A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why the French LadyShea? Does that make your response more believable? No it doesn't.

As has been pointed out, Deus Ex Machina is Latin. I used it because it is a well known phrase to most literate people, and precisely conveyed the point I was making.

• Why did these discoveries remain hidden for millenia? Mankind wasn't ready until God deemed it time to reveal it through Lessans.
  
• How does conscience work? Dunno, ask God.
  
• Why is nobody convinced of the truth of this work? They aren't ready yet, back to God's timetable.
  
• Why should we accept Lessans made accurate observations? Because he did because he said he did.

Deus Ex Machina

I am unsure how my response could or would be categorized by the word "Believable".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just shows me that you're grasping for anything that will prove Lessans wrong. BUT HE ISN'T WRONG.

That I used a well known Latin phrase because it was the most precise way to convey my point is grasping?

Are you sure you're just not bitter because you don't know the phrase, and apparently couldn't be bothered to look it up?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you are so cozy with your fellow participants only adds to the prejudice I see in here because you don't want to be wrong. That's the bottom line. You want to preserve your belief that you are the epitome of knowledge and therefore can shoot down wrong knowledge. It's not that different from a witch hunt, just a different time in history.

Yes yes, pull put the tired old histrionics: the problem is my mindset and my holding on to it and my my giving a shit about how I appear to the group and the groupthink.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your presentation or Lessans ideas. It's all about the rest of us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I am. You're dogmatic belief that you're right (based on your impeccable qualifications, which is inaccurate) gives no more credibility to what you believe than what I know is true.

You believe it to be true based on faith in Lessans. That is a belief system not knowledge.

And what "impeccable qualifications" have I claimed? You are conflating me with the academics Lessans so envied and hated. I have no qualifications except my own critical thinking skills and a pretty good bullshit detector.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you're trying to ruin Lessans with every bone in your body, but you won't be able to do it because he's not wrong. We can end this discussion at any time, but it does not mean that this knowledge was wrong. It just means that you were incapable of understanding the principles.

Or, you are incapable of presenting them in a way that makes a bit of sense and Lessans was unable to convey them in a convincing way.

Of course I am sure it's all about me, nothing else fits your persecution and martyr narrative

[Vivisectus]

I know I have said it before, but for a proponent of removing all blame, you sure do a lot of blaming. Every single failure of this book is to blame on other people... even though it is a book that is supposed to be a discovery about what makes people tick!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The good news is that your resistance isn't going to stop the new world from coming according to God's timetable.

Originally Posted by thedoc

So it is religious dogma.

Funny you bring religion into this when it has nothing to do with religion. Very smart of you, I must say.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't remember the definition of God that was given in the book (hint hint: the laws that govern our universe), I can't help you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Except the laws of nature don't have a timetable, nor do they give a shit about human undertakings such as bringing about new worlds.

No they don't, but they do work in a certain way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't have it both ways. Either God is nature's laws -which don't feel, think, or plan- so ascribing human traits to them is meaningless rhetoric, or God is a guiding force with human-like cognitive processes and emotions.

God, in the way I'm using the term, is nature's laws, but I am ascribing personal attributes because it's easier that way. That doesn't mean God actually can think, feel, and plan, as people do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From a week ago. This speaks to Ang's point too.

Look how cozy you are all. You call Angakuk by his nickname. How sweet. Ugh!!!!

Scientific discoveries do not rely on Deux Ex Machina to work and Lessans uses it frequently.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why the French LadyShea? Does that make your response more believable? No it doesn't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As Kael pointed out, Deux Ex Machina is Latin. I used it because it is a well known phrase to most literate people, and precisely conveyed the point I was making.

What point? Using the word French is an expression like "excuse my French", even though I speak English. Have you not been taught that certain phrases are not literal?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ddddddddddd

• Why did these discoveries remain hidden for millenia? Mankind wasn't ready until God deemed it time to reveal it through Lessans.
  
• How does conscience work? Dunno, ask God.
  
• Why is nobody convinced of the truth of this work? They aren't ready yet, back to God's timetable.
  
• Why should we accept Lessans made accurate observations? Because he did because he said he did.

Deux Ex Machina

I am unsure how my response could or would be categorized by the word "Believable".

