A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Vivisectus]

He very clearly demonstrated how conscience works in a free will society (a society of blame and punishment) and in a no free will society (a society where there is no blame and punishment), so why the antagonism? That's what bothers me the most.

He did not demonstrate, he claimed. If he had demonstrated it, we would at least know what he based his assumptions regarding conscience on. As it is, we don't! We merely know he claimed it worked a certain way, and that is it.

In fact, this question of "Why should we assume that his claim regarding conscience is correct" has been asked of you time and time again, and you have yet to answer it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He did not demonstrate, he claimed. If he had demonstrated it, we would at least know what he based his assumptions regarding conscience on. As it is, we don't! We merely know he claimed it worked a certain way, and that is it.

He did share his observations and then demonstrated why we can't choose to hurt others when the conditions in the environment change to one of no blame.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In fact, this question of "Why should we assume that his claim regarding conscience is correct" has been asked of you time and time again, and you have yet to answer it.

I have cold feet now. I am tired of being challenged before I even get a word in. If you could all just listen for a change, I'd be more apt to go forward but I know that's not going to happen. It's one thing having questions after a demonstration, but not before. You keep telling me Lessans is wrong because you believe your reasoning is right, but it's far from right. You aren't asking, you're telling. Do you see why I don't want to go on?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't like the way I copy-paste important excerpts (which should be appreciated because I'm not doing this again), means you have no serious intention of understanding these principles. If you did, you wouldn't care how I explain it. You're more interested in testing my knowledge, which is plain old silly.

Copypasting is NOT a form of explanation. That you refuse to do anything but copypaste shows that you either do not understand his work or are not serious about communicating it effectively. I think you deliberately use methods you know do not work and serve only to turn people against you, because you enjoy playing the martyr in defense of Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Goodness gracious, now you're sounding like Stephen and Davidm. You're all turning into clones of one another. And you don't think this has a bearing on the attitude in here? I am not going to another philosophy forum. I will have to find another way. I know that someone like Wayne Dyer would be more patient and at least listen until I'm through explaining --- and then ask questions instead of being told Lessans is wrong before we even get past Chapter One. People can call him woo all they want, but if he understands this book, he could help me get it investigated further. That's been my goal all along.

You're the only one here who hasn't got past Chapter 1. And everyone here but you knows that you are indeed going to do all of this over again at your next forum exactly the same as you've done here and everywhere else you've been. You're simply incapable of doing anything differently.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how conscience will be made stronger.

So what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did share his observations and then demonstrated why we can't choose to hurt others when the conditions in the environment change to one of no blame.

He shared that he had reached to conclusion, sure. But he did not share how he reached it. You yourself claim it is all on account of "Astute observations" and that he just observed it and that is that.

He based his "demonstration" of why we cannot choose to hurt another on this assumption about conscience - an assumption that he did not support. If he did, feel free to point it out to me.

I have cold feet now. I am tired of being challenged before I even get a word in. If you could all just listen for a change, I'd be more apt to go forward but I know that's not going to happen. It's one thing having questions after a demonstration, but not before or in the middle.

That is a lie. You just do not have an answer, but you do not want to admit this, so you blame it on the meanies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't like the way I copy-paste important excerpts (which should be appreciated because I'm not doing this again), means you have no serious intention of understanding these principles. If you did, you wouldn't care how I explain it. You're more interested in testing my knowledge, which is plain old silly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Copypasting is NOT a form of explanation. That you refuse to do anything but copypaste shows that you either do not understand his work or are not serious about communicating it effectively. I think you deliberately use methods you know do not work and serve only to turn people against you, because you enjoy playing the martyr in defense of Lessans.

You're going to have to trust me that I understand this knowledge if we are going to continue. I will cut and paste where appropriate. If you don't like it, then let us end this right now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Goodness gracious, now you're sounding like Stephen and Davidm. You're all turning into clones of one another. And you don't think this has a bearing on the attitude in here? I am not going to another philosophy forum. I will have to find another way. I know that someone like Wayne Dyer would be more patient and at least listen until I'm through explaining --- and then ask questions instead of being told Lessans is wrong before we even get past Chapter One. People can call him woo all they want, but if he understands this book, he could help me get it investigated further. That's been my goal all along.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're the only one here who hasn't got past Chapter 1. And everyone here but you knows that you are indeed going to do all of this over again at your next forum exactly the same as you've done here and everywhere else you've been. You're simply incapable of doing anything differently.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how conscience will be made stronger.

