A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Probably the most distinctive characteristic of Lessans' writing and peacegirl's evangelism of it is the complete ignorance about the diversity of ideas out there, especially in philosophy. The world is clearly delineated into only two categories; Lessans' ideas and all other ideas, all other ideas being irrelevant and incorrect by definition. There is no regard whatsoever for the profusion of writings on every topic, from the question of free will to human behavior and intrinsic nature to the origins and organization of the universe, and so on.

Of course, why should there be when Lessans so clearly got it right? What else would you need to know? This is also why Lessans (and hence peacegirl) think that expounding on things like the odds of the universe existing is so profound and convincing, because to them these are truly novel ideas that no one ever thought of before, or if they did they obviously didn't fully understand them because they don't agree 100% with Lessans. He and his daughter/disciple are truly lone voices of reason crying out in the wilderness, while the rest of the world wallows in willful blindness and ignorance. Obviously.

Lessans never gave his opinion on things that were out of his expertise. His discovery has to do with determinism, not the odds of the universe existing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can't you do better than calling us all closed minded, entrenched groupthinkers?

So answer the questions? You can't, can you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans never gave his opinion on things that were out of his expertise.

Sure. Like molecules of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You first, Peacegirl. Why should anyone else meet a challenge you can't meet yourself?

Answer the dam test question, and then I'll decide whether it's worth being here. I know you can't answer it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure. Like molecules of light.

Why bring this up again unless you are losing ground Spacemonkey? Can't you find anything better than this to discredit him? Everyone knows that he was not a physicist but his reasoning was no less accurate. If you don't know by now, he came to this finding indirectly, so if he used the wrong word this has nothing to do with his actual proof which is spot on. Sorry, you lose!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why bring this up again...?

Because it shows that, contrary to your assertion, Lessans obviously did give his opinion on things outside of his expertise.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Answer the dam test question, and then I'll decide whether it's worth being here. I know you can't answer it.

You first. You're the one who least understands this material.

You forget that I've been through this charade with you before. Back at IIDB I summarized and explained Lessans' words better than you could yourself, proving to your own satisfaction that I did understand him. It made no difference whatsoever.

Prove that you understand the material you've been quoting. Explain it in your own words, and then we will decide whether or not it is worth trying to continue discussion with you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans never gave his opinion on things that were out of his expertise. His discovery has to do with determinism, not the odds of the universe existing.

Originally Posted by Lessans

The purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the universe.

His opinion that he had proven the Universe was designed is not out of his expertise?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So answer the questions? You can't, can you?

It's pointless, to me, because the foundational premise "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" has not been shown to be sound or valid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His opinion that he had proven the Universe was designed is not out of his expertise?

Oh my god, you can't read can you LadyShea? This was not a proof. He was responding to Morrison who believed that his dice toss proved a design to the universe. Lessans wrote:

God (the laws of man's nature) becomes an
epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away
the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of
the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He
also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these
undeniable facts.

Do you even understand what that means? He was saying that this knowledge which is leading us to a time of peace on earth is proof that there is design to the universe because we could never reach this turning point in our history if there weren't laws to control our nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's pointless, to me, because the foundational premise "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" has not been shown to be sound or valid.

I asked two test questions. Unless someone can come forward and answer them, we're at a dead end.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I asked two test questions. Can you answer them? Unless someone can come forward and answer them we're at a dead end.

It's absurd for you to think you're in a position to test people on material you can't even explain in your own words.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was saying that this knowledge which is leading us to a time of peace on earth is proof that there is design to the universe because we could never reach this turning point in our history if there weren't laws to control our nature.

Those are very grandiose claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You first, Peacegirl. Why should anyone else meet a challenge you can't meet yourself?

She's fishing for the correct answers so she can use them on the next forum.

[LadyShea]

I am still waiting for the premise we have been discussing to be shown sound and valid. Otherwise moving on is pointless.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Answer the dam test question,

'Hoover Dam', or is spelling not your strong suit, among others

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am still waiting for the premise we have been discussing to be shown sound and valid. Otherwise moving on is pointless.

Please don't hold your breath, I still like your avatar.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

She's fishing for the correct answers so she can use them on the next forum.

Her usual trick is to demand someone else provide an accurate summary (which she can't do herself), and then when she gets one she will try to claim that it is close but not entirely accurate (usually by adding some spurious detail that one would not expect from any summary) so as to reassert herself in the role of teacher and grand dispenser of the Holy Word of Lessans. At which point she will have established that people understand well enough for her to move forward (by then quoting without explanation the next set of C&P'd chapters) all without having to explain or even understand any of this material herself.

[thedoc]

It is funny (funny sad) that Peacegirl seems to think that we (the other posters) are to be tested to see if we are worthy to receive the teachings of the great Lessans. Just seems a bit arrogant to me. In reality it is Peacegirl and Lessans who are being tested to see if they can measure up to reality, but the results aren't good so far. Reminds me of some of the secret societies that would only reveal the secret teachings to those who have gone through the proper initiation rites, (with appologies to the Masons and others like that). If the knowledge is truly of value to humanity it should be offered freely to all, and not just to those who have been judged (by an inner circle) worthy to receive it. Humanity has suffered much over the centuries from the witholding of information by those who deemed others as not worthy. If Peacegirl has anything of value, that she understands, she owes it to humanity to offer it unconditionally to the world. If on the other hand this is just a novelty, a sort of joke and a meal ticket, it would explain her actions and reluctance to reveal anything except to those who have bought the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because it shows that, contrary to your assertion, Lessans obviously did give his opinion on things outside of his expertise.

No, you're wrong again. He did not give his opinion on things outside of his expertise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is funny (funny sad) that Peacegirl seems to think that we (the other posters) are to be tested to see if we are worthy to receive the teachings of the great Lessans. Just seems a bit arrogant to me. In reality it is Peacegirl and Lessans who are being tested to see if they can measure up to reality, but the results aren't good so far. Reminds me of some of the secret societies that would only reveal the secret teachings to those who have gone through the proper initiation rites, (with appologies to the Masons and others like that). If the knowledge is truly of value to humanity it should be offered freely to all, and not just to those who have been judged (by an inner circle) worthy to receive it. Humanity has suffered much over the centuries from the witholding of information by those who deemed others as not worthy. If Peacegirl has anything of value, that she understands, she owes it to humanity to offer it unconditionally to the world. If on the other hand this is just a novelty, a sort of joke and a meal ticket, it would explain her actions and reluctance to reveal anything except to those who have bought the book.

Have you already forgotten that I put the book online for free? This knowledge is of extreme value, but I can't get through to philosophers in these type forums, which is very ironic considering that this knowledge was borne out of philosophical thought.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Those are very grandiose claims.

They are huge claims. Why do you think I'm doing this? For my health?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You first. You're the one who least understands this material.

You forget that I've been through this charade with you before. Back at IIDB I summarized and explained Lessans' words better than you could yourself, proving to your own satisfaction that I did understand him. It made no difference whatsoever.

Prove that you understand the material you've been quoting. Explain it in your own words, and then we will decide whether or not it is worth trying to continue discussion with you.

If you think you did such a good job, I'm challenging you to explain it again. You can't because you never explained it in the first place, let alone explain it better than me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You first, Peacegirl. Why should anyone else meet a challenge you can't meet yourself?

I can answer it, but you can't. Everyone is telling me he is wrong yet they can't even answer two simple questions.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you're wrong again. He did not give his opinion on things outside of his expertise.

So he was an expert on how we see?

I think not.