A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to know why you lied?

I don't remember lying, what is it that you think I lied about?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to know why you lied?

Originally Posted by thedoc"

I don't remember lying, what is it that you think I lied about?

Originally Posted by thedoc

Of course Lessans states that there will be a period when those who do not choose 'of their own free will' to be part of the 'Golden Age' will be eliminated.

Show me where he said this.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Note, Amazon is selling the book, but has removed the negative review that had been posted there, the review that included the info about after death pronoun usage.

I can still see the review

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's right there on page 77.

Ok, let's have a look-see.

Originally Posted by page 77

At the present moment of time you are standing on this spot
called here, and are constantly in the process of moving to there. You
know as a matter of positive knowledge that you would never move to
there if you were not dissatisfied with here. You also know as a matter
of undeniable knowledge that nothing has the power, that no one can
cause or compel you to do anything against your will — unless you
want to, because over this you have mathematical control. And I, who
am standing on this spot called there to where you plan to move for
satisfaction from here also know positively that you cannot be blamed
anymore for your motion from here to there because the will of man
is not free. This is a very unique two-sided equation which reveals
that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you
do since nothing has the power to make you do anything you don’t
want to; and while it is mathematically impossible to shift your
responsibility to some extraneous cause when no one holds you
responsible; everybody else knows that you are not to blame for
anything because you are compelled, by your very nature, to move in
the direction of greater satisfaction during every moment of your
existence.

So there you have it folks. This obviously undeniable two-sided equation of mathematical equationality demonstrates with mathematicals that here and there are some points, and there is movement, and no possibility of blame, therefore something something World Peace.

Incidentally, there are also a couple of really good (by which I mean bad) moments of eye-bleeding writing, like this one:

Originally Posted by page 62

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work
our problem backwards which means that every step of the way will be
a forced move which will become a loose end and only when all these
ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete.

And, of course, the standard, practically textbook appeal to Grand Design, found here:

Originally Posted by page 64

Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did?

There is also a lot of extremely painful dialogue in which imaginary people agree with Lessans a lot, and the names Spinoza and Durant are dropped at least two times every other page. Really, quite a revealing chapter, though not in the way peacegirl probably had in mind...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can still see the review

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

This is a definite misrepresentation. LadyShea, I can see why the original source is so important. This guy lied and now doc copied him when no such thing was ever said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's right there on page 77.

Originally Posted by Kael

Ok, let's have a look-see.

Originally Posted by Kael

So there you have it folks. This obviously undeniable two-sided equation of mathematical equationality demonstrates with mathematicals that here and there are some points, and there is movement, and no possibility of blame, therefore something something World Peace.

You obviously don't understand what he wrote. Don't embarrass yourself.

Originally Posted by Kael

Incidentally, there are also a couple of really good (by which I mean bad) moments of eye-bleeding writing, like this one:

Why is that eye bleeding?

Originally Posted by Kael

And, of course, the standard, practically textbook appeal to Grand Design, found here:

He says it here also loud and clear.

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a
discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed
that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar
system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon,
earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some
internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now
that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free, and at the very
moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration
compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards
greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the
sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as
the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony
was this disharmony between man and man which is now being
permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a
mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another
way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God
is good is a true observation for nothing in this universe when seen
in total perspective is evil since each individual must choose what
is better forhimself, even if that choice hurts another as a
consequence.

Originally Posted by Kael

There is also a lot of extremely painful dialogue in which imaginary people agree with Lessans a lot, and the names Spinoza and Durant are dropped at least two times every other page. Really, quite a revealing chapter, though not in the way peacegirl probably had in mind...

I can't believe you're still talking about form, and nothing about content. You have no desire to understand this book, so give it up already.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where he said this.

FWIW, thedoc, I haven't seen any such statement in the book. Unless it's buried within a particularly painful mound of that I glossed over, I'm pretty sure it ain't in there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now this is a definite misrepresentation. LadyShea, I can see where the original source is so important. This guy lied and now doc copied him when no such thing was ever said.

Does that mean you're going to allow us to see the chapter on the discovery about death?

Also, you seem to have lied when you said God was only a stand in for "the laws of nature" or whatever. The laws of nature do not have a Grand Design nor do the laws of nature somehow stand with man so he does not stand alone.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does that mean you're going to allow us to see the chapter on the discovery about death?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You obviously don't understand what he wrote. Don't embarrass yourself.

Yes, yes, I'm not falling over myself with accolades and admiration like all the imaginary people in the made-up dialogue, therefore I don't understand, we know.

Why is that eye bleeding?

:zappbrannigan:

...
It is a travesty that we don't have a Zapp Brannigan smiley.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

FWIW, thedoc, I haven't seen any such statement in the book. Unless it's buried within a particularly painful mound of that I glossed over, I'm pretty sure it ain't in there.

