A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

For some reason, Lessans reminds me of John Cleese:

YouTube - ‪Meaning of Life - Sex...

Shout out to That Girl from I, Claudius.

--J. "So You Can't See Me!" D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He did not say that. This is what he said:

He said that love is an extension of sex, if you're talking about eros love.

I'm not denying that he said this. I don't think anyone would disagree that romantic love involves sex, and is the foundation for a healthy intimate relationship.

He said that stronger the sexual satisfaction, the stronger will be their love, which is true, if we're talking about the "in love" type of love.

I am gobsmacked. Not only do you ignore all external evidence at all cost, you even deny things that the book quite clearly and blatantly states!

This is really teaching me a lot about religious fanaticism. It has nothing to do with the religion itself, and everything with the internalization of whatever the fanatic feels the religion bestows upon him or her. So we are not looking at something inherent within the religion itself at all - in fact it has next to nothing to do with it. What we are looking at is a severe case of identification with a perceived cause - and the fanatic could care less about what that cause actually is or strives for.

You don't know what you're talking about Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Is this a bit of heresy you've got going on here? Are you disagreeing with the book, or are we witnessing the bowdlerization of the bible-stories at first hand here?

No, it's you that is misunderstanding the text. Not me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fascinating.

Whatever floats your boat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

For some reason, Lessans reminds me of John Cleese:

YouTube - ‪Meaning of Life - Sex Education‬‏

Shout out to That Girl from I, Claudius.

--J. "So You Can't See Me!" D.

Too funny, but you didn't win a price!!!!! No similarity to Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LESSONS FROM LESSANS
The first in an occasional series.

*Theme music fades in, plays for a time, and then fades out*

*Cue theme music*

You've got a sick sense of humor David. Your psychotic episodes are becoming more frequent. Did you take your meds today?

[Vivisectus]

I am fully serious though - you have gotten so enamored with the idea of being the champion of this pure and wonderful cause that you have stopped examining what this cause actually IS. I bet it actually goes against some of your principles. Your father explicitly stated that he felt all love was a simple extension of sexuality. You obviously don't feel that way - and bless you for that! I totally agree with you, and I knew somewhere deep inside that I wasn't arguing with a mere robot! How truly wonderful that there is some actual YOU left to rebel somewhere under all that hero-worship! You give me hope for humanity!

You see, I actually rather like Janis, the person. It is peacegirl the mindless follower that irritates the shite out of me. I wish you could just be you more of the time and could stop being such a lackey.

Rather than re-examine the reasons for your support of this awful little book, you decide to make it mean something else. No matter how obviously this requires a complete twisting of the mans words.

YOU read it again. I have tried to read it through your eyes - now you read it through mine. Re-examine it, and try to do so fairly - read it as if it was NOT a major discovery. I guarantee you will learn new things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am fully serious though - you have gotten so enamored with the idea of being the champion of this pure and wonderful cause that you have stopped examining what this cause actually IS. I bet it actually goes against some of your principles. Your father explicitly stated that he felt all love was a simple extension of sexuality.

No Vivisectus. He was telling it like it is, whether you believe it or not. Dr. Phil even said that when sex is not satisfactory for either partner, it becomes a major issue. When sex is going good, it doesn't even get on the radar screen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You obviously don't feel that way - and bless you for that! I totally agree with you, and I knew somewhere deep inside that I wasn't arguing with a mere robot! How truly wonderful that there is some actual YOU left to rebel somewhere under all that hero-worship! You give me hope for humanity!

You see, I actually rather like Janis, the person. It is peacegirl the mindless follower that irritates the shite out of me. I wish you could just be you more of the time and could stop being such a lackey.

You would like me because I am a compassionate, really nice person, if I say so myself. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, you know.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Rather than re-examine the reasons for your support of this awful little book, you decide to make it mean something else. No matter how obviously this requires a complete twisting of the mans words.

His words were accurate, and were only meant for good. You did not read this chapter, nor any of the chapters that would put all of this in context. You are doing the same thing that David and LadyShea have done this entire time. It's your mind that's in the dirt Vivisectus, because that's where your mind is taking you. I won't let you tarnish his name like this, if it's the last thing I do.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

YOU read it again. I have tried to read it through your eyes - now you read it through mine. Re-examine it, and try to do so fairly - read it as if it was NOT a major discovery. I guarantee you will learn new things.

Your responses betray your desire to understand this work, and I've said a thousand times that if you don't read with a desire to learn, you are not going to. It's no surprise that you've gotten nothing from this discovery, and I don't expect that you will any time soon.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your responses betray your desire to understand this work, and I've said a thousand times that if you don't read with a desire to learn, you are not going to. It's no surprise that you've gotten nothing from this discovery, and I don't expect that you will any time soon.

