New Discovery

[Age]

Determinism yes. Pure determinism no.

Pure determinism is a meaningless concept by degree of an absence of any contrast against free will. In a purely deterministic universe you fail to see contradiction as necessitated as it is determined to exist.

Proof is merely interpretation, it is a subjective non-universal state of awareness.

We either have free will or we don't. It has nothing to do with a subjective non-universal state of awareness. Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction IS A UNIVERSAL LAW WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.

No its not. There is no evidence of freewill and determinism necessarily conflicting in all cases. Here is a simple and common analogy: "We choose to play the hand we are dealt".

You have no proof of pure determinism outside of an interpretation as determinism is purely a narrative, a story, that is all.

The words, 'pure determinism', can be in relation to 'that' what happens and occurs was always just going to happen and occur, anyway.

Now, although you human beings have what I call, 'free will', 'this' never means that 'pure determinism', also, is not 'at work' nor 'at play', HERE.

Point to me where pure determinism is...outside of your mind that is.

1. Again, there is no such thing as, 'your mind'.

2. 'Pure determinism' is everywhere.

In every visible thing, that is, 'matter', and, in every invisible thing, that is 'thought', and 'emotions'.

If everything is purely deterministic then it is determined that contradiction arises, as evidenced within the contradictions in this whole entire thread, and if that is the case then pure determinism is neither relevant nor necessary.

Although 'proved'.

And, why do you believe and claim that 'pure determinism' is neither relevant nor necessary?

Also, neither relevant nor necessary to 'what', exactly?

As to greater satisfaction being a universal law?

Why do you make statements, but put question marks at the end of them?

No, you contradict yourself as satisfaction is rare, it almost never exists within temporality and the evidence is the law itself: if all things move to greater satisfaction then what satisfaction occurs is never enough.

Why did you, "yourself", respond to your own statement, here, as though it was a question, asked, and then 'try to' say can claim that it was 'some other' who 'contradicted" "them" 'self'?

And, why do you say and claim that 'satisfaction', itself, is, supposedly, so-called 'rare', and that 'satisfaction' 'almost never exists'?

Obviously, one could be 'satisfied' in one or many things, but, still, continuously seek out more or greater satisfaction towards or in 'other things'.

Self-improvement is an ourobos, a masterbatory cycle.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

[Age]

1. Determinism is a distinction of A leads to B which corresponds to interpretation as A leads to B. Determinism is interpretation by grade of attentive distinction making.

If the definition of determinism needs tweaking....then it is an intepretation. But if that is determined, and under a pure determinism it is, than determination ceases for it is never truly a fixed state.

2. If we move towards satisfaction everyday then by default in does not occur for one does not move to what they have. A universal law where all moves towards satisfaction necessitates that the human condition is one of unending desire.

Again, what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of when people like 'this one' misinterpret what is actually being said, and meant, then they end up so far 'off track', it is hard to get them back 'on track'.

If I recall Correctly, "peacegirl" has never mentioned absolutely any thing about 'towards satisfaction', itself. Yet you keep going on about 'towards satisfaction' and this is why you are not understanding, what has actually been said, and meant.

But, if you have mentioned and talked about 'towards satisfaction', "peacegirl", then I apologize and please Correct 'me', here.

3. Giving a book to better mankind is self-improvement. Self-improvement is the last thing mankind needs for self-improvement is just orientation to one of infinite viewpoints.

Why do you believe 'this'?

Obviously you really are fixed on 'the belief' that 'Unity' is impossible, and, that 'division' is all there really is.

[peacegirl]

No its not. There is no evidence of freewill and determinism necessarily conflicting in all cases. Here is a simple and common analogy: "We choose to play the hand we are dealt".



You have no proof of pure determinism outside of an interpretation as determinism is purely a narrative, a story, that is all.



Point to me where pure determinism is...outside of your mind that is.

If everything is purely deterministic then it is determined that contradiction arises, as evidenced within the contradictions in this whole entire thread, and if that is the case then pure determinism is neither relevant nor necessary.

