[Vivisectus]

I am having trouble figuring something out as a student of Lessanism.

We are to move to a society where the realization that will is not free will make blame pointless and even detrimental, since man can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and it is the expectation of blame that allows people to justify doing an unprovoked bad deed. Remove the blame, and this justification becomes impossible, and thus it can never be the path of greatest satisfaction to strike a first blow.

But on the other hand, ChuckF may need to go to jail for allegedly using his knowledge of criminal law for his own gain.

Surely that cannot be right? Even if these allegations are true, and even if we still live in a pre-golden age society, ChuckF is only moving in the direction of greatest satisfaction. His will is not free, and even if the allegations are correct, he was only able to justify them because he knew he would be blamed for it.

As a result of these alleged corrupt practices, Peacegirl claims she retaliated - an action that her own book does not condemn. If you are struck, naturally it may be the course of greatest satisfaction to strike back: this is not a first blow, after all.

And yet, it is this very retaliatory blame that retro-actively justified his actions in the first place! What greater blame than incarceration?

Clearly, Peacegirl is unable to put the mathematical extension of the principle into practice. This may be her only course of action in a world that has not yet slain the dragon that guards the door that says "Man's will is not free".

The chain of blame, justification and retaliation is clearly not being broken here.

Nor is it entirely clear in Peacegirls version of the book and the many Hadiths (stories about the prophet and his message that explain how the book should be interpreted or address matters not mentioned in the book) that she has written how the chain that we can now see in action is to be broken when the golden age dawns.

The contract that the new citizens are to sign according to her version seems to have to do mostly with economic matters. I am not sure if it also covers a resolution to all ongoing blame-retaliation chains, but I could of course be mistaken.

What does the Authentic version, shorn of alterations and explanatory anecdotes, say about how we are to get rid of the chain of blame and retaliation that we have just seen in action between the very two people who claim stewardship of the text? How will the transition occur?