A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

cont... Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

“The other day when I was in Temple a rabbi, during the course
of his sermon, made it very clear that man has free will. Professors,
doctors, lawyers, and just about everybody I know, agree that man’s
will is free. If this is a theory you would never know it by talking to
them. Well, is it a theory, or is this established knowledge?”

“Of course it is a theory,” I answered, “otherwise there would be
no believers in determinism. Is it possible for a person to believe that
the earth is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular
shape? The only reason we still have opinions on both sides of this
subject is because we don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the
will of man is or is not free.”

“But these theologians don’t agree with you; they say that man’s
will is definitely free. Look, here comes a rabbi; ask him if man’s will
is free just for the heck of it, and you will see for yourself how
dogmatic he responds.”

“Rabbi, we have been discussing a subject and would appreciate
your opinion. Is it true, false, or just a theory that man’s will is free?”

“It is absolutely true that man’s will is free because nothing
compels an individual to choose evil instead of good; he prefers this
only because he wants to partake of this evil, not because something
is forcing him.”

“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more
alternatives when making a choice?”

“Absolutely; that bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the
bank, he wanted to do it.”

“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to
prove that which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I mean.”

“Is it possible for me not to do what has already been done?”

“No, it is not possible for me not to do what has already been
done, because I have already done it.”

“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is equivalent
to asking is it possible for anyone not to understand four as an answer
to two plus two. Now if what has been done was the choosing of B
instead of A, is it possible not to choose B which has already been
chosen?”

“It is impossible, naturally.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of
mathematics, not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose B
instead of A once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A
in this comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice
you must not choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“Again I must admit it is something impossible to do.”

“Yet in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the
impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has
already been done, and then show that A — with the conditions being
exactly the same — could have been chosen instead of B. Since it is
utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely
necessary for mathematical proof, free will must always remain a
theory. The most you can say is that you believe the bank robber had
a choice, but there is absolutely no way this can be proven.”

“I may be unable to prove that he was not compelled to rob that
bank and kill the teller, but it is my opinion that he didn’t have to do
what he did.”

“I’m not in the mood to argue that point, but at least we have
arrived at a bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable for we have
just learned that it is mathematically impossible for any person to
prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the will of man is free, yet a
moment ago you made the dogmatic statement that man’s will is
definitely free.”

“My apology, dear sir; what I meant to say was that it is the
consensus of opinion that the will of man is free.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following.
If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever
that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that
something false?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”

“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”

“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that
it is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”

“I see what you mean and again I apologize for thinking this was
a matter of opinion.”

“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is — although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving
determinism true, or free will false. Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing
your belief in free will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge
that, when released, can remove the very things you would like to rid
the world of, things you preach against, such as war, crime, sin, hate,
discrimination, etc., what would you say then?”

“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s
ways are mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed talking
with you son, and perhaps I shall live to see the day when all evil will
be driven from our lives.”

“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is not
far away and that it must come about the very moment certain facts
pertaining to the nature of man are brought to light, because it is
God’s will.”

“I must leave now but thank you for sharing your insights with
me.”

[peacegirl]

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

After the rabbi left, our conversation continued...

“Hey, I didn’t know you could reason and think like that; you
almost sound like old Socrates himself. Boy, that was really
something to see. Just imagine, you actually got the rabbi to admit
that free will is nothing other than an opinion. But you weren’t
serious about getting rid of all the evil in the world, were you?”

“I was never more serious in all my life.”

“But how is it possible for you, just with your reasoning, nothing
else, to put an end to all war, crime, sin, hate, etc.? If I must say so,
this sounds completely contrary to reason.”

“Are you asking if it is possible, or telling me that you know it is
impossible?”

“After what you just demonstrated to the rabbi I certainly would
never tell you it is impossible when I don’t know if it is, but it seems
so incredible to hear someone say he is going to remove all evil from
the entire earth, that I cannot help but be in disbelief. Well what is
your first step? How do you go about making a start?”

