A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Awareness

What kind of "bitchy" words are these Peacegirl?

That is what I mean , that words on the internet mean totally nothing.
Only when you have a message.
But at leasts Doc's words have a meaning, which you yourself proved to Doc.

And what is that meaning of which you speak?? I'm waiting...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

erimir is who decides what is true for erimir. He is expressing his opinion, as is everyone else.

Now, as it so happens, many people happen to agree with him.

I'm not interested in opinions. If that's all we're discussing here it wouldn't mean very much because opinions are often wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Specious is correct.

Note erimir's use of "I" statements

"I (erimir) don't think scientific experiments are the only way to gain knowledge."

"I (erimir) have seen neither astute observations nor sound reasoning from you or your daddy.."

He doesn't claim to be determiner or overseer of truth, nor does he use the words "absolute" at all. The only person here who uses such strong words as absolute and undeniable is Lessans, and by extension you, peacegirl.

Peacegirl, why did you respond as if he made claims or statements he didn't make?

He is cloaking his argument with the use of 'I' statements, as if it's his opinion, but it's just a roundabout way of dogmatically stating that Lessans was wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

opinions are often wrong.

Did you mean to say that, I mean on purpose? Was it another of your jokes?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So if it's not reincarnation then what is it? Define "we" in "we are born again and again". What part of us is reborn? How?

I am not going to get into this chapter. I will say one thing only. There is no relationship to the 'you' that exists now with the 'you' that will be conscious after you die. This is a difficult chapter, but it's very very comforting to those who don't believe the theories that involve woo woo stuff.

[LadyShea]

So Lessans posits some form of consciousness in an afterlife? That's supernaturalism, ie: woo or religion.

I am not in the market for supernatural comfort, thanks. I am fine with cessation of the existence of me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I am not happy that you are throwing a 12 year old "Fine, whatever!" fit. I would be happy if you would try to understand why you keep getting the same reception over and over. I would be happy if you realized that doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is stupid and pointless. I would be happy if you applied critical thinking skills to the issue rather than your dogmatism. I would be happy if you quit blaming everyone else for your and Lessan's failings.

I am not blaming anyone for their myopia. He did not fail Ladyshea; you all failed him. You are using a false criteria to judge his work. I will repeat: The scientific method is a good way to find out about the world, but it's not the only way.

I realize that these forums are coming from the same school of thought, and I should have realized this when I came here. I think I was crazy to do this again, but this time I'm cured. That doesn't mean I won't keep trying to get this knowledge recognized, but I will have to reach people who will at the very least read the book in its entirety. I don't think metaphysics is the right fit for Lessans. Maybe people like Deepak Choprah, or Eckhart Tolle, or Marianne Williamson who do not believe that this hard nosed approach is the only method of investigation.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not blaming anyone for their myopia. He did not fail Ladyshea; you all failed him. You are using a false criteria to judge his work.

Right: Facts, logic, evidence, data, reason and rationality.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not blaming anyone for their myopia. He did not fail Ladyshea; you all failed him.

Good grief, woman, which is it? You claim not to blame us but in the very next sentence, you blame us!

I'm beginning to think you don't understand your own words, let alone ours.

[LadyShea]

How can I fail someone I have no responsibilities towards nor have made promises or commitments to?

And LOL Deepak Chopra. Yeah I agree that places where those woo gurus' followers congregate are a good place for you to try.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl,
The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

Now this claim is very interesting, Lessans states that a person can no longer say 'I' after they have died but must use the pronoun 'You', Is this correct and an accurate discription of what Lessans wrote in the book?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that these forums are coming from the same school of thought, and I should have realized this when I came here. I think I was crazy to do this again, but this time I'm cured. That doesn't mean I won't keep trying to get this knowledge recognized, but I will have to reach people who will at the very least read the book in its entirety. I don't think metaphysics is the right fit for Lessans. Maybe people like Deepak Choprah, or Eckhart Tolle, or Marianne Williamson who do not believe that this hard nosed approach is the only method of investigation.

Well, LadyShea, after 120+ pages, she has finally realized that this type of forum is not where she should be peddling Lessan's work. At least some lesson was learned.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So Lessans posits some form of consciousness in an afterlife? That's supernaturalism, ie: woo or religion.

I am not in the market for supernatural comfort, thanks. I am fine with cessation of the existence of me.

LadyShea, you are jumping to conclusions again. This has nothing to do with consciousness in an afterlife? It has nothing to do with reincarnation, or a spiritual world of souls either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl,
The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

Now this claim is very interesting, Lessans states that a person can no longer say 'I' after they have died but must use the pronoun 'You', Is this correct and an accurate discription of what Lessans wrote in the book?

I'm not getting into this chapter, I'm sorry. I plead the 5th amendment, and I'm sure you undertand why.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can I fail someone I have no responsibilities towards nor have made promises or commitments to?

And LOL Deepak Chopra. Yeah I agree that places where those woo gurus' followers congregate are a good place for you to try.

