A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to answer in my own words --- which would never do it justice --- until you show me that you read the text.

My question was simply whether or not Lessans defined "greater satisfaction". You still can't honestly answer this question, can you? I can't prove to you that I've read the text, because you won't believe me until I start agreeing with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not addicted; I just was hoping there would be a breakthrough but I am almost certain there won't be.

But you've been saying that for weeks and still couldn't leave. I think you are addicted to the negative attention.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's a scientific work and I know you have the capacity to understand it. It's not a tautology Spacemonkey, why can't you get that through your head? I really think there's a collective resistance and that's why I'm getting nowhere.

Yes, there is a collective resistance here to poor reasoning and unsupported (not to mention flatly-refuted) claims. Lessans' work is not "scientific" by any accepted meaning of the word. I don't agree that his satisfaction principle is not a tautology, because you cannot show this to be the case. All you do is assert it while making up ridiculous nonsense about whole chapters being definitions.

And I know I have the capacity to understand it, as do many others here. But what if you dont? You've been wrong about a lot of things here, and you've made a lot of simple and rather embarassing mistakes. What if you lack the capacity to understand what is wrong with Lessans' work? Have you considered that possibility? What if rather than having to think that every scientist, philosopher, and educated layperson you've ever talked to has been wrong on exactly the same points and in exactly the same ways, what if it is instead only you? The one person who is least knowledgeable of the topics concerned and the most likely to be emotionally biased due to your relation to both the author and the material? Isn't that at least possible?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess we're done then Spacemonkey.

If all you can do is lie and weasel, then yes, I guess so. Your alternative is to stay and put your faith to one side by honestly and directly answering questions, and being prepared to change your beliefs as a result of what you learn.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to put up with this anymore. If there's no one here who is interested these principles, it's time for me to go.

See you tomorrow.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

See you tomorrow.

Do you really think it will be that long?

[seebs]

I don't know where anyone would get the idea that calling people morons and idiots is insulting them. What was I thinking? She presumably meant it as a compliment.

[Angakuk]

But they started it and they did more than she did, so that pretty much absolves her of any responsibility for her own behavior. See, that's the way it works on the playground and in politics.

Also, people disagreed with her and Lessans. Disagreement equals attack. She just strikes out in self-defense. That again absolves her of any responsibility.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Promise?

Note to everyone, don't get too close to the truth or she will put you on 'fake ignore' - again.

It is a valid question though, and one I have asked myself: if Lessans was such a profound scholar of human nature, then why did he write a book that is not just unconvincing, but actually off-putting? Did he not realize that by congratulating himself on being so right and so clever about 3 times per page might distract people from what he was trying to get across? It just seems so silly to blow your own trumpet so often as he does in the book, to indulge in such obvious overcompensation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to answer in my own words --- which would never do it justice --- until you show me that you read the text.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My question was simply whether or not Lessans defined "greater satisfaction". You still can't honestly answer this question, can you? I can't prove to you that I've read the text, because you won't believe me until I start agreeing with it.

Yes, he defined it but not in one or two sentences. I told you that there is no way to define it this way because it will appear as a tautology. Moving toward greater satisfaction is the only direction we can go because we must choose what we consider better for ourselves under our particular circumstances. A person is compelled, by his very nature, to move in this direction, therefore "choice" is a delusion. Free will states that we can choose A or B equally. But if it is impossible to choose B because it gives us less satisfaction in comparison to A, are we free to choose A? Of course not.

No matter how I define "greater" satisfaction you will believe that this is not an acceptable definition because you will retort that no matter what choice is picked, it will be in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. We cannot move in a direction that would give us less satisfaction when there is a better option available to us. But what is a better option in our eyes is an individual thing. Others might think that we picked a bad choice, but we're not talking about what others think; we're talking about what we believe is the best choice for ourselves. Moreover, someone else, given the same set of alternatives, may choose something different. As Lessans stated:

What one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make
it so for others especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition
of differences in each case present alternatives that affect choice.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do suppose it is that you find yourself addicted to such destructive behavior?

I'm not addicted; I just was hoping there would be a breakthrough but I am almost certain there won't be.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you've been saying that for weeks and still couldn't leave. I think you are addicted to the negative attention.

I actually can't stand the remarks people are making. I've already expressed how I feel about this. If you really think I'm offering nothing valuable, I am asking you to stop responding to me. Don't ask more questions and I won't have any reason to stay. I'm putting a lot of people back on ignore, and if there's no productivity, I will be leaving.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet I have read it (more than once) and that is my answer. Why do you suppose it is that you are unable to accept that people can read his work without agreeing with it or even being impressed by it?

