A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, all he meant by "germinal substance" is the substance that we're all derived from, as I've already expressed. A and B, which represent the sperm and the ovum, don't die even though C, which represents the individuality of each person at birth, does die. I can't believe I'm doing this but I will post one excerpt from this chapter, but whether you like it or don't like it, understand it or don't understand it, tell me its nothing but crap, please let's not discuss this right now because one question leads to another, and this chapter is not what I came here to discuss. Lessans knew the importance of his third discovery, which is why he wrote the following:

Before I discuss the educational system in the new world and how
it will drastically change the way children learn, I shall reveal my final
discovery which will absolutely shock all mankind. In fact, I consider
it the most important discovery ever made on our planet, and it will
make you very happy. It is not easy to follow the reasoning but take
your time, and you will understand.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity pp. 497-498

Because you
are conscious of your existence and individuality during those years in
the present, write a book, build a home, make a lot of friends who cry
when you die, doesn’t take away from the fact that you are a
combination of A and B which continues in existence even while you
are alive, and regardless of what happens to C. Consequently, the
consciousness of your individuality without understanding that you
are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences that die,
but the germinal substance A and B which never die because they are
carried along from generation to generation and when united develop
into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation. Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived.

Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

I was eventually able to parse this gobbledygook because I read the other stuff that Lessans wrote on this topic, and it became quite evident that his views are shared by Tom Clark at naturalism.org and also by Wayne Stewart, who has posted online an entire book on the subject called "Metaphysics by Default." I've referred to this before.

Lessans is making a claim about consciousness, as are Clark and Stewart, so in fairness I think he is using "germinal substance" in a metaphorical way, but even if he isn't, his claim is still about consciousness. The claim is broadly consistent with a monistic idealist metaphysics.

Tom Clark's paper on the subject is here.

[davidm]

It is probably worth mentioning that the claim that Clark is defending in his essay, while consistent with monistic idealism, is inconsistent with metaphysical naturalism, which is what his site espouses. He seems not to have noticed this. Monistic idealism and metaphysical naturalism make diametrically opposed metaphysical claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The intimidation in here is supposed to scare me away? I'll go when I'm good and ready. The truth is you don't deserve my time and attention because your attitude is deplorable. NA, thedoc, and Davidm have brainwashed you. You imitate NA exactly.

Now I'm a brainwasher, one more for the resume.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The brain is no less subject to the laws of physics than is anything else.

Did I write that? Damn I'm good.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Indeed. That could be why I got no response from her family. It could be that they've already done all that can be done for her.

And I still strongly suspect that she is in an institution and expressing herself through these posts is part of her therapy.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Did I write that? Damn I'm good.

Whoa! Sorry about that! I must have messed up when I was editing.


Fixed now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And if you didn't disrespect me as you're doing, I would have talked to you. Do you realize that you are shooting yourself in the foot?

Is that (P) shooting, Ugh, Spacemonkey, go wash your foot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Whoa! Sorry about that! I must have messed up when I was editing.


Fixed now.

You didn't have to burst my bubble.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could care less Spacemonkey. You are the one that's losing out. Even if people are here to see me squirm, I got my message out as best I could under difficult circumstances. For those who are not sure about this discovery, at least they know it's out there if they ever want to read it or listen to the mp3.

Yeah Spacemoneky, you are a (P) looser. peacegirl got her message out and I'm sure everybody is taking in that message exactly as she intended. Her email in-box, voicemail and mailbox must be full of orders for the book and mp3. She is so vindicated. She got the last laugh!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Yeah Spacemoneky, you are a (P) looser. peacegirl got her message out and I'm sure everybody is taking in that message exactly as she intended. Her email in-box, voicemail and mailbox must be full of orders for the book and mp3. She is so vindicated. She got the last laugh!

As well she should. She has been (P) vindicated and has gotten the (P) last laugh. Should she now change her pants, - that depends?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Location changes cannot happen without a physical mechanism or process. You can't get your car from your driveway to the neighbors driveway without it traveling, right? Same thing here.

This one is almost too easy, LS. Sell the driveway to your neighbor. Now your car is in your neighbor's driveway. Voila! Problem solved.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

Modest guy, he.

