A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

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.

Do you see what I mean Lars? I can't.

[Stephen Maturin]

Mathematical, scientific, and undeniable (that is to say, undeniable, undeniable, and undeniable) truths from the True Steward of the Authentic Text:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Friends, gather ye round and hear the tale of Harry and Becky, husband and wife. You won't find this take in peacegirl's Corrupted Text, because she censored it. Fortunately, I, the most loyal True Steward of the Authentic Text, am here to rescue it!

Harry, unsatisfied with Becky, his "big fat sloppy nagging wife," is engaged in an adulterous affair with Mary. He is, as we will see, wrecking that ass.

Harry, having read Lessans, resolves to divorce fat Becky.

He provides copies of Lessans' book to both Becky and Mary. Mary inquires as to whether reducing the income of his wife and child makes their life more difficult - Harry says that it does, but reminds us that, after all, Becky is fat.

Harry and Mary proceed to engage in sexual relations. Harry notes that he could never perform this particular sexual act on his "big fat slob" wife.

Harry invites Mary to "turn around." Mary remarks that in order be married in the New World (i.e. to engage in sexual intercourse without contraception or perversion), she would need to "turn around" as contraception "includes this position." Harry is fucking Mary in the ass.

In the meantime, Harry's big fat slob wife, whom he has left because she is a big fat nagging slob, has read the book. She realizes that the problem is that she is fat. She resolves to "get back into shape." She goes on a blitz diet and visits a weight loss salon daily.

Harry returns to Becky. Becky cooks him his favorite dinner. No longer fat, Becky arouses her husband anew, and they engage in a sexual act. Harry realizes that he would be mathematically prevented from fucking Mary in the ass again. Lessans reminds us that not getting fat is of paramount in marriage, followed immediately by getting your partner horny BUT NO TOUCHING.

[peacegirl]

To LarsMac, FX, or anyone else who might be interested in understanding this discovery and how it will benefit mankind, you can start by reading the first three chapters. Here is the link again.

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

[LarsMac]

The first off switch for me was the notion that "Man formed a theory that the Earth was flat..."
First men probably never thought that far. Men probably never gave flatness a thought until some guy said, "Ya know, I think that the world might be round."

Then, the idea that we humans have made it all the way from wandering around eating whatever didn't kill them or make them wish that somebody would invent Pepto-Bismol, to putting spacecraft in a trajectory to escape the Solar System without ever having a sense of self direction, is laughable.

You've obviously never had a child, or even a Kitten if you can buy into that notion.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To LarsMac, FX, or anyone else who might be interested in understanding this discovery and how it will benefit mankind, you can start by reading the first three chapters. Here is the link again.

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

I've read that, actually, and seriously, the "prose" is less than spellbinding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

The first off switch for me was the notion that "Man formed a theory that the Earth was flat..."
First men probably never thought that far. Men probably never gave flatness a thought until some guy said, "Ya know, I think that the world might be round."

Then, the idea that we humans have made it all the way from wandering around eating whatever didn't kill them or make them wish that somebody would invent Pepto-Bismol, to putting spacecraft in a trajectory to escape the Solar System without ever having a sense of self direction, is laughable.

You've obviously never had a child, or even a Kitten if you can buy into that notion.

How does this relate? Self-direction isn’t removed. The presumptions get in the way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

I've read that, actually, and seriously, the "prose" is less than spellbinding.

Maybe so, but the form is not as important as the content. You read it and have nothing more to say other than the prose is less than spellbinding!? I don’t think this book is for you unfortunately.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

I've read that, actually, and seriously, the "prose" is less than spellbinding.

Ugh, for real, right? The prose of the Corrupted Text is dull and flaccid to the point of banality, sadly denuded of all that was numinous and joyful in the Authentic Text. Fortunately, some years ago I rescued the Authentic Text from corruption, and realized my role as the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

We here at interpret the Authentic Text as written by the author, and published in his lifetime.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe so, but the form is not as important as the content. You read it and have nothing more to say other than the prose is less than spellbinding!? I don’t think this book is for you unfortunately.

