Blame is not the cause of, nor does it somehow allow, justification.

He never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said that blame is the sole cause of justification. Why are you harping on this?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, not all harmful acts need be justified in order for them to be perpetrated. Just because you tend to see firemen around fires a lot does not mean you cannot have a fire without them. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Yes they do. It doesn't have to be a direct cause to justify hurting someone. It could be anger that was built up from years of abuse or even years of perceived wrongdoing that could activate someone's aggression.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We need to deal with this objection by showing that I am wrong, and that we do have evidence that it is as Lessans says. alternately we can amend the ideas, or we can abandon them. Simply repeating the ideas will not make them more convincing.

I am doing my best to explain what he is saying in as many ways as I can. The truth is there are only so many ways to explain a concept, and if you don't see the relations, it is not my fault. It is so convenient for you to say I am just repeating the same thing. You know what, if other people don't get into the conversation by reading the text carefully, I am going to have to say goodbye. I hope you're happy because I believe this is what you really want.

I really don't know if anyone is going to grasp these principles. If I somehow fail to meet everyone's onslaught of objections, and that means to you that Lessans was wrong, then I will move on because the conversation is definitely biased (even though the 'guardians of truth' believe they are being objective). I am not on trial here, and I refuse to be. Ask me a question, and I'll try to answer. If I can't to your satisfaction, that doesn't mean Lessans' observations are inaccurate. It just means you did not get the clarity that would have been a game changer. And I am not just repeating ideas. I am explaining ideas. I am bending over backwards to try and explain in my own words what he was saying. Isn't that what you wanted, my own words? From what I have observed, you are challenging me, not questioning me. It doesn't matter how hard I try or what I say, you will just come back with the same refrain: there is no proof, and you'll say it with conviction. You won't let me point out, from my vantage point, where you are misunderstanding. You will tell me that understanding does not equal agreement. I cannot win. It will be your loss, because this book does show us a blueprint to a new world. If you are happy with the status quo, I respect that. I am not hanging onto this forum for dear life although I did put a lot of effort into this thread. Believe it or not, being here, as well as in other forums, has helped to strengthen my resolve to get this book into the right hands. There will be people who WILL understand because they will give this book a chance without coming to premature conclusions.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Why would that stop him?

Well, what's the point of being bad if no one acknowledges that you are bad. There's just no motivation.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know if you are going to grasp these principles. If I somehow fail to meet your onslaught of objections means to you that Lessans was wrong, then I might have to let go of this. I am not on trial, and I refuse to be. Ask me a question, and I'll try to answer. If I can't to your satisfaction, that doesn't mean Lessans is wrong. It just means you did not get the clarity that would have been a game changer. And I am not just repeating ideas. I am explaining ideas. How dare you tell me that this is what I'm doing. I am bending over backwards to try and explain in my own words what he was saying. From what I have observed, you are challenging me, not questioning me. You are ready to pounce because you have concluded he is wrong, so it doesn't matter how hard I try or what I say, you will say he is wrong. I cannot win if this is the case, and if it is, I will move on at your loss.

Somebody just got told.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know if you are going to grasp these principles. If I somehow fail to meet your onslaught of objections means to you that Lessans was wrong, then I might have to let go of this. I am not on trial, and I refuse to be. Ask me a question, and I'll try to answer. If I can't to your satisfaction, that doesn't mean Lessans is wrong. It just means you did not get the clarity that would have been a game changer.

1.) If someone doesn't understand the idea, that is not evidence that the idea is beyond their understanding. It could well be that the idea is poorly expressed and/or poorly thought-out. Or just nonsensical.

2.) If someone doesn't accept the idea, that is not evidence that they don't understand it. It could well be that they understand it just fine, but don't find it convincing -- especially when no evidence beyond flat-out assertion is given to "support" it.


What you seem to be utterly incapable of accepting is that people can understand Lessans' notions just fine and yet not accept them.