As to greater satisfaction being a universal law? No, you contradict yourself as satisfaction is rare, it almost never exists within temporality and the evidence is the law itself: if all things move to greater satisfaction then what satisfaction occurs is never enough.

Self-improvement is an ourobos, a masterbatory cycle.

1. Determinism is a distinction of A leads to B which corresponds to interpretation as A leads to B. Determinism is interpretation by grade of attentive distinction making.

WHAT DOES GRADE OF ATTENTIVE DISTINCTION MEAN AND HOW DOES IT NEGATE THAT WE MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION?

If the definition of determinism needs tweaking....then it is an intepretation. But if that is determined, and under a pure determinism it is, than determination ceases for it is never truly a fixed state.

IT NEEDS TWEAKING NOT BECAUSE IT'S AN INTERPRETATION BUT BECAUSE THE PRESENT DEFINITION DOES NOT REFLECT WHAT IS GOING ON IN REALITY, NOT BECAUSE DETERMINISM IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

2. If we move towards satisfaction everyday then by default in does not occur for one does not move to what they have. A universal law where all moves towards satisfaction necessitates that the human condition is one of unending desire.

NOT NECESSARILY. BUDDHISTS TRY TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM DESIRE. LACK OF DESIRE THEREFORE IS THEIR MOVEMENT IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

3. Giving a book to better mankind is self-improvement. Self-improvement is the last thing mankind needs for self-improvement is just orientation to one of infinite viewpoints.

EVERY ONLINE COACH PITCHES SELF-IMPROVEMENT. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS DISCOVERY IS ABOUT.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Determinism is a distinction of A leads to B which corresponds to interpretation as A leads to B. Determinism is interpretation by grade of attentive distinction making.

WHAT DOES GRADE OF ATTENTIVE DISTINCTION MEAN AND HOW DOES IT NEGATE THAT WE MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION?

If the definition of determinism needs tweaking....then it is an intepretation. But if that is determined, and under a pure determinism it is, than determination ceases for it is never truly a fixed state.

IT NEEDS TWEAKING NOT BECAUSE IT'S AN INTERPRETATION BUT BECAUSE THE PRESENT DEFINITION DOES NOT REFLECT WHAT IS GOING ON IN REALITY, NOT BECAUSE DETERMINISM IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

2. If we move towards satisfaction everyday then by default in does not occur for one does not move to what they have. A universal law where all moves towards satisfaction necessitates that the human condition is one of unending desire.

NOT NECESSARILY. BUDDHISTS TRY TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM DESIRE. LACK OF DESIRE THEREFORE IS THEIR MOVEMENT IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

3. Giving a book to better mankind is self-improvement. Self-improvement is the last thing mankind needs for self-improvement is just orientation to one of infinite viewpoints.

EVERY ONLINE COACH PITCHES SELF-IMPROVEMENT. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS DISCOVERY IS ABOUT.

1. Interpretation is a gradient form of attention, by attention we make distinctions. To interpret reality is to make distinctions about it. Interpretation is a form of attention, a grade of it. Determinism is a distinction of attention, an interpretation. Determinism is a ghost story.

2. If you have to tweak a book about determinism than it, ie determinism, is open to interpretation.

3. The Buddhists have the deepest of all desires, the desire to have no desire. They contradict themselves by evidence of their practices.

4. You are trying to improve people by reorienting their perspectives. The reorientation of perspective applies to how they deal with all experiences, the deepest experience being that of "self"...the logical end of your assertions is self-improvement founded on change in perspective.

[Walker]

I believe that to love one's enemies is to love the person in spite of what they did, not the behavior. That is a tall order especially when someone has taken away the most precious thing in your life.

The way I figure it, the alternative to a brief, synopsis-defined beaten path is to interpret responses as examples of The New Discovery’s influence, which at least recently are not particularly untoward, which isn't to say that before recently was untoward or not. I just haven't been to, before-recently.

*

The progression of spiritual evolution:

Compassion for oneself, for loved ones, for associates, acquaintances, strangers, enemies, unloved ones, (insert innocent animals, flying insects, and creepy crawly things somewhere into the progressive evolution, according to proclivities).

