A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My children have their own lives.

Good. Another generation will be spared the ignominy of obsession with the stupid. You a progressed beyond the Phelps family.

It will die the death it should have died long ago.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

No. I am not retaliating, I am simply responding. You may not like what I am saying, but that is up to you.

And I am not talking about Lessans' assertions, I am talking about yours. You are the one saying "The truth is, the more our world develops, the more it is in keeping with the book. " and "The accuracy of this book is only verified as time goes on. "

But that is true wildernesse. He was way ahead of his time, and the more time goes by the more I see changes that are in keeping with these principles. What's so terrible about saying this? Actually, years ago people would have laughed in my face more than they're doing now because of the mindset people had regarding marriage. The mere thought of people not getting married and living together was considered sin, yet today people are living together more than ever, and refusing to get married legally. That's just one of the things I see that are in keeping with these principles.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Several of the other posters here have provided examples of experiments as well as discussed what we know on various different points that have shown Lessans to be ignorant of science and wrong. It is not true what you are saying about this book.

Whatever! If you have made your mind up, then you are not meant to read this book. What more can I say.

Your justification is that I am ruining the name of science so you feel entitled to strike back at me.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Where have I ever said that? I do not think you are ruining the name of science. I do not think what you are doing has any relation to science, but that isn't bothering science one bit.

It's so funny to me that no one reads the book, takes everything out of context, and then tells me that it has no relation to science. That is a very scientific observation.

No, I did not say observing a scenario is undeniable proof. Undeniable proof of what? His observations were over many years of voracious reading. From his reading (which included reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times) he came to certain conclusions about the nature of conscience. From his careful observations, he accurately described how conscience works and how it could be made stronger or weaker.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

And my observations are not made based on many years of voracious reading? I have read Anne of Green Gables far more than 7 times in my life. When you say "accurately described how conscience works" you are not being truthful, because you have not shown that this is the case. You have provided no reasons to make this bald statement believable. It is just puffery. A good, strong paragraph would have deleted the last sentence, and included some details or description of what his conclusions are and how they led from his reading.

People want to know something about this author. I never said that his getting top marks in the army meant that his discovery was right, but it was to show that he had capability. By the same token, I am showing people that he read voraciously. His discovery didn't come out of thin air. He examined and probed and observed human nature. No, this in itself doesn't mean more than that, but it does show that he did more than observe a few samples and made a claim as big as this. I am trying to show you how conscience does work in this predictable way. Whether you see the validity of this, I'm not sure, but that doesn't make his observations incorrect. It is not a bald statement at all. I have no idea what you disagree with when he says that we must have a justification (even if it's not easily seen) to hurt others. That is the role of conscience. As far as him explaining how his reading led to his discovery, it's almost impossible because there wasn't a direct cause and effect link. It was his overall knowledge base, and his incredible analytical ability, that allowed him to come up with his discovery.

You blame me for 70 pages of nonsense, when I asked people to cooperate so we could move forward.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

It is not the other posters' fault that you fail to provide details, reasons, or address their concerns. Plus, you are not constrained by anyone here, you could just keep up a monologue outlining the ideas.

Do you see what happened when davidm tried to ruin it for this author? Do you see what happens when I post things out of order. I am explaining things in my own words, but if you really truly were interested in the book, you would take the time to read it carefully. But I believe you would think you were taken by some crank. That is the big lie.

You are not doing the same thing as me because your proof is one scenario; Lessans carefully observed thousands of instances. As far as the senses, I am offering a different model based on Lessans' observations. I don't see that his claims are false by now. That's probably what's aggravating you. I haven't caved and given in from the pressure. If you think I'm beyond reason, so be it. It's not up to you to rehabilitate me.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Ok. Let's be clear. I am talking about what YOU are saying about Lessans' ideas, when you say things like ""The truth is, the more our world develops, the more it is in keeping with the book. " and "The accuracy of this book is only verified as time goes on. " and "accurately described how conscience works". Those assertions are made by YOU, and they are provided without reason and in opposition to evidence provided by other posters here on this board. Your claims about Lessans' work are false, or at the very least overblown.

No they're not wildernesse. I have not offered a claim without an explanation. You are depending solely on people in here who also have not read the book. Their refutations don't hold any weight whatsoever.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Re-evaluating your ideas based on new evidence is not caving, btw. We don't want you to accept our ideas because there are more of us or we are emphatic or repetitive. Rebutting our ideas with reasonable conclusions that show that your ideas are not in conflict with other evidence would not be caving, either.