But the fact is that no real evidence has been given for Lessans' notions. Sure, there are lots of repeated assertions that "They really, really are true -- trust me," coupled with insulting suggestions that if the poorly-thought-out and poorly-explained notions aren't uncritically accepted by the reader, then the reader is either too stupid or close-minded to see them for the "self-evident truths" that they are.

But none of that is actual evidence.

And to top it off, key components of his "theory" are demonstrably false. This casts grave doubts on the remainder, to say the least.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Seraph;933815]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could definitely kill this person for his advantage, if he wanted to, but what stops him is the advance knowledge that no one in the world would blame him if he did.

Originally Posted by Seraph

Why would that stop him?

Seraph, that is his entire discovery. Did you read the previous post? If we can't even make headway here, how can I move forward to clarify anything?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

1.) If someone doesn't understand the idea, that is not evidence that the idea is beyond their understanding. It could well be that the idea is poorly expressed and/or poorly thought-out. Or just nonsensical.

2.) If someone doesn't accept the idea, that is not evidence that they don't understand it. It could well be that they understand it just fine, but don't find it convincing -- especially when no evidence beyond flat-out assertion is given to "support" it.


What you seem to be utterly incapable of accepting is that people can understand Lessans' notions just fine and yet not accept them.

But the fact is that no real evidence has been given for Lessans' notions. Sure, there are lots of repeated assertions that "They really, really are true -- trust me," coupled with insulting suggestions that if the poorly-thought-out and poorly-explained notions aren't uncritically accepted by the reader, then the reader is either too stupid or close-minded to see them for the "self-evident truths" that they are.

But none of that is actual evidence.

And to top it off, key components of his "theory" are demonstrably false. This casts grave doubts on the remainder, to say the least.

I hate to tell a wonderful biology teacher that he is mistaken, but I am. I never said anyone was close minded but there is a definite dynamic in these forums. You all are now the critical determiners of truth. Do you think for one second it would be this easy to discount, when this man came upon something that took him almost 20 years to put into words? It's so easy to put him in a category of someone who doesn't know. What can I say Ranger? I know the attacks will keep coming and I can't discuss the book in an atmosphere like this. It's not that I can't accept if he was wrong, but no one has proved this in any way, shape, or form. That's why this thread is basically over and you can all go your merry way thinking you won; that he had nothing of value and I was just another religious fanatic. The sad part of all of this is that it is only going to slow down the very life we want for ourselves, but it won't stop it. In time, humanity is gravitating toward this new reality. Even what is happening in the Middle East is part of God's plan. It just so happens I am waiting for my youngest son to arrive from Israel this afternoon with his fiance. I can't wait. It's been almost a year since I've seen him.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said anyone was close minded but there is a definite dynamic in these forums.

That's exactly what you've been implying from day one.

Your entire M.O. is basically: "I've got this wonderful truth, and if you don't uncritically accept it, then you're just being close-minded and/or you're incapable of understanding it."

And then you refuse to provide any real evidence or to seriously address the many flaws and errors in logic that have been pointed out.

That's why this thread is basically over and you can all go your merry way thinking you won; that he had nothing of value and I was just another religious fanatic.

It would be different if you'd 1.) given us some reason to think that there was anything of value in the book, and 2.) that you weren't behaving exactly like a religious fanatic in regard to the book's claims -- someone who regards the claims as "undeniably true" and "self-evident" and cannot comprehend why people won't simply accept them as self-evidently and undeniably true, and stop asking so many inconvenient questions already.

So far, neither of these has happened.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;933816][quote=Vivisectus;933794]

I want to answer your questions; that's why I'm still here. I realize that understanding is not agreement, but in order to be in the position to agree or disagree, one needs to understand what is being said. It's all about clarity.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I DO understand it. You just don't seem to think it is possible to understand Lessans ideas without agreeing with them. So far I am not committing myself either way, but am waiting to see if you can remove the objection I have raised. However, this does not mean that I do not understand.

