A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooo David, that's not right. You are misinterpreting this sentence, and you can't accept that you are the one that is wrong. It is logically impossible that they should desire one bed (not that they should have a desire sleeping together), now that they have the knowledge that by desiring only one bed, it can only do harm to their marriage. Can't you get this, or is it too hard because Lessans said it, and anything Lessans says, according to you, must be wrong.

Lessans (QUOTE!) ..."it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them."

peacegirl (QUOTE): "There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.:




So, Lessans said it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them -- those are HIS EXACT words, not even a paraphrase or a description or a condesnation -- and according to you, these plain words mean the exact opposite of what they say.

Just how did you come to this remarkable conclusion, peacegirl? That your father meant the precise opposite of what he specifically and unambiguously stated? Do share your thought processes, such as they are!

I suspect the answer is simply that you're so far off your rocker that the rocking chair is still swinging back and forth and you're half way to the moon. I mean -- golly! -- do you really, honestly not notice the difference between what Lessans explicitly wrote, and what you claim he meant? They are diametrically opposite!

If you doubt this, do inquire of others what they think!

[LadyShea]

I think it could be read that he meant that they will want to have two beds available, as in purchase two beds, so that in the event one wanted to sleep alone they have the option. That would still make sense in the context of the sentence. But peacegirl, Lessans point would be more clear had he said:

"it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire to own only one bed for the two of them"

Maybe you can add that, you know without being a coauthor.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once you are convinced that some criticism is valid, you then make changes or omissions. You changed molecules of light to photons of light (while leaving the clear assertion that once the photons are here they "stay" here) and now you've removed the references to homosexuality, which you defended as Lessans words over and over again until suddenly claiming them as your own. How much more was added, omitted, or changed unilaterally by you that you haven't admitted to yet?

Did you change the "trillions and trillions of babies have been born" as well? IIRC that also suddenly became your addition only after you tried to defend it as Lessans simply "miscalculating". You admitted to authorship of most, but not all, of the ridiculous conversations...but did you put anything in the text indicating which were "true experiences" and which were imaginary illustrations?

And you expect anyone to believe you when you say you aren't a co-author and that you've only added a few examples. We have no way of knowing what Lessans actually thought or wrote because too many times you've suddenly claimed something as yours. For all we know you omitted or changed huge chunks of text in an effort to hide Lessans insanity...or maybe you even wrote the whole thing.

peacegirl is in a confused delusional schizophrenic state. You really can't take anything she says seriously. By now it should be clear to all but the densest of people that she will stubbornly reiterate her delusion no matter how often you show it is wrong. At best you will only get her to make slight changes to the delusion, but she will persist with it. She has been consistent in this way for a decade.

I would have thought that by now this was obvious to everyone.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl;

LESSANS: .....for you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.

PEACEGIRL: There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.

It is logically impossible that they should desire one bed (not that they should have a desire sleeping together), now that they have the knowledge that by desiring only one bed, it can only do harm to their marriage.

Peacegirl are you seriously saying that you do not see the contradiction between Lessans book and your statements?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it does not. And if you read the entire excerpt it would have been clarified. It means that it is impossible for a husband and wife to ever desire to have one bed available for the two of them. It does not mean that a husband and wife won't ever desire sleeping together in one bed. Read this again. Maybe it will sink in.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eight: p. 361

There is nothing wrong
with desiring to sleep together but it cannot be satisfied unless both
parties want the same thing. If they do not desire to move to another
bed after making love, then it is obvious that both are content with
the sleeping arrangement. But having only one double bed as the only
alternative involves the same principle of considering only one
person’s desire, and it is a subtle form of advance blame. If our
partner wants to sleep alone while we do not, we are the ones who are
being selfish if we demand that they honor our request.

