A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

but people won't let me go

Nobody needs to "let you go" because nobody is forcing you to be here. Just go.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No-one is saying that "beauty" is a reality. It is a label, something that describes things that people find aesthetically pleasing. There are certain traits (such as a symmetric face) that people are more likely to find aesthetically pleasing. Some of these seem to go through societal fashions. A few hundred years ago, small breasts, a plump figure and wide hips seem to have been all the rage. Extreme paleness seems to have been popular at one stage too, to such an extent that people used a lot of make-up to create this effect. Japanese Geishas used to blacken their teeth, because that seems to be part of that particular beauty-ideal. Etc. etc. etc.

To say that this has some sort of independent reality is idiotic. No-one ever did.

Nor can get rid of them as is proposed, without removing aesthetic pleasure altogether.

Tell me, in the brave new world, will we also stop judging music? Is it not a hurt to call one kind of music more beautiful than another? One composer better than the other? Will we stop thinking a Monet is nicer to look at than some doodles I scribbled on a page? Is it not a hurt to make such a judgment, as if Monet is somehow worth more than me? Will we find Shakespeare's work as valuable as Dan Browns?

Yes, we will stop judging music in the sense of setting up a standard of what we "should" like. Right now it is believed that those who appreciate classical music are more cultured. This is a hurt to those who like hard rock, for example. It makes them feel less important. Isn't that what it's about? Who will be able to judge our personal preference when all influences are gone? There will be NO standard to say which music is better than another, only what attracts someone to it. It is true that because hearing is afferent, there are certain standards to determine which sound meets that standard. It is true that the singers who meet a certain criteria will considered maestros in their field. But even within that context, there are still personal preferences. I don't love Barbara Streisand's singing as much as I love Celine Dion. Does that make me wrong? They both meet the requirements of what makes a good singer. My children love rock music. I never did like it, even as a kid. Does that make me a square, and them not as cultured? Of course not.

Using the word "beautiful" to apply to a certain type of facial feature (regardless of which society has conditioned us) has hurt many (too many to count) who are not in that category. I hope you eventually see the difference between a true standard and one that is artificially created.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know it didn't. This is not an easy concept to explain. It's in the book and if you had read the book carefully you would have seen this. But everyone jumped to certain pages in order to make the book look stupid. In time, you will get it [hopefully], but part of getting it is releasing your prejudices so that your mind will be open to listening to something completely new. It's like talking a different language.

Cop out

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody needs to "let you go" because nobody is forcing you to be here. Just go.

I know that I can go and that nobody is forcing me to be here. But I get greater satisfaction out of being here than not when there are still questions being asked. If people stop asking pertinent questions, then I will leave.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cop out

It's not a cop out. It took me a long time to understand how the word "intelligent" is not accurate. All I am saying is that your question was answered in the book, but no one read the book where this was explained.

[LadyShea]

I am not talking about "intelligent" being accurate or inaccurate, I understand what Lessans was saying with that.

What I am asking is why efferent vision is required for conditioning with regards to words like "beautiful" (by putting the word over a set of features) when the same type of conditioning happens with the word "intelligent" which has no visual aspect. You can't project the word "intelligent" on a set of features.

You have stated several times that only sight results in conditioning. How does sight apply to the descriptor "intelligent"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not talking about "intelligent" being accurate or inaccurate, I understand what Lessans was saying with that.

What I am asking is why efferent vision is required for conditioning with regards to words like "beautiful" (by putting the word over a set of features) when the same type of conditioning happens with the word "intelligent" which has no visual aspect. You can't project the word "intelligent" on a set of features.

You have stated several times that only sight results in conditioning. How does sight apply to the descriptor "intelligent"?

It is true that we are conditioned by sight, but the word "intelligent", although not related to visual conditioning, sets up a false standard based solely on an arbitrary definition. I am posting a question in the review section, which won't give you his entire explanation, but hopefully it will give you a greater grasp as to where he is going with all of this.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Review: pp. 587-588

Would you mind explaining to me why some people are not less
educated, are not less intelligent? You yourself used the expression
‘unconscious ignorance’ in reference to certain people who you say
don’t have the intellectual capacity. Isn’t this a criticism of them;
aren’t you judging them an inferior production of the human race?

