A revolution in thought - Page 994

peacegirl · #**24826** 03-06-2013, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fascinating. In the new thread, which is rapidly going down the road of the old one, and which has not even reached the sexy jackets and the efferent eyes, there is this marvellously thoughtful post:

Quote:

I’ve always found the free will debate interesting but, ultimately, unrelated to serious ethical questions. On the one hand, it can be seen as a zero sum equation. A serial killer is not responsible for his bloody spree but neither is the jury that sentences him to die. Whatever debate we end up having about ethics will be the same either way.

On the other hand… I think reasonable people are rarely confused about ethics in reality. Sure its difficult to quantify, describe and defend in the parlance of academia but someone threatens your child…. and the world gets real simple real fast.

I believe moral responsibility exists. But not as some metaphysical truth. It doesn’t scale. It’s an emergent function of culture that we assume for identity and name in order to place certain events into an acceptable narrative…. if that makes sense.

A healthy person is one who thrives within his environment. In every sense. Since we are social species navigating obstacles will often mean recourse to social solutions. And a number of compromises will be necessary due to the competing interests that arise in any group. Morality, at least consensus morality, seems to be those social solutions that select for the most efficient advantage of the group..

On a more personal level I think morality is even more narrative at its core. A person arrives at adulthood with a strange melange of preferences informed from a vast and mysterious inheritance. We don’t really have time to understand how old and strange our minds really are. But we typically need to create a self image that satisfies some basic criteria. And we need to use whatever selection of raw materials we happen to have lying around.

Morality, by my impression, is disturbingly post hoc. In terms of personal relationships, global politics and virtually everything in between. Most rhetoric I hear is not about how to inform future choices for maximum benefit. Its about spinning the past into a story that flatters or excuses or vilifies. Ergo the emphasis on blame. I don’t say this to be cynical, just an honest observation.

I’m sympathetic, on occasion, to certain post modern thinkers who say the whole idea is obsolete.

Completely missed by PG here, and not even acknowledged. Pearls before her swinish indifference towards anything but the glorification of her daddy.

There you go making assumptions about my motives. I would love to respond to this. Do you happen to know which post this was?

peacegirl · #**24827** 03-06-2013, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly the kind of garbage thedoc posts. Nothing about the book; only about how wrong Lessans must be. He knows nothing whatsoever about what's in the book. It's a fascinating look at ignorance in full bloom. :eek:

And I will reiterate: whenever people call you out on your thoughts you always - always try and take things back to the book to avoid actually presenting yourself with an intellectual identity.

For example: you have persistently, steadfastly refused to deal with any of the intelligent issues with which I opened my commentary on this thread. I'll give you yet another example: you state that "some people already know that man's will is not free, and that makes it somewhat easier for me to communicate this knowledge." A huge and unprovable assumption, but that's beside the point because one can easily criticize this statement's logical coherence: if man's will is "not free" as you say, how does it make things easier for you to "communicate this knowledge" (I assume Lessan), since if we are not free we are less likely to embark on the open thinking involved in productively engaging with another's point of view? The alternative seems bleaker - namely, that the kind of knowledge you privilege is tailor-made for relatively non-conscious individuals or species who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of the indeterminate freedom that inheres in Nature. Now, if that's the way you see the world, well, that explains a metric ton of things about you...but synecdochically attributing that to the rest of the race is highly problematic.

I'm not saying my thoughts deserve special treatment, but I'm using them as an example of your continual evasion - evasion, I might add, that doesn't lend any credibility to your defense of Lessans. I submit that where you see "ignorance in full bloom," responsible people see naivete in full retreat. You're in over your head...and you know it.

You have no idea what I am even talking about when I discuss determinism, yet you are coming to all kinds of premature conclusions. Wowwww, and you think you have me and what I'm bringing to the table all sized up in two posts. Ignorance abounds!!!!!!

peacegirl · #**24828** 03-06-2013, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
No thedoc, this thread has turned into a gang attack. You are dependent on group think, like a sheep following the herd.

Has it ever occured to you that everyone comes to the same conclusion because all the evidence leads to the same conclusion, Lessaos was wrong about everything.

No thedoc, that's your justification for dissing the book. You are one that follows the crowd; and the more people that join in the attack, the more self-righteous you feel. The whole world can be wrong about certain things, but that does not prove that someone who comes along and says the world is wrong in their thinking, is necessarily wrong. The majority, who doesn't want to be wrong, just puts on their bully face and screams louder and louder, but it makes no difference if they are wrong. The only thing it will do is slow down progress. That's why I don't expect this discovery to be brought to light in my lifetime, but that has no bearing on its validity. Truth will prevail one day, in spite of all those who say Lessans had nothing of value to offer the world.

