A revolution in thought

[davidm]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Reading over Lessans' stuff on death and consciousness, it's exactly the argument that Wayne Stewart makes. I find this claim, which Stewart calls "existential passage," to be interesting on a number of levels, because it touches on the philosophy of personal identity, the philosophy of mind and consciousness, and the philosophy of time. It was that discussion I hoped to have had with Stewart, who, alas, proved unable or unwilling to do so.

It remains the case, though, that this claim of "existntial passage" is a good starting point for philosophical discussion. It'd be a discussion worth having, but I don't think in this thread.

Enjoy the discussion, but I have no desire to talk to you david.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Enjoy the discussion, but count me out. I have no desire to talk to you david. You're a phoney.

Then why do you keep answering my posts and putting me on Pretend Ignore?

Oh, btw, I thought you were leaving????

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say, once again, that you are the most jaded dude in here, aside from David.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Unsurprisingly, that's not true. You said I was jaded for judging Vanilla Ice. I recall nothing about being the most jaded here. You did say I'm the biggest son of a bitch you've ever encountered. Now you're saying that David is more jaded! Talk about playing both sides of the fence. Damn, you are fickle!

No no no, you're jaded and a son of a bitch with a nutty cherry on top, and a biggot to top it off.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be different if you were funny and mean, but you're just the garden variety mean.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

There's nothing like a touch of garden-fresh mean to spice up the bunkum-bashing, eh?

Not when it's full of worms.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And people are applauding you, as if to say your complete and utter degradation of this book is accurate when it's the most assinine [sic] thing I've ever read.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That can't possibly be true, seeing as how you've read The Sacred Text.

That didn't make sense Stephen. You're losing your Midas touch.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have definitely lived up to being a total son of a bitch, and nuts.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I know I am, you're not telling me anything new.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need help Stephen (I'm serious) to find out why you get your rocks off by being so cruel.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Speaking of getting one's rocks off, do you concur with Lessans that "boys and girls" fucking "very young" is a desirable component of the Golden Age? I bet you do.

I can see you have a sex fetish. Why else would you be constantly talking about "boys and girls" fucking?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't be a happy person and this vitriolic.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

"This vitriolic"? Oh my, I'm only warming up.

I bet you are. There's no telling what venom you are capable of. And remember, it's here for all to see when you wish you could erase it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe being a lawyer has made you the cynical, nasty, hateful person you are.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

lol Just the other day I wept over the paucity of broke-dick wannabe psychologists on the Internet. Today, all's well.

Your responses to me are getting weaker and stupider. Could it be you don't know what to say because you know that I'm right in the recesses of your deranged mind?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you don't end up being a lonely old man (I wouldn't be surprised), but that's where you're headed.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I liked the original version of that parenthetical much better, the one in which you said you do hope I end up a lonely old man because it would be "sweet revenge" for you. So much for "Thou Shalt Not Blame."

I am entitled to strike back at you. And I will continue to do so. You're in the wrong Stephen, but you're trying to get off the hook. Probably because you think your status of lawyer exempts you. It doesn't.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Anyhow, what does it matter? Regardless of what a shitball I am in this life or how lonely I become, I'll be reborn into the full glory that is the Golden Age with no memory of what happened here. Just like you. Right?

Wrong. Just confirms that you have a comprehension problem as well as a social problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have done a disservice to everyone in here by introducing you to this work.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

At last, a statement on which we agree. After all, as far as I'm aware no one from has ever gone to your home, dropped trou and taken a large, steaming, stinking, noisy dump in the middle of your living room. That's kinda what you did here.

That's your twisted mind at work again., and justifies your vitriol. No steaming, stinking, noisy dump here. Only a fair give and take. .

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's now time to rewind; get the book out of your mind, and forget that I was ever here. You'll be glad you did.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Again? You've proven time and time again that you have all the self-discipline of a rutting hog, so yeah, see ya in a couple of hours.

You certainly will see me. Do you think I would opt out because of you? No way. I will come back until I feel good and ready to do something else. You have no influence on my actions Stephen. I look at you as someone with a lot of hair, and no substance.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, you have stated several times that this discussion has not gotten past page 5 in the book, and it seems that you insist that everyone here must agree and accept that man does not have 'free will'. If you really want to move on with the discussion you need to accept that not everyone is going to agree right off, Just state that for 'sake of argument' your comments will be based on the assumption that man does not have free will and move on. The litmus test of agreement indicating that the book was read and understood is going to prevent any progress. You have made "Man does not have Free Will" an article of faith that must be accepted. For this thread just read it as accepted and go on to the next point, and do not demand that others must explain it back to you to prove that they have read it, just post the explanation and clarification as best you can. The technique of pressing those here to explain it back to you is not working, is not a good teaching technique, and is not a method Lessans used in the book. Your father did quite a lot of explaining in the conversations, even interupting when the other person did not get it. Simply state concepts and definitions as givens for the discussion sake, and get on with it.

[Leesifer]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...a lot of hair, and no substance.

There's your new user title, Matlock.

[Stephen Maturin]

I briefly considered "In charge of the legal system," but that just couldn't compete with the hair comment.

The funny part is that I'm pretty much the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of male pattern baldness, so in truth I have no substance and little hair! I wonder; is she really stupid enough to believe that it's me in the avatar and not Andy Griffith?

[thedoc]

When I was teaching there were many times when I gave a short lecture and demonstration, there were always question from someone who did not understand. It was my responsability to explain it again in another way or to elaborate on the point in question. There were times when the students read a section out of the text book, and the questions needed to be answered. Telling the student to read the book again was unacceptable, if they didn't understand the book the first time it was probable that they would not understand it the second. It was my responsability to explain the text in a way that the student could understand, and not to just tell him to study the text again till he understood. Written text is sometimes too brief or written in a way that every reader will not get the meaning, at that point it is the responsability of the person presenting the material to explain in different phrasing and terminology so that the reader can understand it. It is becoming painfully obvious that Peacegirl is not a teacher but should be open to advice on presentation from one who has been there and done that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I wonder; is she really stupid enough to believe that it's me in the avatar and not Andy Griffith?