Well, he was correct about that last part. It is not easy to follow his reasoning. This is due to the fact that his reasoning is mostly incoherent. The rest of the difficulty resides in the quality of his prose.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

As well she should. She has been (P) vindicated and has gotten the (P) last laugh. Should she now change her pants, - that depends?

Well it all depends, are you taking about her (P) pants?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You didn't have to burst my bubble.

Thanks to LadyShea for introducing me to bubbles.

There is a vast, unexplored domain of smilies here; to explore it, I recommend what I call the Random Tenfold Way: When Null and I play chess, we always append each move with a smilie from "Ten Random Smilies." In this way we discover much about FF smilietude.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

I was eventually able to parse this gobbledygook because I read the other stuff that Lessans wrote on this topic, and it became quite evident that his views are shared by Tom Clark at naturalism.org and also by Wayne Stewart, who has posted online an entire book on the subject called "Metaphysics by Default." I've referred to this before.

Oh, come on. Are Clark and Stewart saying that consciousness flows through human history on an actual, literal river of jizz?

[LadyShea]

LOL wrong thread

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh, come on. Are Clark and Stewart saying that consciousness flows through human history on an actual, literal river of jizz?

You'll have to ask them. I and others have talked to Wayne Stewart online about his ideas, and he does NOT like to be challenged on them.

[Stephen Maturin]

I could overlook Clark and/or Stewart leaving out the river of jizz part, but it would be wholly unforgivable if they're not down with the whole "there's nothing blameworthy about the Holocaust because the Nazis were just following the path of greater satisfaction, and in any event the Holocaust was necessary to prepare humankind for the Golden Age" thing.

[davidm]

You know, I had forgotten that comment by The Great Man, thanks for jogging my memory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I could overlook Clark and/or Stewart leaving out the river of jizz part, but it would be wholly unforgivable if they're not down with the whole "there's nothing blameworthy about the Holocaust because the Nazis were just following the path of greater satisfaction, and in any event the Holocaust was necessary to prepare humankind for the Golden Age" thing.

Holy moly, is this your take away? And you think you understand this book? This knowledge doesn't excuse the behavior of the past, it prevents it. If you knew that this knowledge could do that, even if you were skeptical as to how this could be accomplished, wouldn't you be interested? Of course not, because now you've committed yourself to disagreeing with anything Lessans has to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You know, I had forgotten that comment by The Great Man, thanks for jogging my memory.

This just shows everyone that you have a convenient selective memory. Your memory needs a lot more than jogging. How can anyone understand any book, for that matter, when there are huge chunks of information that have been skipped over?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This just shows everyone that you have a convenient selective memory. Your memory needs a lot more than jogging. How can anyone understand any book, for that matter, when there are huge chunks of information that have been skipped over?

Do you really think you're in a position to be criticizing other people's memory?

If I bump my questions again, will you attempt to answer any of them? [Yes or No]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you really think you're in a position to be criticizing other people's memory?

If I bump my questions again, will you attempt to answer any of them? [Yes or No]

Absolutely not. I am tired of the position you're coming from, which would deem your conclusion absolute and airtight. It does not do that, so I will not continue this charade.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not.

So if you won't even try to answer questions on either Lessans' first or second non-discovery, what are you doing here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So if you won't even try to answer questions on either Lessans' first or second non-discovery, what are you doing here?

I'm done talking about light and eyes and sight and Supernovas. I hope it doesn't ruin your interest in other aspects of Lessans' discoveries. It probably will which is very unfortunate. Lessans knew what he was up against, but that didn't stop him from expressing what he believed to be true. Should it stop me from trying to get people to investigate? Absolutely not. Why in the world would I not continue on when it is you people who are jumping to the conclusion that I am mentally ill? For any objective observer, this is absolutely insane. And why would you condemn him for putting forth a conclusion based on ASTUTE observations which ultimately brought him to these conclusions? Finally, why would you be so quick to throw his observations out? I really don't get it because you are supposed to be the best of the best, but you are turning out to be the most obnoxious group I've ever come across.