A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

it doesn't work like that. If you disagree with the book, then you have not understood it by definition, because her father "worked on it for 30 years, so if there was anything wrong, he would have spotted it". Thus, any criticism just means you are A) too dumb, B) too lazy or C) too mean-spirited or biased against the book.

Rinse, lather, and repeat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans did not espouse unschooling.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He discussed fully self directed learning, correct? Kids would study what they wanted to study when they wanted to study it?

You are confusing the principles, not suprisingly. Kids would study what they liked. What is so wrong about that? Who are you to tell your son what he wants to learn?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is that not the equivalent of what is currently known as unschooling (ala John Holt)?

I'm sure there are some similarities anytime there is a new conception of schooling on the horizon, therefore this knowledge supports children choosing what they want to learn. It's not that difficult to see the reasoning behind this.

I did home school two of my children for a few years but this wasn't related to the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why didn't you follow the educational principles from the book?

I did, or I wouldn't be in the position I'm in right now.

they turned out to be well adjusted adults.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Great! But that still doesn't answer why you didn't choose to live all the principles in your own life.

That question shows me you have no understanding of the book. There is no way these principles can be applied the way they are intended until they become a permanent condition of the environment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your answer shows me you are making excuses.

No excuses here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't personally choose to teach your kids that man's will is not free and not to blame?

I didn't teach them that. That would have been too confusing for them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't personally refrain from using words like beautiful and ugly in your home?

Why not?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't make tasty meals and not gripe at your husband about money? You can't follow the parenting and educational principles?

You're right because the other party doesn't get it. You cannot work these principles with one half of the equation oblivious to these principles. I have already told you this.

It can work on a smaller scale if two people understand the principles, but not to the degree that it will work when it is applied on a global scale.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Apparently it cannot work on a smaller scale, or you would have made it work....to demonstrate it's truthiness if nothing else.

Wrong. My ex was never inclined to even understand this knowledge. He never even knew the name of my children's book, let alone this book, but he loved my dad. So there you go. You have to have two people who want to have a good marriage, and believe in the principles, to get anything out of them. My life has been one irony after another. We never asked for a rose garden, did we?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

it doesn't work like that. If you disagree with the book, then you have not understood it by definition, because her father "worked on it for 30 years, so if there was anything wrong, he would have spotted it". Thus, any criticism just means you are A) too dumb, B) too lazy or C) too mean-spirited or biased against the book.

Rinse, lather, and repeat.

Ooh tough choice there. Seeing as there's no D option I guess I am stuck with C. I seem to spend a lot of time on this forum owning up to being evil. Interesting.

Nice string of non sequiturs there, you have a talent for the absurdly humorous.

[LadyShea]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are confusing the principles, not suprisingly. Kids would study what they liked. What is so wrong about that? Who are you to tell your son what he wants to learn?

I'm sure there are some similarities anytime there is a new conception of schooling on the horizon, therefore this knowledge supports children choosing what they want to learn. It's not that difficult to see the reasoning behind this.

Nothing is wrong with it. I am very interested in various forms of education and fully support self directed learning.

You said he didn't espouse unschooling, but his educational model (which yes, I read on accounta the pre-existing interest) was very similar to John Holt's "unschooling", and I wondered why you didn't do it with your own children.

Why are you so defensive? Are you upset that someone else had a similar idea and that Lessans wasn't unique in this regard.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did, or I wouldn't be in the position I'm in right now.

So you didn't send your kids to public school and instead allowed them fully self directed learning from home? That's what unschoolers do.

No excuses here.

Oh? You're divorced because it "takes two to tango" and you were apparently unable to explain the principles well enough for your husband to understand, and you apparently sent your kids to school for directed learning because...I don't know why. I am asking you why and you don't have an answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't teach them that. That would have been too confusing for them.

Oh yeah, no excuses here, none at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why not?

