A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

There will be people who's job it is identify and report all possible first blows, so the citizens know what is or is not a first blow. They will replace the current types of lawmakers.

[seebs]

So peacegirl: Are you more satisfied after another day of being told you're an idiot than you were yesterday?

Because you sure seem to be here a lot. And you sure don't seem satisfied.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

So peacegirl: Are you more satisfied after another day of being told you're an idiot than you were yesterday?

Because you sure seem to be here a lot. And you sure don't seem satisfied.

If these are the only type of posts that you are capable of providing, I will put you on ignore because I am very dissatisfied. As for being here, it's difficult, that's true, but obviously I get more satisfaction from being here than not, in spite of the crappy posts, such as yours, that have flooded these threads and wasted a lot of broadband space.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

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

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

You are so confused it makes me feel like running around the block screaming at the top of my head to release my frustration. Answer me this: Would you rather be punched in the face with brass knuckles that is being as an initiation rite of passage in a gang...and have to turn the other cheek, or would you rather not be struck at all so you don't have to turn the other cheek? Just answer the question, okay?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just answer the question, okay?

Oh, right, I forgot, in addition to being arrogant, ignorant and dishonest, you're a hypocrite too.

Hey, peacegirl, if we see in real time, why do we see the moons of Jupiter (and all other celestial bodies) in delayed time, and why must NASA account for the delayed time seeing of Mars and other celestial bodies to send spacecraft there?

Just answer the question, okay?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused it makes me feel like running around the block screaming at the top of my head to release my frustration. Answer me this: Would you rather be punched in the face with brass knuckles that is being as an initiation rite of passage in a gang...and have to turn the other cheek, or would you rather not be struck at all so you don't have to turn the other cheek? Just answer the question, okay?

I don't get you. If you mean whether I prefer not to be punched in the face over being punched in the face, all other things being equal, yes I do. What's your point?

[seebs]

There are reflectors on the moon. You can shine a laser at them. The moon is about 384 thousand km from Earth.

If you are watching one of the reflectors, and you shine a laser at it, you will see increased brightness:

1. Instantly.
2. After the time it takes light to move 384,000 km.
3. After the time it takes light to move 768,000 km.

?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by seebs

There are reflectors on the moon. You can shine a laser at them. The moon is about 384 thousand km from Earth.

If you are watching one of the reflectors, and you shine a laser at it, you will see increased brightness:

1. Instantly.
2. After the time it takes light to move 384,000 km.
3. After the time it takes light to move 768,000 km.

?

How many times would you like to guess that this simple disproof of Lessans' claims has been pointed out to her? She does not care about the truth. She will deny logic itself, all of reality, if logic and reality disagree with her God-like father.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

I don't get you. If you mean whether I prefer not to be punched in the face over being punched in the face, all other things being equal, yes I do. What's your point?

I believe I have pointed out before that "The extreme does not prove the mundane." but Peacegirl continues to present extreme examples as if they prove something.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by seebs

There are reflectors on the moon. You can shine a laser at them. The moon is about 384 thousand km from Earth.

If you are watching one of the reflectors, and you shine a laser at it, you will see increased brightness:

1. Instantly.
2. After the time it takes light to move 384,000 km.
3. After the time it takes light to move 768,000 km.

?

The correct answer is instantly after the time it takes light to move 768,000 km.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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

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

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

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

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

If neither you nor Lessans can give anyone any reason to accept those points which I listed as his presuppositions on conscience, then no-one has any reason to accept them. Calling them observations simply doesn't cut it, because no-one has any reason to believe them to be accurate or correct. Insisting that they are accurate isn't going to cut it either, because no-one (including yourself) has any reason to believe this. You have your faith, but no-one else is ever going to share it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

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

That's false, even though I understand why it would appear that way. The only way people would choose to hurt others in the new world is if by not hurting them, they become losers. For example, in this world if we are hungry and the only way we can survive is by stealing, we will choose to steal, even if it hurts someone else. When this condition is removed by the security being offered by the guarantee (which is spelled out in the economic chapter) --- and everyone will always have the necessaries of life, and also have a chance to increase their standard of living, then this form of first blow is being removed. It is not difficult to understand what a first blow is, but we're not motivated to prevent them because there is something in it for us to strike it, or to take a chance that could lead to striking it. Any more subtle forms of first blows will be carefully analyzed by scientists so that your knowledge will be complete. But even if you make a mistake and accidentally strike a first blow, it doesn't mean the Golden Age will never work. It means that you will correct your mistake when you find out that you have accidentally hurt someone. The only difference is that if you do unintentionally hurt someone, the person or people whom you've hurt will be compelled to turn the other cheek for their satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Kael

