A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've got to be kidding? We should just call it The Force and be done.

Peacegirl, I understand substance to be defined as
1. That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
2. A material of a particular kind or constitution.

So, is Lessans using one of these definitions, or is he using some other definition? If another, what is it?

The germinal substance has mass and occupies space. This substance is the genetic material that holds the potential for consciousness. Read this again.

I’m going to clarify this difficult relation a little more.
Let us go back to the time just before you were conceived. We shall
let A represent all the sperm pertaining to mankind, B all the ova, and
the combination of one with the other will be designated C which is
you, your potential consciousness of existence. Your parents have
decided to create a child. This is you, but you don’t know this yet,
nor do they know whether you will be a boy or girl or what other
characteristics you may have. You might be the first child, second,
third, fourth, fifth, and so on. Now remember, you are not born yet
so you cannot possibly be conscious of your existence, but you are a
potential candidate for this consciousness.

As luck would have it, you
die during your uterine journey when your mother has a miscarriage
which means that the conditions are exactly as they were before.
Consequently, you are not conscious of your existence because your
body was never born to give you this and therefore the relation
expressed in these words — ‘he died, she died, or it died,’ would have
no meaning where you are concerned (only those who are living),
because you just died, and your existence is absolutely necessary for
the relation.

Now this potential mother and father still want their
first baby — they want YOU — which word symbolizes human living
substance, so they try again, but this time you are born only to die
one month later of a heart problem. Still persistent and having a lot
of fun they try again with viable success but 18 years later you end up
in a car accident where you die. Much older now, but still capable of
propagating, mom and dad are not satisfied to lose YOU, so they try
once more to bring YOU into existence. In actual reality, though
heredity differences exist between the three C’s, the word YOU is a
designation only for the viable substance that comes into the world
and is identified with a name to establish these differences which mom
and dad grow to love. But what is the difference between the potential
YOU who died during the uterine journey, the YOU who died one
month after birth, or the YOU who died 18 years later?

Because you
are conscious of your existence and individuality during those years in
the present, write a book, build a home, make a lot of friends who cry
when you die, doesn’t take away from the fact that you are a
combination of A and B which continues in existence even while you
are alive, and regardless of what happens to C. Consequently, the
consciousness of your individuality without understanding that you
are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences that die,
but the germinal substance A and B which never die because they are
carried along from generation to generation and when united develop
into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation.

Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived. Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born. In reality, the conditions are exactly
the same before your birth as after your death.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then just give it. Forget about the subject changes and explain your proof...in your own words.

I tried that, but it doesn't work. I told people to read pp. 46-59. They won't do that either. Then I post it for them on a silver platter, and they don't ask any questions, or even let me know that it's okay to continue, so where does that leave this thread? I'll try this one more time. Please read this post, and if you all say move on, I'll post the next part until we're done these pages. Then we could actually move on to Chapter Two.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Seriously peacegirl, if the me who has just been born has no relation to the me who just died, how is it, in any meaningful way, me. If it is not me, in any meaningful sense, why should I care and how is this knowledge supposed to provide me any comfort?

Because it is you. Don't you see what you're doing? You are putting yourself into the equation. You're extending your reasoning beyond the grave. That's why you think it's not meaningful at this moment because the "you" won't be the "you" as you are now.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If I am not in the equation, then the equation is not about me. As for my extending my reasoning beyond the grave, that is exactly what Lessans is doing.

We're talking about consciousness, not "you" in particular. Lessans is taking himself out of the equation, unlike you, which is why you can't see the relation.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If the me that will one day be "seeing this magnificent world, with a mother and a father, grow up, go to school, get married, have a family, and die" has no relation to the me that is currently experiencing such things, then it is not me and the prospect offers no comfort to the me that exists in the here and now.

Whether it gives you comfort or not, it's the truth.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So you and Lessans say. I see no reason to take your unsupported word for this.

