A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

You are looking up a definition of "wavelength" right now, aren't you?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are looking up a definition of "wavelength" right now, aren't you?

I did find it extremely funny how Lessans invoked Einstein in his book, totally clueless, of course, that Einstein's theories made Lessan's "real time seeing" totally impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are looking up a definition of "wavelength" right now, aren't you?

Vivisectus, you are so wrong and because you are in no way giving Lessans the benefit of the doubt, you will find flaws; it's as simple as that. When all is said and done, there will be no flaws, because they don't exist. I know you are all freaking out right now, screaming at the computer, or just making your blood pressure skyrocket, but I will REPEAT: there are no flaws. Unfortunately, this very confrontation is what is fueling this very palpable anger, so it's a no win situation. I will lose because it's already been set up for me to lose. Sadly, if the winner takes the bow, we all lose. I refuse to answer anyone who just wants to be confrontative. This will impede any possible avenue that could help us in this dispute. I am not telling you to stay in this thread. But if you do, you need to be fair and square. No one has been fair to this man, NO ONE. I actually wish you all would stop posting, so that I could feel I've done my best.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It would help if Lessans could come up with something that was in any way concise and readable. Even if you think I'm wrong, I at least had the honesty to re-read this chapter and express it in my own words, which is something you distinctly avoid whenever possible. Yeah, I'm mightily pissed that I bothered to re-read it. I knew I'd get it "wrong" in your eyes before I even started. I did it to move the conversation onward. Feel free to move on.

He was very concise. It was me who summarized what I thought was most important. I have no idea what you're talking about specious_reasons, which is one more reason to think this entire discussion is a lost cause. Move on? Move on to what? More criticism based on nothing? No thank you.

[peacegirl]

This is where everybody is getting confused. There are wavelengths in the light, so when the brain sees, through the eyes, it is using those same wavelengths to see the object or image. There are no signals carrying the information in the wavelength to the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That - once again - makes no sense at all. You don't have the foggiest idea what a wavelength is do you? Also, if we use the wavelenghts in light to see, then we are still limited by the speed of light and instant observation does not work.

Just using big words you do not really understand does not a point make.

Big words, are you kidding? You obviously don't understand Lessans' observation at all, otherwise you wouldn't say what you did. You will continue to carry on and say it's crazy, it's wrong, it goes against all of science, or whatever. I'm not interested. Only time will tell. And guess what? I hope someone contacts me when the tide turns.

I am not contradicting myself. Where did I say that we interpret the signals in the light itself, unless it was the wrong person tagged?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Go back a post or two.

Sorry, I'm not working that hard. Interpret what you want.

If light is all there is that we are seeing, and it is refracted or reflected off of different mediums such as raindrops, or glass, or water, we are able to see different images that the light is producing. This does not conflict with efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You dont know what medium means either, I notice. And it does rather conflist with efferent vision, as the information is then travelling in the light.

If a camera can take picture of an image, so can the eyes see said image. I'm not going to keep repeating myself and I really don't care whether you agree or you don't. I will move on, trust me.

We can see light efferently without there having to be an object. We are seeing the light itself as an image. It is the image we are seeing, not interpreting in the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed - we see the image, which is made up of nothing but light. You just admitted that efferent vision does not work. You just don't realize it. Because there IS no object, and the light itself is not used in your model to make images. Unless images are made up of light, and it is light that is interpreted, they could not exist.

Saying "wavelength" more or less randomly is not going to make that go away.

Make what go away; you're ignorance? You want to believe that I said efferent vision does not work. I never said that. It doesn't matter IF THERE IS NO OBJECT; IF A CAMERA CAN TAKE A PICTURE OF SAID IMAGE, WE CAN SEE SAID IMAGE EFFERENTLY.

The way light bends can form an image, which can be seen efferently because the brain, through the eyes, are using those wavelengths to see the image. We can also see the sun because of the light being emitted, but there is no object other than plasma.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL you just did it again. You just admitted that there is no direct observation, and you still don't realize it. AND you used the word "wavelength" at random again. Amazing. I am going to start using the word Bozon randomly at you from now on and pretend I have actually said something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I have to say is LOL my foot. You can twist something anyway you want, but those who know what you're doing won't buy it.