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

I really appreciate your questions. Finally, someone is asking something that is relevant. The only principles Lessans actually lays out is the three forms of first blow which need to be understood before becoming a citizen --- hence, the purpose of the examination. The compulsion to not strike a first blow will come when those who become citizens know that they have signed a contract not to blame anyone for anything. In exchange they will receive their guarantee that if they should fall below their present standard of living, the citizens of this new world will help them in their time of need. There is no way that a person would be able to take advantage of this generous offer since to do so would be hurting those who are there to help him and would be compelled to turn the other cheek if he stole by not trying to find another job that could pay him more and lessen the burden on his fellow citizens.

Originally Posted by Kael

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

Oh my gosh, now you're using the word Voila in this thread too? It's not voila we won't hurt others. We won't hurt others when there's no justification to hurt others. If, by mistake, we take someone's food out of the fridge (e.g., because we had incomplete information that it was meant for someone's lunch), we would correct it so we wouldn't do it again, just like we do in today's world. The biggest change that will occur is the prevention of those hurts that we all know are the serious ones and we have adequate information about such as stealing, murder, poverty, accidents, medical mistakes, etc., which will come to an end as the citizen population increases.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I don't get you. If you mean whether I prefer not to be punched in the face over being punched in the face, all other things being equal, yes I do. What's your point?

My point is that this knowledge is not about our choice to turn the other cheek rather than to strike back. It's about preventing the original hurt to us so that we don't have to do either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If neither you nor Lessans can give anyone any reason to accept those points which I listed as his presuppositions on conscience, then no-one has any reason to accept them. Calling them observations simply doesn't cut it, because no-one has any reason to believe them to be accurate or correct. Insisting that they are accurate isn't going to cut it either, because no-one (including yourself) has any reason to believe this. You have your faith, but no-one else is ever going to share it.

These observations are carefully supported Spacemonkey, but if you are having difficulty understanding why man's will is not free and therefore keep calling Lessans' proof a tautology, we're not going to get very far, that is, unless people ask enough questions as to how the extension of these principles work where it all begins to make sense. As far as conscience goes, you're going to have to trust that his observations were spot on. A very clear pattern began to emerge through his years of reading historical accounts, which was not visible to the average person.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These observations are carefully supported Spacemonkey, but if you are having difficulty understanding why man's will is not free and therefore keep calling Lessans' proof a tautology, we're not going to get very far, that is, unless people ask enough questions as to how the extension of these principles work where it all begins to make sense. As far as conscience goes, you're going to have to trust that his observations were spot on. A very clear pattern began to emerge through his years of reading historical accounts, which was not visible to the average person.

If his presuppositions on conscience were supported then they wouldn't have to be taken on faith. There is no reason why anyone should trust that these non-observations were 'spot on'. His non-discovery requires certain things to be true of conscience which no-one agrees with and which he doesn't give people any reason to believe. Lessans failed to support the most important parts of his argument. Just like you, he didn't even seem to be aware of what his argument must presuppose, or of what he would have to support for his argument to be rationally convincing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, right, I forgot, in addition to being arrogant, ignorant and dishonest, you're a hypocrite too.

Hey, peacegirl, if we see in real time, why do we see the moons of Jupiter (and all other celestial bodies) in delayed time, and why must NASA account for the delayed time seeing of Mars and other celestial bodies to send spacecraft there?

Just answer the question, okay?

I gave you a possibility and I also said it's not my job to find the flaws in another theory, and, btw, you're in the wrong thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If his presuppositions on conscience were supported then they wouldn't have to be taken on faith. There is no reason why anyone should trust that these non-observations were 'spot on'. His non-discovery requires certain things to be true of conscience which no-one agrees with and which he doesn't give people any reason to believe. Lessans failed to support the most important parts of his argument. Just like you, he didn't even seem to be aware of what his argument must presuppose, or of what he would have to support for his argument to be rationally convincing.

