New Discovery

[Age]

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.


One partly explained 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.

Money is not a need; self-preservation is.

1. If you already know that money is not a need, then why will you only share what you call 'new discoveries' with only those who give you money?

2. Why do you believe and claim that 'self-preservation' is a need. Obviously the very fact that the 'self' eventually becomes no more, by itself refutes any claim that 'self-preservation' is a need, or is needed.

Also, and again, when, and if, you ever learn how to quote properly, and Correctly, here, then discussing with you will be a lot easier, and simpler.

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'.

The human race is developing. Everything was necessary to reach this turning point which points us in a new direction.

And, again, the 'turning point' is not in your idea of you wanting and obtaining money before you will readily share knowledge.

Actually, what you are doing, here, is stalling the 'turning point', which is all well and good because what you believe, absolutely, will cause the decline and fall of all evil is only creating and increasing more evil. In other words you are doing the 'very thing'/s' your "father" advised not to do.

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.

The discovery does not need correction unless you believe that there are no natural laws like gravity to be discovered.

'your logic' is absolutely flawed, here, as well.

Every thing needs Correcting, if 'it' is not Correct.

And, whether I believe that there are, or are not, natural laws has absolutely no bearing at all on whether some thing needs Correcting, or not.

You wouldn't tell Einstein to keep an open perspective and see what needs to be corrected, would you?

Yes, and that is just about, exactly, what I would tell "albert einstein", and every other one of you human beings, 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.

I have no problem answering questions.

Once more 'this one' has just provided another prime example of saying one thing, but internally having the exact opposite belief. Look "peacegirl" absolutely any one can clearly see that you do not answer the questions posed, and asked to you.

What I don't like is when people tell me he was wrong, yet they can't pinpoint or explain what he was wrong about because they didn't carefully study the work with a fine-tooth comb.

And, what people do not like is when people like you who believe some thing, absolutely, are not open to being critiqued, questioned, and challenged. Obviously there are things in your "father's" writings that are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, but because you are absolutely closed to this Fact, there is no use in even trying to discuss these things with you. you, 'peacegirl", are no better than the "Christian" who believes whatever "christ" said can never be Wrong, or like the "scientist" who believes that whatever "einstein" said can also never be Wrong. you type of people are just "believers" who there is, essentially, no use in even trying to have discussions with you in regards to 'those thing' that are in opposition with what you people believe is true. As you keep proving absolutely True, here, for me.

To give it a cursory overview will not do it justice.

you only sharing it after you have been given money gives it absolutely no justice at all.

What you are doing, here, is, exactly, what your "father" did not want, and did not like.

Do you feel 'proud' that you are so desperately wanting and trying to obtain 'monetary profit' off of your "father's" work?

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

You are coming from the belief that he didn't have anything of value to offer humanity.

Once again your assuming and believing could not have led you more further astray.

Once more I will suggest that before you even begin to assume absolutely any thing you obtain absolutely clarity first.

As long as you think this way, you will stick to your belief that this is all a farce and I'm in dreamworld and in need of correction from people here.

But I do not think this way. you only believe I think this way. And that is why you end up never seeing what the actual Truth is, here.

If you believe that this man was a fraud, and you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt, there's no point in continuing.

But, I do not believe that 'that man' was a fraud. What I know, however, is that you will only share 'that man's' work if you can make a 'monetary gain' from it. Which, if your "father" was still alive, would haunt "him" absolutely.

I'm not here to get corrected,

This is very obvious. And, what is just as obvious is that you are, here, to make 'some money', and off of 'the work' of 'another'.

although he welcomed anyone who could do a better job explaining these principles.

If this is true, then let people like 'me' explain 'those principles' better. But, in all honesty, 'this' is not what you really want, here, correct?

Afterword: I don’t deny that others could have done a better job in explaining this discovery, and their services are still welcome if they can clarify it even more. My job was to make known this discovery, which I have done to the best of my ability.

you could not come across more greedy, selfish, and deceitful, here, now.

Look so-called "peacegirl", in making what you call 'this discovery' known only if you are 'given money' is what you claim is you doing to the best of your ability literally means that you could not come across as being more selfish and more greedy.

