Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I did not say you were easily confused. I said the standard determinism is not completely accurate in the way it is defined.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Then offer your more accurate definition, even if you think it might be confusing.
|
I did. Did you not read the two pages of excerpt I painstakingly posted? If you read that, you will have some idea of why man's will is not free. You will see immediately that this does not fit into the standard definition which implies everything is fixed and we are all basically programmed to do what we do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Understood and agreed upon definitions are the basis of any discussion.
Quote:
|
If you read the first two chapters, you would know. I'm not calling you a liar, but if you did read these chapters you would at least be able to identify what the discovery is, and please don't tell me it's that man's will is not free, and therefore we should not blame.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So since the revolutionary idea is so apparent to you, you assume it must be apparent to everyone? Whatever it is, it is not apparent to me, and others also seem to have missed the essence of the discovery.
|
Maybe because you were looking for empirical data, but that doesn't change the scientific nature of this work. The two-sided equation was explained repeatedly. If you had read this chapter, you couldn't have missed it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Perhaps that is the fault of the reader, or perhaps it is your and the authors failure to concisely convey the idea.
|
I doubt it. It has taken me 8 years to compile this work. I made absolutely sure the two-sided equation was spelled out in one paragraph.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So please, tell me what the discovery is, in your words.
|
It is the fact that under certain conditions man is prevented from desiring to strike a first blow of hurt when all justification to do so has been removed.
Quote:
|
You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to undertand this very difficult work.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It fails because it is distracting and confusing. You are again blaming the reader.
|
I'm not blaming the reader at all. I know this is not easy reading because everyone is stuck on the conventional definition of determinism, therefore there we have no basis of communication. As long as you are truly sincere in your desire to understand, I will make the effort to explain it to you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Wait what? Don't blame poor writing on the writer?
|
I don't think it was written poorly. Besides, I did my absolute best. The author said at the end of the book that if anyone can explain this knowledge better, please come forward.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What you are missing is your understanding of why man's will is not free, what the two sides of the equation are, what will happen as a consequence of applying this law of our nature, and how it will benefit our world.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So help me understand. I am not seeing what it is you are seeing, so please explain.
|
Don't you see that I'm trying? I need you to first understand why man's will is not free. Instead of reinventing the wheel, please read what I posted this morning. Then we can move onto the other principle that comprises the two-sided equation, which IS the very core of this discovery.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I will even help you meet me where I am by telling you I do not accept or adhere to the concept of free will to begin with.
|
Then at least we won't be stuck on the very first principle. People who believe man's will is free won't let me continue because they believe the very first premise is wrong. Science is beginning to take this view, but the author has his own reasons which are important to understand, not that these principles wouldn't work regardless, but it makes it much easier to follow the rest of the book.
Quote:
|
LadyShea, I actually welcome your questions because they seem sincere.
|
And I welcome your concise answers, should they be forthcoming |
As I said, I cannot reduce these principles to such a degree that the concept will be diluted. Then people will tell me that the author was unclear. Not only would it be a discredit to this discovery (which I'm not willing to do), but it would confuse the reader more than they are already.