A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Awareness

I have not read it , cause I'm not wasting my time on a shitty paperback.

And that makes you more sensible than most others on this thread who have wasted considerable time reading the drivel. Considering this your opinion should be highly valued on the subject as your brain hasn't been numbed by the ordeal. Reading that book is like wearing one of the Python's surgeon's caps, and you don't have to be crazy, but it sure helps.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And that makes you more sensible than most others on this thread who have wasted considerable time reading the drivel. Considering this your opinion should be highly valued on the subject as your brain hasn't been numbed by the ordeal. Reading that book is like wearing one of the Python's surgeon's caps, and you don't have to be crazy, but it sure helps.

Who am I to say Doc, but read John Campbell, now that was really interesting to read. The book I read was in an interview style. But I forgot the title, interviewed by Bill Meyers?
But maybe you already know it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he did do science LadyShea. Forget the debacle regarding the senses. His discovery is scientific.

He didn't do any science, whatsoever because he didn't use scientific methodology. Your assertion that it is scientific is completely baseless.

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy. I already stated that what Lessans did was philosophy, not science. Yet he and you present it as science. I have been refuting that the work is scientifically valid, not that it is
philosophical in nature.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is Epistemology?:

Epistemology is the investigation into the grounds and nature of knowledge itself. The study of epistemology focuses on our means for acquiring knowledge and how we can differentiate between truth and falsehood. Modern epistemology generally involves a debate between rationalism and empiricism, or the question of whether knowledge can be acquired a priori or a posteriori:

Empiricism: knowledge is obtained through experience.
Rationalism: knowledge can be acquired through the use of reason.

Yes, reason can be used to gain knowledge about many things, but it isn't science

Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. This article will provide a systematic overview of the problems that the questions above raise and focus in some depth on issues relating to the structure and the limits of knowledge and justification. Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[Vivisectus]

In philosophy logical evidence can work without any gathered data. When you propose an idea for which you have no data you must still show that it necessarily follows logically, though. Unless you are Nietzsche or Lessans. How they would have despised one another, and called each other crackpots!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, maybe it's because you know you haven't read the book that you have to keep repeating that you read the book but just disagree. I know you haven't read it, and you know it too. Shhh, we'll keep it a secret.

Originally Posted by Awareness

What kind of bullshit is this Peacegirl?
Are you here to discuss or just play around?

I know you haven't read it, and you know it too. Shhh, we'll keep it a secret.

Originally Posted by Awareness

I have not read it , cause I'm not wasting my time on a shitty paperback.

I wasn't talking to you; I was talking to doc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Reasoning, according to the way we acquire knowledge, is a methodology. Obviously, observation and reasoning can be wrong, but so can empirical testing, if not done properly.

It is knowledge that is undeniable, IF UNDERSTOOD LADYSHEA. I know what you have been refuting, and I refute your conclusions.

Yes, reason can be used to gain knowledge about many things, but it isn't science

There has to be a justification for why something is believed to be true or not. That justification has to be based on whether the way in which that information was obtained is legitimate. I believe the knowledge presented in this book is scientific because the method used (astute observation and sound reasoning) meets those requirements. If you don't see it because it's not data collecting, then there's no way we can continue. You will never give him a chance. Your ears are shut, and you are the one going "na na na na na". Obviously, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It either is going to work, or it isn't. I know this knowledge works, and you can't argue with success.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In philosophy logical evidence can work without any gathered data. When you propose an idea for which you have no data you must still show that it necessarily follows logically, though. Unless you are Nietzsche or Lessans. How they would have despised one another, and called each other crackpots!

Vivsectus, so now you're saying that his work doesn't follow logically? I answered your very long post, and you have yet to give me any concrete examples of your two objections. I'm trying to show you that the two problems you found can be resolved, but if you don't let me, it makes me question your intentions. Other than you and LadyShea, there has been no one sincerely interested in his first discovery. I hope you both don't opt out, or this thread will be reduced to dart throwing and it will be over.

[Vivisectus]

His knowledge is very clear, but it's not easy to grasp if you haven't gone over it many times. I think we need to start from the beginning because have no idea what anyone understands.

You keep saying that, but somehow the support required for the statements never materializes... You keep saying you have something, but somehow you never get around to showing it.

I really don't know how I'm going to proceed when you and everyone else are not really trying to understand this book. You are trying in the worst way to prove him wrong. Since that one analogy you have shown no curiosity, no real interest, no nothing. How can you not be interested in what this book has to say if you understood even a little bit of it?

All I did was offer an objection, which I carefully explained. You still have not dealt with it and make excuses in stead. Not agreeing once again equals not understanding, maliciousness, lazyness and being too invested in something else.

You're right, it would be folly to read the book out of order, but you said you read the first two chapters, so just give me one example of an issue you have with other parts of the book.

Well, apart from the sight debacle, there is the idea that once two young people engage in a sexual relationship, they are then bound by the laws of maximum satisfaction to pursue this relationship for ever more, because even not wanting to do so would be to strike a first blow. It is impossible for them to, say, develop in different directions, for them to need different things from a relationship as they mature, for them to realize that there are traits in the other that they overlooked in the first fresh flush of love which they have to re-assess when they have to cooperate over a long period of time... it is a insulting over-simplification of the rich and varied tapestry that is human sexuality and love.

You keep saying that, so tell me, what is poorly supported, and what is downright impossible? I am sorry if you don't like the writing style, but that has nothing to do with the content.