No, if you did understand these questions wouldn't come up.

...ergo understanding equals assent. You are looking for converts.

That is true, but you are not the overseeer of truth. If you don't see the relations inplicit in the text, then you are not the one to determine anything

.

Then please point them out. I have been asking for this many times, but you have not done so.

It's your responsibility to keep trying as long as I am doing my best to explain. If you continue to say I'm wrong just because (because that's I am feel you may end up doing just so you can be right), then we have nothing to talk about.

I have never done so - when I say something, I point out WHY I think so and how I got to that conclusion. I am asking you to do the same.

I have read this part many times, and I am surprised you seem to think it constitutes evidence. You have not explained anything - you have asserted that it is so. You offer no explanation WHY this is so, and that it is necessary that it is so.

You seem to feel that "Because Lessans says so" constitutes evidence - but it doesn't. If this was an undeniable truth, then surely it would not be hard to explain WHY it is an undeniable truth.

What do you think I've been doing Vivisectus?

I think you are repeating the same statement over and over. If someone does not agree, that is because they did not understand. Even if I point out exactly where the objection lies, this objection is not dealt with.

He never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said that blamed is the sole cause of justification. Why are you harping on this

?

I am not harping - I am merely pointing out that Lessans did not cover all posibilities, and did not deal with the problem of evil.

or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew

The first two options are cases of retaliation or necessity. The last one deals with unprovoked harm - a first blow. This is only possible, says Lessans, if the person knows he will be blamed. He does not support this in any way.

He says explicitly that blame is what enables justification, and that justification is the only way a first blow can be struck. Both these things are merely stated, not proven or even supported.

Yes they do. It doesn't have to be a direct cause to justify hurting someone. It could be anger that was built up from years of abuse or even years of perceived wrongdoing that could activate someone's aggression.

...or someone could just decide the benefit of their action to themselves or their own outweighs the hurt they cause. This is not a justification, just a decision that you care more about benefit a) than about consequence b).

There is no compelling link shown between a) blame and justification, in that we have not conclusively shown that blame enables justification and b) that justification is required for all harmful intent.

This is required, because while the other sources of harmful intent in Lessans ideas are either retaliation or necessity, the last one is the important one. It is where people have harmful intent that is not provoked by force majeure or as a retaliation - the true gist of the problem of evil.

There is evidence and I am not just repeating something. There are only so many ways to explain a concept. You know what, if other people don't get into the conversation by reading the text carefully, I am not going to go further.

But I have read the text carefully, and I do not see any evidence. Nor are you able to point any out to me, it seems. In stead you keep saying that if people are not going to agree, you will simply stop. That is your prerogative, of course. But that IS tantamount to admitting Lessans ideas are not defensible.

I really don't know if you are going to grasp these principles. If I somehow fail to meet your onslaught of objections means to you that Lessans was wrong, then I will move on because the conversation is biased (even though people don't see it). It's like a husband beating into his wife that she is at fault, when she is not. You people are like a hundred husbands against one wife. I am not on trial here, and I refuse to be. Ask me a question, and I'll try to answer. If I can't to your satisfaction, that doesn't mean Lessans is wrong. It just means you did not get the clarity that would have been a game changer. And I am not just repeating ideas. I am explaining ideas. How dare you tell me that this is what I'm doing. I am bending over backwards to try and explain in my own words what he was saying. From what I have observed, you are challenging me, not questioning me. You are ready to pounce because you have concluded he is wrong, so it doesn't matter how hard I try or what I say, you will say he is wrong. I cannot win if this is the case, and if it is, I will move on at your loss. I am not hanging out here for dear life. There will be people who WILL understand because they have absolutely no agenda not to.

I am beginning to lose my patience a bit.

Firstly - my "onslaught" consisted of 1 objection. If I add another one, will that make it an avalanche?