Claiming that you have 'some knowledge' that will bring about some so-called 'golden age', but that you will only make 'this discovery' known if others 'give you money' could not be more hypocritical, even if you were wanting to be.

[Age]

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?

I can see that he is making an assumption that this discovery can't be right because he thinks he is right regarding tautologies.

Okay, but I asked why do you say and write 'this' as though you are not doing the exact same thing?

In other words you are also making assumptions because you think that you are right also.

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'.

I am letting everyone in they can get past the gate.

But, only if they give you money.

I am just the gatekeeper who hands out the keys.

Again, only to those who hand over money, to you.

This is my job.

This is your 'chosen' job. As it is certainly not what your "father", really, wanted.

If they can't explain why man's will is not free, I am not allowed to give them a key because the door to this discovery will be locked.

And, the fact that you can not explain why "men" AND "women's" so-called 'will' is free, is why you are closed, and have 'locked that gate' shut.

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'.

And what more right, accurate, and correct knowledge is that?

Are you going to give me money for 'this discovery' and 'this knowledge'?

If no, then why not?

And what T.R.A.C.K, in Life which leads to the True 'golden age,' is that. Don't leave me in suspense.

Again, only when you hand over money will be privileged enough to receive 'this knowledge'.

So, how much money are you prepared to hand over, here?

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, which just proves my point.

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.

This comment was so dumb it actually gave me a good laugh.

Okay.

Would you like to explain to the readers, here, why 'this comment' was, to you, so-called 'so dumb'?

If no, then why not, exactly?

That is called an egocentric individual.

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

When Edison demonstrated the lightbulb, he didn't need anyone's approval to be right. By the same token, this author did not need anyone's approval to be right.

But, until 'that author' is verified as being right, 'it' may well be not right. See, just because your "father" is right never means 'it' is right. For all 'we' know your "father" and 'its' views and beliefs, here, could be completely and utterly Wrong, and thus not Right at all.

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?

No. Pertinent (adjective)
relevant or applicable to a particular matter; apposite:
"she asked me a lot of very pertinent questions" · "the unreleased section of tape was not pertinent to the investigation"

Once more you have completely and utterly missed the point, not answered the actual question, and just continued along some so far off track path, and all because you assumed, concluded, and believed some thing that was never ever meant.

Talk about 'this one' presenting another prime example of 'it' doing the very opposite of what its "father" was telling 'us' not to do.

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?

Again, you are trying to put me in a category that I don't belong. I am sure that when this knowledge is finally brought to light, you'll think differently.

Again, 'this one' could not present a more convincing example of just how absolutely closed it really is.

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'?

I have engaged with my own thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions, and there were plenty of times I missed the mark. But in this case, there have been no assumptions made. You're trying to accuse me of not having the wherewithal to know the difference between an assumption and a fact. Why are you grilling me this way?

Because you keep proving that your continued assuming just keeps letting you down, here.

That's you FlashDangerpants in a nutshell.

If only 'they' knew.

What is that supposed to mean?

What 'that' means that if you only knew, then you would not keep doing what you are, here.

Or, as someone else might say, 'you do not know what you do'.

[peacegirl]

If you learn how to quote properly and Correctly, here, then this might help you in some way, here. Otherwise you are not doing "yourself" any service at all quoting the way you have been.

Now, are you absolutely sure that your "father" was the very 'first one' to be skeptical of things? Or, is this just another case of you not being careful in what you say and claim, here?

He was a very discerning man. He questioned everything, and he taught me to do the same.

Yet, here you are not questioning, and assuming, concluding, and believing things instead, without absolutely any enquiry at all.

I am not here to question. I'm here for a reason, to share something important. Your accusation that I'm assuming, concluding, believing things instead, makes no sense at all. Please clarify your words.

Also noted is that you are not answering and clarifying at all, as well.

Well, I spent quite a while answering your long post. If you think I didn't answer you or clarify anything, I'm really wondering if anything I say will make any dent at all.

[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.

You are the suspicious one without a reason. This was never about me or my father. He was a humble man and took no credit for his discovery.

