New Discovery

[Age]

NO. If you call it rubbish, there is something you don't get.




Because you're giving it lip service. You're telling me that his demonstration is just a tautology. It's not just a tautology.




That's fine but this tautology doesn't address the issue of conscience and why it works the way it does. This is not about what motivates us in general, or what gives us greater satisfaction doing one thing over another. The only thing that this natural law addresses is this hurt to others (this thing we call evil), which all the punishment in the world has been unable to prevent. It's a partial deterrent only. Conscience permits these behaviors but only under certain conditions. When the justification to hurt others is eliminated, conscience will no longer permit said behavior.



It is not useless. It explains that the direction of life is a one-way street. There are no parallel worlds where you could have done otherwise given the same exact time and place. If you can't follow me as to why there is only one choice possible each moment in time, I can't go forward.




Saying we have freedom of the will in a colloquial sense is fine as long as it is qualified to mean, "I did it because I wanted to, nothing made me do it against my will," (which always comes up in discussions on determinism the way it is presently defined), but this does not grant you the freedom of the will to do otherwise. I am not going to fight you on this. All I care about is that this principle works and will change the trajectory of our world for the better in due time.



I'm tired of the semantics. As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

Can you explain exactly what these environmental conditions are and what will be required to implement them?

It's very difficult if you don't understand the two-sided equation, which is the core of this discovery. But I will give you the very beginning of Chapter Six. I don't want to be accused of going against any rules. Actually, I just reduced the price of the ebook to 99 cents on Amazon. I don't even think people will have to give up their cup of morning joe at this price. You will need to put in the search bar the author's name: Seymour Lessans. The title isn't showing up and I have to get it corrected somehow.

CHAPTER SIX

THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD

And now my friends, you are about to behold an actual miracle as the knowledge that man’s will is not free and what this means not only puts a mathematical end to the possibility of war and crime but completely changes the entire economic system to one of complete security. As you begin reading this chapter it is assumed that you thoroughly understand the two-sided equation; otherwise, the rest of the book will appear like a fairy tale. Remember, at one time landing men on the moon seemed like nothing more than science fiction until it was understood how this apparent miracle could be accomplished. From here on in, each move I make is equivalent to the forced moves in a chess game; consequently, no attempt is necessary because checkmate cannot be avoided, nor can the Golden Age be stopped. In other words, it is mathematically impossible to stop the development of something everybody wants. If the rich and poor, the capitalistic and communistic countries, plus everybody else not mentioned, desire what I am about to show, is it possible for this Golden Age not to become a reality? How is it humanly possible to be dissatisfied with the solution when it is impossible not to be satisfied? I am going to reduce the differences between people to a common denominator that satisfies the whole human race. God shows no partiality, and since I have been sent here on a mission by God Himself, everybody to me is equal regardless of his color, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else you care to throw in. Consequently, the United States, though I live here, is no more a problem to me than Russia or China. Besides, nobody asked to be born, and once it is understood that man’s will is not free, and what this means, how is it possible to blame an individual for anything when both sides of this human equation understand the principles? This is a discovery that no one ever knew about; therefore, the experts in every field are also inadequately prepared to judge its ability to accomplish what was never before possible: the prevention of war and crime. At this juncture my friend and I continued our dialogue.

“Something puzzles me very much because it seems under certain conditions this principle can have no effect. If man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and the conditions of the environment cause him as a solution to his particular problem to prefer the lesser of two evils, how is it possible to remove the evil when his choice, no matter what he selects is still evil? Self-preservation is the first law of nature and if he can’t satisfy his needs without hurting others, the knowledge that they will never blame him for this hurt to them can never prevent him from moving in this direction because he has no choice.”

How long ago was this even written?

It appears very old and very out of date.

“You are 100% correct because he is already being hurt by the environment and under such conditions he is justified to retaliate.”

What are the words, 'you are 100% correct', even in relation to, exactly?

Is the writer asking questions, and then answering back to "itself"?

And, in what 'world' could it be justified for a human being to hurt human beings just because the environment is, supposedly, 'hurting' a human being?

“This is the only thing that had me puzzled; otherwise, your reasoning is flawless.”