In our present
world we justify criticizing our partner for wanting to sleep alone by
invoking sleeping together as a condition of marriage. We expect
them to show their love by sacrificing their desire in favor of ours
which only reveals our selfishness by expecting them to give up what
they should not have to. Then when they insist on sleeping alone, and
because we believe we are right, we call them selfish and strike the first
blow to get even for something that does not infringe on anyone else’s
desires. But when we know they have the right-of-way and that they
would never blame us for striking this blow no matter what we do to
hurt them for not satisfying our desire, then we are given no choice
but to sacrifice our selfishness and respect desires that make no
demands on us.

I don't care what people think, don't you get that David? I care about this book being represented accurately. It is not logically impossible, it is mathematically impossible, to want one bed for both parties under the changed conditions, knowing that having two beds is better for the marriage. You can't go against your nature to choose that which is worse for yourself when there is a better alternative available. It is sound mathematical reasoning and he is spot on. Anyway, I changed the wording so it will penetrate the skulls of those who are hard headed.

However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
surprise everybody, for you are about to see how it will be
mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to
ever desire having one bed for the two of them. That’s right!
Sleeping together except as part of the sexual act will no longer be
considered an obligatory requirement. This is no different than other
mathematical problems. If you understand what it means that man’s
will is not free and are able to perceive and extend the mathematical
relations thus far, you will easily see the reason for this.

Nooooo David, that's not right. You are misinterpreting this sentence, and you can't accept that you are the one that is wrong. It is logically impossible that they should desire one bed (not that they should have a desire sleeping together), now that they have the knowledge that by desiring only one bed, it can only do harm to their marriage. Can't you get this, or is it too hard because Lessans said it, and anything Lessans says, according to you, must be wrong.

Originally Posted by david

Lessans (QUOTE!) ..."it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them."

peacegirl (QUOTE): "There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.:




So, Lessans said it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them -- those are HIS EXACT words, not even a paraphrase or a description or a condesnation -- and according to you, these plain words mean the exact opposite of what they say.

Just how did you come to this remarkable conclusion, peacegirl? That your father meant the precise opposite of what he specifically and unambiguously stated? Do share your thought processes, such as they are!

I suspect the answer is simply that you're so far off your rocker that the rocking chair is still swinging back and forth and you're half way to the moon. I mean -- golly! -- do you really, honestly not notice the difference between what Lessans explicitly wrote, and what you claim he meant? They are diametrically opposite!

No, they are not. They are expressing the same thing.

Originally Posted by davidm

If you doubt this, do inquire of others what they think!

For the last time I don't care what they think. That sentence does not indicate what you think it does. The reason you are interpreting it incorrectly is because you don't even understand what he bases his reasoning on, because you have no idea what the DISCOVERY is!! Now that's the sign of a really good editor/reviewer (whatever the hell you call yourself)!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I wonder if she plans to omit the part in the Fabled Hidden Chapter wherein The Great Man asseverates that the Jews should have no beef with the Holocaust, because they are all still alive, albeit as someone else and don't even remember being Holocaust-era Jews!

How much more confused can someone get? It just shows how a half-baked understanding turns out a half-baked conclusion.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1073328][quote=davidm;1073121]

Lessans (QUOTE!) ..."it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them."

peacegirl (QUOTE): "There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.:

No, they are not. They are expressing the same thing.

It becomes clear that Peacegirl should have married someone with a split personality, one to sleep in the same bed with her, and one to sleep in a seperate bed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

"Even if"? Does that mean you don't remember which parts you wrote and which ones you didn't?

It was a hypothetical question But. I am allowed to say "if" under those circumstances. Don't you know the English language?

[But]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl is in a confused delusional schizophrenic state.

