A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

The reason I am here are not for the reasons you gave. I haven't even attempted to promote this book because I'm not ready, but when I do, I will have no reason to come here.

That sort of proves my point, you know.

The one agreement we have is that I get a particular type of satisfaction out of being here, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I would be getting my satisfaction elsewhere. You've just endorsed the book. Thank you very much!

And yet... you keep saying that you want to leave, but somehow you cannot. Almost as if you are being forced to come back here against your will! Pretty close to heresy, for you

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That sort of proves my point, you know.

And yet... you keep saying that you want to leave, but somehow you cannot. Almost as if you are being forced to come back here against your will! Pretty close to heresy, for you

Funny you should say that after proof that nothing can make a person do anything against their will. Yes, it would be pretty close to heresy, but not only that, it would just be downright wrong. The truth is I come here because I want to (even if it's distasteful); nothing is making me come here against my will.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to remember that in conventional publishing, you make a mistake, and it's a done deal.

It's called 'proof reading' and yes if you miss something it's done till the next edition. It's your responsability to proof read and mark errors, it's the responsability of the printer to fix the errors once the proof reading is done.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Funny you should say that after proof that nothing can make a person do anything against their will. Yes, it would be pretty close to heresy, but not only that, it would just be downright wrong. The truth is I come here because I want to (even if it's distasteful); nothing is making me come here against my will.

The truth is that this claim has not been proven, it is only an unsupported claim by Lessans in a long string of unsupported claims. The book is long on assertions but very short on data to support those claims, in fact there is nothing but wild flights of fantasy offered in support.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason I am here are not for the reasons you gave.

Then what is the reason you are still here? I've asked you several times, yet you still don't seem to know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The one agreement we have is that I get a particular type of satisfaction out of being here, otherwise I wouldn't be here.

And what is that particular type of satisfaction? Do you know? Do you know why you can't leave, no matter how many times you try?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then what is the reason you are still here? I've asked you several times, yet you still don't seem to know.

And what is that particular type of satisfaction? Do you know? Do you know why you can't leave, no matter how many times you try?

My question to you is why did you just post that? If you had left well enough alone maybe this thread would have died. But no, you had to make a concerted effort to come to this thread and post the same old question, and start the conversation once again. You obviously don't want me to leave.

[Vivisectus]

Funny you should say that after proof that nothing can make a person do anything against their will.

Proof? There is proof now?

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You obviously don't want me to leave.

Do you want to leave?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Do you want to leave?

I stay hoping that there will be some intelligent questions that will get people to understand why man's will is not free. That's only the first principle. I'm not even close to explaining the discovery, and I won't because I can't tolerate the nasty, aggressive, vicious comments; you know the kind the anonymous makes, or the comments NA makes. Interestingly, he doesn't even read my posts. Very revealing. One thing is for sure; I'm not here against my will. I'm here because the alternative is worse (in my eyes) since I am not going to another forum and I have a desire to discuss the book until I start promoting it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My question to you is why did you just post that?

Because I want you to think about the answer, and work out for yourself why it is that you find yourself locked into this endless cycle of unhealthy and obsessive behaviour.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you had left well enough alone maybe this thread would have died. But no, you had to make a concerted effort to come to this thread and post the same old question, and start the conversation once again. You obviously don't want me to leave.

On the contrary, I do want you to leave. No-one is forcing you to stay or to answer my posts. I want you to leave and seek treatment for your mental condition. But failing that, at least by leaving you might find a more productive way of spending your time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I stay hoping that there will be some intelligent questions...

There have been plenty of intelligent questions. Your problem is that you simply cannot answer them with anything but waffle, evasion, and repeatedly asserting that which you are being asked to support. For instance, what support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification? Another one is how it could be that NASA successfully uses delayed-time vision to calculate trajectories, when if Lessans were right about real-time seeing, they should then miss by thousands of miles.

You have no rational answers to these questions, or any of the hundreds of others you've been asked. Yet by your own admission you are compelled to stay here to discuss his book, with people who are convinced that you are nuts, demanding intelligent questions from them even though you lack the capacity to address these questions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One thing is for sure; I'm not here against my will. I'm here because the alternative is worse (in my eyes) since I am not going to another forum and I have a desire to discuss the book until I start promoting it.

