A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is a non-responsive reply. That Lessans was positive that he was correct is not in question. That he was positive he was correct is undeniable. That he was actually correct is not undeniable. Are you prepared to admit the possibility that, even though he was positive that he was correct, he may have, in fact, been in error? Or, is it your claim that because he was positive that he was correct it is therefore impossible for him to have been in error?

My claim that he is correct is not due to the fact that he was positive he was correct. My claim that he was correct is based solely on his thorough analysis of human behavior, his astute observations, and his sound reasoning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Peacegirl, I'm worried about this safety book. Makes me shudder to think what's inside.

"To tell a child not to cross the street against the light, is to blame it for its desire to play in traffic."

How ignorant can anyone be? You think you're funny, but you're not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

lol where did you even find that stupid copypasta?

I do kind of like the second sentence of the wikipedia article that your copypasta cites.

...

Just because I mentioned I'm honest and have integrity does not mean I meet the definition of a martyr. I know I'm not being singled out for persecution; I'm just one of many.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Yeah that lawsuit makes him look mentally ill.

He was never mentally ill a day in his entire life, nor was he depressed a day in his entire life.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My claim that he is correct is not due to the fact that he was positive he was correct. My claim that he was correct is based solely on his thorough analysis of human behavior, his astute observations, and his sound reasoning.

Still non-responsive.

I will ask the question in terms that can be easily answered with either a yes or a no.

Do you believe that it was possible for Lessans to be wrong about something that he was positive that he was correct about?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As we can now all see, the validity of this perfectly geographical idea is being denied by people whose bias does not allow them to see that eating more woodpecker is the only thing standing between us and extinction from climate change.

But I've already tried eating pecker!

A lot!

And yet the forests continue to be destroyed! How can this be?

This, as we have just shown, is nonsense. We are cogwheels in a system that needs ironing out so that from now on, we will all just be able to run along predictable lines for all eternity. So why don’t we? This will be the subject of the next wonderful revelation.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was never mentally ill a day in his entire life, nor was he depressed a day in his entire life.

That may well be, but filing a lawsuit because the President of the US refuses to grant you and audience looks like the work of a mentally ill person.

I know you say he was frustrated, but frustration doesn't usually lead people to sue the President.

[Angakuk]

You are right, Lady Shea. Under those sorts of circumstances normal people shoot at them.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by erimir

But I've already tried eating pecker!

A lot!

And yet the forests continue to be destroyed! How can this be?

Learn to tell the difference between woodpeckers and peckerwoods. It could save your life.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because I mentioned I'm honest and have integrity does not mean I meet the definition of a martyr. I know I'm not being singled out for persecution; I'm just one of many.

That is hardly the only reason that people have accused you of having a martyr complex and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. In any case, I don't think that anyone has really meant to suggest that you are an actual martyr, if only because it is extremely difficult for dead people to post. The implication of those accusations is that you are falsely assuming the role of a martyr, not that you actually are one. Your perception of the situation is significantly at odds with the reality of the situation. That is why it is considered a mental disorder. That, and because it impairs your ability to function in a healthy and effective manner, at least within the context of this thread.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Still non-responsive.

I will ask the question in terms that can be easily answered with either a yes or a no.

Do you believe that it was possible for Lessans to be wrong about something that he was positive that he was correct about?

For example, should Lessans have been absolutely positive, based on his sound reasoning and astute observations, that he left his keys on the hook by the door, do you concede the possibility that he actually left them on the table, and that despite his positive assurances that he was 100% certain he left them by the door, he could have been, simply put, mistaken?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by erimir

But I've already tried eating pecker!

A lot!

And yet the forests continue to be destroyed! How can this be?

You are just going to have to re-double your efforts - if you eat enough of it, logically, enough of them will be the right kind to have the sought-for effect. Remember, you are doing it to save the world, and anyone who objects hates cute baby pandabears!

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is hardly the only reason that people have accused you of having a martyr complex and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. In any case, I don't think that anyone has really meant to suggest that you are an actual martyr, if only because it is extremely difficult for dead people to post. The implication of those accusations is that you are falsely assuming the role of a martyr, not that you actually are one. Your perception of the situation is significantly at odds with the reality of the situation. That is why it is considered a mental disorder. That, and because it impairs your ability to function in a healthy and effective manner, at least within the context of this thread.

