New Discovery

[peacegirl]

...

Again, I consciously broke your law. Then there are people like accelafine who are forced to go against their own satisfaction all the time (making her miserable), although not by choice. She's on autopilot because of her BPD, most people have emotion control but she is fully driven by her own emotional impulses and can't do anything about it. It's like sitting in a self-driving car where you have no controls, and it sometimes takes you into bad traffic which is bad for you but you can't do anything about it.

You did not break any law. In spite of all the flashing warning signs that may have caused you to pause, you still got greater satisfaction to lend her the money because you wanted to, for whatever reason. Nothing forced you to lend her the money against your will. You did it of your own free will or desire. You may think Accelafine may not have control over her emotions, and that might be her MO in this forum, but she would suddenly have control over her emotions if by being on autopilot, as you say, she could miss a traffic light and get someone killed. Or by saying something out of line where her words hurt someone, not because they did anything wrong but because she got satisfaction out of hurting people, she would be compelled, in the new world, to change her ways because the justification to continue as before would be eliminated; therefore, her conscience would not allow her to reckless with her words or actions.

Now that we've thrown out the magical cosmic law, what remains is the most banal observation: life does what life does, which is living, which typically involves doing what's best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what makes them satisfied.

Exactly. I didn't argue that it's desires and motives that drive what gives satisfaction. I was saying that this is the direction we move.

Now unlike you, I'm an actual determinist, so we could even skip this whole part and grant that determinism is the case, and proceed to the really crazy part where you somehow banish all evil and save the world by reinterpreting blame.

I'm a determinist, and I will not skip this part. If you are so sure he's wrong, then why are you here? You haven't proven this invariable law wrong by your example. For anyone who hasn't read this excerpt, here it is again. If you did read it, then just skip it.

If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone, as Morrison understood from his scientific observations, and that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false.” So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option that was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.


In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. which is the direction life is compelled to take. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Suppose you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine. Could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

[peacegirl]

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.

1. What is the difference between 'our nature', and, just 'nature', itself?

It's not here nor there. He was referring to human nature, although this law applies to all nature.

2. A 'law of our nature', which 'that one' supposedly 'discovered', and which is totally outdated, does not align with the 'current' and actual 'law of nature', itself. So, why do you promote an 'outdated law', when the 'actual and current law' is far, far superior to that outdated law'?

Natural laws are not outdated. Manmade laws are. What current law do you believe is superior?


3. To say some thing like, 'time does not change' (a supposed discovered law of 'our' nature), shows and proves that you are still not yet aware of what the word 'time' is in relation to, exactly.

Time IS change. It's not a dimension.

4. If the 'law', itself, is outdated, then why continue in 'trying to' claim that 'that law', itself, is important, and are 'trying to' explain how to apply that so-called 'law'?

This natural law is not outdated, that's why.

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.

1. When you write, 'in 25 years', then when is this '25 years' from, exactly?

You can do the math.

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. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

2. Why will it only be the 'men' who are, supposedly, so-called 'delivered from all evil'?

The term "men" is a general term, just like we sometimes use the pronoun "he" to mean all people, not just the male gender.

3. A 'thorough investigation' into 'what', exactly? And, do 'we' have to wait until every one, or every 'man', has taken a 'thorough investigation' before the 25 years begins? Also, how do 'we' know when a so-called 'thorough investigation' has actually been completed? Is it when one agrees, absolutely, with what you, and/or the writer, are saying and claiming, here?

A thorough examination will be completed when this knowledge is thoroughly investigated by scientists. This has not been done. He goes into how this new world can actually be launched once it has been determined to be a genuine discovery.

“Why do you predict war to end sooner than crime?”

“To end any particular evil (and you are in for so many surprises) requires that the people involved understand the principles that will be explained. When they do, they will be given no choice but to stop the evil, whatever it is they are engaged in. But whereas it is only necessary to get the leaders of the world to understand the principles to end all war, it takes all mankind to understand them to put a permanent end to crime.”

“But how is it possible for you, just with your reasoning, nothing else, to put an end to all war, crime, sin, hate, etc.? If I must say, this sounds completely contrary to reason.”

“Are you asking if it is possible or telling me that you know it is impossible?”

“After what you just demonstrated to the rabbi, I certainly would never tell you it is impossible when I don’t know if it is, but it seems so incredible to hear someone say he is going to remove all evil from the entire earth that I cannot help but be in disbelief. Well, what is your first step? How do you go about making a start?”

4. If this so-called 'discovery' remains, supposedly, 'in obscurity' how come it is, allegedly, not obscure, to you?

I was given the privilege of having this knowledge explained to me before I had a chance to find apparent flaws when there aren't any. Does that make me a follower, a fundamentalist? No, it does not.


Also, why do you not just reveal this, so-called 'discovery', itself? And, could what you call 'a discovery' not be that much of 'a discovery' at all, and/or just not be as important are you believe it is? Or, is 'this' not even a possibility, to you?

If 1 plus 1 is not 2, I will accept there is a possibility it is wrong. And please don't tell me it's been proven that 1 plus 1 is 11 or any other effort to negate this mathematical fact. If you do, we have no basis for communication

5. Why do you keep using words like, 'the discovery', as doing so keeps 'it' 'a mystery'?

It is no mystery. I have given everything to you and have hidden nothing.

Why not just say what the so-called 'discovery' is, exactly, and then just use 'those words', only, which just say what 'the discovery' is, exactly?