It doesn't matter whether you believe his observations were spot on, or not. Eventually, people are going to give this knowledge a fair chance even if they aren't sure that it will work. That's what I'm asking you to. So, yes, you will have to have a modicum of faith that these observations could be right, until the final verdict is in.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave you a possibility...

You did? Where did you give a possibility, you simpering serial liar?

... and I also said it's not my job to find the flaws in another theory ...

We understand, peacegirl. It's not your job to explain how we see in real time when it has been proven that we see in delayed time.

and, btw, you're in the wrong thread.

Fuck off, peacegirl. You don't get to tell people what to post or what thread they should post in.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Fuck off, peacegirl. You don't get to tell people what to post or what thread they should post in.

Are you sirius? Bow Wow!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If his presuppositions on conscience were supported then they wouldn't have to be taken on faith. There is no reason why anyone should trust that these non-observations were 'spot on'. His non-discovery requires certain things to be true of conscience which no-one agrees with and which he doesn't give people any reason to believe. Lessans failed to support the most important parts of his argument. Just like you, he didn't even seem to be aware of what his argument must presuppose, or of what he would have to support for his argument to be rationally convincing.

I do understand the reasoning behind his observations. They make sense to me because they are well supported. I'm sorry that you can't see the supporting evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Can you even explain the three basic categories that allow people to justify hurting others? He did not presuppose anything. He observed certain things about human behavior and used those premises to come to sound conclusions. It proves, not presupposes, that man's conscience is perfect under certain conditions.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My point is that this knowledge is not about our choice to turn the other cheek rather than to strike back. It's about preventing the original hurt to us so that we don't have to do either.

Just an aside because I mentioned Aikido and everything: How does turning the other cheek imply getting punched? I don't think it says anywhere in the New Testament "if someone smites you on one cheek, make him hit you on the other"? The coolest option of course is to turn him that cheek again and again until he has turned so many times that he doesn't remember what the point was.

Budo - Aikido Shioda - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Just an aside because I mentioned Aikido and everything: How does turning the other cheek imply getting punched? I don't think it says anywhere in the New Testament "if someone smites you on one cheek, make him hit you on the other"? The coolest option of course is to turn him that cheek again and again until he has turned so many times that he doesn't remember what the point was.

It's true that turning the other cheek again and again will eventually cause someone to stop, but wouldn't it be better not to be struck on the cheek at all, rather than to have to turn your face away?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation pp. 83-84

Let me paraphrase this for greater
understanding: Instead of being able to absolve one’s conscience by
being given the opportunity to justify an act of crime or some other
form of hurt which permitted the shifting of one’s responsibility while
at the same time encouraging the crime, the knowledge that will is not
free and what this means actually prevents an individual from deriving
any satisfaction from the contemplation of this hurt to another by the
realization that he will not be blamed, criticized, judged, or punished
for this act.

The difference between this principle and the one Christ
preached — “Turn the other cheek,” is that the two-sided equation
prevents the first cheek from ever being struck whereas Gandhi, in his
bid for freedom and his belief in nonviolence, was forced to turn the
other cheek although the first cheek was struck over and over again
which took an untold number of lives.

Secondly, man must be willing
to die in order for turning the other cheek to be effective,
consequently innumerable abuses cannot be prevented which starts a
chain reaction of retaliation. Besides, how is it possible not to strike
back when your very being moves in this direction for satisfaction?
Gandhi said, “Kill us all or give us our freedom; we will not resist
anything you do to us,” compelling those in power, after many were
already slain, to find more satisfaction in leaving them alone.

Many
minorities, such as the Blacks, cannot apply this psychology because
the situation does not call for such a sacrifice. How are these people
to turn the other cheek when they are underpaid, overtaxed, and
judged by Whites as one of the inferior races? It has been their effort
to correct these abuses — not by turning the other cheek — that has
brought these people this far. By turning the other cheek (which also
proves in a mathematical manner that man’s will is not free), it
absolutely prevents the second cheek from being struck because it is
impossible, as the people of India demonstrated, to get satisfaction
from continuing to hurt those who refuse to fight back, but as history
has shown many were killed just by being struck on the first cheek.