I repeat: efferent, instant sight is downright impossible. The story of the observer from Rigel and Columbus lead to paradoxes and defy everything we know of physics - first off, something is caused by nothing (information appearing in the brain from lightyears away carried by nothing) and secondly, it would mean the observer could send messages to Columbus, answering questions he has not asked yet, destroying causality.

The notion that blame is a condition is for justification is poorly, nay, even unsupported. All we have to go on is your fathers say so.

Please write these down and deal with them in stead of just repeating it and then ignoring the answer.

Who am I pointing fingers at? I am defensive because everyone is telling me he has nothing when I know he does. How am I supposed to act?

You could deal with the objections in a rational manner in stead of accusing everyone of being meanies, lazy, dumb, malicious and closed-minded all the time... and then ignoring the objections!

Unfortunately, the idea that the only method to come to a valid truth is through data collection is really sabotaging my efforts. He was describing how conscience works. When you observe something, it is a description of how something works. If you repair cars, you can describe how a car works and therefore you have knowledge of how to fix it. The only difference is that Lessans was describing something no one else had observed, and therefore he was able to find a solution.

A logical argument would work as well, as does not rely on data. However, that is not supplied either. He merely asserted THAT it works that way, without making a compelling case for it. Judging by the way he dances around actually making this point, I get the feeling he was not 100% happy with it himself. He felt it was true, no doubt, but he cut some serious corners when it came to proving it.

I refuse to get into physics. I know the truth will come out because people will want to know if there is a possibility that efferent vision is really how we see. I still think that seeing an object in real time does not negate the theory of relativity.

However, physics does not refuse to disprove your fathers ideas. Sticking your head in the sand changes nothing.

I don't think people are maliciously trying to misunderstand the book, but they are, indeed, misunderstanding the book. Do you think it was right for David to pull sentences out of context, and make a big joke out of it? I never said people ask too many questions, but it's the general attitude that makes me think their questions are not sincere, that bothers me the most. I don't think people are taking this book seriously, otherwise, they would be reading voraciously, but they're not.

People are disagreeing with the book, and explaining to you why. No, pulling out of context is not nice, but I can see why someone would do it. Your continued denial does invite mockery, as it requires a tremendous amount of patience to put up with. I have to be rational all the time and support my assertions. You feel you can simply refer to your father as the ultimate authority and be done with it.

Let me ask you a question - why did you not respond at all to The Lone Rangers excellent post, in which he pointed out that the only thing that could make you change your mind was the fact that your father apparently had a different opinion than you thought?

You're going to have to agree to disagree for the time being, because there's going to be no progress in this regard, and if that is the reason you won't read the rest of the book, there's nothing I can do about that.

That is like offering a draw while you are 3-0 behind in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Being robbed is not a relative concept, is it? I am not saying that there isn't duality in some situations, but what does this have to do with the validity of his knowledge? You'll have to give me a more concrete example.

A lot, as I have explained. Sure, there are more straight forward cases. But the existence of ambiguous ones rather defeats the claim that all evil has been dealt with.

It is not easy to see how conscience works because it appears that "bad" people don't need a justification to perform their evil acts. But embedded in their psyche is a history of hurt that has deeply wounded them, and from this wound they continue the cycle of anger and rage, which often manifests in very unpredictable ways. It is not always the person who is responsible for the hurt that gets his just due. It's the innocent person who is often the recipient of a someone's rage, because he happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope you accept this response even if you're not fully convinced.

This is one possible source of bad acts, sure. But does that mean it covers all of them, or even a majority? You are trying to take a particular and make it into a generality.

Vivisectus, find a post where I called someone stupid or lazy, and I'll eat my words. I did say people were close minded, and I believe they are if they continue to tell me he is wrong when they haven't even read the book. That is not fair play.

You imply that I am either malicious, lazy or stupid just about every post.

No, these concepts have not been examined fully Vivisectus. I can see why the conclusions drawn are incomplete and inaccurate. Am I supposed to accept your conclusions when I know there is a gap in your understanding? That doesn't mean your questions aren't valid, and I will do my best to answer them, but you have to give it a chance.

It would be nice if you actually did answer them. In stead you dodge or claim persecution.

You said you read the book, so you should have tons of questions. Ask me some. I wish we could all be reading the same pages so everyone could chime in and there would be more bang for the buck so-to-speak, but I guess that's impossible.

I do so all the time, but the moment they doubt your fathers work you simply claim I am too dumb to understand what I have read and leave it at that. You just say I am wrong and leave it at that every single time.

I never said you were malicious and I do appreciate that you are trying. I just hope you don't give up because if this knowledge was easy, it would have discovered a long time ago. So give yourself a break, but please don't stop asking questions.

Ah, so the knowledge is just too arcane for me to grasp. Then you should STILL be able to easily deal with the objections.

I answered your question about the need for justification. I just hope it's adequate so we can move on. The more you read, the better you'll understand it, and then you'll be in a position to explain it to others.

And the answer was "My father observed conscience and was able to work out how it works."

Nothing more. This is why the claim has no substance - it remains a completely unsupported assertion, indistinguishable from one made up on the spot.

That's a very good question, but I would appreciate if you could give me a concrete example. It's easier to understand that way.

I gave the example of the inquisitor, saving a person from eternal pain by administering a little bit of pain right now. Who could also be seen as a malicious torturer, causing pain to a victim because of his dogmatism.