I can only meet you halfway. You obviously gave a cursory review of the first three chapters, if that.

6. What, exactly, is 'the knowledge', itself, which, supposedly, could not be 'timelier'?

This discovery is timely because it is timeless, even though some of the examples are dated.

7. By the way, is it possible that the words and term, 'free will', are just referring to, 'The ability to choose', which obviously human beings have, which would then mean that human beings do, actually, have 'free will'.

NO, not at all does this mean the ability to choose equivalent to having free will.


Which, by the way, would mean that they are, actually, responsibility for their Wrong doings, but 'the reasons' why all adult human beings do Wong is some thing that can not be so-called 'blamed' for anyway? But, because every adult human being is, still, responsible for what they do, Right or Wrong, because they do, and did, have 'The ability to choose', then 'this' will bring about the Truly peaceful and harmonious world', for every one, as One, quicker, simpler, and easier, than some so-claimed 'discovery' that you human beings do not have 'free will'?

You are confused regarding "the ability to choose" and "having free will."

“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.

But, money and economics have absolutely nothing at all to do with human beings survival.

Are you being serious? Are you saying that money has nothing to do with survival, and if we have none, we can still survive if we are not given help by our government?[

And, any talk of money and/or economics in relation to survival and/or living in peace and harmony together, as One, only shows how far 'backwards' and indoctrinated those human beings had become.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. Money as an exchange for things we need is the medium used. It doesn't mean it has to be the only medium. In fact, the medium of money is not even necessary and will be eliminated, but not the give and take of trade.

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?

There is justification to hurt others back if hurt. It is very hard to turn the other cheek. Those who have been hurt, hurt others and gives the very justification to strike back. In order for this law to work effectively, we have to remove the hurt in our environment that gives people this justification.

The environment being the conditions a person is living in.

Age: Okay, but 'this' was already understood, and in absolutely no way answers the 'actual questions' asked, here.

It actually does.

to be cont... please break up these long threads into smaller digestible pieces. Thanking you in advance

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.

1. Any talk of 'stealing' clean water just shows and proves how much of 'your thinking' revolves around 'money' and/or 'greed', itself.

2. All human beings need clean water. So, why say 'the person who needs clean water'? Can you name to 'us' 'a person' who does not need clean water?

If yes, then will you name it or them?

That is what is meant by "the environment is hurting a human being."

So, because it is human beings, only, who pollute water, and thus who make 'clean water' not clean, then is 'what' you mean by 'the environment' just 'that', which is caused by you human beings, only, correct?

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.

There is quite a bit to 'look at', and 'discuss', here. But, firstly, why did you not answer the 'two questions' that I posed, and asked you above, here?

I asked you,

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?

See, if 'the writer' is asking "itself" very specific questions, and then just answering them, then this can be very, very misleading, and those who are not Truly open can be fooled, and deceived, very, very easily, and simply.

And, 'I' asked 'you', ' 'in what world' could ... '? I never asked 'you' what you meant by 'environment'.

Anyway, the only thing in 'the environment', like for example dirty water and dirty air is because of what you adult human beings are doing, again because of your 'selfishness' and 'greed'. So, quite obviously, only when you adult human beings stop being 'selfish' and 'greedy' that this is when 'the environment' will become 'optimal', once more. Just like it used to be like.

you say and claim, 'until those things, which you call, 'suboptimal', in 'our environment' are removed', and then go off on some other tangent. However,

1. The only things in 'the environment', which are so-called 'suboptimal', or 'not optimal', is the Wrong behavior done by you adult human beings.

2. What do you mean by, 'our environment'? Who and/or what is the 'our' word in relation to, exactly, and how does 'that environment' differ from 'the environment', exactly?

3. What are your words, 'the basic principle', in relation to, exactly?

4. you talk about people 'choosing' a 'good' over a so-called 'evil', but if as you claim there is no 'free will', that is, 'the ability to choose', then how could people even 'choose' 'good' over some so-called 'evil', anyway?

5. Why do you believe that 'me' doing what causes 'you' or 'another' to 'die' can be justified?

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



What?

What what?

Imagine living under horrible conditions and told that if you believe that these conditions are 'hurts", that you are living a sheltered life.

Why do you want me to imagine some thing that no one, here, has even alluded to nor mentioned, let alone talked about nor said?

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.

you could not have gotten more 'off track', here, even if you wanted to and were attempting to. Why do you believe your assumptions to be absolutely true? Have you ever considered seeking out clarification first, before assuming and/or believing things?

What 'we' have, here, is another prime example of one who concludes things on their own assumptions, even when their own assumptions do not align with what is actually True in any way, shape, nor form.

Why do you believe, believe, that "men" are not free to choose to whether to do what is actually Right, in Life, from what is actually Wrong, in Life?

Do you believe that "women" are able to choose to do what they want or do not want to?

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?

What 'I' know 'you' are 'trying to' do, here, is to express 'all of your views and beliefs' as though they are what are irrefutably true and right, in Life.

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

From what I have seen so far, from your writings, is that 'this discovery', which will, supposedly, create 'a new and better world', which will, still, revolve around 'money', and/or 'the love of money'. Which is said to be, 'The root of all evil'.

So, what you are, essentially, doing, here, is 'trying to' claim that 'some discovery' that will lead to the fall of ALL evil, revolves around the talking 'about money' as though 'money' is some necessary part of life, and living.

