A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. We're all products of both our environment and our heredity, but we're not born evil. This book is not just about the removal of all blame. It's about creating an environment where no one is hurt, otherwise we won't be able to remove the desire to strike back.

Be that as it may, the book claims perfect conscientiousness once the desired environment is achieved.

I need to repeat: We can't remove blame from the environment until we stop hurting others. He mentioned this throughout the book. How can you say that the removal of blame is the only condition? He mentioned three conditions. If a person has already been hurt, he is justified to retaliate. Until we rid the environment of this first blow, not blaming would not prevent someone from wanting to retaliate.

The removal of blame is one of the conditions, the one that according to your father leads to it being impossible for a person to want to strike a first blow. It is the condition that deals not with retaliation, but with new harm.

Once again, if we don't remove blame from the environment without also removing the conditions that compel someone to desire hurting another, we won't be able to create the kind of environment where the thought of hurting another is unthinkable. Therefore, the removal of blame is only part of the solution.

But we are discussing what is being implemented to remove these conditions. One of them - and a vital one, as it deals with new harm - is blame. It is the key one that is supposed to keep new harm from arising. Unless a lack of blame leads to perfect conscientiousness this is not done. Again this has not been shown, but for the whole rest of the book it is treated as something that has been conclusively proven.

He explained this on p. 52. If I want to prove to you that I can do something I really don't want to do, it's not difficult. For example, I don't want to jump into a lake, but I will do this just to show you that I can do what I don't want to do. But don't you see, in your effort to prove that you can do what you don't want to do, you are actually doing what you do want to do, in order to prove a point, where under normal circumstances you would never choose to do this.

Indeed - and the answer is then that choosing to do what you did not want to do was actually what lead to the maximum satisfaction. But that is merely another example of the fact that "what leads to the maximum satisfaction" = "That what people end up choosing" which means that we are saying "That which people end up choosing is that what people end up choosing."

That is completely false Vivisectus. I told you that he got his knowledge from observation. He didn't use formal logic, which would make it appear that it's circular. I hope you will eventually see the validity of his observations if I ever get you to follow his reasoning.

He may not have stated it in formal terms, but it is nevertheless what he ended up proposing. There is no other way to define "That which leads to the maximum satisfaction" than "That which people end up choosing".

Other than that he offered no proof or reason to believe it is true.

It is based on an extremely solid foundation. You're just not seeing it yet.

It based on your father's say-so, and nothing else.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So tell me what other choices we have other then living or not living? Enlighten me.

Living is the only choice there is, not living is not a viable choice, natural death comes but not by choice, and suicide is not an option.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

he did not conduct these type of activities. He read voraciously 8 hours a day for many years, and from his intense reading and thinking, he arrived at these understandings.

So Lessans hypothisis is strictly "Ivory Tower Reasoning" with no basis in the real world, no observations of real people, only reading other peoples ideas and reconfiguring them into his own. His 'astute observations' were just his own imaginings and had no basis inthe real world. That is not a very sound basis, and in the past has lead to a lot of false ideas. Einstein did 'thought experiments' but then verified them with real world observations and experiments, usually with the help of others in the field, not shut up in his own little dream world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Living is the only choice there is, not living is not a viable choice, natural death comes but not by choice, and suicide is not an option.

No doc, you're equivocating. There are absolute choices here. You don't want to give Lessans a smigeon of credit because that's your agenda. I can't deal with you because you're a liar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So Lessans hypothisis is strictly "Ivory Tower Reasoning" with no basis in the real world, no observations of real people, only reading other peoples ideas and reconfiguring them into his own. His 'astute observations' were just his own imaginings and had no basis inthe real world. That is not a very sound basis, and in the past has lead to a lot of false ideas. Einstein did 'thought experiments' but then verified them with real world observations and experiments, usually with the help of others in the field, not shut up in his own little dream world.

Doc, you are so vindictive, you wouldn't be able to see these principles if they were handed to you on a silver platter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

One of the problems with the proposal of the book is that it supposes that people who consider every choice dictated by environment - essentially a 100% nurture philosophy - and feel that blame is obsolete, are necessarily perfectly conscientious.

Not true. We're all products of both our environment and our heredity, but we're not born evil. This book is not just about the removal of all blame. It's about creating an environment where no one is hurt, otherwise we won't be able to remove the desire to strike back.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Be that as it may, the book claims perfect conscientiousness once the desired environment is achieved.[/qutoe]

Yes, only when the conditions make it so.