That's exactly right. Regardless of whether there is an actual object, or if it's just a reflection with no object, we are seeing the image efferently due to the wavelengths, but it's the direction we see these images that matter, and we can still see the images efferently. When I say information is not carried, I mean that the information apart from the actual image or object will not show up in the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

HAHAHA and again!!! This is not true. We see it afferently, due to the Bozons travelling in the direct observation. LOL!

And then you make it even better - information except for the actual image or object will not show up in the brain. What other information did you have in mind? The information IS the image that our brain presents us with!

This just goes to show - a little stupidity goes a looooong way. Amazing.

Who is the stupid one here, I beg your pardon? You sound like a little kid who can't do anything but go, "Na na na na na," because you can't get your way, and you know you don't have a convincing answer. But you have to do something to save face, don't you? You have to make sure everyone believes your model of sight is spot on, or what would happen to YOU? You would be devastated. Well this is not something that interests me or I want to engage in.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This falsifies your idea, proving it wrong. I really don't know how much simpler and clearer I can put it. I am afraid your father was completely off the mark on this one.

What in God's name proves him wrong by your analysis. I'm shocked and dismayed all wrapped in one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see that! And nothing will ever, ever change that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Who cares.

Definitely not you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still have the major objections that 1) the idea of afferent vision is internally flawed, as it shows no way for the information to travel into the brain. 2) everyday observations such as the fact that mirrors work are not compatible with the idea. 3) it contradicts the basic laws of nature as we understand them, as information travels carried by nothing. 4) There are no observations that make us think there is something missing in our current model.

None of the phenomena you mentioned proves that efferent vision is impossible. We can see all of these phenomena, through the eyes, efferently because the OBJECT OR IMAGE, is within our visual field.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

An image is nothing but a simulated object made up out of light. Since this light creates an image in our brains, but does not really exist, the idea of direct observation (let alone efferent vision, which goes a step further) and the notion that sight information is not in light are all conclusively disproved.

Just because you don't want to believe it and chose to hide in gibberish doesn't change this one bit.

I am a bit insulted though that you did not come up with better gibberish. The fact that you brought it up means that you expect me to be dumb enough not to spot that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, and I feel a little hurt by that.

Vivisectus, I really don't think you get why he used the example he did. Therefore you think he had no clue what he was talking about. You're so wrong. Why would you feel hurt when there is nothing to feel hurt about other than trying to figure out what is true and what isn't? What kind of game you trying to pull here?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was very concise. It was me who summarized what I thought was most important. I have no idea what you're talking about specious_reasons, which is one more reason I think this entire discussion is a lost cause. Move on? Move on to what? More criticism based on nothing? No thank you.

It takes Lessans just over 1 full page to summarize the 2-sided equation (between pages 81 and 82 of the PDF), which is where I derived my answer to your question. That was the most concise explanation I found. As an engineering type, I'm not particularly tolerant of philosophical dissertation as it is, and I find following Lessans' prose an additional strain. Yet I made the effort.

Considering the first approximately 20 pages of this thread is people trying to get you to summarize Lessan's discoveries, I feel justifiably annoyed that I exerted the effort to put the 2-sided equation in my own words what I read when I know I'd just get it "wrong."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will REPEAT: there are no flaws.

You little fool, tell us again about God turning on the sun and how we would see it immediately but not the reflected light for eight and a half minutes, a situation that is logically impossible under ANY theory of sight.

Your father was a lame brain.

BTW, the theory of relativity makes instantaneous seeing of anything impossible even in principle. I guess Lessans the dunce didn't realize that when he invoked Einstein in his book.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It takes Lessans just over 1 full page to summarize the 2-sided equation (between pages 81 and 82 of the PDF), which is where I derived my answer to your question.

And the summary is utterly bereft of sense.