If you are trying to relay a message to people, you really need to be able to keep their interest long enough to get to the point.

Failing that, you're just contributing to the babble.

[davidm]

Peacegirl, have you already forgotten how to use quote tags?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Uh, peacegirl, that’s exactly what I wrote, in my own words. Perhaps you should try to read for comprehension, and without the usual grudge on your shoulder?

How about this:

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. The flip side is that nothing can make us move in a direction that we don’t permit. We don’t permit it, because such a direction would give us less satisfaction, not more.

I mean, look Seymour said exactly what I said, in my own words, RIGHT HERE:

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.

So, I said what Seymour said, but in my own words. That’s what you kept asking for all these years, right, again and again? For someone to explain what Seymour said in his or her own words? Well, I did.

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.

Again, can you read for comprehension? I did not say it was about “turning the other cheek.” I said it was about PREVENTION. Look, I said it right here:

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.

Where is there anything about “turning the other cheek” in the above?

Peacegirl: Again, you are conflating striking a first blow with retaliation. Retaliation is justified if one is hurt first.

Right. I JUST SAID 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.

Again, peacegirl, you are failing to read for comprehension. Did you miss the part where I said that once it is UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD that no one will be blamed, etc.? The “universally understood” part, kind of, you know, covers, in a succinct two words, your longer and windier “It will reign once this knowledge is confirmed sound by science and the Great Transition commences.”

But look how I’ve drawn you out to make an effort to explain all this in your own words! Something you couldn’t be bothered with for six or so years in this forum!

Incidentally, why are you back? Did even you finally tire of the loons, lackwits, fucktards, mouth breathers, knuckle walkers and various and sundry wankers at the ill-named I Love Philosophy forum?

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Ugh, for real, right? The prose of the Corrupted Text is dull and flaccid to the point of banality, sadly denuded of all that was numinous and joyful in the Authentic Text. Fortunately, some years ago I rescued the Authentic Text from corruption, and realized my role as the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

We here at interpret the Authentic Text as written by the author, and published in his lifetime.

And, where, pray tell, might one find such "Authentic Text" ?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Incidentally, why are you back?

Today of all days, she should be atoning rather than squabbling with strangers on the internet. However, as always, the siren song of my germinal substance renders it impossible for her to stay away.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Today of all days, she should be atoning rather than squabbling with strangers on the internet. However, as always, the siren song of my germinal substance renders it impossible for her to stay away.

Hold on there, Maturin. You may have to compete with the germinal substance of disobey.

[Stephen Maturin]

No competition needed, man! Those two were meant for each other! Throw in Jerome and they'd be a near-perfect throuple.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

No competition needed, man! Those two were meant for each other!

I think that they ARE each other.

Throw in Jerome and they'd be a near-perfect throuple.

That would be fun. Though Jerome seems a tad more educated than those two.

[davidm]

peacegirl, what say you about a throuple with disobey and Jerome? One night is OK; you can all walk away with No Blame.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

If you are trying to relay a message to people, you really need to be able to keep their interest long enough to get to the point.

Failing that, you're just contributing to the babble.

If the book can't hold your interest, then in your case it's a lost cause, and that's okay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Today of all days, she should be atoning rather than squabbling with strangers on the internet. However, as always, the siren song of my germinal substance renders it impossible for her to stay away.

I have nothing to atone for.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the book can't hold your interest, then in your case it's a lost cause, and that's okay.

Well, the author bears some responsibility for holding the reader's attention, dear child.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, have you already forgotten how to use quote tags?

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.

Yes, but that's not the main point. The main point is that determinism cannot make a person do anything against their will. That is the confusion with the conventional definition. People believe that determinism means that something is being imposed on them whether or not they want it.

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 agree to. 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.

Originally Posted by DavidM

Uh, peacegirl, that’s exactly what I wrote, in my own words. Perhaps you should try to read for comprehension, and without the usual grudge on your shoulder?

Who has the grudge on their shoulders? Clue: Not me.

Originally Posted by Davidm

How about this:

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. The flip side is that nothing can make us move in a direction that we don’t permit. We don’t permit it, because such a direction would give us less satisfaction, not more.

