New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

I came here to share a discovery, not to get your opinion. BTW, you are wrong about calling the movement toward greater satisfaction nothing more than a tautology. I didn’t realize you were a libertarian which explains why you’re so adamant.

Not a libertarian.

Then you're a compatibilist. You certainly aren't a determinist.

Wrong on all counts. But I already said, you don't need to understand my position on this matter as this is all about you.

It is tautalogical within the limits of common-sense folk psychology (in line belief desire motivation) that whatever motivates us to make a decision is something that we are motivated by.

It's not about what we were motivated by. It's about the direction we move and it's a one way street.

Yes, it is tautologically true that we invariably pursue our motivations. I never said what the motivation is, you can call the motivating thing "greatest satisfaction" if you want to, the point is that there is no explanatory power added by doing so.

To not hold that as a tautology, you would need to adopt a radical alternative view of persons in which beliefs and desires don't motivate.

Who in the world said that we are not driven by what we are motivated by. This isn't even part of his demonstration as to why will is not free.

You don't demonstrate that will is not free. You attempt, pointlessly, to discover the tautology that we are motivated by something, and then you assert that this by itself demonstrates something else. But doing so is not within the scope of tautological reasoning. You would be doing the same thing as everybody else if you just try to show that our motivational beliefs and desires etc are the product of deterministic forces, but you think you are too good for that.

Motivation is the onlything that needs explanation when it comes to why a conscious organism makes a decision, so the spooky "greatest satisfaction" thing has nothing to explain. It is redundant and pointless.

Again, we all know that what we are motivated by pushes us in a certain direction. This supports the fact that we have no free will. Why? Because the direction we move from moment to moment is a one-way street.

It would be the precise same one-way street if the will was free. Time only moves in one direction for anybody except Age, who of course is a very special boy and experiences all of the universe all at once, or something like that.

You refuse to share your "second discovery" with anybody doesn't purchase it from you. I expected that, it is a hypothesis we tested together. You were there to witness the truth of the matter.

The way you have dismissed his reasoning as to why man's will is not free is disturbing. You have no idea what you're talking about because you don't understand that it's much more than a "repetitive" and "pointless" tautology. I have no desire to share anything else with you unless you give this man a chance, which you have not.

Tautologies are self contained truths, analytic and a priori, they don't unpack to provide extra knowledge. I am sorry that you don't understand the basic philosophy I am pointing to... but you have been doing this thing for decades now, fooling yourself that you know what "the philosophers" argue, so I maintain that it is your fault that you aren't better at this by now.

If you were here to share instead of to sell, you would share. Just explain the other discoveries in your own words and then I will be wrong and you will be proven right. So just do that now, then you win your argument don't you?

Not gonna happen. Buy the book for 99 cents, which you won't because you think this is some kind of scheme for money.

I don't know why you are rolling your eyes at me, you are proving me right.

If you were able to interest anybody in this shit you would presumably discover plenty more books to sell them, and some sort of seminars they could attend at an airport Sheraton.

[promethean75]

Holy shit i forgot all about the airport sheratan seminars in the reserved room with the basket of powdered cookies, pitcher of ice water, and single serving coffee maker on the folding event table to the left of the light blue upholstered metal chairs placed in perfect rows of five.

Peacegirl if you have doughnuts too, I'll go.

[Age]

Yes, I never hid this.



It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

Does it matter if you also understand what others are trying to explain? Or, to you, does it only matter one way, here?

You just can't believe that this work is not a matter of opinion, and it pisses you all off.

And, it is because of the very views and beliefs like 'this one', here, why it is 'you' who is not getting absolutely anywhere, here.

What did anyone explain that proved the author wrong other than saying it's impossible?

One partly explained is that the idea of what the author calls a 'golden age' could not come to fruition because the author's idea was, still, based upon and around 'money' and the False belief that 'money is a need'. That is what one has already explained, partly.

Look "peacegirl" the very idea of what the author calls the 'golden age' is not just possible but will come about much simpler and much easier than if that author 'saw'.

