A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think I shall need a break from this endless barrage of abuse. I feel like an abused wife - I am told over and over that I am wrong, wrong, wrong. Congratulations, peacegirl, you have successfully made it impossible for me to carefully explain this awesome new knowledge, and deprived everyone here of the benefits of this wisdom. No-one here has read the whole system through, those that read what was there so far did not study it enough, which I can tell as they cannot even explain to me in simple terms why woodpeckers are not birds.

Because of you, I am making absolutely no headway in explaining this breakthrough in thought that will solve all our problems. You are not the gatekeeper of the truth, peacegirl, and you are also not God! It is so arrogant of you to decide that you can judge this work without even having read it all that it makes me want to spit.

Soon you will see how wrong you were - remember, they laughed at Wilhelm Reich too, but his day has come!

Let's compare apples to apples. If you have the right to compare Lessans to some authoritarian figure in history, I have the right to refute it.

Wilhelm Reich (March 24, 1897 – November 3, 1957) was an Austrian-American psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, known as one of the most radical figures in the history of psychiatry. He was the author of several notable books, including The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Character Analysis, both published in 1933.[1]

Reich worked with Sigmund Freud in the 1920s and was a respected analyst for much of his life, focusing on character structure rather than on individual neurotic symptoms.[2] He tried to reconcile Marxism and psychoanalysis, arguing that neurosis is rooted in the physical, sexual, economic, and social conditions of the patient, and promoted adolescent sexuality, the availability of contraceptives, abortion, and divorce, and the importance for women of economic independence. His work influenced a generation of intellectuals, including Saul Bellow, William S. Burroughs, Paul Edwards, Norman Mailer, A. S. Neill, and Robert Anton Wilson, and shaped innovations such as Fritz Perls's Gestalt therapy, Alexander Lowen's bioenergetic analysis, and Arthur Janov's primal therapy.[3]

Later in life he became a controversial figure who was both adored and condemned. He began to violate some of the key taboos of psychoanalysis, using touch during sessions, and treating patients in their underwear to improve their "orgastic potency." He said he had discovered a primordial cosmic energy, which he said others called God and that he called "orgone". He built orgone energy accumulators that his patients sat inside to harness the reputed health benefits, leading to newspaper stories about sex boxes that cured cancer.[4]

Reich was living in Germany when Adolf Hitler came to power in January 1933. On March 2 that year the Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter published an attack on one of Reich's pamphlets, The Sexual Struggle of Youth.[5] He left immediately for Vienna, then Scandinavia, moving to the United States in 1939. In 1947, following a series of articles about orgone in The New Republic and Harper's, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) obtained an injunction against the interstate sale of orgone accumulators.[6] Charged with contempt for violating it, Reich conducted his own defense, which involved sending the judge all his books to read and arguing that a court was no place to decide matters of science. He was sentenced to two years in prison, and in August 1956 several tons of his publications were burned by the FDA - a notable example of censorship in U.S. history.[2] He died in jail of heart failure just over a year later, days before he was due to apply for parole.[7]

There was no proof of his claims Vivisectus. He was a sick man. You can't compare Lessans to this man, who was completely and utterly warped in his thinking. Bottom line is this: The craziness of his thinking was easily seen when he demanded that patients do certain things to get any benefit from his therapy. Lessans is not asking anyone to do anything. In fact, this new world is based on quite the opposite; leaving people alone to move in the direction that is best for them, not for someone else.

[LadyShea]

needs to be more objective than ever and not just assume he is wrong because his claims seem impossible. You need to be especially careful not to do what you dislike in others. You need to give him a chance until all the facts are in. That's all I am asking LadyShea.

It doesn't matter if he was right or wrong, peacegirl. It doesn't matter if his claims seem impossible, even. The problem is he didn't use any normal or standard methods of creating or presenting his work (such as submitting it for peer review to a respected journal or asking for critique or offering his notes and data for readers and reviewers to analyze), and then resorted to crazy sounding letters and lawsuits when he wasn't viewed as a genius.