I already said it's not there Stephen. You're not adding anything new. Do you think I'm lying where you have to double check? That deserves a big

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

No way would I subject myself to more of the same. Are you crazy?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Yes, yes, I'm not falling over myself with accolades and admiration like all the imaginary people in the made-up dialogue, therefore I don't understand, we know.

:zappbrannigan:

I don't even think you understood what he meant. Not surprising.

[LadyShea]

You've made mistakes peacegirl

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way would I subject myself to more of the same. Are you crazy?

Then we cannot determine for ourselves that the reviewer doesn't make a fair and accurate point

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does that mean you're going to allow us to see the chapter on the discovery about death?

Also, you seem to have lied when you said God was only a stand in for "the laws of nature" or whatever. The laws of nature do not have a Grand Design nor do the laws of nature somehow stand with man so he does not stand alone.

When Lessans uses the pronoun "He", he is referring to the law of our nature that guides our movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an
epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away
the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of
the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He
also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these
undeniable facts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then we cannot determine for ourselves that the reviewer doesn't make a fair and accurate point

I really don't care at this point LadyShea. I don't think after all these pages anyone cares either. They're just out to mock Lessans.

[LadyShea]

When Lessans uses the pronoun "He", he is referring to the law of our nature that guides our movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

That context doesn't work with the following statements though

This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone.

Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've made mistakes peacegirl

We've all made mistakes, but what doc said was a big one. This book is about peace. It is a terrible misrepresentation to say what is being said about it.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said it's not there Stephen. You're not adding anything new. Do you think I'm lying where you have to double check? That deserves a big

Simply put, you're not a trustworthy source to find bad things in the book. Stephen finds the book a piece of trash, and would be quite happy to show everyone exactly where Lessans promotes genocide. His opinion holds a lot more weight than yours.

For the record, I didn't see anything either, but I didn't try too hard. Lessans thought the new world will be so beneficial, every person will want to join.

I think theDoc should back off his claim unless he can provide a quote or reference to back him up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That context doesn't work with the following statements though

From his discovery, he believed there is design to the universe. I'm sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Simply put, you're not a trustworthy source to find bad things in the book. Stephen finds the book a piece of trash, and would be quite happy to show everyone exactly where Lessans promotes genocide. His opinion holds a lot more weight than yours.

This is getting outrageously nasty. Show me Stephen.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

For the record, I didn't see anything either, but I didn't try too hard. Lessans thought the new world will be so beneficial, every person will want to join.

I think theDoc should back off his claim unless he can provide a quote or reference to back him up.

I know what's in the book, and there's no reference to anything but good.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't even think you understood what he meant. Not surprising.

That's very uncharitable of you. Like the quote I referenced from a popular animated tv show, it is not difficult to discern the meaning of the quoted passage. It is the stupefyingly abysmal way it is communicated that was being pointed out.

Likewise, it is also not terribly difficult to discern the intended meaning of this supposed "two-sided equation." Here, however, it is not just terrible writing that deserves attention, but a complete lack of support for the assertions made, from "THOU SHALL NOT BLAME" (which he likes to put in all caps for some reason, or maybe you did that), a claim which hinges on his woefully lacking arguments for his peculiar brand of determinism*; to his continued, flagrant abuse of the term "mathematical," justified by an artless twist of logic, taking the simple fact that words and their definitions are more or less arbitrary and claiming that it means he can redefine whatever word he wants to mean whatever he wants and if you have any objection it's your problem; to his completely unsupported, even within his book, assertion that if an individual knows he cannot/will not be blamed for a hostile or hurtful action he will be compelled to forgo that action... for some reason...

*it should be noted here that there are many different forms and interpretations of deterministic philosophy, at least as many as there are of free will philosophies, and that not all of these stand in opposition to one another. It seems your dad never read anything beyond Spinoza or Durant, and was thus largely ignorant of the incredible diversity of these schools of thought, assuming instead that it all broke down to an A or B question, is our will free or is it not. It does not break down that way, which rather calls into question the whole of his reasoning, and certainly paints his "mathematical" certainty in a doubtful light.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said it's not there Stephen.

Don't care what you said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not adding anything new.

Confirmation from a source other than the world's sole Lessans acolyte is nothing new? That's ridiculously stupid even by your standards. I was trying to help. Please rest assured it won't happen again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you think I'm lying where you have to double check?

Lying comes as naturally to you as it did to your sociopathic shitnozzle of a grandmother, but no, I don't think that. In this instance you were telling the truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That deserves a big

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said it's not there Stephen. You're not adding anything new. Do you think I'm lying where you have to double check? That deserves a big

You're an idiot.

He's backing you up here--about that "no such passage" in the book--and you attack him.

Oy.