Some people like the example of giving money to a drug-addict. Some say it is a nice thing to do, others say that you are in fact harming both the addict and society, as the money will go to fund crime.

There is also the problem of the fat man on the bridge. There is no time to explain to the fat man, but if you do not push him off the bridge, a train will kill 3 people standing on the track.

All these are ambiguous moral dilemma's. All 3 enable someone to strike a first blow, even if the blame/justification thing DID work.

How can I answer you when all you do is tell me Lessans is wrong. You haven't given me a question to answer. All you do is tell me he is wrong; that firemen are not a condition of fires. How crazy is that????

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I tell you I believe he is wrong about sight and present you with the physics and some everyday observations and facts that show that he must be. I also present to you some reasons why I don't think your father proves his point, and that his conclusion are therefor not compelling. Just because you chose only to read the firemen-analogy - which you still have not dealt with, by the way, except for saying "No it isn't! My Father is right and you are ignorant / mean / lazy / closed minded!" - doesn't mean other ones were not there.

I did answer it. I said it's not a perfect analogy because we need firemen just in case there is a fire, but as you read the book you'll see why not only do we not need blame and punishment as a condition for criminal behavior, but it actually encourages the criminal behavior it is trying to prevent.

In fact you did not, and neither were you able to show me where in the book it is explained why this is. In the book it is merely asserted THAT it is so. You even admitted this when you said that it just works that way and that we should just trust your father because he is a clever fellow and spent a lot of time thinking about it.

That is not true. Where in this excerpt was he arrogant? He was reacting to someone who was questioning his abilities. You would have done the same thing, if you were in his shoes.

he gave himself away when he assumed his education was, and I quote once again, "far superior". A non-arrogant way of saying it would have been "I did not get a chance to say that my non-formal education was extensive, and should not be dismissed offhand"

He claimed superiority based on no information whatever. That is arrogant.

But he wasn't arrogant. I can't even conceive of that word applied to him because I knew him, and this is a wrong perception

.

I know you can't. You also seem to be unable to conceive of him making a mistake.

Lessans never wanted to be considered a genius. He wanted his discovery made known in order to prevent what we have not yet been able to accomplish since time immemorial (the elimination of war and crime), and I believe he found a solution. You can't judge his work at this point, so please be patient. That's all I can ask for.

He claimed that he had it 100% correct when a) no-one else agreed and b) nothing was verified except by himself.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivsectus, so now you're saying that his work doesn't follow logically? I answered your very long post, and you have yet to give me any concrete examples of your two objections. I'm trying to show you that the two problems you found can be resolved, but if you don't let me, it makes me question your intentions. Other than you and LadyShea, there has been no one sincerely interested in his first discovery. I hope you both don't opt out, or this thread will be reduced to dart throwing and it will be over.

I gave them many times, and have just finished giving them again. So far I have seen no answer.

[Doctor X]

Like any fundamentalist, it tries to forget the rebuttals and pretend the fairy tale works.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't talking to you; I was talking to doc.

Hmmm, Add rudeness to her many wonderful qualities.

[peacegirl]

His knowledge is very clear, but it's not easy to grasp if you haven't gone over it many times. I think we need to start from the beginning because have no idea what anyone understands.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You keep saying that, but somehow the support required for the statements never materializes... You keep saying you have something, but somehow you never get around to showing it.

Vivisectus, I am asking you to please stop using the only criteria for what is true as being determined by empirical evidence, first off. Of course, empirical evidence is the final proof, but you have to be patient. If you can't do this, then, yes, all bets are off because I can't make any headway under these caustic conditions, and believe you me, this is a caustic environment.

I really don't know how I'm going to proceed when you and everyone else are not really trying to understand this book. You are trying in the worst way to prove him wrong. Since that one analogy you have shown no curiosity, no real interest, no nothing. How can you not be interested in what this book has to say if you understood even a little bit of it?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All I did was offer an objection, which I carefully explained. You still have not dealt with it and make excuses in stead. Not agreeing once again equals not understanding, maliciousness, lazyness and being too invested in something else.

And I asked you where I mentioned the word maliciousness or lazyness. Why are you putting words in my mouth? To satisfy your agenda? I think so, and if that's the way it is, we cannot talk anymore. You are not interested in this book; you are trying to be right, and will destroy whatever I thought was a possible spark in this thread.

You're right, it would be folly to read the book out of order, but you said you read the first two chapters, so just give me one example of an issue you have with other parts of the book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, apart from the sight debacle

Whoaaaaaa, stop right there!!! Lessans has not been proved wrong, so don't go there Vivisecuts. Don't use that to reject this, or it's a biased assessment, and we will end this. I can't win under these conditions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

there is the idea that once two young people engage in a sexual relationship, they are then bound by the laws of maximum satisfaction to pursue this relationship for ever more, because even not wanting to do so would be to strike a first blow.

Nooooo, 100 times nooooooooo. Do you see what you're doing? I guess not. I will explain. You are taking something out of context, yet you think you know what this man discovered. You are jumping all over the place and you think this is the way careful and thorough investigation is carried on? I don't think so Vivisectus, and I'm not going to let you get away with this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is impossible for them to, say, develop in different directions, for them to need different things from a relationship as they mature, for them to realize that there are traits in the other that they overlooked in the first fresh flush of love which they have to re-assess when they have to cooperate over a long period of time... it is a insulting over-simplification of the rich and varied tapestry that is human sexuality and love.