The first half of the two-sided equation is as follows: I will no longer blame you for your motion from here to there, even if you decide to hurt me because I know your will is not free; but you know... (this is the second half of the equation) that nothing in this world can make you hurt me if you don’t want to, for over this you have absolute control. And when it fully dawns on you that should go ahead and strike this first blow, not only I, the one to be hurt, but the entire world, will never hold you responsible, criticize, or question your conduct, never desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control — although you know it is not beyond your control at this point since you haven’t hurt me yet — you are compelled, completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so under the changed conditions. In other words, the advance knowledge that there will be no consequences presents consequences that are still worse making it impossible to consider this as a preferable alternative, for how is it possible for you to derive satisfaction knowing there will be no consequences for the pain you willfully choose to inflict on others? The reaction of no blame would be worse than any type of punishment society could offer. Keep in mind that punishment and retaliation are natural reactions of a free will environment that permit the consideration of striking a first blow because it is the price man is willing to risk or pay for the satisfaction of certain desires. But when they are removed so the knowledge that they no longer exist becomes a condition of the environment, then the price one must consider to strike the first blow of hurt — all others are justified — is completely out of his reach because to do so he must move in the direction of conscious dissatisfaction, which is mathematically impossible. If will was free we could not accomplish this simply because we would be able to choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available, but this natural law of our nature will give us no alternative when we are forced to obey it in order to derive greater satisfaction. Remember, it becomes the worst possible choice to hurt another when it is known in advance that there will be no blame, because there is no advantage in hurting those who must turn the other cheek for their satisfaction. As long as man can pay a price for hurting others, his conscience will never be able to control his desires if he wants something badly enough. But when every bit of justification is removed, and he knows that he will not be blamed by anyone anywhere, he will be compelled to change his ways. For someone to hurt another under the conditions just described he would have to move in the direction of conscious dissatisfaction, which cannot be done. It must be remembered that every human being is constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction and when the decision to hurt someone with a first blow becomes the least favorable choice our problem is solved because we will get less satisfaction, not more. Under these conditions it becomes mathematically impossible to strike a first blow when not to strike it is seen as the better alternative.

.........

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will REPEAT: there are no flaws.

If that's the case,* then you are wasting time here. You should be taking this knowledge to the United Nations, as God's Messenger instructed.

*Which, lol.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, you are so wrong and because you are in no way giving Lessans the benefit of the doubt, you will find flaws; it's as simple as that. When all is said and done, there will be no flaws, because they don't exist. I know you are all freaking out right now, screaming at the computer, or just making your blood pressure skyrocket, but I will REPEAT: there are no flaws. Unfortunately, this very confrontation is what is fueling this very palpable anger, so it's a no win situation. I will lose because it's already been set up for me to lose. Sadly, if the winner takes the bow, we all lose. I refuse to answer anyone who just wants to be confrontative. This will impede any possible avenue that could help us in this dispute. I am not telling you to stay in this thread. But if you do, you need to be fair and square. No one has been fair to this man, NO ONE. I actually wish you all would stop posting, so that I could feel I've done my best.

I am not angry in the slightest - I find this highly amusing, otherwise I would not do it.

I am glad you admit that in your view, this is a flawless work, perfect in every detail, and that all the fallacies, paradoxes and blatant impossibilities are in reality not there - they are just quibbles that people bring up because they are meanies.

[Vivisectus]

Big words, are you kidding? You obviously don't understand Lessans' observation at all, otherwise you wouldn't say what you did. You will continue to carry on and say it's crazy, it's wrong, it goes against all of science, or whatever. I'm not interested. Only time will tell. And guess what? I hope someone contacts me when the tide turns.

Not that big, I admit. But you still do not understand it. And I know you are not interested in the actual problems with the work at all - you are not here for them to be analyzed, or critically examined, but you are here to have them celebrated. That they are riddles with fallacies and in places physically impossible is of no interest to you at all. This much is now obvious.

If a camera can take picture of an image, so can the eyes see said image. I'm not going to keep repeating myself and I really don't care whether you agree or you don't. I will move on, trust me.

I explained many times why this actually proves that your model of vision does not exist. Just repeating yet another unsupported, half understood assertion does not chance that a bit.