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt
and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is
not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free
as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you
get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free,
simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”

“Yes I could, and that was a very sharp question; but my purpose
in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound
basis from which to reason, but to show exactly why the will of man
is not free.”

“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will
cannot be proven true.”

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical
impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi. Take
your time with this.”

“Is it possible not to do what has already been done?”

“Naturally, it is impossible for me not to do what has already been
done...because I have already done it.”

“Now if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead of
A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“No, it is not possible.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A,
once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this
comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice you
must not choose B, which has already been chosen? Yet in order to
prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It must go
back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already been done and
then show that A, with the conditions being exactly the same, could
have been chosen instead of B. Such reasoning is not a form of logic,
nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical; scientific;
undeniable and, as I stated earlier, it is not necessary to deal in what
has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and
scientific.” Let me rephrase this in still another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true,
whatever it is, is it possible to prove this something true?”

“Obviously the answer is no.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following.
If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever
that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that
something false? Obviously the answer must be no, it is not possible
unless the person asked does not understand the question. In other
words, if it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, how
is it possible to prove the opposite of this, false? Isn’t it obvious that
if determinism (in this context the opposite of free will) was proven
false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just
demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock?
How is it possible to prove free will true when this requires doing
something that is mathematically impossible? We can never undo
what has already been done. Therefore, whatever your reasons for
believing free will true cannot be accurate because it is impossible to
prove this theory since proof requires going back in time, so to speak,
and demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it
is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely
necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume that
he didn’t have to do what he did.”

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. Now let us understand why the
implications of believing that man’s will is not free turned Durant and
many others away. Remember, most people know nothing about the
implications of this position; they just accept as true what has been
taught to them by leading authorities. If determinism was true, he
reasoned, then man doesn’t have a free choice; consequently, he
cannot be blamed for what he does.

Faced with this apparent impasse
he asked himself, “How can we not blame and punish people for
hurting others? If someone hurts us, we must believe he didn’t have
to, that his will was free, in order to blame and punish him for what
he did. And how is it possible to turn the other cheek and not fight
back from this intentional hurt to us?” He was trying to say in this
sentence that philosophies of free will would never stop returning just
as long as our nature commands us to fight back when hurt, ‘an eye
for an eye.’ This is undeniable and he was one hundred percent
correct, but this is not what he actually said. He, as well as many
philosophers, helped the cause of free will by unconsciously using
syllogistic reasoning which is logical, though completely fallacious.
He accomplished this by setting up an understandable assumption for
a major premise: “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of
philosophies of freedom it is because direct perception can never be
beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning.”

Can you not see how mathematically impossible is his observation?
If you know for a fact that four equals two plus two, do you need
to prove it syllogistically? Obviously not, because then it would sound
something like this: “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of four
equaling twoplus two, it is because two equals one plus one, and one
plus one plus one plus one totals four.” Using this same type of
syllogistic reasoning he tried to prove freedom of the will by
demonstrating, in the same manner, that determinism could never
prove it false.

Because Durant starts off with a false premise, his conclusion is
equally false. Durant begins with the assumption that direct
perception (which are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly
understand) is superior to reasoning in understanding the truth which
made a syllogistic equation necessary to prove the validity of an
inaccurate perception. Thusly, he reasons in his minor premise:
“Free will is not a matter of reasoning, like determinism, but is the
result of direct perception, therefore...” and here is his fallacious
conclusion, “since philosophies of free will employ direct perception
which cannot be beaten down by the reasoning of determinism, the
belief in free will must eternally recur.” He knew that free will was a
theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen
with the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible
to turn the other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he
was compelled to write — “Let the determinist honestly envisage the
implications of his philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning
in favor of free will was the result of inferences derived from the
inability to accept the implications.

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. Then, not realizing how mathematically impossible is his
next statement he claims that philosophies of freedom (free will)
eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat down the
obvious truth of direct perception. Take a look at that last statement
very carefully and see if you can’t tell why it is mathematically
impossible. If free will was finally proven to be that which is
non-existent (and let’s take for granted that you know this for a fact)
and accepted as such by our scientific world at large because the proof
cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, would it be possible according
to Durant’s statement for ‘philosophies of freedom’ to recur anymore?
Isn’t it obvious that the recurrence of the belief in free will is a
mathematical impossibility once freedom of the will is proven to be a
figment of the imagination or, to phrase it differently, a realistic
mirage?