I was asking you why the principles were not applicable in your own family in your own home. Of course you could refrain from conditioning them. Did you do so?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right because the other party doesn't get it. You cannot work these principles with one half of the equation oblivious to these principles. I have already told you this.

I am asking you why that was the case. Why did you marry someone who was oblivious? Why didn't you teach him and ensure he was on board?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. My ex was never inclined to even understand this knowledge. He never even knew the name of my children's book, let alone this book, but he loved my dad. So there you go. You have to have two people who want to have a good marriage, and believe in the principles, to get anything out of them. My life has been one irony after another. We never asked for a rose garden, did we?

Yeah, well all your talk about personality and compatibility and communication and problem solving being secondary to sexual satisfaction in a marriage just became especially nonsensical and disgusting bullshit.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Ooh tough choice there. Seeing as there's no D option I guess I am stuck with C. I seem to spend a lot of time on this forum owning up to being evil. Interesting.

Nice string of non sequiturs there, you have a talent for the absurdly humorous.

Viv was letting you know how the rest of your discussion with peacegirl is likely to go.

If you disagree with Lessans peacegirl will tell you it's because you don't understand because you haven't read it enough times, aren't a good candidate, or are biased and want to destroy this knowledge

[Sidhe]

dp!

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Viv was letting you know how the rest of your discussion with peacegirl is likely to go.

If you disagree with Lessans peacegirl will tell you it's because you don't understand because you haven't read it enough times, aren't a good candidate, or are biased and want to destroy this knowledge

You do that narrator thing quite a lot. I kind of like it. Yeah I know, I was just commenting positively on his use of irony.

Can I still be evil though?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

it doesn't work like that. If you disagree with the book, then you have not understood it by definition, because her father "worked on it for 30 years, so if there was anything wrong, he would have spotted it". Thus, any criticism just means you are A) too dumb, B) too lazy or C) too mean-spirited or biased against the book.

Rinse, lather, and repeat.

Please stop Vivisectus. You are giving this book a bad name, and you think you are doing it in the name of truth and justice. How wrong can someone be?

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He discussed fully self directed learning, correct? Kids would study what they wanted to study when they wanted to study it?

You are confusing the principles, not suprisingly. Kids would study what they liked. What is so wrong about that? Who are you to tell your son what he wants to learn?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is that not the equivalent of what is currently known as unschooling (ala John Holt)?

I'm sure there are some similarities anytime there is a new conception of schooling on the horizon, therefore this knowledge supports children choosing what they want to learn. It's not that difficult to see the reasoning behind this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nothing is wrong with it. I am very interested in various forms of education and fully support self directed learning.

Me too.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said he didn't espouse unschooling, but his educational model (which yes, I read on accounta the pre-existing interest) was very similar to John Holt's "unschooling", and I wondered why you didn't do it with your own children.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. He never supported unschooling LadyShea. He extended the principles into the eduational system, which has everything to do with self-directed learning, but he never endorsed unschooling or schooling, for that matter. Please don't put words in his mouth or mine.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you so defensive? Are you upset that someone else had a similar idea and that Lessans wasn't unique in this regard.

Because you're not being accurate. You are gleaning something from the book that isn't even there.

I did home school two of my children for a few years but this wasn't related to the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why didn't you follow the educational principles from the book?

I did, or I wouldn't be in the position I'm in right now.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you didn't send your kids to public school and instead allowed them fully self directed learning from home? That's what unschoolers do.

Unfortunately, you are expecting me to live in the new world when we're not in the new world. You are saying, in so many words, that I should have done more to support these principles. But I am also a product of my environment, and I'm trying to cope with what is. Once again, you are not understanding why these principles must be applied on a larger scale. I homeschooled two of my four children. It was tough because two were in school, and they were too old to change direction. I did this at a time when homeschooling was underground. Now, it's nothing to home school.