For a reference easily accessed, Trump says that he hates his enemies. He says that maybe he should love them like Charlie Kirk loved his enemies, but he says he just can’t because he hates his enemies.

He’s rather unconflicted, don’t you think? Honest. Unconflicted in the sense of non-delusional, in the sense that his personal stage of spiritual evolution matches his societal role in life.

His primary societal role in life is protecting his country from enemies, foreign and domestic … protection of family being an inherent masculine characteristic … which could be the reason God is referenced as a "Him", and why at least so far in the history of the world, woman POTUS makes an interesting, counterintuitive fictional character.

[Age]

I believe that to love one's enemies is to love the person in spite of what they did, not the behavior. That is a tall order especially when someone has taken away the most precious thing in your life.

The way I figure it, the alternative to a brief, synopsis-defined beaten path is to interpret responses as examples of The New Discovery’s influence, which at least recently are not particularly untoward, which isn't to say that before recently was untoward or not. I just haven't been to, before-recently.

*

The progression of spiritual evolution:

Compassion for oneself, for loved ones, for associates, acquaintances, strangers, enemies, unloved ones, (insert innocent animals, flying insects, and creepy crawly things somewhere into the progressive evolution, according to proclivities).

For a reference easily accessed, Trump says that he hates his enemies. He says that maybe he should love them like Charlie Kirk did, but he says he just can’t because he hates his enemies.

He’s rather unconflicted, don’t you think? Honest. Unconflicted in the sense of non-delusional, in the sense that his personal stage of spiritual evolution matches his societal role in life.

Are you suggesting, here, that the 'societal role in life' of a so-called "leader" of a country or a cult is to 'hate your enemies'?

His primary societal role in life is protecting his country from enemies, foreign and domestic … protection of family being an inherent masculine characteristic … which could be the reason God is referenced as a "Him", and why at least so far in the history of the world, woman POTUS makes an interesting, counterintuitive fictional character.

you are delusional, 'beyond belief', as some would say, "walker".

[FlashDangerpants]

My criticisms were valid. I can't be bothered with that post if you are still too stupid to be able to work out how to quote.

Your criticisms were invalid and it's an excuse not to address them for reasons that don't even apply. Your name calling doesn't help you either.

In an effort to maintain a thread of conversation where it was possible to discern which point was being argued by whom, I spent a foolish amount of time repairing your broken tags for 30 pages of this thread. You are lazy and you inflict a burden on others, which is also rude and entitled. I don't intend to wipe your arse any more and you don't intend to wipe it for yourself, so we will leave it be.

You are incapable of addressing any criticism I have levelled and instead simply refuse to recognise any issues your work has, mostly by simply accusing anyone who is not persuaded of not knowing what any of it says. I don't really care what you think, I will say what is wrong with your argument any time I feel like it, but you aren't putting anything of value into those fucked up quotes so I don't need to spend any time fixing that.

[peacegirl]

1. Interpretation is a gradient form of attention, by attention we make distinctions. To interpret reality is to make distinctions about it. Interpretation is a form of attention, a grade of it. Determinism is a distinction of attention, an interpretation. Determinism is a ghost story.

OF COURSE WE MAKE DISTINCTIONS ABOUT OUR REALITY. THIS IS WHERE OUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS THE NEXT BEST MOVE, GIVEN OUR OPTIONS, COMES INTO PLAY.

2. If you have to tweak a book about determinism than it, ie determinism, is open to interpretation.

IF A DEFINITION DOES NOT REFLECT REALITY, YES, THE DEFINITION IS NOT ACCURATE, NOT DETERMINISM. NOR IS DETERMINISM OPEN TO INTERPRETATION WHEN THE DEFINITION IS ACCURATE.

3. The Buddhists have the deepest of all desires, the desire to have no desire. They contradict themselves by evidence of their practices.

THAT'S NOT WHY I BROUGHT BHUDDISM UP. IT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE WHO TRY TO MINIMIZE THEIR DESIRES BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT CAUSES SUFFERING. IN TRYING TO MINIMIZE THEIR DESIRES (WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED THIS DISCOVERY IS ALL ABOUT), THEY ARE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

4. You are trying to improve people by reorienting their perspectives. The reorientation of perspective applies to how they deal with all experiences, the deepest experience being that of "self"...the logical end of your assertions is self-improvement founded on change in perspective.