LadyShea · #**24829** 03-06-2013, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fascinating. In the new thread, which is rapidly going down the road of the old one, and which has not even reached the sexy jackets and the efferent eyes, there is this marvellously thoughtful post:

Quote:

I’ve always found the free will debate interesting but, ultimately, unrelated to serious ethical questions. On the one hand, it can be seen as a zero sum equation. A serial killer is not responsible for his bloody spree but neither is the jury that sentences him to die. Whatever debate we end up having about ethics will be the same either way.

On the other hand… I think reasonable people are rarely confused about ethics in reality. Sure its difficult to quantify, describe and defend in the parlance of academia but someone threatens your child…. and the world gets real simple real fast.

I believe moral responsibility exists. But not as some metaphysical truth. It doesn’t scale. It’s an emergent function of culture that we assume for identity and name in order to place certain events into an acceptable narrative…. if that makes sense.

A healthy person is one who thrives within his environment. In every sense. Since we are social species navigating obstacles will often mean recourse to social solutions. And a number of compromises will be necessary due to the competing interests that arise in any group. Morality, at least consensus morality, seems to be those social solutions that select for the most efficient advantage of the group..

On a more personal level I think morality is even more narrative at its core. A person arrives at adulthood with a strange melange of preferences informed from a vast and mysterious inheritance. We don’t really have time to understand how old and strange our minds really are. But we typically need to create a self image that satisfies some basic criteria. And we need to use whatever selection of raw materials we happen to have lying around.

Morality, by my impression, is disturbingly post hoc. In terms of personal relationships, global politics and virtually everything in between. Most rhetoric I hear is not about how to inform future choices for maximum benefit. Its about spinning the past into a story that flatters or excuses or vilifies. Ergo the emphasis on blame. I don’t say this to be cynical, just an honest observation.

I’m sympathetic, on occasion, to certain post modern thinkers who say the whole idea is obsolete.

Completely missed by PG here, and not even acknowledged. Pearls before her swinish indifference towards anything but the glorification of her daddy.

There you go making assumptions about my motives. I would love to respond to this. Do you happen to know which post this was?

Posted: 03 February 2013 01:09 AM [ # 29 ]

traumaturgist · #**24830** 03-06-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly the kind of garbage thedoc posts. Nothing about the book; only about how wrong Lessans must be. He knows nothing whatsoever about what's in the book. It's a fascinating look at ignorance in full bloom. :eek:

And I will reiterate: whenever people call you out on your thoughts you always - always try and take things back to the book to avoid actually presenting yourself with an intellectual identity.

For example: you have persistently, steadfastly refused to deal with any of the intelligent issues with which I opened my commentary on this thread. I'll give you yet another example: you state that "some people already know that man's will is not free, and that makes it somewhat easier for me to communicate this knowledge." A huge and unprovable assumption, but that's beside the point because one can easily criticize this statement's logical coherence: if man's will is "not free" as you say, how does it make things easier for you to "communicate this knowledge" (I assume Lessan), since if we are not free we are less likely to embark on the open thinking involved in productively engaging with another's point of view? The alternative seems bleaker - namely, that the kind of knowledge you privilege is tailor-made for relatively non-conscious individuals or species who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of the indeterminate freedom that inheres in Nature. Now, if that's the way you see the world, well, that explains a metric ton of things about you...but synecdochically attributing that to the rest of the race is highly problematic.

I'm not saying my thoughts deserve special treatment, but I'm using them as an example of your continual evasion - evasion, I might add, that doesn't lend any credibility to your defense of Lessans. I submit that where you see "ignorance in full bloom," responsible people see naivete in full retreat. You're in over your head...and you know it.

You have no idea what I am even talking about when I discuss determinism, yet you are coming to all kinds of premature conclusions. Wowwww, and you think you have me and what I'm bringing to the table all sized up in two posts. Ignorance abounds!!!!!!