Now, what does 'money', itself, represent, to you, exactly?

Why are 'you' quoting 'me', here, as saying some thing that I did not, and never would?

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

.

Again, you have the most sheltered, narrowed, smallest, and/or closed view and perspective of things, here.

What? You're not making sense.

Okay, but is 'this', to you, to some, or to everyone?

Also, do you believe that 'you' are making sense, here?

[Age]

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.

1. What is the difference between 'our nature', and, just 'nature', itself?

It's not here nor there. He was referring to human nature, although this law applies to all nature.

2. A 'law of our nature', which 'that one' supposedly 'discovered', and which is totally outdated, does not align with the 'current' and actual 'law of nature', itself. So, why do you promote an 'outdated law', when the 'actual and current law' is far, far superior to that outdated law'?

Natural laws are not outdated. Manmade laws are. What current law do you believe is superior?


3. To say some thing like, 'time does not change' (a supposed discovered law of 'our' nature), shows and proves that you are still not yet aware of what the word 'time' is in relation to, exactly.

Time IS change. It's not a dimension.

4. If the 'law', itself, is outdated, then why continue in 'trying to' claim that 'that law', itself, is important, and are 'trying to' explain how to apply that so-called 'law'?

This natural law is not outdated, that's why.

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.

1. When you write, 'in 25 years', then when is this '25 years' from, exactly?

You can do the math.

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. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

2. Why will it only be the 'men' who are, supposedly, so-called 'delivered from all evil'?

The term "men" is a general term, just like we sometimes use the pronoun "he" to mean all people, not just the male gender.

3. A 'thorough investigation' into 'what', exactly? And, do 'we' have to wait until every one, or every 'man', has taken a 'thorough investigation' before the 25 years begins? Also, how do 'we' know when a so-called 'thorough investigation' has actually been completed? Is it when one agrees, absolutely, with what you, and/or the writer, are saying and claiming, here?

A thorough examination will be completed when this knowledge is thoroughly investigated by scientists. This has not been done. He goes into how this new world can actually be launched once it has been determined to be a genuine discovery.

“Why do you predict war to end sooner than crime?”

“To end any particular evil (and you are in for so many surprises) requires that the people involved understand the principles that will be explained. When they do, they will be given no choice but to stop the evil, whatever it is they are engaged in. But whereas it is only necessary to get the leaders of the world to understand the principles to end all war, it takes all mankind to understand them to put a permanent end to crime.”

“But how is it possible for you, just with your reasoning, nothing else, to put an end to all war, crime, sin, hate, etc.? If I must say, this sounds completely contrary to reason.”

“Are you asking if it is possible or telling me that you know it is impossible?”

“After what you just demonstrated to the rabbi, I certainly would never tell you it is impossible when I don’t know if it is, but it seems so incredible to hear someone say he is going to remove all evil from the entire earth that I cannot help but be in disbelief. Well, what is your first step? How do you go about making a start?”

4. If this so-called 'discovery' remains, supposedly, 'in obscurity' how come it is, allegedly, not obscure, to you?

I was given the privilege of having this knowledge explained to me before I had a chance to find apparent flaws when there aren't any. Does that make me a follower, a fundamentalist? No, it does not.


Also, why do you not just reveal this, so-called 'discovery', itself? And, could what you call 'a discovery' not be that much of 'a discovery' at all, and/or just not be as important are you believe it is? Or, is 'this' not even a possibility, to you?

If 1 plus 1 is not 2, I will accept there is a possibility it is wrong. And please don't tell me it's been proven that 1 plus 1 is 11 or any other effort to negate this mathematical fact. If you do, we have no basis for communication

5. Why do you keep using words like, 'the discovery', as doing so keeps 'it' 'a mystery'?

It is no mystery. I have given everything to you and have hidden nothing.

Why not just say what the so-called 'discovery' is, exactly, and then just use 'those words', only, which just say what 'the discovery' is, exactly?

I can only meet you halfway. You obviously gave a cursory review of the first three chapters, if that.

6. What, exactly, is 'the knowledge', itself, which, supposedly, could not be 'timelier'?

This discovery is timely because it is timeless, even though some of the examples are dated.

7. By the way, is it possible that the words and term, 'free will', are just referring to, 'The ability to choose', which obviously human beings have, which would then mean that human beings do, actually, have 'free will'.

NO, not at all does this mean the ability to choose equivalent to having free will.


Which, by the way, would mean that they are, actually, responsibility for their Wrong doings, but 'the reasons' why all adult human beings do Wong is some thing that can not be so-called 'blamed' for anyway? But, because every adult human being is, still, responsible for what they do, Right or Wrong, because they do, and did, have 'The ability to choose', then 'this' will bring about the Truly peaceful and harmonious world', for every one, as One, quicker, simpler, and easier, than some so-claimed 'discovery' that you human beings do not have 'free will'?

You are confused regarding "the ability to choose" and "having free will."

“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.

But, money and economics have absolutely nothing at all to do with human beings survival.

Are you being serious? Are you saying that money has nothing to do with survival, and if we have none, we can still survive if we are not given help by our government?[

And, any talk of money and/or economics in relation to survival and/or living in peace and harmony together, as One, only shows how far 'backwards' and indoctrinated those human beings had become.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. Money as an exchange for things we need is the medium used. It doesn't mean it has to be the only medium. In fact, the medium of money is not even necessary and will be eliminated, but not the give and take of trade.