But, the so-called 'golden age' can, and will, only come about through the 'Right way', and not through 'any way', and especially not through the 'very ways' that brought the rise and rise of evil into 'the world'.

Now, if you followed your own "father's" advice and became open and only 'looked at' things, here, from the Truly open perspective, only, and instead of from your own very clearly closed thinking and perspective, then you will see what needs to be Correct in your "father's" 'work', which will then bring about 'the goal' and the golden 'Peaceful world', which your "father" was clearly wanting and trying to do.

If it makes you feel better, I will say, "Sure, it could be wrong, just as 1 +1 =2 could be wrong.

Now, if someone could not present a better and prime example of how it is very easily and simply possible to 'see' within people's writings of what they actually, internally really, believe is true, although the words they write say the very exact opposite thing.

So, when 'these people' say and write one thing, but what they actually believe and/or means can also be very easily observed, and extrapolated simply, as well.

So, what 'we' have, here, is just another case of when one is absolutely closed to anything else but its own already obtained views and beliefs, and all it, really, wants to do is just express those views and beliefs and get as many people as they can to just agree with and accept those exact same views and beliefs, without every wanting to be critiqued, questioned, nor challenged.

Which, again, is one of the main reasons why 'these human beings' took so, so, so long to 'catch up', and 'arrive'.

[Age]

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective. Srsly, how can I defend myself? I can't help that he was my father. For FlashDangerpants to say more than once that "if daddy said it, it must be right" is unfair, especially in a philosophy forum where jumping to false conclusions like he did should never be made.

[quote="FlashDangerpants"Don't get me wrong, what you are doing is just continuing a family business, the whole thing is so mad that I can only assume you are actually in on your dad's scam. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that you are selling a low quality alternative to Scientology didn't I? I'm sure that's roughly what I wrote at the start of all this, is it not?

You have not made anything perfectly clear FlashDangerpants; you have come to false conclusions because of your false assumptions.

Why do you say and write 'this' "peacegirl", as though you are not doing the exact same thing?

That's all you have done. And who made you the gatekeeper of new knowledge anyway?

Do you even realize that it is you who has come, here, claiming of some 'new discovery/new knowledge', and that 'you' are 'now' the "gatekeeper" of 'it', as your "father" can not be "the gatekeeper" anymore. 'you' have taken over as the "new gatekeeper" of 'new knowledge' and 'you' will not even let any one in unless they agree and accept the so-called 'new discovery' is the 'new knowledge'.

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.

The so-called 'discovery', well to some of 'us' anyway, is very, very old and outdated, and has been surpassed by the truer and more right, accurate, and correct knowledge. In fact 'we' are already on the One and only T.R.A.C.K., in Life, which leads to the True 'golden age'.

The suggestion that you might be honestly incapable of rethinking your daddy's work is just a polite nod to the possibility that you are in the cult, a product of the cultish thinking, rather than an architect of the pocket picking in your own right.

It is YOU that is incapable of rethinking that my father's work could possibly be correct, which puts you in a worse category than me because you have read nothing, considered nothing, and asked nothing, yet you think you are right.

Believing that there is absolutely nothing wrong in your "father's" work is just as blind and stupid as believing that your "father's" work will not lead to what your "father" called the 'golden age'. you are both as blind and stupid as each other, here.

That is called an egocentric individual.

And, remember 'you' are doing the exact same thing, just from the "other side or perspective".

I wasted my time cutting and pasting for your convenience. You never once asked me a pertinent question.

Have you ever considered that what you perceive as being 'pertinent' another does not, and, vice versa?

I'm getting a neon warning sign telling me it's not worth engaging with people who think they know before they know anything.

Well consider that you are, again, doing the exact same thing, that is, thinking you know before you actually do know?

Are you 'seeing' any signs telling you that it is not worth engaging with your own thoughts, beliefs, assumptions, views, and/or opinions also?

Or, have you not yet obtained the ability to be 'critical' of 'those thoughts, beliefs, et cetera' within 'that head'?

That's you FlashDangerpants in a nutshell.