If all you can say is "man's will is not free," then I don't think you know what you're talking about when you discuss determinism...in fact, it isn't even a discussion so much as a vague and indefensible statement. If you have more sophisticated thoughts about free will vs. determinism (assuming they are a binary dichotomy), the onus is on you to present your thoughts in a more coherent and thoughtful manner. Otherwise, if you simply leave it as "man is not free" then you deserve any criticism you get for making such a vague statement.

peacegirl · #**24831** 03-06-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fascinating. In the new thread, which is rapidly going down the road of the old one, and which has not even reached the sexy jackets and the efferent eyes, there is this marvellously thoughtful post:

Quote:

I’ve always found the free will debate interesting but, ultimately, unrelated to serious ethical questions. On the one hand, it can be seen as a zero sum equation. A serial killer is not responsible for his bloody spree but neither is the jury that sentences him to die. Whatever debate we end up having about ethics will be the same either way.

On the other hand… I think reasonable people are rarely confused about ethics in reality. Sure its difficult to quantify, describe and defend in the parlance of academia but someone threatens your child…. and the world gets real simple real fast.

I believe moral responsibility exists. But not as some metaphysical truth. It doesn’t scale. It’s an emergent function of culture that we assume for identity and name in order to place certain events into an acceptable narrative…. if that makes sense.

A healthy person is one who thrives within his environment. In every sense. Since we are social species navigating obstacles will often mean recourse to social solutions. And a number of compromises will be necessary due to the competing interests that arise in any group. Morality, at least consensus morality, seems to be those social solutions that select for the most efficient advantage of the group..

On a more personal level I think morality is even more narrative at its core. A person arrives at adulthood with a strange melange of preferences informed from a vast and mysterious inheritance. We don’t really have time to understand how old and strange our minds really are. But we typically need to create a self image that satisfies some basic criteria. And we need to use whatever selection of raw materials we happen to have lying around.

Morality, by my impression, is disturbingly post hoc. In terms of personal relationships, global politics and virtually everything in between. Most rhetoric I hear is not about how to inform future choices for maximum benefit. Its about spinning the past into a story that flatters or excuses or vilifies. Ergo the emphasis on blame. I don’t say this to be cynical, just an honest observation.

I’m sympathetic, on occasion, to certain post modern thinkers who say the whole idea is obsolete.

Completely missed by PG here, and not even acknowledged. Pearls before her swinish indifference towards anything but the glorification of her daddy.

There you go making assumptions about my motives. I would love to respond to this. Do you happen to know which post this was?

Posted: 03 February 2013 01:09 AM [ # 29 ]

Thank you LadyShea. I appreciate your investigative skills although they can be easily skewed to defend your position. That being said, I know I can count on you. You missed your calling. :wink:

peacegirl · #**24832** 03-06-2013, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly the kind of garbage thedoc posts. Nothing about the book; only about how wrong Lessans must be. He knows nothing whatsoever about what's in the book. It's a fascinating look at ignorance in full bloom. :eek:

And I will reiterate: whenever people call you out on your thoughts you always - always try and take things back to the book to avoid actually presenting yourself with an intellectual identity.

For example: you have persistently, steadfastly refused to deal with any of the intelligent issues with which I opened my commentary on this thread. I'll give you yet another example: you state that "some people already know that man's will is not free, and that makes it somewhat easier for me to communicate this knowledge." A huge and unprovable assumption, but that's beside the point because one can easily criticize this statement's logical coherence: if man's will is "not free" as you say, how does it make things easier for you to "communicate this knowledge" (I assume Lessan), since if we are not free we are less likely to embark on the open thinking involved in productively engaging with another's point of view? The alternative seems bleaker - namely, that the kind of knowledge you privilege is tailor-made for relatively non-conscious individuals or species who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of the indeterminate freedom that inheres in Nature. Now, if that's the way you see the world, well, that explains a metric ton of things about you...but synecdochically attributing that to the rest of the race is highly problematic.

I'm not saying my thoughts deserve special treatment, but I'm using them as an example of your continual evasion - evasion, I might add, that doesn't lend any credibility to your defense of Lessans. I submit that where you see "ignorance in full bloom," responsible people see naivete in full retreat. You're in over your head...and you know it.

You have no idea what I am even talking about when I discuss determinism, yet you are coming to all kinds of premature conclusions. Wowwww, and you think you have me and what I'm bringing to the table all sized up in two posts. Ignorance abounds!!!!!!

If all you can say is "man's will is not free," then I don't think you know what you're talking about when you discuss determinism...in fact, it isn't even a discussion so much as a vague and indefensible statement. If you have more sophisticated thoughts about free will vs. determinism (assuming they are a binary dichotomy), the onus is on you to present your thoughts in a more coherent and thoughtful manner. Otherwise, if you simply leave it as "man is not free" then you deserve any criticism you get for making such a vague statement.

