A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

It's not about you. It's about the getting people to read the book and your drama queen routine isn't helping. Do you know who Mr. Bill from Saturday Night Live was? People laughed but they probably wouldn't read a book on his recommendation.

Try convincing a Chamber of Commerce that the solution to 'bums' eating from trash cans, sleeping in the parks, pissing all over the place and pushing shopping carts around might be to give them food, shelter, bathrooms and lockers. I definitely know what it's like to face a tough audience who has already decided that you're wrong and want to destroy civilization as they know it before they've even heard you speak. But you're correct in that I don't know what it's like to spend a decade getting laughed at on forums because that isn't something I would allow myself to do. If I'm sincere in wanting to accomplish something and my tactics don't work then I change them and come up with another strategy. Insisting that it be done my way even when it doesn't work is just self-indulgent and gets in the way.

I'm not insisting that it gets done my way. I know these tactics aren't working. My family told me a long time ago to leave these forums. They couldn't stand to hear how I was being treated.

Originally Posted by Christina

You missed this part of my post before. Can you answer it now?

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 can I say? She's wrong in that there is no self-aggrandizement. He was a humble man. This is an undeniable work, which means that it is equivalent to one plus one equals two. That's why he said it's mathematical and not logical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are entitled to your opinion, but the dialogue was a way to get people to understand this very difficult work. If you don't like the way it was written, blame it on me, not the author.

Some of his books were written in prose, but I liked the dialogue format because I felt it was easier to digest.

Foreword

This book was written in a
dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and
to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Have I misunderstood this all along and you wrote that fake dialogue and self-aggrandizing stuff and they aren't your dad's own words yet you refuse to change them? You could actually take that shit out without altering the sacred text? OMFG please say that it isn't so.

I did add some of my own stuff in the introduction (e.g. the excerpt with Richard Milton et al). When I said blame me, not him, it was because I compiled the intro from 7 of his books (I didn't want to leave anything out) therefore it may have been a little long-winded. People can blame me for that. Also, it's not fair to blame him when he isn't here to defend himself. Unfortunately, people believe the introduction was self-aggrandizing which I disagree. He was telling his story so that people would see what he went through in the hope that people would take this book seriously. Why should I change anything? Either people are going to close the cover or they will continue on. If the introduction is such a turn off, they are not the ones that should be reading the book anyway.

Intoduction

p. 11 Because this book
dares to oppose the three forces that control the thinking of mankind;
government, religion, and education; the most dangerous thinking of
all; the kind that really doesn’t know the truth as Socrates observed
but because of some fallacious standard presumes to know, I have
found it necessary to resort to this manner of introducing my work in
the fervent hope that I can break through this sound barrier of learned
ignorance, for which no one is to blame, and reach those who will be
able to extract the pure, unadulterated relations involved before
another century passes by or an atomic explosion destroys millions of
lives. Now be honest with yourselves; do you really know, or only
think you know? If you will admit there is just the slightest possibility
that you have not been endowed with the wisdom of God; that you
may be wrong regarding many things despite the high opinion you and
others hold of yourselves; that the expression the blind leading the
blind could even pertain to you; I know this is difficult for you to
conceive; I say, if there is the slightest possibility you could be
mistaken and you are willing to admit this to yourselves, then I
cordially welcome your company aboard, otherwise, you had better not
read this book for my words are not meant for your ears. But should
you decide to accompany me on this voyage I would like to remind
you, once again, that this book is not a religious or philosophical tract
attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination; it is purely scientific
as you will see, and should the word ‘God’ seem incongruous kindly
remember Spinoza and you will understand immediately that it is not.
While God is proven to be a mathematical reality as a consequence of
becoming conscious of the truth, war and crime are compelled to take
leave of the earth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only if you stop looking like the final word. You are far from the final word LadyShea. Why can't you accept that you don't have all the answers, or questions for that matter?

What is wrong with you, Peacegirl? I don't recall LadyShea ever claiming to have all the answers or to be the final word. But it seems that if anyone disagrees or askes a question that you can't answer, you see it as an attack. You are really paranoid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Any update on this?

The only thing that distinguishes one "I" from another are our personal characteristics, which we come to know as we become conscious of our own individuality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Once again it is everyone else's fault, never yours.

