A revolution in thought

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think he was apologizing for the mis-attribution, after all peacegirl has taken quite a bit of flack for that this thread.

You seem to think I was asking what he was apologising for. I can see nothing which would lead you to read "why LS?" as "what for?"!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is nothing else either - no logical support, no sort of compelling analogy with anything else... nothing! Why would anyone accept such an exceptional claim on the basis of no evidence?

What are you talking about? His knowledge is very clear, but it's not easy to grasp if you haven't gone over it many times. I think we need to start the beginning because have no idea what anyone understands.

CATEGORICALLY WRONG VIVISECTUS!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah you are your fathers daughter - you say so, so it must be true. If it is wrong, then point out why - like, explain to me how your father supported his notions. If you cannot, you have to admit that my rather silly example had the exact same reasons to believe in it.

I really don't know how I'm going to proceed when you and everyone else are not really trying to understand this book. You are trying in the worst way to prove him wrong. Since that one analogy you have shown no curiosity, no real interest, no nothing. How can you not be interested in what this book has to say if you understood even a little bit of it?

But you have not read the book in its entirety, and you are using what everyone else says (who have not read the book) as evidence that Lessans was wrong. Is there not something wrong with this type of thinking? Be honest for a change. Please don't tell me that this is the way a scientific investigation should be pursued.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I have read it! I am just not discussing the rest at the moment. I have some issues with other parts of the book as well, but you kept saying that it would be folly to go on without first fully understanding the first 2 chapters.[/qutoe]

You're right, it would be folly to read the book out of order, but you said you read the first two chapters, so just give me one example of an issue you have with other parts of the book?

You keep saying that, so tell me, what is poorly supported, and what is downright impossible? I am sorry if you don't like the writing style, but that has nothing to do with the content.

Who am I pointing fingers at? I am defensive because everyone is telling me he has nothing when I know he does. How am I supposed to act?

Unfortunately, the idea that the only method to come to a valid truth is through collection data is really hurting my efforts. He was describing how conscience works. When you observe something, it is a description of how something works. If you repair cars, you can describe how a car works and therefore you have knowledge of how to fix it. The only difference is that Lessans was describing something no one else had observed, and therefore he was able to find a solution.

I refuse to get into physics. I know the truth will come out because people will want to know if there is a possibility that efferent vision is really how we see. I still think that seeing an object in real time does not negate the theory of relativity.

I don't think people are maliciously trying to misunderstand the book, but they are, indeed, misunderstanding the book. Do you think it was right for David to pull sentences out of context, and make a big joke out of it? I never said people ask too many questions, but it's the general attitude that makes me think their questions are not sincere, that bothers me. I don't think people are taking this book seriously, otherwise, they would be reading with high hopes, but they're not.

You're going to have to agree to disagree for the time being, because there's going to be no progress in this regard, and if that is the reason you won't read the rest of the book, there's nothing I can do about that.

Being robbed is not a relative concept, is it? I am not saying that there isn't duality in some situations, but what does this have to do with the validity of his knowledge? You'll have to give me a more concrete example.

It is not easy to see how conscience works because it appears that "bad" people don't need a justification to perform their evil acts. But embedded in their psyche is a history of hurt that has deeply wounded them, and from this wound they continue the cycle of anger and rage, which often manifests in very unpredictable ways. It is not always the person who is responsible for the hurt that gets his just due. It's the innocent person who is often the recipient of a someone's rage, because he happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope you accept this response even if you're not fully convinced.

Vivisectus, find a post where I called someone stupid or lazy, and I'll eat my words. I did say people were close minded, and I still believe that if they continue to tell me he is wrong when they haven't read the book. That is not fair play.

No, these concepts have not been examined fully Vivisectus. I can see why the conclusions drawn are incomplete and inaccurate. Am I supposed to accept your conclusions when I know you have not understood the book the way it is meant to. That doesn't mean your questions aren't valid, and I will do my best to answer them, but you have to give it a chance.

You said you read the book, so you should have tons of questions. Ask me some. I wish we could all be reading the same pages so everyone could chime in and there would be more bang for the buck so-to-speak, but I guess that's impossible.

If I didn't I would not be able to come up with objections that you are unable to deal with. If more study would remedy this, you would be able to remedy it. You would be able to show what I had missed and show me the error of my ways. As it is all you have is yet more excuses and accusations - I did not want to see it, I did not study hard enough, I am malicious and lazy...

