A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. . .and the means he has outlined to achieve this end is the most reliable way to get there.

Which do not work.

Doc, I realize that. That's why until I can convince Vivisectus (because he is the most in touch with Chapter Two) that the three pillars of Lessans' structure stand solid as a rock, no one else is going to listen.

No one is listening because you have no evidence to support these means, you throw a fit when you are shown to be incorrect, and you have not moved forward in pages.

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not faith based at all.

Of his “discovery,” the author wrote in the book:

Sooner or later it must come to light because God is giving us no choice in this
matter whatsoever.

Oh, in the book the author also says he was so pissed at President Nixon when Nixon refused to grant him an audience to show how to bring about world peace, that he considered running for president against Nixon. The author also sued President Jimmy Carter (really!) when Carter refused to grant a similar audience.

[davidm]

From Peacegirl's second post in this thread, about Lessans' book:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a religious work whatsoever.

From Lessan's book:

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.

[davidm]

The author even includes his letter to Richard Nixon in the book.

[davidm]

Nixon did not respond to teh letter.

[thedoc]

would you have responded to that letter?

[davidm]

But Nixon always said he wanted to build "a structure of peace." Here was his chance, and he blew it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say one thing and that is that threats of blame and punishment are what gives a person the ability to justify his actions.

I get it that, when one is not going to be called to publicly account for his/her actions, there is then no motivation to prepare a public defense for those actions. In other words, if others are not going to blame me, then there is no particular reason why I would bother to justify myself before them. (I think I would still have the ability to do so, just no particularly good reason for doing so.) What, however, is to prevent me from justifying my actions to myself? Suppose that I am determined to pursue a course of action in pursuit of a particular goal. Further, suppose that I know (or at least have reason to suspect) that this course of action will, by way of collateral damage, cause harm to another person. It seems to me that, even though I know that there is no possibility of my being blamed by anyone else for the harm I do, I would, for my own peace of mind, be motivated to construct an argument whereby I am justified, in my own mind, for the harm I am going to cause.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The first thing that needs to be established is that his observations are absolutely undeniable...

This is one of the most sensible things you have yet written. Since his entire project rests solely on his observations and his reasoning from those observations, then it is absolutely essential that the soundness and accuracy of his observations be demonstrated. This has yet to be accomplished.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you do not understand how conscience works in every case. I don't know why it works this way, BUT IT DOES. This is a psychological mechanism built into the brain that when someone takes advantage of another without provocation, the only way he can do this is knowing that if he gets caught, and his excuses fail, he would be blamed and punished for his wrongdoing, which allows him to go ahead with what he is contemplating. It is the price he is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires; in this case (for example) taking what doesn't belong to him.

I take it that this is one of those "astute observations" that you have been talking about. Tell me, if you will, why we should believe that conscience works this way or that any such psychological mechanism is built into the brain. What evidence, beyond Lessans' observations, exists to support this claim.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What evidence, beyond Lessans' observations, exists to support this claim.

"How much damage would this bulldozer suffer if I let it just roll right over you?"
-
"None at all".
-
Which, by a strange coincidence, is how much evidence Peacegirl has provided.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Yet here we are. The central point here is this: Lessans' choice to use terms like 'scientific' and 'mathematical' in instances where they do not match or even resemble the standard definitions of those terms only serves to detract from his already shaky credibility, and in no way bolsters his argument. Except, of course, among those vulnerable to such rhetorical tactics, who do not know what it means for something to be 'scientific' or 'mathematical.'

It was not a tactic. He was not using these words for any other reason than to make sure people knew that this knowledge was undeniable. He could have left it at that. He also didn't have to call his discovery the two-sided equation because that could also confuse people. But here we are, and it is what it is. Now it's up to you to do what you want with it.

Originally Posted by kael

It is possible, of course, that Lessans himself was such a person, that these terms are the result of nothing more than bad writing and were simply used incorrectly by mistake. Whether that is the case, or whether they were chosen in a deliberate attempt to deceive the careless or uninformed reader, they serve no positive function for the work. They are one of the many parts of the book that would be improved greatly by a more careful or more honest editor.

I want to also mention that he never took formal classes in philosophy and probably didn't realize these words had very specific meanings. All of his reading was on his own. He certainly didn't do this to deceive anyone. Why do you think he wrote 7 books? To try to make it easier. If when he says mathematical, which he says a lot, you could just think undeniable, then that problem would be solved. As I said, the book is already live on Trafford.com. I can't afford one more cent toward editing. Maybe if I start selling, I'll make enough money to get an editor at some point in the future.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If when he says mathematical, which he says a lot, you could just think undeniable, then that problem would be solved.

It would be solved, except for the niggling little problem that Lessans' bizarre claims are neither mathematical nor undeniable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

"How much damage would this bulldozer suffer if I let it just roll right over you?"
-
"None at all".
-
Which, by a strange coincidence, is how much evidence Peacegirl has provided.