So what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

Agree first that you will accept my judgment call as to how this knowledge can be best explained. This is more difficult than I imagined and I'm not going to ruin it by making it more difficult than it already is because you have stipulated that I can't use the book as a reference.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did share his observations and then demonstrated why we can't choose to hurt others when the conditions in the environment change to one of no blame.

His alleged 'demonstration' relies upon presuppositions concerning conscience which you have yet to either identify or justify.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have cold feet now. I am tired of being challenged before I even get a word in. If you could all just listen for a change, I'd be more apt to go forward but I know that's not going to happen. It's one thing having questions after a demonstration, but not before. You keep telling me Lessans is wrong because you believe your reasoning is right, but it's far from right. You aren't asking, you're telling. Do you see why I don't want to go on?

You've had nearly a hundred pages in this thread alone to 'get a word in'. Yet all you do is weasel and resort to faith claims, while merely asserting that everyone else is wrong. Your failure here is no-one's fault but your own. Stop blaming others for your and Lessans' shortcomings, and accept responsibility for your own behaviour.

[peacegirl]

He very clearly demonstrated how conscience works in a free will society (a society of blame and punishment) and in a no free will society (a society where there is no blame and punishment), so why the antagonism? That's what bothers me the most.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He did not demonstrate, he claimed. If he had demonstrated it, we would at least know what he based his assumptions regarding conscience on. As it is, we don't! We merely know he claimed it worked a certain way, and that is it.

It's right there in the book in black and white, but you'll probably tell me it's not proof.

He did share his observations and then demonstrated why we can't choose to hurt others when the conditions in the environment change to one of no blame.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He shared that he had reached to conclusion, sure. But he did not share how he reached it. You yourself claim it is all on account of "Astute observations" and that he just observed it and that is that.

He described how conscience works through his observations.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He based his "demonstration" of why we cannot choose to hurt another on this assumption about conscience - an assumption that he did not support. If he did, feel free to point it out to me.

I thought you read the book and know it so well. You should be able to explain it back to me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In fact, this question of "Why should we assume that his claim regarding conscience is correct" has been asked of you time and time again, and you have yet to answer it.

I have cold feet now. I am tired of being challenged before I even get a word in. If you could all just listen for a change, I'd be more apt to go forward but I know that's not going to happen. It's one thing having questions after a demonstration, but not before.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is a lie. You just do not have an answer, but you do not want to admit this, so you blame it on the meanies.

That's what I can't stand about being here. I'm tired of being accused of being a liar.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're going to have to trust me that I understand this knowledge if we are going to continue. I will cut and paste where appropriate. If you don't like it, then let us end this right now.

But you don't understand his knowledge, and you have absolutely no idea of when and how to appropriately use cut & paste. So no, I cannot trust you in that respect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Agree first that you will accept my judgment call as to how this knowledge can be best explained. This is more difficult than I imagined and I'm not going to ruin it by making it more difficult than it already is because you have stipulated that I can't use the book as a reference.

No, I don't accept your judgment at all as to how his 'knowledge' can be best explained. You're not going to answer the question at all. You'll just post massive excerpts from his work, assert that they answer my questions, and then insist that if I disagree I should just reread it until I see otherwise. That's just not good enough.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how conscience will be made stronger.

So what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did share his observations and then demonstrated why we can't choose to hurt others when the conditions in the environment change to one of no blame.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

His alleged 'demonstration' relies upon presuppositions concerning conscience which you have yet to either identify or justify.

I realize that. I asked you a question and you haven't answered it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have cold feet now. I am tired of being challenged before I even get a word in. If you could all just listen for a change, I'd be more apt to go forward but I know that's not going to happen. It's one thing having questions after a demonstration, but not before. You keep telling me Lessans is wrong because you believe your reasoning is right, but it's far from right. You aren't asking, you're telling. Do you see why I don't want to go on?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've had nearly a hundred pages in this thread alone to 'get a word in'. Yet all you do is weasel and resort to faith claims, while merely asserting that everyone else is wrong. Your failure here is no-one's fault but your own. Stop blaming others for your and Lessans' shortcomings, and accept responsibility for your own behaviour.

These two threads have been wasted on name calling, so the number of pages mean nothing. I got through more of the book in the other forum than in this one. I do accept responsibility for my behavior, but my behavior has been above reproach considering the unwarranted attacks against my father and myself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that. I asked you a question and you haven't answered it.

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These two threads have been wasted...

By your constant weaselling, avoidance, and faith claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do accept responsibility for my behavior, but my behavior has been above reproach...

If you think that, then no, you are not accepting responsibility for your own behaviour.