That's what I'm trying to do. But because these principles are so far removed from present day thinking, it might be a lost cause in here. People are too protective of their worldview and will not open their minds enough to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, therefore they will keep saying these claims are nothing more than assertions.

[Doctor X]

How INTERESTING!

JREF

NoDeity 1st September 2003, 01:04 PM

Do I correctly assume that a claim that directly contradicts well-established science would probably qualify as "paranormal" for purposes of the challenge, even if the claimant does not think that their claim is a paranormal one?

I have been in contact with someone who claims that the eyes are not sensory organs and that image data is not transmitted by light -- that images do not come to us "on wings of light" but rather that we see by "looking out" (she is unable to provide a coherent explanation of what that means). She claims that if the sun were to explode, we would see the event immediately, not about 8 minutes later.

NoDeity 1st September 2003, 03:08 PM
She doesn't have her own web site. We are encouraging her to set one up. She's been posting her stuff in various newsgroups and forums, including our Graveyard of the Gods forum, and she keeps complaining about not being allowed to post page after page after page of impenetrable prose -- so I keep suggesting to her that if she had her own site...

The claims about light and sight are part of a book she's promoting, called Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times by by Seymour Lessans: http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/02-1045.html There's an excerpt there.

It seems like typical crank stuff. The reason the ideas have been rejected by academia is not that they are unfounded but that the author doesn't have the correct formal credentials, dontcha know.

The introductory blurb claims that the book "contains a scientific discovery based on a natural psychological law which was hidden so carefully behind layers of dogma in the guise of truth that it wasn't found until now". I'm sure we've all heard claims like that before. Still, since it is supposedly "scientific", it should be testable. (I've asked her not to pester me about her notions any more until she is able to suggest a means of testing them and I think that probably means "never".)

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's so funny to me that no one reads the book, . . . .

But they do . . . and when they quote its nonsense back to you you cry about it

You are akin to biblical fundamentalists who declare one should "just read the Bible" then take an incontinent fit when shown what is actually in the texts.

Not surprising, given how religious the author of the book you apparently never read but promote proved.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

(I've asked her not to pester me about her notions any more until she is able to suggest a means of testing them and I think that probably means "never".)

Eight years begins to approach "never" in the scientific community. As more than one has joked, "data not shown" means "experiments not done."

--J.D.

[DaveT]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where the past isn't necessary. It already happened so it had to happen based on the same exact circumstances. If I was born all over again, and the environment was exactly the same, my choices would be exactly the same. If any of the determinants (or the factors) leading up to a person's choices were altered, then you would not get the same result. It is absolutely true that at all possible worlds (unless those worlds have different environmental influences), JFK would be assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963.

I just love how you include the reason why you're wrong in the parentheses.

So, even though there would be worlds in which JFK would not be assassinated (such as those worlds which differ from other worlds), it is still necessarily true that JFK would be assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963, eh?

What else have you got? It is necessarily true that the dinosaurs would have died out when they did, except in those worlds in which that fucking meteor (or whatever) missed the Earth, but let's ignore those and kill the dinosaurs ourselves, just for the sake of necessary truth.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is true wildernesse. He was way ahead of his time, and the more time goes by the more I see changes that are in keeping with these principles. What's so terrible about saying this? Actually, years ago people would have laughed in my face more than they're doing now because of the mindset people had regarding marriage. The mere thought of people not getting married and living together was considered sin, yet today people are living together more than ever, and refusing to get married legally. That's just one of the things I see that are in keeping with these principles.

I find it hard to believe that people are laughing at you less at this point in time. Anyway, even if the book says that people will not get married in the future and fewer people are getting married, that does not mean that his reason is why they are not.

Whatever! If you have made your mind up, then you are not meant to read this book. What more can I say.

LOL.

It's so funny to me that no one reads the book, takes everything out of context, and then tells me that it has no relation to science. That is a very scientific observation.

I have read some of the book. I read all of the points you quoted back to davidm, and trudged through the 14 pages or whatever you wanted us to read. I have also read other people's objections to it, and have my own, about the complete ignorance of the author when it comes to biology, evolution, linguistics, etc. His beliefs rest on his observations which do not align with what we currently know about the world. He is not doing science in this book.