Once again, if we don't remove blame from the environment without also removing the conditions that compel someone to desire hurting another, we won't be able to create the kind of environment where the thought of hurting another is unthinkable. Therefore, the removal of blame is only part of the solution.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we are discussing what is being implemented to remove these conditions. One of them - and a vital one, as it deals with new harm - is blame. It is the key one that is supposed to keep new harm from arising. Unless a lack of blame leads to perfect conscientiousness this is not done. Again this has not been shown, but for the whole rest of the book it is treated as something that has been conclusively proven.

Right, if we can't prove that man's will is not free, all bets are off. Even you recognized that no blame follows no free will.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another problem is that the argument for determinism is a bit wobbly as well. At it's core is the proposal that you cannot choose what you do not want to choose - every choice will always be towards greater satisfaction. But here the problem us - what did we measure to check this? When do we consider the sentence true that says "This is what led to that persons greater satisfaction?"

He explained this on p. 52. If I want to prove to you that I can do something I really don't want to do, it's not difficult. For example, I don't want to jump into a lake, but I will do this just to show you that I can do what I don't want to do. But don't you see, in your effort to prove that you can do what you don't want to do, you are actually doing what you do want to do, in order to prove a point, where under normal circumstances you would never choose to do this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed - and the answer is then that choosing to do what you did not want to do was actually what lead to the maximum satisfaction. But that is merely another example of the fact that "what leads to the maximum satisfaction" = "That what people end up choosing" which means that we are saying "That which people end up choosing is that what people end up choosing."

Not if you understand his observations were not syllogisms.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We consider if the person chose it or not. Hence the central proof for the non-existence of free will boils down to "That what is chosen is that what must be chosen because it was chosen". A tautology - and it lacks any element that dictates that the person HAD to choose this way.

That is completely false Vivisectus. I told you that he got his knowledge from observation. He didn't use formal logic, which would make it appear that it's circular. I hope you will eventually see the validity of his observations if I ever get you to follow his reasoning.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He may not have stated it in formal terms, but it is nevertheless what he ended up proposing. There is no other way to define "That which leads to the maximum satisfaction" than "That which people end up choosing".

Absolutely 100% wrong. We gain knowledge by accurate observation and your rebuttal is dereft of any real substance. That's why it is so difficult for me to continue this conversation, but I will do so until I feel there is no hope for this thread.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Other than that he offered no proof or reason to believe it is true.

That is based on your limited knowledge, which means that your response is also limited based on what you think you know. Try again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The entire rest of the book is a system based on this narrow foundation, a foundation that is not very solid.

It is based on an extremely solid foundation. You're just not seeing it yet.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It based on your father's say-so, and nothing else.

Wrong, but until you understand these principles in toto, you will continue to say the things you do. And there's really nothing I can do about it until you take this work seriously. You have not done that.

[Vivisectus]

Yes, only when the conditions make it so.

Circular - again, it is the conditions that we are discussing here. What you are saying is the conditions will make it so when the conditions make it so.

Noooooo, that is the last condition Vivisectus. You keep using this as a reason to discredit Lessans. Blame is a condition of the new environment, but it is secondary.

But it is the core one - the removal of blame is what will keep new first blows from arising. It is in fact the only one that deals with actual evil - unprovoked harm. It is the removal of blame that according to you will make it impossible to get satisfaction out of doing unprovoked harm.

As such it is the most important one.

Right, if we can't prove that man's will is not free, all bets are off. Even you recognized that no blame follows no free will.

And we have not shown that this is so at all - it has merely been asserted.

Not if you understand his observations were not syllogisms.

"Observations" in this context is simply claiming authority for an opinion. An authority it does not warrant - we can clearly see this when we consider how poorly thought-through other parts of the book are. All we have is assertions.

Absolutely 100% wrong. We gain knowledge by accurate observation and your rebuttal is dereft of any real substance. That's why it is so difficult for me to continue this conversation, but I will do so until I feel there is no hope for this thread.

I could claim I got to the conclusions that woodpeckers are not birds by accurate observation. Does that make it any more likely to be true if I don't supply these observations for you to check?

Also, if the term "That which leads to the greater satisfaction" is used only as one would normally use "That which people end up choosing" then there is still an error. The error is that you start to think that something compels the person to choose that, and that it would have been impossible for that person to want to do anything else, which we have not shown at all.

And you can think of my rebuttals what you will, but at least I am not simply saying "I came to this conclusion by Astute Observation, so it is absolutely true" which is basically what you are doing.

That is based on your limited knowledge, which means that your response is also limited based on what you think you know. Try again.