You must bear in mind that I am still living in the old world, and
what I have said is a reaction to their attitude towards me. I realize
they are moving in the direction of what gives them satisfaction. But
so is a burglar who enters my home with a gun. I wouldn’t hesitate in
defense of my family to put a bullet in his head and I don’t hesitate
now to criticize the professors who, whether it is because they don’t
have the intellectual capacity or are unconsciously ignorant of their
capacity, are a stumbling block to my bringing this knowledge to light.
However, there is a difference between the words intellectual capacity
and intelligence.

A professor may not have the intellectual capacity
to beat Bobby Fischer in a chess game, but that does not mean he is
not intelligent, just as Bobby Fischer may not have the intellectual
capacity to solve some of the mathematical problems Einstein tackled,
but this does not mean Fischer is not intelligent. All of us have
different capacities but we are an intelligent race. We don’t know
everything which means we are ignorant of many things, but the
words ‘unconscious ignorance’ only refers to those who don’t know
but think they do. As a result of believing that only certain people are
intelligent, we have developed words like stupid, dumb, unintelligent
and so forth, which words sit in judgment of half the human race as
an inferior production. As for the word ‘educated,’ remember, from
the day of our birth we acquire an education.

To believe that we are
not educated unless we choose to move in a direction that gives others
greater satisfaction, judges us to be inferior people. This is why a high
school graduate puts down a high school dropout; why a college
graduate considers that he has a superior education than one who
never went to college; and why professors and Ph.D.’s look down on
everybody who, in their eyes, didn’t accomplish scholastically what
they did. But when the word educated is removed from our
vocabulary because every human being acquires an education from the
time of his birth, but only in a direction of his own choice, then
nobody is put down by what he chooses to do with his time. What he
chooses to study or not to study will be his particular education.

All
mankind become perfectly equal in intrinsic value. God is giving us
no choice but to move in this direction for greater satisfaction the
very moment we know that to continue using these words is a hurt
that not only cannot be justified but for which there will be no blame.
Can’t you see now why the leaders of the Establishment must react
against this work when they realize that they are not a superior
production of the human race?

Don’t you think Miss America will
find it difficult to believe that she is not more beautiful than the
Wicked Witch? Can a professor believe that he is not more educated
than someone who never completed the 7th grade? Can a professor
believe that he is not more intelligent than someone who can’t
understand why 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8? These people in our present
world are judged superior human beings only because of words,
nothing else. They are not and never have been superior human
beings because all of us are perfectly equal in intrinsic value, although
most of us have different physical and intellectual capacities.

Because
of these words, half the human race was treated with disrespect but
now, for the very first time, all of us deserve and will be treated with
respect which heretofore has been denied.

[LadyShea]

So, it seems that Lessans believed conditioning can take place without efferent vision.

These passages really make it look like the whole discussion is nothing but sour grapes on Lessans' part. You realize that don't you?

You must bear in mind that I am still living in the old world, and
what I have said is a reaction to their attitude towards me. I realize
they are moving in the direction of what gives them satisfaction. But
so is a burglar who enters my home with a gun. I wouldn’t hesitate in
defense of my family to put a bullet in his head and I don’t hesitate
now to criticize the professors who, whether it is because they don’t
have the intellectual capacity or are unconsciously ignorant of their
capacity, are a stumbling block to my bringing this knowledge to light.
However, there is a difference between the words intellectual capacity
and intelligence.

Can a professor believe that he is not more educated
than someone who never completed the 7th grade?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, it seems that Lessans believed conditioning can take place without efferent vision.

We have learned to stratify people into layers of value, and from this distorted view of who we are, we judge ourselves and others accordingly. For example, by saying someone is "intelligent", it implies that someone is "unintelligent". These words do not symbolize anything real just like the words beautiful and ugly don't symbolize anything real. This isn't the same thing as being conditioned with the eyes because there is no visual conditioning taking place, but it shows how words can stratify people into layers of value and create feelings of disrespect.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These passages really make it look like the whole discussion is nothing but sour grapes on Lessans' part. You realize that don't you?

I'm not sure where. If it does sound like sour grapes it's because I am posting out of order. You are getting the end before the beginning, which is my mistake. That's why I had to take the book offline. I'm doing what I told everyone not to do. I don't know if you'll ever understand the true meaning of his work the way it's being presented.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The New Meaning of Education pp. 531-532

Every student knows that when he leaves school to earn a living,
no one will ever blame him no matter how much he hurts others by
his mistakes. Consequently, employers will not have to screen any
applicant for a job because they will know he is completely qualified
otherwise he could not risk a position from which no satisfaction can
be gotten unless a perfect job is done.