It looks crazy. If anyone else did the same things you would also say "That person looks crazy". In fact, you yourself have dismissed other people's life work and labeled them "religious nuts" or "cults"

We are not using unreasonable or extraordinary standards to judge this work, we use the same standards for everyone. You use the same standards to judge other people's work. Your dad was special in your eyes, he is not special to the rest of the world.

Do you really have trouble understanding this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It doesn't matter if he was right or wrong, peacegirl. He didn't use any normal or standard methods of creating or presenting his work (such as submitting it for peer review to a respected journal or asking for critique or offering his notes and data for checks and balances), and then resorted to crazy sounding letters and lawsuits.

It looks crazy. If anyone else did the same things you would also say "That person looks crazy". In fact, you have dismissed other people's life work and labeled them "religious nuts" or "cults"

We are not using unreasonable or extraordinary standards to judge this work, you use the same standards to judge other people's work. Your dad was special in your eyes, he is not special to the rest of the world.

Do you really have trouble understanding this?

The difference is that Lessans used mathematical standards from which to determine whether what he had was valid; what this Reich did was a figment of his narcisstic imagination. You can't compare him to this man AT ALL. You are not comparing apples to apples at all. You are comparing a rotton apple with worms to a fresh smelling and wonderfully edible apple.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are right, Lady Shea. Under those sorts of circumstances normal people shoot at them.

I can see where it could look like this coming from someone who didn't know him, but this was not him. I don't know how else to convince you that you are wrong in your interpretation of who he was. Hopefully, when or if you begin to see that I'm not crazy, you'll give him a chance. I don't know if this is even possible, but I trying my darndest.

[LadyShea]

There was no proof of his claims Vivisectus. He was a sick man.

Wait what? Are you judging another person because their philosophy differs from yours? You are making a snap judgment based on Wiki?

You criticized me for labeling Richard Milton a crackpot, who promotes and defends ESP, homeopathy, and other pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are very judgmental LadyShea. You think you are using critical thinking skills, but you cut yourself short because you are making snap judgments? This man had something valuable to say even though his philosophy of life may differ from yours.

[Vivisectus]

Mathematical standards? Pfah! amateur. Geographical standards, they are the thing. You know where you are with those.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is hardly the only reason that people have accused you of having a martyr complex and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. In any case, I don't think that anyone has really meant to suggest that you are an actual martyr, if only because it is extremely difficult for dead people to post. The implication of those accusations is that you are falsely assuming the role of a martyr, not that you actually are one. Your perception of the situation is significantly at odds with the reality of the situation. That is why it is considered a mental disorder. That, and because it impairs your ability to function in a healthy and effective manner, at least within the context of this thread.

I'm not at odds with the reality of the situation Angakuk. That's a bunch of psychobabble. I have no mental disorder; I'm not at odds with reality, and I have an intact mind. So please don't use your psychobabble to determine who I am, and the undeniability of what I'm presenting. It would be a total sham.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Mathematical standards? Pfah! amateur. Geographical standards, they are the thing. You know where you are with those.

No I actually don't Vivisectus. This is beginning to make me think that it's all about your wanting to be right at all costs. No matter what I say, you come back with a ridiculous refutation. You aren't even listening to what I'm saying. I'm not a scientist of woodpeckers, but my father was a scientist of human nature. For you to draw an analogy to make Lessans appear as if there was no basis for his conclusions by comparing him to a sick man named Reich (for the purpose of dismissing this discovery), is absolutely absurd, and will throw out the baby with the bathwater. I hope you seriously question your method of judging truth from fiction before overlooking the treasure that is right in front of you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference is that Lessans used mathematical standards; what this Reich did was a figment of his narcisstic imagination. You can't compare him to this man AT ALL. You are not comparing apples to apples at all. You are comparing a rotton apple with worms to a fresh smelling and wonderfully edible apple.