That's just the point, it has been presented but you won't read what the author has written because you are so sure he's wrong, and you're right. How can anyone discuss a topic that is already filled with such volatility that it is nearly impossible to hear what this man has to say, without serious prejudice?

traumaturgist · #**24833** 03-06-2013, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly the kind of garbage thedoc posts. Nothing about the book; only about how wrong Lessans must be. He knows nothing whatsoever about what's in the book. It's a fascinating look at ignorance in full bloom. :eek:

And I will reiterate: whenever people call you out on your thoughts you always - always try and take things back to the book to avoid actually presenting yourself with an intellectual identity.

For example: you have persistently, steadfastly refused to deal with any of the intelligent issues with which I opened my commentary on this thread. I'll give you yet another example: you state that "some people already know that man's will is not free, and that makes it somewhat easier for me to communicate this knowledge." A huge and unprovable assumption, but that's beside the point because one can easily criticize this statement's logical coherence: if man's will is "not free" as you say, how does it make things easier for you to "communicate this knowledge" (I assume Lessan), since if we are not free we are less likely to embark on the open thinking involved in productively engaging with another's point of view? The alternative seems bleaker - namely, that the kind of knowledge you privilege is tailor-made for relatively non-conscious individuals or species who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of the indeterminate freedom that inheres in Nature. Now, if that's the way you see the world, well, that explains a metric ton of things about you...but synecdochically attributing that to the rest of the race is highly problematic.

I'm not saying my thoughts deserve special treatment, but I'm using them as an example of your continual evasion - evasion, I might add, that doesn't lend any credibility to your defense of Lessans. I submit that where you see "ignorance in full bloom," responsible people see naivete in full retreat. You're in over your head...and you know it.

You have no idea what I am even talking about when I discuss determinism, yet you are coming to all kinds of premature conclusions. Wowwww, and you think you have me and what I'm bringing to the table all sized up in two posts. Ignorance abounds!!!!!!

If all you can say is "man's will is not free," then I don't think you know what you're talking about when you discuss determinism...in fact, it isn't even a discussion so much as a vague and indefensible statement. If you have more sophisticated thoughts about free will vs. determinism (assuming they are a binary dichotomy), the onus is on you to present your thoughts in a more coherent and thoughtful manner. Otherwise, if you simply leave it as "man is not free" then you deserve any criticism you get for making such a vague statement.

That's just the point, it has been presented but you won't read what the author has written because you are so sure he's wrong, and you're right. How can anyone discuss a topic that is already filled with such volatility that it is nearly impossible to hear what this man has to say, without serious prejudice?

But that isn't the point of this exchange. I'm not critiquing what this guy Lessans says about anything; I'm critiquing what you are saying, which is precisely why I'm quoting your text and not Lessans'! Are you saying you have no identity apart from this author?!

peacegirl · #**24834** 03-06-2013, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I know your game. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to get more armor to be used against me. People here have made me look like an idiot. It's not hard to do when you're discussing a discovery that has not yet been properly investigated.

I was trying to get an answer to a question, but as per usual you are again refusing to answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew you would come back with the same words I've used on you. Very childish.

I was simply and accurately pointing out that the criticisms you make against others apply more to yourself and your father than to anybody else.

Accurately pointing out? I beg to differ Spacemonkey. You are here for one reason only; to prove your abilities as a philosophy expert, and this is the venue you have chosen to do it. Nothing that has been said accurately describes my father or me, for that matter. This is such a misjustice of character of who this man was, and it makes me feel sick inside. This is what keeps me going because the attacks on this man are completely fabricated and unjustified.

peacegirl · #**24835** 03-06-2013, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly the kind of garbage thedoc posts. Nothing about the book; only about how wrong Lessans must be. He knows nothing whatsoever about what's in the book. It's a fascinating look at ignorance in full bloom. :eek:

And I will reiterate: whenever people call you out on your thoughts you always - always try and take things back to the book to avoid actually presenting yourself with an intellectual identity.