You're pulling these expressions out of context. No surprise. If you don't know by now what I mean by God, you'll easily use the general definition to try and ruin Lessans' credibility. You're so predictable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just shows me that you're grasping for anything that will prove Lessans wrong. BUT HE ISN'T WRONG.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That I used a well known Latin phrase because it was the most precise way to convey my point is grasping?

Show me where my saying "your French" (instead of "your Latin") changes anything?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you sure you're just not bitter because you don't know the phrase, and apparently couldn't be bothered to look it up?

I was not using this phase literally. You will make anything a big deal so you can go off on some crazy tangent for the purpose of making Lessans appear inept. Admit it LadyShea. What does this Latin phrase have to do with the knowledge I am presenting? Don't be sneaky and say "well if you were so smart you would have known this?" And if you were so smart you would have not taken this expression literally.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you are so cozy with your fellow participants only adds to the prejudice I see in here because you don't want to be wrong. That's the bottom line. You want to preserve your belief that you are the epitome of knowledge and therefore can shoot down wrong knowledge. It's not that different from a witch hunt, just a different time in history.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes yes, pull put the tired old histrionics: the problem is my mindset and my holding on to it and my my giving a shit about how I appear to the group and the groupthink.

Yes, it is your mindset. You care very much about group think. How could you not? You're one of the main characters. Stop blaming this on my histrionics, which is just another one of your weaseling tactics. And you think I weasel?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your presentation or Lessans ideas. It's all about the rest of us.

Correct. It's your commitment to the group (and their epistemic truths) that won't allow you to think outside of the box.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If he's right about his observations then that causes a conflict with an established "fact". I'm sorry this has caused such an upheaval (I had no idea there would be this much contention) but I maintain that Lessans was right. You are entitled to believe you want, and I'm entitled to believe what I want. Case closed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you're back to it being a belief system.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I am. You're dogmatic belief that you're right (based on your impeccable qualifications, which is inaccurate) gives no more credibility to what you believe than what I know is true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You believe it to be true based on faith in Lessans. That is a belief system not knowledge.

That's what you keep accusing me of, but you can't prove it. All you do is throw out tired and worn phrases and expect me to run away with my tail between my legs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what "impeccable qualifications" have I claimed? You are conflating me with the academics Lessans so envied and hated. I have no qualifications except my own critical thinking skills and a pretty good bullshit detector.

You're not as good of a detector as you think you are. Your ego is way too inflated. I can detect your bullshit a mile away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you're trying to ruin Lessans with every bone in your body, but you won't be able to do it because he's not wrong. We can end this discussion at any time, but it does not mean that this knowledge was wrong. It just means that you were incapable of understanding the principles.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Or, you are incapable of presenting them in a way that makes a bit of sense and Lessans was unable to convey them in a convincing way.

It probably makes no sense because you don't take him seriously. You can't even understand the very first premise as to why we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and you expect to understand the rest of this knowledge? But instead of trying to understand, you put the blame on me? How convenient.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course I am sure it's all about me, nothing else fits your persecution and martyr narrative

Not true. You are in the business of calling anyone who doesn't play by your rules as having "a persecution and martyr complex." This whole thread is nothing more than a game to you.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, I don't have to refute that list. All I have to do is show how Lessans came to his conclusion that we see in real time. If he's right about his observations then that causes a conflict with an established "fact". I'm sorry this has caused such an upheaval (I had no idea there would be this much contention) but I maintain that Lessans was right. You are entitled to believe you want, and I'm entitled to believe what I want. Case closed.

Great! You've conceded the point. You can't defend real-time seeing, and therefore Lessans was wrong.

Now that you've conceded this point, his whole system falls to pieces, since you've said that for his system to be true, real-time seeing is required. Since real-time seeing is false, his system is false, and that's the end of his book and of you.

[Vivisectus]

lol Shea the merciless persecutrix.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the kind of post that is a total waste of time; just as much a waste as the Christians who say peace is coming. You're losing ground Vivisecus, and you don't know it. The people who agree with you are your cronies. This is the most ridiculous thread I've ever encountered, and I have encountered quite a few.

Funny how all you ever do, year after year, is encounter "ridiculous threads." Ever wonder why that is?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where my saying "your French" (instead of "your Latin") changes anything?