I'm still waiting for you to explain how conscience will be made stronger.

So what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[Vivisectus]

It's right there in the book in black and white, but you'll probably tell me it's not proof.

There is just the claim that it is so, no support is given. This is born out by the fact that you are unable to point it out too.

He described how conscience works through his observations.

No, he described how it works according to his
"observations".

I thought you read the book and know it so well. You should be able to explain it back to me.

The point is that the support for this assumption is not in the book. I cannot explain back what does not exist.

That's what I can't stand about being here. I'm tired of being accused of being a liar.

Then prove me wrong and tell me Why we should assume that his claim regarding conscience is correct or admit that you do not have the answer to it. Anything else is just lying to enable yourself to cling to the idea that this book makes sense.

Because without a valid reason to believe that he was correct about blame and conscience, the whole book falls down. I know you cannot bring yourself to entertain that notion, but at least you can admit that you do not believe in it's infallibility for rational reasons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're going to have to trust me that I understand this knowledge if we are going to continue. I will cut and paste where appropriate. If you don't like it, then let us end this right now.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you don't understand his knowledge, and you have absolutely no idea of when and how to appropriately use cut & paste. So no, I cannot trust you in that respect.

You have no right to tell me that I don't understand the book. And I have cut and pasted appropriately. I won't continue unless I get a commitment from you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Agree first that you will accept my judgment call as to how this knowledge can be best explained. This is more difficult than I imagined and I'm not going to ruin it by making it more difficult than it already is because you have stipulated that I can't use the book as a reference.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I don't accept your judgment at all as to how his 'knowledge' can be best explained. You're not going to answer the question at all. You'll just post massive excerpts from his work, assert that they answer my questions, and then insist that if I disagree I should just reread it until I see otherwise. That's just not good enough.

I have and will continue to answer your questions in my own words, but I will post what's important first. That is meeting you half way. If you won't accept it, then you're going to lose out because of something stupid.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm still waiting for you to explain how conscience will be made stronger.

So what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

I am going to start at Chapter Two and do it my way or the highway. If you can't accept it, then let's be done with it. I sit here day after day trying to help you understand and I thought we made progress. I explained in my own words what Lessans meant by determinism, so don't tell me that I just cut and paste. That's just not true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am going to start at Chapter Two and do it my way or the highway.

Her arrogance is insufferable. Having all her empty claims repeatedly shot down, she now imperiously insists she is going to proceed on to Chapter 2, and it's her way or the highway!

I strongly suggest it's time to give her what she deserves: ignore her completely.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is just the claim that it is so, no support is given. This is born out by the fact that you are unable to point it out too.

No, he described how it works according to his
"observations".

What's the difference?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He based his "demonstration" of why we cannot choose to hurt another on this assumption about conscience - an assumption that he did not support. If he did, feel free to point it out to me.

I thought you read the book and know it so well. You should be able to explain it back to me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The point is that the support for this assumption is not in the book. I cannot explain back what does not exist.

Weasel.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In fact, this question of "Why should we assume that his claim regarding conscience is correct" has been asked of you time and time again, and you have yet to answer it.

I have cold feet now. I am tired of being challenged before I even get a word in. If you could all just listen for a change, I'd be more apt to go forward but I know that's not going to happen. It's one thing having questions after a demonstration, but not before.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is a lie. You just do not have an answer, but you do not want to admit this, so you blame it on the meanies.

That's what I can't stand about being here. I'm tired of being accused of being a liar.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then prove me wrong and tell me Why we should assume that his claim regarding conscience is correct or admit that you do not have the answer to it. Anything else is just lying to enable yourself to cling to the idea that this book makes sense.

Because without a valid reason to believe that he was correct about blame and conscience, the whole book falls down. I know you cannot bring yourself to entertain that notion, but at least you can admit that you do not believe in it's infallibility for rational reasons.

Don't you think I know that the truth of these claims rests on these premises being correct? But thank goodness he was right so there is no way I could entertain any other notion than that the discovery is valid.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no right to tell me that I don't understand the book. And I have cut and pasted appropriately. I won't continue unless I get a commitment from you.

A commitment to what? That you possess knowledge and skills which you clearly lack?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have and will continue to answer your questions in my own words, but I will post what's important first. That is meeting you half way. If you won't accept it, then you're going to lose out because of something stupid.

I am going to start at Chapter Two and do it my way or the highway. If you can't accept it, then let's be done with it. I sit here day after day trying to help you understand and I thought we made progress. I explained in my own words what Lessans meant by determinism, so don't tell me that I just cut and paste. That's just not true.