Secondly -If we cannot deal with a fundamental objection to an idea, then yes, that idea is wrong. This is not bias - this is the very opposite of bias. A person biased in favor of his ideas will continue to defend them even if an objection proves unsurmountable. A person biased against Lessans idea would continue to reject it even though the objection has been dealt with.

Thirdly - you offered an idea for discussion, and when you are taken up on your offer, you start to complain of abuse when people are skeptical and actually debate it. This is histrionics of the worst kind and should be beneath you. You wanted this idea studied, and I complied. It is not my fault that there are problems with the ideas - I merely point out the ones I find.

Fourthly - you have not offered a shred of explanation of the points I wanted to clear up, merely more assertions. For the fundamental principle of Lessans ideas to work, we must show why and how blame is what enables justification. We must then also prove that any harmful act that is not caused by overwhelming circumstance or is a retaliation needs justification. This is vital, because it is one of the pillars of the whole structure - the part where we deal with first blows. If first blows still persist under Lessans ideas, then we have not adequately dealt with evil, as they will in turn lead to retaliations.

There is no such evidence in the text, as far as I can tell. If we cannot clear this up, then we must conclude that Lessans made a mistake. We must then either correct the mistake or abandon the ideas altogether - unless we want to hold on to them in spite of being irrational. This is not impossible - but then it is a religion, not a philosophy or a piece of scientific thought.

If you want to move on then that is your prerogative. But as I said before, that is just another way of admitting that you cannot defend Lessans ideas.

[Hermit]

duplicate post

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seraph, that is his entire discovery. Did you read the previous post? If we can't even make headway here, how can I move forward to clarify anything?

I did read the previous post, but somehow I missed the part where replicable experiments were described on which the theory that "advance knowledge that no one in the world would blame a person for doing something evil will stop said person from committing the evil deed" are based. Please help me find it. Best would be if you provided a link to that replicable experiment.

[davidm]

Here is the afterword to this absurdity, which explains everything you need to know about peacegirl’s posting style:

AFTERWORD
This book was not meant to satisfy the connoisseur of style,
grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and form in general (I’m quite sure
this book has errors when measured by the standards of whether a
certain word should have been capitalized, or a comma should have
gone here instead of there), but was written primarily to reveal
knowledge never before understood. I don’t deny that others could
have done a better job in explaining this discovery, and their services
are still welcome if they can clarify it even more. My job was to make
known this discovery, which I have done to the best of my ability.
Because the knowledge herein is completely scientific and
mathematical (undeniable), as with the simple equation given in the
introduction, it should be obvious that if you find yourself in
disagreement then there must be something you do not understand.
It is for this reason that this work must be studied thoroughly, chapter
by chapter, and also why it must be read more than once. When you
have read it over at least two times, you will realize that all the
problems of human relation have been unquestionably solved. Well,
what are you waiting for? I did my part, now you do yours.
If you would like to see the transition get started as quickly as
possible, then you will desire to help in disseminating this knowledge.
If you cannot reach the political leaders but you would still like to be
of assistance, it will be necessary to select several people that you
consider as qualified thinkers, with or without a title, so that they can
also become part of the chain reaction. Before long it will spread like
wildfire right across the entire globe. Once a sufficient number of
people understand the principles and demand that this work be
thoroughly investigated by the scientific community, this discovery
will be confirmed valid and celebrated as one of the most important
discoveries of all time. This knowledge will then become part of every
school curriculum, and it won’t be but a relatively short period of time
571
that the Golden Age can be officially launched.
When man fully realizes that all evil came into existence out of
necessity in his years of development, and out of necessity it will be
removed as he comes of age, he will recognize the fantastic wisdom
guiding this universe. No longer will man need to blame as a way to
solve his problems because the actions that made blame and
punishment necessary will be prevented from arising. Our prayers for
peace on earth will be answered at long last. The next time you feel
like expressing your appreciation or gratitude for this new world, don’t
thank me for pointing the way because my will is not free. Thank
God, for it was His wisdom that has guided us to this Promised Land.
And so, my friends, I bid you adieu. If God is willing, perhaps we
shall all meet, one day, in the Golden Age.
572

.