I mean, look Seymour said exactly what I said, in my own words, RIGHT HERE:

So, I said what Seymour said, but in my own words. That’s what you kept asking for all these years, right, again and again? For someone to explain what Seymour said in his or her own words? Well, I did.

All that is true, but it wasn't the point of that excerpt. He was making a distinction between his definition of determinism, and the conventional definition which is flawed. If we aren't sharing the same definition, no wonder people are confused.

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

Originally Posted by 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. The reason we will stop blaming is when the world knows that in doing so we are preventing the very thing blame and punishment came into existence. It's about prevention David, not turning the other cheek.

Originally Posted by davidm

Again, can you read for comprehension? I did not say it was about “turning the other cheek.” I said it was about PREVENTION. Look, I said it right here:

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.

Where is there anything about “turning the other cheek” in the above?

When you mention retaliation, you are presupposing that people will still be hurt. IOW, you are putting the cart before the horse.

Your synopsis is incomplete. I give you credit for trying, but it is far from an explanation that would make sense to someone new. You have simplified it to the point where a few sentences doesn't do it justice. If people are already hurt by society, not blaming them will not prevent them from desiring to strike back in retaliation if they feel justified. Therefore, in order to prevent the desire to strike back, the environmental conditions that lead to these desires must be removed.

In our present
world innumerable wars, revolutions, and crimes were a reaction to
various forms of hurt that did not allow any alternative but to retaliate
as a reaction to injustices inflicted on them. In other words, when
those about to fight back discover that they will no more be retaliated
upon, it is also necessary for them to realize that the factors
responsible for this consideration of war must also be removed; and
are they given any choice but to remove these factors when they know
that the people they have been hurting will never blame them for this?
For example, if the United States was tacitly blaming another nation
through some economic restriction, then disarming would be as
effective as the announcement of a tyrant that he is not going to judge
what is right for his people while starving them. Under these
conditions the principles in this book can have no effect. Let us
continue our analysis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Well, the author bears some responsibility for holding the reader's attention, dear child.

These principles are not easy to explain. The author did his best. The burden of responsibility is on the reader to meet the author half way. You have not done that. As seen in this thread, it's very easy to make a mockery of someone's work if that's the objective. It does not change the validity of the knowledge.

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read
thoroughly before any other reading is done, it is my hope that the
table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner.
Should you jump ahead and read other chapters this work could
appear like a fairy tale otherwise the statement that truth is stranger
than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by
yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical
relations.
If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be
discouraged because what follows will help you understand it much
better the second time around. This book was written in a dialogue
format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make
these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible. There is
a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing
important points and extending the principles in a more cohesive
fashion, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand
it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace reading
many things over and over again. When you have fully grasped the
full significance and magnitude of this work, and further realize there
has never been and will never be another like it because of what is
undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The burden of responsibility is on the reader to meet the author half way.

If "we cannot move in the direction of what is least satisfying when a more satisfying option is available" how can a reader can be held responsible for not readying unsatisfying prose?

I guess the writer can't be held responsible for writing unsatisfying prose either, presumably a more satisfying option was available.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by fragment

If "we cannot move in the direction of what is least satisfying when a more satisfying option is available" how can a reader can be held responsible for not readying unsatisfying prose?

I guess the writer can't be held responsible for writing unsatisfying prose either, presumably a more satisfying option was available.

A reader is not being held responsible in that sense. You’re mixing two different definitions of responsibility. For example, it is my responsibility to pick up the children from school. I am not being held responsible if I fail to live up to what is my responsibility. See the difference?

[specious_reasons]

Suggestion for peacegirl: walk away again. No minds here will be changed.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A reader is not being held responsible in that sense. You’re mixing two different definitions of responsibility. For example, it is my responsibility to pick up the children from school. I am not being held responsible if I fail to live up to what is my responsibility. See the difference?

No.

But it doesn't matter, allow me to ask a modified question.

How can someone have a "burden of responsibility" "when a more satisfying option is available"?