Is it humanly possible for the belief that the world is flat to
eternally recur when we have mathematical knowledge that it is
round? Consequently, the continued return of the belief in free will
can only be due to the fact that it is still a logical theory or plausible
conception that has never been analyzed properly, allowing the belief
and its philosophies to persist. But Durant states that ‘philosophies
of freedom eternally recur’ not because of the explanation I just gave,
an explanation that cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by
this philosopher himself providing it is understood, but because direct
perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with
reasoning. Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality
whatsoever? If Durant believed direct perception was considered
superior to reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his
reasoning so fallacious since the word ‘because’ which denotes the
perception of a relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is
criticizing reasoning while reasoning. This doesn’t stop a person from
saying, “I believe. It is my opinion. I was taught that man’s will is
free,” but it would certainly stop him from trying to defend his
position with an argument.

One of the most profound insights ever
expressed by Socrates was, “Know Thyself,” but though he had a
suspicion of its significance it was only an intuitive feeling, not
something he could put his finger on. These two words have never
been adequately understood by mankind, including psychiatry and
psychology, because this observation is the key that unlocks the first
door to another door that requires its own key, and where the hiding
place to this discovery was finally uncovered. What made it so obvious
to Durant that man’s will is free? And why do theologians treat this
as if it is an undeniable reality? Durant is now deceased but over 20
years ago I phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that
was hidden behind the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He
replied, “You must be on the wrong tack, but take what you think you
have to Johns Hopkins University for an analysis.” I not only
contacted that university but many others, to no avail.

[seebs]

Let me know when you're done reposting things you've already posted, so I can ask questions.

[peacegirl]

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly
involved in my discovery. To give you a little background, it was
November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would
change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a
priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and
the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t
understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at
the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason. Up until that
time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not
rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the
subject came up I began to see the connection. That night in a dream
I kept hearing this phrase, “The solution to all the problems plaguing
mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is
free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day
I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions
of Philosophy. When I completed it I remarked, “He really doesn’t
know what he is talking about and Spinoza is right, man’s will is not
free.” Then, after nine strenuous months I shouted, “Eureka, I have
found it!” and I have had no rest ever since. After opening the door
of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free,
I saw another sign that read — ‘Hidden behind this door you will
discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long awaited
Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months
in the deepest analysis I made a finding that was so fantastic, it took
me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind.
I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.

The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was
because they never attempted to look behind the door marked ‘Man’s
Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced man’s
will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the
world and saw the truth but in a confused sort of way because the
element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told
the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they
threw him out because the Bible told them that God said — ‘An eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ When his enemies nailed him to
the cross he was heard to say — “They know not what they do.”
“Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his
behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering
in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were
many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never
reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of
such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused and in spite of
every possible criticism how was religion able to convince the world to
be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their
inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and
evil with a God that caused everything.

They solved this problem in
a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half and God was
only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed
man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To
theologians, God is the creator of all goodness and since man does
many things considered evil they were given no choice but to endow
him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all
responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the
reason why religion is so hostile towards any person who speaks
against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza plus
innumerable others pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder
Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to
the thinkers of that time how could any intelligent person believe in
Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good
and evil with a caring and loving God, therefore Satan was destined
to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.
Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of
good and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around
quite a bit but did not know how to slay the fiery dragon (the great
impasse of blame), so he pretended it wasn’t even there: He stated,

“We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when seen in total
perspective,” and he rejected the principle of ‘an eye for an eye.’ Will
Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s philosophy,
although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was
humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He
also went in and looked around very thoroughly and, he too, saw the
fiery dragon but unlike Spinoza he made no pretense of its
non-existence. He just didn’t know how to overcome the beast but
refused to agree with what common sense told him to deny. The
implications really need no further clarification as to why free will is
in power. Nobody, including Spinoza and other philosophers, ever
discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free because they never
unlocked the second door which leads to the discovery.

