A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

"This is the most valuable thing ever!"

What is it?


"You have to read these three chapters!"

Sounds like a scam. Can you, in your own words just tell me the gist of it?

"Your ignorance is obvious. If you really want to know you will do as I tell you!"

Um, I don't see this as going well for you, especially here

Most people who study philosophy read the philosopher's work before they criticize it. You really won't get a full gist of how this knowledge plays out unless you see how all areas of human relation are inextricably linked to the other. I have said over and over that the economic system plays a major role in preventing the hurt that compel people to hurt others in order not to become losers themselves. There is no way a synopsis will be adequate. Look what Davidm did? He reduced the two-sided equation into something so simplified that it looked ridiculous. That is why I cannot do what you asked. If you think that means I'm ignorant, so be it.

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The "eyes are not a sense organ" is to peacegirl's book as Xemu is to Scientology. You're supposed to be fully committed before being exposed to its nonsense. That's why she only has the first three chapters online for free.

Peacegirl has this fantasy where people will go and read the first three chapters, and decide that this is a work of staggering genius. This fantasy is even represented in the book itself, by the many people being shocked at Lessans' wisdom and insight.

It may yet happen - dumber shit has been elevated to cult status.

There is no force or persuasion to join anything, so it isn't like scientology. You're just as bad as the others. And, btw, I posted Chapter Four. I'm not hiding anything.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The excerpt that Chuck just posted trying to mock this man again, was not meant as proof but to give an idea that in a hypothetical situation such as this, nothing incoming (other than light) would be striking the eye where an image could be interpreted by the brain.

... Well, yeah, but since the eye works by interpreting light, that is in fact exactly how vision works and eyes work fine in such circumstances. You don't need other sensory data for eyes to work, and eyes work using just light, and they only work when light is available, that is how eyes work.

This is pretty well-studied stuff.

[seebs]

I will say: If I had a thing that I thought would revolutionize the world, I would have posted the full text for free immediately. I would not be selling it. I would have it up for free and let people donate money if they felt like it.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by seebs

... Well, yeah, but since the eye works by interpreting light, that is in fact exactly how vision works and eyes work fine in such circumstances. You don't need other sensory data for eyes to work, and eyes work using just light, and they only work when light is available, that is how eyes work.

This is pretty well-studied stuff.

Hundreds of years of scientific study are like wheat to the scythe of Lessan's wisdom, much like the thousands of years of philosophical thought which he demolished in his writing.

[seebs]

i honestly can't even tell whether peacegirl actually thinks this stuff is persuasive or is hoping that the fact that it absolutely isn't will compel people to buy more because surely something this stupid must get better later.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by seebs

i honestly can't even tell whether peacegirl actually thinks this stuff is persuasive...

There's a simple way to find out.

Hey peacegirl, do you think the text you are always talking about , but never quoting, are persuasive?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Hundreds of years of scientific study are like wheat to the scythe of Lessan's wisdom, much like the thousands of years of philosophical thought which he demolished in his writing.

This deserves a LessansBite!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

I will say: If I had a thing that I thought would revolutionize the world, I would have posted the full text for free immediately. I would not be selling it. I would have it up for free and let people donate money if they felt like it.

I have thought about that. It’s not out of the question. The thing is if something is free people will think it probably has little or no value. My god, the book is cheap as it is. I feel devalued and I don’t appreciate what these people did to this author. Even if he was incorrect, they’re ad hominems top the cake. I’ve never experienced such pure virriol.

[davidm]

There are so many possibilities with LessansBites. I’m thinking, for example, of those needlepoint wall samplers that some morons hang in their kitchens, the ones with allegedly clever sayings like, “Keep This Kitchen Clean — Eat Out,” or bromides like, “God Never Gives You More Than You Can Handle.” Admittedly the LessansBites might be a bit wordy for a standard wall sampler, but can’t you just picture a family of Trump supporters, for example, eating in the kitchen below a sampler revealing the true nature of “homo-sexuality,” or the one about how if a girl agrees to go out on a date she’d better be prepared to go all the way without contraception? I think Lessans is likely to be a big hit down south. My own personal favorite wall sampler was one I encountered in college: “If God had intended women to give blow jobs, She wouldn’t have given them teeth.”

Also: LessansBites pillowcases, tote bags, throw rugs, cellphone cases, etc. Plus we could induce some hackers to hack various web sites so that when people navigate to them the home page disappears in favor of a LessansBite just as ChuckF has designed them.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by davidm

There are so many possibilities with LessansBites. I’m thinking, for example, of those needlepoint wall samplers that some morons hang in their kitchens, the ones with allegedly clever sayings like, “Keep This Kitchen Clean — Eat Out,” or bromides like, “God Never Gives You More Than You Can Handle.” Admittedly the LessansBites might be a bit wordy for a standard wall sampler, but can’t you just picture a family of Trump supporters, for example, eating in the kitchen below a sampler revealing the true nature of “homo-sexuality,” or the one about how if a girl agrees to go out on a date she’d better be prepared to go all the way without contraception?

His and Hers LessansBites!!

[davidm]

Those could be printed on His and Hers towels, for example, and on child’s wear — blue for boy clothing, pink for “goils.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

This deserves a LessansBite!