Because it's a scientific work and I know you have the capacity to understand it. It's not a tautology Spacemonkey, why can't you get that through your head? I really think there's a collective resistance and that's why I'm getting nowhere.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, there is a collective resistance here to poor reasoning and unsupported (not to mention flatly-refuted) claims. Lessans' work is not "scientific" by any accepted meaning of the word. I don't agree that his satisfaction principle is not a tautology, because you cannot show this to be the case. All you do is assert it while making up ridiculous nonsense about whole chapters being definitions.

I am trying to show you that it's not a tautology, but I cannot continue to discuss this in an atmosphere that is so *#*@) nasty. If I do leave, I hope you are able to email me through this site in case you want to buy the mp3. I really believe you will have a different tune after hearing Lessans speak. I'm sure I'm not doing as good a job as the author himself.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And I know I have the capacity to understand it, as do many others here. But what if you dont? You've been wrong about a lot of things here, and you've made a lot of simple and rather embarassing mistakes. What if you lack the capacity to understand what is wrong with Lessans' work? Have you considered that possibility? What if rather than having to think that every scientist, philosopher, and educated layperson you've ever talked to has been wrong on exactly the same points and in exactly the same ways, what if it is instead only you? The one person who is least knowledgeable of the topics concerned and the most likely to be emotionally biased due to your relation to both the author and the material? Isn't that at least possible?

I'm sorry, but not in this case. This knowledge is genuine. Why do you think I haven't given up? These forums never got into the depth that was necessary to understand this book. Even after all this time being here, we really haven't covered that much. Yes, chapter four has been exhausted, but not his first discovery. We really haven't gotten past page 46 with any real understanding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have showed them what happens to the blue-wavelength light, but they're not listening.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not true though, is it Peacegirl. People have listened very carefully to your many failed attempts to coherently explain what happens to this light. They have asked you questions about your conceptually confused responses which you have completely failed to answer.

I have explained it to the best of my ability. I have said that you cannot use the afferent position and understand the efferent position. I also said that the blue light is there as far as the inverse square law allows it to go before the photons get dispersed. When the brain looks out, through the eyes, it sees the object because of the instantaneous mirror image that is there at the film/retina when the lens is focused on THE OBJECT (which then focuses the light). The lens does not focus on the light which then gets focused. This in no way means that light from the Sun is not constantly being replaced. As the photons strike the object, the object continually absorbs certain photons and (P) reflects the blue wavelength, but the blue wavelength does not get (N) reflected which only means that it does not bounce off and travel with the speed of light through space and time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Chapter One. You are creating a fallacious standard that he has to define "greater satisfaction' in a certain number of words, or he's going to be put on Devil's Island. What you fail to understand is that the entire chapter IS THE DEFINITION.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's an absurd weasel of a response. A chapter is not a definition. A chapter as a whole may contain an implicit definition, but only if an explicit definition can be extracted and formulated from it. By your own admission, when that is done the resulting definition will be circular. You said Lessans carefully defined his terms. But he didn't.

I guess we're done then Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If all you can do is lie and weasel, then yes, I guess so. Your alternative is to stay and put your faith to one side by honestly and directly answering questions, and being prepared to change your beliefs as a result of what you learn.

I am so tired of people screaming ASSERTION, I don't know how to solve this. And, as I said before, I will no longer accept being abused. I really don't deserve this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to put up with this anymore. If there's no one here who is interested these principles, it's time for me to go.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

See you tomorrow.

Spacemonkey, you're the only reason I'm here. That's the truth. I know you're trying to understand this knowledge, but we're now on thin ice. Please don't ruin it by adopting the mannerisms of the others in here. Then it will be over, and there will be no "See you tomorrow" because tomorrow won't come.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is a valid question though, and one I have asked myself: if Lessans was such a profound scholar of human nature, then why did he write a book that is not just unconvincing, but actually off-putting? Did he not realize that by congratulating himself on being so right and so clever about 3 times per page might distract people from what he was trying to get across? It just seems so silly to blow your own trumpet so often as he does in the book, to indulge in such obvious overcompensation.