YA, THIS KNOWLEDGE BRINGS A CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE BY THE REALIZATION THAT THREATS OF BLAME AND PUNISHMENT ARE ACTUALLY PERPETUATING THE VERY THING THESE THREATS ARE TRYING TO PREVENT. BUT THIS CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE, AS IT RELATES TO THIS DISCOVERY, IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL THING LIKE "SELF-IMPROVEMENT." IT IS A MAJOR PARADIGM SHIFT, ON A GLOBAL LEVEL, THAT WILL CHANGE HUMAN CONDUCT FOR THE BETTER.

[Belinda]

Belinda, I didn't see your thoughts regarding farm animals.

Empathy towards farm animals will mean not breeding food animals either for dairy or flesh eating. Kindness towards food animals inevitably involves more expensive food. Kindness towards animals involves no dairy food whatsoever. Dairy food is obtained by stealing mothers' milk from baby calves who are then cruelly used or destroyed.

peacegirl wrote:
As far as breeding animals for dairy or flesh eating, it would be done with loving care toward these animals. The cruelty that exists in how animals are raised is heartbreaking but that is because people have become insensitive to their plight due to their own need to survive. They have been compelled to believe that animals are just property with no feelings, or they couldn't do what they do. But this will change in due time when people won't have to save money by cutting shortcuts such as cramping animals into small cages and other inhumane practices.

Part of your proposed solution to higher price of ethical food is basic living wage across the board. While basic living wage is good as distributive ethic it does not sort the fact that ethical treatment of animals is expensive and always will be. At the present time only higher earners can afford to buy ethical animal products.

When basic living wage happens there will be fewer higher earners and ethical animal products will be even more costly.

Human nature is such that people enjoy eating other animals. It stand to reason that any Utopia will be totally vegan. If you have any counter-argument I'd be glad to read it. Vague generalisations don't chew the pie.

What you imply is true, that some animal farming methods are kinder than others. I have studied animal husbandry and it is true that some methods are far more humane than others. If Lessan's book persuaded people to consume less meat and dairy I'd be well pleased,

[peacegirl]

My criticisms were valid. I can't be bothered with that post if you are still too stupid to be able to work out how to quote.

Your criticisms were invalid and it's an excuse not to address them for reasons that don't even apply. Your name calling doesn't help you either.

In an effort to maintain a thread of conversation where it was possible to discern which point was being argued by whom, I spent a foolish amount of time repairing your broken tags for 30 pages of this thread. You are lazy and you inflict a burden on others, which is also rude and entitled. I don't intend to wipe your arse any more and you don't intend to wipe it for yourself, so we will leave it be.

I appreciate your help, and I still do, but I never asked you to fix the broken tags. I will try to figure them out on my own if you think I'm burdening you or others. That is not my intention, so please don't put a guilt trip on me.

You are incapable of addressing any criticism I have levelled and instead simply refuse to recognise any issues your work has, mostly by simply accusing anyone who is not persuaded of not knowing what any of it says. I don't really care what you think, I will say what is wrong with your argument any time I feel like it, but you aren't putting anything of value into those fucked up quotes so I don't need to spend any time fixing that.

Enough is enough FlashDangerpants. Stop trying to put me down because you don't like his observations that will is not free and that tautologies are not without significance. I have worked hard to explain this knowledge without anyone having read the actual book, and you discard all of it as if it means nothing. You even used the fact that I was his daughter against me, as if this has anything to do with the price of eggs. I think you have a block. I believe that if this new world came about, you would still be grumbling that whatever man chooses, he chooses based on his desires and motivations. This is true, but you are not understanding why free will is impossible, for if it were true, we could choose to hurt others regardless of the prevailing conditions, but they can't. Don't you see?