What, this is something you would base on popular consensus? It sounds to me like everybody's ready to take a vote. Albeit it's pretty much already been recorded. Over and over again in fact. So, I guess the only thing left to do is make it official.

Except I think that's pretty much been covered too, with the various celebrations held throughout the thread. So, I guess the only thing left to do is vote on is which variation of peacegirl served up on a platter (with so many kooks in the kitchen) tasted best. Mmm ... yummy!

Hey, I'll take the flounder with the baked potato and a squeeze of lemon!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As we can now all see, the validity of this perfectly geographical idea is being denied by people whose bias does not allow them to see that eating more woodpecker is the only thing standing between us and extinction from climate change. Despite having been shown the evidence in the form of a penetrating discernment, delivered by someone who is a confirmed smartypants and who has spent an amount of time thinking about it, this knowledge is still being labelled as patent nonsense, despite the fact that the empirical tests that would totally confirm it have not yet been done. Clearly no-one is giving me the chance to explain that I am way smerter than they are before dismissing this wonderful new knowledge out of hand.

Sorry, poor analogy. I am no smartypants that thinks my ideas are better than others, or that I am excused from the laws that govern our world. In fact, I am only demonstrating that the mankind system is governed by laws, just as the solar system is governed by laws over which we have no control.

By discovering the invariable laws of the solar system we were able to
predict an eclipse and land men on the moon. By discovering the
invariable laws that inhere in the mankind system we are able, for the
very first time, to predict and accomplish what was never before
possible — our deliverance from evil.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But this is only to be expected, as I have not yet shown the third wonderful discovery that can be found in the dark and crusty crevice clumsily marked “woodpeckers are not birds” in large smears of crayon.

No, it's actually in standard font, and carefully marked "Our Posterity" in bold letters. Only when you realize that this is an actual discovery will you not care which medium the book is written in. It won't make a darn bit of difference.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The third revelation, which came to me in a flash after trying to manage one of those particularly challenging bowel-movements that make you wish you had installed handholds on the side of your toilet, in that moment of enlightenment and bliss that is inevitably and rudely marred by the sobering backsplash of toilet-water hitting one’s backside, is one that so far has remained hidden from mankind. It is hidden behind the door that says: Humans are not individuals.

Wrong. Humans are individuals. If you carefully read the book in the order in which it was written, you would have seen how, in the world of no free will, we are able to fulfill our destinies, where in the world of free will (a world of blame and punishment) our destinies are often cut short.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You may say: what do you mean humans are not individuals? I am indeed an individual; I have many traits which are not shared by my fellow man! I am a unique person, and there is in fact no-one like me!

Indeed it may seem so, but as a matter of fact you are a cog in a machine, a part of a larger system, and what is worse and more worrying to many people is this: a larger amount of you is part of the machine than the amount of you that is you. You share more traits with the rest of the cogs than you have traits that are unique. Humans are not individuals.

Not true, according to this book. We are all individuals. No one is just a cog in a machine. This has been the fear of those who don't like the thought of determinism because they are afraid that this would turn them into robots, stripping them of what makes them truly human.

To show you how confused the mind can get when mathematical
relations are not perceived, Will Durant, a well known philosopher of
the 20th century, wrote on page 103 in the Mansions of Philosophy,
“For even while we talked determinism we knew it was false; we are
men, not machines.” After opening the door to the vestibule of
determinism, and taking a step inside, he turned back because he
could not get past the implications.

<snip>

Durant is anything but a scientist
and an accurate thinker. According to his reasoning he assumes that
free will is true because, in his mind, determinism is false, and the
reason he thinks determinism is false is because man is not a
machine.

<snip>

Once it is proven mathematically — which takes into
consideration the implications — there can be no more opinions or
theories expressed on the subject, just as our ancestors stopped saying,
“I believe the earth is flat,” once they knew for a fact it was round.
There is a great deal of irony here because the philosophers who did
not know it was impossible to prove freedom of the will believed in
this theory because they were under the impression their reasoning
had demonstrated the falseness of determinism. The reason proof of
determinism is absolutely necessary is to preclude someone quoting
Durant and interjecting a remark about man not being a machine.
Is there anything about my demonstration thus far that would make
the reader believe man is now a machine? On page 87 in Mansions
of Philosophy he writes, “If he committed crimes, society was to
blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine, which had
slipped a cog in generating him.”