Make what go away; you're ignorance? You want to believe that I said efferent vision does not work. I never said that. It doesn't matter IF THERE IS NO OBJECT; IF A CAMERA CAN TAKE A PICTURE OF SAID IMAGE, WE CAN SEE SAID IMAGE EFFERENTLY.

My ignorance is as may be, but at least I am capable of learning, so maybe one day it will go away. Your dogmatic obedience to your dead father is far harder to shift, it seems.

I already explained that an image can be simulated by nothing but beams of light. If we can simulate objects with it by shining this on the eyes, then that must mean that we interpret light, and do not see directly. If this was not so, the light-beam experiment would not work - we would see them for what they are, as they would be different from what we normally observe.

If in fact beams of light is what we see all the time, we would see no difference.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I have to say is LOL my foot. You can twist something anyway you want, but those who know what you're doing won't buy it.

You are like an abusive wife, accusing me of always twisting your words when you get angry and abusive.

Also you used those. I am aware of only one single person who thinks this is happening.

Who is the stupid one here, I beg your pardon? You sound like a little kid who can't do anything but go, "Na na na na na," because you can't get your way, and you know you don't have a convincing answer. But you have to do something to save face, don't you? You have to make sure everyone believes your model of sight is spot on, or what would happen to YOU? You would be devastated. Well this is not something that interests me or I want to engage i

n.

You are being willfully ignorant, which is stupid. Also, you use a concept that you do not really understand and could not explain in simple terms, a bit like they do with made-up words in a star trek episode in order to hide the very serious mistakes that are in the book. I find that very funny, especially since you are passing a work off as flawless, the answer to just about all of mankinds problems, and the work of a genius.

I won't lose any sleep over whatever model of sight people adopt. I just point out that this one is ludicrous.

What in God's name proves him wrong by your analysis. I'm shocked and dismayed all wrapped in one.

I write it about once or twice for the last 10 posts or so, I think. Read back a few, you will come across it.

It has to do with images.

Vivisectus, I really don't think you get why he used the example he did. Therefore you think he had no clue what he was talking about. You're so wrong. Why would you feel hurt when there is nothing to feel hurt about other than trying to figure out what is true and what isn't? What kind of game you trying to pull here?

I feel a little hurt because it shows how little you think of my intelligence, just randomly saying "it is done by wavelengths!" and then leaving it at that. Think! If that were true, all sight is still just observing and interpreting light because a wavelength is a property of light.

If light were sound, it's wavelength would be its tone.

It is like saying "the ears directly hear what is there, and do not detect air-pressure oscillations. These oscillations are a condition for hearing, but not what is interpreted because the ear is an afferent organ."

When confronted by the phenomenon of the loud-speaker, which does nothing but send these kind of oscillations, you say "Ah, but it is because the ear directly observed the tone. It still doesn't interpret sound" and consider that an answer.

This is nonsense, I hope you would agree.

[Vivisectus]

How many people believe in this stuff, by the way? How many converts are there thus far? How do they react when they find out that they are expected to follow this as a religion, never criticizing it in the least but rather worshiping it as the flawless gospel?

I am getting a bit nervous - what if my wife cheats on me with some sort of sex-toy? Would she fall in love with it in stead of with my genitals? This is worrying.

[Vivisectus]

]

It takes Lessans just over 1 full page to summarize the 2-sided equation (between pages 81 and 82 of the PDF), which is where I derived my answer to your question. That was the most concise explanation I found. As an engineering type, I'm not particularly tolerant of philosophical dissertation as it is, and I find following Lessans' prose an additional strain. Yet I made the effort.

Considering the first approximately 20 pages of this thread is people trying to get you to summarize Lessan's discoveries, I feel justifiably annoyed that I exerted the effort to put the 2-sided equation in my own words what I read when I know I'd just get it "wrong."

Did you see the dozen or so pages dedicated to "Why The Fact That No-one Believes This Is Because Of Meanies Everywhere"?

I find it funny that an undeniable discovery would need an explanation for it's utter obscurity.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I find it funny that an undeniable discovery would need an explanation for it's utter obscurity.