I never said you were malicious and I do appreciate that you are trying. I just hope you don't give up because if this knowledge was easy, it would have discovered a long time ago. So give yourself a break, but please don't stop asking questions.

Of course you have no reason to believe the knowledge that crime cannot occur, under certain environmental conditions, because you have no idea what this discovery is about, or how it is extended into all areas of human relation, YET YOU THINK YOU DO, WHICH IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE YOU SET YOURSELF UP AS ALL KNOWING. So your answer is perfectly understandable coming from such obvious ignorance

.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yet another claim with no substance. I have looked very closely at it, and presented you with objections which I based on the matter in the book. If you could deal with those objections you would do so in stead of resorting to shouting "You so innorant!". But you cannot, because it is all based on a completely unsupported assertion.

I answered your question about the need for justification. I just hope it's adequate so we can move on. The more you read, the better you'll understand it, and then you'll be in a position to explain it to others.

You can't be serious. All actions are relative based on a person's individual circumstances. He stated early on that one man's meat is another man's poison.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nevertheless in order for his system to work, a deed cannot be both harmful and not harmful, or harmful while being perceived as beneficial, or vice versa. If they are, then a new first blow can arise even if blame is removed and turns out to be the condition for justification after all, and we have not in fact dealt with the problem of evil. It is called the binary trap - where people accidentally think in terms of black / white, on / off and do not realize that this does not in fact correspond with reality.[/qutoe]

That's a very good question, but I would appreciate if you could give me a concrete example. It's easier to understand that way.

I tell you I believe he is wrong about sight and present you with the physics and some everyday observations and facts that show that he must be. I also present to you some reasons why I don't think your father proves his point, and that his conclusion are therefor not compelling. Just because you chose only to read the firemen-analogy - which you still have not dealt with, by the way, except for saying "No it isn't! My Father is right and you are ignorant / mean / lazy / closed minded!" - doesn't mean other ones were not there.

I did answer it. I said it's not a perfect analogy because we need firemen just in case there is a fire, but as you read the book you'll see why not only do we not need blame and punishment as a condition for criminal behavior, but it actually encourages the criminal behavior it is trying to prevent.

He said his education was far superior when he was attacked for only going to grade school. He retaliated against bigotry, don't you see this?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He had just met the man, could not have known more than his credentials, and concluded without any further inquiry that his educations was, and I quote, "far superior". At least he was consistent in his regard for evidence, I guess.

That is not true. Where in this excerpt was he arrogant? He was reacting to someone who was questioning his abilities. You would have done the same thing, if you were in his shoes.

People have often questioned, “Well assuming that you did make
a fantastic discovery, why bring it to me? You should run to the
nearest university so it can be acknowledged. Then you would be
acclaimed a genius and become famous the world over.”

“That’s exactly what I did but when one professor heard my claims
he smiled and lost all interest. Another used a method for screening
out the wrong applicants for such a discovery. ”He immediately
questioned my educational background and wanted to know from what
university I graduated, to which I replied, “I have no formal education
because I never completed the 7th grade.”

Then without giving me
a chance to tell him that my informal education was far superior to
his formal education he responded without giving much thought to
what he was about to say, ‘And you dare to come in here with such
outrageous claims about solving all the problems of human relation!’”
“I couldn’t believe my ears, and my blood was beginning to boil.”
“Well tell me,” I said, trying to control myself, “What is your
formal education?”

“I graduated from Harvard with many honors and credentials.”
I then inquired, “With all your formal education, your honors,
your degrees and diplomas, what discoveries have you made to solve
the problems plaguing mankind?” There was no answer and he hung
up.

After that I was completely frustrated. Did you ever hear of
anything so insulting, as if a discovery could not be made unless
someone graduates college first? Which of these universities taught
Newton, Edison, or Einstein, or did they perceive relations their
professors were unable to understand until explained to them?
Instead of being centers of investigation where new knowledge can be
thoroughly analyzed, the professors use what they have been taught as
a standard of truth from which vantage point they survey the
landscape of divergent views for the sole purpose of criticism and
disagreement. Isn’t this a perfect example of putting the proverbial
cart before the horse, which should be a lesson to all professors that
they should never become so dogmatic about their theories or
opinions that they won’t take the time to investigate anything that
might lead to the truth.

Nooooo, he was not putting the cart before the horse and using a false syllogism to make his ideas look perfect. That is not how it went down. No wonder you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt. You already have tried and convicted him.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not talking about his ideas. I am talking about his arrogance. A man can be as arrogant as you like and still be right.