If only 'they' knew.

[Age]

I'm getting a neon warning sign telling me it's not worth engaging with people who think they know before they know anything. That's you FlashDangerpants in a nutshell.

You were never here to engage, you are looking for sales.

It looks more like 'this' every day it writes, here.

[Age]

I'm getting a neon warning sign telling me it's not worth engaging with people who think they know before they know anything. That's you FlashDangerpants in a nutshell.

You were never here to engage, you are looking for sales.

I came here to share a discovery, not to get your opinion.

you are showing, and proving, the very opposite.

From the way you are now writing you never came, here, to get "flashdangerpant's" opinion. What you appear to be very clearly wanting is to get opinions that say how great 'the book', 'the discovery', and/or your "father" is or was.

you appear to have only come, here, to only get opinions that will bolster the sharing, and thus the sales, of 'those writings'.

Which, in fact, could be a more Wrong thing to do, in Life, considering that 'those writing' are not even 'your work' anyway.

BTW, you are wrong about calling the movement toward greater satisfaction nothing more than a tautology.

Why?

How, exactly, is the 'movement toward greater satisfaction' more than a tautology?

I didn’t realize you were a libertarian which explains why you’re so adamant.

Could you have allowed your own made up opinion and assumption, here, to jump to a conclusion, which then are now just believing is absolutely?

Which then would obviously effect 'the way' you then 'look at' and 'see' things, further?

[Age]

Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Not even bothering to be cruel, this theory is not even among the top 10 shittiest we've seen. And peacegirl is just one among dozens of people who've shown up around here promising that their one special trick can either save the world, or explain everything in it, or else complete the mystical union between science and religion.

What can be clearly seen, here, is another prime example of how one's beliefs, which are not shared openly, can still be clearly seen within their writings, and which shows and proves the very reason/s why they are not open to learning and understanding.

If any one can not, yet, clearly see where and what 'this one's' belief is, which is what is stopping and preventing it from learning, here, and you would like to know, then just ask away.

[peacegirl]

You just can't believe that this work is not a matter of opinion, and it pisses you all off. What did anyone explain that proved the author wrong other than saying it's impossible? If it makes you feel better, I will say, "Sure, it could be wrong, just as 1 +1 =2 could be wrong.

Sure you could say that but then we would have no basis in which to communicate. If you think that one plus one is not two but eleven, we are in trouble.

It's a fact that his work is just a matter of (very irrational) opinion as I've shown you like 6 times over.

No you haven't.

Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Yes, it is, but it doesn't involve numbers. It is a scientific work although he did not start out with a hypothesis. He was an astute observer and saw things no one else did. BTW, you did not prove him wrong when you gave the loan to your colleague because it gave you greater satisfaction at that moment to give it than not, even though you had misgivings.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, 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?

[peacegirl]

You were never here to engage, you are looking for sales.

I came here to share a discovery, not to get your opinion.

you are showing, and proving, the very opposite.

From the way you are now writing you never came, here, to get "flashdangerpant's" opinion. What you appear to be very clearly wanting is to get opinions that say how great 'the book', 'the discovery', and/or your "father" is or was.

But it is great. You just don't know it because you are suspicious and won't let your guard down.

you appear to have only come, here, to only get opinions that will bolster the sharing, and thus the sales, of 'those writings'.

I want people to read the book and understand it, not give it a cursory overview. The sales are secondary. Why would I reduce the price to 99 cents?

Which, in fact, could be a more Wrong thing to do, in Life, considering that 'those writing' are not even 'your work' anyway.

They are my compilation. I am carrying the ball in the hope that this knowledge won't be lost to future generations, especially if I can't get it brought to light in my lifetime.

BTW, you are wrong about calling the movement toward greater satisfaction nothing more than a tautology.

Why?

How, exactly, is the 'movement toward greater satisfaction' more than a tautology?

