New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not blaming you but this work has not been promoted or advertised (very few people know about this discovery other than these forums), so how can you use the fact that it's been 20 years against me.

You must have persuaded a few people to read your sample chapters, surely? I cannot possibly be the first person to point out that the terrible writing and hyperbolic prose serve to obscure whatever the actual argument is. If you've invested 20 years of effort in spreading hte word, but you are unable to clarify the word, then what use are you Janis?

All you do is push slices of copy pasted text and then if somebody doesn't pick up on whatever argument is lying underneath it, you get passive-agressive and accuse us of not reading it. You offer no additional explanation even though you have decades of expertise. You are a seasick passenger on a ship that needs a captain.

It is very unfortunate that you think this some kind of third-rate Scientology when there's no joining anything, no mind control, no force, and no authority in charge. You are so off it's mindboggling.

I actually think it's a failed attempt to pull off what Hubbard did, and your dad just fell flat on his face. If he hadn't, you would be doing airport Ramada seminars and raking in cash.

The way your thing is structured as a series of revelations, each more fantasitcal than the last, is nothing like a philosophy book, but it's exactly like a cult induction ladder. Nothing like Kant, Hume or Hegel, but exactly what the Mormons, Scientologists and Moonies do.

So why would anyone compare you and your dad to Hume instead of the Reverend Moon and L. Ron Hubbard? Just because you are less successful them you think we can't spot the similarities?

[peacegirl]

I'm not blaming you but this work has not been promoted or advertised (very few people know about this discovery other than these forums), so how can you use the fact that it's been 20 years against me.

You must have persuaded a few people to read your sample chapters, surely? I cannot possibly be the first person to point out that the terrible writing and hyperbolic prose serve to obscure whatever the actual argument is. If you've invested 20 years of effort in spreading the word, but you are unable to clarify the word, then what use are you Janis?

This is not hyperbole and it is not obscure. That's how you are reading it. And very few people have read, if any, the first three chapters. I can clarify questions if people have then and aren't on the attack.

All you do is push slices of copy pasted text and then if somebody doesn't pick up on whatever argument is lying underneath it, you get passive-agressive and accuse us of not reading it. You offer no additional explanation even though you have decades of expertise. You are a seasick passenger on a ship that needs a captain.

I don't need a captain. I AM THE CAPTAIN. Srsly, you have not read it and if you have, where are your questions? You just keep saying his writing is a piece of shit.

It is very unfortunate that you think this some kind of third-rate Scientology when there's no joining anything, no mind control, no force, and no authority in charge. You are so off it's mindboggling.

I actually think it's a failed attempt to pull off what Hubbard did, and your dad just fell flat on his face. If he hadn't, you would be doing airport Ramada seminars and raking in cash.

Your imagination has gotten the best of you. You need to tone it down. You keep talking about money and you won't stop. Seminars? That's not my thing and wasn't his either, although he did speak at my university many moons ago. It was standing room only.

The way your thing is structured as a series of revelations, each more fantasitcal than the last, is nothing like a philosophy book, but it's exactly like a cult induction ladder. Nothing like Kant, Hume or Hegel, but exactly what the Mormons, Scientologists and Moonies do. So why would anyone compare you and your dad to Hume instead of the Reverend Moon and L. Ron Hubbard? Just because you are less successful than them you think we can't spot the similarities?

Peacegirl: He had a revelation and that is what got him interested in the subject of free will and determinism. He wanted people to know his backstory as to how it all started. It wasn't structured as a series of revelations, each more fantastical than the last. I don't know where you got that from. You don't have to call it a philosophy book if you don't feel it meets the requirements. Look at it as a unique book that cannot be categorized. There are no similarities to Reverend Moon and L. Ron Hubbard. It breaks my heart that anyone thinks that this is some kind of cult. He was not a deceptive man, and he had no motive other than sharing knowledge that belongs to the world. He took no credit.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your dad was nuts, his plan to have his own cult was dumb, the books he wrote started by merely overinterpreting determinism into a much bigger thing than it actually is, and then progressed to lunatic talk of miraculous instant seeing because eyes aren't a sensory organ in your cult, and then goes onto something about life after death. That is a .... series of revelations, each more fantastical than the last, and anyone who falls for it is really incredibly stupid.

[Belinda]

So what you’re saying is that if I don’t adhere to these criticisms, I’m not brave? I’m very brave to deal with so many naysayers. Back to reification. Show me where “will” could be made clearer that was overlooked?

Reification is a big word for thingification. To will is actually something that people and other animals do, it's not a thing.

You are brave to do philosophy at all. Philosophy is not easy. I have been doing philosophy of language with you and that is not usually for beginners.

I'm trying to get the gist of it to see if you think the reason he created a fallacy was because he used the term "law of nature."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

No It's not that. Unlike Flash, I have not the energy nor the time to read sample chapters of a large book by an unknown and slighted author.

I merely pick out one or two ideas that I can see are factually incorrect
One of those ideas is reified will, The other incorrect idea is that the book is "discovery" when in fact it is ""invention".

