A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're all washed up NA. You keep using the fact that if this knowledge was true, it would have been big news already, or if this knowledge was true, people on the internet would have recognized it already. You're assumptions are all wrong. And then your last argument that the only reason that I'm into this is because I'm his daughter is ridiculous. You're not giving me any credit for having a mind of my own. I am not indoctrinated. You are so off the mark that I really don't know what to say except that your entire analysis of who I am is flat out wrong. As I said before, my father was a loving kind man. He never told me I was responsible for his work. My sister loved my father too, but she went on to work on her own business. My father would have never scolded her for this, or made her feel guilty. That is the antithesis of what this book stands for. I am carrying the ball for my father, OF MY OWN FREE WILL (OR DESIRE) BECAUSE I WANT TO DO IT. In other words, I am moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, therefore I have no free choice.

peavegirl, if your daddy loved you then on his death bed instead of asking you to continue on he would have told you to forget about it and not end your life a tragic crackpot like he did.

Stop wasting your life repeating the same old crap over and over again and getting the same result. In any case I am done trying to help you. If you have any shred of sanity left you will stop posting or distributing Lessans crackpottery in any way and get on with your life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peavegirl, if your daddy loved you then on his death bed instead of asking you to continue on he would have told you to forget about it and not end your life a tragic crackpot like he did.

Stop wasting your life repeating the same old crap over and over again and getting the same result. In any case I am done trying to help you. If you have any shred of sanity left you will stop posting or distributing Lessans crackpottery in any way and get on with your life.

Then live up to your promise, and find another thread. That will be the best present that you could ever give me.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? Shouldn't you be writing your sermon, or do you use a canned version out of a book?

If I were going to use a canned sermon, it would come out of a can, just like the name implies. However, I receive my sermons special delivery from the Holy Spirit. They come fresh every Sunday morning. Sort of like those seafood restaurants on the coasts that serve fresh catch every day. That you would even suggest that I ought to be writting my sermon tells me that you have been the victim of one of those poseurs who pretends to be a real preacher. You know, the kind that have to prepare and write out their sermons instead of relying on the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. No wonder you are so bitter and ill-informed, what with having been fed with such insipid spiritual gruel.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If I were going to use a canned sermon, it would come out of a can, just like the name implies. However, I receive my sermons special delivery from the Holy Spirit. They come fresh every Sunday morning. Sort of like those seafood restaurants on the coasts that serve fresh catch every day. That you would even suggest that I ought to be writting my sermon tells me that you have been the victim of one of those poseurs who pretends to be a real preacher. You know, the kind that have to prepare and write out their sermons instead of relying on the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. No wonder you are so bitter and ill-informed, what with having been fed with such insipid spiritual gruel.

Now that is interesting, so you have a direct line to God every Sunday morning. Let's just hope you don't get a busy signal some Sunday morning. Of course your congregation might appreciate the shorter sermon. I wrote a piece about prayer once that was printed on the back of the bulliten one Sunday morning, if I can't find it again I might try to recreate it from memory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If I were going to use a canned sermon, it would come out of a can, just like the name implies. However, I receive my sermons special delivery from the Holy Spirit. They come fresh every Sunday morning. Sort of like those seafood restaurants on the coasts that serve fresh catch every day. That you would even suggest that I ought to be writting my sermon tells me that you have been the victim of one of those poseurs who pretends to be a real preacher. You know, the kind that have to prepare and write out their sermons instead of relying on the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. No wonder you are so bitter and ill-informed, what with having been fed with such insipid spiritual gruel.

In your defense, Angakuk, you appear to be a very open minded spiritual leader by the fact that you are continually searching for the truth, just by being in an open forum such as this one. Your sermons are probably very fresh and relevant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In your defense, Angakuk, you appear to be a very open minded spiritual leader by the fact that you are continually searching for the truth, just by being in an open forum such as this one. Your sermons are probably very fresh and relevant.