Remember, a student can leave
school at any time and pretend that he is adequately trained to do
what he is being paid to do, but should he make mistakes that hurt his
employer he will know that the employer will never blame him because
the responsibility was his since he hired him which deprives the new
employee of any satisfaction in being excused for pretending that he
was adequately qualified when he knew he was not. This forces each
student to learn all that school has to teach regarding the career
selected so that if mistakes are made it would be through carelessness
— which must also come to an end — or because there was not
enough knowledge available to prevent what happened except by not
taking on the risk, as was explained in relation to doctors.

This places
the full responsibility of when our students leave college not on
whether they get a passing mark, for there will be no such thing, but
strictly on whether they are satisfied with the results of their test. If
a boy leaves before he has selected some kind of trade or profession
because he finds studying too difficult and ends up taking a job as a
laborer, no one will be comparing him to those who become brain
surgeons.

How many well-meaning parents pushed children into
careers they believed were right…but for whom? And as a
consequence, how many children ended up miserable because they
were not given permission to find their calling in life. God has
purposely given everyone different abilities so that each person can fall
into a particular group that enables the whole to function in a
perfectly balanced mathematical equation — but this does not mean
that one person is any better than another.

I will show you that this
laborer will not be respected less or the brain surgeon more, that his
job will not be considered less important and he will be judged just as
educated as anybody else. In previous chapters, you have seen that no
one is beautiful or ugly, but who would believe that no one is
educated, uneducated, intelligent or unintelligent. Although the word
education is being defined, not beauty, the same principle applies. To
explain the reason for this, we must go back to our earlier discussion
regarding the eyes.

Take a look at the pictures of these two girls and tell me which
one you consider more beautiful? I already explained the reason
words like beautiful are going to become obsolete, therefore, you won’t
be able to tell me which one is more beautiful but you can tell me
which one appeals to you more. Although a person cannot help being
born with particular features, and education can be acquired, the word
educated is identical to the word beautiful.

For any word to be
symbolic of something real we must be able to see the reality through
the symbol. We see cat, mouse, rat, dog, tree, apple, orange, sun,
moon, book, male, female, etc. all through the symbols, but can you
see a beautiful girl or an educated one through word symbols? You
may respond that Elizabeth Taylor looks beautiful to you but
supposing someone else says she is not beautiful to him? Judges at a
beauty contest don’t all agree and in some parts of the world low
hanging breasts, a huge rear end and big abdomens are considered the
ideal. In other words, since a value is not contained in external
substance it cannot exist apart from the individual who gives that
something its value. It could be that you like one girl better than
another, but this is your personal preference, not an external reality.

By saying a girl is beautiful, it implies by its opposite, that some girls
are ugly. You are saying she contains a value that other girls do not
have and you have placed other girls in a definite position of
inferiority. There is a world of difference between saying, “This girl
appeals to me because her nose is straight, her teeth together, her
breasts pointed and firm, her skin smooth and soft” — and saying, “I
like her because she is beautiful.” Saying ‘this girl appeals to me’
makes no one feel inferior because the expression does not create a
standard for everyone. Even to qualify it by saying ‘she is beautiful to
me’ does not rectify the inaccuracy of the description because it is
mathematically impossible for the word to describe anything externally
real. The sun is not beautiful although on certain days I like it better
than on others; it is simply a ball of fire.

Many people resenting the
word ‘beautiful’ being applied to physical characteristics they did not
possess and yet wanting a share of this value would parry with, ‘beauty
of the soul, not of the body.’ By defining it differently they derived
a compensating satisfaction, as if definition determines what exists.
Now if I draw a picture of a dog and put the word dog right next to it
no one will say the symbol is inaccurate because it is not, but try to do
the same thing with the word education. Just as in the word beautiful,
it is projected upon this screen of differences and then when you see
these differences with your eyes it appears that this too exists as part
of the external world because it is circumscribed with the word. This
is why the word education is equally as inaccurate as the word
beautiful in describing reality. However, before you jump to any
conclusions, let me explain certain facts.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we will stop judging music in the sense of setting up a standard. Right now it is actually believed that those who appreciate classical music are more cultured. This is ridiculous. What will judge music is our personal preference when all influences are gone. There will be NO standard to say which music is better than another, only what attracts someone to it. Why are you so bent on defending what cannot be defended? Using the word "beautiful" to apply to a certain type of facial features (regardless of which society has conditioned us) has hurt many (too many to count) who are not in that category. Can't you see this, or are you so blind that your common sense is gone?

