A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am supporting this author's claims which is why I came here. Being defensive has nothing to do with it; it has to do with the general feeling of being in a place where I am the odd man out. It puts me at a disadvantage. Please don't make this lack of interest my responsibility because I've done everything I can to get people at least a little bit interested.

No, they didn't cause me to become defensive. Previoius conditions of everyone telling me Lessans has nothing of value created in me a desire to rebel. They did not cause me to rebel but their reaction created the conditions whereupon my desire to rebel gave me greater satisfaction than leaving it alone.

The principle still holds. Nothing can make me rebel if I don't want to, not even you. But I rebelled as a natural reaction based upon their insistence that my defensiveness was an indicator of something gone wrong (or something I am not sure of) that I have not disclosed. Wooo wooooooo!!!

I believe it has to do with the onslaught of negativity that I feel when people refuse to keep an open mind. And don't tell me that everyone here is open to this knowledge. They already have their minds made up.

Yes they are, and I hope I answered them sufficiently.

You didn't.

I asked why you choose to become defensive and you went haring off down some rabbit trail about rebellion.

The question remains, why do you choose to become defensive? Or, to put it differently, how does becoming defensive move you toward greater satisfaction?

FYI, I am the "Old Pain in the Ass". The sobriquet was bestowed upon me by one of our members, whom I soundly thrashed in fair combat, and I wear it as a badge of honor.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have come to realize that even if I took out all of the things people didn't like, there would still be criticism. Now I understand how easy it is to criticize a movie after it's completed; or to criticize any artistic endeavor. I never said I was a professional writer. I hope people can overlook their petty criticisms and try to absorb the message.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I started out prose, but it didn't work. I knew there would be too many questions and that is why I used dialogue. He had dialogue in some of his books, not all. I put them together in a way that I felt worked.

Now I am confused. Who is the author, you or your papa?

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, no I will not melt reading the word god. I am quite comfortable discussing various ideas of deity, however, along with the fake dialog meant to bolster the author, the butthurt about higher education and highly educated people, and the needless repetition while still obfuscating the actual points, the quasi-religious bits make the work almost inaccessible.

It's not that I don't want to read and understand the principles, the problem is I don't want to read all the rest of it to find the principles. That's why I have been begging you for a synopsis in your own words, or in the author's words with the extraneous stuff removed. As is the book is an absolute chore to get through and the principles are not clearly presented.

I may want the 100.00 bill I have been told is at the bottom of the dumpster, but would have to be pretty well convinced that the 100.00 is there at all, and then would have to seriously consider if digging through garbage was worth 100.00. That's what talking with you and reading the book is like.

I don't know how to be any more honest with you.

PS: Wait. I thought you merely compiled and edited the book, now you're telling me you were a co-author?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The assertion you made in this quote you have ignored many times now

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Do you see the pressure here? The most important thing in life is being accepted, so do see the problem this presents?

[erimir]

Are you here still?

How long does it take for you to get the message that nobody is buying what you're selling through your thick skull?

Altho, kudos on spelling my screen name correctly all the way through this time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely false. Following one's instincts is a normal reaction, and self-preservation is the first law of nature (I know that Nietzcsheans don't believe this but it's unimportant for the purposes of our conversation), but when one's self interests are preserved, and they would be striking a first blow to another without justification, they will be unable to find any satisfaction in doing so. Remember, everyone is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and when the new environmental conditions are put into place, you will see an amazing change in human conduct. But you still have yet to understand what is involved in order for this environmental shift to occur. That's in Chapter Two.

We are not changing our basic nature. We are coming to better understand our basic nature, and in so doing, we are able to apply this new understanding to our advantage.

This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolutionary fitness is not the same thing you might think of as being your "self-interests". A lot of people think it's in their self-interest to not have any children - this is however, most certainly not a strategy that increases their evolutionary fitness.

If you don't understand that, then it just further confirms my impression of your scientific knowledge (i.e. that it is very limited).

