A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Fuck off, cunt.

Man, how did I miss this amazing two part epic thread?

[-FX-]

Unlike most threads, this one took almost as long as a novel to get through. And way too much multiquote and responding.

[Stephen Maturin]

Thanks once again to Lady Shea, who RUINED IT FOR EVERYONE.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Man, how did I miss this amazing two part epic thread?

This was a sad ending to a thread that held promise. Unfortunately, people can turn anything into an absurdity if that’s the goal. How can anyone make headway in an environment like this? This thread is impossible to read through in order to understand what this discovery is about. If you’re interested you can read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil to get an idea of what this thread was about.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was a sad ending to a thread that held promise. Unfortunately, people can turn anything into an absurdity if that’s the goal. How can anyone make headway in an environment like this? This thread is impossible to read through in order to understand what this discovery is about. If you’re interested you can read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil to get an idea of what this thread was about.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Oh peacegirl, your dedication to this material is unfathomable to me. I hope you're doing well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Oh peacegirl, your dedication to this material is unfathomable to me. I hope you're doing well.

I don't understand why it's unfathomable to you that I'm dedicated to this discovery. I don't think you analyzed the book as thoroughly as you might have thought. It's discombobulating to me how a work can be so misconstrued. What can I say? I'm doing well. Thanks for asking. I hope you're doing well too.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand why it's unfathomable to you that I'm dedicated to this discovery. I don't think you analyzed the book as thoroughly as you might have thought. It's discombobulating to me how a work can be so misconstrued. What can I say? I'm doing well. Thanks for asking. I hope you're doing well too.

My dad was an extremely intelligent person who had deep knowledge about some subjects. Years after his death, I still quote some of things he told me. However, I'm not precious about his ideas. If they're not true, they're not true. Dad had some notions that only work if you have specific goals and those goals didn't always line up with mine. This is why your dedication is so unfathomable to me.

My summer has been terrible, but it's getting better.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

My dad was an extremely intelligent person who had deep knowledge about some subjects. Years after his death, I still quote some of things he told me. However, I'm not precious about his ideas. If they're not true, they're not true. Dad had some notions that only work if you have specific goals and those goals didn't always line up with mine. This is why your dedication is so unfathomable to me.

My summer has been terrible, but it's getting better.

You’re right that ideas, wherever they originate, are either true or not. That’s the only test that matters. I can see why you think my dedication is unfashionable based on your experience. I’m sorry to hear that your summer was terrible. I hope that things get better from here on! Life can give us curve balls, that’s for sure!!

[LarsMac]

Well, I tried.
The whole thing reminds me of the babbling of a Speed Freak that I knew in New Orleans, back in the 60s.

We sat by the river for days, going on about determinism and probability and fate.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Well, I tried.
The whole thing reminds me of the babbling of a Speed Freak that I knew in New Orleans, back in the 60s.

We sat by the river for days, going on about determinism and probability and fate.

Tried to read the thread? Good luck with that.

Summary: Lessans, peacegirl's father, was a self-taught philosopher who wrote (multiple versions of) a book thinking he had solved the issue of peace in our time. Peacegirl then collected his works, edited them, added her own panache to parts, and self-published it. She's been trying to get attention for the book by arguing with random discussion forums about it. The actual philosophical arguments were pretty much demolished by others here. Lessans also had some... novel ideas on other subjects, which garner the most amusement and take up almost all of the discussion.

Peacegirl practically can't help herself to argue, and she only has a few poor arguments, which she repeats endlessly. Accusing someone of not reading or not properly understanding the book is literally the first thing she'll do.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Book sales. Money. Dead presidents. First three chapters free.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Well, I tried.
The whole thing reminds me of the babbling of a Speed Freak that I knew in New Orleans, back in the 60s.

We sat by the river for days, going on about determinism and probability and fate.

Sifting through this thread could never help you to understand what this discovery is about or whether it is sound. It would be a lost cause.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Book sales. Money. Dead presidents. First three chapters free.

You hardly participated. If that's what you got from this discussion, it's no wonder you don't have a clue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Tried to read the thread? Good luck with that.

Summary: Lessans, peacegirl's father, was a self-taught philosopher who wrote (multiple versions of) a book thinking he had solved the issue of peace in our time. Peacegirl then collected his works, edited them, added her own panache to parts, and self-published it. She's been trying to get attention for the book by arguing with random discussion forums about it. The actual philosophical arguments were pretty much demolished by others here. Lessans also had some... novel ideas on other subjects, which garner the most amusement and take up almost all of the discussion.