“It is important to understand that in order to solve a problem, even with our basic principle, we must know what we are faced with and in the economic world there are three aspects of hurt. The first is not being able to fulfill our basic needs. The second is the inability to maintain the standard of living that was developed. And the last is to be denied an opportunity, if desired, to improve one’s standard of living.”

Lol if one really believes that these are 'hurts', then that one has lived a very sheltered life. Which explains why it has a very narrowed and small view of things, here.

Before I demonstrate how this hurt in the economic world is removed, it is necessary to remind you of this key fact: Man’s will is not free because he never has a choice, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the normal 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 very nature, to prefer the one that gives him greater satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil.

If absolutely any one believes what is claimed, here, then allow 'us' to have a Truly open and honest discussion, so that the readers, here, can bear witness to what will actually come to light.

The natural law implicit in the two-sided equation cannot prevent man from finding greater satisfaction in hurting others when not to do this makes matters worse for himself as would be the case if he were forced, beyond his control, to lose his source of income and be placed in a position where he could not meet his living expenses or acquire the necessaries of life.

It is like the writer of these words was not yet aware that the saying, 'the love of money is the root of all evil', was based upon a truth.

Only when one believes absurd and obviously False things like, 'we need money to live', then they could be so-called 'hurt' by a lose of income.

The rest of what is written would just follow as as absurd and False if the common Truth was not yet even known by the writer, here.

Just the possibility that this could happen (this pervasive insecurity) activates and justifies the law of self-preservation to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill if there is no other way to get the money he needs or might need for survival. It is also important to realize that when man is compelled to give up his desire to hurt others because he knows there will be no blame, he is not choosing the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils, but a good over an evil. But if by not hurting others he makes matters worse for himself, then he is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils and this is what happens where the first two aspects of hurt are concerned. Consequently, if we find ourselves unable to get what we need, then we are compelled to blame and even hurt those who have it. An example of this occurs when employees, who find their income falling short of the mark because of rising prices, blame their employer for having too much money and strike to take some of it away.

The employer, in turn, who has discovered that the strike has lowered his income; and the government, finding itself unable to meet its needs under the present tax structure, blame the people for having too much money and decide to take some of it away by increasing prices and taxes. The people, falling below their needs because of this increase, blame the government and anybody else they can cheat to get back what they lost. The manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are compelled to lay off their surplus employees when consumption slows down and to prevent this, since there is no way the United States can consume all it produces (I am using the United States as an example since I live here, but this applies to any country that produces more than it consumes), the government is forced to do everything humanly possible to keep its foreign markets open and reduce unnecessary competition; otherwise, a recession and perhaps depression could result. It is true that war keeps millions of people employed, reduces the already overcrowded earth and the chances of a depression, so what is the better choice? Everywhere we look, man is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils, and under these conditions our basic principle can have no effect. Therefore, to solve our problem, since this is the kind of situation that exists in the economic world, it is necessary to remove the first blow. To clarify this, if A is compelled to hurt B because the alternative of not doing this is still worse, then A has no choice but to hurt B, as when the unions strike, when prices and taxes are increased, when layoffs occur, when government prefers war, etc. But if there is no possibility for A to make matters worse for himself by not hurting B, then this aspect of justification has been removed, and it then becomes possible to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when he knows there will be no blame, which compels him, beyond his control, to choose a good (not to hurt anybody) over an evil (to do so). Now the question arises at this point: “How can we create an environment that would remove the conditions which make it necessary to select the lesser of two evils as a solution to our problems?”

“I really don’t know, especially since you already said that the basic principle cannot be used here.”

“It can’t be used in a positive, but it can in a negative sense. Obviously, before the removal of all blame can prevent man from desiring to strike a first blow, which is to gain (to improve his standard of living) at the expense of others, it is absolutely necessary to remove the possibility that an individual is necessarily hurting others in order to prevent himself from becoming a loser (from going below his standard of living), and there is only one way this can be accomplished. Let me explain what I mean.