I'm really not blaming anyone; I am not surprised that it turned out this way. It's just the way it is. This is part of the process, I suppose. I need to be patient because this is God's timing, not mine. This discovery may not be recognized in my lifetime, but at least I'm doing what I can. I will do my part and God will do the rest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that he uses pronouns does not negate the validity of his observations. I don't know who decided that he can't use pronouns, but it's completely fallacious. He was so clear in what YOU means that I feel like people are responding in a knee-jerk fashion for no other reason than they don't want him to be right. I don't see what's so hard about this one paragraph. It's amazing to me how people can literally twist the meaning of every sentence he wrote to mean something entirely different.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So what happens to those people that speak a language that does not use personal pronouns? Do they even have a consciousness?

They may have a more difficult time understanding what he is saying because they don't have a symbol to represent the concept, but that doesn't mean the concept is inaccurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop telling me I'm weaseling?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. When you weasel instead of answering I will point out that you are weaseling. You are a self-confessed weasel, and you are once again weaseling. If you don't like this being pointed out then stop doing it.

Maybe if you weren't so demanding, I'd have a different attitude, but I don't like people telling me to give them more more more more more. You never say thank you for what I have given you!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason you are numerically 100 and not 101 is because there is no numerical difference between the YOU that was 100 who just died, and the YOU that is now being born, which is not 101 (as if you're still here), but 100.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not a supporting reason. You've just repeated what I asked you to show his reasoning for. Did Lessans not actually support this point with any reasoning? Is this just another assertion from him? Or is the problem just that you don't understand what his reasoning was?

Don't start again telling me this is an assertion. It is not. His reasoning was based on 3 valid observations which helped him see this relation that others seemed to miss.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our Posterity

p. 499 Now that mom and dad have you they decide to have another
child, and when it is born it is not you because you already exist.
Soon mom gives birth to a total of ten. Then several years later you
get married and give birth to two children, making a total of 14 in
your family. Before long there are 50 family members in all. After
reaching a ripe old age of 100 years you drop dead from heart failure,
so this body, this bubble of consciousness is gone which makes it
impossible for you to say that the next child born is him or her
because this relation must pass through your consciousness which is
no longer here.

If you, the 50th member of your family said ‘I’ just
before your death, and the remaining members of your family are still
alive at the time that you died; and if it is impossible to be born and
not say ‘I’ because everything must be seen through your
consciousness, the next infant born cannot possibly be him or her,
number 51, but YOU, number 50. In other words, since your family
just lost YOU, which decreased the population to 49, and since these
remaining 49 members are not you because they have their own
consciousness, but they still want YOU, when you are born YOU will
not be him or her, number 51, but you, number 50, who will grow,
develop and become conscious of your existence.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where is the reasoning here? He points out that it is impossible for you to be reborn while you are still alive, but then simply asserts
without any supporting reasoning that once you die the next born individual will be you.

He is trying to show that it has to be YOU. I know this is a difficult concept because you are extending these principles while you're still alive. I also think you may be getting confused when he says you are the next child born, as if to say that the YOU that is born is a replacement for the person who just died in some numerical way.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where is his reasoning to support this claim?

He's trying to show you that it has to be YOU, because this world can only be seen through your consciousness. That's what he means when he said isn't it strange that YOU are here right now, this infinitesimal moment in time? It's not strange when you understand that YOU, not Spacemonkey, but someone who recognizes his individuality, will always be here. That's very comforting to me, even though I don't want to leave my family prematurely. It's also wonderful to know that at the same time this knowledge is being uncovered, war and crime are coming to an end so that the chances of leaving this world prematurely will no longer be a threat.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you not listening? I told you I'm doing the best I can but I am not going to continue the discussion on death.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What a crock of shit. Refusing to even continue the conversation is obviously not doing the best that you can to explain things or answer questions.

What temper you have!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it was that easy I would have moved on long ago. Did you not see what happened at ProjectReason? These people who are supposed to be rationalists, are anything but. In fact, they are like little children arguing over their toys. They have huge egos which is ruining it for everyone. As much as I would like to contact Sam Harris, I would never ever go back to the forums he promotes. I do learn from my mistakes.

Peacegirl, if you were really moving in the direction of 'greater satisfaction' you would have left here long ago and found a site where people agreed with you. That you are still here proves that this principle is not in effect, and Lessans claimed that it was in effect even without the 'Golden age' coming into being. This principle is supposed to govern all our movement in life, but your action of staying here disproves this point of Lessans book. Either that or your not moveing is an indication that you are intellictually dead?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why should I change anything?

You're absolutely right peacegirl - you shouldn't change a thing because what you're doing is so phenomenally successful that it's perfect just the way that it is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just got here and I need a break...

LadyShea looks like the final word.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I do not understand - on one hand you claim that no-one really investigates your ideas, but when they do and ask critical questions you claim that this constitutes some sort of persecution. It seems the only thing you can tolerate is uncritical admiration of your ideas.