It just occured to me to ask, What language do they come in, if not English you would need to be quick at translating, unlike the early Roman Catholic who just used Latin and let the people in the dark. But of course it was in the dark ages.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is obvious that Lessans could not have observed all consciences, but from his years of reading philosophy, literature and history which spanned many centuries, he was absolutely confident in his findings. Spacemonkey, I'm sorry that your reasoning tells you that this is just an assumption. It is so far from an assumption, I am shocked that this is what our conversation has been reduced to. You, of all people, were the type of person I thought would understand his proof, but your formal logic has caused a fatal error (i.e., calling it a tautology), and in so doing you have closed the door to further investigation -- therefore I'm going to have to end our discussion.

In other words, you can't address my points so you don't want to discuss it anymore. You can't support his pesuppositions and you know Lessans didn't, so you instead try to pass them off as 'observations'. Only this has no affect whatsoever upon whether or not anyone else should accept them. I don't doubt for a second that he was absolutely confident in his findings - I just don't see any reason to think that he was right. Calling them observations doesn't change the fact that we have no reason at all to accept them as accurate. The fact that Lessans did not support them makes them unsupported presuppositions in the context of his book. That's not my opinion - it's simply what the words mean. You can't say that he observed these things therefore we should just believe him. People can be wrong about what they think they have observed, and universal claims such as his can only be inferred on the basis of specific and particular observations. We don't know what the latter were for Lessans, so we cannot judge his inferred conclusions (which you misleadingly call 'observations') to be accurate.

[seebs]

Well, it's a shame that he was absolutely confident in his findings, and then you had to come along and disprove them.

But disprove them you have. You assert that you firmly believe what Lessans says. He predicts that this will make you less hostile and less upset about other peoples' behavior, because you know that there is no free will and their behavior is necessary.

And yet, you're still thin-skinned, quick to take offense, and prone to retaliating. You even brag about how you are retaliating -- but shouldn't you not be doing that?

So Lessans was wrong about his most important claim.

[thedoc]

There is so much nonsense here that has been posted by Peacegirl that I really con't know where to start or what specifically to point to that is wrong, there is just so much. So I will concentrate it into this principle of computer programing, G.I.G.O. (Garbage in, Garbage out), so much for Lessans.

[Angakuk]

In the following video John Cleese responds to some comments about Monty Python. In the segment starting at about 3:27 it sounds like he is talking about peacegirl.

John Cleese Carefully Considers Your Futile...

&feature=player_embedded

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is obvious that Lessans could not have observed all consciences, but from his years of reading philosophy, literature and history which spanned many centuries, he was absolutely confident in his findings. Spacemonkey, I'm sorry that your reasoning tells you that this is just an assumption. It is so far from an assumption, I am shocked that this is what our conversation has been reduced to. You, of all people, were the type of person I thought would understand his proof, but your formal logic has caused a fatal error (i.e., calling it a tautology), and in so doing you have closed the door to further investigation -- therefore I'm going to have to end our discussion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In other words, you can't address my points so you don't want to discuss it anymore. You can't support his pesuppositions and you know Lessans didn't, so you instead try to pass them off as 'observations'.

They were observations Spacemonkey. Don't tell me he was trying to pass off anything because that's not what he was doing. You are so far from being right it never fails to shock me since you are supposed to the the cream of the intellectual crop.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Only this has no affect whatsoever upon whether or not anyone else should accept them. I don't doubt for a second that he was absolutely confident in his findings - I just don't see any reason to think that he was right.

I hope you don't give up because if you stick with it, and maybe buy the Mp3, you might actually change your tune.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Calling them observations doesn't change the fact that we have no reason at all to accept them as accurate.

We? You mean you. Please don't speak for everyone.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The fact that Lessans did not support them makes them unsupported presuppositions in the context of his book. That's not my opinion - it's simply what the words mean.

Your reasoning is failing you and you won't let me continue because you think you're right. Whether you recognize it or not, you're defending your rightness without a thorough understanding and you're ruining it for yourself. That's what I mean when I say that sometimes too much education can make someone more ignorant because he uses his intellect to close off doors that have actual potential.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't say that he observed these things therefore we should just believe him. People can be wrong about what they think they have observed, and universal claims such as his can only be inferred on the basis of specific and particular observations. We don't know what the latter were for Lessans, so we cannot judge his inferred conclusions (which you misleadingly call 'observations') to be accurate.