So you claim. But anyway what you are doing is wanting to make money off of your 'humble' "fathers" work, and it might be said by some that you are even trying to take credit for another's work.

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

You keep bringing money up as if I wouldn't be entitled to make something from 20 years of work?

Now 'we' are finally getting to the crux of things, here.

The very reason why all evil keeps rising and rising is because of the very way you think, and because of what you are doing, here.

But this is not what it's about. It's about sharing with the world a better way. If there are other better ways, that would be great. So far, this world is going to pot, and I don't mean cannabis.

And, while you are, here, you will keep trying to obtain as much money as you can, right?

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

You are right. They aren't, but I am the steward, and I will not give this mission up because it's too important.

What is becoming more clearer, here, is that the 'only mission' that you are on, here, is 'making money' from 'another's work'. Which is way 'the world', that you live in, continues to go to 'rack and ruin', as some would say.

your "father" writes a book in the hope of declining and fall all evil, yet, here, you are doing the very thing that keeps all evil alive, and keeps it rising, and rising.

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 a tautology only says that whatever one chooses, he was motivated by, and what he was motivated by is whatever one chooses. But it does not explain that what one does choose could not have been otherwise. This is important because it is the gateway that leads to his discovery.

But, 'tautology' does not mean 'this', at all. Which is just another prime example of just how often and how much of 'missing the mark' that you keep doing, here.

you have, again, completely and utterly 'missed the point' that "flashdangerpants" was pointing out, and highlighting, here.

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?

I can admit if I jumped to a conclusion.

What does, 'I can admit if I jumped to a conclusion', even actually mean.

you have, obviously, jumped to many conclusions, here, based off of nothing than your own made up assumptions, only. And, worse still, you then went on to believe your own conclusions to be absolutely true, right, accurate, and/or correct.

But this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether how I look at, and see things, could be wrong when it comes to something that is being presented in a factual, not theoretical, way.

Just because some thing is being presented in a 'factual way' never ever means that 'it' is 'factual'.

[Age]

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

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

I was trying to understand which position he held, that's all.

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

Are you not a human being? Why do you say, "you adult human beings believe otherwise" as if you're not one of us.

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'?

That was a good question, and it is answered in the Introduction. There will be no force, only a desire to find greater happiness and security.

Therefore, before I begin, I would like to ask you the following questions: Do you prefer war or peace, unhappiness or happiness, insecurity or security, sickness or health? Do you prefer losing the one you have fallen in love with or winning and living happily ever after? Since I know that happiness is preferable to unhappiness and health to sickness, I shall now begin a revelation of knowledge that no one will be able to deny, provided the relations are understood. While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature? If all the people in the world who get displaced because their services are no longer needed were to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that the income necessary to sustain their standard of living, whatever the cost, would never be stopped as long as they live, would they have any reason to complain about someone showing them a better way — the only way to accomplish that for which they are getting paid? Although they and others will be dissatisfied to learn the truth when it deprives them of personal fulfillment, they are compelled to be silent because to utter any words of protest would simply expose an illusion of knowledge, which Stephen Hawking claimed “is the greatest enemy.” I shall now set sail on a voyage that will perform this virtual miracle by igniting a chain reaction of thought that will explode across the planet and destroy with its fallout every conceivable kind of hurt that exists among human relations, never to return. It is now within our power to reach that mountaintop — the Golden Age of man — that we have all hoped and dreamed would one day become a reality. 

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

There will be no force at all. This entire transition to a better world will be voluntary, while weapons are slowly destroyed or converted.

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'.

Money is just a medium of exchange. It's stealing from others as well as poverty that is causing the rise of evil in the world.

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?

I don't think I missed the point. Motivation is the driving force that determines our choices IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

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'?

Absolutely not, but it's not necessary to know, each and collectively, consciously and fully, what 'it' is that is pushing me. Sometimes we do things that we don't know why, because the reasons are subconscious.

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

To reach people who may be interested in this discovery. There is no ulterior motive.

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

Our choices are based on both what we learn and by instinct. It all depends. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

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' hand over 'some money', to you.