My imparting the knowledge that no one will again blame you in any
way, judge your actions or tell you what to do will mathematically
prevent your first cheek from being struck which is necessary in a
world of atomic energy when an entire nation can be wiped out from
being struck on the first cheek. Let us, once again, observe what the
perception of undeniable relations tells us.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Just an aside because I mentioned Aikido and everything: How does turning the other cheek imply getting punched? I don't think it says anywhere in the New Testament "if someone smites you on one cheek, make him hit you on the other"? The coolest option of course is to turn him that cheek again and again until he has turned so many times that he doesn't remember what the point was.

Budo - Aikido Shioda - YouTube

Interesting, I had lookid into Aikido many years ago and many techniques are 'borrowed' from one style to another. Many forms of Karate incorperate Aikido techniques into their self-defence. My problem with this video and many 'demonstration' videos is that they are staged, the attacker and the master know exactly what the moves are, as a result it becomes obvious to someone watching that the attack and defence are staged. I know that these techniques will work but the demonstrations lack the apperance of a real attack. For a little more than a year I lived next door to a man who worked in the booking room of the county prison and he taught classes to the other officers in handeling troubelsome detainees. Many of his moves and holds were straight from Aikido and several times we were compairing notes. His one big disadvantage was that in his professional capacity he 'did not hit' it was strictly 'hold and control'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do understand the reasoning behind his observations.

Then explain it to me. Explain the 'reasoning' behind the points I listed as presuppositions. Here they are again:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You have two options. You can either show us how his arguments will still work, even if these things are not true. Or you can show us where in his book he specifically argues for and supports them (rather than just asserting or assuming them).

If you can't do either, then they remain unsupported presuppositions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They make sense to me because they are well supported.

Then show me the support Lessans gave for the above points.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry that you can't see the supporting evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

I can't see it because you're not showing it to me. You can't show it to me because it does not exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not presuppose anything.

We've been over this. This is not about what he personally did or did not presuppose, but rather what constitutes an unsupported presupposition in the context of his book - things which must be true for his conclusions to follow, but for which he did not support or argue for. His presuppositions in this sense are those listed above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He observed certain things about human behavior and used those premises to come to sound conclusions.

You can claim they were 'observed' all you like (despite the fact that as generalizations they can only be inferred rather than observed). That doesn't change the fact that neither you nor he have given anyone any reason to think that these premises are true or that the resulting conclusions are sound.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It proves, not presupposes, that man's conscience is perfect under certain conditions.

I think you'll find you are completely wrong about that. Try showing me how he proves this and you'll soon see for yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then explain it to me. Explain the 'reasoning' behind the points I listed as presuppositions. Here they are again:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You have two options. You can either show us how his arguments will still work, even if these things are not true. Or you can show us where in his book he specifically argues for and supports them (rather than just asserting or assuming them).

If you can't do either, then they remain unsupported presuppositions.

Then show me the support Lessans gave for the above points.

I can't see it because you're not showing it to me. You can't show it to me because it does not exist.

We've been over this. This is not about what he personally did or did not presuppose, but rather what constitutes an unsupported presupposition in the context of his book - things which must be true for his conclusions to follow, but for which he did not support or argue for. His presuppositions in this sense are those listed above.

You're not following it at all. What must be true are his two premises which lead to his discovery.

A: Man's will is not free because he is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction; or to a more satisfying position than the one he is presently on.

B: Nothing in this world can make someone do something against his will for he has absolute control over this. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I'm not talking about force here, where he obviously has no control because someone is doing something to him.

If you cannot grasp his reasoning as to why man's will is not free, then you will not understand the two-sided equation. These are mathematical principles that reveal how conscience works when these undeniable principles are put into effect. But first you have to understand why man's will is not free.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He observed certain things about human behavior and used those premises to come to sound conclusions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can claim they were 'observed' all you like (despite the fact that as generalizations they can only be inferred rather than observed). That doesn't change the fact that neither you nor he have given anyone any reason to think that these premises are true or that the resulting conclusions are sound.

Forget about conscience right now, and try to understand the two premises that lead to Chapter Two. It follows like a well-oiled machine, but you're jumping the gun by believing that under these new conditions people could still desire to hurt others. That is where you're completely wrong. You didn't answer me when I asked you what are the three justifications that allow people to hurt others. You said you read the chapter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It proves, not presupposes, that man's conscience is perfect under certain conditions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think you'll find you are completely wrong about that. Try showing me how he proves this and you'll soon see for yourself.

I am trying to do just that, but you're not letting me.