A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

because we have yet to get past page 5?

You havn't got past page 5? You must read very slow. Most of the rest of us have gotten way past that, some thru the whole book, (I will admit that the economics ch. was skimmed, just a bit silly), but it would explain why you can't explain anything past page 5.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

I think I see the problem here...

Finally, you see that she doesn't have any of her own.

[Doctor X]

People rather got past "page 5."

But peacegirl is a liar.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

People rather got past "page 5."

But peacegirl is a liar.

--J.D.

[Henry Quirk]

"No one could even give me a straight answer to this one question. What other choice do we have other then living or dying? Do we have another choice? Seriously, all I want is for someone to answer this question, or I'm not going to be able to move forward."


Well, I have an answer, Peace...you won't like it...it's 'my' answer and it isn't derived from the 500 page monster you're selling.

The question: "What other choice do we have other then living or dying?"

My answer: you get to choose how to live, how 'you' will discharge and direct 'you'...it's not as simple as 'will you live or will you die?' 'cause that's only the beginning...’how’ you 'choose' to live is the complex meat of it.

As for dying: if you have the guts (or, are nuts) you can choose the manner of that as well.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

"No one could even give me a straight answer to this one question. What other choice do we have other then living or dying? Do we have another choice? Seriously, all I want is for someone to answer this question, or I'm not going to be able to move forward."


Well, I have an answer, Peace...you won't like it...it's 'my' answer and it isn't derived from the 500 page monster you're selling.

The question: "What other choice do we have other then living or dying?"

My answer: you get to choose how to live, how 'you' will discharge and direct 'you'...it's not as simple as 'will you live or will you die?' 'cause that's only the beginning...’how’ you 'choose' to live is the complex meat of it.

Hello Henry, glad to see you could make it, looks like your'e just in time for the party ?

[thedoc]

Oh, and FYI, if you don't agree with Peacegirl, you don't understand, because you haven't read the book. Mauh Ha Ha Ha.

[Henry Quirk]

Hey, Doc...looks to me like I'm 300 pages late...*shrug*

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

Hey, Doc...looks to me like I'm 300 pages late...*shrug*

Same old, same old, [Quote Henry]

[Henry Quirk]

"if you don't agree with Peacegirl, you don't understand, because you haven't read the book"


Yeah: she played the same shenanigans over at dissident and the couch.

Other than my answer above, I'm not wasting any time in this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

Other than my answer above, I'm not wasting any time in this thread.

Not even for the entertainment value?

I'll be here and we can tell jokes, might bring some substance to the thread?

[Henry Quirk]

HA!

Hasn't Peace already told all the good ones?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

HA!

Hasn't Peace already told all the good ones?

There is a subtle difference between telling a joke and being one.

[Henry Quirk]

HA!

Okay: I'll go first...why did Peacegirl cross the road?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

HA!

Okay: I'll go first...why did Peacegirl cross the road?

OK why

[Doctor X]

She was nailed to the chicken.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

That sounds good.

While we're waithing for Henry,

Peacegirl said everyone eligible for the "Golden Age" will get an E-mail from 'God'.
Do you know what it said?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

"No one could even give me a straight answer to this one question. What other choice do we have other then living or dying? Do we have another choice? Seriously, all I want is for someone to answer this question, or I'm not going to be able to move forward."


Well, I have an answer, Peace...you won't like it...it's 'my' answer and it isn't derived from the 500 page monster you're selling.

The question: "What other choice do we have other then living or dying?"

My answer: you get to choose how to live, how 'you' will discharge and direct 'you'...it's not as simple as 'will you live or will you die?' 'cause that's only the beginning...’how’ you 'choose' to live is the complex meat of it.

As for dying: if you have the guts (or, are nuts) you can choose the manner of that as well.

That's a good answer, but it didn't answer the question. I asked the question for a reason. It goes into his explanation of determinism, yet I can't even get anyone to allow me to elaborate, as I need an answer to do this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a good answer, but it didn't answer the question. I asked the question for a reason. It goes into his explanation of determinism, yet I can't even get anyone to allow me to elaborate, as I need an answer to do this.

Post the answer you want to hear, and then elaborate, quite playing games. What we have to say is irrevelant to what you have to say, just get on with it. Surely you are not saying your life depends on what we say, or whether we agree or not. Our agreement is not necessary for you to say what you need to say. Maybe if you just get on with it the light will come on for someone. You don't need any of us to say anything for you to present what you need to say. If there is anything there it will come out if you just quit hesitating.

[Kael]

The question is entirely irrelevant anyway, coming as it is from a proponent of hard determinism. It's just fishing for particular answer, one to which a response has already been crafted. That is why no other answer will do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

This is a great example of what I was talking about some pages ago, the last time I was bored enough to stick my head in here, about Lessans faulty, or more accurately non-starter, logic.

He states that "tak[ing] advantage of others without having to worry about consequences" can only happen when they "know [they] will be blamed." There is never any reason given for this statement (as far as I recall, it is damnably tedious to follow the poor prose and hokey dialogue), it is simply treated as self-evident. Indeed, immediate counter-arguments practically create themselves, for example, if one "knows he will be blamed," that seems to preclude "[not] having to worry about consequences," since blame is a consequence.

You're very confused. That passage stated that only when man is blamed can he come up with reasonable excuses. He can't come up with any excuses if he is not being blamed. A person doesn't have to worry that there will be consequences in a free will environment; he knows there will be consequences. Boy, can you double talk.