I don't have to do science either to recognize that. In any event, calling it unscientific is not an actual insult. It could still have value as a philosophical work, even if it were not scientific. I don't think that it does, but you don't have to cling to some "it is science" statement in order for you to think it has value. Science, to me, is not some highest value for everything. So you can quit acting as if it is something that I require all things to meet. I don't.

People want to know something about this author. I never said that his getting top marks in the army meant that his discovery was right, but it was to show that he had capability. By the same token, I am showing people that he read voraciously. His discovery didn't come out of thin air. He examined and probed and observed human nature. No, this in itself doesn't mean more than that, but it does show that he did more than observe a few samples and made a claim as big as this. I am trying to show you how conscience does work in this predictable way. Whether you see the validity of this, I'm not sure, but that doesn't make his observations incorrect. It is not a bald statement at all. I have no idea what you disagree with when he says that we must have a justification (even if it's not easily seen) to hurt others. That is the role of conscience. As far as him explaining how his reading led to his discovery, it's almost impossible because there wasn't a direct cause and effect link. It was his overall knowledge base, and his incredible analytical ability, that allowed him to come up with his discovery.

There are lots of very smart, capable people out there. That does not mean that everything they do is good or right. You are right that my disagreeing does not make him incorrect, but it also does not mean that he is correct either.

Lord, help me. When you mentioned Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in support of the idea that your father was well read and that he used his readings to support his ideas, I thought this was irrelevant. The way to make it relevant would be to show a connection between what he learned from his reading (such as DaFotRE) and his conclusion. Otherwise, why bring it up? It is a stupid non-point. (Just like Anne of Green Gables and the number of times I have read it have no relevance and no support for my points.) It does not impress me or show that he was super intelligent or analytical. And now you say that you can't show a connection with it anyway. This is an example of stupid writing on your part, or why you are not a good communicator and should take people's advice about getting an editor.

Do you see what happened when davidm tried to ruin it for this author? Do you see what happens when I post things out of order. I am explaining things in my own words, but if you really truly were interested in the book, you would take the time to read it carefully. But I believe you would think you were taken by some crank. That is the big lie.

I am not interested in the book, truly or otherwise. I believe that would be obvious by now, and I think I have said before that no one here is truly interested in the book the way you want them to be.

davidm is not trying to ruin anything for this author. Posting things out of order does not ruin anything. It just takes control away from you, but so what?

No they're not wildernesse. I have not offered a claim without an explanation. You are depending solely on people in here who also have not read the book. Their refutations don't hold any weight whatsoever.

I HAVE READ PORTIONS OF THE BOOK MYSELF. So you are wrong. Their refutations do hold weight with me, because I know them and consider them to be reasonable people. Plus, I have objections of my own, based on my own reading, which certainly hold weight with me.

What doesn't hold any weight with me is your support for the book. You have not shown yourself to be a reasonable or knowledgeable person, or that you are capable of understanding what other people say and holding your own in a discussion. You don't care about building relationships with any of us, as shown by your sequestration in this thread. You are incapable of taking advice, even advice that would help you promote this book within this community.

That's what I'm trying to do. But because these principles are so far removed from present day thinking, it might be a lost cause in here. People are too protective of their worldview and will not open their minds enough to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, therefore they will keep saying these claims are nothing more than assertions.

Which is it? Principles are so far removed from present day thinking or everyday people are acting more and more in line with the author's ideas (like not getting married). I think we told you 50 pages ago that this was a lost cause here, but you don't listen to us whether we are talking about Lessans' ideas or ways to help us productively discuss this topic.

And if you showed any reason behind the assertions, people would stop saying they are assertions. It is not because they are close-minded--they have objections that are not answered to their satisfaction, and you do not provide any support for what you or Lessans say. You don't even seem to grasp the concept of supporting or relevant details. It is a little incredible.

Listen, peacegirl. You aren't making any headway here, and this is not because of other posters. It is mostly because of your own presentation and the ideas themselves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

How INTERESTING!

--J.D.

These posts were so far back in the day. I didn't know anything about forums or their rules or even the difference in philosophies. Boy did I learn fast. I already told you that NoDeity wasn't sure what Lessans had. He invited me to start a subforum. What is your goal Doctor X? What are you trying to prove by bringing up posts from the past, as if this proves something? You will not win Doctor X, so give it up.

[Kael]

As has been the case since this disturbingly fascinating train wreck started, peacegirl seems unwilling or unable to grapple with the idea that people can actually read the material yet disagree with it. If you disagree with it, you must not have read it. If you insist that you have, you must have read it out of order or without proper diligence. If you somehow find a way to prove you did that, yet still disagree, then you must not understand it.