If someone was hurt and yelling, ‘Help! Help! Help!’ and you were in a position to render assistance without hurting yourself while knowing that you would never be blamed if you didn’t, is it humanly possible for you to find satisfaction in ignoring this cry, especially if you know absolutely and positively that all mankind, should you ever find yourself in a similar position, would never fail to help you?”

“Under such conditions I believe that my friend and I would desire to help this individual.”

“Well, believe it or not, this is the key to the economic solution. Since we have already established the two conditions that strike the first blow of hurt, and since those who fall below their standard of living along with those who cannot acquire the necessaries of life are hurt (drowning, so to speak) and yelling for help but will never blame us if we don’t, although they know we can if we want to (for over this I will demonstrate that we have mathematical control), we are given no choice but to unite in such a way without blaming anybody for anything (because everything developed out of mathematical necessity) that all mankind, notwithstanding, will be guaranteed against the possibility of this hurt. By allowing everybody complete freedom to improve their standard of living without the slightest fear of punishment or retaliation, they will be compelled of their own free will to prefer good, that is, not starting anything evil (striking a first blow), because no satisfaction can be gotten otherwise… under the changed conditions.”

“This sounds good if nothing else. And you seem to have all the answers, but how is it possible to meet the extra cost of raising all those who are not receiving the necessaries of life to this basic standard plus meeting the entire guarantee? If 50 billion dollars was needed for one week and all that could be raised without anybody going below his basic standard was 30 billion, you’re in trouble. And what about those who cannot understand what it means that man’s will is not free, which knowledge is necessary to prevent a hurt when man is given his freedom? He must understand the principles in order to consider this hurt to others the worst possible choice. And even if he does understand but your guarantee fails to work because there is just not enough money-labor, he would be compelled as a motion in the direction of greater satisfaction to take advantage of not being blamed to select the lesser of two evils, that is, to take what he needs from others one way or another rather than go below his standard. Furthermore, to guarantee his standard of living is a negative benefit if he is not at all satisfied with it, which means that he might prefer the insecurity of going below, as a gambler will do, to the security which could deny him the opportunity of improving. But even giving you the benefit of the doubt that the principles can be taught, the guarantee made to work, and the overall benefits will be positive as well as negative, how is it humanly possible to get such a world started when communism and capitalism have opposing ideologies? Last but far from least, what do you mean by a standard of living?”

All of your questions will be answered, but you must be patient as I cannot answer everything at once. It is extremely important to understand that there are three forms to this first blow, and we have been discussing the second form only, which cannot be prevented until the first form, struck by the law of self-preservation, is permanently removed. Let me explain.

[peacegirl]

As I said, these principles will either work or they won't when the environmental conditions change. Imagine no more government that tells anyone what they must do, how much they must pay in taxes, etc. Yet people will want to pay, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL OR DESIRE, their share without any obligation to do so or anyone checking up on them.

Can you explain exactly what these environmental conditions are and what will be required to implement them?

It's very difficult if you don't understand the two-sided equation, which is the core of this discovery. But I will give you the very beginning of Chapter Six. I don't want to be accused of going against any rules. Actually, I just reduced the price of the ebook to 99 cents on Amazon. I don't even think people will have to give up their cup of morning joe at this price. You will need to put in the search bar the author's name: Seymour Lessans. The title isn't showing up and I have to get it corrected somehow.

CHAPTER SIX

THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD

And now my friends, you are about to behold an actual miracle as the knowledge that man’s will is not free and what this means not only puts a mathematical end to the possibility of war and crime but completely changes the entire economic system to one of complete security. As you begin reading this chapter it is assumed that you thoroughly understand the two-sided equation; otherwise, the rest of the book will appear like a fairy tale. Remember, at one time landing men on the moon seemed like nothing more than science fiction until it was understood how this apparent miracle could be accomplished. From here on in, each move I make is equivalent to the forced moves in a chess game; consequently, no attempt is necessary because checkmate cannot be avoided, nor can the Golden Age be stopped. In other words, it is mathematically impossible to stop the development of something everybody wants. If the rich and poor, the capitalistic and communistic countries, plus everybody else not mentioned, desire what I am about to show, is it possible for this Golden Age not to become a reality? How is it humanly possible to be dissatisfied with the solution when it is impossible not to be satisfied? I am going to reduce the differences between people to a common denominator that satisfies the whole human race. God shows no partiality, and since I have been sent here on a mission by God Himself, everybody to me is equal regardless of his color, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else you care to throw in. Consequently, the United States, though I live here, is no more a problem to me than Russia or China. Besides, nobody asked to be born, and once it is understood that man’s will is not free, and what this means, how is it possible to blame an individual for anything when both sides of this human equation understand the principles? This is a discovery that no one ever knew about; therefore, the experts in every field are also inadequately prepared to judge its ability to accomplish what was never before possible: the prevention of war and crime. At this juncture my friend and I continued our dialogue.