But who is saying you can't do what you want? That is a misinterpretion right there. If you don't love someone, then you can leave, no one is judging you or stopping you. Lessans was not saying that you are subjected to someone you don't love. Do you see the misunderstanding here? This is nuts.

You keep saying that, so tell me, what is poorly supported, and what is downright impossible? I am sorry if you don't like the writing style, but that has nothing to do with the content.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I repeat: efferent, instant sight is downright impossible. The story of the observer from Rigel and Columbus lead to paradoxes and defy everything we know of physics - first off, something is caused by nothing (information appearing in the brain from lightyears away carried by nothing) and secondly, it would mean the observer could send messages to Columbus, answering questions he has not asked yet, destroying causality.

Once again, I will not let you get away with this even if I never come back to this thread. Maybe your concept of causality is incorrect. Lessans discovery proved that causality is not accurate in the sense that an origin necessarily forces the next move. Of course, you don't get this, and so you are stuck with your ideas, and will immediately reject Lessans. It's very sad if you ask me. But I can't control your lack of desire desire to learn something that might be opposed to your worldview, and I won't spend that much energy in trying, unless you can give me a chance, and not give up. You can always reject what is being said, but you won't even allow me to get to that point.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The notion that blame is a condition is for justification is poorly, nay, even unsupported. All we have to go on is your fathers say so.

Please write these down and deal with them in stead of just repeating it and then ignoring the answer.

Stop right there. I said for you to give me concrete examples, which is the only way an issue can be resolved. If you don't do this, that indicates to me that you have no concrete examples.

Who am I pointing fingers at? I am defensive because everyone is telling me he has nothing when I know he does. How am I supposed to act?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You could deal with the objections in a rational manner in stead of accusing everyone of being meanies, lazy, dumb, malicious and closed-minded all the time... and then ignoring the objections!

I'm trying to answer, but I can't talk to someone with such scorn that they can't see straight. I thought you might be someone who is a little bit objective, but I don't know for sure. Tell me where I said, or implied, that people are lazy, dumb, and malicious? Please stop putting close-minded into the category of lazy, dumb, and malicious. You are attempting to lie in order to be right.

Unfortunately, the idea that the only method to come to a valid truth is through data collection is really sabotaging my efforts. He was describing how conscience works. When you observe something, it is a description of how something works. If you repair cars, you can describe how a car works and therefore you have knowledge of how to fix it. The only difference is that Lessans was describing something no one else had observed, and therefore he was able to find a solution.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A logical argument would work as well, as does not rely on data. However, that is not supplied either. He merely asserted THAT it works that way, without making a compelling case for it. Judging by the way he dances around actually making this point, I get the feeling he was not 100% happy with it himself. He felt it was true, no doubt, but he cut some serious corners when it came to proving it.

Other than empirical evidence, which is the gold standard in here, and we have discussed ad nauseum, what did he do to cut corners? And I keep telling you that your take on this man is completely and utterly wrong. He was very happy with himself, but he was an egotist, an arrogant man, or deluded by his believed genius. It is so the opposite of who he was, that you really need to let go of your own delusions just to satisfy your dislike and your lack of interest in this discovery. To be continued on next post...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reasoning, according to the way we acquire knowledge, is a methodology. Obviously, observation and reasoning can be wrong, but so can empirical testing, if not done properly.

Scientifically valid tests can be repeated/replicated by others. Methods and data can be analyzed (to see if they were "done properly") by others.

What Lessens did can not be analyzed or scrutinized. We can't look at his data to see if there was a biased or otherwise invalid sampling (how do we know he didn't "observe" only people with mental illnesses?). He didn't make a hypothesis to be tested.

You and he have given us nothing but poorly put together words. That's just not good enough.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is knowledge that is undeniable, IF UNDERSTOOD LADYSHIEA.

Lessens said it, you believe it. Case closed.

As for understanding, you don't understand the importance of critical thinking, you don't understand the necessary consequences of some of Lessens conclusions, and you don't understand science at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be a justification for why something is believed to be true or not. That justification has to be based on whether the way in which that information was obtained is legitimate.

And you have given us no way to determine the legitimacy of "the way in which that information was obtained". Nothing in the book gives us any reason to assume legitimacy.

I believe the knowledge presented in this book is scientific because the method used (astute observation and sound reasoning) meets those requirements.

No, it doesn't. You don't get to redefine science and math to suit you. Anyway, what you believe is irrelevant, because your readers don't agree.

If you don't see it because it's not data collecting, then there's no way we can continue. You will never give him a chance. Your ears are shut, and you are the one going "na na na na na".

I have given him and you every possible chance to explain, to expand, to persuade and you failed.

Obviously, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

So you keep saying, but what does that even mean? You are quoting Lessens with this, what did he mean by it?

This phrase is about as scientific and meaningful as "When it rains it pours"

It either is going to work, or it isn't. I know this knowledge works, and you can't argue with success.

Success where? Show me some success. You can't even name a single person, other than yourself, that has bought into Lessens ideas. Not even your own kids. When I asked about the guy Lessens mentioned that was convinced and helping spread the word, you said "he's not around anymore", very vague. Did he lose faith? Did he die? Why isn't your sister on the Internet trying to help you spread the message?

[peacegirl]

I refuse to get into physics. I know the truth will come out because people will want to know if there is a possibility that efferent vision is really how we see. I still think that seeing an object in real time does not negate the theory of relativity.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, physics does not refuse to disprove your fathers ideas. Sticking your head in the sand changes nothing.