Ah - personal standard. But we are doing away with any personal standard of what we find pleasing in the looks of other people, as this is a hurt. So I am not to have a personal standard as to who I find pretty anymore, as this is a part of the bad conditioning and causes hurt. I fact we are doing away with the whole word, as saying pretty suggests there may be not-pretty, and we are no longer making value-judgments.

But this is not that much different from saying that the screeching I can get out of a violin is an ugly sound, while the performance of a virtuoso violinist is not - it is also something judged against a personal standard which could be thought of as hurtful to me.

What about the way I do my job? It could be just as hurtful to say that I am doing my job badly. Perhaps we should get rid of that word too...

[peacegirl]

It's not strange at all when you understand what the brain is able to do. If the eyes were afferent, this beauty (this value) would be part of reality as it travels to the brain for interpretation. There are other ways to explain how we're conditioned, but no one has ever admitted that "beauty" is not a reality. What is beautiful is not in the eyes of the beholder. Beauty and ugliness do not exist, only personal preference. The minute you call someone "beautiful" as a personal descriptor, you imply someone is "ugly", which is a hurt.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No-one is saying that "beauty" is a reality. It is a label, something that describes things that people find aesthetically pleasing. There are certain traits (such as a symmetric face) that people are more likely to find aesthetically pleasing.

You're still missing the point. Whether one has a symmetrical or asymmetrical face, and whether the majority like symmetrical looking faces, does not make those people more beautiful because beauty is not an external reality.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Some of these seem to go through societal fashions. A few hundred years ago, small breasts, a plump figure and wide hips seem to have been all the rage. Extreme paleness seems to have been popular at one stage too, to such an extent that people used a lot of make-up to create this effect. Japanese Geishas used to blacken their teeth, because that seems to be part of that particular beauty-ideal. Etc. etc. etc.

To say that this has some sort of independent reality is idiotic. No-one ever did.

Nor can get rid of them as is proposed, without removing aesthetic pleasure altogether.

Absolutely wrong. What a person finds aesthetically pleasing will always exist; it just won't be conditioned by an external standard. The only thing it will do is allow everyone a chance to be happy. When the word is removed, so will the standard, therefore what will appeal to someone in the new world might be someone with a big nose, beady eyes, and buck teeth, and no one will ever criticize their choice of a partner.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Tell me, in the brave new world, will we also stop judging music? Is it not a hurt to call one kind of music more beautiful than another? One composer better than the other? Will we stop thinking a Monet is nicer to look at than some doodles I scribbled on a page? Is it not a hurt to make such a judgment, as if Monet is somehow worth more than me? Will we find Shakespeare's work as valuable as Dan Browns?

Yes, we will stop judging music as if one genre is better than another. Right now it is actually believed that those who appreciate classical music are more cultured. This is ridiculous. What will judge music is our personal preference when all influences are gone. There will be NO standard to say which music is better than another, only what attracts someone to it. Why are you so bent on defending what cannot be defended? Using the word "beautiful" to apply to a certain type of facial features (regardless of which society has conditioned us) has hurt many (too many to count) who are not in that category. Can't you see this, or are you so blind that your common sense is gone?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The New Meaning of Education: pp. 547-548

Of course, words like achievement and masterpiece will
no longerbe used to describe anything that man does because these
words implythat one person’s efforts in a particular direction are better
than another person’s efforts in a different direction.It is a known fact
that certain things have greater value for certain people, therefore,
they will be drawn toward the values that make a difference to them.
For example, if an accountant makes more money than a bookkeeper,
and I desire more money, then this is a value that will attract me.

If I see that a certain group of people prefer to associate with those
who like to read particular books like Shakespeare, or listen to a certain
kind of music like opera, then as long as I wish to belong to this group
this type of reading and music will have a personal value. But this
would not make you superior to someone who desires to associate with
a group that likes rock and roll or comic books.