“Something puzzles me very much because it seems under certain conditions this principle can have no effect. If man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and the conditions of the environment cause him as a solution to his particular problem to prefer the lesser of two evils, how is it possible to remove the evil when his choice, no matter what he selects is still evil? Self-preservation is the first law of nature and if he can’t satisfy his needs without hurting others, the knowledge that they will never blame him for this hurt to them can never prevent him from moving in this direction because he has no choice.”

How long ago was this even written?

It appears very old and very out of date.

He discovered a law of our nature, which time does not change, although the examples given may be somewhat outdated, but that doesn't have anything to do with the law itself and how it is applied.

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is referring to the time when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there has been no such investigation, and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, additional contemporary examples have been added to demonstrate how these principles apply to the current state of the world, but please rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier.

“You are 100% correct because he is already being hurt by the environment and under such conditions he is justified to retaliate.”

What are the words, 'you are 100% correct', even in relation to, exactly?

In relation to the person's question that the economic system that if no choice is adequate in protecting us from the fear of losing our ability to survive, then this would justify whatever means necessary to guarantee our survival (or self-preservation, which is the first law of nature), even if it resulted in a hurt to others.

Is the writer asking questions, and then answering back to "itself"?

And, in what 'world' could it be justified for a human being to hurt human beings just because the environment is, supposedly, 'hurting' a human being?

The environment being the conditions a person is living in. If someone is living in an environment where there is no clean water the water, he will be at risk for a serious illness in comparison to someone who lives in an environment where there IS clean water; and the person who needs clean water will steal your clean water if he can. That is what is meant by "the environment is hurting a human being." Many things in our environment are suboptimal and until those things are removed, the basic principle can have no effect because people will not be choosing a good (not being hurt) over an evil (being hurt), but the lesser of two evils (stealing, which is the lesser evil than living with the potential of dying from water borne disease. Do you actually think he has a free choice to do what he thinks will end with his demise?) which will justify whatever it takes to survive.

“This is the only thing that had me puzzled; otherwise, your reasoning is flawless.”

“It is important to understand that in order to solve a problem, even with our basic principle, we must know what we are faced with and in the economic world there are three aspects of hurt. The first is not being able to fulfill our basic needs. The second is the inability to maintain the standard of living that was developed. And the last is to be denied an opportunity, if desired, to improve one’s standard of living.”

Does living a sheltered life have anything to do with not being able to eat?

Lol if one really believes that these are 'hurts', then that one has lived a very sheltered life. Which explains why it has a very narrowed and small view of things, here.

What? Imagine living under horrible conditions and told that if you believe that these conditions are 'hurts", that you are living a sheltered life. What a slap in the face of those who are living impoverished lives, and you have the gall to tell them it's their fault.

Before I demonstrate how this hurt in the economic world is removed, it is necessary to remind you of this key fact: Man’s will is not free because he never has a choice, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the normal 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 very nature, to prefer the one that gives him greater satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil.

If absolutely any one believes what is claimed, here, then allow 'us' to have a Truly open and honest discussion, so that the readers, here, can bear witness to what will actually come to light.

What do you think I've been trying to do Age, but you can't expect people to understand what they have not even read?

The natural law implicit in the two-sided equation cannot prevent man from finding greater satisfaction in hurting others when not to do this makes matters worse for himself as would be the case if he were forced, beyond his control, to lose his source of income and be placed in a position where he could not meet his living expenses or acquire the necessaries of life.