The belief in free will was compelled to remain in power until the
present time because no one had conclusive proof that determinism
was true, nor could anyone slay the fiery dragon which seemed like an
impossible feat. Is it any wonder that Johnson didn’t want to get into
this matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond
the vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so
difficult to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated? Since the
modern world of science was playing havoc with religion it needed a
boost and along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave
seven reasons why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote
his book, “Man Does Not Stand Alone,” was almost convinced that
God was a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written
in his book, “Man Stands Alone.” Both tried to answer the question,
“Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?” Who is
right? Huxley said ‘no there isn’t,’ but Morrison’s arguments were
mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith
again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can
almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing
happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil.
It went something like this:

“Chance seems erratic, unexpected and subject to no method of
calculation, but though we are startled by its surprises, chance is
subject to rigid and unbreakable law. The proverbial penny may turn
up heads ten times in a row and the chance of an eleventh is not
expected but is still one in two, but the chances of a run of ten heads
coming up consecutively is very small. Supposing you have a bag
containing one hundred marbles, ninety-nine black and one white.

Shake the bag and let out one. The chance that the first marble out
of the bag is the white one is exactly one in one hundred. Now put
the marbles back and start again. The chance of the white coming out
is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white coming out first
twice in succession is one in ten thousand (one hundred times one
hundred).

Now try a third time and the chance of the white coming out
three times in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one
in a million. Try another time or two and the figures become
astronomical. The results of chance are as clearly bound by law as the
fact that two plus two equals four.

In a game in which cards are shuffled and an ace of spades was
dealt to one of the players, ace of hearts to the next, clubs to the third
and diamonds to the dealer, followed by the deuces, the threes and so
on, until each player had a complete set in numerical order, no one
would believe the cards had not been arranged.

The chances are so great against such a happening that it probably
never did happen in all the games played anywhere since cards was
invented. But there are those who say it could happen, and I suppose
the possibility does exist. Suppose a little child is asked by an expert
chess player to beat him at chess in thirty-four moves and the child
makes every move by pure chance exactly right to meet every twist and
turn the expert attempts and does beat him in thirty-four moves. The
expert would certainly think it was a dream or that he was out of his
mind. But there are those who think the possibility of this happening
by chance does exist. And I agree, it could happen, however small the
possibility. My purpose in this discussion of chance is to point out
clearly and scientifically the narrow limits which any life can exist on
earth and prove by real evidence that all the nearly exact requirements
of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by
chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the
thickness of the earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of
carbon dioxide, the volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his
survival all point to order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to
the fact that according to the inexorable laws of mathematics all these
could not occur by chance simultaneously on one planet once in a
billion times. It could so occur, but it did not so occur. When the
facts are so overwhelming and when we recognize as we must the
attributes of our minds which are not material, is it possible to flaunt
the evidence and take the one chance in a billion that we and all else
are the result of chance?

We have found that there are 999,999,999
chances to one against a belief that all things happen by chance.
Science will not deny the facts as stated; the mathematicians will
agree that the figures are correct. Now we encounter the stubborn
resistance of the human mind, which is reluctant to give up fixed
ideas. The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took two
thousand years to convince men that this fact is true.
New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth
survives and is verified. The argument is closed; the case is submitted
to you, the jury, and your verdict will be awaited with confidence.”

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot observe someone moving toward greater satisfaction, but you can know that this is what he's doing based on this knowledge which is absolutely undeniable.

What does the word "undeniable" mean?

I ask because I am pretty sure I have seen people deny this, and that would seem to me to indicate that it is in fact deniable.

[peacegirl]

cont... Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in
the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil;
consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had
faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God
is real otherwise there would be no need for faith. I know that two
plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true. Well, do you
still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe
through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with
man, and that everything happens by chance? Do you believe that
your faith in God has been in vain? You are in for the surprise of
your life.