Translation: "If you don't switch off your brain and become a mindless zombie, you won't believe in impossible things that Daddy said were true, like efferent vision and real-time seeing."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And once again, you're either being dishonest or deliberately obtuse.

The entire point of the experiment is that nothing is blocking the light -- the visual pathway is entirely clear of obstructions.


If you set up a rotating wheel with a slit in it and shine a bright light -- say a laser -- through the slit in the wheel such that the light has time to reach and illuminate a distant object before the slit rotates out of position then all of Lessans' conditions for being able to see the object are met.

The object is fully illuminated, and there is nothing blocking the visual pathway. If we saw in real time, we would therefore be able to see the object being illuminated.

But if the slit is rotated out of position after the light has reached and illuminated the object but before the reflected light has had enough time to return to the viewer's eye -- then we can't see the object, even though it's brightly illuminated and the visual pathway to it was unobstructed while it was being illuminated. This experiment has been done many times, and the results are always the same.


This conclusively demonstrates that we don't see in real time, because all of Lessans' conditions for seeing are met and yet the object remains invisible to the viewer. Remember: the object in question is brightly-illuminated and there is a clear, unobstructed pathway between the viewer's eye and the object. The viewer should be able to see the illuminated object, therefore, according to Lessans.

But if the slit rotates out of position after the light has reached the object but before the reflected light returns to the viewer's eye, then the viewer cannot see the illuminated object.



So you're either lying or you're being willfully obtuse when you claim that this easily-performed experiment doesn't completely contradict Lessans' claim that we see in real time.

Well, in fairness, there's a third possibility: you're obtuse, but not willfully so. I'm trying to be generous here, though.

BTW, you never mentioned how far the distant object is that the laser is reflecting. It would have to be very far away for the slit to rotate out of position before the light actually strikes the eye, otherwise there is no way the slit could be fast enough to block the light in midstream. In other words, if it takes 1.3 light seconds for light to travel to the Earth from the moon, a laser would have to be aiming at an object that is as far as the moon for this experiment to work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Translation: "If you don't switch off your brain and become a mindless zombie, you won't believe in impossible things that Daddy said were true, like efferent vision and real-time seeing."

It's okay David, I know your delusions have gotten the best of you. Poor thing!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BTW, you never mentioned how far the distant object is that the laser is reflecting. It would have to be very far away for the slit to rotate out of position before the light actually strikes the eye, otherwise there is no way the slit could be fast enough to block the light in midstream. In other words, if it takes 1.3 light seconds for light to travel to the Earth from the moon, a laser would have to be aiming at an object that is as far as the moon for this experiment to work.

No, you willful ignoramus. We can and do make rotors that spin fast-enough that the effect can be demonstrated when the object being illuminated is much less than a single mile away. As you'd know if you'd bothered to consult the links that you've been given, or if you'd bothered to make even a minimal effort to understand the experiments.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's okay David, I know your delusions have gotten the best of you. Poor thing!

Hey, willful ignoramus, see The Lone Ranger's latest evisceration of your idiocy.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[T]here IS no winning for Lessans.

I truncated your statement, but cannot be blamed because my will is not free. My path of greater satisfaction compelled me, of my own free will so to speak, to make it appear that you actually wrote something truthful.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me say this one last time: Homosexuality is part and parcel of our environment, just like everything else is.

For large enough values of "environment," so is heterosexuality. Your point?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Crime, hatred, poverty, war, are also part and parcel of our environment.

Ah, okay, THAT'S the point. "Part and parcel of the environment" in the lexicon of Lessantology means "stuff Seymour Lessans disliked and wanted to do away with." Like crime, hatred, poverty, war, and of course homosexuality. Also fat chicks.

You really need to lighten up on this issue. Your father certainly wasn't the first anti-gay bigot. Such prejudices were in fact quite common among men of his generation, and persist in distressingly high numbers even now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I truly don't think[.]

I have truncated another of your sentences. It once again gave me greater satisfaction to see you write a second true statement.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to go to your corner Stephen and don't come out until you read the book, or you will go back to basic training. Why are you being booked for insuborination [sic]?

Oh my, you are gibbering uncontrollably. You're fast becoming the Sarah Palin of woo.

Since davidm was kind enough to quote the original version of your screed, I'll take the liberty of responding to some of the stuff you disingenuously edited out.

Are you jealous that you, Stephen Maturin, doesn't have the mentality to have made this discovery himself?

I doesn't?!

You have found me out! I am exposed! It is ALL TRUE!

I confess, I doesn't have the mentality to make such a discovery. Of course, the "mentality" in this case is that of a chronically butthurt and narcissistic horndoggy. Unlike Mr. Lessans, I very much enjoy speaking with my significant other, who I fell in love with quite completely long before seeing her genitals. I am verbose, but freely admit that Lessans puts me to shame in that area. I'm capable of epic stupidity, but nothing on the order that Lessans exhibits in The Sacred Text. I also lack Lessans' affinity for visions of "very young" "boys and girls" having sex. Yep, I do indeed lack the "mentality."