There is no such
thing as a good book, better music, a classic, a masterpiece, only what
you like better. Although these words try to give external reality to
personal taste and values, they are opinions that express personal
preference only. I may like a painting by Rembrandt better than one
by my daughter but this does not make it a masterpiece, nor does it
become one because it is liked by the majority of mankind. If you say
to yourself while visiting an art gallery, “I think this painting by
Rembrandt is a masterpiece,” then nobody can be hurt, but if you say
this to the person next to you then you will automatically put him in
a lower level of stratification the moment he disagrees with your
opinion. This word is no different in that it projects a value as
existing externally as if the world is divided up into stratified layers of
importance — but value is a personal relation between you and
something else. Regardless of the definition used, the word
‘masterpiece’ is a word just like educated, cultured, or intelligent that is
projected onto real substance with no corresponding accuracy.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah - personal standard. But we are doing away with any personal standard of what we find pleasing in the looks of other people, as this is a hurt.

No, personal attraction is just that...personal. It is not an artificial standard that tells people what is beautiful and what is ugly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So I am not to have a personal standard as to who I find pretty anymore, as this is a part of the bad conditioning and causes hurt.

He isn't saying that. He is saying that the word "beautiful" is a man-made standard, which conditions us to find attractive those that meet that standard. You wouldn't call the witch of the west pretty, would you? Those that fall below this line of demarcation would never be called "pretty", which sets them up for a lifelong of inferiority and low self-esteem. Yes, we get over it, but if it's false that we are not uglier or prettier than others, just different, why should we use words that falsely identify us?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I fact we are doing away with the whole word, as saying pretty suggests there may be not-pretty, and we are no longer making value-judgments.

But this is not that much different from saying that the screeching I can get out of a violin is an ugly sound, while the performance of a virtuoso violinist is not - it is also something judged against a personal standard which could be thought of as hurtful to me.

When it comes to talent, there is a standard that determines how well a person sings or plays an instrument. If this person doesn't meet the standard of what most people consider pleasing to the ear, then in the new world they will know they can't compete with the more professional musicians. If they try to compete and people walk out, they will quickly realize that their music is not pleasing to the majority of listeners. That doesn't mean they can't play as a hobby, but as a profession, they wouldn't be able to survive financially. More importantly, when we realize that we all have different talents (but that doesn't mean we are inferior intrinsically), we will not be hurt when we learn the truth; we will be helped to find out what our true gifts are.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What about the way I do my job? It could be just as hurtful to say that I am doing my job badly. Perhaps we should get rid of that word too...

There is a standard as to what a good job is. It is completing certain tasks within a reasonable amount of time. If an employer says you are doing a job badly (which only means doing a less than satisfactory job), it only means that you are not doing the job you were hired to do (which you knew about before being hired). In the new world you would do everything in your power to do a good job, because you would not be blamed for doing a bad one, even if you caused your employer to lose money.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is not about conditioning per se. It's about an inaccurate definition which make some people appear more valuable than others. By saying someone is "intelligent" makes others appear "unintelligent" and places more value on the "intelligent" person when they are intrinsically the same value.

That was the exact same explanation of the word beautiful, yet beautiful had the added conditioning caused by efferent sight. So, why is one conditioning and one not?

1. The part where he compares the professors who discount his work to burglars breaking into a home, and comparing criticizing said professors to shooting burglars in the head.

2. His loathing of people who correctly stated that they are/were better educated than other people.

He was obviously talking about himself, and again about the professors who discounted his work.

He thought very highly of himself, but others didn't think highly of him, so in his fantasy New World he gets even by eliminating the words that made him feel inferior and making himself the hero who brought on the Golden Age.

If it does sound like sour grapes it's because I am posting out of order. You are getting the end before the beginning, which is my mistake. That's why I had to take the book offline. I'm doing what I told everyone not to do.

Order has nothing to do with it. The whole book is littered with such arrogance for his own intelligence and loathing of those who dismissed his ideas.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When it comes to talent, there is a standard that determines how well a person sings or plays the violin. If this person doesn't meet the standard of what most people consider pleasing to the ear, then in the new world they will know they can't compete with the more professional musicians. If they try to compete and people walk out, they will quickly realize that their music is not pleasing to the majority of listeners. That doesn't mean they can't play as a hobby, but as a profession, they wouldn't be able to survive financially. Also, when we realize that we all have different talents but that doesn't mean we are inferior intrinsically, we will not be hurt when we learn the truth; we will be helped to find what our true gifts are.

But if someone derives greater satisfaction from preforming for others, and the others walk out on their preformance, that would be hurtful and unacceptable. When someone with little tallent desires to preform for others, they would be required to listen and endure to avoid hurting the one who wishes to preform. But then those listening might be offended at the poor preformance, your whole scenerio breakes down, and the idea of not hurting others is unworkable because 'personal preferences' will always be at odds with someone else.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people stop asking pertinent questions, then I will leave.