It is like the writer of these words was not yet aware that the saying, 'the love of money is the root of all evil', was based upon a truth.[/quote\

No Age, it has nothing to do with money but what money represents. Take a broader view.

Only when one believes absurd and obviously False things like, 'we need money to live', then they could be so-called 'hurt' by a lose of income.

Wouldn't you, if you tried but could not find the job or any avenue that could help you survive?

Of course, and that sometimes involves taking from someone else. You don't seem to understand why people feel they have no other choice but to take from others through stealing, robbing, lying, or anything else that can increase their chances of not only survival but living in comfort[qutoe].

The rest of what is written would just follow as as absurd and False if the common Truth was not yet even known by the writer, here.

What? You're not making sense.

Just the possibility that this could happen (this pervasive insecurity) activates and justifies the law of self-preservation to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill if there is no other way to get the money he needs or might need for survival. It is also important to realize that when man is compelled to give up his desire to hurt others because he knows there will be no blame, he is not choosing the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils, but a good over an evil. But if by not hurting others he makes matters worse for himself, then he is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils and this is what happens where the first two aspects of hurt are concerned. Consequently, if we find ourselves unable to get what we need, then we are compelled to blame and even hurt those who have it. An example of this occurs when employees, who find their income falling short of the mark because of rising prices, blame their employer for having too much money and strike to take some of it away.

The employer, in turn, who has discovered that the strike has lowered his income; and the government, finding itself unable to meet its needs under the present tax structure, blame the people for having too much money and decide to take some of it away by increasing prices and taxes. The people, falling below their needs because of this increase, blame the government and anybody else they can cheat to get back what they lost. The manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are compelled to lay off their surplus employees when consumption slows down and to prevent this, since there is no way the United States can consume all it produces (I am using the United States as an example since I live here, but this applies to any country that produces more than it consumes), the government is forced to do everything humanly possible to keep its foreign markets open and reduce unnecessary competition; otherwise, a recession and perhaps depression could result. It is true that war keeps millions of people employed, reduces the already overcrowded earth and the chances of a depression, so what is the better choice? Everywhere we look, man is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils, and under these conditions our basic principle can have no effect. Therefore, to solve our problem, since this is the kind of situation that exists in the economic world, it is necessary to remove the first blow. To clarify this, if A is compelled to hurt B because the alternative of not doing this is still worse, then A has no choice but to hurt B, as when the unions strike, when prices and taxes are increased, when layoffs occur, when government prefers war, etc. But if there is no possibility for A to make matters worse for himself by not hurting B, then this aspect of justification has been removed, and it then becomes possible to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when he knows there will be no blame, which compels him, beyond his control, to choose a good (not to hurt anybody) over an evil (to do so). Now the question arises at this point: “How can we create an environment that would remove the conditions which make it necessary to select the lesser of two evils as a solution to our problems?”

“I really don’t know, especially since you already said that the basic principle cannot be used here.”

“It can’t be used in a positive, but it can in a negative sense. Obviously, before the removal of all blame can prevent man from desiring to strike a first blow, which is to gain (to improve his standard of living) at the expense of others, it is absolutely necessary to remove the possibility that an individual is necessarily hurting others in order to prevent himself from becoming a loser (from going below his standard of living), and there is only one way this can be accomplished. Let me explain what I mean.

If someone was hurt and yelling, ‘Help! Help! Help!’ and you were in a position to render assistance without hurting yourself while knowing that you would never be blamed if you didn’t, is it humanly possible for you to find satisfaction in ignoring this cry, especially if you know absolutely and positively that all mankind, should you ever find yourself in a similar position, would never fail to help you?”

“Under such conditions I believe that my friend and I would desire to help this individual.”

“Well, believe it or not, this is the key to the economic solution. Since we have already established the two conditions that strike the first blow of hurt, and since those who fall below their standard of living along with those who cannot acquire the necessaries of life are hurt (drowning, so to speak) and yelling for help but will never blame us if we don’t, although they know we can if we want to (for over this I will demonstrate that we have mathematical control), we are given no choice but to unite in such a way without blaming anybody for anything (because everything developed out of mathematical necessity) that all mankind, notwithstanding, will be guaranteed against the possibility of this hurt. By allowing everybody complete freedom to improve their standard of living without the slightest fear of punishment or retaliation, they will be compelled of their own free will to prefer good, that is, not starting anything evil (striking a first blow), because no satisfaction can be gotten otherwise… under the changed conditions.”