In other words, he assumes that this
kind of knowledge, the knowledge that states man’s will is not free,
allows a person to shift his responsibility for what he does. One
individual blames society for his crimes as he rots in prison while
another blames the mechanical structure of the machine which slipped
a cog and made him into a fool. You will soon see that not only
Durant but all mankind are very much confused by the misleading
logic of words that do not describe reality for what it is. This is why
it is imperative that we proceed in an undeniable, not logical, manner
otherwise someone may quote Durant, a priest, professor, lawyer,
judge or politician as an authority for believing in freedom of the will.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Imagine a cogwheel that can think. If you saw it, would you consider it a cogwheel, or a random shape that has many of it’s own characteristics? Naturally you would see a toothed wheel, of a certain size, fitting into a number of similarly shaped wheels. You would not notice its many interesting notches, misshapen teeth, and other idiosyncratic features that make it different from all the other ones. In fact, you would just see a cogwheel. The wheel itself would probably feel differently, as it is taught to consider its many differences of paramount importance, as it has been taught to think of itself as an individual. However, this is mere illusion, as the parts of any person that DO match the greater system are of infinitely more importance than the ones that do not.

We are all individuals, but that doesn't mean there aren't underlying laws of nature that all human beings have in common. If all the planets weren't under the control of the laws that govern our solar system, we wouldn't be able to see any order whatsoever, and our galaxy would not look the same.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To prove this point to yourself, imagine an amazingly wise and fatherly person who you would totally accept vaguely smug and self-satisfied advice from having the following conversation with you:

“Ah Megalonarcis, you say that Humans are not Individuals, but I do not believe this can be so. Surely I am different from all my fellow men!”

“I know it is hard to believe, Oligorchis, but let me ask you this: Do you like bad things?”

“Truly, Megalonarcis, I do not! What a strange but compelling question. Do tell me more!”

“Now, Oligorchis, tell me this: Do you like bad things?”

“How masterfully you are manoeuvring me into the narrow corner of truth, o Megalonarcis! Verily I must confess that I do not!”
“Then how can you say you are an individual? All humans dislike bad things, and like good things”

That previous statement is misleading. Good and bad cannot be defined this way. What is good to you may not be good to me, or what is bad to you may not be bad to me. I might like squid, so it's good to me, but you might hate it because it gives you hives, so it's bad to you. We are all different depending on our unique environmental and genetic imprint, so how can you say that we are more machine than individuals?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

“Ah, Megalonarcis, you set a cunning snare, but you have made an oversight: I do like things that are a little bad, like watching the goils in the Gymnasium that are too young for me!”

Why is watching girls in the gym bad if that's all it is? What system is telling you that it is bad Oligorchis?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

“Surely you do, Oligorchis – but your dislike of big bad things is ten times greater than your like of small bad things, and so from the point of view of the system as a whole, you are just another human being, predictable in any system as long as you keep it simple enough.”

There is no dividing line that separates big bad things from small bad things. There is no Big Brother that will be telling you which things are acceptable and which ones aren't. Your choices will be yours Oligarchis.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

“I am amazed and must confess you totally right, and also, awesome!”

I thought you would have a change of heart when you realized how completely confused you've been about the system. I hope you give me a chance to unravel your misunderstandings so you will want to be a part of this new world.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you see – while we think of ourselves as individuals, this is really only true when you consider that individual by itself. When seen as part of a largely uniform group, more traits will match those of the group than will be purely individual. This means that on the whole, man is not an individual – he is part of a system. If we can create a simple system that does Good Things, we will have solved all of our problems.

No Oligarchis. You are going off onto a tangent. You must pay more attention. Then you will begin to see what true freedom looks like. Right now you can't even imagine what it will look like when there is no system, no authority, and no one telling you to do only good things. If no one will be the judge to determine what things are good for you, how could they tell you which things are bad? They can't. Only you can do this, my friend.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How does this follow from Woodpeckers are not Birds? Simple. Just as we are taught to think that woodpeckers are birds, we are taught that we are individuals. We are taught, against all reason, that we have unique traits and features that cannot be defined, that cannot be caught in mere simplistic definitions, that transcend the simple pattern-seeking properties of our brains and make us just a little more than mere cogwheels in a huge system that will roll on whether we are here or not. That we are just a little more than mere animals following simple desires and satisfactions. That, just maybe, we can create, if only for ourselves, just a little bit more than mere mechanical existence and strive to be in that magical place where instinct meets imagination.