If you were to take another 50 years reading it over and over until every tortuously written phrase is committed to memory, yet still disagree, I think it likely that peacegirl would still find a way to dismiss your objections, because you "will not open [your] mind enough to give Lessans the benefit of [a] doubt."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by DaveT

I just love how you include the reason why you're wrong in the parentheses.

So, even though there would be worlds in which JFK would not be assassinated (such as those worlds which differ from other worlds), it is still necessarily true that JFK would be assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963, eh?

What else have you got? It is necessarily true that the dinosaurs would have died out when they did, except in those worlds in which that fucking meteor (or whatever) missed the Earth, but let's ignore those and kill the dinosaurs ourselves, just for the sake of necessary truth.

You are making no sense Davidt as far I can see. Maybe it is true that dinosaurs would have not died out, if that fucking metoer (dam that meteor) didn't ruin everything. But it did. Sooooo????? What are you trying to say?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

As has been the case since this disturbingly fascinating train wreck started, peacegirl seems unwilling or unable to grapple with the idea that people can actually read the material yet disagree with it.

You keep harping on this as if to say that people who disagree are right. I told everyone that people can disagree. This is a free country. The issue here is whether their disagreement holds any weight. I have not seen any disagreement AT ALL, that disproves Lessans' very carefully constructed observations.

Originally Posted by Kael

If you disagree with it, you must not have read it. If you insist that you have, you must have read it out of order or without proper diligence. If you somehow find a way to prove you did that, yet still disagree, then you must not understand it.

That is not what I'm saying. There are definite standards that allow us to judge accuracy. Let me remind you what he said early on, which I posted so those reading could understand:

This discovery will be presented
in a step by step fashion that brooks no opposition and your
awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone
adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an
accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to
disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable
proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of
your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school,
how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you do for
a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything
else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to
judge what has not even been revealed to you yet.

Originally Posted by kael

If you were to take another 50 years reading it over and over until every tortuously written phrase is committed to memory, yet still disagree, I think it likely that peacegirl would still find a way to dismiss your objections, because you "will not open [your] mind enough to give Lessans the benefit of [a] doubt."

Twist it in any way that you want. Your conclusions don't hold any weight when it comes to our understanding of the absolute truth of human nature. All that I am doing is trying to expose something that was never before a part of our present day thinking.

[Kael]

Twist it in any way that you want, peacegirl. Lessans' conclusions don't hold any weight when it comes to our understanding of anything. All I am doing is trying to expose something that is made entirely of unsupported assertion, except where it has already been proven wrong.

[thedoc]

I BELIEVE ! we are all aproaching this from the wrong way. Lessans passed away many years ago and I doubt anyone here knew him. Since Lessans didn't know any of us he would have no reason to lie. And as a mathetical proof, if he has no reason to lie then it is not possable for his to lie. No reason to lie = not possable to lie. As scientific evidence, we will conduct a simple, testable, observational-experiment. Is there anyone here who calims to have known Lessans before he died? If there is no-one, there is therefore no reason for Lessans to have any justification to hurt anyone here by lying. So with no evidence of any contact, social or professional, there is no justificaton to hurt, = no reason to lie, = not possable to lie, therefore Lessans must be telling the truth and everything in his book is true. Anyone who still disagrees, must not understand, and therefore must go back and read the book again with this new realization of the truth contained there-in. Amen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Twist it in any way that you want, peacegirl. Lessans' conclusions don't hold any weight when it comes to our understanding of anything. All I am doing is trying to expose something that is made entirely of unsupported assertion, except where it has already been proven wrong.

Why are you here if you don't even see the potential of something coming to fruition? I feel sorry for people who feel stuck on this thread for entertainment value only. That gets old very quickly. If you don't feel that there is any possibility that Lessans could be right, there's no point in being here. Kael, for your mental health and well-being, I would not blame you if you moved on.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you here if you don't even see the potential of something coming to fruition? I feel sorry for people who feel stuck on this thread for entertainment value only. That gets old very quickly. If you don't feel that there is any possibility that Lessans could be right, there's no point in being here. Kael, for your mental health and well-being, I would not blame you if you moved on.

Not speaking for Kael... but just to point out that some people move towards greater satisfaction in very different ways.