This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an
epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away
the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of
the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He
also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these
undeniable facts. There is tremendous misunderstanding about the
meaning of determinism, therefore, it is necessary to first
demonstrate why man’s will is not free so the reader can follow the
reasoning which leads to my discovery. The fact that man’s will is not
free is the gateway that allows the reader to come face to face with the
fiery dragon himself. It really doesn’t make any difference whether or
not the proof of determinism is established beforehand because
undeniable proof is established in the meaning; but for those who
want proof before we attack the heart of the problem I shall
demonstrate in an undeniable manner exactly why man’s will is not
free. 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.
I recently had a conversation with a friend who was very sincere in his
desire to understand the principles in my book. His questions were
predictable coming from a superficial understanding of man’s nature
and represent the confusion many people feel when the issue of
determinism comes up.

“Isn’t it obvious that we must have standards of some kind so that
a child can be taught the difference between right and wrong, good
and evil? Supposing all individuals in a society are told that it is
wrong to steal (I hope you’re not going to tell me this is right), yet
certain ones deliberately ignore this and take what belongs to someone
else; isn’t it obvious that we must blame them because they were
warned in advance that if they should steal they will be punished? Are
you trying to tell me there is no such thing as a standard of right and
wrong?”

“If you know the difference between right and wrong, and you also
know that a person cannot be blamed or punished for what he does
because his will is not free, isn’t it obvious that we are given only one
alternative and that is to prevent the desire to do what is wrong from
arising which then makes it unnecessary to blame and punish? Just
as long as man has this safety valve of blame and punishment, he
doesn’t have to find the solution to this doing of what is wrong.
Parents can be very careless and excuse themselves by blaming their
children; and governments can be careless and excuse themselves by
blaming their citizens while plunging the entire world into war.”

“But supposing they are not careless and they are doing everything
in their power to prevent children and citizens from doing what is
wrong so that blame and punishment are not necessary, what then?
Are we not supposed to blame and punish them for our own
protection when they do something wrong?”

“That’s just the point. Once it is discovered through
mathematical reasoning that man’s will is definitely not free, then it
becomes impossible to blame an individual for what he is compelled
to do; consequently, it is imperative that we discover a way to prevent
his desire to do the very things for which blame and punishment were
previously necessary, as the lesser of two evils.”

“This new world which looks good, sounds good, and seems
theoretically possible in its blueprint form so far (since you haven’t
shown me yet how to rid the world of war and crime — two most
important items), it may be just another dream, and even if it isn’t,
it took the Greeks two millennium to convince mankind that the
earth was a sphere. Even today, there are still some people who don’t
believe it, so how do you expect people to listen to something that not
only sounds impossible, but is so far removed from contemporary
thought?”

“This is the stumbling block I am faced with.”

“Are you telling me that this discovery, whatever it is, will prevent
man from desiring to commit murder, rape, start a war, annihilate 6
million people, etc., is that right?”

“That’s correct. The corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, when it
is extended does not mean that we will be forced to condone what
hurts us, but we will be shown how to prevent these evils by
mathematically extending the corollary. And the amazing thing is
that both sides of this equation are correct. Christ said, “Turn the
other cheek” and Durant said, “This is impossible.” Just think about
this for one moment. Would you believe that both principles are
mathematically correct?”

“How is that possible?”

“God made the reconciliation of these two principles the time
when He would reveal Himself to all mankind. But to get here you
can see what had to be done first since the paths leading up to this
understanding were camouflaged with layers upon layers of words that
concealed the truth.”

“Is proving that man’s will is not free the key to open the door and
your second discovery?”

“Of course not; I just told you that the fiery dragon must be killed
to get the key. First, I must prove that man’s will is not free so we
can come face to face with the fiery dragon (the great impasse of
blame), and I will prove it in a mathematical, undeniable manner.
Then I shall jab him in the right eye, then the left, then I shall cut
out his tongue. I took fencing lessons for the job. And finally I shall
pierce him in his heart. Then when I have made certain he is dead.”

“I thought you killed him already.”