Vivisectus, you are not getting the correct portrayal of who he was. Part of that is my fault because I took all of his books and put all of his responses together which makes it appear that he said these things all at once. He did not. You seem unable to get past the introduction because you think he sounded arrogant. He really wasn't an arrogant man. He was frustrated. I really think you would have a completely different picture of him if you heard him speak. I'm not trying to make money on the mp3. I just think you will lose out if you end up with these bitter feelings, which are preventing you from studying this knowledge in depth.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, you are not getting the correct portrayal of who he was. Part of that is my fault because I took all of his books and put all of his responses together which makes it appear that he said these things all at once. He did not. The belief that he was arrogant (which he wasn't) seems to be all that you're fixated on. I really think you would have a completely different picture of him if you heard him speak. I'm not trying to make money on the mp3. I just think you will lose out if you end up with these bitter feelings, which is preventing you from studying this knowledge in depth because your suspicion is getting in the way.

Bitter feelings????? If there is any doubt that you are deep into LaLa Land this should remove all doubt. You post here but you are completely oblivious to what is going on even after almost a year.

Peacegirl, get help.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, you are not getting the correct portrayal of who he was. Part of that is my fault because I took all of his books and put all of his responses together which makes it appear that he said these things all at once. He did not. The belief that he was arrogant (which he wasn't) seems to be all that you're fixated on. I really think you would have a completely different picture of him if you heard him speak. I'm not trying to make money on the mp3. I just think you will lose out if you end up with these bitter feelings, which is preventing you from studying this knowledge in depth because your suspicion is getting in the way.

All I can go on is the man portrayed in the book, and that guy sure is a pompous ass. I make no claims about anything else, and I can provide you any number of quotes from the book to illustrate why I think this. The question remains: if he was such a profound scholar of human nature, then why was he not able to write a more convincing book? Why did he indulge in all this self-aggrandizement in his book? Surely he should have realized that this is counter-productive?

Another thing that bugs me: you never saddled your kids up with this stuff. You let them pursue their own beliefs and ambitions, in stead of treating them as vessels for your own. Does it not bother you that your father never extended you the same courtesy? He left you an impossible task that has cost you a small fortune, all for the sake of HIS beliefs, HIS grandiose ideas, for the sake of his own belief in his worldwide importance. Would you do that to your kids, even if you were ever so sure you were right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All I can go on is the man portrayed in the book, and that guy sure is a pompous ass. I make no claims about anything else, and I can provide you any number of quotes from the book to illustrate why I think this. The question remains: if he was such a profound scholar of human nature, then why was he not able to write a more convincing book? Why did he indulge in all this self-aggrandizement in his book? Surely he should have realized that this is counter-productive?

Another thing that bugs me: you never saddled your kids up with this stuff. You let them pursue their own beliefs and ambitions, in stead of treating them as vessels for your own. Does it not bother you that your father never extended you the same courtesy? He left you an impossible task that has cost you a small fortune, all for the sake of HIS beliefs, HIS grandiose ideas, for the sake of his own belief in his worldwide importance. Would you do that to your kids, even if you were ever so sure you were right?

Vivisectus, your objections don't hold weight. If you want to find fault, you will. I am not forcing you to be in this thread, let alone really study Lessans' words, so I'm not sure why you are so up in arms. My father never put anything on me. I am choosing this "of my own free will" (I hope you understand by now why saying "of my own free will" is not a contradiction).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Bitter feelings????? If there is any doubt that you are deep into LaLa Land this should remove all doubt. You post here but you are completely oblivious to what is going on even after almost a year.

Peacegirl, get help.

Your "get help" refrain is losing strength NA. You're going to have to do better than that unless you just want to hear yourself talk.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your safety books are much, much more marketable. I would put Lessans book up for free...just make it available to anyone and include an email address to contact you. If they are interested, they will contact you. Otherwise, let it go. Work on your own stuff.

You have to be kidding LadyShea. My father made me who I am (take it or leave it). I could never work on safety issues if it wasn't for Lessans and his insights because I would have never thought about carelessness as a preventable factor in so many accidents. I could never work on my "stuff" as you put it, and leave this discovery behind. War and crime prevention are just as important as safety prevention, and I will never let his discovery go by the wayside.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, all of your objections don't match up. If you want to find fault, you will find fault. I am not forcing you to even be in this thread, let alone really study Lessans' words, so I'm not sure where you are coming from. This has nothing to do with making money, although it does put me in the position of making money, which I would use to further this knowledge. Why do you equate this knowledge with a money making scheme is my question. You can't tell me that this is what it is, because it is not.