But don't you see that just as woodpeckers are birds, humans are made up of individuals. We all have different backgrounds, different appearances, different ideas, and different talents. Our traits are very unique, and most importantly, we are all part of the family of human beings, just as woodpeckers are part of the family of birds. Being a part of the human family does not take away from our uniqueness as individuals. I think you've been on the wrong track in understanding what I'm telling you. Please keep asking questions, my friend, so the confusion you are feeling will be dispelled. Maybe then we will have a chance to see the revolution in thought make its way toward a lasting peace.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This, as we have just shown, is nonsense. We are cogwheels in a system that needs ironing out so that from now on, we will all just be able to run along predictable lines for all eternity. So why don’t we? This will be the subject of the next wonderful revelation.

There are no predictable lines to run along. The world will run smoothly just as the planet and stars are subject to certain laws, but within that order, there are huge differences that make each planet and star unique. Don't worry, the unique qualities that make each of us individuals could never be replaced by a system that would remove these qualities. In the new world you will be free to explore who you are as an individual so you can become who you were meant to be.

[Vivisectus]

This is just another example of the disgusting attitude I have to deal with here on this forum. It makes me sick how this work of genius, that I have spent all of 15 minutes on composing, even spellchecking and using a dictionary once, is being mocked and ridiculed - the fruit of more than a quarter of an hour of careful labor is presented to you, and all you can do is point out the patently obvious and rather monumental flaws in it!

You really have to give this knowledge a chance. Can you not even imagine that somehow, maybe, this could be a wonderful discovery comparable to the lightbulb, special relativity and sliced bread?

What makes me sick to my stomach is the fact that it is being savagely criticized by people who have not studied it at all! And unlike some, I can say this with some confidence, as I haven't even written the rest of the wonderful revelation yet! I won't let you get away with callously treating this awe-inspiring wisdom that is going to save us all from deforestation, planet-wide destruction and the evils of not getting any on a saturday night as if it is some kind of joke or something.

Why can't you wait until scientists perform tests on woodpeckers to prove that they do not fly by generating lift with their wings, but that flapping their wings is a mere prerequisite to woodpecker flight? Can you not see that this is based on a penetrating discernment that leads to great wisdom?

All you are doing is picking over this great wisdom looking for things to criticize, and I won't let you get away with denying my awesome genius and many, many minutes of hard work.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How ignorant can anyone be?

Hey peacegirl, why do you reject the undeniable mathematical proof of the woodpecker theorem, or peckerwood axiom as the case may be?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That may well be, but filing a lawsuit because the President of the US refuses to grant you and audience looks like the work of a mentally ill person.

I know you say he was frustrated, but frustration doesn't usually lead people to sue the President.

LadyShea, with all due respect, your conclusions are without merit. You really need to put yourself in his postition as if he was another Edison or Einstein. I know this is more fodder for jokes, but I'm still asking you to think in terms of someone already well known that had to go through hell and back for people to realize that he was right all along.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey peacegirl, why do you reject the undeniable mathematical proof of the woodpecker theorem, or peckerwood axiom as the case may be?

What the hell are you talking about David? You're talking out of your backside. I can't talk to someone who is talking out of his backside. I'll always be wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, once again, with all due respect, your conclusions are wrong. You really need to put yourself in his postition as if he was another Edison or Einstein. I know this is more material for everyone's laughter ...

Hey peacegirl, I thought you said you were leaving about, oh, eight dozen times?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell are you talking about David? You're talking out of your backside. I can't talk to someone who is talking out of his backside. I'll always be wrong.

You are savagely criticizing the Woodpecker Equation despite the fact that it is udeniably true. What's wrong with you? You need to understand that Vivisectus is in the position of another Edison or Einstein.

BTW, Lessans' stuff is flatly incompatible with Einstein's SR, so it makes you and your father look especially stupid and duplicitous to invoke Einstein.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is just another example of the disgusting attitude I have to deal with here on this forum. It makes me sick how this work of genius, that I have spent all of 15 minutes on composing.