It's not unsupported if you see the accurate reasoning that lead to his conclusions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations are absolutely undeniable, scientific, and mathematical. If you don't see it, that's a different story.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If his observations are scientific, then you ought to be able to provide evidence of the science that undergirds those observations. Likewise, if his observations are mathematical, then you ought to be able to provide the math that supports those observations. As for the undeniability of his observations, that they are not undeniable has been amply demonstrated in this thread.

You're wrong Angakuk. I have studied this book a lot longer than you have. You have not carefully studied Chapters One and Two; you have not read the rest of the book in a step by step fashion; you have not highlighted parts of the book you need help with. As far as the eyes go, I said numerous times that more empirical testing will determine the truth. The death chapter has not been studied at all, yet you tell me it's unsupported. He gives his reasoning right there in the chapter, but it's still difficult to grasp. So instead of reading it again to try to grasp his insights, you immediately say it's unsupported. That will get you nowhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But these are observations are based in reality, not faith. It has nothing to do with faith.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We know this, how? Because Lessans says so. Accepting that what he says is true, in the absence of supporting evidence, is an act of faith.

But it's not faith because the proof is in his observations. You can say his observations are wrong until the cows come home. But they're not wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl (quoting Lessans)

From a superficial observation this is all very true, but the
reasoning as to what actually happens after your death is an inference
based upon your observations during your life.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How is Lessans' claim anything other than an inference based upon his observations during his life?

Through his observations and reasoning, he could see why the truth as to what happens after death was so hard to see. People could not take themselves out of the relation.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Observation and reasoning is just another way of saying inference based upon observations. In other words, Lessans is doing exactly the same thing that he criticizes his reader for doing, reasoning from personal observations. The only difference is that these are his observations and his reasoning. Why should we believe that his observations and his reasoning are any better than our own?

Because his observational skills and reasoning ability were particularly astute.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I skimmed it, but I wanted to read it more thoroughly and I wanted to give others a chance to read it.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This admission confirms my suspicion that you make a frequent practice of copying and pasting information that you have neither actually read or understood. I am at a loss as to why you do this. Perhaps you think that these copy and paste jobs lend some sort of authority to your position. They do not. This failure is particularly noteworthy when the copied/pasted information actually contradicts your claims. Further evidence that you either failed to read or failed to understand the quoted material that you posted.

I've been guilty of that, I admit, but not as often as you might believe, and it really has nothing to do with the validity of the book I am sharing with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea why we can't get through the most important part of Chapter One that explains why man's will is absolutely not free. I can't help anyone because we keep getting off track and there's very little left to talk about if we don't get a better understanding of these concepts.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The best explanation for this failure is your conceit that understanding equals agreement. Until you are willing to recognize that people can understand what Lessans is saying without agreeing with him you will continue to fail in your efforts to move this discussion forward.

You are going to have to trust me that this book has not been thoroughly studied which is required for a complete understanding. That is why I say what I say. I know it has not been carefully read, and I do believe that is why there is disagreement. [Excluding Chapter Four until further evidence is provided].

[Vivisectus]

The only way we can decide what "That which leads to greater satisfaction" is, is by noticing afterwards that it is what was selected.

This means that the statement "At the moment of choosing, a person must select that which leads to greater satisfaction" is a meaningless statement. What is really being said is "At the moment of choosing, a person must select that which they end up selecting" - only we have not shown there was any compulsion, so the statement becomes "At the moment of choosing, a person chooses that which we can later identify as that which the person ended up choosing"

This sentence is meaningless - it is essentially saying that that what we choose is that what we choose.

I have pointed this out before.

[Doctor X]

. . . .

















--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The only way we can decide what "That which leads to greater satisfaction" is, is by noticing afterwards that it is what was selected.

This means that the statement "At the moment of choosing, a person must select that which leads to greater satisfaction" is a meaningless statement. What is really being said is "At the moment of choosing, a person must select that which they end up selecting" - only we have not shown there was any compulsion, so the statement becomes "At the moment of choosing, a person chooses that which we can later identify as that which the person ended up choosing"

This sentence is meaningless - it is essentially saying that that what we choose is that what we choose.

I have pointed this out before.