Check this out again:

… it should be obvious that if you find yourself in
disagreement then there must be something you do not understand.

Au contraire, peacegirl, people here understand only too well.

Oh, and this isn't religion, peacegirl? Well, thank god for dat!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's exactly what you've been implying from day one.

Your entire M.O. is basically: "I've got this wonderful truth, and if you don't uncritically accept it, then you're just being close-minded and/or you're incapable of understanding it."

And then you refuse to provide any real evidence or to seriously address the many flaws and errors in logic that have been pointed out.

It would be different if you'd 1.) given us some reason to think that there was anything of value in the book, and 2.) that you weren't behaving exactly like a religious fanatic in regard to the book's claims -- someone who regards the claims as "undeniably true" and "self-evident" and cannot comprehend why people won't simply accept them as self-evidently and undeniably true, and stop asking so many inconvenient questions already.

So far, neither of these has happened.

I know the claims are true; but you don't. Does that mean I'm a fanatic? I don't think so. These questions are for everyone. I think making some kind of test for people to see what they understand and what they need help with could be useful. I will put this on my website. This is just a start.

1. Why is man's will not free, according to Lessans?

2. What is the two-sided equation?

3. What are the three ways people can justify hurting someone?

4. What is the difference between what Gandhi believed, and what Lessans is proposing?

5. Why can't a person use the excuse, "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free" in the new world?

6. Why can't a person shift his responsibility to someone or something else when he is not being blamed?

7. Why is it impossible to lie or rationalize to oneself in the Golden Age?

8. What are the three forms of first blow?

9. What other factors must be removed, other than the knowledge that no retaliation will be forthcoming, for war to be eliminated?

10. Why is judging (in advance) what is right and wrong for others actually striking the first blow?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes he did. When you say that he did not cover all possibilities, and did not deal with the problem of evil, I get upset because you are not asking me to clarify anything, you are telling me that there is a fallacy in his reasoning. Trust me, there is not.

The knowledge that one will be blamed enables one to be able to justify one's actions if he is called upon to do so. But there is more to it. You are looking at the environment as it is today. To remove blame without removing the factors that could lead someone to desire perpetrating a vicious act, also have to be removed.

That's obviously true. Only when the consequences of hurting someone is worse than the benefits of hurting someone will they stop.

There has to be some kind of conscious or unconscious justification to hurt others. He gave the three types. The knowledge that one will be blamed if he does something considered wrong by others, is only one of the three. People who perpetrate vicious acts, as I mentioned before, are able to do this because of some sort of hurt in their life. They develop anger and hatred for the system that they believe has hurt them. They hate their teachers who they blame for ruining their chances to get ahead by giving them a failing grade. They hate the bullies who have called them names all their life. They hate their mothers for abusing them as children. They hate themselves for not feeling good enough so they enjoy ruining it for others. All of these reactions come from feelings of hurt whether real or perceived. It is often a scapegoat who gets hurt by these people, but there are still reasons behind their actions. When they viciously attack someone, they aren't thinking in terms of justification, but if you look closely enough, these behaviors have a cause. If we can eliminate the cause, we can eliminate the behavior.

You're right, and this is solved, but you have to understand the huge changes in the environment that are going to take place. The causes that would lead someone to desire to hurt others without provacation will be entirely eliminated.

There is evidence and I am not just repeating something. There are only so many ways to explain a concept. You know what, if other people don't get into the conversation by reading the text carefully, I am not going to go further.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I have read the text carefully, and I do not see any evidence. Nor are you able to point any out to me, it seems. In stead you keep saying that if people are not going to agree, you will simply stop. That is your prerogative, of course. But that IS tantamount to admitting Lessans ideas are not defensible.