Actually peacegirl, at this point, I have absolutely no interest in Lessan's observations or his book, yet I've read all 70 pages or so ITT. I am interested in you. You've spent years to promoting this book in a sincere belief that it contains the key to a better world, and I find that fascinating. I do have my own closely held beliefs, but I've never held such dedication to any idea, and I can hardly understand it.

Unfortunately, much of the last half of this thread has been pretty tedious, as there are certain conversational paths that are now well worn and barely deviated from.

--------------------
You have often said that Lessan's conclusions came from careful and astute observation. This is fine to say, if your audience has a reason to trust this, and even then it's only the start of the conversation. This is not an audience that automatically assumes someone has authority because the author claims it. The burden of proof is on the author and his defenders to show what careful observations were made, how those observations flow to the conclusions, and how objections are overcome.

May I make a suggestion? Read Darwin's Origin of Species if you haven't, or re-read it. It's the finest example of persuasive writing I've read, and it might be useful to see if the structure of your book holds up against it.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel sorry for people who feel stuck on this thread for entertainment value only. That gets old very quickly.

Tell me about it!

I keep trying to leave but you see I'm still stuck here.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These posts were so far back in the day.

And you have neither improved nor progressed. Others have demonstrated your foolishness for years. What a waste of time you are.

What is your goal Doctor X?

I merely evaluate claims.

You will not win Doctor X, . . .

I already have.

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Twist it in any way that you want. Your conclusions don't hold any weight when it comes to our understanding of the absolute truth of human nature.

And the Absolute Holder of Human Truth still can't even figure out how to use a message board quote function.

[BrotherMan]

Check out this outtake from a recent episode of Mythbusters. The original myth they were attempting to bust was about the masks used by the original Mission: Impossible television show. Specifically, they wanted to know if a rubber mask built from photos of a target could be made that would fool people. The outtakes are things that they couldn't fit into the show.

At about 1:37 of that clip the show introduces one of the Mythbusters' dog, Zero. The first take shows her correctly identifying her master, Jaimie - the "control" test. The next clip shows Zero mistakenly choosing Adam who is dressed as Jaimie.

You can take away from this whatever you wish.

[erimir]

I thought of this thrad when I saw that on Colbert last night too.

peacegirl, what do you think of that clip, which clearly shows a dog identifying her master by sight?

She didn't even have anything to prevent her from using her sense of smell, and she still went for the impostor rather than her actual master!

[peacegirl]

[quote=wildernesse;935225]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is true wildernesse. He was way ahead of his time, and the more time goes by the more I see changes that are in keeping with these principles. What's so terrible about saying this? Actually, years ago people would have laughed in my face more than they're doing now because of the mindset people had regarding marriage. The mere thought of people not getting married and living together was considered sin, yet today people are living together more than ever, and refusing to get married legally. That's just one of the things I see that are in keeping with these principles.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I find it hard to believe that people are laughing at you less at this point in time. Anyway, even if the book says that people will not get married in the future and fewer people are getting married, that does not mean that his reason is why they are not.

They never will stop laughing. The reasons people have for not getting married are numerous. I did not mean to imply that their reasons have to do with why legal marriages will be obsolete in the new world. The only thing it shows is that people seem to be gravitating toward less obligatory, less controlling, more equitable, more loving relationships. Years ago, people would have been appalled at the thought of living together as a lifestyle.

Whatever! If you have made your mind up, then you are not meant to read this book. What more can I say.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

LOL.

It's so funny to me that no one reads the book, takes everything out of context, and then tells me that it has no relation to science. That is a very scientific observation.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I have read some of the book. I read all of the points you quoted back to davidm, and trudged through the 14 pages or whatever you wanted us to read. I have also read other people's objections to it, and have my own, about the complete ignorance of the author when it comes to biology, evolution, linguistics, etc. His beliefs rest on his observations which do not align with what we currently know about the world. He is not doing science in this book.

You aren't being specific. What lack of knowledge in biology, evolution, linguistics, etc. has the author misconstrued?

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I don't have to do science either to recognize that. In any event, calling it unscientific is not an actual insult. It could still have value as a philosophical work, even if it were not scientific. I don't think that it does, but you don't have to cling to some "it is science" statement in order for you to think it has value. Science, to me, is not some highest value for everything. So you can quit acting as if it is something that I require all things to meet. I don't.

