peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:03 pm
...
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.
Man cannot be compelled or forced to do what he makes up his mind not to do. And, yes, if it was against his desire to do it, nothing in this world could make him do it.
Man is compelled by his nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. The choice he makes would be the most preferable given his particular circumstances and the options that he was contemplating. Just wanted to clarify.
In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite principle of “an eye for an eye” by refusing to defend himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because she was willing to cheat to get what she wanted, while he was willing to be cheated rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this knowledge, nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for being an atheist, but not for being a God-intoxicated man.
The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality, but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza and me. He was a gentle man; I am not. He refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when someone can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me, I’d fight him tooth and nail. If an aggressive country should start a war before this knowledge is released, it is only natural that we fight back with everything we’ve got. Turning the other cheek under these conditions could lead to further harm, which is why most people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us — something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.
To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what they were doing, and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show you how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:10 pm
Let me show you how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
Please do
I'm trying Flash. I hope you stick with me not by being part of an echo chamber that tells you there is nothing to be learned but because this feedback is exactly what you want to hear in order to consider another way.
Last edited by peacegirl on Sun Aug 24, 2025 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is all part of a free will environment. Isn’t it worth it to at very least consider the possibility that there is a new way to see how we can live, and why there is a better way that no one has examined.
Jung was a part of his time. He was trying to help people deal with an environment that did not allow them to feel safe, secure, or worthy. It was a noble effort. But he dealt with the harsh environment people had to adjust to, and his efforts made a huge difference in the lives of those who realized a different way of thinking. I'm sure he saved many lives. But this discovery is not about how to cope. It is about prevent the very reasons (or causes) that have led people to feel they are not enough; that they were somehow inferior in value. This is at the very heart of why this knowledge is different than all other theories, and I hope you give it your best shot to understand.
Last edited by peacegirl on Sun Aug 24, 2025 3:57 pm, edited 4 times in total.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:10 pm
Let me show you how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
Please do
I'm trying Flash. I hope you stick with me not by being part of an echo chamber that tells you there is nothing to be learned but because this feedback is exactly what you want to hear in order to consider another way.
You've chosen to copy and paste the opening chapters sequentially already. Please continue. You got to page 65 and the words: Let me show you how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
I'm trying Flash. I hope you stick with me not by being part of an echo chamber that tells you there is nothing to be learned but because this feedback is exactly what you want to hear in order to consider another way.
You've chosen to copy and paste the opening chapters sequentially already. Please continue. You got to page 65 and the words: Let me show you how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him to retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that in order to do either, he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then he is given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by the laws of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our basic principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you will, is not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when not doing so makes matters worse for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the very first blow. Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural to seek some form of retaliation, for this is a source of satisfaction, which is the direction life is compelled to take. Therefore, this knowledge cannot possibly prevent the hate and blame that man has been compelled to live with all these years as a consequence of crimes committed and many other forms of hurt; yet God’s mathematical law cannot be denied, for man is truly not to blame for anything he does, notwithstanding, so a still deeper analysis is required. Down through history, no one has ever known what it means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit the world, but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is absolutely no way this new world — a world without war, crime, and all forms of hurt to man by man — can be stopped from coming into existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this knowledge can be brought to light.
We have been growing and developing just like a child from infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free, it would lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other factors as the cause. If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine that had slipped a cog in generating him. It is also true that if it had not been for the development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of this coming Golden Age. Yet despite the fact that we have been brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction (or this invariable law of God) states explicitly, as we perceive these mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES. This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the mathematical corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to anything after it is done — only before.
“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies before something is done and not after. Does this mean we can blame someone after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial: how to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our penal code? How is it humanly possible not to judge, not to criticize, not to blame, not to punish those acts of crime when we know that man was not compelled to do them if he didn’t want to? If someone killed my loved one, how is it possible not to hate the individual responsible, not to judge this as an act of evil, not to desire some form of revenge? I still don’t understand how not blaming will prevent man from hurting his fellowman if this is his desire. Though this may be an undeniable corollary, how is it humanly possible not to hold someone responsible for murder, rape, the killing of six million people, etc.? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these crimes or give a mere slap on the wrist? Besides, what will prevent someone from blaming and punishing despite the fact that will is not free if it gives him greater satisfaction? Just because man’s will is not free is certainly not a sufficient explanation as to why there should be no blame.”
