Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2025 12:43 am
by peacegirl
cont... “That’s correct, Jim. The corollary Thou Shall Not Blame doesn’t mean, when it is extended, that we will be forced to condone what hurts us, but only that we will be shown how to prevent these evils by mathematically extending the corollary.”
“Do you mean there is absolutely no way all evil can be removed from our lives without a knowledge of your discovery?”
“That’s absolutely true, Jim.”
“Then your discovery must be the most fantastic thing ever discovered by man before.”
“It is. To show you how fantastic, just take note of the infinite wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, which includes the solar and mankind systems, through invariable laws that we are at last getting to understand. Follow this, Jim, it is very interesting. Now here is versatile man — writer, composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian, architect, builder, mathematician, chess player, murderer, prostitute, thief, etc. — whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature to believe that it is since it was impossible not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of necessity, and then permitted, after reaching a sufficient degree of development, to perceive the necessary relations as to why will is not free and what this means for the entire world, soon to be revealed, which perception was utterly impossible without the development, and absolutely necessary for the inception of our New Earth. Where in all history have you heard anything more incredible?”
“Nowhere, Larry. This is really and truly the most fantastic thing I have ever heard, providing your discovery proves it, but this is still an unknown factor, right?”
“Not for long, Jim, because I’m getting ready to show you what my discovery is; but to solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary — Thou Shall Not Blame (for this seems mathematically impossible since it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a de-confusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact revealed to you yesterday. Consequently, as was earlier pointed out, and to reveal this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another person unless he wants to. Even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and heredity but prefers this action because at that moment of time, he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. But though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion, during every moment of his existence, to do everything he does. We can’t blame him for doing what he does because his will is not free, but he can’t be made to do what he does — unless he wants to, or, to phrase it differently, unless he desires to do it of his own free will.”
“Can you clarify that a little bit more, Larry?”
“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will; he actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled, by their desire for freedom, to prefer nonviolence, turning the other cheek as a solution to their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, because the alternative was considered worse in his opinion; that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and innumerable of our words and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, or, to be ironical once again, done of his own free will, which only means, in this context, that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time for one reason or another. But remember, this desire is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. So bear in mind now, for this is that very crucial point I find necessary to repeat: man is never compelled to do to others what he doesn’t want to do, but is compelled to want to do everything he does. This reveals that he has mathematical control over the former, since whatever he decides to do must be considered the preferable alternative under his particular set of circumstances. All I am doing is clarifying these terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”
“It is perfectly clear to me now, Larry, and I find it impossible to disagree.”
“Therefore, to continue my reasoning, Jim, if someone were to say, ‘I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,’ which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do — or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause — he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.”
“Wait a minute, Larry, this is getting too much for my little brain. Do you mean to tell me that even though man’s will is not free, there is absolutely nothing that causes him to do what he does, not environment, heredity, or anything else?”
“I didn’t say that, Jim, not in those exact words. I said that nothing, absolutely nothing, can cause man to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him to commit a crime; it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused; consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but remember, his particular environment is different because he himself is different; otherwise, everybody would desire to commit a crime. But the reason he doesn’t come right out and say, ‘I hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will, but only because I wanted to do it,’ is that the standards of right and wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his desires. Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb, if not all, the responsibility, which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a world of judgment, and hurt others, in many cases, with impunity, since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do. You see it happen all the time, Jim, even when a child says, ‘Look what you made me do,’ when you know you didn’t make him do anything. The boy, spilling a glass of milk because he was careless, and not wishing to be blamed, searches quickly for an excuse to shift the responsibility for what happened to something other than himself.”
“But the boy didn’t want to spill the glass of milk, Larry, it was just an accident.”
“That’s true, Jim, but why did he want to blame his own carelessness on somebody or something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents?”
“But isn’t it true, Larry, that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished for carelessness, such as this spilling of the milk on the rug, makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and punishment he doesn’t like? If he knew that he wasn’t going to be blamed and punished, wouldn’t he become even more careless? Isn’t it also true that the dethronement of free will would allow him to shift his responsibility all the more, and take advantage of the knowledge that he will not be blamed, to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under reasonable control by the fear of criticism, blame, punishment, and public opinion which judged his actions with standards of right and wrong?”
“Your last question, Jim (don’t get offended now), is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning, simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift our responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when we know in advance that we will not be blamed for what we do. Now observe this very carefully because it is another crucial point: Is it possible for you to say, ‘I couldn’t help myself because man’s will is not free,’ when you know in advance that no one is going to say you could help yourself or question your action, regardless of what you do? I repeat, think about this very carefully. If you try to justify or excuse your action, it is an indication that the person or people to whom you are presenting this justification must consider the action wrong in some way; otherwise, there would be no need for it. If you do what others judge to be right, is it necessary to lie or offer excuses?”