For example: you have persistently, steadfastly refused to deal with any of the intelligent issues with which I opened my commentary on this thread. I'll give you yet another example: you state that "some people already know that man's will is not free, and that makes it somewhat easier for me to communicate this knowledge." A huge and unprovable assumption, but that's beside the point because one can easily criticize this statement's logical coherence: if man's will is "not free" as you say, how does it make things easier for you to "communicate this knowledge" (I assume Lessan), since if we are not free we are less likely to embark on the open thinking involved in productively engaging with another's point of view? The alternative seems bleaker - namely, that the kind of knowledge you privilege is tailor-made for relatively non-conscious individuals or species who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of the indeterminate freedom that inheres in Nature. Now, if that's the way you see the world, well, that explains a metric ton of things about you...but synecdochically attributing that to the rest of the race is highly problematic.

I'm not saying my thoughts deserve special treatment, but I'm using them as an example of your continual evasion - evasion, I might add, that doesn't lend any credibility to your defense of Lessans. I submit that where you see "ignorance in full bloom," responsible people see naivete in full retreat. You're in over your head...and you know it.

You have no idea what I am even talking about when I discuss determinism, yet you are coming to all kinds of premature conclusions. Wowwww, and you think you have me and what I'm bringing to the table all sized up in two posts. Ignorance abounds!!!!!!

If all you can say is "man's will is not free," then I don't think you know what you're talking about when you discuss determinism...in fact, it isn't even a discussion so much as a vague and indefensible statement. If you have more sophisticated thoughts about free will vs. determinism (assuming they are a binary dichotomy), the onus is on you to present your thoughts in a more coherent and thoughtful manner. Otherwise, if you simply leave it as "man is not free" then you deserve any criticism you get for making such a vague statement.

That's just the point, it has been presented but you won't read what the author has written because you are so sure he's wrong, and you're right. How can anyone discuss a topic that is already filled with such volatility that it is nearly impossible to hear what this man has to say, without serious prejudice?

But that isn't the point of this exchange. I'm not critiquing what this guy Lessans says about anything; I'm critiquing what you are saying, which is precisely why I'm quoting your text and not Lessans'! Are you saying you have no identity apart from this author?!

You cannot try to redeem yourself after the assault against this author that you published. Unless and until you have a question in regard to this discovery, I'm not interested in talking to you. It's a total and complete waste of time. That makes me sad traumaturgist because you do seem to be an intelligent person; someone who doesn't just take things at face value, and I appreciate that. But I don't appreciate the attacks before you even know what this author has written.

naturalist.atheist · #**24836** 03-06-2013, 01:47 PM

peacegirl, still as crazy as ever. Your insanity is like a tragic greek myth.

LadyShea · #**24837** 03-06-2013, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

after the assault against this author that you published

Assault? What assault?

People that aren't alive cannot be assaulted. His ideas, as stated by you, can and will be criticized, however.

traumaturgist · #**24838** 03-06-2013, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot try to redeem yourself after the assault against this author that you published. Unless and until you have a question in regard to this discovery, I'm not interested in talking to you. It's a total and complete waste of time. That makes me sad traumaturgist because you do seem to be an intelligent person; someone who doesn't just take things at face value, and I appreciate that. But I don't appreciate the attacks before you even know what this author has written.

I challenge you to find any post of mine where I have "assaulted" the author you're referring to. You aren't going to find it, because the very first time I replied to you I was calling you out on your statements regarding war and crime. At no point have I made any kind of full-scale critique of this guy Lessans because I haven't read his stuff. My critiques have been of you, and that is abundantly clear to everyone following this thread except yourself. You're either a complete idiot (which I don't believe you are), or you have some sort of psychological complex surrounding this person Lessans and/or his thought that clouds your capacity for rational judgement. This makes you unable or unwilling to distinguish between his thought and your own.

LadyShea · #**24839** 03-06-2013, 03:36 PM

Lessans was peacegirl's father, and she was raised with this "discovery" being considered truth.

peacegirl · #**24840** 03-06-2013, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

after the assault against this author that you published

Assault? What assault?

People that aren't alive cannot be assaulted. His ideas, as stated by you, can and will be criticized, however.

But it is a gang up due to group think. You don't see it LadyShea because you're caught up in it. You all think that your remarks are true and valid criticisms. The more people attack, the more it appears that you are all right, yet that is the farthest from the truth. Don't you see what has happened in here? Can you be a little bit objective about what has occurred, or is it too hard for you to admit that this thread is not a fair reflection of this book. I know this has to do with the eyes. You all can't bear the thought that he could have been right in this regard. That's why this thread is biased to such a degree that it's become corrupt.

peacegirl · #**24841** 03-06-2013, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was peacegirl's father, and she was raised with this "discovery" being considered truth.