I believe so.

You believe much.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope the people in this thread recognize the source from which bullshit emanates.

You've been lying your ass off from Day One. Please rest assured that no one has missed it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're nuts, and I can't argue with nuts.

I'll cop to being nuts. My level of involvement in this thread is proof enough of that. I'm not "Let's don translucent robes and jack off to visions of 'very young' 'boys and girls' fucking" nuts like ol' Seymour was, but I'm nuts nonetheless.

[davidm]

Hey peacegirl, do you know what the term "observable universe" means? You could, you know, do a Google search for it. Wikipedia has a wonderul discussion.

And did you know that the empirical reality of the observable universe is yet another incontrovertible proof that real-time seeing is wrong?



Not that Your Royal Highness will deign to sully her uncomplicated brain by actually Googling that term and undertaking a study of it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey peacegirl, do you know what the term "observable universe" means? You could, you know, do a Google search for it.

[thedoc]

At risk of upsetting several people posting on this thread I must disagree with many of the assesments of Peacegirl. Contrary to what many have stated she is not willfully ignorant, she knows full well how the eye works and does not work. She is not stupid as she has consistantly replied to every objection to Lessans Book in a rather clever and creative manner, abet usually by being evasive and non-committal. I believe that she has not, in fact, rejected any of the empherical evidence presented, but was fully aware of it before commencing with this effort to promote the Book. It has been stated that she has a degree (college?) which would imply a certain level of education, and a certain body of knowledge. She has consistantly demonstrated her proir knowledge by knowing just what to disagree with, what to ignore, and just how to state and restate the book to keep everyone else posting in the attempt to convince her where she is wrong. Peacegirl has demonstrated a unique ability to keep everyone else posting in the hopes of some kind of realization on her part that what they are posting is true, but the joke is that she already knows, it's possable that she's just not done playing yet. Given the criticism of education in the book Peacegirls education would seem to be a contradiction unless Lessans actually had a high regard for education, lending credence to the idea that this was some kind of joke. I must agree with the opinion that she is dishonest, in that she has known all along the truth and the falacy of the book and the true intent of her father in writing it. She has been compelled to move in the direction of greater monitary satisfaction by maintaining the charade of believing that the book is real, in the hopes of attracting the gullible and easily impressed to spend an excessive amount of money on a book of no value, except for the entertainment of those in the know. The only thing that I cannot explain, at this time, is why she is continuing on this particular thread, that is something known only to Peacegirl.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The only thing that I cannot explain, at this time, is why she is continuing on this particular thread, that is something known only to Peacegirl.

• 1. Because conflict is validation.
  2. Because this site does not ban users for stonewalling nor close threads.

--J.D.

[Demimonde]

The better question is why you, thedoc, followed her from another forum in order to rail against her ideas and at the same same decry any attempt to educate her. Which have been repeated ad nauseum. Almost as much as peacegirl's acertations, but not quite.

Quite the one two punch if I may say so.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey peacegirl, do you know what the term "observable universe" means? You could, you know, do a Google search for it. Wikipedia has a wonderul discussion.

And did you know that the empirical reality of the observable universe is yet another incontrovertible proof that real-time seeing is wrong?

Olbers' paradox also becomes starkly important under the idea of efferent vision, although I suppose that one could be dodged by asserting that the universe is of finite size, and we just happen to live in the very center of it, which is why we can see the same distance away in every direction...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

The better question is why you, thedoc, followed her from another forum in order to rail against her ideas and at the same same decry any attempt to educate her. Which have been repeated ad nauseum. Almost as much as peacegirl's acertations, but not quite.

Quite the one two punch if I may say so.

From the other thread I thought she was a sincere human being, just misguided. Now, and for some time, I have found it amusing, from both sides.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

• 1. Because conflict is validation.
  2. Because this site does not ban users for stonewalling nor close threads.

--J.D.

And somehow she is going to use this validation to sell books?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

Olbers' paradox also becomes starkly important under the idea of efferent vision, although I suppose that one could be dodged by asserting that the universe is of finite size, and we just happen to live in the very center of it, which is why we can see the same distance away in every direction...

The hypothisis is that the universe is much larger than we can observe and we are in the center of the limit of our 'observable universe'. And the belief is that the universe is finite but unbounded, according to current cosmology.

[The Lone Ranger]

I dunno.