So you're a Masochist, but that much has been obvious from the beginning.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The book. The printer made errors and sent me books that had the margins completely unbalanced. People can buy this book and still get the major points, but it's not what I'm going to promote until they fix these problems. That's what POD publishing allows you to do, otherwise, you would be stuck with tons of books that are not satisfactory. You have to remember that in conventional publishing, you make a mistake, and it's a done deal.

And in ePublishing you could just fix it yourself and replace the downloadable file

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My question to you is why did you just post that?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because I want you to think about the answer, and work out for yourself why it is that you find yourself locked into this endless cycle of unhealthy and obsessive behaviour.

Spacemonkey, you know that this is just a ruse to get me back here. You aren't interested in how I work things out. So now you're using NA's tactics as if he is showing concern for me when he is spewing hatred. Thanks David for defending me because very few people would even try. That being said, I'm sure David will have another one of his spoofs to counteract all the good he did on my behalf.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you had left well enough alone maybe this thread would have died. But no, you had to make a concerted effort to come to this thread and post the same old question, and start the conversation once again. You obviously don't want me to leave.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On the contrary, I do want you to leave. No-one is forcing you to stay or to answer my posts. I want you to leave and seek treatment for your mental condition. But failing that, at least by leaving you might find a more productive way of spending your time.

That is such a worn out excuse. Stop copying NA, people can see your insincerity. He isn't interested in my mental health, and neither are you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I stay hoping that there will be some intelligent questions...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There have been plenty of intelligent questions. Your problem is that you simply cannot answer them with anything but waffle, evasion, and repeatedly asserting that which you are being asked to support. For instance, what support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?

That's because you have no clue as to what the two-sided equation is even about, yet you tell me you now more about this discovery than me, when I've been privy to it my entire life.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another one is how it could be that NASA successfully uses delayed-time vision to calculate trajectories, when if Lessans were right about real-time seeing, they should then miss by thousands of miles.

I already said that I'm not getting into this because it is fueling the rage that is being directed at me. This is not airtight by any means, as far as I'm concerned. Only further testing will determine who is right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have no rational answers to these questions, or any of the hundreds of others you've been asked. Yet by your own admission you are compelled to stay here to discuss his book, with people who are convinced that you are nuts, demanding intelligent questions from them even though you lack the capacity to address these questions.

You say I haven't answered questions. Is that why I spent an hour and a half answering your last question regarding moral responsibility, and all you could to was tell me I'm not sane. Is that a normal answer in a serious debate? You didn't answer the post, you just skirted the whole thing. Could it be that you couldn't come up with an adequate answer?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And in ePublishing you could just fix it yourself and replace the downloadable file

That is very true, but this book is not being published as an ebook. I have one ebook on my website. This one is being sold as a paperback.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, we have no alternative at this point except to punish those who do harm to others. If we can prevent them from doing this harm, do we need to punish?

The need to punish has very little to do with preventing harm. The need to punish is driven by individual internal processes that can only be satisfied by inflicting punishment on others. The connection between punishment and justice is a smoke screen designed to conceal the naked savagery that drives punishment. This has been demonstrated with scientific certainty.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you saying that conscience serves no purpose; that we should not contemplate the guilt and misery we would feel if we hurt someone without justification?

That is not at all what I said. The purpose of conscience is to make people feel guilty. The purpose of guilt is to make people feel miserable. Misery is an end unto itself and requires no other pupose. I know this with absolute scientific and mathmatical certainty as a result of nearly 60 years of astute observation of the human condition. I have read The Hobbit and the The Lord of the Rings at least six times. I can't begin to tell you how many copies of Catcher in the Rye I have worn out over the years. Not to mention the number of performances of "Our Town" I have attended.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you know that this is just a ruse to get me back here. You aren't interested in how I work things out. So now you're using NA's tactics as if he is showing concern for me when he is spewing hatred. Thanks David for defending me because very few people would even try. That being said, I'm sure David will have another one of his spoofs to counteract all the good he did on my behalf.

That is such a worn out excuse. Stop copying NA, people can see your insincerity. He isn't interested in my mental health, and neither are you.