“This sounds good if nothing else. And you seem to have all the answers, but how is it possible to meet the extra cost of raising all those who are not receiving the necessaries of life to this basic standard plus meeting the entire guarantee? If 50 billion dollars was needed for one week and all that could be raised without anybody going below his basic standard was 30 billion, you’re in trouble. And what about those who cannot understand what it means that man’s will is not free, which knowledge is necessary to prevent a hurt when man is given his freedom? He must understand the principles in order to consider this hurt to others the worst possible choice. And even if he does understand but your guarantee fails to work because there is just not enough money-labor, he would be compelled as a motion in the direction of greater satisfaction to take advantage of not being blamed to select the lesser of two evils, that is, to take what he needs from others one way or another rather than go below his standard. Furthermore, to guarantee his standard of living is a negative benefit if he is not at all satisfied with it, which means that he might prefer the insecurity of going below, as a gambler will do, to the security which could deny him the opportunity of improving. But even giving you the benefit of the doubt that the principles can be taught, the guarantee made to work, and the overall benefits will be positive as well as negative, how is it humanly possible to get such a world started when communism and capitalism have opposing ideologies? Last but far from least, what do you mean by a standard of living?”

All of your questions will be answered, but you must be patient as I cannot answer everything at once. It is extremely important to understand that there are three forms to this first blow, and we have been discussing the second form only, which cannot be prevented until the first form, struck by the law of self-preservation, is permanently removed. Let me explain.

[Atla]

Of course, people can sacrifice their own desire for the sake of someone else, especially if they need your help because they cannot do it themselves. That being said, just because I find satisfaction in being of service in some capacity doesn’t diminish my effort to help. In your way of thinking, I should be a sacrificial lamb always doing for others without any thoughts for my own wellbeing? That’s not healthy.

I didn't say that one should be a perpetual sacrificial lamb, doormat, sucker, that's indeed not healthy. I just said that there are people who can from time to time choose to help others, even if that's bad for them nor do they derive enough satisfaction from helping.

But that's impossible according to your family, it goes against your law.

Hey, if you have two or more equally satisfying options, which one do you choose?

[peacegirl]

Of course, people can sacrifice their own desire for the sake of someone else, especially if they need your help because they cannot do it themselves. That being said, just because I find satisfaction in being of service in some capacity doesn’t diminish my effort to help. In your way of thinking, I should be a sacrificial lamb always doing for others without any thoughts for my own wellbeing? That’s not healthy.

I didn't say that one should be a perpetual sacrificial lamb, doormat, sucker, that's indeed not healthy. I just said that there are people who can from time to time choose to help others, even if that's bad for them nor do they derive enough satisfaction from helping./quite]

Of course that’s true. Greater satisfaction doesn’t mean you can’t do something for someone else even at your own perky. Look at the people who risks their lives to save someone in a burning building or caught in a riptide. You are misunderstanding the meaning of moving toward greater satisfaction entirely.

But that's impossible according to your family, it goes against your law.

Not at all.

Hey, if you have two or more equally satisfying options, which one do you choose?

Either one, because it would be like choosing between A and A. It wouldn’t matter which one. You may decide in the direction of greater satisfaction to close your eyes and go “eenie meeny miny moe.” It doesn’t remove the law that we’re apart of.

[Atla]

Of course that’s true. Greater satisfaction doesn’t mean you can’t do something for someone else even at your own perky. Look at the people who risks their lives to save someone in a burning building or caught in a riptide. You are misunderstanding the meaning of moving toward greater satisfaction entirely.

You're the one who keeps misunderstanding what I say about satisfaction. When your suffering outweighs your satisfaction, then you aren't satisfied. According to you such deeds are impossible (when there is an alternative where you're less dissatisfied).