He did not have to observe every single conscience to know that he was right. He saw patterns which helped him understand the mechanism behind conscience, and what conscience needs to allow behavior to step over certain boundaries. If you don't want to hear anymore, then don't listen. I am not going to be on trial by the way you interrogate me, and that's how it feels. Why can't you let me go through the chapter my way, and refrain from making premature judgments until this discovery is thoroughly investigated?

If you still believe that in a no free will environment, when all judgment, criticism, blame and punishment, cease, and when everyone has complete economic security such that if they should fall below their standard of living, the citizens of the world will help them through the guarantee, then you don't have to become a citizen. You can remain in the world of free will, but there will be those who will want what this new world offers, and they will derive the benefits. It's as simple as that.

[Vivisectus]

He did not have to observe every single conscience to know that he was right. He saw patterns which helped him understand the mechanism behind conscience, and what conscience needs to allow behavior to step over certain boundaries.

I also see patterns, and sometimes I astutely observe things. In this case my pattern-scrying and astute observing tells me that Lessans was completely wrong.

I can assure you that this is a bona fide astute observation, and that I have read many big books with important-sounding names, sometimes several times over.

Since this is enough to convince you of your current point of view, this should now in turn be sufficient to convince you of the reverse.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I also see patterns, and sometimes I astutely observe things. In this case my pattern-scrying and astute observing tells me that Lessans was completely wrong.

I can assure you that this is a bona fide astute observation, and that I have read many big books with important-sounding names, sometimes several times over.

Since this is enough to convince you of your current point of view, this should now in turn be sufficient to convince you of the reverse.

Vivisecus, of course people can make wrong observations, just as any scientist could be wrong in their conclusions. Unfortunately, before the facts are even in everyone is coming to the conclusion that Lessans is wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In the following video John Cleese responds to some comments about Monty Python. In the segment starting at about 3:27 it sounds like he is talking about peacegirl.

John Cleese Carefully Considers Your Futile Comments

I liked the part starting at 0:50 I think he got it right. The other point in regard to the section you refered to is that it takes a relatively intelligent person to 'play' a stupid person in a movie or TV show.

[LadyShea]

Why can't you let me go through the chapter my way, and refrain from making premature judgments until this discovery is thoroughly investigated?

What do you mean go through it your way? Your way seems to be to paste the whole chapter and tell people to reread it if they question anything.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean go through it your way? Your way seems to be to paste the whole chapter and tell people to reread it if they question anything.

Peacegirl's 'way' of presenting this material in no way shape or form resembles 'teaching'. My daughter is back in school for a techincal certificate, and her school had a little shake-up where the majority of the existing instructors left or were simply not assigned any classes. One of my daughters major classes was being taught by a new teacher and the first week (2 classes) were spent reading out of the book. The next class, the next week, the teacher copied lines out of the book, wrote them on the board and had the class copy them. Everything was straight out of the book, my daughter has a copy of the book and can read it at home, she doesn't need to do that in class. The teachers job is to add to what is in the book, explain and clarify the book, not copy it. By the next class my daughter had dropped out of that school and switched to another for the same subject and is quite happy with it, she now has a 'real' teacher. I supported her decision 100%.

[thedoc]

Peacegirls problem is that she does not understand the book and therefore cannot explain it. Her 'copy paste' is the work of a 'cypher', not a teacher.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

Well, it's a shame that he was absolutely confident in his findings, and then you had to come along and disprove them.

But disprove them you have. You assert that you firmly believe what Lessans says. He predicts that this will make you less hostile and less upset about other peoples' behavior, because you know that there is no free will and their behavior is necessary.

And yet, you're still thin-skinned, quick to take offense, and prone to retaliating. You even brag about how you are retaliating -- but shouldn't you not be doing that?

So Lessans was wrong about his most important claim.

This shows me, once again, that you have understood nothing. It is a normal reaction to retaliate if someone has hurt you. This discovery is about preventing the first blow, so that a person doesn't have to strike back, or turn the other cheek.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean go through it your way? Your way seems to be to paste the whole chapter and tell people to reread it if they question anything.