It seems to me that many pages ago you were complaining that people are not asking 'Pertinent Questions' and that is why we could not progress. Now you can't leave because people are asking 'Pertinent Questions'. I think the only really 'Pertinent Question' is "How confused are you?" and 'Do you really understand anything that you or others are posting?" other than enough to obstruct and divert attention from the real issue that Lessans work is a joke?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we will stop judging music in the sense of setting up a standard of what we "should" like. Right now it is believed that those who appreciate classical music are more cultured. This is a hurt to those who like hard rock, for example. It makes them feel less important.

I happen to prefer hard rock to classical music. I don't now feel, and never have felt, the least bit less important because of that preference. I don't believe that this standard you are talking about even exists. If it does, then I never got the memo.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I happen to prefer hard rock to classical music. I don't now feel, and never have felt, the least bit less important because of that preference. I don't believe that this standard you are talking about even exists. If it does, then I never got the memo.

You are quite right there is good music in all genres, but I might except 'rap' and 'punk', (personal preference) but quality can exist in any area. I had a friend who played in a rock band and he pointed out that most of the 'rips' and elements of any music could be traced back to the 'Classical' composers. So it seems that everything has its roots in Classical music, but some are more evolved than others, just like some people are more evolved than others.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still missing the point. Whether one has a symmetrical or asymmetrical face, and whether the majority like symmetrical looking faces, does not make those people more beautiful because beauty is not an external reality.

No one is claiming that it is. Or that there even is such a thing as an external reality. It is a clumsy strawman.

Absolutely wrong. What a person finds aesthetically pleasing will always exist; it just won't be conditioned by an external standard. The only thing it will do is allow everyone a chance to be happy. When the word is removed, so will the standard, therefore what will appeal to someone in the new world might be someone with a big nose, beady eyes, and buck teeth, and no one will ever criticize their choice of a partner.

You miss the point. Either that which people find aesthetically pleasing is determined by what they are taught or by what they innately find pleasing. Either way, anyone who does not conform to it will be considered ugly - whether the word exists or not.

Either that, or do away with aesthetics altogether.

No, personal attraction is just that...personal. It is not an artificial standard that tells people what is beautiful and what is ugly.

So a learned preference is bad, but an innate one is ok. Just like a learned distinction is bad, but an innate one is ok.

What is the difference in practical terms? Hurt occurs either way - whether I reject you because of personal standards or standards that I follow because society holds them.

He isn't saying that. He is saying that the word "beautiful" is a man-made standard, which conditions us to find attractive those that meet that standard. You wouldn't call the witch of the west pretty, would you? Those that fall below this line of demarcation would never be called "pretty", which sets them up for a lifelong of inferiority and low self-esteem. Yes, we get over it, but if it's false that we are not uglier or prettier than others, just different, why should we use words that falsely identify us?

Actually I kinda fancy the wicked witch. She reminds me of that lady that does the "Victorian farm" and "Edwardian farm" programmes on Discovery, and even though she is just about the opposite of a classical beauty she seems really lovely to me. There is a spark to her. Seeing her in period costumes really cheers me up.

Which just goes to show that we are not actually such moronic automatons as your father thought we all were.

Apart from that, we are proposing to do away with the word "pretty" altogether. So there is to be no more "finding the look of someone aesthetically pleasing" - whether the preference is taught or innate, or a mixture of both. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, but within the system you are embracing, that is not an option.

When it comes to talent, there is a standard that determines how well a person sings or plays an instrument. If this person doesn't meet the standard of what most people consider pleasing to the ear, then in the new world they will know they can't compete with the more professional musicians. If they try to compete and people walk out, they will quickly realize that their music is not pleasing to the majority of listeners. That doesn't mean they can't play as a hobby, but as a profession, they wouldn't be able to survive financially. More importantly, when we realize that we all have different talents (but that doesn't mean we are inferior intrinsically), we will not be hurt when we learn the truth; we will be helped to find out what our true gifts are.

Ah ok. So a learned standard is perfectly OK when it comes to music, but unacceptable when it comes to appearance?

I could make the same case for a beauty pageant - but they are reviled as being detrimental to self-esteem in the new system, whereas apparently performance in other fields is judged the hell out of, and that is perfectly ok.