Because although whatever we choose is the right answer, it doesn't explain a deeper truth and that is that we can only move in one direction. This is very important when you understand the reason our choice, in the direction of greater satisfaction, could not be the choice to hurt others with a first blow. I understand the incredulity since there are people who are mentally ill and it's hard to believe that they will turn into angels when all blame is removed. There may be "mad dogs" who will have to remain incarcerated or taken off the streets, but this will be done with compassion. Moreover, as a new generation is born, these mental illness will be virtually nonexistent due to these amazing changes. It's very easy to shut down because it's hard to even imagine a world where peace prevails.

I didn’t realize you were a libertarian which explains why you’re so adamant.

Could you have allowed your own made up opinion and assumption, here, to jump to a conclusion, which then are now just believing is absolutely?

Which then would obviously effect 'the way' you then 'look at' and 'see' things, further?

If I assumed anything, please let me know where and I'll apologize if I was wrong, but what I am bringing to the table is not an opinion piece; it is an invariable law of our nature and when it is applied on a global basis, amazing things will happen.

[Age]

I came here to share a discovery, not to get your opinion. BTW, you are wrong about calling the movement toward greater satisfaction nothing more than a tautology. I didn’t realize you were a libertarian which explains why you’re so adamant.

Not a libertarian.

Then you're a compatibilist. You certainly aren't a determinist.

1. Again, your own opinions/assumptions lead you completely and utterly astray.

2. Although you adult human beings believe otherwise, 'these things' do not, and could not, even actually exist.

It is tautalogical within the limits of common-sense folk psychology (in line belief desire motivation) that whatever motivates us to make a decision is something that we are motivated by.

It's not about what we were motivated by. It's about the direction we move and it's a one way street.

If, for example, people are motivated to follow 'their own way/s', and 'those way/s' do not align with your "father's" 'ways', then if 'it' is about 'the direction' you human beings move, then 'you' and/or "father" are going to have to produce 'a way', which every one will just 'want to' follow and be motivated by. Otherwise you are going to come up against the thousand year old issue of 'who's way' is the 'best way'?

Have you not yet recognized that 'trying to' 'force' others' into following 'one particular way' has never ever actually really worked?

Now, H.O.W to follow the One and only T.R.A.C.K, which leads to and takes every one to eternal peace' is a very, very simple and easy process.

Therefore, if 'you' and/or your "father's" 'way' is not working, then there must be 'another way' that either of you have yet to consider.

But, you will never 'see' and learn 'this Fact' while you concentrate solely on 'trying to' promote 'your way', only. And, as I have pointed out a few times already, doing absolutely any thing with the view of obtaining 'more money' from it, is the 'very way' that has led to the continual rise and rise of all evil, in 'the world'.

To not hold that as a tautology, you would need to adopt a radical alternative view of persons in which beliefs and desires don't motivate.

Who in the world said that we are not driven by what we are motivated by. This isn't even part of his demonstration as to why will is not free.

1. you are missing 'the point' that was being made.

2. Have you ever considered the very reason why you, continually, 'miss the points' people are making and saying, here?

Motivation is the onlything that needs explanation when it comes to why a conscious organism makes a decision, so the spooky "greatest satisfaction" thing has nothing to explain. It is redundant and pointless.

Again, we all know that what we are motivated by pushes us in a certain direction.

But, do you, each and collectively, know, consciously and fully, what 'it' is that is 'pushing you'?

What are 'you', for example, 'motivated by', here, exactly?

For example is 'it' a learned thing, from your own past experiences? Or, is 'it' a 'very deep' and 'rooted' instinctual thing?

Maybe if you 'come clean', as some say, here, as say what you are 'motivated by', exactly, then we might find out why you will only produce the so-called 'second discovery' when 'we' had over 'some money', to you.

This supports the fact that we have no free will.

Obviously if one can demonstrate that the 'will' is 'not free', then this will support some so-called 'fact' that 'we' have absolutely no 'free will', at all.

However, what you appear to have not yet realized is that what 'the definitions' that your "father" used has to be first clarified, agreed with, and accepted before any demonstration and support could be provided, and accepted, for your "father's" claim, and belief. For example, just saying some thing like, what supports the 'fact' that there is no 'free will' is because the word 'free will' means that one can make a decision without being influenced by a past experience. And, obviously if 'this' is 'the definition' that you and/or your "father" is using, there, then clearly there is no 'free will'.