There you go again, trying to make it appear that this is all faith based just because he was my father. I CANNOT HELP THAT HE WAS MY FATHER, BUT DON'T JUDGE ME ON THIS ALONE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

peacegirl · #**24842** 03-06-2013, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot try to redeem yourself after the assault against this author that you published. Unless and until you have a question in regard to this discovery, I'm not interested in talking to you. It's a total and complete waste of time. That makes me sad traumaturgist because you do seem to be an intelligent person; someone who doesn't just take things at face value, and I appreciate that. But I don't appreciate the attacks before you even know what this author has written.

I challenge you to find any post of mine where I have "assaulted" the author you're referring to. You aren't going to find it, because the very first time I replied to you I was calling you out on your statements regarding war and crime. At no point have I made any kind of full-scale critique of this guy Lessans because I haven't read his stuff. My critiques have been of you, and that is abundantly clear to everyone following this thread except yourself. You're either a complete idiot (which I don't believe you are), or you have some sort of psychological complex surrounding this person Lessans and/or his thought that clouds your capacity for rational judgement. This makes you unable or unwilling to distinguish between his thought and your own.

You have no basis in which to psychoanalyze me the way you're doing Traumaturgist. At the very least, you should read what I have put online, or it will be very clear to everyone that you are immediately putting me in the category of being a troll. This was discussed and let go of a long time ago. You haven't even been here that long for you to make these kinds of judgments. How can you objectively say the things you're saying without even giving it a second thought?

traumaturgist · #**24843** 03-06-2013, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is a gang up due to group think. You don't see it LadyShea because you're caught up in it. You all think that your remarks are true and valid criticisms. The more people attack, the more it appears that you are all right, yet that is the farthest from the truth. Don't you see what has happened in here? Can you be a little bit objective about what has occurred, or is it too hard for you to admit that this thread is not a fair reflection of this book. I know this has to do with the eyes. You all can't bear the thought that he could have been right in this regard. That's why this thread is biased to such a degree that it's become corrupt.

Anyone who has read the first page of this..ohhh, 900-something page thread can see that - for better or worse - it has gone off in a thousand different directions...not all of them directly related to the book, and not all of them directly engaging with Lessans' work. It's simply unrealistic at this point to try and bring eeeeeverything back to the work in question, especially since you are being asked to defend your own ideas, whether they are interpretations of Lessans' thought or not.

Thus, arguing this thread isn't a "fair reflection of this book" is like kicking a dog because it's a poor excuse for a watermelon. Dismissing the whole thread as "biased" assumes that everything being said is being said about "the book," which simply isn't true at this point.

specious_reasons · #**24844** 03-06-2013, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was peacegirl's father, and she was raised with this "discovery" being considered truth.

There you go again, trying to make it appear that this is all faith based just because he was my father.

Your belief is faith based because you have no evidence, have no promise of getting evidence in your lifetime, and you ignore contrary evidence. Pretty much the definition of a faith based belief.

We just happen to know why you have this faith based belief, and it explains so much about your posting history that it's entirely relevant, like knowing that the Creationist you're debating is a born-again Christian.

traumaturgist · #**24845** 03-06-2013, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no basis in which to psychoanalyze me the way you're doing Traumaturgist. At the very least, you should read what I have put online, or it will be very clear to everyone that you are immediately putting me in the category of being a troll. This was discussed and let go of a long time ago. You haven't even been here that long for you to make these kinds of judgments. How can you objectively say the things you're saying without even giving it a second thought?

I have made it very clear that I am critiquing what you have said here, on these forums - more precisely, in this discussion thread. Are you saying I have to read everything you've ever written in order to have the right to critique anything you say? In terms of the observations I'm making, you don't have to be here all that long to see the sort of pathology I guess is behind your refusal to take responsibility for your own words.

And, umm...while we're on the topic of making accusations: you haven't answered my challenge yet. You have only one tool in your toolbox, Peacegirl, and it's a scattergun - you just keep shooting and shooting until you think you've hit something, don't you??

LadyShea · #**24846** 03-06-2013, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

after the assault against this author that you published

Assault? What assault?

People that aren't alive cannot be assaulted. His ideas, as stated by you, can and will be criticized, however.

But it is a gang up due to group think.

What does that have to do with your histrionic and silly statement regarding an assault on Lessans?