[Angakuk]

She is certainly not a polymath like Heptagon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

She is certainly not a polymath like Heptagon.

Please explain since you know all about me Angakuk. I refuse to let you get away with this kind of response. It's absurd.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The assertion you made in this quote you have ignored many times now

What???? Many times now? Are you kidding?

[peacegirl]

repeat

[thedoc]

YouTube - Playmates - Beep Beep (The...

[LadyShea]

If you did not write it in any way shape or form, please explain these comments

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said I was a professional writer. I hope people can overlook their petty criticisms and try to absorb the message.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I started out prose, but it didn't work. I knew there would be too many questions and that is why I used dialogue. He had dialogue in some of his books, not all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What???? Many times now? Are you kidding?

Yes. You ignored my asking about it, then when yguy asked about it you backpedaled into something about "it is important to be accepted by loved ones", then you acted confused like it was something he brought up.

So, I will ask you again. Did you mean it when you said

The most important thing in life is being accepted

I think it's key to your apparent communication problems.

[LadyShea]

I don't want you to bolster the author; that's the last thing I want you to do. There is no obfuscation of the points. I believe it's the incredulity of those who can't believe the points are, in fact, true, that is causing such a problem.

Your perception and the reality of what I have read thus far are at severe odds. I am not trying to deny the truth, nor am I incredulous, or any of that...you are- yet again- blaming the reader, because you either can't see or won't admit that the book is very problematic and the pertinent points are unclear.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please explain since you know all about me Angakuk. I refuse to let you get away with this kind of response. It's absurd.

That post was a response to erimir's post. If erimir asks for an explanation I will feel obliged to comply with his request (though I am pretty sure he won't require an explanation). I am under no such obligation to you. However, to be more than fair to you, I will offer you a deal. You tell me what you think I meant by that post and I will tell you if you are correct. I am concerned that if I try to explain it to you, without knowing what you think it means, the explanation will just confuse you.

As for your not letting me get away with something, you lack the power or authority to permit or prohibit any action on my part.

Yes, you are correct, it is absurd. In fact, the more I think about it the more it occurs to me that you are a polymath, in exactly the same way that Heptagon is a polymath.

[Angakuk]

LadyShea, shame on you for wanting to bolster the author. Aren't you just a little to old for

[thedoc]

I know peacegirl will scream and rant at this.
I believe the Author has demonstrated his lack of rationality at the end of the book where he proposes to sue the President for "Refusing to grant an adience for the purposes of demonstrating" his theory. (I refuse to characterise it as 'Science' or 'Mathematics') This is in direct contradiction to his repeted use of the phrase in the book "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink", so the author has no understanding of the statement he uses to build his own theory. The Author also has the delusion of representing all taxpayers, when in fact he representes only himself. The Author does not seem to understand that someone could understand his theory and not agree. He states himself "If you find yourself in disagreement then there must be something you do not understand". He and Peacegirl have a simple litmus test 'Understanding = Agreement' they cannot comprehend that someone could understand and not agree. There is no middle ground, or room for explination or discussion, agreement is the only choice, and in this they live up to the Authors proposal that we have no free will, we must accept and obey. Imagine a shiny watch swinging, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, now repete after me, I understand and agree.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry that you feel that way.

Feeling has nothing to do with it. That sucker just doesn't parse, at least as far I can tell.

It is human nature to want revenge.

Actually the desire for revenge is INhuman, so you really couldn't be more wrong about that if you tried.

What problem?

Becoming defensive. You don't consider that a problem?

And what do you have that I don't?

Nothing. It's not what you lack that's a problem, it's what you have, but shouldn't: an emotional investment in your ideas.

What is inappropriate with my demeanor?

Your defensive attitude.

Where am I evading the question?

I just got through telling you.

I answered you directly.