In order for this knowledge to rid our world of evil, it cannot be a hunch, a guess, a conjecture, or a philosophy. Science is not the end all of everything, that is true, but it is in this case. But to make people less volatile we can replace the word 'scientific' for 'undeniable'.

People want to know something about this author. I never said that his getting top marks in the army meant that his discovery was right, but it was to show that he had capability. By the same token, I am showing people that he read voraciously. His discovery didn't come out of thin air. He examined and probed and observed human nature. No, this in itself doesn't mean more than that, but it does show that he did more than observe a few samples and made a claim as big as this. I am trying to show you how conscience does work in this predictable way. Whether you see the validity of this, I'm not sure, but that doesn't make his observations incorrect. It is not a bald statement at all. I have no idea what you disagree with when he says that we must have a justification (even if it's not easily seen) to hurt others. That is the role of conscience. As far as him explaining how his reading led to his discovery, it's almost impossible because there wasn't a direct cause and effect link. It was his overall knowledge base, and his incredible analytical ability, that allowed him to come up with his discovery.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

There are lots of very smart, capable people out there. That does not mean that everything they do is good or right. You are right that my disagreeing does not make him incorrect, but it also does not mean that he is correct either.

Of course your agreement or disagreement has no real bearing on whether someone is correct or not. Whether I agree that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 is irrelevant. I have said many times that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In addition, I never said that everything smart, capable people always do is good or right.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Lord, help me. When you mentioned Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in support of the idea that your father was well read and that he used his readings to support his ideas, I thought this was irrelevant. The way to make it relevant would be to show a connection between what he learned from his reading (such as DaFotRE) and his conclusion. Otherwise, why bring it up? It is a stupid non-point. (Just like Anne of Green Gables and the number of times I have read it have no relevance and no support for my points.) It does not impress me or show that he was super intelligent or analytical. And now you say that you can't show a connection with it anyway. This is an example of stupid writing on your part, or why you are not a good communicator and should take people's advice about getting an editor.

That comment was not in the book. I was just sharing with you one of the books he read, which I believe made an impact on him. But you're right, it wasn't necessary.

Do you see what happened when davidm tried to ruin it for this author? Do you see what happens when I post things out of order. I am explaining things in my own words, but if you really truly were interested in the book, you would take the time to read it carefully. But I believe you would think you were taken by some crank. That is the big lie.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I am not interested in the book, truly or otherwise. I believe that would be obvious by now, and I think I have said before that no one here is truly interested in the book the way you want them to be.

It's okay if they're not.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

davidm is not trying to ruin anything for this author. Posting things out of order does not ruin anything. It just takes control away from you, but so what?

It has nothing to do with my control. This book is hard enough to have people assume that this is a fairy tale because they opened the book in the middle. I can't stress enough that the author knew this would have caused a big problem, and it did just that. Davidm then made a mockery out the book. It's just one more experience that I will use to become immune, so in that sense it was beneficial.

No they're not wildernesse. I have not offered a claim without an explanation. You are depending solely on people in here who also have not read the book. Their refutations don't hold any weight whatsoever.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I HAVE READ PORTIONS OF THE BOOK MYSELF. So you are wrong. Their refutations do hold weight with me, because I know them and consider them to be reasonable people. Plus, I have objections of my own, based on my own reading, which certainly hold weight with me.

What are your objections? Tell me.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

What doesn't hold any weight with me is your support for the book. You have not shown yourself to be a reasonable or knowledgeable person, or that you are capable of understanding what other people say and holding your own in a discussion. You don't care about building relationships with any of us, as shown by your sequestration in this thread. You are incapable of taking advice, even advice that would help you promote this book within this community.

I am really sorry if people take offense that I am not building relationships. If I could I would, but I don't have the time. I have taken some of the advice given here, and I've listened carefully. I never leave a forum without gaining quite a bit of new knowledge or understanding, and I appreciate that.

That's what I'm trying to do. But because these principles are so far removed from present day thinking, it might be a lost cause in here. People are too protective of their worldview and will not open their minds enough to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, therefore they will keep saying these claims are nothing more than assertions.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Which is it? Principles are so far removed from present day thinking or everyday people are acting more and more in line with the author's ideas (like not getting married). I think we told you 50 pages ago that this was a lost cause here, but you don't listen to us whether we are talking about Lessans' ideas or ways to help us productively discuss this topic.

These principles are definitely beyond the framework of present day thought. I think it's hard for people to wrap their minds around the idea that a no blame environment would create a world without war, crime, and hatred. I feel that if no one can at least temporarily accept the three pillars upon which this knowledge rests, then there is no where to go.