This has always been the greatest stumbling block that kept free will on the throne until the present time. It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The reason God’s commandment does not apply to anything after it is done, only before, is because it has the power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was previously necessary. At this juncture, I shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of important facts that must be understood before continuing.
To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, (for this seems mathematically impossible since it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a deconfusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to reveal this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to. As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and heredity but prefers this action because, at that moment of time, he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another that which 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 that he has mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move in the direction of greater satisfaction. 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 in his opinion, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Think about this once again: Was it possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled by their desire for freedom to prefer nonviolence, turning the other cheek as a solution to their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will because the alternative was considered worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous words and 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, which means that his preference gave him satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another.
Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so much confusion: Although man’s will is not free, there is absolutely nothing — not environment, heredity, God, or anything else — that causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him to commit a crime; it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused; consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but remember, his particular environment is different because he himself is different; otherwise, everybody would desire to commit a crime. Once he chooses to act on his desire, whether it is a minor or more serious crime, he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his desires. Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part, if not all, the responsibility, which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do. You see it happen all the time, even when a child says, “Look what you made me do,” when you know you didn’t make him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to shift the responsibility to something that does not include him. Why else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and punishment he doesn’t want. A great deal of confusion exists because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another, he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications that turned philosophers off from a thorough investigation. In the following dialogue, my friend asks for clarification regarding certain critical points.
“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve this enigmatic corollary, but it seems to me that this knowledge would give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an attempt to shift his responsibility?”
“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning. Because of this general confusion with words through which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being blamed to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under control by the fear of punishment and public opinion, which judged his actions in accordance with standards of right and wrong. But this is inaccurate simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when you know that you will not be blamed for what you do. In other words, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others. The very act of justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the behavior unacceptable in some way; otherwise, there would be no need for it. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you for satisfaction to think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action. If you do what others judge to be right, is it necessary to lie or offer excuses or say that your will is not free and you couldn’t help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let me elaborate for greater understanding.
If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody, is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him? This isn’t a trick question, so don’t look so puzzled. If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way, and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?”
“No, it is not possible. I agree.”
“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right, then it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something judged wrong, is that right?”
“I agree with this.”
“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you for satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action; otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong, you would not have to do these things, right?”
“You are right again.”
“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no one is going to question your conduct in any way because you know that they must excuse what you do since man’s will is not free, is it possible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have done, when you also know that no one is blaming you?”
“Why are you smiling?”
“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I agree that it is not possible.”
“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, ‘I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,’ or offer any other kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility, right?”
“You are absolutely correct.”
Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,” be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will not be blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others. But once it is realized, as a matter of positive knowledge, that man will not be held responsible for what he does since his will is not free (don’t jump to conclusions, just follow the reasoning — my problem is difficult enough as it is), it becomes mathematically impossible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have done simply because you know that no one is blaming you. To paraphrase this another way: Once it is realized that no one henceforth will blame your doing whatever you desire to do, regardless of what is done, because your action will be considered a compulsion over which you have no control, it becomes mathematically impossible to blame something or someone for what you know you have done or shift your responsibility in any way because you know that no one is blaming you. Being constantly criticized by the standards that prevailed, man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself, while refusing to accept that which was his responsibility. He blamed various factors or causes for the many things he desired to do that were considered wrong because he didn’t like to assume full responsibility for being in the wrong. But the very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that no one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does since his will is not free, regardless of what is done, and there will be no more criticism or blame, regardless of his actions, man is also prevented from making someone else the scapegoat for what he does, prevented from excusing or justifying his own actions since he is not being given an opportunity to do so, which compels him, completely beyond control but of his own free will, not only to assume full responsibility for everything he does but to be absolutely honest with himself and others. How is it humanly possible for you to desire lying to me or to yourself when your actions are not being judged or blamed, in other words, when you are not being given an opportunity to lie, and how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your responsibility when no one holds you responsible? In the world of free will, man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and wrong and get away with murder in a figurative sense — the very things our new knowledge positively prevents.