So, do you know what your "father" meant, exactly, by 'will' and 'free will'?

If yes, then what did your "father" mean, exactly, by those two terms?

Why? Because the direction we move from moment to moment is a one-way street.

Are you 'trying to' say and claim, here, that you have absolutely 'no choice' at all in whether you clean up the rubbish on the street you live on, or not?

But, before you answer, (that is, if you were going to), What do you mean by the terms, 'will', and, 'free will'?

And, if 'the direction' adult human beings are moving in is towards making 'more money', and 'this' is the only, and a one-way, street, only, then any decline and fall of all evil will never come to fruition. For the obvious reasons of course.

You refuse to share your "second discovery" with anybody doesn't purchase it from you. I expected that, it is a hypothesis we tested together. You were there to witness the truth of the matter.

The way you have dismissed his reasoning as to why man's will is not free is disturbing.

To 'you' 'it' may be disturbing. However, to 'others' 'it' may well be very clever and insightful. So, who has the True and Right perspective, and view, here, exactly?

You have no idea what you're talking about because you don't understand that it's much more than a "repetitive" and "pointless" tautology. I have no desire to share anything else with you unless you give this man a chance, which you have not.

Are you purposely 'trying to' deflect away from what is being pointed out and shown, here?

'We' were shown how until 'we' provide 'you' with 'more money' then 'you' are not going to show 'us' some so-claimed and so-called, 'second discovery'. So, besides the already obvious and clear fact, you have no desire to share anything else, unless of course 'we' or "flashdangerpants" hands over 'some money', to you, the claim that you will not share anything else unless 'we' or "flashdangerpants" give your "father" a so-called 'chance', 'we', literally, can not give your "father" 'a chance' until 'we' give 'you' 'some money'.

you have stated over and over that you are only going to provide three chapters, only, here, and if any one wants to read more, then 'we' need to give you 'money'.

Now, I will agree, wholeheartedly, that some people, here, will not give your "father" 'a chance', but what I can also clearly see that even you will not your "father" 'a chance' until 'we' provide 'you' with 'some money', as well.

If you were here to share instead of to sell, you would share. Just explain the other discoveries in your own words and then I will be wrong and you will be proven right. So just do that now, then you win your argument don't you?

Not gonna happen. Buy the book for 99 cents, which you won't because you think this is some kind of scheme for money.

The 'irony', and the irony was not even meant.

What can be clearly seen, here, is 'that' what 'you' are, really, motivated 'by', so-called "peacegirl".

you have just, once again, proved irrefutably True what "flashdanger" had previously hypothesized, and had already tested, and verified.

[Age]

Not a libertarian.

Then you're a compatibilist. You certainly aren't a determinist.

Wrong on all counts. But I already said, you don't need to understand my position on this matter as this is all about you.

It is tautalogical within the limits of common-sense folk psychology (in line belief desire motivation) that whatever motivates us to make a decision is something that we are motivated by.

It's not about what we were motivated by. It's about the direction we move and it's a one way street.

Yes, it is tautologically true that we invariably pursue our motivations. I never said what the motivation is, you can call the motivating thing "greatest satisfaction" if you want to, the point is that there is no explanatory power added by doing so.

To not hold that as a tautology, you would need to adopt a radical alternative view of persons in which beliefs and desires don't motivate.

Who in the world said that we are not driven by what we are motivated by. This isn't even part of his demonstration as to why will is not free.

You don't demonstrate that will is not free. You attempt, pointlessly, to discover the tautology that we are motivated by something, and then you assert that this by itself demonstrates something else. But doing so is not within the scope of tautological reasoning. You would be doing the same thing as everybody else if you just try to show that our motivational beliefs and desires etc are the product of deterministic forces, but you think you are too good for that.

Motivation is the onlything that needs explanation when it comes to why a conscious organism makes a decision, so the spooky "greatest satisfaction" thing has nothing to explain. It is redundant and pointless.