Peacegirl practically can't help herself to argue, and she only has a few poor arguments, which she repeats endlessly. Accusing someone of not reading or not properly understanding the book is literally the first thing she'll do.

Specious, to be fair to me, if you're so sure his first discovery is inaccurate, then you should be able to point out where. Explain yourself. The people here did nothing to actually disprove his claims. They just mocked and it turned into a circus. You know the people who were good at demolishing me with ad hominems. I didn't deserve it.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sifting through this thread could never help you to understand what this discovery is about or whether it is sound. It would be a lost cause.

I skipped sifting through this thread, and went straight to trying to read your "book"
Same results. As Gertude Stein once put it, "There is no there there."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

I skipped sifting through this thread, and went straight to trying to read your "book"
Same results. As Gertude Stein once put it, "There is no there there."

What do you mean "there is no there there"? There is a lot there if you take the time to carefully read what is written. You can't tell me you read and didn't get anything from it. What is the discovery LarsMac? Nothing is hidden. You're just mimicking people.

[davidm]

Here is the discovery.

We are always moving in the direction of what we perceive to be greater satisfaction, hence we have no free will, because we are not free to choose the course of less satisfaction. However, this also means no one can make us do what we don’t want to do, because what we don’t want to do is invariably what we find less satisfying.

We often find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow against someone, or in lashing out at someone who has hurt us. Hence, we must strike a first blow or lash out in retaliation for any harm done us (we must do these things, because they give us greater satisfaction and we have no free will). But, once it is recognized we have no free will, we will stop blaming and punishing people for striking a first blow or lashing out in retaliation, because we know they can’t help themselves.

Once it is universally understood that no one will be blamed or punished for striking a first blow or for retaliating, no one will want to do those things, because striking a first blow or retaliating will provide less satisfaction than refraining from these activities. This is because our conscience will not permit us to strike a first blow or retaliate if we know in advance we will not be blamed or punished for doing so. Indeed, once people stop striking a first blow, retaliation will be superfluous anyway, since there will be nothing to retaliate against. At this point world peace will reign.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here is the discovery.

We are always moving in the direction of what we perceive to be greater satisfaction, hence we have no free will, because we are not free to choose the course of less satisfaction. However, this also means no one can make us do what we don’t want to do, because what we don’t want to do is invariably what we find less satisfying.

We often find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow against someone, or in lashing out at someone who has hurt us. Hence, we must strike a first blow or lash out in retaliation for any harm done us (we must do these things, because they give us greater satisfaction and we have no free will). But, once it is recognized we have no free will, we will stop blaming and punishing people for striking a first blow or lashing out in retaliation, because we know they can’t help themselves.

Once it is universally understood that no one will be blamed or punished for striking a first blow or for retaliating, no one will want to do those things, because striking a first blow or retaliating will provide less satisfaction than refraining from these activities. This is because our conscience will not permit us to strike a first blow or retaliate if we know in advance we will not be blamed or punished for doing so. Indeed, once people stop striking a first blow, retaliation will be superfluous anyway, since there will be nothing to retaliate against. At this point world peace will reign.

Um, yeah,..., THNX for clearing that up.

This all seems to presuppose that we are all just wandering around looking to smack someone, or watching out for someone looking to smack them.

I've never lived in such a world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Um, yeah,..., THNX for clearing that up.

This all seems to presuppose that we are all just wandering around looking to smack someone, or watching out for someone looking to smack them.

I've never lived in such a world.

There is so much more to this knowledge than how DavidM presented it. The fact that you think this presupposes we are just wandering around looking to smack someone confirms that this short synopsis has done more harm than good.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is so much more to this knowledge than how DavidM presented it. The fact that you think this presupposes we are just wandering around looking to smack someone confirms that this short synopsis has done more harm than good.

Really? What’s wrong with it? Be specific.

Of course, for seven years here, you wouldn’t or couldn’t write a short synopsis of the discovery, but I just did, and now you say it’s done “more harm than good.” Tell me specifically what is wrong with it, if you can. You can’t, because that IS the “discovery,” reduced to three paragraphs instead of 600 or so pages.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Money didn’t change hands, therefore harm.

[LarsMac]

We are all self directed. The problem we seem to have is that we cannot accept that the things that happen to us in life are generally the result of one of two cases.
1. We suffer or benefit from the consequences of our own actions, or
2. we suffer, or benefit from the side effects of other peoples actions which were completely irrelevant to our own planning or actions.