None has materialized. You keep saying there is some, but have not produced it, and neither have I found it.

Wrong, but until you understand these principles in toto, you will continue to say the things you do. And there's really nothing I can do about it until you take this work seriously. You have not done that.

Pleading persecution does not make a good argument. Basically what you are saying is "Is too! You are just too mean/stupid/lazy". As usual you are unable to defend what is proposed, and deal with this by ignoring the fact.

[peacegirl]

Yes, only when the conditions make it so.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Circular - again, it is the conditions that we are discussing here. What you are saying is the conditions will make it so when the conditions make it so.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I don't care how you frame it logically. The fact is when the conditions change, the conditions will change. If I change the conditions of my household, my children are going to grow up differently. Ipso facto.

When the environmental conditions change, our behavior will change.

Noooooo, that is the last condition Vivisectus. You keep using this as a reason to discredit Lessans. Blame is a condition of the new environment, but it is secondary.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But it is the core one - the removal of blame is what will keep new first blows from arising. It is in fact the only one that deals with actual evil - unprovoked harm. It is the removal of blame that according to you will make it impossible to get satisfaction out of doing unprovoked harm.

Yes, if there is nothing to provoke someone, then there is nothing that will cause someone to desire hurting another.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As such it is the most important one.

It is, but only in the right context.

Right, if we can't prove that man's will is not free, all bets are off. Even you recognized that no blame follows no free will.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And we have not shown that this is so at all - it has merely been asserted.

You were the one that recognized no blame must, out of necessity, follow no free will. I am just agreeing with what you said.

Not if you understand his observations were not syllogisms.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Observations" in this context is simply claiming authority for an opinion. An authority it does not warrant - we can clearly see this when we consider how poorly thought-through other parts of the book are. All we have is assertions.

You cannot talk about the rest of the book when it was so carelessly taken out of context.

Absolutely 100% wrong. We gain knowledge by accurate observation and your rebuttal is dereft of any real substance. That's why it is so difficult for me to continue this conversation, but I will do so until I feel there is no hope for this thread.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could claim I got to the conclusions that woodpeckers are not birds by accurate observation. Does that make it any more likely to be true if I don't supply these observations for you to check?

One is based on empirical evidence, and the other is based on pure observation and reason. You can't compare the two, yet you are rejecting this discovery based on false criteria.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, if the term "That which leads to the greater satisfaction" is used only as one would normally use "That which people end up choosing" then there is still an error. The error is that you start to think that something compels the person to choose that, and that it would have been impossible for that person to want to do anything else, which we have not shown at all.

A person is compelled once the choice is made. I hope you get it eventually.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And you can think of my rebuttals what you will, but at least I am not simply saying "I came to this conclusion by Astute Observation, so it is absolutely true" which is basically what you are doing.

I am giving proof. I am not just saying this is from astute observation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Other than that he offered no proof or reason to believe it is true.

Your response is, once again, based on your limited knowledge, which means that your response is also limited based on what you think you know. Try again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

None has materialized. You keep saying there is some, but have not produced it, and neither have I found it.

Maybe in time it will materialize. I don't know if you will eventually get it or not. But whether you do or not has no bearing on what is true or not. But it does have bearing on how long it will take this discovery to be brought to light.

Wrong, but until you understand these principles in toto, you will continue to say the things you do. And there's really nothing I can do about it until you take this work seriously. You have not done that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Pleading persecution does not make a good argument. Basically what you are saying is "Is too! You are just too mean/stupid/lazy". As usual you are unable to defend what is proposed, and deal with this by ignoring the fact.

I am not pleading persecution. The fact that you say the rest of this book is no good is a telltale sign that you have not understood these principles whatsoever. I have hope that you will eventually see the proof, but whether you do or not does not discredit that which contains within itself proof of its veracity.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're crazy doc, and I refuse to deal with crazy. I'm sorry. You wouldn't be able to see these principles if your life depended on it.

Thankyou, I've worked very hard to be the way I am.

I do see the principles, I just don't agree with them, and that has been your problem all along. If someone doesn't agree with you, you accuse them of not reading, not understanding, or lying, you have no comprehention that someone could read, understand, and still disagree. The book is flawed in all respects, and it is you who does not understand.

[Vivisectus]

Yes, if there is nothing to provoke someone, then there is nothing that will cause someone to desire hurting another when there is no justification.

This is treated as proven when it is not, is the whole point.

It is, but only in the right context.

And remains completely unsupported.

You were the one that no blame follows no free will. I am just agreeing with you.

