Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
peacegirl, you want to present info that can change the world but can't seem to defend or explain the info. You seem to have a tendency to assume things not in evidence, such as that we are easily confused (you stated your posting a definition of determinism would be confusing), that we have closed minds (explaining the woo red flags as necessary), and that we are fearful of new ideas (you stated skepticism is a protective mechanism).
|
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
I have read the chapters. I want to know exactly what stands out to you as so profoundly new and different so we can have a discussion.
|
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
The material is poorly written in my opinion, especially the distracting imaginary dialog, the self aggrandizement, and the inappropriate comparisons to mathematical proof. Within that I see a pretty vanilla philosophical presentation of determinism vs. free will with some situational ethics used for illustrative purposes.
What is it you feel I am missing?
|
You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to undertand this very difficult work. If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author. 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. LadyShea, I actually welcome your questions because they seem sincere.