But he wasn't arrogant. I can't even conceive of that word applied to him because I knew him, and this is a wrong perception.

I told you part of the responsibility for this dialogue is mine. Stop blaming the wrong source for the wrong thing, okay? You are judging his work like David and LadyShea, who took out of context, everything this man stood for, and then said, "See how idiotic this book is?" I hope you're not going to follow suit, but I have very little confidence that you won't.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It really does not help.

I'm sorry if you don't like the way it's written. Blame me, not him.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He clearly thought he was infallible, that his ideas were flawless. There is no room for him to be wrong in any way, or for his ideas to be improved. If that isn't arrogant, I don't know what is.

I asked you to please put Lessans temporarily into a category of someone who you already know made a major contribution. Replace his name with Edison, and you might conjure up a little more compassion, and a lot less judgment as to who this man was before concluding he was a crackpot.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is very much your fathers style, I notice. He wants to be considered a genius, but does not feel a very great need to prove that this is so. It is also your style - you presuppose that your father is a major contributor, and that his work all makes sense, as long as you believe that it does.

Lessans does not want to be considered a genius. He wants to help prevent war and crime, and I believe he found a solution. You can't judge this work at this point, so please be patient. That's all I can ask for.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans did not come to his knowledge through testing. It came through is amazing ability to observe and to reason what he was seeing.

Yes, amazingly, the old idiot observed that reflected moonlight arrives instantaneously but light reflected off your neighbor takes eight and a half minutes to arrive.

When did he observe this? While hustling some sucker at billiards after dropping out of the seventh grade?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is nothing else either - no logical support, no sort of compelling analogy with anything else... nothing! Why would anyone accept such an exceptional claim on the basis of no evidence?

His knowledge is very clear, but it's not easy to grasp if you haven't gone over it many times. I think we need to start from the beginning because have no idea what anyone understands.

CATEGORICALLY WRONG VIVISECTUS!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah you are your fathers daughter - you say so, so it must be true. If it is wrong, then point out why - like, explain to me how your father supported his notions. If you cannot, you have to admit that my rather silly example had the exact same reasons to believe in it.

I really don't know how I'm going to proceed when you and everyone else are not really trying to understand this book. You are trying in the worst way to prove him wrong. Since that one analogy you have shown no curiosity, no real interest, no nothing. How can you not be interested in what this book has to say if you understood even a little bit of it?

But you have not read the book in its entirety, and you are using what everyone else says (who have not read the book) as evidence that Lessans was wrong. Is there not something wrong with this type of thinking? Be honest for a change. Please don't tell me that this is the way a scientific investigation should be pursued.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I have read it! I am just not discussing the rest at the moment. I have some issues with other parts of the book as well, but you kept saying that it would be folly to go on without first fully understanding the first 2 chapters.

You're right, it would be folly to read the book out of order, but you said you read the first two chapters, so just give me one example of an issue you have with other parts of the book.

That is the worst excuse for not taking Lessans seriously as anyone could ever conjure up. I have nothing more to say.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not using it as an excuse to take him not seriously. I do not take him seriously because his ideas are poorly written, poorly supported and sometimes downright impossible.

You keep saying that, so tell me, what is poorly supported, and what is downright impossible? I am sorry if you don't like the writing style, but that has nothing to do with the content.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was pointing out that you do an awful lot of finger-pointing, and that it is strange that this is necessary considering this is such a brilliant breakthrough.

Who am I pointing fingers at? I am defensive because everyone is telling me he has nothing when I know he does. How am I supposed to act?

Am I on another planet? Did I not just explain to you why your analogy was totally off; that his conclusions did not come from data collection. You cannot compare the need for firemen if there is a fire, to the need for blame and punishment if there is no crime. Can't you let go of this analogy, which is completely inaccurate, in order to move forward?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, you merely asserted that it was so. You completely failed to explain how it was, in fact very well supported. Like your father you consider your say-so undeniable evidence.

Unfortunately, the idea that the only method to come to a valid truth is through data collection is really sabotaging my efforts. He was describing how conscience works. When you observe something, it is a description of how something works. If you repair cars, you can describe how a car works and therefore you have knowledge of how to fix it. The only difference is that Lessans was describing something no one else had observed, and therefore he was able to find a solution.