There is justification to hurt others back if hurt. It is very hard to turn the other cheek. Those who have been hurt, hurt others and gives the very justification to strike back. In order for this law to work effectively, we have to remove the hurt in our environment that gives people this justification.



Age: Okay, but 'this' was already understood, and in absolutely no way answers the 'actual questions' asked, here.

It actually does.

to be cont... please break up these long threads into smaller digestible pieces. Thanking you in advance



1. Any talk of 'stealing' clean water just shows and proves how much of 'your thinking' revolves around 'money' and/or 'greed', itself.

2. All human beings need clean water. So, why say 'the person who needs clean water'? Can you name to 'us' 'a person' who does not need clean water?

If yes, then will you name it or them?



So, because it is human beings, only, who pollute water, and thus who make 'clean water' not clean, then is 'what' you mean by 'the environment' just 'that', which is caused by you human beings, only, correct?


There is quite a bit to 'look at', and 'discuss', here. But, firstly, why did you not answer the 'two questions' that I posed, and asked you above, here?

I asked you,

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?

See, if 'the writer' is asking "itself" very specific questions, and then just answering them, then this can be very, very misleading, and those who are not Truly open can be fooled, and deceived, very, very easily, and simply.

And, 'I' asked 'you', ' 'in what world' could ... '? I never asked 'you' what you meant by 'environment'.

Anyway, the only thing in 'the environment', like for example dirty water and dirty air is because of what you adult human beings are doing, again because of your 'selfishness' and 'greed'. So, quite obviously, only when you adult human beings stop being 'selfish' and 'greedy' that this is when 'the environment' will become 'optimal', once more. Just like it used to be like.

you say and claim, 'until those things, which you call, 'suboptimal', in 'our environment' are removed', and then go off on some other tangent. However,

1. The only things in 'the environment', which are so-called 'suboptimal', or 'not optimal', is the Wrong behavior done by you adult human beings.

2. What do you mean by, 'our environment'? Who and/or what is the 'our' word in relation to, exactly, and how does 'that environment' differ from 'the environment', exactly?

3. What are your words, 'the basic principle', in relation to, exactly?

4. you talk about people 'choosing' a 'good' over a so-called 'evil', but if as you claim there is no 'free will', that is, 'the ability to choose', then how could people even 'choose' 'good' over some so-called 'evil', anyway?

5. Why do you believe that 'me' doing what causes 'you' or 'another' to 'die' can be justified?



What what?



Why do you want me to imagine some thing that no one, here, has even alluded to nor mentioned, let alone talked about nor said?



you could not have gotten more 'off track', here, even if you wanted to and were attempting to. Why do you believe your assumptions to be absolutely true? Have you ever considered seeking out clarification first, before assuming and/or believing things?

What 'we' have, here, is another prime example of one who concludes things on their own assumptions, even when their own assumptions do not align with what is actually True in any way, shape, nor form.


Why do you believe, believe, that "men" are not free to choose to whether to do what is actually Right, in Life, from what is actually Wrong, in Life?

Do you believe that "women" are able to choose to do what they want or do not want to?


What 'I' know 'you' are 'trying to' do, here, is to express 'all of your views and beliefs' as though they are what are irrefutably true and right, in Life.


From what I have seen so far, from your writings, is that 'this discovery', which will, supposedly, create 'a new and better world', which will, still, revolve around 'money', and/or 'the love of money'. Which is said to be, 'The root of all evil'.

So, what you are, essentially, doing, here, is 'trying to' claim that 'some discovery' that will lead to the fall of ALL evil, revolves around the talking 'about money' as though 'money' is some necessary part of life, and living.

Now, what does 'money', itself, represent, to you, exactly?



Why are 'you' quoting 'me', here, as saying some thing that I did not, and never would?
.

Again, you have the most sheltered, narrowed, smallest, and/or closed view and perspective of things, here.

Okay, but is 'this', to you, to some, or to everyone?

Also, do you believe that 'you' are making sense, here?

As pointed out to you earlier, your inability to quote efficiently is not helping you at all, here.

[peacegirl]

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.

1. What is the difference between 'our nature', and, just 'nature', itself?

It's not here nor there. He was referring to human nature, although this law applies to all nature.

2. A 'law of our nature', which 'that one' supposedly 'discovered', and which is totally outdated, does not align with the 'current' and actual 'law of nature', itself. So, why do you promote an 'outdated law', when the 'actual and current law' is far, far superior to that outdated law'?

Natural laws are not outdated. Manmade laws are. What current law do you believe is superior?


3. To say some thing like, 'time does not change' (a supposed discovered law of 'our' nature), shows and proves that you are still not yet aware of what the word 'time' is in relation to, exactly.

Time IS change. It's not a dimension.

4. If the 'law', itself, is outdated, then why continue in 'trying to' claim that 'that law', itself, is important, and are 'trying to' explain how to apply that so-called 'law'?

This natural law is not outdated, that's why.

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.

1. When you write, 'in 25 years', then when is this '25 years' from, exactly?

You can do the math.

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. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

2. Why will it only be the 'men' who are, supposedly, so-called 'delivered from all evil'?

The term "men" is a general term like human, just like we sometimes use the pronoun "he" to mean all people, not just the male gender.