But responding to your irrelevant rant...you attribute all criticism to group think because you cannot even conceive the possibility that Lessans was wrong. You have made him superhuman in your mind.

Quote:

You don't see it LadyShea because you're caught up in it.

You are caught up in Lessans predictions of Utopia and can't see the serious problems with his work

Quote:

You all think that your remarks are true and valid criticisms.

They are valid criticisms, as criticisms are simply opinions. Opinions cannot be true or false, valid or invalid. They can be agreed with or disagreed with at most.

Quote:

The more people attack, the more it appears that you are all right, yet that is the farthest from the truth.

Appears to whom?

Quote:

Don't you see what has happened in here? Can you be a little bit objective about what has occurred, or is it too hard for you to admit that this thread is not a fair reflection of this book.

Why would I admit that? You have been given you every opportunity to defend these ideas or convince participants and readers that the ideas are valid, worth investigating, interesting, etc. and every opportunity to answer criticisms. Your posts have not been deleted or edited, you have not been banned or censored.

If you feel this thread somehow unfairly represents the book, then that's on you as Lessan's representative. Readers will make up their own minds, right? All you can do is post. You cannot control how others view your posts or the posts of others.

Quote:

I know this has to do with the eyes. You all can't bear the thought that he could have been right in this regard.

He wasn't right. Everything written in the book on the eyes is nonsense, and your attempts to present efferent vision as a plausible model have failed miserably when compared to reality.

Quote:

that's why this thread is biased to such a degree that it's become corrupt.

LOL corrupt. You do love your drama.

LadyShea · #**24847** 03-06-2013, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was peacegirl's father, and she was raised with this "discovery" being considered truth.

There you go again, trying to make it appear that this is all faith based just because he was my father. I CANNOT HELP THAT HE WAS MY FATHER, BUT DON'T JUDGE ME ON THIS ALONE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

It is my opinion that the fact that he was your father creates, as traumagurist observed "some sort of psychological complex surrounding this person Lessans and/or his thought that clouds your capacity for rational judgement". So I mentioned it to traumagurist as a possible explanation for that observation

You are simply not rational where Lessans was concerned, and won't even allow the possibility that he was wrong about anything or made any mistakes. Even when actual mistakes have been identified and you have corrected them, you diminish them to merely typos, or miscalculations, or wrong word choices, rather than Lessans being wrong sometimes.

peacegirl · #**24848** 03-06-2013, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is a gang up due to group think. You don't see it LadyShea because you're caught up in it. You all think that your remarks are true and valid criticisms. The more people attack, the more it appears that you are all right, yet that is the farthest from the truth. Don't you see what has happened in here? Can you be a little bit objective about what has occurred, or is it too hard for you to admit that this thread is not a fair reflection of this book. I know this has to do with the eyes. You all can't bear the thought that he could have been right in this regard. That's why this thread is biased to such a degree that it's become corrupt.

Anyone who has read the first page of this..ohhh, 900-something page thread can see that - for better or worse - it has gone off in a thousand different directions...not all of them directly related to the book, and not all of them directly engaging with Lessans' work. It's simply unrealistic at this point to try and bring eeeeeverything back to the work in question, especially since you are being asked to defend your own ideas, whether they are interpretations of Lessans' thought or not.

Thus, arguing this thread isn't a "fair reflection of this book" is like kicking a dog because it's a poor excuse for a watermelon. Dismissing the whole thread as "biased" assumes that everything being said is being said about "the book," which simply isn't true at this point.

Most of this thread was about this book. That was the original purpose. Now it's morphed into something completely different. But the truth is people think they proved Lessans wrong. They did no such thing.

peacegirl · #**24849** 03-06-2013, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was peacegirl's father, and she was raised with this "discovery" being considered truth.

There you go again, trying to make it appear that this is all faith based just because he was my father. I CANNOT HELP THAT HE WAS MY FATHER, BUT DON'T JUDGE ME ON THIS ALONE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

It is my opinion that the fact that he was your father creates, as traumagurist observed "some sort of psychological complex surrounding this person Lessans and/or his thought that clouds your capacity for rational judgement". So I mentioned it to traumagurist as a possible explanation for that observation

You are simply not rational where Lessans was concerned, and won't even allow the possibility that he was wrong about anything or made any mistakes. Even when actual mistakes have been identified and you have corrected them, you diminish them to merely typos, or miscalculations, or wrong word choices, rather than Lessans being wrong sometimes.