Yes I have. What has to be necessary is this:

1. Man's will cannot be free.

2. The two-sided equation needs to be correct, which it is.

3. Conscience needs work in a predictable way.

4. Blame creates a way to justify or excuse; no blame creates no way to justify or excuse.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It would be solved, except for the niggling little problem that Lessans' bizarre claims are neither mathematical nor undeniable.

David, you haven't read Chapter Two at all. You haven't come up with any reasonable questions at all. I think you're still upset about his claim that the eyes aren't a sense organ.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I have. What has to be necessary is this:

1. Man's will cannot be free.

2. The two-sided equation needs to be correct, which it is.

3. Conscience needs work in a predictable way.

4. Blame creates a way to justify or excuse; no blame creates no way to justify or excuse.

1. Unsupported assertion

2. The "equation" is not mathematical and it's incoherent.

3. It does not; it varies from individual to individual.

4. To the extent that point 4 is even coherent, it's wrong.

[davidm]

Ok, girls, get cracking in teh kitchen! From the book:

If mother’s domain is to prepare the meals (and in most cases it
will be), her desire must be considered as well. She is not running a
restaurant and cannot be expected to cook an entire menu each and
every night, but at the same time she can no longer blame the
children for not eating what she cooks, therefore, she is given no
alternative but to prepare everything in such a tasty manner that her
entire family looks forward to eating at every meal because she can
blame no one anymore if they don’t eat. Because it is impossible for
her to judge that certain foods have greater value than others where
another body is concerned unless science has established mathematical
facts, she will be compelled to arrange a diversified variety over an
entire week or two weeks so that her children and husband will look
forward to eating certain meals on certain days. If the family likes
spaghetti and meatballs which is served on Monday, that morning
they will look forward to the evening when they will be served what
they like. Tuesday morning, knowing that mother will have
something else that evening, they will anticipate their evening meal
just as they may look forward to a certain television show or
453
something else. By setting up each day for a specific meal, no one can
ever get tired of eating the same thing and when the week rolls around
everybody will be looking forward to what is on the menu for that day.

[davidm]

The author further argues that once it is realized that man's will is not free, candy and cake manufacturers will be virtually wiped out.

[erimir]

Sounds like somebody married a bad cook, and isn't bitter about it at all.

[davidm]

The author:

We will always
have parties because they are a lot of fun, although we won’t be having
weddings in the Golden Age since the manner in which we now are
married is coming to an end.

Does this mean no marriage for teh gayz after all?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say one thing and that is that threats of blame and punishment are what gives a person the ability to justify his actions.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I get it that, when one is not going to be called to publicly account for his/her actions, there is then no motivation to prepare a public defense for those actions. In other words, if others are not going to blame me, then there is no particular reason why I would bother to justify myself before them. (I think I would still have the ability to do so, just no particularly good reason for doing so.)

Exactly. Of course you could say, "This wasn't my fault..." but why would you give excuses when you are already excused, and no one is blaming you?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What, however, is to prevent me from justifying my actions to myself? Suppose that I am determined to pursue a course of action in pursuit of a particular goal. Further, suppose that I know (or at least have reason to suspect) that this course of action will, by way of collateral damage, cause harm to another person. It seems to me that, even though I know that there is no possibility of my being blamed by anyone else for the harm I do, I would, for my own peace of mind, be motivated to construct an argument whereby I am justified, in my own mind, for the harm I am going to cause.

That is a very important question and I think if we can get past this point in our understanding, it will be easier sailing from here on in. It goes back to the way conscience works. Conscience needs a way to justify hurting anyone who doesn't want to be hurt. That's what the role of conscience is. Now let's suppose you are doing something to gain at someone else's expense, then you are striking a first blow. In a situation like this your conscience needs to know that you would be blamed by the authorities, or others, if they knew what you were doing. You therefore are willing to pay the price to get what you want.

Now let's imagine that you know in advance that not one person in the world is ever going to blame you, not even me who you are stealing from, because I will be compelled to turn the other cheek for my satisfaction. Please read this passage:

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. Let me explain this in still another way.

When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you
do it also means that you must assume complete responsibility for
what you do because you cannot shift it away from yourself under
the changed conditions.

You can test yourself by imagining how you would feel. Picture that the new world is here, and no one is going to ever again judge you, blame you, criticize you, or punish you for anything you might do. If you hurt someone, they are not going to come after you and ask you why you did this because they already know that it was a compulsion beyond your control. Just thinking about hurting someone, under these conditions, makes me extremely uncomfortable. The reason you can't rationalize your behavior to yourself is because it's not good enough for your conscience. In order for one's conscience to permit a wrongdoing, it needs to know you will be blamed by others, if you're caught. When all blame is removed, your conscience will be bothered because you can't shift to something else, or pay a price, for what you know is your responsibility. Being able to shift one's responsibility eases conscience and it allows one to lie to himself and to others. That's how conscience works. Maybe this excerpt will make more sense now that I've explained it:

Let me explain this in still another way.
When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you
do it also means that you must assume complete responsibility for
what you do because you cannot shift it away from yourself under
the changed conditions. We have become so confused by words
in logical relation that while we preach this freedom of the will we
say in the same breath that we could not help ourselves, and
demonstrate our confusion still more by believing that the
corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, would lessen our responsibility
when it does the exact opposite.

