New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

There is a stipulation based on what comes next

I am stipulating to every meaningful outcome of any of these arguments. You cannot demand I must believe every input in order to be allowed to progress. That's unreasonable.

[peacegirl]

Hmmm. Currently I am happy to stipulate to:

Determinism. Seemingly this is to be incompatibilist hard determinism - under which theory it is further stipulated that 'ought implies can', or in other words there is no means to direct blame or praise to those whose actions are guided entirely by inescapable material causation. Somewhere further down the line apparently this circle will be squared by clever argument that restores those missing things.

Causal Motive Forces. Normally this would go without saying, but seemingly we are required to make a special note of the role of motivation in "moving" creatures away from what they find unsatisfying towards greater satisfaction. Presumably this is somehow key to the aforementioned transformation. Consider this also stipulated.

Hopefully Lessan's own arguments on behalf of these things are moot if we stipulate to the outcomes of them. I can be a determinist based on arguments of Churchland or Fischer, and I can throw in the incompatibilism easily enough, as its the intuitive default.

But erm, that "mathematical (undeniable) reasoning" .... yeesh. Let's just not with that bit please.

I similarly propose to politely skip over the bit about free will implying preferences for non-preferred things. It's hopefully not necessary to the big discovery yet to come. And the dress shopping example. And the head in the bucket.

None of these matters, determinism is stipulated, as is that everybody is motivated to pursue ends and by definition those ends which they pursue are the ones they take to be the best.

But I have to add one more thing.....

That's what I'm talking about when I say he uses his fictional counterpart to pitch himself the softest possible balls.

It’s too easy to criticize when I barely started. If you think he’s wrong, so be it. Anyone who is interested in the book can read the first 3 chapters which I offered. That’s really all I have to say.

I have agreed to stipulate to all of your conclusions thus far.

Are you saying that you can only explain the reasoning of your case to those who are infatuated with the unnecessary details of the supporting case?

No, but firstly, you are calling the details unnecessary (which they are not) and secondly, it is not about explaining the reasoning to only those who are infatuated. It's about explaining the necessary details to anyone who wants to understand what it's about. You don't have to be infatuated to learn something, but you seem so sure he has nothing to offer that your premature responses don't surprise me. It's like you can't wait to find ways to discredit him.

[peacegirl]

There is a stipulation based on what comes next

I am stipulating to every meaningful outcome of any of these arguments. You cannot demand I must believe every input in order to be allowed to progress. That's unreasonable.

I don't demand anything except respect. No one is telling you to believe every input, but I have hardly posted anything and you're already telling me all the things you don't like (form wise), without asking any pertinent questions. Did you understand what he meant when he said, "nothing causes", which is the hallmark of the definition that is causing confusion?

[FlashDangerpants]

It’s too easy to criticize when I barely started. If you think he’s wrong, so be it. Anyone who is interested in the book can read the first 3 chapters which I offered. That’s really all I have to say.

I have agreed to stipulate to all of your conclusions thus far.

Are you saying that you can only explain the reasoning of your case to those who are infatuated with the unnecessary details of the supporting case?

No, but firstly, you are calling the details unnecessary (which they are not) and secondly, it is not about explaining the reasoning to only those who are infatuated. It's about explaining the necessary details to anyone who wants to understand what it's about. You don't have to be infatuated to learn something, but you seem so sure he has nothing to offer that your premature responses don't surprise me. It's like you can't wait to find ways to discredit him.

I am stipulating to everything that I possibly can. There is some stuff I can't endorse because it is just bad. so that stuff I commit only to understanding, not to endorsing and not to stipulating because it doesn't make sense.

I am being absolutely open with you in an effort to make honest progress because I want to find out what is hidden behind the invisible doors locked with the invisible key by the dragon whose state of visibility is unkown.

[FlashDangerpants]

Did you understand what he meant when he said, "nothing causes", which is the hallmark of the definition that is causing confusion?

Presumably that's hyperbole. If the persons in question are products of deterministic causation, then to say "nothing causes man to build cities..." isn't to be taken literally as that would definitely contradict all the determinism. But please help me understand whatever it is that I have missed.

[peacegirl]

This is an important excerpt so I'm repeating it. If you believe the standard definition of determinism that says the past causes the present is correct, you will disagree with the author vehemently, and you probably won't like his definition which states we are constantly making decisions in the present based on what we remember, but everything we are thinking and doing is happening in the here and now. And for anyone who complains about the dialogue format or his way of speaking, they should also not read the book. They will find fault in everything he writes because the entire book is in dialogue, and he uses particular phrases like "he was compelled, of his own free will", which he clarified but may still be misconstrued by some to mean something it doesn't.

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.

“It’s amazing; all my life I have believed man’s will is free, but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”
Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied, but I’m not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions, and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition, we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do, as you just mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in, can make me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free, yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that? He brought out something I never would have thought of.”

“All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”


This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation.

[peacegirl]

Did you understand what he meant when he said, "nothing causes", which is the hallmark of the definition that is causing confusion?