But the reasoning against free will is either faulty, or absent. Faulty if we consider that "That which leads to the most satisfaction is that what people cannot help but choosing" which is a hidden tautology, and missing if we are to consider this one of the "It is an astute observation" ideas.

So we can not consider that a given at all.

You cannot dare talk about the rest of the book when it was so carelessly taken out of context.

I can indeed - having seen first hand how the things he states about sight contradict just about everything we know about physics without even realizing it, I can certainly hypothesize with some justification about the breadth of his knowledge and the caliber of his ideas.

One is based on empirical evidence, and the other is based on pure observation and reason. You can't compare the two, yet you are rejecting this discovery based on false criteria.

No, both are mere assertions unless we can check the way the conclusion is reached. If I do not tell you WHY I think woodpeckers are not birds, it remains pure opinion. All it tells you that I am of that opinion, but you are completely unable to ascertain if that opinion is a good one.

A person is compelled once the choice is made. I hope you get it eventually.

That is a very strange thing to say indeed. How can a person be compelled to make a choice after the fact? Are you sure that you understand what is being asked?

I am giving proof. I am not just saying this is from astute observation. That would be nuts.

Where is it?

That is based on your limited knowledge, which means that your response is also limited based on what you think you know. Try again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

None has materialized. You keep saying there is some, but have not produced it, and neither have I found it.

Maybe in time it will materialize. I don't know if you will eventually get it or not. But whether you do or not has no bearing on what is true or not. But it does have bearing on how long it will take this discovery to be brought to light.

So you are claiming this work is 100% correct on the off-chance that some proof will come along later? Does that not strike you as a little bit unscientific?

[quote][quote]

Wrong, but until you understand these principles in toto, you will continue to say the things you do. And there's really nothing I can do about it until you take this work seriously. You have not done that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Pleading persecution does not make a good argument. Basically what you are saying is "Is too! You are just too mean/stupid/lazy". As usual you are unable to defend what is proposed, and deal with this by ignoring the fact.

I am not pleading persecution. The fact that you say the rest of this book is no good, is telltale sign that you have not understood these principles whatsoever. I have hope that you will eventually see the proof, but whether you do or not does not discredit that which contains within itself proof of its veracity.

Ah so you agree with me that to you, disagreement with this work is synonymous with being wrong? A good test of seeing if someone is srong is seeing if they disagree with this book or not?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A person is compelled once the choice is made.

Once the choice is made, compulsion is irrelevant, to be compelled is only valid before and during the process of choosing. Your statement is illogical and irrational. It is not possable for someone to be compelled to make a choice, after the choice has been made.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Thankyou, I've worked very hard to be the way I am.

I do see the principles, I just don't agree with them, and that has been your problem all along. If someone doesn't agree with you, you accuse them of not reading, not understanding, or lying, you have no comprehention that someone could read, understand, and still disagree. The book is flawed in all respects, and it is you who does not understand.

This comes from someone who can't even answer the simple question (i.e., What other choice do we have other then living or dying?) You're just copying what everyone is saying. There's no point in having a discussion with you since you already know the book is flawed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Once the choice is made, compulsion is irrelevant, to be compelled is only valid before and during the process of choosing. Your statement is illogical and irrational. It is not possable for someone to be compelled to make a choice, after the choice has been made.

Once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is treated as proven when it is not, is the whole point.

And remains completely unsupported.

You were the one that no blame follows no free will. I am just agreeing with you.

But the reasoning against free will is either faulty, or absent. Faulty if we consider that "That which leads to the most satisfaction is that what people cannot help but choosing" which is a hidden tautology, and missing if we are to consider this one of the "It is an astute observation" ideas.

So we can not consider that a given at all.

Not if you understand his observations were not syllogisms.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Observations" in this context is simply claiming authority for an opinion. An authority it does not warrant - we can clearly see this when we consider how poorly thought-through other parts of the book are. All we have is assertions.

You cannot dare talk about the rest of the book when it was so carelessly taken out of context.

I can indeed - having seen first hand how the things he states about sight contradict just about everything we know about physics without even realizing it, I can certainly hypothesize with some justification about the breadth of his knowledge and the caliber of his ideas.

One is based on empirical evidence, and the other is based on pure observation and reason. You can't compare the two, yet you are rejecting this discovery based on false criteria.

No, both are mere assertions unless we can check the way the conclusion is reached. If I do not tell you WHY I think woodpeckers are not birds, it remains pure opinion. All it tells you that I am of that opinion, but you are completely unable to ascertain if that opinion is a good one.

A person is compelled once the choice is made. I hope you get it eventually.