Again, we all know that what we are motivated by pushes us in a certain direction. This supports the fact that we have no free will. Why? Because the direction we move from moment to moment is a one-way street.

It would be the precise same one-way street if the will was free. Time only moves in one direction for anybody except Age, who of course is a very special boy and experiences all of the universe all at once, or something like that.

If you, also, come to understand and know what the word, 'time', means and/or is referring to, which fits in perfectly with the G.U.T.O.E, then 'you' will be closer to also experiencing all of the Universe, all at once, as well. Or, some thing like that, anyway.

You refuse to share your "second discovery" with anybody doesn't purchase it from you. I expected that, it is a hypothesis we tested together. You were there to witness the truth of the matter.

The way you have dismissed his reasoning as to why man's will is not free is disturbing. You have no idea what you're talking about because you don't understand that it's much more than a "repetitive" and "pointless" tautology. I have no desire to share anything else with you unless you give this man a chance, which you have not.

Tautologies are self contained truths, analytic and a priori, they don't unpack to provide extra knowledge. I am sorry that you don't understand the basic philosophy I am pointing to... but you have been doing this thing for decades now, fooling yourself that you know what "the philosophers" argue, so I maintain that it is your fault that you aren't better at this by now.

If you were here to share instead of to sell, you would share. Just explain the other discoveries in your own words and then I will be wrong and you will be proven right. So just do that now, then you win your argument don't you?

Not gonna happen. Buy the book for 99 cents, which you won't because you think this is some kind of scheme for money.

I don't know why you are rolling your eyes at me, you are proving me right.

If you were able to interest anybody in this shit you would presumably discover plenty more books to sell them, and some sort of seminars they could attend at an airport Sheraton.

[Age]

I came here to share a discovery, not to get your opinion.

you are showing, and proving, the very opposite.

From the way you are now writing you never came, here, to get "flashdangerpant's" opinion. What you appear to be very clearly wanting is to get opinions that say how great 'the book', 'the discovery', and/or your "father" is or was.

But it is great. You just don't know it because you are suspicious and won't let your guard down.

Once more you have allowed your assumptions, and then beliefs, to lead you completely and astray, here.

Do you know why you keep doing 'this'?

If no, then maybe working out why might help you, here.

you appear to have only come, here, to only get opinions that will bolster the sharing, and thus the sales, of 'those writings'.

I want people to read the book and understand it, not give it a cursory overview.

So, why not present 'the book', here, or somewhere else, for free?

Or, why not just express some of 'the ideas', here, from your own perspective and/or in your own words, and then just have and open and honest, peaceful, discussion about 'it' or 'them'?

Do you not appear to be aware that you wanting 'us' to understand what may well be flawed, itself, is 'an issue' of 'yours' that you will be much better by getting a 'handle on', for lack of better wording for now.

you want people to read 'the book', and 'understand it', is what is wanted by 'all people' who have a particular belief, and who have a 'biased view and perspective' of things.

Now, obviously you are going to have a 'biased view and perspective' of things, here, for, at least, two very clear and obvious reasons.

The sales are secondary. Why would I reduce the price to 99 cents?

Because you, still, want to make 99 cents off of each book. Or, as someone else has already pointed out, relatively you still want to make 'a buck' from each sale.

Which, in and of itself, is bad enough even if you wrote 'the book', but considering you did not, then you are wanting to 'make money' off of someone else's work. Which some would consider far, far worse.

Which, in fact, could be a more Wrong thing to do, in Life, considering that 'those writing' are not even 'your work' anyway.

They are my compilation.

To me it is absolutely Wrong and absurd that any one wants to 'make money' off of and from just 'the sharing' of thoughts, anyway, let alone 'another person' wanting to 'make money' from 'compiling' 'the work' of another. Next you will get "artificial intelligence' to do 'the compiling' and you will want to 'make money' because you 'listed' 'the book' on a philosophy forum, of all places.