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell -- these are doorways in -- awakens the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes, touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists -- completely independent of man's perception -- in the external world. He doesn't see these objects because they strike the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware that something will soon follow something else which then arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense organ unless, as in Aristotle's case, it was the result of an inaccurate observation that was never corrected."
"Well I say, what difference does it make whether we have four senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don't feel any different, and I still see you just as before."
"Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.
Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, "I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?"
Again my reply was, "Are you positive because you were told this, or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?"
"I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught."
Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope.
They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other respects -- which is false -- although it is true that the farther away we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from a plane even though we can't see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the sky, why can't we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can't see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon -- although much larger -- is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars. To paraphrase this another way, if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would -- which brings us to another very interesting point. If I couldn't see you standing right next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly -- at that very moment -- although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star, the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light diminishes before it gets to us. Upon hearing this explanation someone asked, And If we don't need light around us to see the stars would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon? Once the light is here it remains here because the photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these photons are already present. And if the sun were to explode while we were looking at it, we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears.

Since it takes less time for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars. To sum this up -- just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in still another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

[ChuckF]

oh shit we're about to get the proof by dog eyes, it's been so long

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I couldn't see you standing right next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly -- at that very moment -- although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes afterwards.

The opposite, in the Authentic Text:

[peacegirl]

This is just an extension of the principles which you obviously don't understand. When people realize that not blaming will only serve to strengthen the marriage, they will desire to do what doesn't push the other away. When it comes to meals, he won't criticize her for preparing boring meals. But she will desire to prepare meals that are satisfying to him because of the fact that she knows he would never criticize her no matter what she makes. She, on the other hand, will never tell him what job to take, to switch jobs, or to bring home more money, which will make him want to do all he can to provide for his family.

When the newlyweds are finally able to move into their new home, the wife will know immediately that the house and the meals are her domain (unless another arrangement is made), while he will know that earning a living is his responsibility which will put him in charge of the money. Regardless of who brings in the paycheck, there will be an equal balance of power and respect. They will be compelled to show their love by doing everything they possibly can to make the other happy. If the man wants to stay home and the woman work, no one will be telling them that this is wrong. Therefore, the desire to make a living or take care of the children will be determined by the individual couple and how they choose to work things out between them. The purpose of this book is not to argue for or against women's liberation, nor is it meant to assign rigid roles to the sexes. Its only purpose is to demonstrate that when a man and woman decide what role they designate for themselves and it is mutually agreed upon, and they also know there will be no blame if they should fail to live up to their own agreement, there is no satisfaction to be gained from neglecting what is clearly their responsibility. In most cases the mother will desire to stay home with the baby, therefore, it will be the husband's responsibility to earn a living and handle all the money, but whatever they arrange will be their personal business. Although the husband is the only one working, she knows that he would never tell her that it is her duty to do certain things such as prepare the meals, keep the house in order, etc., as this is a judgment of what is right for her, just as she would never tell him to get a job, where or when to work, or to give her money. She gives him no advice whatever because she knows that such an action on her part would be a judgment of what is right for him, which tacitly blames his own desire. More importantly, it would reveal a lack of love which she wants to prevent since a display of love through her actions, not her words, is the only source of her own security. If the children are in school, she may wish to take a job and bring in extra money to help her husband support the family and would desire this all the more because of the realization that it could help take pressure off of her husband even though she knows he would never ask her to do this or blame her in any way if she chose not to.

[-FX-]

Shit just got real

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The opposite, in the Authentic Text:

That is true and is exactly what he wrote. We would see the Sun instantly because the requirements for sight would be met; the Sun would be large enough and bright enough to be seen by the naked eye. This is due to the efferent function of the eyes (assuming he is right). There would be no light around us until 8 minutes later which would not meet the requirements for sight.

[ChuckF]

Of course, peacegirl's Corrupted Text says exactly the opposite.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(assuming he is right)

seebs - this is the important part to accepting the idiot nonsense babble. You just have to assume it's true, just like the way one falls in love with sexual organs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Of course, peacegirl's Corrupted Text says exactly the opposite.

seebs - this is the important part to accepting the idiot nonsense babble. You just have to assume it's true, just like the way one falls in love with sexual organs.

No need to assume anything. It’s either true empirically or it’s not. I said “assuming he is right” for the benefit of the people who are unsure. You keep harping on that last sentence about falling in love with sexual organs because you don’t want to understand.

[ChuckF]

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Also: LessansBites pillowcases

And given peacegirl's affinity for bugfuck conspiracies, maybe a partnership with Mike Lindell is in order. A LessansBites MyPillow would be quite the thing!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is exactly what he wrote.

Oh multitudes of newcomers, peacegirl's statement is simply not true. Keep in mind her oft-repeated statement that lying is "justified" if she believes the truth might make her look bad. peacegirl saying X is actually compelling evidence of ¬ X.

For access to what Lessans actually wrote, please join us in the private forums, where the discussions are carefully and properly sherpaed by the True Steward of Seymour's real works.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Is that from the book? Or is it made up?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Keep in mind her oft-repeated statement that lying is "justified" if she believes the truth might make her look bad.

Well, if that claim is true, that makes her more honest than most.

peacegirl, is that true?

Have you posted "lying is 'justified' if the truth might make one look bad"?

Do you believe that?

[seebs]

...
wait i thought the Authentic Text thing was just a bit you were doing

But now... wait is there actually an original text, which is not as stupid, but then peacegirl has edited it to make it dumber?

[seebs]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I am reminded of a bit in one of the Callahan's Cross-time Saloon series books, where an alien says to a woman "You do not even know whether we are sexually compatible", and she says "I can see fingers and a tongue from here, anything else is gravy."