In other words, shit happens.
Stop trying to affix blame or credit for the shit that happens to you.

You'll be much happier, and if you're happy, the world will be a better place. Then you can spend your time doing shit that helps make other people happier.

[davidm]

So go ahead, Peacegirl, write a three-paragraph summary of the “discovery,” and compare it to mine. I don’t think you can do it. You ought to thank me, because you know perfectly well there is nothing wrong with my summary.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Really? What’s wrong with it? Be specific.

Of course, for seven years here, you wouldn’t or couldn’t write a short synopsis of the discovery, but I just did, and now you say it’s done “more harm than good.” Tell me specifically what is wrong with it, if you can. You can’t, because that IS the “discovery,” reduced to three paragraphs instead of 600 or so pages.

Peacegirl: You did a lousy job David. You can't reduce this discovery to a few sentences without gaps in the knowledge. There is so much missing that anyone who read this would lose interest. Look how Lars responded. I don't know if you have intentionally done this, or if you actually think your rendition of this discovery that took years to transcribe, is representative. It's not.

David: We are always moving in the direction of what we perceive to be greater satisfaction, hence we have no free will, because we are not free to choose the course of less satisfaction.

Peacegirl: This part is true. The explanation as to why this is so, is in the first chapter. It is a fact that we cannot move in the direction of what is least satisfying when a more satisfying option is available. You can test this yourself.

David: However, this also means no one can make us do what we don’t want to do, because what we don’t want to do is invariably what we find less satisfying.

Peacegirl: This has nothing to do with greater satisfaction. You said: " This also means." It doesn't also mean anything. He was demonstrating that although we are compelled to move in one direction only, the flip side is that nothing can make us move in a direction that we don't permit. This is what the standard definition states, and it makes determinism appear as if we are being forced to do something against our will. Nothing can do this.

Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

David: We often find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow against someone, or in lashing out at someone who has hurt us. Hence, we must strike a first blow or lash out in retaliation for any harm done us (we must do these things, because they give us greater satisfaction and we have no free will). But, once it is recognized we have no free will, we will stop blaming and punishing people for striking a first blow or lashing out in retaliation, because we know they can’t help themselves.

Peacegirl: A first blow David is not the same thing as a retaliatory blow. You are conflating both of them as if they're one and the same. All wrong. The reason we will stop blaming is when the world knows that in doing so we are preventing the very thing blame and punishment were previously necessary. It's about prevention David, not turning the other cheek.

David: Once it is universally understood that no one will be blamed or punished for striking a first blow or for retaliating, no one will want to do those things, because striking a first blow or retaliating will provide less satisfaction than refraining from these activities. This is because our conscience will not permit us to strike a first blow or retaliate if we know in advance we will not be blamed or punished for doing so. Indeed, once people stop striking a first blow, retaliation will be superfluous anyway, since there will be nothing to retaliate against. At this point world peace will reign.

Peacegirl: Again, you are conflating striking a first blow with retaliation. Retaliation is justified if one is hurt first. He was demonstrating how we can prevent the first blow from being struck, thus preventing the need to retaliate. You got the second part right. Retaliation is a reaction against hurt done to us. When no one is hurting us, do we need to retaliate? At this point, many factors in the environment must be removed before these principles can take effect. You are making a joke out of this knowledge by saying at this point world peace will reign. It will reign once this knowledge is confirmed sound by science and the Great Transition commences.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I hope you're doing well.

So long as the American taxpayers are paying all her bills, such that she remains on the OPM gravy train for life, ol' peacegirl will do just fine.

Originally Posted by davidm

Really? What’s wrong with it? Be specific.

Of course, for seven years here, you wouldn’t or couldn’t write a short synopsis of the discovery, but I just did, and now you say it’s done “more harm than good.”

Ever since the 100% nonreligious God (a euphemism for impersonal forces of nature) appointed ChuckF as the True Steward of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy - embodied in the Authentic Text penned and published during the author's lifetime, as opposed to the buffoonishly inept train wreck that is peacegirl's Corrupted Text - we've discovered how shockingly little she knows about ol' Seymour's work. That being true, I predict that any response to your perfectly legitimate query will consist exclusively of reams of gibbering, drooling gobbledygook.

I know that as certainly as I know that dogs cannot recognize supernovae by sight alone.