Once again you miss the point in a monumental fashion. Did you even read what I posted?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That you are not sharing it freely makes it appear that you do not really believe what is claimed. If you were to share it freely and, it does what you believe it will, you would not need to depend on selling books to make money, your advice would be sought after by everyone. But you are keeping it to yourself as if its just too precious to share, or not really what you believe, so you are stuck with it and it is doing nobody any good. The only good reason to hide it like this, is to trick people into buying it, before thay can figure out that it is worthless drivel.

You're response is just as redundant as NA's. This has nothing to do with money, but I need money to pursue my goal. You would never tell anyone to not sell a product that they worked hard on, except for me because of the importance of this knowledge, so in your mind I'm supposed to give it away for free. But if I don't sell it, it will not be taken seriously. I'm in a catch 22. I will make money, and I will put it to good use in furthering this knowledge. My will is not free to do otherwise.

I need capital in order to market this book. People do not appreciate, respect, or take seriously books that are not purchased. That being said, the CD costs very little and I am so happy I have his voice on audio. The only bad part is that I noticed in certain parts it gets a little softer and then louder again. I'm sure that I can get that corrected, but it will take more money. For now, it's good enough and it sounds like he could have done his recording in a studio, when all he had was a tape recorder and the best recording tapes he could find at that time. If you think it's drivel, then don't consider buying it. Eventually, this knowledge is going to spread. How do I know that? Because it's a genuine discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think I value Thomas' Paine's Age of Reason because I purchased the copy I have? You think I respect Shakespeare more because I bought a book? You think I take Carl Sagan's ideas less seriously because the books I have of his were gifts? People appreciate and respect content, not the monetary value of the paper and binding. You have it all backwards

Sure you value the free Shakespeare tracts, because he is well-known, but Lessans would be buried alive.

You might be right on that count, but I still am going to sell the Mp3 for $11.95. It's worth every penny and I need to make up some of the money I put into this. I live on a very low budget. If I made money I could also build my other business, which is an offshoot of my dad's book. You know, Playing it Safe with Mr. See-More Safety.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am very sorry that you put your money into this. There is no way this will ever sell, it is just too unconvincing to be serious and it does not strike the right tone for woo. I suggest you try to find some way of increasing your income a little bit, in stead of flogging this dead horse. It has already cost you bucketloads that you could ill afford. Please do not throw more good money after bad. You could have used the 40K that I believe you said you spent on this on useful things to improve your life.

So now you're a mind reader as well as someone who is so smart that she can determine all truth? Help me God. When did I ever mention the amount I have spent? Now you're fabricating things. I really don't get it. Show me where I mentioned 40k?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some father, to saddle you up with his arrogant nonsense. You are letting an pompous fool make your life much harder than it needs to be, even from beyond the grave. What a self-important ass, to do that to his own child without ever thinking of the consequences.

You are getting out of hand LadyShea, and unless you change your demeanor, there will be no more interaction between me and you. You are the pompous fool, not me, and you have lost your way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and I will never let his discovery go by the wayside.

Too Late.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again you miss the point in a monumental fashion. Did you even read what I posted?

Yes, I read your response. He never put this on me, FYI. I am his daughter, and I willingly volunteered to do this because I know the significance of what he has discovered. So stop making up stories Vivisectus, so you can be right. You're not only not right, you are misrepresenting everything this discovery stands for.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, but not in this case. This knowledge is genuine. Why do you think I haven't given up? These forums never got into the depth that was necessary to understand this book. Even after all this time being here, we really haven't covered that much. Yes, chapter four has been exhausted, but not his first discovery. We really haven't gotten past page 46 with any real understanding.

peacegirl, you are oblivious to what's going on. People understand the book, they think it is the work of a deranged mind. You can go through the motions as many times as you like but it will change nothing.

Spacemonkey, you're the only reason I'm here. That's the truth. I know you're trying to understand this knowledge, but we're now on thin ice. Please don't ruin it by adopting the mannerisms of the others in here. Then it will be over, and there will be no "See you tomorrow" because tomorrow won't come.

Peacegirl, you are living in a delusion. Spacemonkey understands what you are saying, he just can't get over how crazy it is. But he is getting there, and when he does you ain't gonna like it.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, he defined it but not in one or two sentences. I told you that there is no way to define it this way because it will appear as a tautology.

There's usually just one very good reason that something "appear[s] as a tautology." I'll let you work out for yourself what that reason might be...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to show you that it's not a tautology, but I cannot continue to discuss this in an atmosphere that is so *#*@) nasty.