I am carrying the ball in the hope that this knowledge won't be lost to future generations, especially if I can't get it brought to light in my lifetime.

LOL but only on the 'proviso' that people pay 'you money', first.

Seriously, I thought "flashdangerpants" might have been over exaggerating about 'you', when I first saw its writings, here, and about 'the way' you were wanting to sell, here, but "flashdangerpants" appear to be 'spot on'.

Imagine being that greedy and selfish, and blind and stupid, that you actually believed that some so-called 'new knowledge' will benefit future generations, and claim that you did not want 'it' to be lost to future generations, but then, purposely, without 'this knowledge' from future generations unless people hand over 'money', to you.

As it is sometimes called some one would be 'rolling in their grave' at the moment, knowing what you are actually doing, and withholding, here.

Can you, really, still not yet 'see' what you are doing, here?

From what I have gathered and ascertained from "flashdangerpants" you have been on 'this mission', from your own "father's" own work, to 'sell' the very book that your "father" worked on, supposedly for the benefit and betterment of future humanity.

BTW, you are wrong about calling the movement toward greater satisfaction nothing more than a tautology.

Why?

How, exactly, is the 'movement toward greater satisfaction' more than a tautology?

Because although whatever we choose is the right answer, it doesn't explain a deeper truth and that is that we can only move in one direction.

Until you prove 'this' to be irrefutably True, then 'it' will remain your opinion, view, and/or belief, only.

Now, if 'this' has been irrefutably True, in 'some book', then present the sound and valid argument, for all of 'us' to 'look at' and 'see', here.

And, of course, if and when you do present a 'sound and valid argument', here, in a philosophy forum, then, by definition, there will not be any one who could refute it.

Could things be any more simpler and easier, here?

This is very important when you understand the reason our choice, in the direction of greater satisfaction, could not be the choice to hurt others with a first blow.

'This' is all completely unnecessary layers of confusion.

I understand the incredulity since there are people who are mentally ill and it's hard to believe that they will turn into angels when all blame is removed.

Why do you want 'blame', itself, removed?

Who is going to accept and take responsibility for the Wrong being done, in 'the world'?

Are adults going to keep 'trying to' pass 'responsibility' onto children?

Besides you adult human beings who else is, actually, 'responsible' for 'the way' 'the world' is in NOW?

Now, if you adult human beings are not to be 'blamed' for 'the mess' that 'the world' is in 'now', when this is being written, then why would any one even want to begin to change?

But, according to you and/or your "father's" 'theory' no one can even choose to change, anyway, right?

you adult human beings do not just 'turn into angels' because you are not be 'blamed' for the obvious Wrong that you, for the very simple fact that there is no reason at all to change.

There may be "mad dogs" who will have to remain incarcerated or taken off the streets, but this will be done with compassion. Moreover, as a new generation is born, these mental illness will be virtually nonexistent due to these amazing changes.

If you go ahead and explain how and why you will, begin to, 'amazingly change', "yourself", then just maybe more people will listen to you.

So, what will make you 'begin' to 'amazingly change', 'now', while 'I' am not 'blaming' 'you' for absolutely any of the very, very many Wrong things that 'you' do, in Life?

Also, and by the way only when you know how and why you are continually doing Wrong, and not changing for the better, 'now', then you will uncover, and discover, the 'actual knowledge', which will actually stop and prevent the up and coming future generations of children to do Wrong when they have become adult human beings.

But, you think you already know better, right?

If yes, then you will not want to listen to any of 'this (new/er/ish) knowledge', (which is all completely free as well), correct?

So, why expect others to want to listen to 'some knowledge', which only after you are 'given money', then you will share and reveal?

It's very easy to shut down because it's hard to even imagine a world where peace prevails.

Look and listen so-called "peacegirl", your completely False and Wrong assumptions and beliefs, like this one, here, is letting you down absolutely and completely.

'The world' where peace prevails is not just very, very easy and simple to imagine, but H.O.W. it actually comes about and exists forever is already known and well understood.

I didn’t realize you were a libertarian which explains why you’re so adamant.