No excuses here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? You're divorced because it "takes two to tango" and you were apparently unable to explain the principles well enough for your husband to understand, and you apparently sent your kids to school for directed learning because...I don't know why. I am asking you why and you don't have an answer.

My ex was not in agreement with me. If you don't have a partner who understands your motives, you're going to have a problem.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't personally choose to teach your kids that man's will is not free and not to blame?

I didn't teach them that. That would have been too confusing for them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh yeah, no excuses here, none at all.

That's an abstract concept especially when no one else understands it. I would never put my kids under that kind of pressure. Yes, they know now, but I didn't get into that when they were little for good reason.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't personally refrain from using words like beautiful and ugly in your home? Why not?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was asking you why the principles were not applicable in your own family in your own home. Of course you could refrain from conditioning them. Did you do so?

No, I didn't use those words but I would not tell them to not use these words themselves. That would have been a major conflict with what they see in society. I would never do that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't make tasty meals and not gripe at your husband about money? You can't follow the parenting and educational principles?

Money is a false way to judge someone's compatiblity. That's why men feel inadequate. They can never make enough. It's really sad.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're right because the other party doesn't get it. You cannot work these principles with one half of the equation oblivious to these principles. I have already told you this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking you why that was the case. Why did you marry someone who was oblivious? Why didn't you teach him and ensure he was on board?

Are you kidding? I would have never found someone. I was ready to have a family and I thought he was a good guy. You have to choose your battles LadyShea, and this was not one of them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. My ex was never inclined to even understand this knowledge. He never even knew the name of my children's book, let alone this book, but he loved my dad. So there you go. You have to have two people who want to have a good marriage, and believe in the principles, to get anything out of them. My life has been one irony after another. We never asked for a rose garden, did we?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah, well all your talk about personality and compatibility and communication and problem solving being secondary to sexual satisfaction in a marriage just became especially nonsensical and disgusting bullshit.

Not at all. You're trying to put a square into a round hole. You can't do it LadyShea, and that's why you have come to this conclusion. Sexual satisfaction is, and will always be, the most important factor in a passionate longterm relationship.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

[Sidhe]

Hey hold on I've never earned more than 20k a year and that's more than enough stop libelling all men. seriously if I earnt more than that I wouldn't know what to do with it and if my spouse earnt twice as much I would find that hot. In fact it's kinda of a turn on for me I think, successful women. I mean don't get me wrong I'm not into being dominated or submissive and shiz but I do like a woman that's got her own, so to speak. Wouldn't you feel proud if your wife was a Dr/Lawyer/Rocket Scientist or some such shiz, rather than a trolley dolly at Asda? and wouldn't you have to be a pretty shallow individual and out of touch with the real world to feel inadequate or threatened?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You do that narrator thing quite a lot. I kind of like it. Yeah I know, I was just commenting positively on his use of irony.

Can I still be evil though?

No Sidhe because I have a definite proof, even if the people in here don't see it, argue against it, or defy it. It doesn't matter. The proof is there and there's no denying it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Hey hold on I've never earned more than 20k a year and that's more than enough stop libelling all men. seriously if I earnt more than that I wouldn't know what to do with it and if my spouse earnt twice as much I would find that hot. In fact it's kinda of a turn on for me I think, successful women. I mean don't get me wrong I'm not into being dominated or submissive and shiz but I do like a woman that's got her own, so to speak. Wouldn't you feel proud if your wife was a Dr/Lawyer/Rocket Scientist or some such shiz, rather than a trolley dolly at Asda? and wouldn't you have to be a pretty shallow individual and out of touch with the real world to feel inadequate or threatened?