Obviously it is easier for you to tell yourself that our legitimate concern for your mental health is insincere, than to face up to the reality that your own behavior consistently and without exception convinces other people that you are unwell. I do not want you to stay here. I want you to leave and get the help you need. This is not a ruse. It is not an excuse.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you have no clue as to what the two-sided equation is even about, yet you tell me you now more about this discovery than me, when I've been privy to it my entire life.

I already said that I'm not getting into this because it is fueling the rage that is being directed at me. This is not airtight by any means, as far as I'm concerned. Only further testing will determine who is right.

Thank you for again proving my point. Two intelligent questions which you are completely incapable of honestly and directly answering.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say I haven't answered questions.

And with good reason. See above. You are compelled to stay here to discuss his book, with people who are convinced that you are nuts, demanding intelligent questions which you lack the capacity to rationally address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that why I spent an hour and a half answering your last question regarding moral responsibility, and all you could to was tell me I'm not sane. Is that a normal answer in a serious debate? You didn't answer the post, you just skirted the whole thing. Could it be that you couldn't come up with an adequate answer?

You never answered post #20215. And your answers to the post you did address were, as usual, so ridiculous as to not be worth responding to. There's really no point continuing discussion, as you lack the capacity to comprehend what you are replying to, along with the ability to think in any terms other than complete concordance with your father's claims, and continued debate only feeds your delusion. You want to continue discussion, and manage to convince yourself that you're doing well, even when in reality you can't go more than a post without directly contradicting your own words, misreading what you are replying to, or even arguing with your own previous words. 'Debate' with you is a joke. You need help.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I stay hoping that there will be some intelligent questions that will get people to understand why man's will is not free. That's only the first principle. I'm not even close to explaining the discovery, and I won't because I can't tolerate the nasty, aggressive, vicious comments; you know the kind the anonymous makes, or the comments NA makes. Interestingly, he doesn't even read my posts. Very revealing. One thing is for sure; I'm not here against my will. I'm here because the alternative is worse (in my eyes) since I am not going to another forum and I have a desire to discuss the book until I start promoting it.

Well there you go then. But I think you have to admit that you prefer this over promoting the book. There is no real reason not to start now: the book is already available and for sale on amazon, and has been for over a year. You have your website, audio...

Whats the holdup exactly?

[Vivisectus]

Hang on did I just read that right?

You are postponing saving the world until they fix the margins in your POD version of the book?

Either you are trying to find an excuse "Ah, but I haven't PROPERLY started yet so none of this counts" or you have some very odd sense of priorities

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hang on did I just read that right?

You are postponing saving the world until they fix the margins in your POD version of the book?

Either you are trying to find an excuse "Ah, but I haven't PROPERLY started yet so none of this counts" or you have some very odd sense of priorities

There will always be some reason why the world won't accept Lessans' ideas - LadyShea ruining it, lack of money to do "proper" marketing, margins in the book.

It's never Lessans' fault for writing a shitty book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are accepting compatibilism because you believe it resolves the conflict, but how can we have free will and no free will at the same time. You're giving special allowances for human behavior, which is certainly not scientific. It's is a complete contradiction. You want this to be true so punishment can be justified, which you believe is necessary in preventing these type of behaviors.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why should punishment have to be justified? It is inevitable that those who have both the power and the desire to punish will punish. Only be inflicting punishment can they move in the direction of their greatest satisfaction. It is an indisputable fact that no justification is required, for in regard to this their wills are not free. This has been determined with mathmatical certainty.

It has not been determined by mathematical certainty. Blame and punishment are based, whether consciously or unconsciously, that this person could have done differently. The minute you say, "Why did you do that," you're blaming. If you knew that a person could not have chosen otherwise, could you really blame him for what he had no choice in doing? Would you blame someone for having a broken arm? We know that if someone wants something badly enough all the threats of punishment in the world will never stop someone who wants something badly enough, even at the risk of prison or the death penalty. So as far as being a deterrent, yes, threats of punishment can, in some cases, change a person's actions, but it usually takes more than this. It takes understanding and nurturing for a person to change his heart.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The need to punish has very little to do with preventing harm. The need to punish is driven by individual internal processes that can only be satisfied by inflicting punishment on others.