He was a human being LadyShea, but the mistakes you are talking about are inconsequential. These mistakes have nothing to do with his discovery. You cannot seem to separate them, and you reason that I just can't allow myself to see that he may have been wrong here too. This is false thinking.

peacegirl · #**24850** 03-06-2013, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

after the assault against this author that you published

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assault? What assault?

It's been a gang up, like wolves who come out for their prey. Maybe I sound histrionic, but that's how I feel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People that aren't alive cannot be assaulted. His ideas, as stated by you, can and will be criticized, however.

Quote:

But it is a gang up due to group think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that have to do with your histrionic and silly statement regarding an assault on Lessans?

I did not mean that literally LadyShea, and you know it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But responding to your irrelevant rant...you attribute all criticism to group think because you cannot even conceive the possibility that Lessans was wrong. You have made him superhuman in your mind.

When the first post is Vivisectus making fun of this book all over again, makes me sick to my stomach. And thedoc, who is he? Do you think he understands the first thing about this book? I don't think my dad was superhuman, but I do think there is something to his discovery, and I am not going to give up getting his book into the right hands to be thoroughly analyzed.

Quote:

You don't see it LadyShea because you're caught up in it.

quote="LadyShea"]You are caught up in Lessans predictions of Utopia and can't see the serious problems with his work

What serious problems LadyShea? How do you know he's not right? You are acting as if the people in this thread have the final say. Well, guess what, they don't. You call his reasoning a modal fallacy and a tautology. They are neither. You don't see the truth in the principle of "greater satisfaction." Does that make it wrong? Of course not. As far as the assault on me (the outrageous namecalling) when it comes to the eyes, do you think this is conducive to a productive discussion? No.

Quote:

You all think that your remarks are true and valid criticisms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are valid criticisms, as criticisms are simply opinions. Opinions cannot be true or false, valid or invalid. They can be agreed with or disagreed with at most.

But there can be opinions that are wrong. My opinion that one plus one equals three is wrong, and it has an effect if I'm using this in an equation.

Quote:

The more people attack, the more it appears that you are all right, yet that is the farthest from the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Appears to whom?

To everyone here. Independent thinking in a place like this is hard to come by.

Quote:

Don't you see what has happened in here? Can you be a little bit objective about what has occurred, or is it too hard for you to admit that this thread is not a fair reflection of this book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would I admit that? You have been given you every opportunity to defend these ideas or convince participants and readers that the ideas are valid, worth investigating, interesting, etc. and every opportunity to answer criticisms. Your posts have not been deleted or edited, you have not been banned or censored.

I don't like to be called swine, willfully ignorant, batshit insane, a liar, an ignoramous, mentally ill, schizophrenic, daddy's little girl, to name a few. I can't talk to people who are so disrespectful to me. It subconsciously influences the audience, and it becomes very biased. The participants stick together to the point where they get extremely vindictive. Like I said, this type venue (including the one I am in presently), is really not conducive to spreading this knowledge. I hope I can find a better platform when the book is released.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you feel this thread somehow unfairly represents the book, then that's on you as Lessan's representative. Readers will make up their own minds, right? All you can do is post. You cannot control how others view your posts or the posts of others.

I realize that, but the kind of browbeating I have had to endure has pushed me out.

Quote:

I know this has to do with the eyes. You all can't bear the thought that he could have been right in this regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He wasn't right. Everything written in the book on the eyes is nonsense, and your attempts to present efferent vision as a plausible model have failed miserably when compared to reality.

No it is not nonsense. Dogs cannot recognize their masters from a picture, which no one has proven. I know this is not proof, but for people to say that dogs can do this, is absurd. You believe that the circumstantial evidence that the afferent account provides proves him wrong, but you really don't know for sure. You do not understand why everything we see is already within optical range because of how the eyes work, not how light works. Thus, there is no time involved if the eyes are efferent because we are not interpreting objects from light which has to travel to Earth before an object can be seen. I do not want to get into this again.

Quote:

that's why this thread is biased to such a degree that it's become corrupt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL corrupt. You do love your drama.

It is corrupt because there's a virus spreading in here .

That's why my coming here and discussing this again, when everyone has made up their minds, is not going to do me any good. People will continue to tell me the principle of "greater satisfaction" is a tautology, and a modal fallacy. That is incorrect but no one will listen. People will stubbornly hold onto their position without a trace of proof that Lessans was wrong, and this presents a major obstacle.