3. A 'thorough investigation' into 'what', exactly? And, do 'we' have to wait until every one, or every 'man', has taken a 'thorough investigation' before the 25 years begins? Also, how do 'we' know when a so-called 'thorough investigation' has actually been completed? Is it when one agrees, absolutely, with what you, and/or the writer, are saying and claiming, here?

A thorough examination will be completed when this knowledge is thoroughly investigated by scientists. This has not been done. He goes into how this new world can actually be launched once it has been determined to be a genuine discovery.

“Why do you predict war to end sooner than crime?”

“To end any particular evil (and you are in for so many surprises) requires that the people involved understand the principles that will be explained. When they do, they will be given no choice but to stop the evil, whatever it is they are engaged in. But whereas it is only necessary to get the leaders of the world to understand the principles to end all war, it takes all mankind to understand them to put a permanent end to crime.”

“But how is it possible for you, just with your reasoning, nothing else, to put an end to all war, crime, sin, hate, etc.? If I must say, this sounds completely contrary to reason.”

“Are you asking if it is possible or telling me that you know it is impossible?”

“After what you just demonstrated to the rabbi, I certainly would never tell you it is impossible when I don’t know if it is, but it seems so incredible to hear someone say he is going to remove all evil from the entire earth that I cannot help but be in disbelief. Well, what is your first step? How do you go about making a start?”

4. If this so-called 'discovery' remains, supposedly, 'in obscurity' how come it is, allegedly, not obscure, to you?

I was given the privilege of having this knowledge explained to me before all the background noise and cynicism that is interfering with a true understanding.


Also, why do you not just reveal this, so-called 'discovery', itself? And, could what you call 'a discovery' not be that much of 'a discovery' at all, and/or just not be as important are you believe it is? Or, is 'this' not even a possibility, to you?

If 1 plus 1 is not 2, I will accept there is a possibility it is wrong. And please don't tell me it's been proven that 1 plus 1 is 11 or any other effort to negate this mathematical fact. If you do, we have no basis for communication

5. Why do you keep using words like, 'the discovery', as doing so keeps 'it' 'a mystery'?

It is no mystery. I have given everything to you and have hidden nothing.

Why not just say what the so-called 'discovery' is, exactly, and then just use 'those words', only, which just say what 'the discovery' is, exactly?

I can only meet you halfway. You obviously gave a cursory review of the first three chapters, if that.

6. What, exactly, is 'the knowledge', itself, which, supposedly, could not be 'timelier'?

This discovery is timely because it is timeless, even though some of the examples are dated.

7. By the way, is it possible that the words and term, 'free will', are just referring to, 'The ability to choose', which obviously human beings have, which would then mean that human beings do, actually, have 'free will'.

NO, not at all does the ability to choose (which we have) mean it is equivalent to having free will. That is the elephant in the room in this debate. People think by being able to choose is the opposite of determinism, and it is not.


Which, by the way, would mean that they are, actually, responsibility for their Wrong doings, but 'the reasons' why all adult human beings do Wong is some thing that can not be so-called 'blamed' for anyway? But, because every adult human being is, still, responsible for what they do, Right or Wrong, because they do, and did, have 'The ability to choose', then 'this' will bring about the Truly peaceful and harmonious world', for every one, as One, quicker, simpler, and easier, than some so-claimed 'discovery' that you human beings do not have 'free will'?

You are confused regarding "the ability to choose" and "having free will." Yes, people are responsible for what they do, but paradoxically by removing the blame that holds people responsible, we actually increase that responsibility. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

“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: 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.

“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.”

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

“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.”

But, money and economics have absolutely nothing at all to do with human beings survival.

Are you saying that money has nothing to do with survival, and if we have none, we can still survive without help by our government?[

And, any talk of money and/or economics in relation to survival and/or living in peace and harmony together, as One, only shows how far 'backwards' and indoctrinated those human beings had become.

Money as an exchange for things we need is the medium used. It doesn't mean it has to be the only medium. In fact, the medium of money is not even necessary and will be eliminated, but not the give and take of trade which requires adding and subtracting from one's account.

There is justification to hurt others back, if hurt. It is very hard to turn the other cheek. Hurt people hurt others as the saying goes, and this gives the very justification to strike back. In order for this law to effectively operate, we have to remove the hurt in our environment that justifies this retaliation.

Okay, but 'this' was already understood, and in absolutely no way answers the 'actual questions' asked, here.

It actually does. You missed the point I was making. You are reading too much into the example.

There is quite a bit to 'look at', and 'discuss', here. But, firstly, why did you not answer the 'two questions' that I posed, and asked you above, here?

I asked you,

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

What do you mean by that? It was a dialog. Are you asking me if the questions and answers were real or the person asking the questions?

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 how life works. If somebody hurts another, the individual who has been hurt has the justification to strike back. That is why this book is all about preventing the first blow, which removes any justification to strike back at someone who did not strike the first cheek.

See, if 'the writer' is asking "itself" very specific questions, and then just answering them, then this can be very, very misleading, and those who are not Truly open can be fooled, and deceived, very, very easily, and simply.

It all depends on the accuracy of the answers to the questions put forth.

And, 'I' asked 'you', ' 'in what world' could ... '? I never asked 'you' what you meant by 'environment'.

Anyway, the only thing in 'the environment', like for example dirty water and dirty air is because of what you adult human beings are doing, again because of your 'selfishness' and 'greed'. So, quite obviously, only when you adult human beings stop being 'selfish' and 'greedy' that this is when 'the environment' will become 'optimal', once more. Just like it used to be like.