Again, where is your evidence or argument that she is schizophrenic?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light strikes our retina. Light from different sources and directions has different qualities (intensity and wavelength, location where it hits the retina). These differences in the light that strikes the retina causes a pattern to form on the retina but are not a pattern or "electric image" that exists while the light is traveling

I tried to explain it using an analogy of throwing paint at a canvas. Different colors in different amunts thrown from different directions and different distances will determine the pattern that forms on the canvas, right? Is the pattern in the paint as it travels? No, it's just traveling paint...the pattern doesn't happen until some of it hits the canvas.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to the efferent account. If it's true that we see in real time, it is still light striking the canvas, but it's not traveling because the eye is seeing a mirror image of what exists, which takes no time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't get it, do you?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Get what? You've never answered the question, you've only offered your strawman about patterns not traveling. We know that.

It's not a strawman. The image that IS SEEN is seen in real time, because of how the eyes work. Light travels at 186,000 miles a second. There is no conflict with these two separate accounts.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I repeat his question, what happens to the nonabsorbed light that has hit an object, if it doesn't get reflected and can't travel away? Where is it at the next moment in time?

Nothing happens to the non-absorbed light. It is there at the eye which reveals the object, it doesn't bring anything to the eye. You don't understand this version of sight at all, yet you think you do. This is the most difficult of all because you think you can talk to me with disrespect, and talk about Lessans like he's a piece of scum. If you have a question on this topic, please put it in the right thread. Thank you!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For all we know you omitted or changed huge chunks of text in an effort to hide Lessans insanity...

Those comments are very unnecessary and show how uppity up you think you are. Well you have nothing on him, believe me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The dialog was not noted as being fictional in the book, and in some cases you've stated some dialogs were "true experiences" so the reader cannot tell the difference. Writing fictional dialog as if they were factual encounters with real people is dishonest. You've also claimed to be the author of some criticized passages only after you saw the criticism was valid, prior to that you said they were Lessans own words, so you lied about your contributions repeatedly. Why should I not suspect dishonest people of dishonesty? Why should I believe you didn't change everything or anything?

As I said before, the book is written well enough. It expresses the concepts in a clear and concise way. This is not a memoir. Would it make you feel better if I added that the dialogue is fictional?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think it could be read that he meant that they will want to have two beds available, as in purchase two beds, so that in the event one wanted to sleep alone they have the option. That would still make sense in the context of the sentence. But peacegirl, Lessans point would be more clear had he said:

"it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire to own only one bed for the two of them"

Maybe you can add that, you know without being a coauthor.

I changed it to your wording. How's does this sound?

However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
surprise everybody, for you are about to see how it will be
mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to
ever desire to own only one bed for the two of them. That’s right!
Sleeping together except as part of the sexual act will no longer be
considered a necessary requirement for a healthy marriage. This
is no different than other mathematical problems. If you
understand what it means that man’s will is not free and are able
to perceive and extend the mathematical relations thus far, you will
easily see the reason for this.

[LadyShea]

Do what you want, peacegirl. I would think any clarifications or disclaimers you can provide should be provided to add some level of honesty to what mostly reads like a nutball manifesto, especially considering there are no citations and no references or bibliography or anything resembling serious scholarship .

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do what you want, peacegirl. I would think any clarifications or disclaimers you can provide should be provided to add some level of honesty to what mostly reads like a nutball manifesto, especially considering there are no citations and no references or bibliography or anything resembling serious scholarship .

Is this better?

If you
find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because
what follows will help you understand it much better the second
time around. This book was written in a dialogue format to
anticipate the questions the reader might have, and to make it as
reader friendly as possible. The friend in the dialogue is fictional.
There is some repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important
points and extending the principles in a more cohesive fashion, but
despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand it is still
deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace reading many
things over and over again.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing happens to the non-absorbed light.

Then it's not light. It is something else. Light has properties, and "nothing" is not one of them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do what you want, peacegirl. I would think any clarifications or disclaimers you can provide should be provided to add some level of honesty to what mostly reads like a nutball manifesto, especially considering there are no citations and no references or bibliography or anything resembling serious scholarship .