I blame Jimmy Carter. . . .

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

Me too. Yet another damn carpenter delaying paradise on earth - that craft has a lot to answer for.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It would help if Lessans could come up with something that was in any way concise and readable. Even if you think I'm wrong, I at least had the honesty to re-read this chapter and express it in my own words, which is something you distinctly avoid whenever possible. Yeah, I'm mightily pissed that I bothered to re-read it. I knew I'd get it "wrong" in your eyes before I even started. I did it to move the conversation onward. Feel free to move on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was very concise. It was me who summarized what I thought was most important. I have no idea what you're talking about specious_reasons, which is one more reason I think this entire discussion is a lost cause. Move on? Move on to what? More criticism based on nothing? No thank you.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It takes Lessans just over 1 full page to summarize the 2-sided equation (between pages 81 and 82 of the PDF), which is where I derived my answer to your question. That was the most concise explanation I found. As an engineering type, I'm not particularly tolerant of philosophical dissertation as it is, and I find following Lessans' prose an additional strain. Yet I made the effort.

Obviously, reading pages 81 and 82, without the understanding that came before it, will not make sense. That's why it wasn't clear to you, and why your lack of a complete understanding (I'm not saying you have no understanding; it's just not complete) was reflected in your answer, and doesn't surprise me.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Considering the first approximately 20 pages of this thread is people trying to get you to summarize Lessan's discoveries, I feel justifiably annoyed that I exerted the effort to put the 2-sided equation in my own words what I read when I know I'd just get it "wrong."

Why would you feel justified in being annoyed just because I want to know what you understand in your own words? That's what everybody wanted me to express on all these forums? How can we have a decent discussion when there is no basis for communication because we are not on the same page? Only one person that I know of actually read these two chapters in the order in which they were presented, even though it was only a quick once over. I will repeat: We cannot have a conversation that will lead to true understanding if we are not on the same page (literally and figuratively).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are looking up a definition of "wavelength" right now, aren't you?

No I'm not, and if I was, what difference does it make. I'm trying to answer charges against him to see if these charges are valid. So far nothing anyone has brought up as a possible inconsistency, is inconsistent (if carefully analyzed) with efferent vision.

Vivisectus, you are so wrong and because you are in no way giving Lessans the benefit of the doubt, you will find flaws; it's as simple as that. When all is said and done, there will be no flaws, because they don't exist. I know you are all freaking out right now, screaming at the computer, or just making your blood pressure skyrocket, but I will REPEAT: there are no flaws. Unfortunately, this very confrontation is what is fueling this very palpable anger, so it's a no win situation. I will lose because it's already been set up for me to lose. Sadly, if the winner takes the bow, we all lose. I refuse to answer anyone who just wants to be confrontative. This will impede any possible avenue that could help us in this dispute. I am not telling you to stay in this thread. But if you do, you need to be fair and square. No one has been fair to this man, NO ONE. I actually wish you all would stop posting, so that I could feel I've done my best.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not angry in the slightest - I find this highly amusing, otherwise I would not do it.

You sound vindictive to me, as most people in here, and the more I dig my heels in because I believe Lessans is right, the more angry people get. I still maintain that if we were in the dark ages, I (and Lessans) would be hanged and quartered in the name of truth and justice.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am glad you admit that in your view, this is a flawless work, perfect in every detail, and that all the fallacies, paradoxes and blatant impossibilities are in reality not there - they are just quibbles that people bring up because they are meanies.

I'm not saying that the quibbles people bring up don't need addressing, but if people think that what they see is a blatant impossibility, it needs to be shown to them that it's not a blatant impossibility. I said from the very beginning of this thread that in order to move on regarding the senses, the first step is showing that efferent vision is A POSSIBILITY. There is absolutely no technology that we can point to that proves undeniably that the eyes are afferent.

[peacegirl]

This is an interesting video. Thought you all might enjoy it. It's nice to interject something off topic sometimes, especially to have a break from the intensity.