Do you not see what you're doing? You are basing what appeals to you by the standards of success that exist today. When these standards disappear, monetary success will not be the issue it is today.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[thedoc]

If this message is so important for the world to receive (more important than the profit motive) re-establish access to the PDF but include the whole book, including all of Ch. 10. Closing it off and expecting people to pay an exorbidant price for the book indicated monitary factors more than humanitarian. If the book is true and so good It shold be able to stand by itself against criticism, but that you refuse to explain or clarify psrts that are in contention indicates that you do not understand it adequately. That people have questioned specific points in the book proves that they have read and understood the book, and that you have failed to answer these questions proves that you do not properly comprehend the book and the science it has chosen to refute.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We never asked for a rose garden, did we?

According to the book both you and lessans were asking for just that.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you not see what you're doing? You are basing what appeals to you by the standards of success that exist today. When these standards disappear, monetary success will not be the issue it is today.

Of course I am. I live in the real world not some world you created.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Sidhe because I have a definite proof, even if the people in here don't see it, argue against it, or defy it. It doesn't matter. The proof is there and there's no denying it.

No you don't if you did we wouldn't be having this discussion and your theory would be taught in schools. The fact that it has got no recognition is I think not an accident or the fault of publicists.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

No you don't if you did we wouldn't be having this discussion and your theory would be taught in schools. The fact that it has got no recognition is I think not an accident or the fault of publicists.

This book has not been distributed. It is virtually unknown. The only people that have even heard about it are on these philosophy forums. That is hardly enough to bring recognition to this work.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This book has not been distributed. It is virtually unknown. The only people that have even heard about it are on these philosophy forums. That is hardly enough to bring recognition to this work.

Yes if you can't convince philosophers it would be. Mind you they are an ornery bunch of cusses. All that logic crap makes them quite skeptical.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Yes if you can't convince philosophers it would be. Mind you they are an ornery bunch of cusses. All that logic crap makes them quite skeptical.

They don't even understand the premises of this book, nor do they understand the two-sided equation, which is the core of the discovery. They got too stuck on efferent vision and that started all the bullying, which makes up more than half of this thread. If you want me to cut and paste more of chapter one so we can discuss it, I will, but to keep going around in circles when you have no clue what the book is about, is a waste of time.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't even understand the premises of this book, nor do they understand the two-sided equation, which is the core of the discovery. They got too stuck on efferent vision and that started all the bullying, which makes up more than half of this thread. If you want me to cut and paste more of chapter one so we can discuss it, I will, but to keep going around in circles when you have no clue what the book is about, is a waste of time.

I don't care what other people said. I am my own man. There are a lot of people on forums who are claiming they want free thought, but don't really understand what it means. They will rebuke you for not paling up with others or sucking enough cock. They are worthless. Many of them are trolls. And they will pretend somehow that gives them the right to judge. Also a worthless proposition, if you troll you have no right to judge anyone you are weak and a sheep. Trolls seldom act alone, there's always a team of the idiots on these forums. They can't act alone like any bullies they are too scared and clueless to know what free thinking means. Bullies travel in gangs, Hyenas hunt in packs. It's the way it is. bemoaning it is like pissing into a hurricane, a waste of time. Some people are just scum and they rationalise their worthlessness because they cannot be honest about what they are and what they do. If you ever isolate them they soon crumble into nothing, because no troll can act alone. You can't put a price on integrity, but you can try. Believe what you want true or not, but don't fear people who criticise without making silly trolls, they are not your enemy. The best people don't think they have all the answers. Trolls do, that is why they are weak people with no worth, they are often one trick ponies, they often have an extensive list of people who pm them and they often aren't worth the effort. Good trolls are like good serial killers, a misnomer.