You're talking about an emotional issue, not a legal one. There are many reasons why people need to have this control but you can't separate out the mental processes going on until we raise children in a world where they are not hurt. By the time someone gets to this point, there's no telling the kinds of abuses he has had to deal with on a daily basis. That goes for all kinds of unfair treatment at home and in society at large.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The connection between punishment and justice is a smoke screen designed to conceal the naked savagery that drives punishment. This has been demonstrated with scientific certainty.

We're talking about two different things. You are assuming people express savagery for no reason, but children are not born savages. They may go through the "me" stage, or even be mischievous as children often are, but they are not born bad seeds.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, conscience is here to serve one purpose and one purpose only: to allow or disallow certain actions based on whether or not they are justifiable.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This just shows how confused both you and Lessans are. The sole purpose of conscience is to make people feel guilty and miserable. This indisputable fact has been determined with mathmatical certainty.

Are you saying that conscience serves no purpose; that we should not contemplate the guilt and misery we would feel if we hurt someone without justification?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is not at all what I said. The purpose of conscience is to make people feel guilty. The purpose of guilt is to make people feel miserable. Misery is an end unto itself and requires no other pupose. I know this with absolute scientific and mathmatical certainty as a result of nearly 60 years of astute observation of the human condition. I have read The Hobbit and the The Lord of the Rings at least six times. I can't begin to tell you how many copies of Catcher in the Rye I have worn out over the years. Not to mention the number of performances of "Our Town" I have attended.

Your astute observation is not valid where Lessans' observation is. All observations are not equal, sorry. The purpose of conscience is to either allow a person to follow through with actions that could hurt someone, or not to allow a person to follow through with what he knows could be a hurt to someone. What determines whether their conscience allows him to hurt others is whether he has already been hurt which justifies what he is about to do. What also allows conscience to permit hurting others is the belief behind the action. If I believe a group of people are responsible for the world's problems --- even if it's not true but it's what I was taught --- I will feel justified in retaliating, and conscience will permit me to do any number of things to get back.

[Dragar]

So peacegirl, how do we tell whose 'astute observations' are 'valid'?

I think Ang's astute ovservations are much more 'valid' than Lessans'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hang on did I just read that right?

You are postponing saving the world until they fix the margins in your POD version of the book?

Either you are trying to find an excuse "Ah, but I haven't PROPERLY started yet so none of this counts" or you have some very odd sense of priorities

You have no idea what I'm up against. I just went to website that reviews non-fiction books and the guy said on a video that if you have any typos, spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, or what have you, don't bother sending your book to be reviewed. This is not easy considering I didn't use a professional proofreader or an editor because I couldn't afford it. It does sound kind of off not to advertise a book that could help the world, but I can't put out an inferior product.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So peacegirl, how do we tell whose 'astute observations' are 'valid'?

I think Ang's astute ovservations are much more 'valid' than Lessans'.

I believe that if you carefully studied the book you would see that the "greater satisfaction" principle and its corollary (that nothing can make man do anything against his will) is absolutely undeniable and are the foundational principles on which the two-sided equation is based. He saw patterns in human behavior that other people missed, and these are universal principles. He did not sample a few people and then generalized like so many people are suggesting. Many people I have talked to don't refute, or have a problem, with the fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction which renders only one choice possible at each and every moment of time. They just didn't understand the importance of this fact.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe that if you carefully studied the book you would see that the "greater satisfaction" principle is absolutely undeniable.

Yeah yeah, whatever. You believe lots of preposterous horseshit. Perhaps now you could answer Dragar's question.

Oh and btw, I have on numerous occasions in my life opted for the path of lesser satisfaction. Thus, I know from actual experience that the "greater satisfaction" principle () is nonsense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't put out an inferior product.

Your father beat you to that particular punch by decades. Keep trying to polish that turd if you must, but your efforts to date have been laughable. Thus, all the laughter.

[LadyShea]

Even if we do move in the direction of greater satisfaction, always, that doesn't support the assertion that we must move in that direction. Additionally, Lessans never stated why we cannot veto our conscience. It is possible for someone to choose to live with guilt as punishment for whatever it is they wanted to do to cause harm.