Presumably that's hyperbole. If the persons in question are products of deterministic causation, then to say "nothing causes man to build cities..." isn't to be taken literally as that would definitely contradict all the determinism. But please help me understand whatever it is that I have missed.

You missed why his definition is more accurate because the word "cause" is misleading. Moreover, his definition is more accurate because it corresponds with reality in that the past causes nothing. How can it if the past doesn't exist except in our memory bank. It is impossible to choose what gives us less satisfaction when something better is available, which is why we can only move in one direction, and why will is not free to choose A (to shoot someone for example) or B (not to shoot this person) when B is the preferable choice. We are under a compulsion to choose what we believe is the better alternative when meaningful differences are under consideration. But what gives one person greater satisfaction going from "here" to "there" (or moment to moment) may not be the same for someone else, because we are different to a degree.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that 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 presents alternatives that affect choice.”

Once a decision is made, it could not have been otherwise. This does not mean that when a similar situation presents itself, we can't learn from previous experience and make a better choice the second time around.

[FlashDangerpants]

Did you understand what he meant when he said, "nothing causes", which is the hallmark of the definition that is causing confusion?

Presumably that's hyperbole. If the persons in question are products of deterministic causation, then to say "nothing causes man to build cities..." isn't to be taken literally as that would definitely contradict all the determinism. But please help me understand whatever it is that I have missed.

You missed why his definition is more accurate because the word "cause" is misleading. Moreover, his definition is more accurate because it corresponds with reality in that the past causes nothing. How can it if the past doesn't exist except in our memory bank. It is impossible to choose what gives us less satisfaction when something better is available. But what gives one person satisfaction may not be so for someone else, because we are different to a degree.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that 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 presents alternatives that affect choice.”

Once a decision is made, it could not have been otherwise. This does not mean that when a similar situation presents itself, we can't learn from previous experience and make a better choice the second time around.

Sure, ok. Carry on.

[peacegirl]

Presumably that's hyperbole. If the persons in question are products of deterministic causation, then to say "nothing causes man to build cities..." isn't to be taken literally as that would definitely contradict all the determinism. But please help me understand whatever it is that I have missed.

You missed why his definition is more accurate because the word "cause" is misleading. Moreover, his definition is more accurate because it corresponds with reality in that the past causes nothing. How can it if the past doesn't exist except in our memory bank. It is impossible to choose what gives us less satisfaction when something better is available. But what gives one person satisfaction may not be so for someone else, because we are different to a degree.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that 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 presents alternatives that affect choice.”

Once a decision is made, it could not have been otherwise. This does not mean that when a similar situation presents itself, we can't learn from previous experience and make a better choice the second time around.

Sure, ok. Carry on.

Are you sure? This cutting and pasting is necessary for understanding, but I don't want to continue if you already disagree with what he's written thus far. It's draining. This does not mean you can't disagree but you have to give him a chance.

[FlashDangerpants]

...
This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. [/i]

Fine. Continue.

[FlashDangerpants]

You missed why his definition is more accurate because the word "cause" is misleading. Moreover, his definition is more accurate because it corresponds with reality in that the past causes nothing. How can it if the past doesn't exist except in our memory bank. It is impossible to choose what gives us less satisfaction when something better is available. But what gives one person satisfaction may not be so for someone else, because we are different to a degree.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that 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 presents alternatives that affect choice.”

Once a decision is made, it could not have been otherwise. This does not mean that when a similar situation presents itself, we can't learn from previous experience and make a better choice the second time around.

Sure, ok. Carry on.

Are you sure? This cutting and pasting is necessary for understanding, but I don't want to continue if you already disagree with what he's written thus far. It's draining. This does not mean you can't disagree but you have to give him a chance.

I am doing that. It's fine. Continue.

[peacegirl]

I have no idea where I left off. If you've read this tract already, then read it again for clarification.

It seems to me that it is still possible to give an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example of this. Go ahead and try.”

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red; consequently, my taste lies in the direction of the latter, which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this, I am going to eat it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied and prefer the yellow apple, I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”

In response to this demonstration, isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that moment gave you greater satisfaction; otherwise, you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow one? The normal circumstances under which you frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were changed by your desire to prove a point; therefore, it gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice (because it gave you less satisfaction under the circumstances), you were not free to choose A.

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction; otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch, as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life, pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment, and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time.

The government holds each person responsible for obeying the laws and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility. But how is it possible for someone to obey that which, under certain conditions, appears to him worse? It is quite obvious that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb among their people; we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO — but that does not make his will free.

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.
“It’s amazing; all my life I have believed man’s will is free, but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”
Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied, but I’m not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions, and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition, we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do, as you just mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in, can make me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free, yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that? He brought out something I never would have thought of.”
“All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

“You must be kidding! Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

“This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The words ‘cause’ and ‘compel’ are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause,’ like ‘choice’ and ‘past,’ is very misleading, as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by these laws; they are these laws.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

[peacegirl]

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw, although I thought I did. I think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do something against my will does not mean my will is free because my desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I did it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to — because my desire to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”

“He does understand.”