What is true is true Vivisectus, and no matter what anyone says, doesn't change that facts. If Lessans is wrong, he's wrong, but many times in history, someone who would have been hung for his ideas, turned out to be right. Just something to give you pause.

I don't think people are maliciously trying to misunderstand the book, but they are, indeed, misunderstanding the book. Do you think it was right for David to pull sentences out of context, and make a big joke out of it? I never said people ask too many questions, but it's the general attitude that makes me think their questions are not sincere, that bothers me the most. I don't think people are taking this book seriously, otherwise, they would be reading voraciously, but they're not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

People are disagreeing with the book, and explaining to you why. No, pulling out of context is not nice, but I can see why someone would do it. Your continued denial does invite mockery, as it requires a tremendous amount of patience to put up with. I have to be rational all the time and support my assertions. You feel you can simply refer to your father as the ultimate authority and be done with it.

That is not what I'm doing. I'm trying to answer you in a fair way when you have not read the entire book. Your questions betray you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let me ask you a question - why did you not respond at all to The Lone Rangers excellent post, in which he pointed out that the only thing that could make you change your mind was the fact that your father apparently had a different opinion than you thought?

Because what he offered did not discredit him. I am totally open to whatever comes my way, but I believe he had something of value. You all are not giving him even the slightest benefit of the doubt, because you never read the book in its entirety, which makes me feel that you are wanting to prove him wrong. How can any objective scientist pull sentences out of context, and make a mockery of an important work, if he is really sincere in his efforts to understand what the author is expressing? There's no way in hell that someone can explain a discovery with this kind of scorn because it threatens conventional thinking.

You're going to have to agree to disagree for the time being, because there's going to be no progress in this regard, and if that is the reason you won't read the rest of the book, there's nothing I can do about that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is like offering a draw while you are 3-0 behind in the last 2 minutes of the game.

No, this is not a baseball game. This requires patience, and if something looks like it's behind the eight ball, you have to keep your composure, and wait until the final inning, which no one has done, or cares to do. I will lose in here but not because Lessans was wrong.

Being robbed is not a relative concept, is it? I am not saying that there isn't duality in some situations, but what does this have to do with the validity of his knowledge? You'll have to give me a more concrete example.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A lot, as I have explained. Sure, there are more straight forward cases. But the existence of ambiguous ones rather defeats the claim that all evil has been dealt with.

How can you say that when we barely scratched the surface? I'm dumbfounded.

It is not easy to see how conscience works because it appears that "bad" people don't need a justification to perform their evil acts. But embedded in their psyche is a history of hurt that has deeply wounded them, and from this wound they continue the cycle of anger and rage, which often manifests in very unpredictable ways. It is not always the person who is responsible for the hurt that gets his just due. It's the innocent person who is often the recipient of a someone's rage, because he happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope you accept this response even if you're not fully convinced.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is one possible source of bad acts, sure. But does that mean it covers all of them, or even a majority? You are trying to take a particular and make it into a generality.

Absolutely incorrect. We are all individuals and there are numerous situations in life that don't seem to have a common thread, but there are consistencies in those experiences which this psychological law of man's nature addresses. Can't you keep an open mind before assuming that Lessans was wrong? This is the biggest stumbling of all; giving this man a fighting chance.

Vivisectus, find a post where I called someone stupid or lazy, and I'll eat my words. I did say people were close minded, and I believe they are if they continue to tell me he is wrong when they haven't even read the book. That is not fair play.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You imply that I am either malicious, lazy or stupid just about every post.

No Vivisectus. You are not going to get away with this. What I said was not remotely close to what you interpreted it as. That has to do with your perception, not reality.

No, these concepts have not been examined fully Vivisectus. I can see why the conclusions drawn are incomplete and inaccurate. Am I supposed to accept your conclusions when I know there is a gap in your understanding? That doesn't mean your questions aren't valid, and I will do my best to answer them, but you have to give it a chance.

Originally Posted by Vivisecus

It would be nice if you actually did answer them. In stead you dodge or claim persecution.

I have not claimed persecution unless I felt I was being persecuted. I am not dodging anything. I asked you to give me a concrete example of what you think has not been addressed, and I am willing to answer you. But you have to give me an example.

I refuse to get into physics. I know the truth will come out because people will want to know if there is a possibility that efferent vision is really how we see. I still think that seeing an object in real time does not negate the theory of relativity.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, physics does not refuse to disprove your fathers ideas. Sticking your head in the sand changes nothing.

What is true is true Vivisectus, and no matter what anyone says, doesn't change that facts. If Lessans is wrong, it will be proven to be wrong through a fair trial (and you think this thread is being objective?), but many times in history, someone who would have been hung for his ideas, turned out to be right. Just something to give you pause.

I don't think people are maliciously trying to misunderstand the book, but they are, indeed, misunderstanding the book. Do you think it was right for David to pull sentences out of context, and make a big joke out of it? I never said people ask too many questions, but it's the general attitude that makes me think their questions are not sincere, that bothers me the most. I don't think people are taking this book seriously, otherwise, they would be reading voraciously, but they're not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

People are disagreeing with the book, and explaining to you why. No, pulling out of context is not nice, but I can see why someone would do it. Your continued denial does invite mockery, as it requires a tremendous amount of patience to put up with. I have to be rational all the time and support my assertions. You feel you can simply refer to your father as the ultimate authority and be done with it.

