Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I think she would love positive attention for the book. The problem is that any serious attention reveals the enormous flaws in the book, while even the smallest criticism is automatically considered to be caused by either ignorance, malice or bias. As a result all attention turns into negative attention, because she seem incapable of admitting to even the slightest flaw in the book, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
|
Maybe I have a bad habit of assuming that in the absence of mental health issues or developmental disabilities people generally do things in a way that achieves their goal and when their tactics don't work they change them. She won't change hers no matter how many decades this ridicule goes on for so it seems to me like the payoff is in the ridicule for her. I'm not going to assume that she has a serious mental health problem since I'm not a psychiatrist and if I were I wouldn't be diagnosing strangers online. There's lots of room for weird in between neurotypical and crazy IMO. |
If you read the book you will find she really doesn't have much of a choice. If her ideas about free will are even slightly tempered, the whole teetering edifice comes crashing down: this is a text-book example of an entire system being built on extremely narrow foundations. |
Narrow foundations? You are so off the beaten track, it laughable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We already offered an explanation that allows sight to be normal while not conflicting with the book as she shared it. However, she herself has intimated that this would have consequences for the the ideas about not-reincarnation as described in the part of the book that is missing from my version.
|
What are you gibbering about? Consequences about not-reincarnation?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The entire cloud-castle is so lacking in robustness that smallest change would bring the whole thing crashing down, and then where is she? No eternally happy afterlife, no Brave New World, ten years wasted, and stacks and stacks of what has now suddenly become the worlds most expensive toiletpaper in stead of the Bible, Part 2.
|
Who brought up afterlife? This is not a Brave New World, the kind of world Huxley wrote about. Do you actually think the Golden Age of man is going to resemble Huxley's new world order in any way, shape, or form?
Brave New World is a benevolent dictatorship: a static, efficient, totalitarian welfare-state. There is no war, poverty or crime. Society is stratified by genetically-predestined caste.
Aldous Huxley : Brave New World