“Does this mean you are also in complete agreement so I can proceed?”

“Yes, it does.”

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction, whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered that the words “good” and “evil” are judgments of what others think is right and wrong, not symbols of reality. The truth of the matter is that the words “good” and “evil” can only have reference to what is beneficial or harmful to oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life, but under the conditions, he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the lesser of two evils, which gave him greater satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying. For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off, he has three possibilities: commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what he needs to survive, he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill, and do any number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things. All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does not yet remove the implications. The expression "I did it of my own free will" has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO, since absolutely nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point. Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for his people, and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement even though he constantly faced the possibility of death. But this doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to face death than to forgo his fight for freedom. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being forced to do something against his will. What he actually meant was that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable, so rather than continue suffering this way, he preferred, as the lesser of two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this because he wanted to, not because some external force made him do this against his will. If by talking he knew that someone he loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did, but he wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will because over this his nature allows absolute control — and that his will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will reveal a third invariable law, the discovery to which reference has been made.

[FlashDangerpants]

...
This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will because over this his nature allows absolute control — and that his will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will reveal a third invariable law, the discovery to which reference has been made.[/i]

Very good, continue.

If it helps, that was page 57. So you will want to copy and paste page 59 next if I am any judge of these things, and it has been said that I am indeed wise in the way of such science.

We have learned the first invariable law is that man cannot be compelled to do what is against his desire.
And that the second is that man is compelled by his nature to want the best thing. Cool.

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER TWO

THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

Once it is established as an undeniable law that man’s will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off, which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will — corollary, slide rule, or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute the base metals of human nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age, even though it presents what appears to be an insurmountable problem. For how is it possible not to blame people who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t want to? The solution, however, only requires the perception and extension of relations, which cannot be denied, and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God, which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have, not only without hurting a living soul but while benefiting everyone to an amazing degree. You can prepare yourselves to say goodbye to all the hurt and evil that came into existence out of necessity. However, the problems that confront us at this moment are very complex, which makes it necessary to treat every aspect of our lives in a separate yet related manner. God, not me, is finally going to reveal the solution.

Since time immemorial, the two opposing forces of good and evil compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God responsible for all the good in the world and Satan responsible for the evil, while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some other force of darkness as an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. But this dividing line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, demonstrates that once it becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in human relations must come to a peaceful end. The absolute proof that man’s will is not free is the undeniable fact that we are given no alternative but to move in this direction once it is understood that this law can control man’s actions only by obeying this corollary, for then everything that came into existence which caused us to blame and punish must, out of absolute necessity, take leave of this earth. Mankind will be given no choice; this has been taken out of our hands, as is the motion of the earth around the sun.

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work our problem backwards, which means that every step of the way will be a forced move, which will become a loose end, and only when all these ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete. It is only by extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not Blame, which is the key, that we are given the means to unlock the solution. As an example of working a problem backwards, follow this: If you were told that a woman with a pocketbook full of money went on a spending spree to ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every one, a dollar to get out, spent half of what she had in each, and came out of the last place absolutely broke, it would be very easy to determine the amount of money she had to start because the dollar she paid to get out of the last store that broke her must represent one-half of the money spent there. Consequently, she had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in, giving her three just before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get out of the penultimate store; this added to the three gives her four which represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this process eight more times, it is absolutely undeniable that she must have begun her spending spree with $3,069. As we can see from this example, when a key fact is available from which to reason, it is then possible to solve a problem, but when it is not, we must form conjectures and express opinions with the aid of logic. At first glance, it appears impossible not to blame an individual for murder, or any heinous crime, but when we extend this key fact, it can be seen that these acts of evil are not condoned with the understanding that man’s will is not free but prevented. Regardless of someone’s opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of the answer to the problem I just gave, an opinion that would have to be based upon a logical conclusion, as is that of our experts when considering the impossibility of removing all evil from our lives, we know the answer is correct because the reasoning that follows from this key fact is scientifically sound.

By a similar process of working our problem backwards, we can officially launch the Golden Age, which necessitates the removal of all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule, which God has given us as a guide. By now, I hope you understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil, using the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually, no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction, and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will, it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing as far as reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun, regardless of how much I don’t know about this ball of fire, does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the fact that He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and say this is God; therefore, we must assume because of certain things that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe based on the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets, and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction, although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system, only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man, which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation, for nothing in this universe, when seen in total perspective, is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will — Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ, and even those who nailed him to the cross — but God has a secret plan that is going to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did? To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we are at last getting to understand — which includes the mankind as well as the solar system — just follow this: Here is versatile man; writer, composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian, architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief, etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of necessity, and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to why will is not free and what this means for the entire world, which perception was utterly impossible without the development and absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of history, have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?