That is a very strange thing to say indeed. How can a person be compelled to make a choice after the fact? Are you sure that you understand what is being asked?

I am giving proof. I am not just saying this is from astute observation. That would be nuts.

Where is it?

That is based on your limited knowledge, which means that your response is also limited based on what you think you know. Try again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

None has materialized. You keep saying there is some, but have not produced it, and neither have I found it.

Maybe in time it will materialize. I don't know if you will eventually get it or not. But whether you do or not has no bearing on what is true or not. But it does have bearing on how long it will take this discovery to be brought to light.

So you are claiming this work is 100% correct on the off-chance that some proof will come along later? Does that not strike you as a little bit unscientific?

[quote]

Ah so you agree with me that to you, disagreement with this work is synonymous with being wrong? A good test of seeing if someone is srong is seeing if they disagree with this book or not?

I'm not continuing to go round and round the merry go round with no progress. I will only take one sentence at a time from chapter one and try to help you understand it. If that is impossible, then we're done. I feel sorry, but I can't do more. One thing I will add: Before you choose something, the options are open because they are still being contemplated, but once the choice is made it could not have been otherwise. It was as necessary a choice as it was a necessity that day turns into night.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody here has expressed such animosity towards the idea of will not being free. Lessans seemed to think this would be a big stumbling block, and it may have been in his time, it may even be so amongst religious people, but it's really not here at .

I have stated many times I do not think will is free because we are constrained by our neurology. Our brain (including the unconscious workings) determines our choices and we can't choose against ourselves.

Lessans reasoning is causing the problem, here.

It's causing a problem because you don't see the soundness of his definition. We could just omit this part and begin with Chapter Two. As Vivisectus said: If will is not free, then it follows that we cannot blame. How can we blame anyone for doing what is beyond their control? The question remains: How can we not blame and punish someone for hurting others when he didn't have to hurt them if he didn't want to? Mankind had to believe that his will was free in order to justify the blame and punishment that followed.

[LadyShea]

you don't see the soundness of his definition

You're right. I don't think it's sound.

If will is not free, then it follows that we cannot blame.

I do think we can and do consciously inform and consider our choices to a large degree, and I believe we can choose how and whether to act on our thoughts and feelings and therefore can and should be held responsible for our actions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise.

This is a fallacy to assume that making the choice precludes other options prior to the choice being made. Making a choice says, and proves, nothing about other options, prior to the choice being made. All other options are just as valid prior to making the choice, and it does not prove that the choice made is the best, or most desirable, or that it would lead to the greatest satisfaction. The choice made, proves only that it was the choice that was made, and nothing else. Anything else is conjucture and opinion and would be unprovable, and likely a false conclusion, based on faulty reasoning. Making a choice in no way proves that the choice could not have been made otherwise.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is a fallacy to assume that making the choice precludes other options prior to the choice being made.

In addition to its logical laughability, Lessans' position posits some sort of quaint linear view of time as self-evidently correct, which, lol.

[Doctor X]

About that efferent vision. . . .

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

About that efferent vision. . . .

--J.D.

Perhaps that is what Superman had, as he was walking down the street he could efferently look at a woman and see her naked, since his brain could look out projecting an image, and the light reflecting off of her clothes were irrevelivent, or he could efferently look thru the walls of his apartment and see his neighbor.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

About that efferent vision. . . .

You are ready for knowledge of efferent vision, Doctor X. Sadly, the rest of the world is not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're right. I don't think it's sound.

I do think we can and do consciously inform and consider our choices to a large degree, and I believe we can choose how and whether to act on our thoughts and feelings and therefore can and should be held responsible for our actions.

LadyShea, what you just said shows me you have no understanding of this book. That's why Lessans said you have to go in a step by step fashion, which we have not done.

Many philosophers have gotten confused over this one
point because it was assumed that a world without blame would only
make matters worse, decreasing responsibility to an even greater
extent and giving man the perfect opportunity to take advantage of
others without having to worry about consequences. But this can only
occur when man knows he will be blamed, which allows him to come
up with reasonable excuses.

[peacegirl]

I dislike pasting and cutting, but this is the last opportunity for me to make any headway in here. This is an important part of the book, so if there is anything you disagree with, this is the time to do it.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do.

These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note.

Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

[LadyShea]

I understand, but I disagree with his reasoning and conclusions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

In addition to its logical laughability, Lessans' position posits some sort of quaint linear view of time as self-evidently correct, which, lol.

No one said it precludes other options prior to the choice being made. How preposterous!