“I did, but there was a dragon for each person, so instead of giving
everybody a sword; steel is high these days, I shall slay him so the
whole world can see he is dead.”

“Do you mean to tell me there is absolutely no way all evil can be
removed from our lives without knowledge of your discovery?”

“That’s absolutely true.”

“Then your discovery must be the most fantastic thing ever
discovered.”

“It truly is because God is showing us the way at last. However,
before I show how it is possible to resolve the implications, it is
necessary to repeat that I will proceed in a step by step manner. This
dragon has been guarding an invisible key and door for many years,
and this could never be made visible except for someone who saw these
undeniable relations. If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man
Does Not Stand Alone as Morrison understood from his scientific
observations; that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical
reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage
that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.” So without any further adieu, let us begin.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

without any further adieu

Evaluation of competence: Dropping rapidly.

[peacegirl]

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good; in this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied to remain in one position for always like an inanimate
object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the
present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification,
and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this
present moment of time and space called here and you are given two
alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot
called there or remain where you are without moving a hairs breadth
by committing suicide.

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater
satisfaction, otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the
matter is that at any particular moment the motion of man is not free
for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his
nature to make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options
are available during his lifetime that which he considers better for
himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found
that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison
to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. During
every moment of man’s progress he always did what he had to do
because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that
man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping
these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we
shall designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the
humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that
particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative
when nothing could sway you from your decision, not even the threat
of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A,
which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B,
that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the
latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly
impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled by
their very nature to prefer A; and how can they be free when the
favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their
choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction?
To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able
to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he
doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what
he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative
is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction.

To give you a more familiar example, let us imagine that a woman
has a special business meeting to attend and must quickly choose
between two dresses because she is running late. If both dresses are
undesirable, she is compelled to select the dress that is the least
undesirable of the two, therefore her final choice in this comparison
is the better alternative. Obviously, she has other options; she could
leave both dresses and wear something from home, continue to shop
and call in late, etc. This is a hypothetical situation for the purpose
of showing that once she decides to buy a dress as a solution to her
problem, she is compelled to prefer the one that gives every indication
of being the best possible choice. It is true that her choice will be
influenced by many variables such as price, quality, color, etc., but
regardless of the factors that contribute to her final decision she is
compelled, by her very nature, to pick the dress that is the most
preferable after weighing the pros and cons. For instance, if cost is an
important consideration she may desire to buy the less expensive dress
because it is within her price range and though she would be happier
with the more expensive dress, she moves in the direction of greater
satisfaction by picking the dress that appeals to her the least. This is
where people get confused. Moving toward greater satisfaction does
not mean that we are always satisfied. It just means that when
comparing the options that are available to us, we are choosing [what
we believe to be] the best alternative under our particular
circumstances. [Note: This does not mean that we have considered
all possible options; only those that have come to mind or have been
brought to our attention at any given moment in time. Nor does it
mean that our choices are unlimited, for the availability of choices
depends on a myriad of cultural, economic, and social factors]. After
coming home and trying on the dress, she may have a change of heart
and wish she had splurged on the more expensive dress. She may
decide to go to the store to make an exchange, or she may decide to
just keep the dress even though she isn’t that happy with her choice.
Each moment offers a new set of options but always in the direction
of greater satisfaction. I will now put the conclusive proof that man’s
will is not free to a mathematical test.

Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage
and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two
exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by
having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing
small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is
absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference
which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the
compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes
one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because
it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since
B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly
possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your
decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?

“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any
way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could
you prefer the other alternative?”

“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t
given me any choice.”

“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you
should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In
other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of
alternatives, one is compelled completely beyond control to prefer A.
It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it
could be chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as
an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are
not free to choose A for your preference is a natural compulsion of the
direction of life over which you have absolutely no control.”

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by seebs

Evaluation of competence: Dropping rapidly.

She keeps promising to leave but she never does.