It's another example of how uneducated you are. You're uneducated about everything. I suspect Lessans home-schooled you and used his book as the only text. I'd pity you as a victim of child abuse by him, excpet your arrogant, smug dishonesty forbids feeling sorry for you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Except the laws of nature don't have a timetable, nor do they give a shit about human undertakings such as bringing about new worlds.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they don't, but they do work in a certain way.

Yes, they do. But you do not seem to be familiar with them or understand their "certain ways" as you cannot even grasp how real time seeing completely runs counter to nature's laws.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

God, in the way I'm using the term, is nature's laws, but I am ascribing personal attributes because it's easier that way.

It may be easier, but the inconsistency of use makes it appear you do not know what you are talking about.

My point was that you and Lessans use God to solve problems in your narrative.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Using the word French is an expression (like excuse my French, even though I speak English), even if the lingo is in German. Have you not been taught that certain phrases are not to be taken literally?

You have got to be kidding me. "Pardon my French" is the ONLY phrase I have ever heard where "French" is used as a non-literal expression.

You use God inconsistently, and you use it when you can't answer questions rationally. You use God to solve problems in the book....as did Lessans.

My point stands and you are whining because you know it.

What are you talking about? My point was you and Lessans use God as a kind of blanket response when you can't answer questions rationally or solve a blatant problem in the book.

What was I grasping at?

Kael explained the phrase to you, then I gave a list of examples showing why the phrase was warranted.

You are the one on a tangent because you do not understand what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it is your mindset. You care very much about group think. How could you not? You're one of the main characters. Stop blaming this on my histrionics, which is just another one of your weaseling tactics. And you think I weasel?

I know you are a weasel. And you have continually used histrionics and persecution language whenever you feel cornered.

You think you can shame people into believing Lessans by calling them groupthinkers?

That's like getting someone to do something by calling them chicken, and best left on the playground.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you keep accusing me of, but you can't prove it. All you do is throw me worn out phrases and expect me to run away with my tail between my legs.

LOL worn out phrases miss pudding eater? You expect that calling me part of the groupthink will shame me into swapping sides?

I am on my own side, the side of the facts as I see them.

Okay Daughter of the Author of the Greatest Book Ever Written...let's talk about egos.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It probably makes no sense because you don't take him seriously. You can't even understand the very first premise as to why we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and you expect to understand the rest of this knowledge? But instead of trying to understand, you put the blame on me? How convenient.

You cannot offer any evidence that the first premise is accurate or any rational reason it should be accepted. That's not my fault.

Says the person who just equated a thread on an Internet discussion forum with a witchhunt. I am not persecuting you, I am asking you to support the principles you claim are scientific and nature's laws

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know I have said it before, but for a proponent of removing all blame, you sure do a lot of blaming. Every single failure of this book is to blame on other people... even though it is a book that is supposed to be a discovery about what makes people tick!

You would not be acting like this if we were living in the new world. Yes, I am retaliating against your false accusations because if I don't, this knowledge will be thrown into a scrap heap and forgotten. I won't let that happen if I have anything to do with it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would not be acting like this if we were living in the new world. Yes, I am retaliating against your false accusations because if I don't, this knowledge will be thrown into a scrap heap and forgotten. I won't let that happen if I have anything to do with it.

LOL

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look how cozy you are all. You call Angakuk by his nickname. How sweet it is. Actually, I could puke.

For the record - "Ang" is not my nickname. My nickname is "Angakuk". My real name is unpronouncable by the natives of this planet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. You are in the business of calling anyone who doesn't play by your rules as having "a persecution and martyr complex." This whole thread is nothing more than a game to you.

Please provide evidence that Lady Shea has accused anyone else, in any thread, of having a persecution and martyr complex.

[Angakuk]

In defense of peacegirl, it is quite true that real-time seeing does not change anything about physics or about the way the world actually works. This, for the very simple reason that real-time seeing does not exist. Not having any actual existence it is entirely incapable of having any sort of effect.

[LadyShea]

Yes, it is all about cozy sweet nicknames and it has nothing to do at all with simply reducing the number of letters I am typing, commonly known as "abbreviating"

I can't prove what? That your belief in Lessans principles are based on faith? Sure I can. You just said "I maintain that Lessans was right. You are entitled to believe you want, and I'm entitled to believe what I want. Case closed."