That's good news because people are going to be much more responsible when it comes to their carbon footprint.

you say and claim, 'until those things, which you call, 'suboptimal', in 'our environment' are removed', and then go off on some other tangent. However,

1. The only things in 'the environment', which are so-called 'suboptimal', or 'not optimal', is the Wrong behavior done by you adult human beings.

AGREED.

2. What do you mean by, 'our environment'? Who and/or what is the 'our' word in relation to, exactly, and how does 'that environment' differ from 'the environment', exactly?

WHAT I MEANT IS THE CHANGE FROM A FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT TO A NO FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENORMOUS CHANGES FOR THE BETTER THAT WILL RESULT.

3. What are your words, 'the basic principle', in relation to, exactly?

The corollary that goes along with having "no free will."

4. you talk about people 'choosing' a 'good' over a so-called 'evil', but if as you claim there is no 'free will', that is, 'the ability to choose', then how could people even 'choose' 'good' over some so-called 'evil', anyway?

Because having not having free will does not take away the ability to choose, which is why his definition is more accurate.


5. Why do you believe that 'me' doing what causes 'you' or 'another' to 'die' can be justified?

It can't, that's just the point. Only if you've already been hurt can you justify hurting someone. If you have not been hurt by anyone anywhere, then doing anything that would cause another person's injury or death would be difficult to even imagine.

I was not talking about this group in particular. It is hard to imagine how it would feel if you or me or anyone hurt someone with no justification.

It is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition, and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your IQ, your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other discoveries to be revealed if you can.


What assumptions?



You missed the entire two chapters. Seeing in total perspective, there is no right or wrong (which is a judgment by others). It is just what someone wants to do at a certain point in his life. What stops him from hurting others as a preferable alternative is when he cannot find the necessary justification to do so. Therefore, to solve our problem, we need to remove the very justification that permits these behaviors that we now call "wrong" or "wrongdoing.

Some of your questions were blank. Maybe it's because this post is too long. Only my answers showed up.

It depends where these women live.

I'm sharing one truth only. I know the difference between opinions and facts. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

No Age. Money is just a medium to get what you want or need. The exchange of money is not the issue, it's whether the money was taken from others by theft or deceit.

The end of all evil is partly related to the need to sustain a basic standard of living which he explained. To repeat: Money is just a medium of how we barter. It has no power to cause harm in and of itself.

In Chapter Two I wrote, “As before, you are trying to decide whether to hurt us in some way, but you have had everything removed from which you might have been able to justify your act. You simply see an opportunity to gain at our expense, but you will not be a loser if you decide against it. You are contemplating the first blow under changed conditions.” The demonstration that followed assumed that all justification had been removed before our basic principle could prevent the desire to strike a first blow, which means that this could be a second or retaliatory blow if not to strike it would make us a loser. Consequently, the first form of the first blow is the economic condition, beyond our personal control, that makes us a loser unless we do something to hurt others; but when this condition is permanently removed, there can be no retaliation to it, which means that the same act to hurt them that before was struck to prevent ourselves from becoming a loser could only be done to gain at their expense, making it the second form of first blow, which can be prevented by our basic principle because not to strike it wouldn’t make us a loser.

I have not lived the most sheltered, narrowed, and/or closed view and perspective on things. Somehow you have decided this because the claim of the removal of all evil (i.e., hurt in human relations) sounds impossible and therefore you're accusing me of being naïve.

[Atla]

...

Again, I consciously broke your law. Then there are people like accelafine who are forced to go against their own satisfaction all the time (making her miserable), although not by choice. She's on autopilot because of her BPD, most people have emotion control but she is fully driven by her own emotional impulses and can't do anything about it. It's like sitting in a self-driving car where you have no controls, and it sometimes takes you into bad traffic which is bad for you but you can't do anything about it.

You did not break any law. In spite of all the flashing warning signs that may have caused you to pause, you still got greater satisfaction to lend her the money because you wanted to, for whatever reason. Nothing forced you to lend her the money against your will. You did it of your own free will or desire. You may think Accelafine may not have control over her emotions, and that might be her MO in this forum, but she would suddenly have control over her emotions if by being on autopilot, as you say, she could miss a traffic light and get someone killed. Or by saying something out of line where her words hurt someone, not because they did anything wrong but because she got satisfaction out of hurting people, she would be compelled, in the new world, to change her ways because the justification to continue as before would be eliminated; therefore, her conscience would not allow her to reckless with her words or actions.

Now that we've thrown out the magical cosmic law, what remains is the most banal observation: life does what life does, which is living, which typically involves doing what's best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what makes them satisfied.

Exactly. I didn't argue that it's desires and motives that drive what gives satisfaction. I was saying that this is the direction we move.

Now unlike you, I'm an actual determinist, so we could even skip this whole part and grant that determinism is the case, and proceed to the really crazy part where you somehow banish all evil and save the world by reinterpreting blame.

I'm a determinist, and I will not skip this part. If you are so sure he's wrong, then why are you here? You haven't proven this invariable law wrong by your example. For anyone who hasn't read this excerpt, here it is again. If you did read it, then just skip it.

If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone, as Morrison understood from his scientific observations, and that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false.” So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option that was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.