No, you equivocated by pretending to support a universal claim with a non-universal assertion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our knowledge as to what is and is not a hurt is not always obvious, but there will be lawmakers who will scrutinize every single human relation to determine if someone is striking a first blow. If they are, they will desire to know this so as not to repeat the same thing again. The only objective standard that exists in human relations is this hurting of others. Yguy, if you're still there, please dont' tell me that what I just related is unintelligible.

It's not unintelligible, just incomplete.

Your antagonism is causing you to lose your objectivity.

Ma'am, any antagonism I might have is pretty much reserved for enemies of my country or the occasional child rape advocate who finds his way in here, not people whose beliefs are mistaken.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know why I feel defensive in these groups, but it doesn't have to do with the validity of this knowledge. That's what yguy needs to know.

The only way I could know that is by reading the book, and what you've posted from it doesn't make it terribly appealing; so the only way you're going to overcome that sort of disinterest in myself and others is to demonstrate that you yourself have some special understanding, and you obviously don't come across that way to anyone posting here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe it's the incredulity of those who can't believe the points are, in fact, true, that is causing such a problem.

My views are met with incredulity all the time, but I don't see it as a problem.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, no I will not melt reading the word god. I am quite comfortable discussing various ideas of deity, however, along with the fake dialog meant to bolster the author, the butthurt about higher education and highly educated people, and the needless repetition while still obfuscating the actual points, the quasi-religious bits make the work almost inaccessible.

There is no obfuscating the actual points. There is no bolstering of the author. And this is not quasi-religious, nor is this a discussion about various ideas of deity.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not that I don't want to read and understand the principles, the problem is I don't want to read all the rest of it to find the principles. That's why I have been begging you for a synopsis in your own words, or in the author's words with the extraneous stuff removed. As is the book is an absolute chore to get through and the principles are not clearly presented.

I have explained as much as I can in my own words. I've bent over backwards to hand you certain excerpts that clarify important points. I have explained to you that I cannot and will not jeapordize the meaning the author gave as to why man's will is not free in one or two sentences without his reasoning that leads up to it. The same holds true for Chapter Two. I refuse to go any further unless people read the chapter which I doubt they will. All that is going to take place is more of the same. There will be accusations that he is self-congratulatory; that this is a quasi-religious book that has to do with miracles and deities.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I may want the 100.00 bill I have been told is at the bottom of the dumpster, but would have to be pretty well convinced that the 100.00 is there at all, and then would have to seriously consider if digging through garbage was worth 100.00. That's what talking with you and reading the book is like.

If it's feels that distasteful to you, then I really don't want you to read it because you will be gagging through the whole book. But if you had read it I think you would have gotten a lot out of it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't know how to be any more honest with you.

PS: Wait. I thought you merely compiled and edited the book, now you're telling me you were a co-author?

I added some sentences to clarify certain concepts. But I didn't change the concepts or do anything to alter them.

Please note that when the author mentions the 20th century he is
referring to the time period when this discovery was first made.
This book was meant to be read through the eyes of the author. His
prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil
was based on the assumption that this discovery would be found
scientifically sound after a thorough investigation. Unfortunately,
this did not come to pass because he was unable to reach the
leading scientists of his time who could have validated his
findings. Though it has been over 50 years since these findings
were uncovered, there has been no such investigation and, as of
yet, this revolutionary knowledge has not been brought to light.
Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing the editor has
added some recent examples to show how the extension of this
knowledge applies to our current world situation, but please be
assured that the core of this discovery has not been altered in any
way and is written in the author’s own words. For purposes of
consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout
the book. No discrimination was intended.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

Are you here still?

How long does it take for you to get the message that nobody is buying what you're selling through your thick skull?

Altho, kudos on spelling my screen name correctly all the way through this time.

This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolutionary fitness is not the same thing you might think of as being your "self-interests". A lot of people think it's in their self-interest to not have any children - this is however, most certainly not a strategy that increases their evolutionary fitness.

If you don't understand that, then it just further confirms my impression of your scientific knowledge (i.e. that it is very limited).