[peacegirl]

con...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

The definition of free will states that good or evil can be chosen
without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact that there is
a tremendous amount of compulsion. The word ‘choice’ itself
indicates there are preferable differences otherwise there would be no
choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are
confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very misleading for it assumes
that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion
because the direction of life, always moving towards greater
satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he
considers better for himself and when two or more alternatives are
presented he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer not that one
which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being
better for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or
the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but,
to repeat, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives the one he considers
better for himself, and even though he chooses various things all
through the course of his life he is never given any choice at all.
Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good
or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will
of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of
compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every
moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers. What one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make
it so for others especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition
of differences in each case present alternatives that affect choice.” My
friend, still believing he could prove that man can move in the
direction of dissatisfaction, offered the following example.

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the
yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently my
taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater
satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes
me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate
that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple —
I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”

“Do you honestly think this proves freedom of the will? Isn’t it
obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple,
and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at
that moment of time gave you greater satisfaction otherwise you
would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow? The normal
circumstances under which you frequently ate the yellow apple in
preference were changed by your desire to prove a point, therefore it
gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you did not normally eat in
an effort to prove that life can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple) was
an impossible choice at that moment, you were not free to choose A.”
Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results
will always be the same because this is an invariable law. From
moment to moment, all through life, man can never move in the
direction of dissatisfaction, and that his every motion, conscious or
unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or
move to greater satisfaction, otherwise, as has been shown, not being
dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of
life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is
the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch; as urinating,
defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and
moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life pushing man
always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to
recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but
it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable
subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of
dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of
unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are
dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment; and your desire to
get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a
position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple
demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because
satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one
possibility at each moment of time.

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws
and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all
responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which
under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious
that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under
certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who
enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both
sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the
circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic
revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled
to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at
Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic
bomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable
observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,
even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he
makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is
mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will’ which has come
to signify this aspect — that nothing can compel man to do what he
doesn’t want to do — is absolutely true in this context because it
symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here
lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and
confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO
DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT
TO DO — but that does not make his will free.

In other words, if someone was to say — “I didn’t really want to
hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”
which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he
admits he was not free to act otherwise, that he was forced by his
environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make
any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his
parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the
cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself
because absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what
he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has
mathematical control.

“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but for
the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied but I’m not.
The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have mathematical control. Since I can’t
be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will
free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend
pointed out, that man has mathematical control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

[peacegirl]

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is
free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding
this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must
always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when
the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel
are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in
order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary
that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short.

Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from
previous experience.

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and
during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do
because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was
caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause’, like choice
and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than
man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two
plus two, it is that already. As long as history has been recorded,
these two opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The
amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies,
and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law which makes the
motion of all life just as harmonious as the solar system — because we
are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.
Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what
they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? Therefore,
when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his
will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our
expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to
another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,
of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him
greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or
another.”

“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw although I thought
I did. I think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do
something against my will does not mean my will is free because my
desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free
choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I did
it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually
did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to —
because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me
no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”

“He does understand.”

“Does this mean you are also in complete agreement so I can
proceed?”

“Yes it does.”

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his
nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth is that the words
good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to
oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of
having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is
not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only
because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions
is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life but under
the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the
lesser of two evils which gave him greater satisfaction. Consequently,
when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this
the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced
with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is
compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying. For
example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off he has three
possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to
sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question
under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though
he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work, he
needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or
being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up
and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he
doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing
than another.

Dog food is good to a starving man when the other
alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu
may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the
other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is
still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law of
self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications.

The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely nothing
can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.

Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death...but this
doesn’t mean his will was free, it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred as the lesser of
two evils to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils.

This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed
as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something
fantastic to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no
accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt
that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle
of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT
MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.
And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or
principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his
will because over this his nature allows absolute control; and that his
will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of
available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will
reveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference has
been made.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, are the dialogs made up? Yes or no?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, are the dialogs made up? Yes or no?

LadyShea, is that all you have to say? Unbelievable.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, is that all you have to say? Unbelievable.