You cut & pasted your definitions for determinism and free will, then insisted I provide them for you, and then relied upon cut & pastes from Lessans in your subsequent explanations. What little you managed to put into your own words you got completely wrong.

Post as much of Chapter 2 as you like. You'll still have the following question to address when you're done:

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He described how conscience works through his observations.

Translation: He asserted that conscience works according to his descriptions, and you have accepted on faith that these descriptions were supported by certain accurate and astute observations which remain unknown to you.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how conscience will be made stronger.

So what has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[Vivisectus]

What's the difference?

That it remains a mere claim

Weasel.

Then show me the support? You cannot, but refuse to admit it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is a lie. You just do not have an answer, but you do not want to admit this, so you blame it on the meanies.

That's what I can't stand about being here. I'm tired of being accused of being a liar.

Don't you think I know that the truth of these claims rests on these premises being correct? But thank goodness he was right so there is no way I could entertain any other notion than that the discovery is valid.

We have no reason to assume the premises are correct. Your only reason to assume that he is right is your desire to think he is right. If this is not so, tell me what other reason you have!

If not, admit that this is the case.

Basic honesty is all that is required.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

A commitment to what? That you possess knowledge and skills which you clearly lack?

You know what I mean. A commitment to allow me demonstrate these principles (without giving me a hard time) the way I feel is necessary, even if it means going through every single line in this chapter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have and will continue to answer your questions in my own words, but I will post what's important first. That is meeting you half way. If you won't accept it, then you're going to lose out because of something stupid.

I am going to start at Chapter Two and do it my way or the highway. If you can't accept it, then let's be done with it. I sit here day after day trying to help you understand and I thought we made progress. I explained in my own words what Lessans meant by determinism, so don't tell me that I just cut and paste. That's just not true.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You cut & pasted your definitions for determinism and free will, then insisted I provide them for you, and then relied upon cut & pastes from Lessans in your subsequent explanations. What little you managed to put into your own words you got completely wrong.

No I didn't. You understood wrong if you think I am the one that got it wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Post as much of Chapter 2 as you like. You'll still have the following question to address when you're done:

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

Then I take that as a commitment that you'll leave me alone and let me go through this chapter my way even if it involves a lot of cutting and pasting. I don't want to have to go back and retrace my steps because it wasn't explained right the first time. I'm going to start posting, so if you're not happy with the arrangement speak now, or forever hold your peace.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I mean. A commitment to let me demonstrate these principles the way I want, even if it means going through every single line in this chapter.

No, I didn't know what you meant. You don't need any commitment from me for you to do this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I didn't. You understood wrong if you think I am the one that got it wrong.

Then reply to my latest post on determinism and show me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then I take that as a commitment that you'll leave me alone and let me explain it my way which is going to involve a lot of cutting and pasting. I don't want to have to go back and retrace my steps because it wasn't explained right the first time.

Cutting & pasting is not explanation. When you're done with your compulsive copypasta you still won't be any closer to an explanation or answer to my question:

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm going to start posting, so if you're not happy with the arrangement speak now, or forever hold your peace.

I'm not happy with this arrangement. I think it is stupid and pointless, and pretty much the most counterproductive thing you could do at this point. But you are of course free to proceed as you wish.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I didn't know what you meant. You don't need any commitment from me for you to do this.

Then reply to my latest post on determinism and show me.

I told you that because we can make choices, it resembles compatibilism, but this does not mean we have free will. This is an important distinction if you're going to understand the two-sided equation. I think it's important to post this except again to make sure you understand it.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place 57-59

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his
nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth is that the words
good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to
oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of
having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is
not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only
because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions
is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life but under
the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the
lesser of two evils which gave him greater satisfaction. Consequently,
when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this
the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced
with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is
compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying.

For
example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off he has three
possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to
sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question
under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though
he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work, he
needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or
being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up
and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he
doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing
than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the other
alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu
may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the
other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is
still considered worse under his particular circumstances.

The law of
self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is impossible
to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES EVERYTHING BECAUSE
HE WANTS TO since absolutely nothing can make him do what he doesn’t
want to.

Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death...but this
doesn’t mean his will was free, it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

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

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed
as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something
fantastic to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no
accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt
that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle
of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT
MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.
And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or
principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his
will because over this his nature allows absolute control; and that his
will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of
available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will
reveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference has
been made.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then I take that as a commitment that you'll leave me alone and let me explain it my way which is going to involve a lot of cutting and pasting. I don't want to have to go back and retrace my steps because it wasn't explained right the first time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Cutting & pasting is not explanation. When you're done with your compulsive copypasta you still won't be any closer to an explanation or answer to my question:

What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

Cutting and pasting is reading the author's own words. Of course it will answer your question but if you need further clarification I will try to help you. I'm going to start posting the beginning of Chapter Two. You can ask questions after you read the post. I'm sorry you don't like this arrangement, but this is how it has to be for you to understand this material.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that because we can make choices, it resembles compatibilism, but this does not mean we have free will. This is an important distinction if you're going to understand the two-sided equation.

If it meets the definition of compatibilist free will (as it does), then by definition that means we have 'free will' of that sort. What part of this incredibly simple point do you not understand?

Also, I asked you to reply to my last post on determinism which you have not done. I certainly didn't ask you to repeat the same copypasta I've already read, and which doesn't help at all. (Here's a free tip for copypasting: If you find yourself posting multiple quoted paragraphs and then highlighting in bold only certain particularly relevant sections, then you should only have posted the bits in bold.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cutting and pasting is hearing the explanation from the author himself. Of course it will answer your question but if you need further clarification I will try to help you in my own words.

No, it isn't an explanation, and it isn't an answer to my question. Lessans' own words will not tell me what his arguments presuppose about conscience, nor can they tell me why I should agree with those unargued-for presuppositions. You clearly don't even understand the nature of what I'm asking you to explain (or of what Lessans actually said). All his words will show is what he thought to be true about conscience. They will not give us any reason to believe that he was actually right.


What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

[peacegirl]

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

Once it becomes established as an undeniable law that
man’s will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we
cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like
Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore, we
must begin our reasoning where he left off which means that we are
going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary, slide
rule or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute
the baser mettles of human nature into the pure gold of the
Golden Age even though it presents what appears to be an
insurmountable problem, for how is it possible not to blame people
who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t
want to.

The solution, however, only requires the perception and
extension of relations which cannot be denied; and this mathematical
corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the
infinite wisdom of God which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that
you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement.
This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have not only
without hurting a living soul but while benefiting everyone to an
amazing degree. However, the problems that confront us at this
moment are very complex which make it necessary to treat every
aspect of our lives in a separate, yet related, manner. God, not me,
is finally going to reveal the solution.

Since time immemorial the two opposing forces of good and evil
compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God
responsible for all the good in the world and Satan responsible for the
evil while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be
reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some other force of darkness as
an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried
desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. But this dividing
line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the
corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, demonstrates that once it becomes
a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in
human relations must come to a peaceful end.

The absolute proof
that man’s will is not free is the undeniable fact that we are given no
alternative but to move in this direction once it is understood that
this law can control man’s actions only by obeying this corollary for
then everything that came into existence which caused us to blame
and punish must, out of absolute necessity, take leave of this earth.
Mankind will be given no choice; this has been taken out of our
hands, as is the motion of the earth around the sun.

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work
our problem backwards which means that every step of the way will be
a forced move which will become a loose end and only when all these
ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete. It is only by
extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not Blame, which is the key,
that we are given the means to unlock the solution. An example of
working a problem backwards, follow this: If you were told that a
woman with a pocketbook full of money went on a spending spree to
ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every one, a dollar to get out, spent
half of what she had in each and came out of the last place absolutely
broke, it would be very easy to determine the amount of money she
had to start because the dollar she paid to get out of the last store
which broke her must represent one-half of the money spent there.

Consequently, she had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in,
giving her three just before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get
out of the penultimate store, this added to the three gives her four
which represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this
process eight more times it is absolutely undeniable that she must
have begun her spending spree with $3,060. As we can see from this
example, when a key fact is available from which to reason it is then
possible to solve a problem, but when it is not, we must form
conjectures and express opinions with the aid of logic.

At first glance
it appears impossible not to blame an individual for murder, or any
heinous crime, but when we extend this key fact it can be seen that
these acts of evil are not condoned with the understanding that man’s
will is not free, but prevented. Regardless of someone’s opinion as to
the rightness or wrongness of the answer I just gave, or their opinion
when considering the impossibility of removing all evil from our lives
which would have to be based upon a logical conclusion, we know that
the answer is correct because there is positive proof.

By a similar process of working our problem backwards we can
officially launch the Golden Age which necessitates the removal of all
forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that
each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do.
Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation
of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide
rule which God has given us as a guide.