Did you ever see anything more
ironically humorous? The only time we can use the excuse that
our will is not free is when the world believes it is free. The world
of free will (the world of blame and punishment) has allowed
people to lie and cheat in order to get what they want and then shift
responsibility away from themselves when questioned. Many
philosophers have gotten confused over this one point because it
was assumed that a world without blame would only make matters
worse, decreasing responsibility to an even greater extent and
giving man the perfect opportunity to take advantage of others
without having to worry about consequences. But this can only
occur when man knows he will be blamed, which allows him to
come up with reasonable excuses.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The first thing that needs to be established is that his observations are absolutely undeniable...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This is one of the most sensible things you have yet written. Since his entire project rests solely on his observations and his reasoning from those observations, then it is absolutely essential that the soundness and accuracy of his observations be demonstrated. This has yet to be accomplished.

Thank you! Finally, someone is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you do not understand how conscience works in every case. I don't know why it works this way, BUT IT DOES. This is a psychological mechanism built into the brain that when someone takes advantage of another without provocation, the only way he can do this is knowing that if he gets caught, and his excuses fail, he would be blamed and punished for his wrongdoing, which allows him to go ahead with what he is contemplating. It is the price he is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires; in this case (for example) taking what doesn't belong to him.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I take it that this is one of those "astute observations" that you have been talking about. Tell me, if you will, why we should believe that conscience works this way or that any such psychological mechanism is built into the brain. What evidence, beyond Lessans' observations, exists to support this claim.

I don't know what other evidence exists, but his observations are accurate. Conscience works in a very predictable way. Because this knowledge is unprecedented, I don't know what other studies are out there. But I'm sure if empirical testing was done, it would support his claims. If conscience didn't work this way, then we could rationalize our behavior under any condition. Additionally, if man's will was free, he could hurt people regardless of being blamed or not blamed, but it's impossible because man is compelled move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and it will give him no satisfaction whatsoever to hurt people under the conditions just described.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The author:

Does this mean no marriage for teh gayz after all?

david david david, there are going to be marriages, but not through legal means.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I have. What has to be necessary is this:

1. Man's will cannot be free.

2. The two-sided equation needs to be correct, which it is.

3. Conscience needs work in a predictable way.

4. Blame creates a way to justify or excuse; no blame creates no way to justify or excuse.

I would appear that you don't understand what constitutes evidence. None of the points in your response are evidence for Lessans' claims. I see several unsupported assertions, but no evidence.

[davidm]

You know, as I think about it, I really regret Nixon didn't agree to meet Lessans. Remember, the meeting would have been secretly taped, and we'd have those transcripts now. Just imagine what that would have been like.

Maybe I will imagine it, and write it down.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, that's it. You've nailed it perfectly. I don't think anyone could explain it better.

Originally Posted by davidm

OK.

So, if prior to the Big Band there was no mass and, apparently no light, and then, right at the moment of the Big Bang there is this tremendous flash of light, such that it defies the imagination, except when it comes to creating a Universe of course, does that mean photon lizards are possible?

But, then again, I already mentioned something about how much information could be passed using fiber optics.

Also, I don't know why they call it the Big Bang, because it couldn't be heard without an atmosphere, and at the time there was only empty space. Or, even if there was an atmosphere, and it could be heard, it would be no different than the clap of thunder we hear when a streak of lightning flashes across the sky.

Hey, maybe that's what happened in the beginning? God was playing around with His Yin and Yang, and got His potentials too close, albeit it doesn't explain how they got there in the first place -- there's no doubt they were there -- when, suddenly, there was a tremendous flash of light! ... and, of course the Big Bang which followed, if it were audible.

Hey, isn't this what they attribute to the beginning of life here on the planet? To all these flashes of lightning, and ensuing "big bangs," while striking the oceans? Hmm ...

Hey Zeus!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So, if prior to the Big Band there was no mass and, apparently no light, and then, right at the moment of the Big Bang there is this tremendous flash of light, such that it defies the imagination, except when it comes to creating a Universe of course, does that mean photon lizards are possible?

There was no moment prior to the Big Bang. Space and time began in the Big Bang, if the Big Bang happened.

Also, I don't know why they call it the Big Bang,

The term was originally bestowed on it in a derogatory way by a scientist who didn't accept the theory. The name stuck because it was catchy.

Hey, maybe that's what happened in the beginning? God was playing around with His Yin and Yang, and got His potentials too close, albeit it doesn't explain how they got there in the first place -- there's no doubt they were there -- when, suddenly, there was a tremendous flash of light! ... and, of course the Big Bang which followed, if it were audible.

Mabye.

In all seriousness, when we speak of "rest mass," we are scientifically speaking of situation in which a woman drags her husband off to church, and the husband, bored with the whole thing, sleeps through the service.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, you haven't read Chapter Two at all.

Wow, all these people who are debating Ch 2 and beyond but they really haven't read it at all, Awl-right, put down those comic books and playboys and get serious about reading the assignment.