That is not what I'm doing. I'm trying to answer you in a fair way when you have not read the entire book. Your questions betray you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let me ask you a question - why did you not respond at all to The Lone Rangers excellent post, in which he pointed out that the only thing that could make you change your mind was the fact that your father apparently had a different opinion than you thought?

Because what he offered did not discredit him. I am totally open to whatever comes my way, but I believe he had something of value. You all are not giving him even the slightest benefit of the doubt, because you never read the book in its entirety, which makes me feel that you are wanting to prove him wrong. How can any objective scientist pull sentences out of context, and make a mockery of an important work, you tell me.

You're going to have to agree to disagree for the time being, because there's going to be no progress in this regard, and if that is the reason you won't read the rest of the book, there's nothing I can do about that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is like offering a draw while you are 3-0 behind in the last 2 minutes of the game.

No, this is not a baseball game. This requires patience, and if something looks like it's behind the eight ball, you have to keep your composure, and wait until the final inning, which no one has done, or cares to do. I will lose in here but not because Lessans was wrong.

Being robbed is not a relative concept, is it? I am not saying that there isn't duality in some situations, but what does this have to do with the validity of his knowledge? You'll have to give me a more concrete example.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A lot, as I have explained. Sure, there are more straight forward cases. But the existence of ambiguous ones rather defeats the claim that all evil has been dealt with.

How can you say that when we barely scratched the surface?

It is not easy to see how conscience works because it appears that "bad" people don't need a justification to perform their evil acts. But embedded in their psyche is a history of hurt that has deeply wounded them, and from this wound they continue the cycle of anger and rage, which often manifests in very unpredictable ways. It is not always the person who is responsible for the hurt that gets his just due. It's the innocent person who is often the recipient of a someone's rage, because he happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope you accept this response even if you're not fully convinced.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is one possible source of bad acts, sure. But does that mean it covers all of them, or even a majority? You are trying to take a particular and make it into a generality.

Absolutely incorrect. We are all individuals and there are numerous situations in life that don't seem to have a common thread, but there are consistencies in those experiences which this psychological law of man's nature addresses. Can't you keep an open mind before assuming that Lessans was wrong? This is the biggest stumbling of all; giving this man a fighting chance.

Vivisectus, find a post where I called someone stupid or lazy, and I'll eat my words. I did say people were close minded, and I believe they are if they continue to tell me he is wrong when they haven't even read the book. That is not fair play.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You imply that I am either malicious, lazy or stupid just about every post.

No Vivisectus. You are not going to get away with this. What I said was not remotely close to what you interpreted it as. That has to do with your perception, not reality.

I will keep repeating this because this is the crux of the problem: These concepts have not been carefully examined. I can see why the conclusions drawn are incomplete and inaccurate. Am I supposed to accept your conclusions when I know there is a gap in your understanding? That doesn't mean your questions aren't valid, but you have to give this knowledge a chance, which you are not doing.

[Vivisectus]

Vivisectus, I am asking you to please stop using the only criteria for what is true as being determined by empirical evidence, first off. Of course, empirical evidence is the final proof, but you have to be patient. If you can't do this, then, yes, all bets are off because I can't make any headway under these caustic conditions, and believe you me, this is a caustic environment.

I am doing no such thing - I am perfectly willing to accept logical arguments as well, as long as they are shown to be logical, and must necessarily follow.

And I asked you where I mentioned the word maliciousness or lazyness. Why are you putting words in my mouth? To satisfy your agenda? I think so, and if that's the way it is, we cannot talk anymore. You are not interested in this book; you are trying to be right, and will destroy whatever I thought was a possible spark in this thread.

Well, if you want an example of you accusing me of maliciousness, you just typed one.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, apart from the sight debacle

Whoaaaaaa, stop right there!!! Lessans has not been proved wrong, so don't go there Vivisecuts. Don't use that to reject this, or it's a biased assessment, and we will end this. I can't win under these conditions

.

It has - you just refuse to accept it. The man on Rigel that your father talks about could reply to questions held up on a big sign by someone here on earth before they were held up. Also, what about the problem of one-way mirrors? Unless you can refute these problems, we must conclude your father was wrong. All you do is say you don't believe it. Reality remains the same nonetheless.

Nooooo, 100 times nooooooooo. Do you see what you're doing? I guess not. I will explain. You are taking something out of context, yet you think you know what this man discovered. You are jumping all over the place and you think this is the way careful and thorough investigation is carried on? I don't think so Vivisectus, and I'm not going to let you get away with this.

Hey, you wanted an example and I gave you one based on what I read. So far your only response was "no it isn't!"

But who is saying you can't do what you want? That is a misinterpretion right there. If you don't love someone, then you can leave, no one is judging you or stopping you. Lessans was not saying that you are subjected to someone you don't love. Do you see the misunderstanding here? This is nuts.

I am not commenting in whether or not you can or cannot do what you want. your father states that no-one would even start a relationship unless they were already sure they would pursue the relationship forever. He also says this could start quite young. I am pointing out situations where you could start out very much in love, but find out later that the situation has changed. Your father does not seem to leave much room for this and simplifies all of love, friendship and sexuality into his harm / no-harm duality.

You keep saying that, so tell me, what is poorly supported, and what is downright impossible? I am sorry if you don't like the writing style, but that has nothing to do with the content.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I repeat: efferent, instant sight is downright impossible. The story of the observer from Rigel and Columbus lead to paradoxes and defy everything we know of physics - first off, something is caused by nothing (information appearing in the brain from lightyears away carried by nothing) and secondly, it would mean the observer could send messages to Columbus, answering questions he has not asked yet, destroying causality.