This quoted post of mine had nothing to do with Reich. I was talking about your dismissal of everything from Scientology to Koran apologetics (might I remind you that Muslims were scientifically and medically far advanced above the rest of world for most of their history, especially in what the Western world calls the Dark Ages?)

You keep saying Lessans was not comparable, that we are incorrectly categorizing him, but you have given us zero reason to believe or accept that. Do you really not understand how an objective third party can't see it the way you see it?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

my father was a scientist

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see where it could look like this coming from someone who didn't know him, but this was not him. I don't know how else to convince you that you are wrong in your interpretation of who he was. Hopefully, when or if you begin to see that I'm not crazy, you'll give him a chance. I don't know if this is even possible, but I trying my darndest.

I'm not sure anyone thinks you're crazy. There's 2 camps, people who think you're a true believer who's doing everything she can to ignore the flaws in Lessans' work, and people who think that you're trying to make money by starting the Cult of Lessans.

Lessans work may be the incomparable work of a true genius, but he presented it like an arrogant, deranged crackpot - and I think part of that is your editing of the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wait what? Are you judging another person because their philosophy differs from yours? You are making a snap judgment based on Wiki?

I'm using critical judgment, LadyShea, which you are trying to do as well. The only difference is that you are mixing Lessans in the same pot as Reich or others who use a smigeon of theory, a lot of ego, and a tad of mental illness thrown in for good measure, which turns out to be a big slop of nothing. Lessans based his knowledge on one thing only: whether his knowledge conformed to a mathematical standard.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You criticized me for labeling Richard Milton a crackpot, who promotes and defends ESP, homeopathy, and other pseudoscience.

I didn't criticize you for that. I criticized you for the tract that I included in the book, which did not support any one claim. It only expressed what he believed goes on in some academic circles. You can't throw out everything that a person says, just because you don't like his position on some things.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You realize that the Carter thing wasn't just a letter, don't you?

What the hell do you mean by that Stephen? I can't even conjure up the nutty thoughts that are contained in your head.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was no proof of his claims Vivisectus. He was a sick man. You can't compare Lessans to this man, who was completely and utterly warped in his thinking. Bottom line is this: The craziness of his thinking was easily seen when he demanded that patients do certain things to get any benefit from his therapy. Lessans is not asking anyone to do anything. In fact, this new world is based on quite the opposite; leaving people alone to move in the direction that is best for them, not for someone else.

Actually Lessans was demanding that people read and accept his work with blind faith that it was true without proof or evidence, except his say-so. One of the requirements was to disregard everything we think we know, as most of it is wrong or misunderstood, that is a lot to ask to demonstrate that his ideas might work, which is doubtful.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

For example, should Lessans have been absolutely positive, based on his sound reasoning and astute observations, that he left his keys on the hook by the door, do you concede the possibility that he actually left them on the table, and that despite his positive assurances that he was 100% certain he left them by the door, he could have been, simply put, mistaken?

Kael, you know I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I can't answer your question because I will be ridiculed, and laughed at, no matter how I answer. I really don't think people are interested in my answer. They're interested in being right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually Lessans was demanding that people read and accept his work with blind faith that it was true without proof or evidence, except his say-so. One of the requirements was to disregard everything we think we know, as most of it is wrong or misunderstood, that is a lot to ask to demonstrate that his ideas might work, which is doubtful.

He was only speaking in terms of the many misunderstandings that have occurred in regard to his discovery.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, you know I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I can't answer your question because I will be ridiculed, and laughed at, no matter how I answer. I really don't think people are interested in my answer. They're interested in being right.