In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. which is the direction life is compelled to take. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Suppose you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine. Could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

More like, if you're not here because you're open to the possibility that you're wrong, then why are you here? To sell a book?

Or by saying something out of line where her words hurt someone, not because they did anything wrong but because she got satisfaction out of hurting people, she would be compelled, in the new world, to change her ways because the justification to continue as before would be eliminated; therefore, her conscience would not allow her to reckless with her words or actions.

You clearly know nothing about people, psychology. Okay whatever.

[Atla]

...

Again, I consciously broke your law. Then there are people like accelafine who are forced to go against their own satisfaction all the time (making her miserable), although not by choice. She's on autopilot because of her BPD, most people have emotion control but she is fully driven by her own emotional impulses and can't do anything about it. It's like sitting in a self-driving car where you have no controls, and it sometimes takes you into bad traffic which is bad for you but you can't do anything about it.

Now that we've thrown out the magical cosmic law, what remains is the most banal observation: life does what life does, which is living, which typically involves doing what's best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what makes them satisfied.

Now unlike you, I'm an actual determinist, so we could even skip this whole part and grant that determinism is the case, and proceed to the really crazy part where you somehow banish all evil and save the world by reinterpreting blame.

Says the man who apparently can't control himself when women ask him for money (and it's purely altruistic too ).

You had an emotional impulse and said that, actually I lent money to guys more often.

[peacegirl]

Again, I consciously broke your law. Then there are people like accelafine who are forced to go against their own satisfaction all the time (making her miserable), although not by choice. She's on autopilot because of her BPD, most people have emotion control but she is fully driven by her own emotional impulses and can't do anything about it. It's like sitting in a self-driving car where you have no controls, and it sometimes takes you into bad traffic which is bad for you but you can't do anything about it.

You did not break any law. In spite of all the flashing warning signs that may have caused you to pause, you still got greater satisfaction to lend her the money because you wanted to, for whatever reason. Nothing forced you to lend her the money against your will. You did it of your own free will or desire. You may think Accelafine may not have control over her emotions, and that might be her MO in this forum, but she would suddenly have control over her emotions if by being on autopilot, as you say, she could miss a traffic light and get someone killed. Or by saying something out of line where her words hurt someone, not because they did anything wrong but because she got satisfaction out of hurting people, she would be compelled, in the new world, to change her ways because the justification to continue as before would be eliminated; therefore, her conscience would not allow her to reckless with her words or actions.

Now that we've thrown out the magical cosmic law, what remains is the most banal observation: life does what life does, which is living, which typically involves doing what's best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what makes them satisfied.

Exactly. I didn't argue that it's desires and motives that drive what gives satisfaction. I was saying that this is the direction we move.

Now unlike you, I'm an actual determinist, so we could even skip this whole part and grant that determinism is the case, and proceed to the really crazy part where you somehow banish all evil and save the world by reinterpreting blame.

I'm a determinist, and I will not skip this part. If you are so sure he's wrong, then why are you here? You haven't proven this invariable law wrong by your example. For anyone who hasn't read this excerpt, here it is again. If you did read it, then just skip it.

If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone, as Morrison understood from his scientific observations, and that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false.” So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option that was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.


In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. which is the direction life is compelled to take. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Suppose you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine. Could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

More like, if you're not here because you're open to the possibility that you're wrong, then why are you here? To sell a book?

You're assuming that if I am not open to the possibility that he was wrong, that I'm only here to sell a book? That doesn't follow. I'm selling the book for $.99 for now. How much do you think I'll make at this price?

Or by saying something out of line where her words hurt someone, not because they did anything wrong but because she got satisfaction out of hurting people, she would be compelled, in the new world, to change her ways because the justification to continue as before would be eliminated; therefore, her conscience would not allow her to be reckless with her words or actions.

You clearly know nothing about people, psychology. Okay whatever.

What is truth anyway and what are you basing it on? It couldn't be just consensus, right, which basically means whatever enough people clap for at the same time. It ends up being which idea is the most popular at the time. People are generally followers because they don't give themselves enough credit or they give themselves too much. Being included in any group is so important and so powerful that it is very hard to be the odd man out. Unfortunately, that's what "truth" has come down to in many intellectual circles; namely, the peer pressure never to disrupt the status quo.

[Atla]

You did not break any law. In spite of all the flashing warning signs that may have caused you to pause, you still got greater satisfaction to lend her the money because you wanted to, for whatever reason. Nothing forced you to lend her the money against your will. You did it of your own free will or desire. You may think Accelafine may not have control over her emotions, and that might be her MO in this forum, but she would suddenly have control over her emotions if by being on autopilot, as you say, she could miss a traffic light and get someone killed. Or by saying something out of line where her words hurt someone, not because they did anything wrong but because she got satisfaction out of hurting people, she would be compelled, in the new world, to change her ways because the justification to continue as before would be eliminated; therefore, her conscience would not allow her to reckless with her words or actions.



Exactly. I didn't argue that it's desires and motives that drive what gives satisfaction. I was saying that this is the direction we move.



I'm a determinist, and I will not skip this part. If you are so sure he's wrong, then why are you here? You haven't proven this invariable law wrong by your example. For anyone who hasn't read this excerpt, here it is again. If you did read it, then just skip it.

If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone, as Morrison understood from his scientific observations, and that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false.” So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option that was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.


In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. which is the direction life is compelled to take. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Suppose you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine. Could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

More like, if you're not here because you're open to the possibility that you're wrong, then why are you here? To sell a book?