Just remember that this in itself doesn't make his discovery false. To repeat: He didn't do it this way because that's not how he found this discovery or came to these conclusions. He didn't start out with a hypothesis. The fact that you say it sounds like a nutball manifesto shows me that you are in such judgment that you are blinded to ever understanding these relations. I admit that some of the wording is a little awkward, which I'm changing. I just hope that people will give him the benefit of the doubt, unlike you all. By the way, this is not even close to being a manifesto. Once again, you put him down by using this term because you don't believe he has anything of value, for if you did, you would never say this.

A manifesto is a paper written to explain what you're all about - and why you believe that way. Or perhaps what your plan or intentions are. If you developed a purpose and direction statement for your life, it would be a manifesto.

What is a Manifesto

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then it's not light. It is something else. Light has properties, and "nothing" is not one of them.

I did not mean that light doesn't do anything. I meant that the non-absorbed light is captured by the eyes because of how the eyes work by using light as a medium, not as a courier service.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by But

Again, where is your evidence or argument that she is schizophrenic?

Look! Another But crack!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by But

Again, where is your evidence or argument that she is schizophrenic?

Yes, while I think it's fairly clear that peacegirl is dysfunctional to the point of illness, a specific diagnosis is not really called for, N-A.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Yes, while I think it's fairly clear that peacegirl is dysfunctional to the point of illness, a specific diagnosis is not really called for, N-A.

At this stage of the game the only reasonable thing to do with peacegirl is to try to figure out what is wrong with her. Unless you think it's worthwhile to argue with someone who is clearly mentally ill just to fuck with them. Not something that is beyond many of the posters here.

[But]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

At this stage of the game the only reasonable thing to do with peacegirl is to try to figure out what is wrong with her. Unless you think it's worthwhile to argue with someone who is clearly mentally ill just to fuck with them. Not something that is beyond many of the posters here.

That's not the point. A diagnosis may or may not be called for, but what you produce is bullshit as usual, probably from skimming Wikipedia articles.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by But

That's not the point. A diagnosis may or may not be called for, but what you produce is bullshit as usual, probably from skimming Wikipedia articles.

Yet another But crack!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

At this stage of the game the only reasonable thing to do with peacegirl is to try to figure out what is wrong with her. Unless you think it's worthwhile to argue with someone who is clearly mentally ill just to fuck with them. Not something that is beyond many of the posters here.

I'm not buying schizophrenia. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but I'm not convinced, and you haven't really sold it to me.

Without observing peacegirl is person, the best I think you're going to get is, "she's pretty fucked in the head, isn't she?"

She's pretty fucked in the head, isn't she?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm not buying schizophrenia. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but I'm not convinced, and you haven't really sold it to me.

Without observing peacegirl is person, the best I think you're going to get is, "she's pretty fucked in the head, isn't she?"

She's pretty fucked in the head, isn't she?

By all means get a second opinion. I do not claim to be a mental health professional nor have I ever claimed to be one. I told peacegirl long ago that if she persisted in posting here in her obvious deranged state I would have nothing else to do but to try to figure out what is wrong with her. And she has provided copious amounts of evidence. Not just in the 30,000 posts here but numerous other threads she has created across the internet for the last ten years. She has been very consistent in her delusions. She has exhibited clear memory problems. Disorganized thought processes. Refusal to change her mind when confronted with the facts. A physical examination would clinch the deal if she was found to exhibit physical symptoms consistent with schizophrenia. I have offered twice to go with her to see a doctor but she has refused.

But as it stands, the only humane thing to do with peacegirl at this point is to try to get her to get help.

That will of course not stop the But cracks from doing what they do best. Fucking with people.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are right at the retina as long as the object is present.

So they are stationary photons, which stay there at the retina? And these red photons were there at the retina before the object turned red? How does that work, Peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not only am I disagreeing with it, after reading your posts I am sorry to say it is YOU that needs institutional care.

So you are not presently in institutional care? That's unfortunate, but thank you for finally answering. Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment? Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?