Say what you want I will agree or I wont. But I will try not to troll. I have been accused of being one a dozen times on this forum already. By trolls, and by people who think free thought is about telling people how to behave or think. These are people not worth listening to, this forum has no rules, but your integrity is not measured by rules. Ironically they believe often it is. Clearly the irony is wasted on them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I don't care what other people said. I am my own man. There are a lot of people on forums who are claiming they want free thought, but don't really understand what it means. They will rebuke you for not paling up with others or sucking enough cock. They are worthless. Many of them are trolls. And they will pretend somehow that gives them the right to judge. Also a worthless proposition, if you troll you have no right to judge anyone you are weak and a sheep. Trolls seldom act alone, there's always a team of the idiots on these forums. They can't act alone like any bullies they are too scared and clueless to know what free thinking means. Bullies travel in gangs, Hyenas hunt in packs. It's the way it is. bemoaning it is like pissing into a hurricane, a waste of time. Some people are just scum and they rationalise their worthlessness because they cannot be honest about what they are and what they do. If you ever isolate them they soon crumble into nothing, because no troll can act alone. You can't put a price on integrity, but you can try. Believe what you want true or not, but don't fear people who criticise without making silly trolls, they are not your enemy. The best people don't think they have all the answers. Trolls do, that is why they are weak people with no worth, they are often one trick ponies, they often have an extensive list of people who pm them and they often aren't worth the effort. Good trolls are like good serial killers, a misnomer.

Say what you want I will agree or I wont. But I will try not to troll. I have been accused of being one a dozen times on this forum already. By trolls, and by people who think free thought is about telling people how to behave or think. These are people not worth listening to, this forum has no rules, but your integrity is not measured by rules. Ironically they believe often it is. Clearly the irony is wasted on them.

I can tell your response was spoken from the heart. I really don't know why free thought is not more open to different points of view without all the vitriol. In order to speak freely, you need to feel safe, and most people will not dare speak out because they see what happens to people who disagree. It's a lot of group think in these forums, even if people think they are being objective.

I would like post the next excerpt (which I had posted before) but I don't want to do it without knowing whether you are interested. I am not telling you that you have to like it, agree with it, or even understand it, but at least you'll have an idea of what it's about so you can make up your own mind. Let me know if you want me to continue because the last thing I want to do is push this book on anyone.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can tell your response was spoken from the heart. I really don't know why free thought is not more open to different points of view without all the vitriol. In order to speak freely, you need to feel safe, and most people will not dare speak out because they see what happens to people who disagree. It's a lot of group think in these forums, even if people think they are being objective.

I would like post the next excerpt (which I had posted before) but I don't want to do it without knowing whether you are interested. I am not telling you that you have to like it, agree with it, or even understand it, but at least you'll have an idea of what it's about so you can make up your own mind. Let me know if you want me to continue because the last thing I want to do is push this book on anyone.

Well first I think the last thing is a bit of a reach because obviously you are pushing this book. Not a bad thing but not the last thing on your mind.

And human beings are often slaves to conformity, I tend to cherish people who aren't. But then that gets me banned, or just harassed. What can you do sheep don't like being told they are sheep, trolls don't like being told they are pack hunters. Idiots will conform because they don't really think about morality or ethics they are only following orders.

Do what you like. I either will or wont like it. Nothing changes if I do or don't.

I'm not mental by the way I don't think there are a secret conspiracy of trolls, although there are packs of them. I just think to say that they don't group and groupthink would be rather naive. All morons do. Individuality, free thought and diversity mean nothing to these people. They simply do not care to think for themselves and it's likely they never will. Any creativity they had has got ground down to working out which person to suck up to and when, which thing that threatens them and where, they feed on remains. Trolls aren't individuals they are Gestalts because already they have started seeking to have a code, or a basis for what they are. They claim they are doing something right or pure, but really they are just bending over and taking it from their masters.

If you'll pardon the Oxford commas, I would say that you can say whatever you like, just don't be told that you can not. Even if it is specious guff. Fear isn't the mind killer conformity because of fear is. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Anyway my isane ramblings aside I have been on the web a long time, I value more people who disagree with me than do. Because agreement is kinda boring. You just hope if someone disagrees they are not just giving your opinion they are genuinely engaging with you. Sadly that is rare. But I never want to be right about anything, just because I think I have the answers. I never want to be that sad an individual that I gave up thinking there was more to learn.