Wrong Vivisectus. You're not paying attention to what he's writing. It doesn't start with a premise that leads to a conclusion that serves the premise, which would be circular. It begins with an astute observation that serves to confirm the premise. If you can't make this distinction, we can't move forward. You will continue to tell me this reasoning is something it isn't, because you can't see the reasoning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

. . . .

















--J.D.

Please leave Lessans out of this.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The germinal substance has mass and occupies space. This substance is the genetic material that holds the potential for consciousness. Read this again.

The quoted bit is all wordplay about the pronoun YOU, what a strange answer to my very specific questions.

Your assertion that the germinal substance is a physical substance that has mass and occupies space, and the description "genetic material" make this a falsifiable claim, so now maybe we can get somewhere.

What are the properties of this genetic material? What is its chemical composition? I am unaware of any material substance in the human body that has not been identified, so what is the commonly used scientific name of the germinal substance?

When you say "holds the potential for consciousness" what does that mean? Is that like sperm and ova hold the potential to create a separate human being?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The quoted bit is all wordplay about the pronoun YOU, what a strange answer to my very specific questions.

Your assertion that the germinal substance is a physical substance that has mass and occupies space, and the description "genetic material" make this a falsifiable claim, so now maybe we can get somewhere.

What are the properties of this genetic material? What is its chemical composition? I am unaware of any material substance in the human body that has not been identified, so what is the commonly used scientific name of the germinal substance?

When you say "holds the potential for consciousness" what does that mean? Is that like sperm and ova hold the potential to create a separate human being?

It means that the material that made you LadyShea, is the same material that will make you (whatever your individual name will be) when LadyShea is no longer here. This potential is carried down from one generation to the next. As long as we keep procreating and don't destroy ourselves, this potential for human individuality is held within the germinal substance. At that point, there is no consciousness, just the potential for consciousness.

[LadyShea]

What part of "in your own words" are you failing to understand peacegirl? I want you to explain Lessans words, not merely quote them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It means that the material that made you LadyShea, is the same material that will make you (whatever your individual name will be) when LadyShea is no longer here. This potential is carried down from one generation to the next. As long as we keep procreating and don't destroy ourselves, this potential for human individuality is held within the germinal substance. At that point, there is no consciousness, just the potential for consciousness.

The material that "made me" are the same materials that make everything else, namely the elements (which, as a fun fact, are all the product of supernova*).

So, take a look at the periodic table and tell me which elements (or molecules from combined elements) comprise the germinal substance.

Also, is it only humans that have this germinal substance? You've mentioned "mankind" and here you say "human individuality" what about other life forms?



*

Curious About Astronomy? Supernovae

We believe that almost all of the elements in the Universe that are heavier than hydrogen and helium are created either in the centres of stars during their lifetimes or in the supernova explosions that mark the demise of larger stars. Supernovae then disperse this newly synthesized material in the interstellar neighbourhood. From this material a new, enriched generation of stars will form, and the cycle begins anew. This is how we think that the heavy elements in the Sun came to be. Since the planets in the solar system formed from leftover material in a disk around the proto-Sun, all of the heavy elements in the Earth (including those in humans!) must have come from the same source. This means that in the most literal sense, we are stardust!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about consciousness, not "you" in particular.

Then the whole thing is indistinguishable from the materialistic view that death=cessation of an individual's consciousness (due to the death of a living brain) and birth=the emergence of an individual's consciousness (due to the formation of a living brain) and is therefor extraneous and should be eliminated due to Occams Razor

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not unsupported if you see the accurate reasoning that lead to his conclusions.

The whole chapter is speculation supported by the introduction of an undefined and apparently undetectable "germinal substance". That's not accurate reasoning

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because his observational skills and reasoning ability were particularly astute.

There is no evidence on which to base a belief that his observations were particularly astute. Since he regularly used very poor reasoning, we know those skills were not particularly astute.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong Vivisectus. You're not paying attention to what he's writing. It doesn't start with a premise that leads to a conclusion that serves the premise, which would be circular. It begins with an astute observation that serves to confirm the premise. If you can't make this distinction, we can't move forward. You will continue to tell me this reasoning is something it isn't, because you can't see the reasoning.