Nonsense. There is really only one answer to the question of whether someone could be absolutely positive, but still actually wrong. That you are unable to say those words with regard to Lessans, just as you are unable to include such a consideration in your worldview, is what is worthy of ridicule.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think I shall need a break from this endless barrage of abuse. I feel like an abused wife - I am told over and over that I am wrong, wrong, wrong. Congratulations, peacegirl, you have successfully made it impossible for me to carefully explain this awesome new knowledge, and deprived everyone here of the benefits of this wisdom. No-one here has read the whole system through, those that read what was there so far did not study it enough, which I can tell as they cannot even explain to me in simple terms why woodpeckers are not birds.

Because of you, I am making absolutely no headway in explaining this breakthrough in thought that will solve all our problems. You are not the gatekeeper of the truth, peacegirl, and you are also not God! It is so arrogant of you to decide that you can judge this work without even having read it all that it makes me want to spit.

Soon you will see how wrong you were - remember, they laughed at Wilhelm Reich too, but his day has come!

Vivisectus, I do hope you will continue with this grand revelation, not all of us are so closed-minded as Peacegirl. Brilliant new theorys deserve to have a fair hearing, I just wish I had thought of it, but taking care of grandchildren leaves little time for serious thought. But I'm sure there must be some revelation in a dirty diaper, at least as profound as Lessans book, but not nearly so important as yours.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Nonsense. There is really only one answer to the question of whether someone could be absolutely positive, but still actually wrong. That you are unable to say those words with regard to Lessans, just as you are unable to include such a consideration in your worldview, is what is worthy of ridicule.

I don't believe he is wrong, so I can't give you the one answer that would make me not worthy of ridicule.

[Doctor X]

Lessans was a scientist the way Manson was a Beatle. . . .

--J.D.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe he is wrong

As has been pointed out, that is not what is being asked. You are being asked if you believe it is possible that he was wrong, not whether you believe he was actually wrong.

Do you truly not see the distinction?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see where it could look like this coming from someone who didn't know him, but this was not him. I don't know how else to convince you that you are wrong in your interpretation of who he was. Hopefully, when or if you begin to see that I'm not crazy, you'll give him a chance. I don't know if this is even possible, but I trying my darndest.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm not sure anyone thinks you're crazy. There's 2 camps, people who think you're a true believer who's doing everything she can to ignore the flaws in Lessans' work, and people who think that you're trying to make money by starting the Cult of Lessans.

I am not ignoring imaginary flaws, so that leaves out camp one. I'm also not trying to make money by starting a Cult of Lessans. There is no mind control here, so that leaves out camp two.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Lessans work may be the incomparable work of a true genius, but he presented it like an arrogant, deranged crackpot - and I think part of that is your editing of the book.

Maybe it was my fault. So instead of bitching, help me make the introduction better. Then I will believe you have sincere intentions of helping instead of purposely causing harm. Hey, I'll even let you redo the whole book if it helps to bring this knowledge to light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

As has been pointed out, that is not what is being asked. You are being asked if you believe it is possible that he was wrong, not whether you believe he was actually wrong.

Do you truly not see the distinction?

I know what you want me to say. If he knew, from mathematical reasoning, that one plus one equals two, and you asked me if I believed there was a possibility that he could be wrong, I guess I would have to say yes, but that doesn't mean he was wrong. So in that vein, I will say that there is always a possibility that he could have been wrong (as possible as one plus one equals three). Are you satisfied now?

[Doctor X]

peacegirl has done nothing but lie and ignore reality.

--J.D.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to put yourself in his postition as if he was another Edison or Einstein. I know this is more material for everyone's laughter, but I'm still asking you to think in terms of someone already known who had to go through hell and back for people to realize that he was right all along.

Of course, neither Edison nor Einstein had to go through hell and back for people to realize they were right. Edison simply showed people his working light bulb and people realized that he'd made a better light bulb. (He didn't invent the electric light; he simply improved on previous models.) Similarly, Einstein didn't have to "go through hell and back" to convince people that Special Relativity was correct; experiments quickly demonstrated the utility and the predictive power of the theory.

But by all means, don't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of the story ...