There is a standard as to what a good job is. It is completing certain tasks within a reasonable amount of time. If an employer says you are doing a job badly (which only means doing a less than satisfactory job), it only means that you are not doing the job you were hired to do (which you knew about before being hired). In the new world you would do everything in your power to do a good job, because you would not be blamed for doing a bad one, even if you caused your employer to lose money.

And the standard for a good job is determined by society, just like the beauty-fashions that are supposedly such a bane. What exactly is the difference between not being able to do a job well and not being able to have looks according to the current fashion in beauty?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are quite right there is good music in all genres, but I might except 'rap' and 'punk', (personal preference) but quality can exist in any area. I had a friend who played in a rock band and he pointed out that most of the 'rips' and elements of any music could be traced back to the 'Classical' composers. So it seems that everything has its roots in Classical music, but some are more evolved than others, just like some people are more evolved than others.

I take exception to you mentioning punk in this respect. Obviously you don't get it. Punk is not about quality at all - it is about naive energy, and 3 chords played as loud as possible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I take exception to you mentioning punk in this respect. Obviously you don't get it. Punk is not about quality at all - it is about naive energy, and 3 chords played as loud as possible.

Oh, I do get that, I said it was personal preference, which negates 'good' as a qualifier, but I still have dificulty characterizing it as 'Music'. I thought it also included abuse of the audience?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I thought it also included abuse of the audience?

Did you learn about punks from Quincy?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Oh, I do get that, I said it was personal preference, which negates 'good' as a qualifier, but I still have dificulty characterizing it as 'Music'. I thought it also included abuse of the audience?

There are different opinions about that these days. I hear Johnny Rotten objects to being spit at these days even! But then again the pistols were to punk what Boyzone is to pop.

[But]

989 929

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because one has to do with sight, and one has to do with definitions that are also not accurate. I added an excerpt in the post above, so please scroll back.

1. The part where he compares the professors who discount his work to burglars breaking into a home, and comparing criticizing said professors to shooting burglars in the head.

2. His loathing of people who correctly stated that they are/were better educated than other people.

He was obviously talking about himself, and again about the professors who discounted his work.

You are so mistaken LadyShea, it just shows me how YOU are reading into this and coming to false conclusions about him and his intentions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He thought very highly of himself, but others didn't think highly of him, so in his fantasy New World he gets even by eliminating the words that made him feel inferior and making himself the hero who brought on the Golden Age.

Now you're off completely. It is very easy to misconstrue something when you only have an inkling of what that something is about. It's like looking at a tree and not seeing the forest. I have no control over how to choose to read into things.

If it does sound like sour grapes it's because I am posting out of order. You are getting the end before the beginning, which is my mistake. That's why I had to take the book offline. I'm doing what I told everyone not to do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Order has nothing to do with it. The whole book is littered with such arrogance for his own intelligence and loathing of those who dismissed his ideas.

Order has everything to do with it. I have read this book many times, and I know that I would not have been able to grasp these relations if I was in a similar situation as you are. He was not arrogant LadyShea. He was in a tough position and therefore challenged those who used a false standard to judge what they didn't even read. Isn't that what people are doing in here?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was in a tough position and therefore challenged those who used a false standard to judge what they didn't even read. Isn't that what people are doing in here?

No, we read the pile of crap, and that's why you took it offline. In your heart you know it's a pile of crap too, but can't admit it. You keep lying when you say people didn't read it, a tactic very revealing of your poor character.

He didn't "challenge" anyone. His claims were wrong, have been proven to be wrong, and you and he are nuts.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so mistaken LadyShea, it just shows me how YOU are reading into this and coming to false conclusions about him and his intentions.

The words he wrote and the phrasing he used sound like sour grapes to me for the reasons I detailed above. I didn't know the man, so can only draw conclusions from what he wrote. What he wrote sounds quite bitter indeed.

[quote]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He thought very highly of himself, but others didn't think highly of him, so in his fantasy New World he gets even by eliminating the words that made him feel inferior and making himself the hero who brought on the Golden Age.

not my fault that he was such a poor writer that it sounded like a revenge fantasy and not any kind of serious work of science.

He was in a tough position and therefore challenged those who used a false standard to judge what they didn't even read. Isn't that what people are doing in here?

He felt entitled to have his views reviewed by everyone from the President and other world leaders to top scientists and some kind of professors. That is arrogance.