By now I hope you
understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything
that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using
the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually no one gave
me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force
that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the
direction of satisfaction and for me to be satisfied after reading Will
Durant’s analysis of free will it was necessary to disagree with what
obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not
satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving
that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke.

To say that God
made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my
nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is
absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing where
reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe
the sun; regardless of how much there is I don’t know about this
ball of fire does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world,
and regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not
change the fact that He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there
quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know
that the description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is
a part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular
thing and say this is God, therefore we must assume because of
certain things that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a
discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed
that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar
system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon,
earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some
internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now
that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free, and at the very
moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration
compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards
greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the
sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as
the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony
was this disharmony between man and man which is now being
permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a
mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way,
that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is
a true observation for nothing in this universe when seen in total
perspective is evil since each individual must choose what is better for
himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

[peacegirl]

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature.

Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did? To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that
controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we
are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well
as the solar system, just follow this: Here is versatile man — writer,
composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian,
architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief,
etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and
lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to
blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of
necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to
why will is not free and what this means for the entire world, which
perception was utterly impossible without the development...and
absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of
history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our
control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are
able to see, for the very first time, how it is now within our power to
prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into
existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance
of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite
principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ by refusing to defend himself against
his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance.
Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because the one was willing
to cheat to get what she wanted while he was willing to be cheated
rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for
himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice
because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of
what he was entitled to by law. Both of them were moving in the
direction of what gave them satisfaction.

Spinoza’s sister had no
understanding of this knowledge nor did the world at that time,
although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free.
Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by
turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the
synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a
contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for
being an atheist but not for being a God-intoxicated man.

The fact
that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the
sun is also a reality but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump
for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza and myself. He
was a gentle man, I am not. He refused to blame his sister for
stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and
believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other hand, would never
advocate turning the other cheek when someone can get the advantage
by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to
take what belonged to me I’d fight him tooth and nail. Turning the
other cheek under these conditions could make matters worse, which
is why many people reject the pacifist position.

How is it humanly
possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes
back to the justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or
retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to
hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human
conduct. Most of mankind is compelled, for greater satisfaction, to
move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the
corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should
suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is
not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to
extend it, to see exactly where it takes us; something that investigators
like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them
from opening the door beyond the vestibule.

The fact that man’s will
is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction
of greater satisfaction. If you sock me I might get greater satisfaction
in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means
that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your
realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this
knowledge is understood we will be compelled to continue living in the
world of free will, otherwise, we would only make matters worse for
ourselves.

[Angakuk]

Peacegirl repeatedly complains that we are not giving her a chance to get a word in edgewise, that we are not giving her room to explain things, that we keep interrupting her explanations so that she can't make progress, etc.

On the face of it such complaints are ridiculous. After all, this is the internet, not a public meeting where people can shout each other down. We all know, and have frequently pointed out to her, that all she has to do is ignore other peoples' posts and get on with her lecture/demonstration/monologue. If she is confused about how to do that, she could go back and review some of coberst's threads. He was a master at ignoring his audience and remaining focused on his purpose - whatever the hell that was.

All of this seems so obvious to most people that it is difficult to understand why peacegirl doesn't just go ahead and do what has been suggested. Namely, say what she has to say and ignore the peanut gallery. The problem is that, for peacegirl, our criticisms and challenges are actual impediments to her carrying out her program. She is clearly operating under an obsessive complusion to respond, even when responding interferes with carrying out her agenda. This compulsion is most evident when she keeps responding to individual posters after declaring that she isn't going to respond to them anymore. The girl just can't help it. Her fear that if she does not respond to them they will stop paying attention to her forces her to respond even though doing so directly contradicts her previous promises to put the individual on ignore. The very fact that she regularly threatens to punish offenders by ignoring them is indicative of how desperately fearful she is of being ignored.

Likewise, her frequent proclamations that the thread is finished, that she can't take it anymore and that she is leaving for good, are clear indications of her obsessive compulsive disorder. Lady Shea has asked why she is still here if it is such a waste of her time. The truth is that peacegirl can't leave. She is well and truly trapped. is peacegirl's

Hotel California

&feature=related where you can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave. Or, if you prefer your analogies a little more low rent, this is her own private

Roach Motel

where roaches check in, but they don't check out. The fact that almost never bans or locks threads means that, unless she can find the will power to self-ban, peacegirl is stuck here just so long as anyone is willing to engage her. For peacegirl has become the La Brea Tar Pits of the internet. It was a cruel, cruel, fate that put and peacegirl in the same universe.