That means, "yes."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, is that all you have to say? Unbelievable.

We're not interested in discussing his first chapter. That was long since refuted. You were only posting it for your imaginary 'new posters' which you seem to think are here. We're waiting for you to post Chapter 2 so that you'll finally agree to start answering our questions about his presuppositions concerning conscience.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, are the dialogs made up? Yes or no?

The dialogues had to have been made up, it's the only rational explination.

[seebs]

Hey, I asked a question about the presented material. You can answer it or not.

[LadyShea]

I have asked questions and made pertinent comments about that chapter and been ignored like 5 times, now peacegirl. So yeah, this time I was laughing at the dialog...especially "Oh look here comes a Rabbi..."!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by seebs

What does the word "undeniable" mean?

I ask because I am pretty sure I have seen people deny this, and that would seem to me to indicate that it is in fact deniable.

Bump

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'm just pointing out how futile all this is. What does anyone actually hope to accomplish here? Does anyone really believe she is going to let go of her delusions? She has bee presented dozens, nay hundreds, of incontrovertible examples of delayed-time seeing; she ignores or lies about all of them. If this thread goes on for another year, or five years of ten years, and if you could look ahead ten years in time, you would find that she, and all of us, are saying the exact same things over and over again. And, you know ... why? I'm just asking.

I play Freecell on my computer. I don't know that I hope to accomplish anything by doing that, but I enjoy playing the game, whether I win or not. I enjoy it so much that I keep doing it over and over again. I am pretty sure that in all the years I have been doing that I have replayed a great many of the games, possibly all of them. I don't really care about the outcome, I just enjoy playing the game. These peacegirl threads are lot like playing Freecell.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will have a question and answer period, but not before I cut and paste. It's been so long since discussing his first discovery, I might have to start from the very beginning because there are new people here and I want them to understand his definition of determinism so they can follow Chapter Two.

I don't know who you think these new players are, but it is not necessary to go over the same old ground for them. All of the previous posts on the subject are available just by reading the previous posts in the thread. If these new people, whoever they might be, can't be bothered to get up to speed by reviewing the threads then screw them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We're not interested in discussing his first chapter. That was long since refuted. You were only posting it for your imaginary 'new posters' which you seem to think are here. We're waiting for you to post Chapter 2 so that you'll finally agree to start answering our questions about his presuppositions concerning conscience.

Whoaaaa, you think this has already been refuted? No way. I am not going to do it your way. There are people here who want to understand this knowledge. I am directing these posts to them, not you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have asked questions and made pertinent comments about that chapter and been ignored like 5 times, now peacegirl. So yeah, this time I was laughing at the dialog...especially "Oh look here comes a Rabbi..."!

You're just being obstinate. Even if I was the one that made this dialogue up because I anticipated the questions that were going to be asked, WHAT DOES THE FORM HAVE TO DO WITH THE CONTENT? YOU DISAPPOINT ME.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

I can't believe you're saying this. I just listened to Lessans discussing this in Chapter One in his audio book. Later I will give you his word for word answer. Just remind me and I'll try to find it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I play Freecell on my computer. I don't know that I hope to accomplish anything by doing that, but I enjoy playing the game, whether I win or not. I enjoy it so much that I keep doing it over and over again. I am pretty sure that in all the years I have been doing that I have replayed a great many of the games, possibly all of them. I don't really care about the outcome, I just enjoy playing the game. These peacegirl threads are lot like playing Freecell.

I don't know who you think these new players are, but it is not necessary to go over the same old ground for them. All of the previous posts on the subject are available just by reading the previous posts in the thread. If these new people, whoever they might be, can't be bothered to get up to speed by reviewing the threads then screw them.

Angakuk, with all due respect, it's impossible to review these threads and tease any kind of relevant knowledge out of them without having to read a lot of junk in between posts. They would never find Chapter One, or even begin to understand what all the hoopla is about. I must keep things in order if I'm not going to be torn apart by people who believe Lessans was a crackpot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I must keep things in order if I'm not going to be torn apart by people who believe Lessans was a crackpot.

Too late.