What? are you saying that everyone doesn't have their own image in their avatar? I am in fact in my avatar, I know it looks like a model train, but I am in the cab driving the engine, just a little 'transdimentional engineering', no big deal.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What? are you saying that everyone doesn't have their own image in their avatar?

The vast majority do. I'm just an exception to the rule. For instance, in real life Leesifer is the spitting image of cartoon skunk Pepe le Pew and LadyShea is in fact a working class Tinkerbell look-alike with really big guns.

[Kael]

I don't know what your deal is, but I am a three-dimensional representation of a four-dimensional object.

[Stephen Maturin]

No wonder the gubmint is out to get you!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

I don't know what your deal is, but I am a three-dimensional representation of a four-dimensional object.

That could explain some of the confusion on this thread.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am entitled to strike back at you. And I will continue to do so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, you have stated several times that this discussion has not gotten past page 5 in the book, and it seems that you insist that everyone here must agree and accept that man does not have 'free will'. If you really want to move on with the discussion you need to accept that not everyone is going to agree right off, Just state that for 'sake of argument' your comments will be based on the assumption that man does not have free will and move on. The litmus test of agreement indicating that the book was read and understood is going to prevent any progress. You have made "Man does not have Free Will" an article of faith that must be accepted.

I really don't want to do that for the reason you just mentioned. People will continue to say that Lessans' entire structure crumbles because he hasn't proved that man's will is not free. I have to show where he has proved it conclusively. Therefore, I need to continue where I left off.

Originally Posted by thedoc

For this thread just read it as accepted and go on to the next point, and do not demand that others must explain it back to you to prove that they have read it, just post the explanation and clarification as best you can. The technique of pressing those here to explain it back to you is not working, is not a good teaching technique, and is not a method Lessans used in the book. Your father did quite a lot of explaining in the conversations, even interupting when the other person did not get it. Simply state concepts and definitions as givens for the discussion sake, and get on with it.

Here is the next couple of paragraphs.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You can't read, can you?

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that
self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was previously
hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back ‘an eye for an
eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and
positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others
if they knew

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I briefly considered "In charge of the legal system," but that just couldn't compete with the hair comment.

The funny part is that I'm pretty much the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of male pattern baldness, so in truth I have no substance and little hair! I wonder; is she really stupid enough to believe that it's me in the avatar and not Andy Griffith?

Maybe you could have rotating user titles. Here is a partial list:

Jaded and a son of a bitch with a nutty cherry on top, and a biggot [sic] to top it off.

Losing my Midas touch

Everyone can see I have a sex fetish.

No telling what venom I’m capable of.

My posts are here for all to see, when I wish I could erase them.

Knows that peacegirl is right in the recesses of my deranged mind.

Trying to get off the hook because my status as a lawyer exempts me.

Has a comprehension problem as well as a social problem.

That’s my twisted mind at work again.


Hey, peacegirl is good for something! Thinking up user titles!

[Doctor X]

And vision is afferent.

--J.D.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl is good for something! Thinking up user titles!

To her great credit, peacegirl is the best custom user title generator has ever seen. For that reason alone I'm declaring a personal moratorium on insulting her until further notice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I briefly considered "In charge of the legal system," but that just couldn't compete with the hair comment.

The funny part is that I'm pretty much the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of male pattern baldness, so in truth I have no substance and little hair! I wonder; is she really stupid enough to believe that it's me in the avatar and not Andy Griffith?

You must think I'm really stupid. I know Andy Griffith is not you. Why don't you buy some propecia while you're at it. I don't think anything will help you though.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't want to do that for the reason you just mentioned. People will continue to say that Lessans' entire structure crumbles because he hasn't proved that man's will is not free. I have to show where he has proved it conclusively. Therefore, I need to continue where I left off.

What you need to do is see a psychiatrist.

You can post here till doomsday but you will never convince anyone that Lessans proved that man's will is not free, because he didn't.

Also, his entire structure crumbles not just because he failed to prove this. It crumbles because his claims about vision and light have been conclusively proven to be wrong, and according to you, he has to be right about those claims also in order for his "entire structure" to be valid. Since he is wrong about vision and light, then his entire structure crumbles, and we don't even need to care about his no-free-will argument.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

To her great credit, peacegirl is the best custom user title generator has ever seen. For that reason alone I'm declaring a personal moratorium on insulting her until further notice.

Is Stephen Maturin metamorphasizing before my very eyes? Miracles do happen.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't read, can you?

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that
self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was previously
hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back ‘an eye for an
eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and
positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others
if they knew

Do you really suppose that anyone except you thinks that this incoherent hodgepodge of horse manure actually means anything?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You must think I'm really stupid.

Bingo! You got it! You are winnah!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What you need to do is see a psychiatrist.

You can post here till doomsday but you will never convince anyone that Lessans proved that man's will is not free, because he didn't.

But he did David; you just don't see it.

Originally Posted by davidm

Also, his entire structure crumbles not just because he failed to prove this. It crumbles because his claims about vision and light have been conclusively proven to be wrong, and according to you, he has to be right about those claims also in order for his "entire structure" to be valid.

Since he is wrong about vision and light, then his entire structure crumbles, and we don't even need to care about his no-free-will argument.

Wrong. Both of his discoveries are independent of each other. I know you are threatened by his discovery on the eyes, but you don't have to be threatened by the fact that man's will is not free. You still can keep your autonomy.