On the one hand, she can be remarkably clever in her ability to rationalize away any and all evidence which disproves her claims. She behaves exactly like the more clever Young Earth Creationists. She twists and turns in a desperate attempt to avoid any admission that her claims are illogical, unsupported, inconsistent, and flatly disproved. She redefines terms to suit her needs and shifts the goalposts whenever necessary. She ignores inconvenient evidence while insisting that none exists. Rathr than honestly address problems with Lessans' claims, she tries to shift the burden of proof by insisting that anyone who doesn't swallow Lessans' claims uncritically cannot understand them and/or is being close-minded. When it looks as if she might get stuck, she tries to distract with a change of topic. If necessary, she'll simply lie. In a worst-case scenario, she'll deny reality itself -- anything but admit that Lessans' might have been wrong in any way.

When all else fails, she seems to take General Melchett's advice to heart: "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."



It is indeed difficult to believe that she could possibly be as ignorant and as cognitively challenged as she pretends to be. How could someone so utterly close-minded and stupid actually manage to function?


On the other hand, if she thinks she's doing anything to disseminate Lessans' ideas in a positive way, she's truly deluded. No one here has done more to demonstrate the lunacy of Lessans' ideas than peacegirl herself.

After all, what she has made very, very clear is that it's only possible to take Lessans' ideas seriously by denying reality itself. Which, of course, is exactly what she has done on numerous occasions.

That she's more than willing to outright lie if she thinks that she can advance her cause thereby is something that's been apparent to even the most casual reader, almost from her first post.

Possibly, she's just trying to sell Lessans' ideas to the gullible and is doing a remarkably bad job of it. Possibly she's a True Believer who feels that Lying for Jesus Lessans is a justified tactic, since, in her mind, the ultimate outcome (a world remade in Lessans' image) justifies the means.

Or maybe she just enjoys the attention. It is a most perplexing thing.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And somehow she is going to use this validation to sell books?

Never intended to imply the feeling of validation is rational.

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

mindless copypasta that does notthing to support Peacegirls view

Not how the key thing here is light.

[Vivisectus]

No Vivisectus. He was telling it like it is, whether you believe it or not. Dr. Phil even said that when sex is not satisfactory for either partner, it becomes a major issue. When sex is going good, it doesn't even get on the radar screen.

You obviously haven' read the book in while. Lessans states clearly, multiple times, that all love is an extension of sexual desire, and that without sex there can be no love between a man and a woman. He states that one cannot fall in love with someone who cannot sexually satisfy you as well. It is one of the more unpleasant things he states, after the idea that it really doesn't matter who you end up in a relationship with, as long as they are sexually attractive to you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You obviously don't feel that way - and bless you for that! I totally agree with you, and I knew somewhere deep inside that I wasn't arguing with a mere robot! How truly wonderful that there is some actual YOU left to rebel somewhere under all that hero-worship! You give me hope for humanity!

You see, I actually rather like Janis, the person. It is peacegirl the mindless follower that irritates the shite out of me. I wish you could just be you more of the time and could stop being such a lackey.

I still wish you could stop being such a peon for your father. He uses you like a sock-puppet, even from beyond the grave, and all that so he can think of himself as cleverer than all those people with a real education.

His words were accurate,

Hang on - weren't we "waiting for more empirical tests" etc etc etc? Are you saying that whatever your father says is right, until proven otherwise, and even then he is still right if we can somehow, somewhere find the smallest, most unlikely little nook or cranny to stuff some doubt into?

You are behaving like a fundamentalist again.

and were only meant for good.

Weyhey! More fundy talk.

You did not read this chapter, nor any of the chapters that would put all of this in context. You are doing the same thing that David and LadyShea have done this entire time

.

This is getting really, really old now. When in doubt, claim they haven't read the book. I am actually getting this FROM the book Peacegirl. Maybe you should read this chapter again.

It's your mind that's in the dirt Vivisectus, because that's where your mind is taking you. I won't let you tarnish his name like this, if it's the last thing I do

.

I am not making your fathers work look stupid, although I may be assisting. It does that all by itself.

Your responses betray your desire to understand this work, and I've said a thousand times that if you don't read with a desire to learn, you are not going to. It's no surprise that you've gotten nothing from this discovery, and I don't expect that you will any time soon.

You just say that because you are unwilling to understand that sex is the basic ingredient of all love, and that without sex there can be no love at all. By sticking to this preconceived notion that your father was wrong about this, you showing your unwillingness to really learn from his book, which, frankly, cheers me up more than I can say.

What we are seeing here, ladies and gentlemen, is our first schism in Lessanism, or LessThanIsm. From here on, there will be Orthodox Lessthanists, who follow the "Love through genitalia only" doctrine, and Reformed Lessthanists, who follow the Dating, but not Love through Genitalia doctine.

Which is a pretty god trick for a religion with only one follower. And let's face it - completely getting your prophesy wrong hasn't stopped any of the other religions, so that is no issue either.