Your strawman does not actually address the problem to which I referred. This problem remains that there is no other definition for "That which leads to the most satisfaction" than "That which ends up being chosen". We know this is the case, because action A only becomes "That which leads to the most satisfaction" when it is chosen.

This leaves us with the statement "That which is chosen, is that which is chosen". Hard to argue with it, but it is not a very informative sentence. One could use the same logic to state that everything is pre-ordained: after all, that what will happen is that which has been pre-ordained. We know it is pre-ordained, because it happens.

Since the statement "Man is bound to choose that which leads to the most satisfaction" is shown to be a tautology, the entire line of reasoning that states that we are compelled to follow the path of most satisfaction, and can therefor eliminate the problem of evil, fails. We have shown no such thing, and therefor we can not come to that conclusion.

You can just shout "no" all you want, but unless you can show me how or why I am wrong and your father was right this objection stands - together with all the other ones you failed to address.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What part of "in your own words" are you failing to understand peacegirl? I want you to explain Lessans words, not merely quote them.

That was in my own words, and I don't need to be interrogated, as if you are testing to see if I understand this work. This is not about me.

[thedoc]

Several years ago a friend of mine used a phrase, I think I now know what book it was refering to.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong Vivisectus. You're not paying attention to what he's writing. It doesn't start with a premise that leads to a conclusion that serves the premise, which would be circular. It begins with an astute observation that serves to confirm the premise. If you can't make this distinction, we can't move forward. You will continue to tell me this reasoning is something it isn't, because you can't see the reasoning.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your strawman does not actually address the problem to which I referred. This problem remains that there is no other definition for "That which leads to the most satisfaction" than "That which ends up being chosen". We know this is the case, because action A only becomes "That which leads to the most satisfaction" when it is chosen.

Just because we always end up moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, which satisfies the premise, does not necessarily make it circular. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming that this automatically negates any proof regarding the movement toward satisfaction, which is not true.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This leaves us with the statement "That which is chosen, is that which is chosen". Hard to argue with it, but it is not a very informative sentence. One could use the same logic to state that everything is pre-ordained: after all, that what will happen is that which has been pre-ordained. We know it is pre-ordained, because it happens.

No, it is not pre-ordained that something happen a certain way because we don't know all the variables that a person considers in making a choice. But once a choice is made, the other alternatives gave less satisfaction under the circumstances, which made them an impossible choice.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Since the statement "Man is bound to choose that which leads to the most satisfaction" is shown to be a tautology, the entire line of reasoning that states that we are compelled to follow the path of most satisfaction, and can therefor eliminate the problem of evil, fails. We have shown no such thing, and therefor we can not come to that conclusion.

First of all, the statement "Man is bound to choose that which leads to the most satisfaction," is not even a correct statement. "Man has no choice but to move in the direction of greater satisfaction." If that's all it was was a tautology, I would agree with you, but it's not a tautology. You are making it one, but it's much deeper than that. These are accurate observations, and if you can't see why these observations are accurate, we're in trouble. Can you explain what Lessans' observations are that led him to this knowledge of greater satisfaction?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can just shout "no" all you want, but unless you can show me how or why I am wrong and your father was right this objection stands - together with all the other ones you failed to address.

I'm doing the best I can. You may never have your objections met to your satisfaction, and there's nothing I can do about that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was in my own words, and I don't need to be interrogated, as if you are testing to see if I understand this work. This is not about me.

Actually it would help if you could demonstrate that you understand the book apart from quoting it, which does not indicate understanding, just the ability to recognize key words.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was in my own words, and I don't need to be interrogated, as if you are testing to see if I understand this work. This is not about me.

This post was not in your own words. This is what I was referring to. You had lamented not discussing the free will thing, I told you to present your evidence in your own words, you responded by posting Lessans quotes yet again.