It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will, as did everything else, and consequently, you have come to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that these words which judge the actions of others are accurate. How was it possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence unless religion believed in free will? But in reality when murder is committed, it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a certain point in his life considered better for himself under circumstances that included the judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person’s life, this too was neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction. Neither the government nor the murderer is to blame for what each judged better under their particular set of circumstances, but whether they will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they were previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free, it would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.
“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it were not for the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will be no consequences or explanations necessary?
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 24, 2025 4:37 pm
“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it were not for the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will be no consequences or explanations necessary?
Not sure why you broke that off mid paragraph, here, I'll finish that off for you...
" In the previous example, it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 24, 2025 4:37 pm
“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it were not for the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will be no consequences or explanations necessary?
Not sure why you broke that off mid paragraph, here, I'll finish that off for you...
" In the previous example, it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”
Please continue. We are on page 73.
You're too much. I wanted it to be a cliffhanger. I'm trying to keep interest.
In the previous example, it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”
“This is a thoughtful question, but it is like asking if it is mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would you do if it is done? How is it possible for the father to be hurt by an intentional act, as in the previous example, when this behavior would never be a source of satisfaction? Contained in this question is an assumption that deliberate hurt will continue. As we proceed with the investigation, you will understand more clearly why this deliberate hurt to others will be prevented by the basic principle.”
“Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far, I still don’t understand how or why this should prevent man from stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered, and how is it humanly possible for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his conduct?”
“We are right back where we were before, the fiery dragon — but not for long. Now tell me, would you agree that if I did something to hurt you, you would be justified to retaliate?”
“I certainly would be justified.”
“And we have also agreed that this is the principle of ‘an eye for an eye,’ correct?”
“Correct.”
“Which means that this principle, ‘an eye for an eye,’ does not concern itself with preventing the first blow from being struck but only with justifying punishment or retaliation; is this also true?”
“Yes, it is.”
“And the principle of turning the other cheek — doesn’t this concern itself with preventing the second cheek from being struck, not the first cheek?”
“That is absolutely true.”
“Therefore, our only concern is preventing the desire to strike this first blow, for if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”
“It’s very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can even see that relation.”
“Let us further understand that in order for you to strike this first blow of hurt, assuming that what is and what is not a hurt has already been established (don’t jump to conclusions), you would have to be taking a certain amount of risk, that is, you would be risking the possibility of retaliation or punishment, is that correct?”
“Not if I planned a perfect crime.”
“The most you can do with your plans is reduce the element of risk, but the fact that somebody was hurt by what you did does not take away his desire to strike a blow of retaliation. He doesn’t know who to blame, but if he did, you could expect that he would desire to strike back. Consequently, his desire to retaliate ‘an eye for an eye’ is an undeniable condition of our present world, as is also your awareness that there is this element of risk involved, however small. This means that whenever you do anything at all that is risky, you are prepared to pay a price for the satisfaction of certain desires. You may risk going to jail, getting hanged or electrocuted, shot, beaten up, losing your eye and tooth, being criticized, reprimanded, spanked, scolded, ostracized, or what have you, but this is the price you are willing to pay if caught. Can you disagree with this?”
“I still say, supposing there is no risk; supposing I was able to plan a perfect crime and never get caught?”
“I am not denying the possibility, but you can never know for certain; therefore, the element of risk must exist when you do anything that hurts another.”
“Then I agree.”
“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay the fiery dragon with my trusty sword, which will reveal my discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.”
At the present moment of time you are standing on this spot called here and are constantly in the process of moving to there. You know, as a matter of positive knowledge, that you would never move to there if you were not dissatisfied with here. You also know, as a matter of undeniable knowledge, that nothing has the power, that no one can cause or compel you to do anything against your will unless you want to, because over this you have mathematical control. And I, who am standing on this spot called there to where you plan to move for satisfaction from here, also know positively that you cannot be blamed anymore for your motion from here to there because the will of man is not free. This is a very unique two-sided equation which reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do since nothing has the power to make you do anything you don’t want to — and while it is mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility to some extraneous cause when no one holds you responsible — everybody else knows that you are not to blame for anything because you are compelled, by your very nature, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction during every moment of your existence. Now, if you know beyond a shadow of doubt that not only I, who am the one to be hurt, but everyone on earth will never blame or punish you for hurting me in some way; never criticize or question your action; never desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control since the will of man is not free, is it humanly possible (think very carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus far — the scientific discovery referred to) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt?