I am sure you are right that your father was a nice man. What is at issue is not your father but his ideas.

[peacegirl]

Your dad was nuts, his plan to have his own cult was dumb, the books he wrote started by merely overinterpreting determinism into a much bigger thing than it actually is, and then progressed to lunatic talk of miraculous instant seeing because eyes aren't a sensory organ in your cult, and then goes onto something about life after death. That is a .... series of revelations, each more fantastical than the last, and anyone who falls for it is really incredibly stupid.

Go away.

[peacegirl]

Reification is a big word for thingification. To will is actually something that people and other animals do, it's not a thing.

You are brave to do philosophy at all. Philosophy is not easy. I have been doing philosophy of language with you and that is not usually for beginners.

I'm trying to get the gist of it to see if you think the reason he created a fallacy was because he used the term "law of nature."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

No It's not that. Unlike Flash, I have not the energy nor the time to read sample chapters of a large book by an unknown and slighted author.

I merely pick out one or two ideas that I can see are factually incorrect
One of those ideas is reified will, The other incorrect idea is that the book is "discovery" when in fact it is ""invention".

I am sure you are right that your father was a nice man. What is at issue is not your father but his ideas.

DO what is good for you. Just know pulling things out of context will never give you an understanding. This has nothing to do with him being a nice man. He was a very deep thinker. This was not an invention Belinda. You are wrong and you will continue to be wrong because you won't take the time to read in the order it was written. What do you mean "slighted author"? Slighted by whom? This is group think at its worst.

[Atla]

Joe was very intelligent, a very deep thinker. I know this for a fact because Joe himself said so.

[FlashDangerpants]

Go away.

I don't take orders from the CEO of a failed cult startup.

[peacegirl]

Go away.

I don't take orders from the CEO of a failed cult startup.

Why did I know you couldn’t leave? Your will was not free to.

[peacegirl]

Joe was very intelligent, a very deep thinker. I know this for a fact because Joe himself said so.

Such BS, and I think deep down you know it.

[Atla]

Joe was very intelligent, a very deep thinker. I know this for a fact because Joe himself said so.

Such BS, and I think deep down you know it.

Wrong. You're maybe in the 90-100 IQ range? How do you intend to judge what high intelligence is?

[peacegirl]

Joe was very intelligent, a very deep thinker. I know this for a fact because Joe himself said so.

Such BS, and I think deep down you know it.

Wrong. You're maybe in the 90-100 IQ range? How do you intend to judge what high intelligence is?

You can't the way you're doing it. It would take careful exchange, not just hearing a few soundbites. By true understanding, which no one has even come close to. By refusing to give in to an echo chamber, hearing your own recycled thoughts and beliefs, and using them as a standard to judge the veracity of anything that questions them.

An echo chamber is a situation where information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified and reinforced through communication within a defined system, often leading to a lack of exposure to differing viewpoints. It can also refer to social environments where individuals are primarily exposed to information that reinforces their existing views. In communications theory, it serves as a metaphor for how beliefs and assumptions are reinforced by the stimuli to which individuals are exposed.
Fiveable
+3

[FlashDangerpants]

Joe was very intelligent, a very deep thinker. I know this for a fact because Joe himself said so.

Such BS, and I think deep down you know it.

Wrong. You're maybe in the 90-100 IQ range? How do you intend to judge what high intelligence is?

I can't speak much to IQ, but I really couldn't find a means to dumb down any of my questions to the level she could understand them. It should really be trivially obvious what the problem is with an argument that attempts to discover a tautologous truism but she just isn't capable of comprehending that given redundancy of explanations the one that isn't the tautological truth by definition is superfluous and can be discarded without loss. I suppose now I think about it I could have tried explaining it as overdetermination. I highly doubt that would get through either though.

Did you not see the bit about Lessans being guided by voices though? I was surprised you didn't sink your teeth into that one.

[Atla]

Did you not see the bit about Lessans being guided by voices though? I was surprised you didn't sink your teeth into that one.

I missed that one. Guided by voices? Oh ffs

[FlashDangerpants]

Did you not see the bit about Lessans being guided by voices though? I was surprised you didn't sink your teeth into that one.

I missed that one. Guided by voices? Oh ffs

Yup, this is his origin story, Messiah complex and all....

It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly involved in my discovery. To give you a little background, it was November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason. Up until that time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the subject came up, I began to see the connection. That night in a dream I kept hearing this phrase: “The solution to all the problems plaguing mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions of Philosophy. When I completed it, I remarked, “He really doesn’t know what he is talking about, and Spinoza is right; man’s will is not free.” Then, after nine strenuous months, I shouted, “Eureka, I have found it!” and I have had no rest ever since. After opening the door of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free, I saw another sign that read: ‘Hidden behind this door, you will discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long-awaited Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months in the deepest analysis, I made a finding that was so fantastic, it took me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind. I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.

I assume it is actually just completely made up, but it does sound quite a lot like a sustained episode of delusional disorder.