FINALLY YOU GET IT! You must bow down and worship at the feet of the high priestess of Lessanism.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe it is your mindset that is preventing you from entertaining the possibility that he could be right. You are not asking sincere questions, you are challenging me at every turn. Your motive is not pure, it is adulterated. It's impossible for me to get through to you, and I do believe this originates with his claim regarding the eyes. I will never win in here, and I am well aware of that.

I don't believe that anyone approches the book prejudging it, the disagreement will come after they start reading it.

Without being challenged your ideas will be worthless mush. Challenges are supposed to help you correct and improve your concepts.

This is not a competition, you are supposed to present your ideas and respond to comments, questions, and criticism in a clear and intelligent manner. You have failed on all counts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To clarify - these people do not agree with you that time is absolute and that there is no such thing as relative time, PG. They merely suggest a different way of thinking about it.

A different way of thinking about it? It's so much more than that because it changes a lot of our basic assumptions. If this is true, it would mean we cannot move forward into the future or backward into the past and time machines will remain science fiction. It also means that time does not dilate, expand, or bend.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, if you were really moving in the direction of 'greater satisfaction' you would have left here long ago and found a site where people agreed with you. That you are still here proves that this principle is not in effect, and Lessans claimed that it was in effect even without the 'Golden age' coming into being. This principle is supposed to govern all our movement in life, but your action of staying here disproves this point of Lessans book. Either that or your not moveing is an indication that you are intellictually dead?

This just shows me that in all this time you have learned nothing, absolutely nothing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm not going to offer you the whole chapter. What you should have done is said I am not in the position to determine whether he is right or not because I don't have enough information, but instead you try to discredit this knowledge based on very little information. Is that the sign of someone who really wants to learn, or someone who wants to win at all costs?

What Ladyshea should have done is exactly what she did, and that is to base her comments on the material she has access to. Peacegirl, if you wanted better, more complete analysis you should provide more material.

If these ideas are so wonderful and can be of such benefit to the world, it seems that you are being selfish to not be willing to share them. That you want paid an exorbidant fee up front, only proves that you are profit motivated, and not acting for the good of all mankind. Lessans would have given the book away for free, you are just greedy and looking for a meal ticket.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

This show is really entertaining but I feel that I must point out that there is a third option. You could always stop talking and get to work.

WHAT! ARE YOU KIDDING? And give up all this hostility and abuse, how would she get her daily fix, if she didn't come here?

[peacegirl]

But you are speaking for him. Why are you doing this? David has never addressed this legitimate refutation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you? Telling another person what their worldview is and what their deeply held beliefs are is speaking for them, too. Conjecture about someone else's mental state is a "legitimate refutation"?

This is not a conjecture. Throughout this whole thread he has called me awful names just because I don't believe that we see in delayed time, and just because I don't believe that time is an actual physical dimension that can be mapped out. He is threatened by this, and he blames me, as if I'm responsible for the creation of the world.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody besides you is emotionally attached to, or mentally dependent upon, any of the theories they speak about. Everyone here, besides you, will happily follow the evidence wherever it leads-even if that is in the opposite direction than they expected- without trauma.

I cannot help that I am emotionally attached to Lessans (he was my father after all), but this has no bearing on the validity of what he is offering, so stop using it. You projectile vomit this same accusation out LS frequently.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is why I accuse you of projecting whenever you accuse people of having emotionally charged worldviews dependent on individual scientific ideas. Right now it's time as a dimension, before davidm's worldview that could be crushed and shattered was based on Relativity and delayed time seeing.

How are wormholes scientific LadyShea? It's just glamorized science-fiction in the guise of science. I am not cherry picking people's worldviews. I am debating them because they are shot down if Lessans is right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your whole life has been dedicated not to Lessans as a person, which is understandable, but to his ideas being correct. You have time and money into his ideas. If his ideas are wrong, both you and he will have wasted decades and thousands of dollars. Nobody else here has this kind of investment in any one idea of science.

So what if no one here has this kind of investment in any one idea. What does that even mean? You're making an assumption that I wouldn't be able to deal with him being wrong. This is completely fictitious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What Ladyshea should have done is exactly what she did, and that is to base her comments on the material she has access to. Peacegirl, if you wanted better, more complete analysis you should provide more material.

If these ideas are so wonderful and can be of such benefit to the world, it seems that you are being selfish to not be willing to share them. That you want paid an exorbidant fee up front, only proves that you are profit motivated, and not acting for the good of all mankind. Lessans would have given the book away for free, you are just greedy and looking for a meal ticket.