How about you stop acting like you're lecturing idiots?

[peacegirl]

Of course that’s true. Greater satisfaction doesn’t mean you can’t do something for someone else even at your own perky. Look at the people who risks their lives to save someone in a burning building or caught in a riptide. You are misunderstanding the meaning of moving toward greater satisfaction entirely.

You're the one who keeps misunderstanding what I say about satisfaction. When your suffering outweighs your satisfaction, then you aren't satisfied. According to you such deeds are impossible (when there is an alternative where you're less dissatisfied).

How about you stop acting like you're lecturing idiots?

It doesn't outweigh satisfaction Atla. Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction does not mean we are always satisfied. We could be suffering greatly, but if all of our choices involve suffering, we would have no choice but to pick the option that provides the least suffering in our eyes. He gave this example in Chapter One. It doesn't change the definition.

I shall put this to a mathematical test for further proof and clarification. Imagine that you were taken prisoner in wartime for espionage and condemned to death but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference that is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take, which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, provided no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?

“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?”

“No, I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”

“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of alternatives, one is compelled, completely beyond control, to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it could be chosen over something still worse) as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control. Let me explain this in another way. Once it is understood that life is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction, and if two such alternatives were presented to you as in the example above, what choice would you possibly have but to accept the lesser of two evils? Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer something considered still worse in your opinion, regardless of what it is, are you not compelled, completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer A? And since the definition of free will states that man can choose good over evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion since B was evil, as the worse alternative, and could not be selected in this comparison of possibilities?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all, as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

[Atla]

Of course that’s true. Greater satisfaction doesn’t mean you can’t do something for someone else even at your own perky. Look at the people who risks their lives to save someone in a burning building or caught in a riptide. You are misunderstanding the meaning of moving toward greater satisfaction entirely.

You're the one who keeps misunderstanding what I say about satisfaction. When your suffering outweighs your satisfaction, then you aren't satisfied. According to you such deeds are impossible (when there is an alternative where you're less dissatisfied).

How about you stop acting like you're lecturing idiots?

It doesn't outweigh satisfaction Atla. Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction does not mean we are always satisfied. We could be suffering greatly, but if all of our choices involve suffering, we would have no choice but to pick the option that provides the least suffering in our eyes. He gave this example in Chapter One. It doesn't change the definition.

I shall put this to a mathematical test for further proof and clarification. Imagine that you were taken prisoner in wartime for espionage and condemned to death but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference that is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take, which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, provided no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?

“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?”

“No, I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”

“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of alternatives, one is compelled, completely beyond control, to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it could be chosen over something still worse) as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control. Let me explain this in another way. Once it is understood that life is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction, and if two such alternatives were presented to you as in the example above, what choice would you possibly have but to accept the lesser of two evils? Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer something considered still worse in your opinion, regardless of what it is, are you not compelled, completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer A? And since the definition of free will states that man can choose good over evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion since B was evil, as the worse alternative, and could not be selected in this comparison of possibilities?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all, as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

You can't even imagine someone choosing a more dissatisfying option, because your father said it was impossible.

[peacegirl]

You're the one who keeps misunderstanding what I say about satisfaction. When your suffering outweighs your satisfaction, then you aren't satisfied. According to you such deeds are impossible (when there is an alternative where you're less dissatisfied).

How about you stop acting like you're lecturing idiots?

It doesn't outweigh satisfaction Atla. Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction does not mean we are always satisfied. We could be suffering greatly, but if all of our choices involve suffering, we would have no choice but to pick the option that provides the least suffering in our eyes. He gave this example in Chapter One. It doesn't change the definition.

I shall put this to a mathematical test for further proof and clarification. Imagine that you were taken prisoner in wartime for espionage and condemned to death but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference that is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take, which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, provided no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?

“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?”

“No, I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”

“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of alternatives, one is compelled, completely beyond control, to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it could be chosen over something still worse) as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control. Let me explain this in another way. Once it is understood that life is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction, and if two such alternatives were presented to you as in the example above, what choice would you possibly have but to accept the lesser of two evils? Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer something considered still worse in your opinion, regardless of what it is, are you not compelled, completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer A? And since the definition of free will states that man can choose good over evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion since B was evil, as the worse alternative, and could not be selected in this comparison of possibilities?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all, as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

You can't even imagine someone choosing a more dissatisfying option, because your father said it was impossible.