Once again, I will not let you get away with this even if I never come back to this thread.

If you want to run away and pretend that has proven your point, then that is entirely up to you. It only shows that you find these ideas impossible to defend, though.

Maybe your concept of causality is incorrect.

Good! We are getting somewhere. To accept your fathers ideas, we must abandon causality as we understand it - the foundation stone of physics as we know it. And we must do so on the basis of no proof whatever.

Lessans discovery proved that causality is not accurate in the sense that an origin necessarily forces the next move.

Kindly point this proof out to me. I have seen nothing of the kind. All I have seen is your father saying it is so on the basis of absolutely nothing.

Of course, you don't get this, and so you are stuck with your ideas, and will immediately reject Lessans.

No, I reject him after having looked into his ideas. Once I saw what they were, I did indeed reject them, until someone can supply me with a compelling reason to believe otherwise.

It's very sad if you ask me. But I can't control your lack of desire desire to learn something that might be opposed to your worldview, and I won't spend that much energy in trying, unless you can give me a chance, and not give up. You can always reject what is being said, but you won't even allow me to get to that point.

I give you chance after chance after chance... you can simply blame all that on my closed-mindedness again (my lack of desire to learn something that is opposed to my worldview) of you want, but that does not change the fact that you have yet again not addressed any of the objections. You just shout "noooooo!" and leave it at that, again.

Stop right there. I said for you to give me concrete examples, which is the only way an issue can be resolved. If you don't do this, that indicates to me that you have no concrete examples

.

And I supplied some. But I reject the idea that concrete examples are the only way to resolve an issue. You can also reject an idea because it is a flawed concept, or say that an idea is sound in principle.

I'm trying to answer, but I can't talk to someone with such scorn that they can't see straight. I thought you might be someone who is a little bit objective, but I don't know for sure. Tell me where I said, or implied, that people are lazy, dumb, and malicious? Please stop putting close-minded into the category of lazy, dumb, and malicious. You are attempting to lie in order to be right.

You did so in this very post, and I pointed it out.

Other than empirical evidence, which is the gold standard in here, and we have discussed ad nauseum, what did he do to cut corners? And I keep telling you that your take on this man is completely and utterly wrong. He was very happy with himself, but he was an egotist, an arrogant man, or deluded by his believed genius. It is so the opposite of who he was, that you really need to let go of your own delusions just to satisfy your dislike and your lack of interest in this discovery.

He failed to show how blame necessarily is a condition for justification. He just said it was and left it at that. When he presents this bit, he dances around it a little bit too, which leads me to suspect that he must have been aware of the flimsiness of his discourse at this point.

It also reminds me of the bit where he says the book is structured like a chess-match, where you are slowly but certainly being checkmated. A very unwise comparison to make, if you ask me. In chess, in order to win, you must hide the weakness in your position so that your opponent will try to attack a different one that is in fact a strong one. Once you opponent does this, success is indeed inevitable if you play correctly.

But it all depends on your opponent not spotting the gap in your defenses... it is based on making the opponent THINK that your defense if impenetrable, it is not based on making sure that it IS, or else each game would end in a draw.

[Vivisectus]

But he wasn't arrogant. I can't even conceive of that word applied to him because I knew him, and this is a wrong perception

.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know you can't. You also seem to be unable to conceive of him making a mistake.

Maybe that's why you aren't hearing his words, or reading his observations.

Allegations of closed-mindedness- 1
Objections dealt with - 0

You are turned off, and when someone is turned off they can't be receptive.

Allegations 2
Objections dealt with 0

He made mistakes Vivisectus. He was a human being, but he had reasoning capabilities that others didn't.

unsubstantiated claim, but you probably meant "I believe that he had reasoning capabilities that others didn't", which is fair enough so I will not quibble.

Why do you condemn for this?

Allegations: 3
Objections dealt with: 0

His ability would never have meant anything if he didn't read the accumlated knowledge, and go in a direction that no one else did, because they closed the door to further investigation, which you, unfortunately, are doing as well.

Allegations: 4
Objections dealt with: 0

I can see that you're a follower of the crowd, not an independent thinker.

Allegations: 5
Objections dealt with: 0

Our conversation therefore is not going to get anywhere, I feel sad about this, but I'm not going to beat my head the wall just because you refuse to see him in a light that is not what you imagine him to be.

Allegations: 6
Objections dealt with: 0

Cop-out excuse to get away with totally ignoring all objections duly noted.

Whatever kind of thinker I am, you are not a rational debater. You are not interested in the truth, because you reject it if it is not 100% in accordance with your fathers ideas. You are not interested in having these ideas analysed, you just want them to be confirmed, at any cost.

Answer me this - why did you never respond to The Lone Rangers excellent post regarding your change of opinion regarding cameras? Now THAT was what I call an astute observation right there, and one that you could profit from thinking about very carefully.

[davidm]

1. How can sight be efferent when it is demonstrated to be afferent?

No answer.

2. How can it be efferent when anatomically that's impossible?

No answer.

3. How can information from distant places be instantaneously acquired when that's impossible according to all the known laws of physics?

No answer.

4. If the sun is turned on, how can one instantaneously see it and the reflected light of the moon, but not the reflected light of the person standing next to one? Even if instantaneous seeing were possible (it's not) it logically follows that one would see the reflected light of the moon and the neighbor at the same time, along with the sunlight.

No answer. No explanation at all.