People failed him because they not give him the benefit of the doubt, even though they thought they did. They demanded empirical evidence instead of understanding that astute observation can be just as accurate as the scientific method. I really don't care what type of person is open to studying this work, as long as they keep an open mind. If they are famous, that would be even better because they could be instrumental in getting this knowledge spread very quickly. Obviously, this book isn't going to be read or appreciated by this group of people. Unfortunately, it is your loss, not mine. I know what this man has, whether anyone here sees it or not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not getting into this chapter, I'm sorry. I plead the 5th amendment, and I'm sure you undertand why.

Actually I don't understand why you would not try to help me understand what I am reading. If you are saying you don't understand it, OK, but otherwise I don't see why you refuse to help?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Good grief, woman, which is it? You claim not to blame us but in the very next sentence, you blame us!

I'm beginning to think you don't understand your own words, let alone ours.

Sharon, you cannot even begin to apply the knowledge of this discovery to the world we're living in, so don't even try.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually I don't understand why you would not try to help me understand what I am reading. If you are saying you don't understand it, OK, but otherwise I don't see why you refuse to help?

Because I can't bear to have this man insulted one more time. I believe people here would not grasp what he has written, twist his words, and make fun of his very important contribution. I'm sorry if you are truly interested and not just making fun. I hope you are comforted in the knowledge that when you die, it's not the end, even though the pain of losing a loved one is part of the human condition and something that we all have to face at some point in our lives.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I plead the 5th amendment, and I'm sure you undertand [sic] why.

Yes. It's because you're as spectacularly ignorant with regard to American constitutional law as you are regarding every other topic on which you've blabbered in this thread.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are jumping to conclusions again. This has nothing to do with consciousness in an afterlife? It has nothing to do with reincarnation, or a spiritual world of souls either.

You said

the 'you' that will be conscious after you die

So now, you are saying "Conscious after you die" doesn't have anything to do with consciousness in an afterlife? Is it a poor word choice on your part?

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sharon, you cannot even begin to apply the knowledge of this discovery to the world we're living in, so don't even try.

Hmm. Really.

Can you?

[Awareness]

Doc, your understanding is laughable. The fact that you said that I'm a troll is absolutely excruciating, and I refuse to talk to someone who is trying to discredit Lessans with absolutely no proof or contestable argument. You are just following the crowd. I feel sorry for you.

What kind of "bitchy" words are these Peacegirl?

That is what I mean , that words on the internet mean totally nothing.
Only when you have a message.
But at leasts Doc's words have a meaning, which you yourself proved to Doc.

And what is that meaning of which you speak?? I'm waiting...

I meant so much reaction of cruel words to Doc, and for what?

Why react when it gets personal, when you do not even know each other.

Words on the internet have totally no meaning Peacegirl, only when you want them to.

[Awareness]

This book contains a scientific discovery based on a natural psychological law which was hidden so carefully behind layers of dogma in the guise of truth that it wasn't found until now. This knowledge allows mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction, creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations.

Peacegirl: Who is arguing with this? This knowledge is all about understanding. You don't know what you're talking about.

I think you are not even older than 16, so you have not even begun to understand life.

Reading what marked is in red, is enough to ignore Seymour Lessans.
Try first respecting people.
You may be the perfect example for Lessans to start with.

quote="Awareness: Everyone who can feel and reason knows that this is gruesome: "creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations "

Constantly loving has always a BARF climax, and is UNNATURAL!!

Peacegirl:Oh really? So you would rather live in a world where there is murder, war, crime, hatred, jealousy, rape, accidents, drugs, mental illness, divorce, insecurity, poverty, all because a loving world is UNNATURAL??

I'm hearing the good old Coca Cola song peace girl, and I see Griggsy prancing around tossing petals of flowerbuds.

You are so ignorant Peacegirl to follow Seymour Lessans.
I had a hard time searching him on Google, from pool player to dancing lessons, but his first lines already gives away his virtue, and that is himself.

P.S. CONSTANTLY loving Peacegirl, there is a difference between your words;" all because a loving world is UNNATURAL?? "

[Awareness]

Continuing our analysis, there is another hidden problem that
leads to a build up of resentment not only between married couples
but as a part of the general social fabric. What is this serious
problem? It is the fact that mankind is having constant collisions of
desire. This has been an enormous source of conflict and must be
solved in order for there to be peaceful coexistence. To balance this
equation during our years of development God was compelled to have
good and evil, and the balance was perfect. Now that we have
developed sufficiently to see His laws which reveal Him by observing
the harmony in the mankind system that was never understood until
now, He snips off the evil and attaches good so that the balance still
remains perfect.

What Lessans wants is try to cut water with a blade.
How are you and Lessans going to defeat the devil?....... Hmmmmmm?

" Snip his D..K " ?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

How?

Oh, and by the way, Lessans in his book said that nothing reaches the optic nerve (which is of course impossible, but that's what he said) whereas you told The Lone Ranger that light raches the optic nerve.

So you disagree with Lessans?

You can't get off of this one aspect, can you? For the 100th time, I said it all depends on whether the pupil, photoreceptors, and optic nerve can react to light even though the light is not impinging directly.