You can think what you want. I have given away the first three chapters. That's over 100 pages and more than enough to know whether this book is for them. And why do you keep talking about the exorbitant charge, which I have nothing to do with. I make less than $2.00 a book and I deserve every bit of it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can think what you want. I have given away the first three chapters. That's over 100 pages and more than enough to know whether this book is for them. And why do you keep talking about the exorbitant charge, which I have nothing to do with. I make less than $2.00 a book and I deserve every bit of it.

Meal ticket.

[ChristinaM]

Are poor people not to be included in this brave new world?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Are poor people not to be included in this brave new world?

Everyone is guaranteed to stay at their existing income when they join the 'Golden Age' but there is little provision for increasing your income as that would be seen as hurtful to others as that would increase their financial burden. Everything goes back to the principle that if you are not going to be blamed for any hurt, your consciounce will not allow you to hurt others, and asking for more pay would be seen as hurtful to someone, so will not happen. Wages will not go up, prices will not go up, but nowhere did Lessans state who was going to provide the money for all these guaranteed wages, they will just magically appear from somewhere. A lot of people will be put out of work, Police, Lawyers, Judges, most politicians, Psychiatrists and several others, and their wages will be guaranteed at the level when they were put out of work by the 'Golden Age' but Lessans doesn't specify where the money will come from.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1142426]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The only thing that distinguishes one I from another are our personal characteristics, which we come to know as we become conscious of our own individuality.

Ah - so do any of these characteristics transfer from one "I" to the next? If so, how and in what way? And what is the difference between these "I"'s that have had (or have not have) some of these characteristics transferred, and brand new ones that did not have existence before?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She admitted at some point that she wrote the silly dialogs ("Oh look, here comes a Rabbi" remains my fave line in the whole book).

He wrote that LadyShea. What's so funny about it? Why are you only focusing on form instead of content? The dialogue was only meant to help with the content, but you just love to make this a laughing matter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In fact, there was a list of things that when challenged, she stopped maintaining it was Lessans and admitted she had added (Trillions upon trillions of babies being born

He wrote that in an announcement. It was not in the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

... fewer homosexuals when blame is removed from the environment). I told her she should list herself as co-author!

I took that out thanks to you. I didn't mean any harm, but people took it the wrong way. I would never take credit for being a co-author. I let people know I made a few additions and that's enough:

Please note that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is referring to
the time period when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction
that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the
conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken
place. Although it has been more than 50 years, there has been no
such investigation and, to this day, this discovery has not been
acknowledged for its contribution. Due to the time lapse since the
book’s last printing the editor has added some recent examples to show
how these principles apply to our current world situation, but please
be assured that the actual discovery has not been altered in any way
and is explained in the author’s own words. For purposes of
consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the
book. No discrimination was intended.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is unknown is whether she actually wrote them, or if she merely took responsibility for some of the sillier parts to protect Lessans.

I told you where I added things. I did not take responsibility for anything Lessans wrote in order to protect him because nothing he wrote was silly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Well, then she at least has to list herself as an editor although I would think that such significant edits and additions would be more appropriately called a co-authoring. I want to say that I can't believe that she would do such a horrible thing to any book but unfortunately I can.

She could have at least come up with a joke about a rabbi, priest and Lessens coming into a bar.

I am not a co-author. I did not author this book or make this discovery. I am just a steward of this work, that's it. I would never take credit because it's not mine to take. Why is everyone making a joke out of this thread? Haven't you all caused enough damage?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that I'm being physically stopped, but I am being psychologically stopped because the feedback I am getting provides me very little incentive to continue on.

Again with blaming everyone else. Why don't you just try taking responsibility for your own choices and actions?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I almost posted the video clip but some forums that shall rename nameless think that it's a crime against nature to reference Monty Python and I didn't want to outrage anyone.

Monty Python

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that he uses pronouns does not negate the validity of his observations. I don't know who decided that he can't use pronouns, but it's completely fallacious. He was so clear in what YOU means that I feel like people are responding in a knee-jerk fashion for no other reason than they don't want him to be right. I don't see what's so hard about this one paragraph. It's amazing to me how people can literally twist the meaning of every sentence he wrote to mean something entirely different.

They may have a more difficult time understanding what he is saying because they don't have a symbol to represent the concept, but that doesn't mean the concept is inaccurate.

If the concept is supposed to be universal and relies on symbols that are not universal then the concept is, at the very least, inadequate.