You're assuming that if I am not open to the possibility that he was wrong, that I'm only here to sell a book? That doesn't follow. I'm selling the book for $.99 for now. How much do you think I'll make at this price?

Or by saying something out of line where her words hurt someone, not because they did anything wrong but because she got satisfaction out of hurting people, she would be compelled, in the new world, to change her ways because the justification to continue as before would be eliminated; therefore, her conscience would not allow her to be reckless with her words or actions.

You clearly know nothing about people, psychology. Okay whatever.

What is truth anyway and what are you basing it on? It couldn't be just consensus, right, which basically means whatever enough people clap for at the same time. It ends up being which idea is the most popular at the time. People are generally followers because they don't trust their own thinking, and they certainly don't want to be the odd man out. Unfortunately, that's what truth has come down to in many intellectual circles; namely, peer pressure.

I'll tell you a secret. Wishful thinking and persistence aren't enough to usher in the Golden Age of humanity.

[peacegirl]

You're assuming that if I am not open to the possibility that he was wrong, that I'm only here to sell a book? That doesn't follow. I'm selling the book for $.99 for now. How much do you think I'll make at this price?


You clearly know nothing about people, psychology. Okay whatever.

What is truth anyway and what are you basing it on? It couldn't be just consensus, right, which basically means whatever enough people clap for at the same time. It ends up being which idea is the most popular at the time. People are generally followers because they don't trust their own thinking, and they certainly don't want to be the odd man out. Unfortunately, that's what truth has come down to in many intellectual circles; namely, peer pressure.

I'll tell you a secret. Wishful thinking and persistence aren't enough to usher in the Golden Age of humanity.

You're right but this is not wishful thinking Atla. I know it's hard to believe that peace is even possible, but not believing will not prevent this new world from becoming a reality when the time is right. Did you read the following?

INTRODUCTION

Who… in his right mind or with knowledge of history, would believe it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime, and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the 20th century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading scientists.] When first hearing this prophecy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit, bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relations) must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and compared to our present understanding of human nature. War seems to be an inescapable feature of the human condition that can only be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human life as we know it and the empirical claim that this feature is a sociological inevitability.

[Atla]

You're right but this is not wishful thinking Atla. I know it's hard to believe that peace is even possible, but not believing will not prevent this new world from becoming a reality when the time is right. Did you read the following?

Ah you're one of those, you've even seen the future.

[peacegirl]

You're right but this is not wishful thinking Atla. I know it's hard to believe that peace is even possible, but not believing will not prevent this new world from becoming a reality when the time is right. Did you read the following?

Ah you're one of those, you've even seen the future.

It’s possible to envision the future, yes. Stop being so jaded.

[accelafine]

Again, I consciously broke your law. Then there are people like accelafine who are forced to go against their own satisfaction all the time (making her miserable), although not by choice. She's on autopilot because of her BPD, most people have emotion control but she is fully driven by her own emotional impulses and can't do anything about it. It's like sitting in a self-driving car where you have no controls, and it sometimes takes you into bad traffic which is bad for you but you can't do anything about it.

Now that we've thrown out the magical cosmic law, what remains is the most banal observation: life does what life does, which is living, which typically involves doing what's best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what makes them satisfied.

Now unlike you, I'm an actual determinist, so we could even skip this whole part and grant that determinism is the case, and proceed to the really crazy part where you somehow banish all evil and save the world by reinterpreting blame.

Says the man who apparently can't control himself when women ask him for money (and it's purely altruistic too ).

You had an emotional impulse and said that, actually I lent money to guys more often.

Oh no, that pesky 'female hysteria' again. Get out the 'scold's bridle'!

'Interesting' though, that it only seems to occur when certain male members on here have been made to look like idiots by a woman

[peacegirl]

This is everyone’s chance to buy the book for 99 cents. It’s not going to stay at this price. Just letting people know. If you all think I’m doing this for lucre, you’re all as wrong as wrong can be.

[accelafine]

This is everyone’s chance to buy the book for 99 cents. It’s not going to stay at this price. Just letting people know. If you all think I’m doing this for lucre, you’re all as wrong as wrong can be.

Is that American cents? If so then I can't afford it

[Age]

You're assuming that if I am not open to the possibility that he was wrong, that I'm only here to sell a book? That doesn't follow. I'm selling the book for $.99 for now. How much do you think I'll make at this price?


You clearly know nothing about people, psychology. Okay whatever.

What is truth anyway and what are you basing it on? It couldn't be just consensus, right, which basically means whatever enough people clap for at the same time. It ends up being which idea is the most popular at the time. People are generally followers because they don't trust their own thinking, and they certainly don't want to be the odd man out. Unfortunately, that's what truth has come down to in many intellectual circles; namely, peer pressure.

I'll tell you a secret. Wishful thinking and persistence aren't enough to usher in the Golden Age of humanity.

The so-called 'Golden Age of humanity' will also not occur in 'the way' you are 'trying to' say and claim, here.

Now, contrary to one of your very fixed and closed beliefs, here, I know the 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world for every one, as One, can, and will, happen.

So, can you comprehend that 'that belief' of yours that I have decided that the claimed of the removal of all evil sounds impossible was, and is, a fabrication of 'yours', only, which you took on to believe is absolutely, and which has affect your ability to see and learn things from the Truly open perspective?