It's not that. It's just not something I want to discuss until his first discovery is understood. Once I change topics, we'll never get back to this one and I'm not risking it.

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?

Let's start with free will. Free will is the ability to choose A over B or B over A, without compulsion or necessity. Here is the dictionary definition he used. It wasn't his definition. I posted this earlier, but I'll post it again.

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.

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'?

The dictionary definition of "free will" was defined above.

The definition of "will" below is accurate enough.

will: noun
the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.

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're way off the beaten track.

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?

It's not about perspective; it's about definition.

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'.

I'm not making a cent, not even one penny. Do you understand that it would take me selling around 2,000 books to make a nickel at this price? I made this book as low as Amazon would allow. They make the money. I bent over backwards to reduce the price to way less than a cup of coffee, which proves to me that even if the book were free, no one here would buy it. They just can't get beyond the idea that this is not a trick or a scheme to take people's money. Why do you resent me so much, as if by wanting to earn something for my hard work, I'm somehow trying to fool everyone. We live in a society where the exchange of money as a medium is how our economy works. Money itself is just a medium, a tool. Some people abuse that tool. Theft will no longer exist in the new world so you have nothing to worry about. But if I sell something that you want, it is normal practice for you to pay me for my service or product. I spent a lot of my own money working with a formatter and also getting tapes that he recorded converted to CDs and then MP3s because they would eventually get ruined through time. You don't think I deserve any compensation at all?

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'.

I need money to reach the right people who could actually do something to bring this discovery to light. Giving it away, I would lose that opportunity and I'm not going to. Also, it would be a relief for me to break even. Anything more would be absolutely thrilling because it would indicate that people were finding value in this knowledge and passing it along, and I would feel vindicated. Why are you treating me with a different standard than everyone else? Creativity is often driven by the desire to earn money, but that doesn't diminish the creative endeavor in any way.

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.

That's a fair exchange. I'm not misleading anyone for the sole purpose of making money. That would be deceptive but that's NOT what I'm doing.

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.

Where is the irony? Clue me in. Thinking that this all about the money because the book is for sale is so misguided. You are putting the cart before the horse.

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.

Irrefutably true? You mean I can't refute Flashdangerpant's conclusions because they are as irrefutable as this discovery is "undeniable?"

I am not fixing up all of your misquotes, here, again, so I will not be responding to what you said and wrote, here.

However, if you fix up your misquoting, here, then I will respond to this post of yours.

[Age]

He was a very discerning man. He questioned everything, and he taught me to do the same.

Yet, here you are not questioning, and assuming, concluding, and believing things instead, without absolutely any enquiry at all.

I am not here to question.

Although you just got through claiming that your "father" 'taught you to question every thing'.

So, now why do you not do what your "father" 'taught you to do'?

Why do you do not follow your "father's" 'teachings'?

I'm here for a reason, to share something important.

But, once again, only if others give you money, first.

Your accusation that I'm assuming, concluding, believing things instead, makes no sense at all. Please clarify your words.

How could any one clarify 'the words', 'you assume, conclude, and believe things, instead of questioning and seeking out clarification, first, and make 'those words' any clearer?

Also noted is that you are not answering and clarifying at all, as well.

Well, I spent quite a while answering your long post.

Absolutely any one can look back and see the amount of sentences that I have written with a question mark at the end of them, and clearly see how many of them you have not answered.

If you think I didn't answer you or clarify anything, I'm really wondering if anything I say will make any dent at all.

Again, 'this', here, is prime example of one who is absolutely and utterly 'closed'.

[Atla]

The book is peacegirl's religion. But in the real world, not blaming people won't stop them from committing crimes, it will compel them to commit more crimes. That's why it's against human nature to not blame people. Everyone knows this who has been around people which peacegirl clearly hasn't. Determinism or not doesn't change anything. We evolved blame in a deterministic world after all.

[peacegirl]

The book is peacegirl's religion. But in the real world, not blaming people won't stop them from committing crimes, it will compel them to commit more crimes. That's why it's against human nature to not blame people. Everyone knows this who has been around people which peacegirl clearly hasn't. Determinism or not doesn't change anything. We evolved blame in a deterministic world after all.