The premise is wrong, period. Only time will tell if Lessans is right, but I refuse to get caught up in this subject matter, because I will be attacked on the grounds that David is all knowing and is the epitome of the Godfather in this forum who can do no wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The premise your father proposed? Or special relativity? Because it has to be one or the other.

I refuse to get into physics. I know the truth will come out because people will want to know if there is a possibility that efferent vision is really how we see. I still think that seeing an object in real time does not negate the theory of relativity.

What excuses? I am not offering excuses? I am trying my damdest to get you to realize that this knowledge is authentic. What gives me comfort is knowing that every single motion, even the discussion that is being used against him, is necessary for future progress.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The endless complaining how people are maliciously trying to misunderstand the book, are closed-minded, don't put in the effort to read the book, are too invested in the current theories, ask too many questions, don't take it seriously... it goes on and on and on. Those excuses.

I don't think people are maliciously trying to misunderstand the book, but they are, indeed, misunderstanding the book. Do you think it was right for David to pull sentences out of context, and make a big joke out of it? I never said people ask too many questions, but it's the general attitude that makes me think their questions are not sincere, that bothers me the most. I don't think people are taking this book seriously, otherwise, they would be reading voraciously, but they're not.

There is nothing you disagree with that can't be explained. You have only given one refutation which you think discredits Lessans' entire work of 30+ years. Doesn't that raise a red flag that it is you who could be wrong???? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I can find some more objections if you want. The sight one I focus on because it contradicts everything we know about how matter works, and is easily shown to be in contradiction with reality. If you are ever going to admit even the slightest flaw in this book, it should be here.

You're going to have to agree to disagree for the time being, because there's going to be no progress in this regard, and if that is the reason you won't read the rest of the book, there's nothing I can do about that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The second one I chose because it deals with the basis of your fathers ideas about ethics and morality, and because he basis all of his ethical thinking on it. I have 2 problems with it actually - firstly, harmful / not harmful is a relative concept, not a binary state. Something could be both at the same time, and that means we will not be able to prevent evil from happening.

Being robbed is not a relative concept, is it? I am not saying that there isn't duality in some situations, but what does this have to do with the validity of his knowledge? You'll have to give me a more concrete example.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Secondly, we have no reason to believe - except for the fact that your father said it was so - that justification is required to strike a first blow, and that blame is a condition for justification. Despite your repeated exclamations of "Yes we do!" you nevertheless are unable to supply me with those reasons.

It is not easy to see how conscience works because it appears that "bad" people don't need a justification to perform their evil acts. But embedded in their psyche is a history of hurt that has deeply wounded them, and from this wound they continue the cycle of anger and rage, which often manifests in very unpredictable ways. It is not always the person who is responsible for the hurt that gets his just due. It's the innocent person who is often the recipient of a someone's rage, because he happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope you accept this response even if you're not fully convinced.

Well, join the club of someone who has been put down non-stop. I have been interrogated to the point that I feel I'm in a holding cell, so of course I will eventually throw my arms up and say, "You're all right, Lessans was wrong", just to get away from the onslaught of lies that I am being accused of. I hope you at least feel a taste of what I've been going through.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not before you claimed - repeatedly - that whoever disagreed was too stupid, too lazy, too closed-minded or too mean to agree. Call it a retaliation to your first blow.

Vivisectus, find a post where I called someone stupid or lazy, and I'll eat my words. I did say people were close minded, and I believe they are if they continue to tell me he is wrong when they haven't even read the book. That is not fair play.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And you have not been interrogated - you wanted these ideas examined, and we did. That fact that you don't like the conclusions is not our fault.

No, these concepts have not been examined fully Vivisectus. I can see why the conclusions drawn are incomplete and inaccurate. Am I supposed to accept your conclusions when I know there is a gap in your understanding? That doesn't mean your questions aren't valid, and I will do my best to answer them, but you have to give it a chance.

You're answer is so inadequate, I am a loss for words. How can the reader be fair to an author when he did not comply with what was asked of him? If you think that proves you are right and Lessans wrong because of your faulty synopsis, then this is not the book for you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then show me how and why it is inadequate, in stead of just throwing up yet more baseless assertions.

You said you read the book, so you should have tons of questions. Ask me some. I wish we could all be reading the same pages so everyone could chime in and there would be more bang for the buck so-to-speak, but I guess that's impossible.

