[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see that if you are comparing him to a fundamentalist group, which is the very opposite of who he is.

The comparison is valid from what he wrote. He may have been different in real life, but we can only judge what and how he wrote.

He never said anyone was stupid or deluded. He was just frustrated and this was his way of trying to preclude anybody from forming any preconceived ideas, although unfortunately it had a reverse effect.

He was proactively frustrated with unknown potential readers? This is in the forward for chrissakes.

When you come out swinging, of course people are going to feel unfairly attacked.

There are those who may be blinded by this mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can be clarified in such a way that they will be compelled to say, “Now I understand and agree.” ~Lessans ii

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In that passage he wasn't saying anything terrible; he wasn't being arrogant. He was only trying to get people to refrain from passing judgment, before reading the book.

He was saying that people are shadow/cave dwellers and deluded into believing they were living in reality when they were not.

He further attacks his potential readers by prejudicedly assuming that if they deny it, it could not possibly be out of honest skepticism, valid contradictory reasoning or facts, or expectations of valid supporting logic or evidence, but because they don't understand or don't want to learn.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And it still didn't work. People have done the opposite of what he requested. How unfair can one get, and then have the gall to pass judgment on his work.

Want to talk about unfair? How about telling your readers, the very people you hope to persuade to your way of thinking, that if they don't agree they are either incapable of understanding or are intractably stubborn?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So no matter what anyone says, no matter how much evidence there is against any of the ideas, no matter how shoddily reasoned any part of the book is, you, peacegirl, have this built in excuse of "you don't understand". Is that a good way to gain truth and knowledge?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You may not think there is anything to this book, but he would never have prefaced the foreword and introduction this way if he didn't know positively that he had uncovered a genuine discovery that is valid based on careful observations, sound reasoning and an uncanny insight into the human condition.

But put yourself in the shoes of a first time reader, like us when you brought this to us? How are we to know what he would or wouldn't do? All we have to go on, right now while reading the forward, are the words he wrote. He basically accuses his reader of stubbornness and adherence to incorrect ideas from the get go.

It's arrogance, peacegirl, for him to assume he is 100% correct. And it is arrogance and unfairness to set up a false dichotomy; either they agree, or they do not understand.

It's like the Emperors New Clothes...if you can't see the clothes you are a fool. Really, what other scholarly works are prefaced like this? Which authors feel the need to order their readers about in such a manner? Either the material stands and persuades on its own merits or it does not.