Because people are becoming more open minded about certain topics that, in the past, could not even be discussed, it won't be as difficult to get people to read the book. For example, he mentions that formal religion is on its way out. Can you imagine people reading this years ago? When the universe is ready, that's when this discovery will come to light, and not a second sooner.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

And if you showed any reason behind the assertions, people would stop saying they are assertions. It is not because they are close-minded--they have objections that are not answered to their satisfaction, and you do not provide any support for what you or Lessans say. You don't even seem to grasp the concept of supporting or relevant details. It is a little incredible.

Listen, peacegirl. You aren't making any headway here, and this is not because of other posters. It is mostly because of your own presentation and the ideas themselves.

As I said earlier in the post, the only way we can continue to make any progress whatsoever is if people can [temporarily] assume that he is correct in regard to how conscience works, why man's will is not free, and why the two-sided equation prevents that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point in continuing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

I thought of this thrad when I saw that on Colbert last night too.

peacegirl, what do you think of that clip, which clearly shows a dog identifying her master by sight?

She didn't even have anything to prevent her from using her sense of smell, and she still went for the impostor rather than her actual master!

I don't know if that proves that the features are what the dog sees. It could have been the hat, or the glasses that the dog was familiar with. I know that my dog is cautious when I come in the house. She is looking right at me but until I speak, or she smells me, she doesn't seem to know for sure that it's me. I know that's just one dog but I'd like to do more testing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

And you have neither improved nor progressed. Others have demonstrated your foolishness for years. What a waste of time you are.

This is so funny. If you believe I'm a waste of time, then why are you here? That doesn't say much for you.

[peacegirl]

[quote=specious_reasons;935258]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you here if you don't even see the potential of something coming to fruition? I feel sorry for people who feel stuck on this thread for entertainment value only. That gets old very quickly. If you don't feel that there is any possibility that Lessans could be right, there's no point in being here. Kael, for your mental health and well-being, I would not blame you if you moved on.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Not speaking for Kael... but just to point out that some people move towards greater satisfaction in very different ways.

I don't disagree with you on this point at all.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually peacegirl, at this point, I have absolutely no interest in Lessan's observations or his book, yet I've read all 70 pages or so ITT. I am interested in you. You've spent years to promoting this book in a sincere belief that it contains the key to a better world, and I find that fascinating. I do have my own closely held beliefs, but I've never held such dedication to any idea, and I can hardly understand it.

Unfortunately, much of the last half of this thread has been pretty tedious, as there are certain conversational paths that are now well worn and barely deviated from.

This thread is at a standstill. No one is reading the book except to find things that make them laugh. All the conversation is about how wrong Lessans is, that he has only made assertions, and that there is no evidence. That is getting very redundant. I know what people think; but they keep repeating it as if repeating it is going to change my mind.

--------------------

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You have often said that Lessan's conclusions came from careful and astute observation. This is fine to say, if your audience has a reason to trust this, and even then it's only the start of the conversation. This is not an audience that automatically assumes someone has authority because the author claims it. The burden of proof is on the author and his defenders to show what careful observations were made, how those observations flow to the conclusions, and how objections are overcome.

I would never ever want someone to assume that someone has authority because the author claims it. But the irony is that in the effort to distinguish a crank from a Faraday, they have mistakenly put Lessans in the category of crank. I don't know what else he could have done other than to carefully describe his observations. There was a television show a few years back where they showed very young children getting extremely upset when an adult was slapping a baby. You could see that they knew this was morally wrong. How did they know that? They were only 2 years old. It shows that conscience is alive and well even at such a young age.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

May I make a suggestion? Read Darwin's Origin of Species if you haven't, or re-read it. It's the finest example of persuasive writing I've read, and it might be useful to see if the structure of your book holds up against it.

I never read it, but I'd like to just to see how he persuades people. The thing is I am not trying to persuade anyone. I want them to test the accuracy of his premises. That's the only way they will come around, but by that time I'll be long gone.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so funny.

Actually, the way you waste your life peddling nonsense would signify a tragedy.

If you believe I'm a waste of time, then why are you here?

As before, you make claims, I am free to evaluate them. Thus far, you have proved anything but challenging.

I guess you still do not know how to read.

Sort of explains how everyone keeps showing you knew things in the book you claimed to have read.

--J.D.