[Belinda]

That you are Lessan's daughter speaks in your favour because you are clearly devoted to your father's memory and would not be so devoted were he a bad man. He may not be a good scientist or a good philosopher but let's be pragmatic: if Lessan's book does some good in the world it is a good book

[peacegirl]

Belinda, I didn't see your thoughts regarding farm animals.

Empathy towards farm animals will mean not breeding food animals either for dairy or flesh eating. Kindness towards food animals inevitably involves more expensive food. Kindness towards animals involves no dairy food whatsoever. Dairy food is obtained by stealing mothers' milk from baby calves who are then cruelly used or destroyed.

peacegirl wrote:
As far as breeding animals for dairy or flesh eating, it would be done with loving care toward these animals. The cruelty that exists in how animals are raised is heartbreaking but that is because people have become insensitive to their plight due to their own need to survive. They have been compelled to believe that animals are just property with no feelings, or they couldn't do what they do. But this will change in due time when people won't have to save money by cutting shortcuts such as cramping animals into small cages and other inhumane practices.

Part of your proposed solution to higher price of ethical food is basic living wage across the board. While basic living wage is good as distributive ethic it does not sort the fact that ethical treatment of animals is expensive and always will be. At the present time only higher earners can afford to buy ethical animal products.

When basic living wage happens there will be fewer higher earners and ethical animal products will be even more costly.

Human nature is such that people enjoy eating other animals. It stands to reason that any Utopia will be totally vegan. If you have any counter-argument I'd be glad to read it. Vague generalisations don't chew the pie.

No, it does not stand to reason that veganism will win out. Some people need animal protein to function. Would you tell a lion not to eat animal meat? The lion would die. This isn't even about spirituality. It is about survival, and you cannot tell people what their physical constitution needs. In the new world, you will mind your own business and let others decide, based on their conscience what they are justified and not justified to do. What will matter is that animals will always be treated humanely.

What you imply is true, that some animal farming methods are kinder than others. I have studied animal husbandry and it is true that some methods are far more humane than others. If Lessan's book persuaded people to consume less meat and dairy I'd be well pleased,

No, if people need to eat meat or imbibe dairy for their preservation, you cannot tell them to swallow plant-based foods that weaken them or even sicken them because they are missing essential nutrients that their body cannot get from plants alone. And who are you to tell them what their body requires? This question isn't even on the radar at this point. What matters most is the prevention of war and crime. Then, developing humane efforts among wild and domesticated animals, will be an outgrowth of this miraculous change in human conduct across the board.

[peacegirl]

That you are Lessan's daughter speaks in your favour because you are clearly devoted to your father's memory and would not be so devoted were he a bad man. He may not be a good scientist or a good philosopher but let's be pragmatic: if Lessan's book does some good in the world it is a good book

He was a scientist of human behavior, and you will not take this away from him by saying he was not a good scientist or a good philosopher. What a joke this is turning out to be. It is more than a good book Belinda. It will change our world as we know it. Stop making light of this knowledge, which you are doing because you just cannot believe that this is a true discovery. This is what he went through for years, and it still continues today.

[FlashDangerpants]

Whatever peacegirl wrote to quote me this time I haven't even bothered to read. The quote system is perfectly simple. Somebody who is determined to fail at it is wasting my time.

[Belinda]

That you are Lessan's daughter speaks in your favour because you are clearly devoted to your father's memory and would not be so devoted were he a bad man. He may not be a good scientist or a good philosopher but let's be pragmatic: if Lessan's book does some good in the world it is a good book

He was a scientist of human behavior, and you will not take this away from him by saying he was not a good scientist or a good philosopher. What a joke this is turning out to be. It is more than a good book Belinda. It will change our world as we know it. Stop making light of this knowledge, which you are doing because you just cannot believe that this is a true discovery. This is what he went through for years, and it still continues today.

I see that you think I am damning Lessan's book by faint praise.


i confess i have not read it . However from my impressions, biased though they may be, Lessans was neither a proper psychologist nor a proper philosopher. He seems to be an impractical dreamer from what I can make out.

Maybe, instead of purporting to be psychologist or philosopher , Lessans had written poetry or novels more people would have bought copies.

Who published the book in question? Did Lessans self-publish?