5. Even supposing that the eye could work efferently (it can't) what does that mean, exactly? HOW does it work? What are the physical mechanisms? And why, exactly, is a consequence of efferent seeing that we see instantaneously, even though that's impossible?

No explanation anywhere. No answer, after more than 200 pages of peacegirls's absurd nonsense.

She claims to have me on Ignore again, so perhaps someone could post the above. I think a nice summary of her situation is in order.

[Vivisectus]

What is true is true Vivisectus, and no matter what anyone says, doesn't change that facts. If Lessans is wrong, he's wrong, but many times in history, someone who would have been hung for his ideas, turned out to be right. Just something to give you pause.

Sure. But thousands upon thousands more were totally wrong.

That is not what I'm doing. I'm trying to answer you in a fair way when you have not read the entire book. Your questions betray you.

Ok. Then please explain to me why I should believe that blame is a condition for justification.

Because what he offered did not discredit him. I am totally open to whatever comes my way, but I believe he had something of value. You all are not giving him even the slightest benefit of the doubt, because you never read the book in its entirety, which makes me feel that you are wanting to prove him wrong. How can any objective scientist pull sentences out of context, and make a mockery of an important work, if he is really sincere in his efforts to understand what the author is expressing? There's no way in hell that someone can explain a discovery with this kind of scorn because it threatens conventional thinking.

...and again you accuse os closed-mindedness, lazyness, etc.

No, this is not a baseball game. This requires patience, and if something looks like it's behind the eight ball, you have to keep your composure, and wait until the final inning, which no one has done, or cares to do. I will lose in here but not because Lessans was wrong.

Then I am sure you can deal with the objections raised.]

How can you say that when we barely scratched the surface? I'm dumbfounded.

The reason for that is that the objections started at the very base of your fathers thinking.

Absolutely incorrect. We are all individuals and there are numerous situations in life that don't seem to have a common thread, but there are consistencies in those experiences which this psychological law of man's nature addresses. Can't you keep an open mind before assuming that Lessans was wrong? This is the biggest stumbling of all; giving this man a fighting chance.

..and yet another claim of persecution and an alegation that everyone is closed-minded.

It is the psychological law that I am challenging. You therefor cannot simply say "The psychological law is there and works in all cases". That is another unsupported assertion.

No Vivisectus. You are not going to get away with this. What I said was not remotely close to what you interpreted it as. That has to do with your perception, not reality.

You actually say that I am out to destroy, that I am too invested, that I am unwilling to learn, etc etc etc. That is not perception. That is you saying stuff.

I have not claimed persecution unless I felt I was being persecuted. I am not dodging anything. I asked you to give me a concrete example of what you think has not been addressed, and I am willing to answer you. But you have to give me an example.

Indeed. You claim persecution. For having an idea that you wanted studied being criticized. I will say it again - there is no reason to believe that blame is a necessary condition for justification.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Awareness

Who am I to say Doc, but read John Campbell, now that was really interesting to read. The book I read was in an interview style. But I forgot the title, interviewed by Bill Meyers?
But maybe you already know it.

That would have been 'The Power of Myth'. It was a PBS TV series hosted by Bill Moyers, and was of interviews and lectures by Campbell. At one time I had the series on video and the book which was a companian to the series. Since than I have read 'Thou Art that', and now am working on 'The Hero's Journey'. Campbell has sparked an interest in reading some of James Joyce, and a few other works he has referenced. I also found it interesting that he has concluded that all myth is actually the same just retold for different times and places, from that I would say that all religion is the same just corrupted for local needs. One of the major problems as I see it is that most religions have lost touch with their mythological origins, and have lost touch with their true teachings.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hmmm, Add rudeness to her many wonderful qualities.

Paaaaaleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaassssseeeee, give me a break. Doc, of all people, you have been one of the most rude people I've met. So please save your words for another day.

[thedoc]

Sorry for the double, computer issues.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And that makes you more sensible than most others on this thread who have wasted considerable time reading the drivel. Considering this your opinion should be highly valued on the subject as your brain hasn't been numbed by the ordeal. Reading that book is like wearing one of the Python's surgeon's caps, and you don't have to be crazy, but it sure helps.

Awareness is like our own private Dutch master. He doesn't visit often, but when he does, he leaves a trail of chiaroscuro miniatures for us to admire until he returns.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, of all people, you have been one of the most rude people I've met. .

Glad to be of service. I try to do my best, and here is no exception. You would do well to emulate others on this thread and return to reality after your flight of fantasy.

[peacegirl]

Vivisectus, what are the two questions you are upset about. I answered you that if someone wants to leave a relationship, no one is stopping him or her. Right there it shows me you are 100% confused. If you don't want to talk anymore because I'm telling you straight out that you are misguided, then that's fine. You have to let me talk. I'm the one that is bringing this information, so I should know whether you have misinterpreted most of what he is saying. Why? Because you did not read the entire book. You stand in judgment of what you do not know, and this is not an open or fair discussion; it is an attack based on your limited perception. So tell me? What are the two questions that you need answered? I will answer them succinctly and satisfactorily in the hope that you will desire to read more. But until you do, I'm not arguing with someone who doesn't have his facts straight.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Awareness is like our own private Dutch master. He doesn't visit often, but when he does, he leaves a trail of chiaroscuro miniatures for us to admire until he returns.

It's really nice that his talents are recognized, but I've often wondered why artists, especially photographers, would work in black and white, claiming it was more artistic?