Because you did nothing of the sort. You have not investigated this knowledge at all; nada.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If I didn't I would not be able to come up with objections that you are unable to deal with. If more study would remedy this, you would be able to remedy it. You would be able to show what I had missed and show me the error of my ways. As it is all you have is yet more excuses and accusations - I did not want to see it, I did not study hard enough, I am malicious and lazy...

I never said you were malicious and I do appreciate that you are trying. I just hope you don't give up because if this knowledge was easy, it would have discovered a long time ago. So give yourself a break, but please don't stop asking questions.

Of course you have no reason to believe the knowledge that crime cannot occur, under certain environmental conditions, because you have no idea what this discovery is about, or how it is extended into all areas of human relation, YET YOU THINK YOU DO, WHICH IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE YOU SET YOURSELF UP AS ALL KNOWING. So your answer is perfectly understandable coming from such obvious ignorance

.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yet another claim with no substance. I have looked very closely at it, and presented you with objections which I based on the matter in the book. If you could deal with those objections you would do so in stead of resorting to shouting "You so innorant!". But you cannot, because it is all based on a completely unsupported assertion.

I answered your question about the need for justification. I just hope it's adequate so we can move on. The more you read, the better you'll understand it, and then you'll be in a position to explain it to others.

You can't be serious. All actions are relative based on a person's individual circumstances. He stated early on that one man's meat is another man's poison.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nevertheless in order for his system to work, a deed cannot be both harmful and not harmful, or harmful while being perceived as beneficial, or vice versa. If they are, then a new first blow can arise even if blame is removed and turns out to be the condition for justification after all, and we have not in fact dealt with the problem of evil. It is called the binary trap - where people accidentally think in terms of black / white, on / off and do not realize that this does not in fact correspond with reality.

That's a very good question, but I would appreciate if you could give me a concrete example. It's easier to understand that way.

How can I answer you when all you do is tell me Lessans is wrong. You haven't given me a question to answer. All you do is tell me he is wrong; that firemen are not a condition of fires. How crazy is that????

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I tell you I believe he is wrong about sight and present you with the physics and some everyday observations and facts that show that he must be. I also present to you some reasons why I don't think your father proves his point, and that his conclusion are therefor not compelling. Just because you chose only to read the firemen-analogy - which you still have not dealt with, by the way, except for saying "No it isn't! My Father is right and you are ignorant / mean / lazy / closed minded!" - doesn't mean other ones were not there.

I did answer it. I said it's not a perfect analogy because we need firemen just in case there is a fire, but as you read the book you'll see why not only do we not need blame and punishment as a condition for criminal behavior, but it actually encourages the criminal behavior it is trying to prevent.

He said his education was far superior when he was attacked for only going to grade school. He retaliated against bigotry, don't you see this?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He had just met the man, could not have known more than his credentials, and concluded without any further inquiry that his educations was, and I quote, "far superior". At least he was consistent in his regard for evidence, I guess.

That is not true. Where in this excerpt was he arrogant? He was reacting to someone who was questioning his abilities. You would have done the same thing, if you were in his shoes.

People have often questioned, “Well assuming that you did make
a fantastic discovery, why bring it to me? You should run to the
nearest university so it can be acknowledged. Then you would be
acclaimed a genius and become famous the world over.”

“That’s exactly what I did but when one professor heard my claims
he smiled and lost all interest. Another used a method for screening
out the wrong applicants for such a discovery. ”He immediately
questioned my educational background and wanted to know from what
university I graduated, to which I replied, “I have no formal education
because I never completed the 7th grade.”

Then without giving me
a chance to tell him that my informal education was far superior to
his formal education he responded without giving much thought to
what he was about to say, ‘And you dare to come in here with such
outrageous claims about solving all the problems of human relation!’”
“I couldn’t believe my ears, and my blood was beginning to boil.”
“Well tell me,” I said, trying to control myself, “What is your
formal education?”

“I graduated from Harvard with many honors and credentials.”
I then inquired, “With all your formal education, your honors,
your degrees and diplomas, what discoveries have you made to solve
the problems plaguing mankind?” There was no answer and he hung
up.

After that I was completely frustrated. Did you ever hear of
anything so insulting, as if a discovery could not be made unless
someone graduates college first? Which of these universities taught
Newton, Edison, or Einstein, or did they perceive relations their
professors were unable to understand until explained to them?
Instead of being centers of investigation where new knowledge can be
thoroughly analyzed, the professors use what they have been taught as
a standard of truth from which vantage point they survey the
landscape of divergent views for the sole purpose of criticism and
disagreement. Isn’t this a perfect example of putting the proverbial
cart before the horse, which should be a lesson to all professors that
they should never become so dogmatic about their theories or
opinions that they won’t take the time to investigate anything that
might lead to the truth.