[thedoc]

I have said elsewere that "Greater Satisfaction" would be one of the sticking points. It can only be asserted that because a person made a particular choice it must be so, but that is not proof. In fact there is no way to prove it even by the person himself. The term "Greater Satisfaction" may be easy to understand but there is no reason to believe that every person chooses that way every time. The reasons behind any choise are complicated and not always known. The best that can be said is that a person chose that because that is what they wanted, but even this is not always true. The motivations for human actions are very complex and much is under the surface of consciousness. Lessans fatal error was to try to reduce all actions to the most simple terms that could be represented by 'either - or' but this is not possable with any but the simplest living things. Most living things are too complex to predict accurately, and human behaviour is probably the most difficult, in many cases all but impossable to predict accurately.

[Vivisectus]

Just because we always end up moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, which satisfies the premise, does not necessarily make it circular. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming that this automatically negates any proof regarding the movement toward satisfaction, which is not true.

Circularity is not really the issue here. The issue is "That which leads to the greatest satisfaction" from the book is basically a definition of "that which we end up choosing". This means that "Man always chooses that which leads to the most satisfaction" is a nonsensical statement in this context.

No, it is not pre-ordained that something happen a certain way because we don't know all the variables that a person considers in making a choice. But once a choice is made, the other alternatives gave less satisfaction under the circumstances, which made them an impossible choice.

Indeed. "That which gives the most satisfaction" = "That which people end up choosing".

First of all, the statement "Man is bound to choose that which leads to the most satisfaction," is not even a correct statement. "Man has no choice but to move in the direction of greater satisfaction." If that's all it was was a tautology, I would agree with you, but it's not a tautology. You are making it one, but it's much deeper than that. These are accurate observations, and if you can't see why these observations are accurate, we're in trouble. Can you explain what Lessans' observations are that led him to this knowledge of greater satisfaction?

But this lack of choice is not shown in any way. It does not follow logically. "Man has no choice but to move in the direction of greater satisfaction" just means "Man has no choice but to choose what he ends up choosing". This is because we only determined it after the fact.

Imagine my example of pre-ordainment. It uses the exact same logic - but does it prove that everything is pre-ordained? Obviously not - they may just happen randomly. The only way to prove that it was pre-ordained would have been to predict what would happen accurately. The same is true regarding your fathers reasoning regarding free will - the compulsion, the lack of choice, is not proven.

I'm doing the best I can. You may never have your objections met to your satisfaction, and there's nothing I can do about that.

How childish. Basically what you are saying is that no matter what I say, no matter how convincing my point or how inescapable and logical the conclusions, you will never entertain the notion that I may be right. You will simply say "the objection was not met to his satisfaction. This is not because it was valid - it was merely because he refused to see it properly"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This post was not in your own words. This is what I was referring to. You had lamented not discussing the free will thing, I told you to present your evidence in your own words, you responded by posting Lessans quotes yet again.

Has it occured to you that Peacegirl wrote the book and is only attributing it to Lessans? It's something politicians use called 'Plausible deniablity' to avoid responsability. Then by quoting she can present the book in the most convoluted and deceptive wording, since stating it clearly would make the flaws and errors easier to point out. The way the book is writen it is all but impossable to pin down the errors as they are so tangled up in the phrasing and redefined terms. Notice how she avoids clarifying anything.

What got me thinking about this, was that you asked her to 'say it in your own words' and she quotes the book. Perhaps they are her own words?

[LadyShea]

It has occurred to me, and I asked her flat out how much of the book she had written herself.

In this case, though, I think since my comment was in between a discussion about the germinal substance she thought I was referring to that discussion and not the one regarding free will.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you explain what Lessans' observations are that led him to this knowledge of greater satisfaction?

Peacegirl, it is your responsability to explain these observations, but I do not believe that you can, you're just fishing for someone to explain it to you.

[LadyShea]

He observed that people choose something, to move from here to there, instead of committing suicide...and he concludes that means they are moving towards greater satisfaction

That's a false dichotomy by the way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This post was not in your own words. This is what I was referring to. You had lamented not discussing the free will thing, I told you to present your evidence in your own words, you responded by posting Lessans quotes yet again.

I've explained it in my own words, and I'm not doing it again. Why is it so hard for you to read 3 paragraphs?