Could you have allowed your own made up opinion and assumption, here, to jump to a conclusion, which then are now just believing is absolutely?

Which then would obviously effect 'the way' you then 'look at' and 'see' things, further?

If I assumed anything, please let me know where and I'll apologize if I was wrong, [/quote]

1. you assumed that "flashdangerpants" is a number of 'things', which 'it' very clearly could not be.

2. you assumed that it is hard to imagine a world where peace prevails.

3. you assumed that particular mental illness will be virtually nonexistent due to these amazing changes.

And, this was just in the last three quotes of yours, here.

So, one assumption in each of those last quotes of yours. I did not look any further back in this thread.

but what I am bringing to the table is not an opinion piece;

So, you believe and claim, and, again, assume.

And, if you are not just assuming that what you are bringing, here, is not an 'opinion piece', then provide the irrefutable prove and facts, which prove that 'each piece' is not just 'an opinion' but is an 'irrefutable Fact'.

Now, if you actually 'did this', instead of just 'compiling' what has already been presented, and obviously is not working, then 'your assumption' that 'it' is not just an 'opinion piece' would already be a 'proved Fact'.

it is an invariable law of our nature and when it is applied on a global basis, amazing things will happen.

1. What you have written and said so far did not align with your human beings 'nature'.

2. Saying, 'amazing things will happen', is not really 'saying much', at all.

[Atla]

You just can't believe that this work is not a matter of opinion, and it pisses you all off. What did anyone explain that proved the author wrong other than saying it's impossible? If it makes you feel better, I will say, "Sure, it could be wrong, just as 1 +1 =2 could be wrong.

Sure you could say that but then we would have no basis in which to communicate. If you think that one plus one is not two but eleven, we are in trouble.

It's a fact that his work is just a matter of (very irrational) opinion as I've shown you like 6 times over.

No you haven't.

Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Yes, it is, but it doesn't involve numbers. It is a scientific work although he did not start out with a hypothesis. He was an astute observer and saw things no one else did. BTW, you did not prove him wrong when you gave the loan to your colleague because it gave you greater satisfaction at that moment to give it than not, even though you had misgivings.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, 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?

No he wasn't an astute observer who saw things no one else did, he wasn't a scientist, he was an idiot. And your identity too hinges on believing in the lie. This part of your life was a lie, you came here because you wanted to hear this. Do you understand now why his "work" was ignored?

[Age]

You just can't believe that this work is not a matter of opinion, and it pisses you all off. What did anyone explain that proved the author wrong other than saying it's impossible? If it makes you feel better, I will say, "Sure, it could be wrong, just as 1 +1 =2 could be wrong.

Sure you could say that but then we would have no basis in which to communicate. If you think that one plus one is not two but eleven, we are in trouble.

It's a fact that his work is just a matter of (very irrational) opinion as I've shown you like 6 times over.

No you haven't.

Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Yes, it is, but it doesn't involve numbers. It is a scientific work although he did not start out with a hypothesis. He was an astute observer and saw things no one else did. BTW, you did not prove him wrong when you gave the loan to your colleague because it gave you greater satisfaction at that moment to give it than not, even though you had misgivings.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, 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?

No he wasn't an astute observer who saw things no one else did, he wasn't a scientist, he was an idiot. And your identity too hinges on believing in the lie. This part of your life was a lie, you came here because you wanted to hear this. Do you understand now why his "work" was ignored?

Lol So, only so-called "scientists" can 'see' things. Well according to 'this one', here, anyway.

[peacegirl]

Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Not even bothering to be cruel, this theory is not even among the top 10 shittiest we've seen. And peacegirl is just one among dozens of people who've shown up around here promising that their one special trick can either save the world, or explain everything in it, or else complete the mystical union between science and religion.

This is not a trick FlashDangerpants. All I can think of as to why this reaction is so negative is because people have been disappointed so many times that they don't want to be suckers, so they try to get you before you get them. The sad part is when a true treasure comes along, no one can see it. It's right there but unfortunately, it's in a junk pile with all the false claims that did not deliver on their promises.