Why do you self-censor? Posts are not censored for language here. If you don't want to write out "damn" or some other cuss, then just don't write it. Self-censoring makes you look prudish, hypocritical, and a little stupid.

Furthermore, "atmosphere" has fuck-all to do with your inability to explain why something is not a tautology. Your posts will never be deleted, they cannot be shouted down, and they will not be censored. Whatever rebuttal you choose to offer to these unseemly accusations of blithering idiocy on the part of yourself and Lessans will remain there, unaltered, and stand or fall on its merits.

In case you haven't figured this out yet, whining about how picked on you are and how everyone is mean to you is not a very convincing rebuttal...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure you value the free Shakespeare tracts, because he is well-known, but Lessans would be buried alive.

How do you think the people I mentioned got to be well known?

Anyway that wasn't my point, you're not reading carefully. I bought my copies of Shakespeare and Thomas Paine, because I valued the content. I could check it out from the library free, I could probably find much of both author's on the Internet free. I chose to purchase copies to have in my home library. I bought Lewis Carroll and Edgar Allen Poe and Mark Twain, all for the same reason. I don't value or appreciate or respect the content due to paying for bound copies. That's backwards.

The Carl Sagan books were gifts, I don't take Sagan's ideas presented in them less seriously because I didn't pay for them. The content speaks for itself. The ideas stand or fall on their own merits.

Your idea that people will somehow be more apt to respect Lessans work because they bought it is absurd.

That wasn't my comment. I don't know who said it but you misattributed it to me. How's about you carefully look at who is actually saying what and respond to the correct person?

Again, not me that said that. The names of the poster are clearly marked on every post.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your "get help" refrain is losing strength NA. You're going to have to do better than that if you want to be believable. You have no attack mechanism in place, which is why all you say is "Get help". Does anyone read through his retorts? I really hope so for the world's sake.

Maybe one day you will get help.

As usual you are completely oblivious the what everyone else has known for a long time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to be kidding LadyShea. My father made me who I am (take it or leave it). I could never work on safety issues if it wasn't for Lessans and his insights because I would have never thought about carelessness as a preventable factor in so many accidents. I could never work on my "stuff" as you put it, and leave this discovery behind. War and crime prevention are just as important as safety prevention, and I will never let his discovery go by the wayside.

I meant to let go of the control and work involved in promotion and distribution, peacegirl. Are you so blinded by your butthurt that you can't read?

I suggest you make the whole book available, in it's entirety, for free, by posting it on the Internet. You have very little chance of finding the "right people" on your own. Let the "right people" find the book and find you and spread the word.

Your safety books, on the other hand, are much more easily marketed as a product.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

I don't know where anyone would get the idea that calling people morons and idiots is insulting them. What was I thinking? She presumably meant it as a compliment.

Seebs, you know what this feels like??? It feels like putting all the blame on me for what this group has done, and doing it with impunity. It stinks.

[LadyShea]

Come off it peacegirl. Your first day here at you called me bitter, too angry to communicate with, and blamed me for your introduction appearing spammy.

You're no innocent victim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I meant to let go of the control and work involved in promotion and distribution, peacegirl. Are you so blinded by your butthurt that you can't read?

Shut up about my butthurt Ladyshea, and focus on your own.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I suggest you make the whole book available, in it's entirety, for free, by posting it on the Internet. You have very little chance of finding the "right people" on your own. Let the "right people" find the book and find you and spread the word.

Your safety books, on the other hand, are much more easily marketed as a product.

No, I will not put this book out for free when this man was an unknown. You say let the right people find me and spread the word? How will they find me pray tell? It won't happen. If I wait for someone to find me, it would be like finding a needle in a haystack. Why would you even make such a stupid suggestion unless you don't want anyone to find me? I have to be an active participant, although I honestly believe it will take the next generation to bring this discovery to light. Furthermore, don't you think that I know that my safety books are more marketable? Of course I do, but it's not that easy when you don't have capital. If I had capital, I could market this discovery as well as my children's safety program, not one or the other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Come off it peacegirl. Your first day here at you called me bitter, too angry to communicate with, and blamed me for your introduction appearing spammy.

You're no innocent victim.

We're 1000 pages into this, and you are acting the same butthurt way toward me. I don't know about bitter or angry, but you are very presumptive and judgmental. How in the world can I share an important discovery with someone who already knows it's false, because they have God's gift of deciphering all truth?