You believe Lessans was right but have no credible evidence on which to base that belief...your entire body of evidence is simply your further belief he was a particularly smart man who saw things nobody else can see. Additionally, it is not possible to "know" he was right unless the principles are put into worldwide practice. That is a faith position.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Funny how all you ever do, year after year, is encounter "ridiculous threads." Ever wonder why that is?

Yes, because the people in these forums are from the same mold. They all rush to judgment. And please don't tell me that these groups have been using objective scientific analysis to evaluate this work because they haven't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, it is all about cozy sweet nicknames and it has nothing to do at all with simply reducing the number of letters I am typing, commonly known as "abbreviating"

I can't prove what? That your belief in Lessans principles are based on faith? Sure I can. You just said "I maintain that Lessans was right. You are entitled to believe you want, and I'm entitled to believe what I want. Case closed."

You believe Lessans was right but have no credible evidence on which to base that belief...your entire body of evidence is simply your further belief he was a particularly smart man who saw things nobody else can see. Additionally, it is not possible to "know" he was right unless the principles are put into worldwide practice. That is a faith position.

I believe Lessans was right based on his accurate observations. Your last point is not true either because an observation can be right without it being put into practice. But it can't be used in a positive way until it is put into practice.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, because the people in these forums are from the same mold. They all rush to judgment.

As Viv said, the whole world just seems to be the wrong kind of people to understand Lessans work peacegirl. It can't possibly be the work itself, it's all these people from the wrong mold.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And please don't tell me that these groups have been using objective scientific analysis to evaluate this work because they haven't.

You can support this claim, right?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe Lessans was right based on his accurate observations.

You believe his observations were accurate. You cannot know they were accurate

Your last point is not true either because an observation can be right without it being put into practice.

You can believe they are true, but you cannot know they are true without empirical evidence, and as you and Lessans both have stated, you can't get empirical evidence until it is implemented world wide.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, because the people in these forums are from the same mold. They all rush to judgment. And please don't tell me that these groups have been using objective scientific analysis to evaluate this work because they haven't.

Actually, they have. They all ended up asking the question

"why should I assume this is true?" which is pretty scientific. In fact, I would call it the most basic scientific question ever, if followed by "and how can I check?"

Problem is, they all found out pretty quick that the answer was:

"Because my daddy said so and he was so smart that he would have noticed if he was wrong so he wasn't".

Which is almost literally what you said yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, you are avoiding three critical questions from this post.

1. You have been directly contradicting yourself on moral responsibility. So do we have moral responsibility for our actions under his changed conditions or not?

2. What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?

3. You also claimed to have been "loud and clear" in your answer to the above question. So please quote for me the post where I asked this question and you attempted to present an answer to it. Where is this "loud and clear" answer to my question?

At the moment both of his shared discoveries are a mess of self-contradictions. We have efferent vision because the light at the film both does and does not travel from the object to the camera. The removal of all blame will end all hurts because we both do and do not have moral responsibility. Apparently in the magical new world all logic goes out the window and direct contradictions become perfectly acceptable. Apparently logicians will all be forced to become dialetheists if they wish to retain their jobs.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe Lessans was right based on his accurate observations.

And you know his observations were accurate ... how?

[Vivisectus]

I believe Lessans was right based on his accurate observations. Your last point is not true either because an observation can be right without it being put into practice. But it can't be used in a positive way until it is put into practice.

"Observations", ie remarks, which you believe are accurate because he made them.

For us to know if he was right, we need the whole world to change first. But no-one is going to consider attempting that unless we first know he was right.

This seems to have passed ole Lessans by completely.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And you know his observations were accurate ... how?

But... but... but surely he would have told us if they weren't???

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL

I don't get the humor.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But... but... but surely he would have told us if they weren't???

This thread has become a joke. It's not even worth continuing in all honesty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Observations", ie remarks, which you believe are accurate because he made them.

For us to know if he was right, we need the whole world to change first. But no-one is going to consider attempting that unless we first know he was right.

This seems to have passed ole Lessans by completely.

That's not his fault Vivisectus. These principles are correct, and there would be no harm that could come from transitioning into the new world. But to actually get this off the ground, the discovery would need to be understood by scientists who could stamp it with the brevet of truth. My goal was to start a grassroots effort in order to pass this knowledge along, but I realize that's not gonna happen. I don't hold out any hope that anyone is going to understand these principles in this forum.