I am not discussing evolutionary fitness. I am discussing only one thing and that is whatever man chooses (whether it be having children in accordance with evolutionary fitness, or choosing not to have children in accordance with self-interest), they are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your perception and the reality of what I have read thus far are at severe odds. I am not trying to deny the truth, nor am I incredulous, or any of that...you are- yet again- blaming the reader, because you either can't see or won't admit that the book is very problematic and the pertinent points are unclear.

The points are not unclear LadyShea. I have gone over and over the book. If anything is problematic it is because the concept is difficult, but as far as how it was explained, nuh uh. You can't tell me that this book wasn't written as clear as possible because you haven't read it. You skimmed through it and gave a quick opinion. Some people won't understand these principles no matter how it's explained and I can accept that. What I can't accept is this prejudment that occurs and then it builds up into a free for all. I am trying to treat each person as an individual, but there is still a negative energy that I feel. You probably don't feel it because you aren't the brunt of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why should I do your job for you? You're the one trying to prove something. You can't even state this yourself, why should I, because you say so? FYI. you believe in that book, doesn't say much for your accuracy in what you believe, So why should I care what you believe. But I believe you are getting abusive, and angry, take a deep breath and calm down, you'll feel better.

You're playing games again. You DO NOT have to read this book; you don't have to click on this thread. Obviously, it is giving you greater satisfaction than not. You resent the fact that I claim this is a discovery; I believe that's what is bringing out the worst in you. And where am I getting more angry or abusive than anyone else?

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I added some sentences to clarify certain concepts. But I didn't change the concepts or do anything to alter them.

Please note that when the author mentions the 20th century he is
referring to the time period when this discovery was first made.
This book was meant to be read through the eyes of the author. His
prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil
was based on the assumption that this discovery would be found
scientifically sound after a thorough investigation. Unfortunately,
this did not come to pass because he was unable to reach the
leading scientists of his time who could have validated his
findings. Though it has been over 50 years since these findings
were uncovered, there has been no such investigation and, as of
yet, this revolutionary knowledge has not been brought to light.
Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing the editor has
added some recent examples to show how the extension of this
knowledge applies to our current world situation, but please be
assured that the core of this discovery has not been altered in any
way and is written in the author’s own words. For purposes of
consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout
the book. No discrimination was intended.

This is the part that you wrote, is that correct? In this excerpt, you state that one of the reasons the discovery was not accepted is because it was not scientifically validated. However, in this thread, I don't think you have answered any questions about what kind of scientists would be necessary to do these studies and what kind of things would be tested. You have also responded negatively to ideas about providing evidence for any of your points or the claims that this discovery makes.

What leading scientists would you like to consider this discovery, and what do you think they would say?

Also, I've been wanting to know how your life has changed since you came to understand this discovery? Is it any different and how?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

No. While I believe the same thing applies to "pre-existing" rules that govern human behavior. In which case it's more a matter of determining what those rules might entail. It's just that you and I don't happen to agree upon them, at least this one idea anyway.

This is not about rules Iacchus.

[LadyShea]

You completely changed the tone and content of this response during an edit. You originally thanked me for laying it out there, now you are blasting me and telling me not to read it. That's pretty dishonest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You didn't.

I asked why you choose to become defensive and you went haring off down some rabbit trail about rebellion.

The question remains, why do you choose to become defensive? Or, to put it differently, how does becoming defensive move you toward greater satisfaction?

FYI, I am the "Old Pain in the Ass". The sobriquet was bestowed upon me by one of our members, whom I soundly thrashed in fair combat, and I wear it as a badge of honor.

Becoming defensive is a reaction to my feeling misunderstood. I feel the need to defend myself. I would like to keep my composure and I'm working on it. I just saw a t.v. show about medical marajuana, and I couldn't believe how composed Montel Williams was to the obvious attacks against his wanting to legalize it for medical purposes. He made more headway with the audience because of his composure.