Originally Posted by Kael

She is right about one thing, he never seems to present anything that can be restated as a logical syllogism. Instead he gives us a series of conclusions without any premises, isolated assertions that are to be accepted without support in order for any of his work to make any sense whatsoever. Both he and peacegirl state multiple times that if one of these conclusions seems in error you simply don't understand it, and that the work must be accepted before it can be understood.

I have made many attempts to go over each important section in Chapters One and Two, and no one seems interested, so of course it looks like the conclusions don't have premises. Nothing has been read in order. How can you judge an equation with everything out of place? Yet you blame him for what is your responsibility.

Originally Posted by Kael

This is a very poor approach, completely backward in fact, to everything he and she claim this work to be, it is lousy science and lousy philosophy. Despite his statements to the contrary, there never was any mathematics involved, so it doesn't even count as lousy mathematics. Most of his conclusions-in-lieu-of-arguments don't find any traction even if one goes looking for the supporting logic/evidence he neglected to provide, and many of them are outright disproved by the logic and evidence available.

There is nothing in this knowledge that logic and evidence have disproved. As far as mathematics, this knowledge is mathematical; it is not logic.

Originally Posted by Kael

I would scarcely have believed it possible, but peacegirl's presentation and defense of the work has been even more ridiculous than the work itself, with rampant hypocrisy and weaseling, self-contradictions and double-talk. I still enjoy looking in now and then to see what wonderful things she will say next, like this one:

Originally Posted by Kael

Truly, this is the most bizarrely entertaining pseudo-science/logic I have ever seen pushed on the internet, way better than Sov/Soph in my humble opinion, and the person doing the pushing is more than half the show. I can only hope against hope that her personal hero Deepak Chopra, or some similarly famous bullshit peddler, will hear of this work and take up its soiled and shabby banner, pushing it a bit out of the shadows of well-deserved obscurity and into spots on morning "news" and daytime talk shows. Then I can look back and say, "I was laughing at this nonsense before it was cool."

I've never been able to say that before...

I am glad I'm entertaining you Kael, but it's ashame that you have so misconstrued this work. This knowledge will one day come out of the shadows of obscurity and into the light of day, but not for the reasons you think. It's just too bad that none of you will be carrying the banner of truth that you let slip through your fingertips. P.S. Just to let you know, Deepak Chopra is not my personal hero, Echart Tolle is.

[ChuckF]

What is this Forum Garden bullshit again.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that he got his knowledge from observation. He didn't use formal logic, which would make it appear that it's circular.

It doesn't matter where he got his knowledge, whether it came from astute observation, divine revelation or was pulled directly out of his ass. Nor does it matter that he did not use formal logic. He makes claims that are, by their very nature, subject to critical inquiry and logical analysis. If they do not hold up under such analysis then they need not be taken seriously. Personal opinions that do not relate to matters of fact are the only species of claim that are immune to such critical inquiry and logical analysis.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If will is not free, then it follows that we cannot blame. How can we blame anyone for doing what is beyond their control?

If my will is not free and I am compelled to move in the direction of greatest satisfaction and I find the greatest satisfaction in blaming someone for something they did, even though their will also was not free, then it follows that not only can I blame them for their action I must necessarily blame them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I dislike pasting and cutting...

How can you dislike doing something that it is impossible for you to have ever done? Can you paste before cutting? I think not. This is additional evidence for your lack of understanding of how causality works.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to write "I dislike cutting and pasting." Assuming that this is what you meant to write I can only say that it flies directly in the face of the evidence provided by your own posting history. Considering how often you resort to it, cutting and pasting, whether from Lessans' book or from some random website, appears to be your preferred method of argument.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Free will does not do or believe anything. Free will is a concept, not an agency. People do and believe things and people often act quite irrationally. Throughout the ages some people (whether they believed in free will or not) have blamed, and punished, other people for mere accidents of birth. People have been blamed and punished by other people for being born; in the wrong caste, with the wrong color of skin, in conditions of poverty, etc. It is an historical fact that people have often been blamed and punished for conditions that were entirely beyond their control.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other choice do we have other then living or dying? Do we have another choice? Seriously, all I want is for someone to answer this question, or I'm not going to be able to move forward.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other choice do we have other than living our life the best we can, or opting out of this life? This is not a trick question.

It is also not the same question. However, I am going to be generous and give you a twofor.

"What other choice do we have other then living or dying?"

We can choose to not choose either. That is, we can choose to not do anything that materially increases the chance of either outcome. For example: One can choose to eat because one is hungry and/or the food is appetizing. Or, one can choose to not eat because one is not hungry and/or the food is not appetizing. One can make either of those choices at different times without ever taking into consideration whether or not the choice being made increases or decreases the prospects for either outcome.

"What other choice do we have other than living our life the best we can, or opting out of this life? "

We can, and often do, make choices that result in our living lives that are considerably less than the "best" that we could manage. We may do this out of a sense of guilt or low self-esteem that leads us to believe that we do not deserve to live our lives the best we can. Self-destructive behavior is quite common and it reflects neither a desire to live life the best we can or to opt out of life altogether.

There, peacegirl, someone has answered your question(s). Now you can move on. You can thank me later.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have no problem with the fact that we only have the choice of living or not living.

Okay, so let me move on to the next sentence. It might take 20 years to finish this, but who's counting?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Either explain why you personally believe conscience works in a universal and predictable way or don't peacegirl. I don't really care.

If you want a serious discussion quite evading sincere questions with this BS about gaps in understanding. I have been asking you to explain things based on your opinion and in your own words since page 1 and you won't do it.

I have tried very hard to explain things in my own words, and look where it's gotten. People are more confused than ever. The only way to make a dent in this useless thread is to break it down into parts, and carefully analyze it as we go.