Nooooo, he was not putting the cart before the horse and using a false syllogism to make his ideas look perfect. That is not how it went down. No wonder you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt. You already have tried and convicted him.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not talking about his ideas. I am talking about his arrogance. A man can be as arrogant as you like and still be right.

But he wasn't arrogant. I can't even conceive of that word applied to him because I knew him, and this is a wrong perception.

I told you part of the responsibility for this dialogue is mine. Stop blaming the wrong source for the wrong thing, okay? You are judging his work like David and LadyShea, who took out of context, everything this man stood for, and then said, "See how idiotic this book is?" I hope you're not going to follow suit, but I have very little confidence that you won't.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It really does not help.

I'm sorry if you don't like the way it's written. Blame me, I can take it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He clearly thought he was infallible, that his ideas were flawless. There is no room for him to be wrong in any way, or for his ideas to be improved. If that isn't arrogant, I don't know what is.

I asked you to please put Lessans temporarily into a category of someone who you already know made a major contribution. Replace his name with Edison, and you might conjure up a little more compassion, and a lot less judgment as to who this man was before concluding he was a crackpot.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is very much your fathers style, I notice. He wants to be considered a genius, but does not feel a very great need to prove that this is so. It is also your style - you presuppose that your father is a major contributor, and that his work all makes sense, as long as you believe that it does.

Lessans never wanted to be considered a genius. He wanted his discovery made known in order to prevent what we have not yet been able to accomplish since time immemorial (the elimination of war and crime), and I believe he found a solution. You can't judge his work at this point, so please be patient. That's all I can ask for.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think we need to start the beginning because have no idea what anyone understands.

Oh, look, everyone! We need to start at the beginning!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You seem to think I was asking what he was apologising for. I can see nothing which would lead you to read "why LS?" as "what for?"!

I would think the answer is obvious, he apologized to me because it was my quote he attributed to someone else. If I attributed something you said to someone other than you, should I not apologize to you?

What am I missing in your question? I am apparently missing some implication you see.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Google epistemology. There are other ways to have a valid observation.

This appears to have been edited in after I had already quoted and responded.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy. I already stated that what Lessans did was philosophy, not science. Yet he and you present it as science. I have been refuting that the work is scientifically valid, not that it is philosophical in nature.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This appears to have been edited in after I had already quoted and responded.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy. I already stated that what Lessans did was philosophy, not science. Yet he and you present it as science. I have been refuting that the work is scientifically valid, not that it is philosophical in nature.

His work is rotten philosophy as well. His discussion of free will and determinism is a case in point. It is vapid, superficial, and empty. He does not know how to present a philosophical argument, any more than he knows how to do science.

[LadyShea]

I didn't say it was good philosophy. Personally I wouldn't know good philosophy from bad I don't think, because I have no idea how to analyze it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say it was good philosophy. Personally I wouldn't know good philosophy from bad I don't think, because I have no idea how to analyze it.

Academic philosphers generally present an abstract in which they state what they hope to show, and they lay out an outline of how they will proceed in their work. Crucially, though, most of them will then, at some point in their work, spell out and attempt to rebut a set of objections, which can be quite lengthy. Lessans, of course, does none of this, because why bother, after all? He was such an astute observer that he was infalllible. If he knew that he had made a mistake, he would have said so; what a guy! However, because he never said that he made a mistake, he never did make a mistake! He was history's first Infallible Man!

All Hail The Great Lessans!

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I would think the answer is obvious, he apologized to me because it was my quote he attributed to someone else.

It is not obvious that you were harmed in any sense by the misattribution, LS, so why would you require an apology?

[LadyShea]

I wasn't aware that noticeable harm is a requirement for apologizing to someone when you've made a mistake that involved them. Perhaps you feel he should have apologized to peacegirl instead?

[davidm]

Another reason his discussion on free will and determinism sucked is because there is a huge literature on this that he ignored. And he ignored it because he was ignorant of it. It is evident that what he knew of philosophy he learned by reading Will Durant's book on the history of Western philosophy. Will Durant was not a philosopher and his book was superficial. One can't learn philosophy by reading Will Durant. But no, reading Will was good enough for Seymor! Hey, at one point he recounts in his book how he called Will on the phone and gave Will a piece of his alleged "mind."