We blame because we have no better way to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. That’s how our civilization developed and why the belief in free will was necessary in order to justify punishment. But there is a better way. You are completely wrong about no blame increasing crime when the very opposite will occur but only under certain conditions that are not yet established. He even said that if people suddenly stopped blaming, the criminals would have a field day. Do you see why you’re conclusions are premature and will ruin any possible chance of understanding before you even open the book?

[Atla]

The book is peacegirl's religion. But in the real world, not blaming people won't stop them from committing crimes, it will compel them to commit more crimes. That's why it's against human nature to not blame people. Everyone knows this who has been around people which peacegirl clearly hasn't. Determinism or not doesn't change anything. We evolved blame in a deterministic world after all.

We blame because we have no better way to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. That’s how our civilization developed and why the belief in free will was necessary in order to justify punishment. But there is a better way. You are completely wrong about no blame increasing crime when the very opposite will occur but only under certain conditions that are not yet established. He even said that if people suddenly stopped blaming, the criminals would have a field day. Do you see why you’re conclusions are premature and will ruin any possible chance of understanding before you even open the book?

Just what makes you think that blame arose with the belief in free will? Can you prove that like a 'scientist'? Even cats will hold grudges, blaming you for stuff you did to them. Cats have no philosophical degrees, probably not even self-awareness.

And you can't call me completely wrong because you have a BELIEF in how exactly your utopia would work. Your certainty about a very different world that doesn't yet exist is telling.

And no we don't even stop criminals using blame, but rather using the justice system. It doesn't even need free will for justification you don't understand basic things.

[Age]

The book is peacegirl's religion. But in the real world, not blaming people won't stop them from committing crimes, it will compel them to commit more crimes. That's why it's against human nature to not blame people. Everyone knows this who has been around people which peacegirl clearly hasn't. Determinism or not doesn't change anything. We evolved blame in a deterministic world after all.

We blame because we have no better way to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. That’s how our civilization developed and why the belief in free will was necessary in order to justify punishment. But there is a better way. You are completely wrong about no blame increasing crime when the very opposite will occur but only under certain conditions that are not yet established. He even said that if people suddenly stopped blaming, the criminals would have a field day. Do you see why you’re conclusions are premature and will ruin any possible chance of understanding before you even open the book?

Blaming human beings for what they do never necessarily follows that 'that' is 'the way' to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. If one, for example, is intent on obtaining more money, then what would make 'that one' stop doing that in absolutely 'any way', if 'that one' was not blamed when it was doing what is Wrong, in Life?

[peacegirl]

Yeah I told P girl years ago that nothing new is here and that this 'discovery' was made by deterninists hundreds of years ago. Not saying her old man isn't right, only that this is not original stuff.

This discovery is new promethean75, even though it was made in 1959. No one has gone beyond the vestibule of determinism to see where this law of our nature leads. Don't say things that aren't true, okay?

[peacegirl]

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.

You should think of a second explanation for why reaction is negative: You are hype-selling obvious 3rd rate shit, and nobody wants it.

Don't speak for other people. If you think it's 3rd rate shit, then why are you here? You can leave; the door is open.

[peacegirl]

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,

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.
[/quote]

Sorry Age, this is too much to unpack. Make it simpler by asking a few questions at a time, not a book, or it won't work.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

You should think of a second explanation for why reaction is negative: You are hype-selling obvious 3rd rate shit, and nobody wants it.

Don't speak for other people. If you think it's 3rd rate shit, then why are you here? You can leave; the door is open.

If you weren't speaing for other people when you wrote "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" then I wasn't when I wrote "You should think of a second explanation for why reaction is negative: You are hype-selling obvious 3rd rate shit, and nobody wants it." in response. The alternative is that we both spoke for other people.

Please try to be less of a hypocrite.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yeah I told P girl years ago that nothing new is here and that this 'discovery' was made by deterninists hundreds of years ago. Not saying her old man isn't right, only that this is not original stuff.

She seems to be trying to argue point for point with age now. I think perhaps she's found her level.