STOP IT RIGHT THERE VISECTUS. DON'T PLAY THIS GAME WITH ME. THIS KNOWLEDGE TOOK 30 + YEARS. HOW CAN YOU SAY IT INVOLVES 15 MINUTES? I SWEAR I DON'T GET YOU.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

, even spellchecking and using a dictionary once, is being mocked and ridiculed - the fruit of more than a quarter of an hour of careful labor is presented to you, and all you can do is point out the patently obvious and rather monumental flaws in it!

LET IT GO VIVISECTUS. THIS MAN EXHAUSTED 7 DICTIONARIES, READ EVERY THING HE COULD GET HIS HANDS ON IN PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE, AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THIS WAS A 15 MINUTE OVERVIEW? YOU'RE CRAZY, AND I HATE TO SAY THAT, BUT WHAT ELSE IS LEFT?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You really have to give this knowledge a chance. Can you not even imagine that somehow, maybe, this could be a wonderful discovery comparable to the lightbulb, special relativity and sliced bread?

There you go again making fun of this knowledge. But in the end you will see that he was right, and you were mistaken. He didn't want to be right; he just wanted to help. If you don't see this because you can't believe that someone could offer knowledge without an ego, oh well. I hope others will see through the faulty premises that have the potential to ruin pure and unobstructed truth.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What makes me sick to my stomach is the fact that it is being savagely criticized by people who have not studied it at all! And unlike some, I can say this with some confidence, as I haven't even written the rest of the wonderful revelation yet! I won't let you get away with callously treating this awe-inspiring wisdom that is going to save us all from deforestation, planet-wide destruction and the evils of not getting any on a saturday night as if it is some kind of joke or something.

Actually, no one is in the position to give comments on an unprecedented work. Make fun if you want, but it will just take us longer to bring about what we all want. Getting something on a Saturday night? What the #*$(* hell Vivisectus are you talking about? Clue me in.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why can't you wait until scientists perform tests on woodpeckers to prove that they do not fly by generating lift with their wings, but that flapping their wings is a mere prerequisite to woodpecker flight? Can you not see that this is based on a penetrating discernment that leads to great wisdom?

No, I don't see it Vivisectus. For you to compare the stupid argument against woodpeckers to a discovery that will change the world is the stumbling block that Lessans knew he was going to have to face. He was not wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All you are doing is picking over this great wisdom looking for things to criticize, and I won't let you get away with denying my awesome genius and many, many minutes of hard work.

Sorry, doesn't fly (excuse the pun). You can criticize all you want, but whether your criticism holds any weight is another ball game altogether, and so far you have done nothing to prove your case. You are just spouting off your disbelief that someone could actually have a discovery. How can I explain anything with your preconceived ideas that automatically discredit him just because you can't believe preventing evil is possible. You have closed yourself off at the starting gate.

[ChuckF]

Now who looks mentally ill?

[Vivisectus]

I think I shall need a break from this endless barrage of abuse. I feel like an abused wife - I am told over and over that I am wrong, wrong, wrong. Congratulations, peacegirl, you have successfully made it impossible for me to carefully explain this awesome new knowledge, and deprived everyone here of the benefits of this wisdom. No-one here has read the whole system through, those that read what was there so far did not study it enough, which I can tell as they cannot even explain to me in simple terms why woodpeckers are not birds.

Because of you, I am making absolutely no headway in explaining this breakthrough in thought that will solve all our problems. You are not the gatekeeper of the truth, peacegirl, and you are also not God! It is so arrogant of you to decide that you can judge this work without even having read it all that it makes me want to spit.

Soon you will see how wrong you were - remember, they laughed at Wilhelm Reich too, but his day has come!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That may well be, but filing a lawsuit because the President of the US refuses to grant you and audience looks like the work of a mentally ill person.

I know you say he was frustrated, but frustration doesn't usually lead people to sue the President.

Not if you looked at his actions in terms of what he knew could absolutely prevent war and crime (and the desperateness he felt because of what he knew); and also knowing that the President had no real answers to the evergrowing problems that were confronting our world. Just think in those terms before jumping to the conclusion that he was a crackpot. You, who is someone searching for the truth, needs to be more objective than ever and not just assume he is wrong because his claims seem impossible. You need to be especially careful not to do what you dislike in others. You need to give him a chance until all the facts are in. That's all I am asking LadyShea.