Remember now, you haven’t hurt me yet, and you know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing, no one, can compel you to hurt me unless you want to, for over this you have mathematical control; consequently, your motion from here to there, your decision as to what is better for yourself, is still a choice between two alternatives — to hurt me or not to hurt me. But the moment it fully dawns on you that this hurt to me, should you go ahead with it, will not be blamed in any way because no one wants to hurt you for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control, ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN FORCE YOU TO HURT ME AGAINST YOUR WILL — UNLESS YOU WANT TO — you are compelled, completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so under these changed conditions. Furthermore, if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one in the entire world is going to blame you or question your conduct, is it possible to extenuate the circumstances, to lie, or to try and shift your responsibility in any way? As was just demonstrated, it is not possible, just as the same answer must apply to the question, is it possible to make two plus two equal five? This proves conclusively that the only time you can say, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,” or offer any kind of excuse, is when you know you are being blamed, for this allows you to make this effort to shift your responsibility. Let me explain this in another way.
When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you do, it also means that you must assume complete responsibility for what you do because you cannot shift it away from yourself under the changed conditions. We have become so confused by words in logical relation that while we preach this freedom of the will, we say in the same breath that we could not help ourselves and demonstrate our confusion still more by believing that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, would lessen our responsibility when, in actuality, responsibility is increased. This one point has confounded many philosophers down through the ages because it was assumed that a world without blame would make matters worse, decreasing responsibility and giving man the perfect opportunity to take advantage of others. But, once again, this “taking advantage” can only occur when man knows he will be blamed, which allows him to come up with excuses. For example, he could just say, “I couldn’t help pulling the trigger because my will is not free.” Did you ever see anything more ironically humorous? The only time we can use the excuse that our will is not free is when the world believes it is free.
But the question remains: “Why is an excuse necessary? Why can’t he just satisfy his desires to his heart’s content when there are no consequences without explaining to others his reasons for doing what he wants to do? Why can’t he just walk into a store, take what he wants since nobody will be stopping him, and then just go about his business?”
“You must constantly bear in mind that man is compelled to choose the alternative that gives him greater satisfaction, and for that reason, his will is not free. Consequently, to solve our problem, it is only necessary to show that when all blame and punishment are removed from the environment, the desire to hurt others in any way, shape, or form is the worst possible choice.”
“I understand the principle of no blame, but society does what it must to protect itself. A person with scarlet fever is not blamed but is nevertheless quarantined.”
“If a person had something that was contagious, he would welcome this precautionary measure. The knowledge that he would not be blamed under any circumstance, even if he was responsible for spreading his illness to the entire region, would prevent him from desiring to take any chances that might cause further spread of the disease. This is similar to the question that was asked earlier: If it is mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would you do if it was done? How is it possible for B (society) to protect itself when it is impossible for B to be hurt? Once again, there is an assumption that deliberate and careless hurt will continue. When man knows there will be no blame or punishment no matter what he does, he can only go in one direction for greater satisfaction. He can hurt others with a first blow if he wants to, but he won’t want to. It is important to understand that if someone is hurt first, his reaction is no longer a first blow but a retaliatory blow. Under these conditions, he would have justification to strike back.
In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction, which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this, that he was previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back ‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they knew. Blame itself, which is a condition of free will and a part of the present environment, permits the consideration of hurt, for it is the price man is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires, but when blame is removed so that the advance knowledge that it no longer exists becomes a new condition of the environment, then the price he must consider to strike the first blow of hurt is completely out of reach because he cannot find satisfaction in hurting those who will refuse to blame him or retaliate in any way. To hurt someone under these conditions, he would have to move in the direction of conscious dissatisfaction, which is mathematically impossible.