God, if only he actually had managed to get a meeting with President Nixon! We'd have the tapes of those meetings; how fun would that be?

Come to think of it, I wrote a satiric version of such a meeting lo these hundreds of pages ago!

[LadyShea]

I noted his discussion about Durant, but since the name meant nothing to me I wasn't sure what to make of it.

[thedoc]

One thing that has consistantly bothered me about this thread is that people have read the book and Peacegirl has repeatedly accused them of not reading it. People here have understood what Lessans was trying to say and Peacegirl has constantly said they can't possably understand because they do not agree. Untill Peacegirl will acknowledge that posters have read the book and understand what they have read there will be no meaningful dialogue, even if it goes another 200 pages. Peacegirl is the one who is extreamly close-minded and arrogant by insisting that the litmus test for reading and understanding is 100% agreement with the book. The precepts presented there are not undeniable or self-evident, but are extreamly questionable, and need a lot of proving.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wasn't aware that noticeable harm is a requirement for apologizing to someone when you've made a mistake that involved them.

Yes, actual harm* or the significant risk of harm is a requirement for an apology to be expected, I think. Your "I would think the answer is obvious" suggests you were expecting an apology.

Perhaps you feel he should have apologized to peacegirl instead?
I think peacegirl was on the receiving end of thedoc's mistake in a way in which you were not.


* You've smuggled in the qualification 'noticeable' there LS, as if you consider you are owed the apology for a level of harm which is unnoticeable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

It is not obvious that you were harmed in any sense by the misattribution, LS, so why would you require an apology?

LADYSHEA DID NOT REQUIRE AN APOLOGY, I OFFERED IT TO HER, GET OVER YOURSELF.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

It is not obvious that you were harmed in any sense by the misattribution, LS, so why would you require an apology?

This was between LadyShea and myself, how does it have anything at all to do with you?

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by thedoc

LADYSHEA DID NOT REQUIRE AN APOLOGY, I OFFERED IT TO HER,

And I asked you "why?". Perhaps you can answer without shouting?

This was between LadyShea and myself, how does it have anything at all to do with you?
You sound as if you think you were talking with LS in private!

GET OVER YOURSELF
lol What does this mean, really?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I noted his discussion about Durant, but since the name meant nothing to me I wasn't sure what to make of it.

Many years ago Will Durant wrote 'about' Philosophy but was not necessarily a Philosopher himself. One of my early introductions was his 'Story of Philosophy', good background and a guide to further reading.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

And I asked you "why?". Perhaps you can answer without shouting?

This was between LadyShea and myself, how does it have anything at all to do with you?
You sound as if you think you were talking with LS in private!

GET OVER YOURSELF
lol What does this mean, really?

You were making a big deal out of something that did not concern you at all, and it wasn't a big deal just a small mistake, and I thought I settled it.

[mickthinks]

You were making a big deal out of something that did not concern you at all, ...

Thanks for telling me what you think I am concerned about, but how are you measuring the size of the deal here? By font size?

... and it wasn't a big deal just a small mistake, and I thought I settled it.

Then you should be able to answer my question ...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Yes, actual harm* or the significant risk of harm is a requirement for an apology to be expected, I think. Your "I would think the answer is obvious" suggests you were expecting an apology.

In my experience it is customary amongst humans to apologize for mistakes with or without assessing risk of harm, or actual harm. For example I might apologize for using cuss words in front of someone I know dislikes them. Is my mother actually harmed or at risk of being harmed by my saying "Oh shit"? No, but I apologize anyway.

Perhaps you feel he should have apologized to peacegirl instead?
I think peacegirl was on the receiving end of thedoc's mistake in a way in which you were not.

I would agree with that

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His knowledge is very clear, but it's not easy to grasp if you haven't gone over it many times.

In other words, it is not clear at all. Clarity of ideas is nonexistent absent clarity in expressing those ideas. If you must plow the same old field "many times" to comprehend the "knowledge," then the "knowledge" is not clear.

But hey, if you have the faith of a little child, even as a tiny mustard seed, and read the Sacred Text over and over and over ...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans does not want to be considered a genius. He wants to help prevent war and crime, and I believe he found a solution.

The present tense references are more than a little ... disturbing. Perhaps involuntary commitment proceedings are in order.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you don't like NASCAR, I guess you don't like INDY cars either?

I enjoy sports. . . .

Quite a resume she does not have.

--J.D.