Do you actually think it's unreasonable to ask people to read a chapter before coming to conclusions about that chapter? Actually, I've lost interest in cutting and pasting Chapter Two after no one appreciated that I gave them Chapter One, and couldn't even answer the most basic questions so we could move forward. No one could even agree that committing suicide is an effort to get rid of some feeling of dissatisfaction with one's present position (if one doesn't see another way out), but it is still a movement away from dissatisfaction in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is not a movement in the direction of greater dissatisfaction.

[LadyShea]

LOL you couldn't answer the most basic questions people had about Chapter 1, such as how greater satisfaction can be "observed" at all. How his satisfaction principle is not a tautology. How ascribing a necessity to an actuality (ie: ascribing a "must" to a "does") doesn't represent the modal fallacy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL you couldn't answer the most basic questions people had about Chapter 1, such as how greater satisfaction can be "observed" at all. How his satisfaction principle is not a tautology. How ascribing a necessity to an actuality (ie: ascribing a "must" to a "does") doesn't represent the modal fallacy.

Don't you understand that's he is trying to show through this demonstration that this movement away from dissatisfaction is not a choice? It's true that we can't observe "greater satisfaction" directly, but we can know that people are compelled to move in this direction if we understand the proof. You have not understood the first thing about this knowledge yet you are telling me that it's a does, not a must. If I can't get past first base, I can't continue. Do you notice that you never answer my questions. I have to pry them out of you.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This shows me, once again, that you have understood nothing. It is a normal reaction to retaliate if someone has hurt you. This discovery is about preventing the first blow, so that a person doesn't have to strike back, or turn the other cheek.

And that is a really idiotic idea. If he was such a good observer, as you claim, I wonder how he constantly comes up with nonsense like this. If he knew anything about human behavior, he would have noticed that this is exactly backwards. The proper way to deal with "blows" is not to respond in kind, because that usually makes it worse. Wars start like that. After a while, it doesn't even matter anymore who started what or who dealt the "first blow" to whom or whatever. The whole idea of turning the other cheek is to prevent positive feedback loops like that. And if you really have the "skillful means" that Buddha talked about, you can make aggression dissolve into thin air. Or take Aikido, which is the martial arts angle on pretty much that.

But what am I saying, Seymour was a greater thinker than Buddha, Jesus and Einstein combined! I better go back and reread the book like maybe twenty times until my brain is a nice mush and it will all become clear.

[seebs]

It's certainly normal to retaliate, but it only makes sense if you think it was volitional.

The entire point Lessans made was that if we didn't think other people were choosing their actions, and thus didn't think them morally culpable, we wouldn't feel the need to retaliate, and we wouldn't feel as hurt to begin with.

But you feel more hurt than other people, and retaliate more.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that we can't observe "greater satisfaction" directly, but we can know that people are compelled to move in this direction if we understand the proof. You have not understood the first thing about this knowledge yet you are telling me that it's a does, not a must. If I can't get past first base, I can't continue.

My understanding doesn't matter, because you can't show me the basis for the must, you can't show me any empirical, replicable observation leading to knowledge that we are compelled.

[Kael]

Our understanding also wouldn't matter if people truly were compelled to behave a certain way ("choosing" the direction of "greater satisfaction," for example), unless our "direction of greater satisfaction" were subjective, and based of what we happen to know at any given time. This is rather problematic for Lessans' claim that this knowledge will suddenly end all conflict in the world, since a great deal of conflict stems from people making good decisions on incomplete information. So, unless we also have some sort of mechanism that allows us to see all the possible consequences of any given choice, then even under this "revolutionary discovery" people will still be making decisions based on incomplete information, which can and will result in conflict, suffering, and all the other things he claims will suddenly be no more in the New Golden Age.

So, are people truly compelled to not "strike a first blow?" If so, why aren't people already behaving that way? If this compulsion does not kick in until and unless they understand the underlying principles Lessans lays out, then how do they acquire information on how their decisions will affect people, and thus which direction of "greater satisfaction" will avoid "striking a first blow?" Do they obtain such information the same way they do now, or will they be substantially better at making such evaluations once they understand these principles? Or will there be an entirely new source of information about how their choices affect others, far more complete than any they can access now, and thus less prone to causing bad decisions simply from a lack of information?

"Voila, we won't hurt others!" won't work here, I want to know how Lessans' "discovery" actually addresses the problem of harming others because of inadequate or inaccurate information when making decisions.