I really don't know if you are going to grasp these principles. If I somehow fail to meet your onslaught of objections means to you that Lessans was wrong, then I will move on because the conversation is biased (even though people don't see it). It's like a husband beating into his wife that she is at fault, when she is not. You people are like a hundred husbands against one wife. I am not on trial here, and I refuse to be. Ask me a question, and I'll try to answer. If I can't to your satisfaction, that doesn't mean Lessans is wrong. It just means you did not get the clarity that would have been a game changer. And I am not just repeating ideas. I am explaining ideas. How dare you tell me that this is what I'm doing. I am bending over backwards to try and explain in my own words what he was saying. From what I have observed, you are challenging me, not questioning me. You are ready to pounce because you have concluded he is wrong, so it doesn't matter how hard I try or what I say, you will say he is wrong. I cannot win if this is the case, and if it is, I will move on at your loss. I am not hanging out here for dear life. There will be people who WILL understand because they have absolutely no agenda not to.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am beginning to lose my patience a bit.

Firstly - my "onslaught" consisted of 1 objection. If I add another one, will that make it an avalanche?

Secondly -If we cannot deal with a fundamental objection to an idea, then yes, that idea is wrong. This is not bias - this is the very opposite of bias. A person biased in favor of his ideas will continue to defend them even if an objection proves unsurmountable. A person biased against Lessans idea would continue to reject it even though the objection has been dealt with.

To have an objection is okay, but it almost feels as if you believe the objection is insurmountable, therefore you are telling me that his discovery will need to amended or rejected. Believe me when I tell you that this author covered all possibilities.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thirdly - you offered an idea for discussion, and when you are taken up on your offer, you start to complain of abuse when people are skeptical and actually debate it. This is histrionics of the worst kind and should be beneath you. You wanted this idea studied, and I complied. It is not my fault that there are problems with the ideas - I merely point out the ones I find.

I just don't like when you say so quickly that his ideas might have to be amended when you have not studied his observations in depth.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fourthly - you have not offered a shred of explanation of the points I wanted to clear up, merely more assertions. For the fundamental principle of Lessans ideas to work, we must show why and how blame is what enables justification. We must then also prove that any harmful act that is not caused by overwhelming circumstance or is a retaliation needs justification. This is vital, because it is one of the pillars of the whole structure - the part where we deal with first blows. If first blows still persist under Lessans ideas, then we have not adequately dealt with evil, as they will in turn lead to retaliations.

Blame is part of what allows justification. The other part is any kind of any advance judgment. Finally, we need to remove all of the factors that give rise to this desire to hurt others. When all judgment and blame cease (and I can't even begin to tell you the type of changes that are going to come about unless you read further), there will be no way a person, who knows the difference between right and wrong, could desire to strike a first blow under these new conditions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is no such evidence in the text, as far as I can tell. If we cannot clear this up, then we must conclude that Lessans made a mistake. We must then either correct the mistake or abandon the ideas altogether - unless we want to hold on to them in spite of being irrational. This is not impossible - but then it is a religion, not a philosophy or a piece of scientific thought.

Would you please stop saying that. You are not giving him the benefit of the doubt if you are so quick to abandon this knowledge. I hope I will be able to show you that the pillars are solid as a rock.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you want to move on then that is your prerogative. But as I said before, that is just another way of admitting that you cannot defend Lessans ideas.

I understand now what your concern is. It's the people who you believe have no justification but could still perpetrate a vicious act and would therefore discredit this knowledge. But that's just the point, they have to have a justification, although it might not be obvious. They won't be able to do what they did before when they can no longer justify what they are contemplating. In order for this to be accomplished, anything that smells of blame has to be removed.