Paleo Diet Review: Pros and Cons -- Natural Health Newsletter

[The Editor]

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

There is absolutely no technology that we can point to that proves undeniably that the eyes are afferent.

It has been made very clear to you that afferent vision is impossible. Just sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating to yourself that it isn't happening does not change anything.

When I explained why it is not possible, I did so carefully, and backed up what I said, making sure it is logical, rational, supported. You, however, just repeat "if you can photograph it you can see it!" without really thinking it through. You do not support it with anything, you just say it is so and because it is what your father said, it must be true.

I realize that in order to keep believing that your father was some sort of genius, you need to pretend that you are persecuted. However, you have gotten LOADS of attention for the work you wanted examined, you were extensively engaged over it - you just were not able to convince anyone because, frankly, you don't have a lot to work with.

Once it became clear that you were unable to explain the errors in the book, but STILL refused to admit to even the smallest possible flaw in this system the majority of people here lost respect for you. Can you blame them? You don't respect anyone's opinion - you value them only as potential fellow-worshipers of your fathers work. You don't want conversation-partners, you want disciples.

But you won't find any, because the ideas themselves are flawed, and the poor quality of the writing makes them stand out. It would need a complete work-over before it would stand a chance - and even then, you would be re-working it to hide the flaws, which would be kind of dishonest.

I suggest finding a nice hobby and stop this ridiculous father-worship.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It has been made very clear to you that efferent vision is impossible.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

For the record, everything people have said about Lessans is circumstantial, and has no basis in reality. They are charging him for things he never did. How would you all like to go to prison for something you never did, or never intended to do? You are all so prejudice, yet you think you are different than the people you attack. It's really abhorrent if you ask me. I hope you think about this post as an important DETAIL in this discussion. You could definitely eliminte anything you want just to be right. Sounds very rational to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It has been made very clear to you that afferent vision is impossible. Just sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating to yourself that it isn't happening does not change anything.

When I explained why it is not possible, I did so carefully, and backed up what I said, making sure it is logical, rational, supported. You, however, just repeat "if you can photograph it you can see it!" without really thinking it through. You do not support it with anything, you just say it is so and because it is what your father said, it must be true.

I realize that in order to keep believing that your father was some sort of genius, you need to pretend that you are persecuted. However, you have gotten LOADS of attention for the work you wanted examined, you were extensively engaged over it - you just were not able to convince anyone because, frankly, you don't have a lot to work with.

Once it became clear that you were unable to explain the errors in the book, but STILL refused to admit to even the smallest possible flaw in this system the majority of people here lost respect for you. Can you blame them? You don't respect anyone's opinion - you value them only as potential fellow-worshipers of your fathers work. You don't want conversation-partners, you want disciples.

But you won't find any, because the ideas themselves are flawed, and the poor quality of the writing makes them stand out. It would need a complete work-over before it would stand a chance - and even then, you would be re-working it to hide the flaws, which would be kind of dishonest.

I suggest finding a nice hobby and stop this ridiculous father-worship.

I'm so tired Vivisectus that I can't read your complete post. Why? Because I happened to read the last sentence, and it makes me upset. I do not worship anyone, and for you to say that, as if this is some kind of verification that he is wrong, only shows me that you are trying to find some reason or flaw to disregard Lessans' 30 year observations. You would be sick if you found out he was right all along, but I would not blame you considering THE PAGE YOU WERE ON.

[Vivisectus]

Are we back to claims of persecution again already?

Mean, mean people who don't particularly feel like sharing your weird brainwashed beliefs.

[Vivisectus]

I'm so tired Vivisectus that I can't read your complete post. Why? Because I happened to read the last sentence, and it makes me upset. I do not worship anyone, and for you to say that, as if this is some kind of verification that he is wrong, only shows me that you are trying to find some reason or flaw to disregard Lessans' 30 year observations. You would be sick if you found out he was right all along, but I would not blame you considering THE PAGE YOU WERE ON.

The astute observation that you worship your father is my explanation for your curious refusal to admit even the tiniest error in his thinking, even if they are painstakingly pointed out to you. It has no bearing in the ideas themselves, only on your reactions to criticism of them.