No, that’s not what he said. Depending on each person’s circumstances, they are compelled to choose the least dissatisfying option IN THEIR EYES, not yours. Why is this so difficult? It’s not rocket science.

[Atla]

It doesn't outweigh satisfaction Atla. Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction does not mean we are always satisfied. We could be suffering greatly, but if all of our choices involve suffering, we would have no choice but to pick the option that provides the least suffering in our eyes. He gave this example in Chapter One. It doesn't change the definition.

I shall put this to a mathematical test for further proof and clarification. Imagine that you were taken prisoner in wartime for espionage and condemned to death but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference that is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take, which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, provided no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?

“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?”

“No, I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”

“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of alternatives, one is compelled, completely beyond control, to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it could be chosen over something still worse) as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control. Let me explain this in another way. Once it is understood that life is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction, and if two such alternatives were presented to you as in the example above, what choice would you possibly have but to accept the lesser of two evils? Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer something considered still worse in your opinion, regardless of what it is, are you not compelled, completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer A? And since the definition of free will states that man can choose good over evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion since B was evil, as the worse alternative, and could not be selected in this comparison of possibilities?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all, as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

You can't even imagine someone choosing a more dissatisfying option, because your father said it was impossible.

No, that’s not what he said. Depending on each person’s circumstances, they are compelled to choose the least dissatisfying option IN THEIR EYES, not yours. Why is this so difficult? It’s not rocket science.

I said the same simple thing like 3-4 times in a row and you failed to grasp it every time. What's up with that?

[peacegirl]

You can't even imagine someone choosing a more dissatisfying option, because your father said it was impossible.

No, that’s not what he said. Depending on each person’s circumstances, they are compelled to choose the least dissatisfying option IN THEIR EYES, not yours. Why is this so difficult? It’s not rocket science.

I said the same simple thing like 3-4 times in a row and you failed to grasp it every time. What's up with that?

He said that if all the options at a person's disposal were dissatisfying, he would be compelled to pick the option that was the least dissatisfying TO HIM, not you. That's all there is to it, Atla.

[Atla]

No, that’s not what he said. Depending on each person’s circumstances, they are compelled to choose the least dissatisfying option IN THEIR EYES, not yours. Why is this so difficult? It’s not rocket science.

I said the same simple thing like 3-4 times in a row and you failed to grasp it every time. What's up with that?

He said that if all the options at a person's disposal were dissatisfying, he would be compelled to pick the option that was the least dissatisfying TO HIM, not you. That's all there is to it, Atla.

And obviously I said absolutely nothing about it being the least dissatisfying to me.

[peacegirl]

I said the same simple thing like 3-4 times in a row and you failed to grasp it every time. What's up with that?

He said that if all the options at a person's disposal were dissatisfying, he would be compelled to pick the option that was the least dissatisfying TO HIM, not you. That's all there is to it, Atla.

And obviously I said absolutely nothing about it being the least dissatisfying to me.

It would be impossible to pick a more dissatisfying option if there was anything better. If there was not, then a person would be stuck with that option.

[Atla]

It would be impossible to pick a more dissatisfying option if there was anything better.

Impossible for you and your father. Guess we'll have to leave it at that.

[peacegirl]

It would be impossible to pick a more dissatisfying option if there was anything better.

Impossible for you and your father. Guess we'll have to leave it at that.

What a dumb answer. This has nothing to do with my father or me. No one is trying to trick you. The entire point of contemplation is to decide which option is preferable, or you wouldn't have this attribute.

[Atla]

It would be impossible to pick a more dissatisfying option if there was anything better.

Impossible for you and your father. Guess we'll have to leave it at that.

What a dumb answer. This has nothing to do with my father or me. No one is trying to trick you. The entire point of contemplation is to decide which option is preferable, or you wouldn't have this attribute.

Everything to do with you and your father since you two made up this nonsensical law.