Blame does enable justification. For example, knowing that one will be blamed and punished is a condition of our present environment that allows someone to take the risk of hurting others because it is the price he is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires. When a person knows in advance that he will be blamed for his actions, he also knows he can come up with all kinds of reasonable excuses or rationalizations. This eases his conscience because he can blame other causes as being responsible for what was his sole responsibility. This is not on a conscious level, but this is what occurs in a free will environment. All of these so-called assertions are actually very astute observations. Until people stop looking for empirical proof as the only proof, people will keep calling his observations assertions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again, when you say evidence you are looking for empirical data, not observable phenomena.

I have read this part many times, and I am surprised you seem to think it constitutes evidence. You have not explained anything - you have asserted that it is so. You offer no explanation WHY this is so, and that it is necessary that it is so.

You seem to feel that "Because Lessans says so" constitutes evidence - but it doesn't. If this was an undeniable truth, then surely it would not be hard to explain WHY it is an undeniable truth.

It is an undeniable truth because it is an observable law. If you know no one in the world is going to blame you for what you do, how is it possible to pay a price for hurting someone (which only means paying in some way for what you did, through some sort of punishment or restitution)?

No, you are missing the most important factor. This is not a matter of accepting his ideas or not. You can say I don't agree with these ideas because he's wrong. But once this principle is in effect, you have no choice but to move in the direction of not hurting others. It's not a choice; it's impossible under these conditions because it will give you less satisfaction, not more. We cannot choose an alternative (in this case hurting someone) when it is the least desirable choice. Please try to grasp this because it will change your perspective.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But my objection is with one of the crucial steps that the principle depends on. Before I accept that the principle might work, this objection needs to be dealt with.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have carefully and succinctly explained what my (first) objection is, and you have not responded to it in any way. All you have done is repeat Lessans ideas, as if by saying them more often you will make them more convincing.

The advance knowledge that one will be punished if he does something considered wrong by others, frees his conscience to go do that very thing. Once again, this is an undeniable observation of how the mind works.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I already know THAT Lessans thinks it is so. I want to know WHY. So far all I see is Lessans asserting the following:

...without presenting a shred of evidence WHY this is necessarily so. Blame is not the cause of, nor does it somehow allow, justification.

He never said blame was the cause of justification. He said blame gives a person the opportunity to come up with reasonable excuses. Why? I don't know why. Why do apples fall to the ground? I don't know why except to say it's an accurate observation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, not all harmful acts need be justified in order for them to be perpetrated. Just because you tend to see firemen around fires a lot does not mean you cannot have a fire without them. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Not all harmful acts need to be justified in order to be perpetrated, that is true, but part of what allows someone to follow through with his harmful acts is the knowledge that, if caught, he will be seriously punished.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We need to deal with this objection by showing that I am wrong, and that we do have evidence that it is as Lessans says. alternately we can amend the ideas, or we can abandon them. Simply repeating the ideas will not make them more convincing.

These are observations that are absolutely undeniable if you look closely enough.

[Vivisectus]

The presence of firemen, in our current environment, is a condition for the appearance of fires. People are willing to be careless with fire because they know there are firemen who will come and put the fire out. This is not on a conscious level, but it is what is going on in the current fire-station filled environment.

Just because I cannot show how firemen cause fires, or why I have come to the conclusion that firemen cause fires does not make that any less true. It is actually a very astute observation, and unless people stop looking for empirical proof as the only proof, they will just keep calling my observation an unsupported assertion.

Now how is my statement a load on nonsense, but should I believe yours? The level of support is the same!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The presence of firemen, in our current environment, is a condition for the appearance of fires. People are willing to be careless with fire because they know there are firemen who will come and put the fire out. This is not on a conscious level, but it is what is going on in the current fire-station filled environment.

Just because I cannot show how firemen cause fires, or why I have come to the conclusion that firemen cause fires does not make that any less true. It is actually a very astute observation, and unless people stop looking for empirical proof as the only proof, they will just keep calling my observation an unsupported assertion.

Now how is my statement a load on nonsense, but should I believe yours? The level of support is the same!

That is a very astute observation on your part, Vivisectus.

If we get rid of firemen and fire stations, there will be no more fire.