Revolution in Thought

[-1-]

I did not say you're wrong regarding other reasons than hatred for the cause of crime and wars. I am using the term "evil" to mean the things we wish we could rid the world of such as war and crime.
...
I did not say that hatred is the only motive for the evil (i.e., the hurt) that is plaguing mankind.

A. I did not say you said those things.

B. But you still did want to take out the word "hate", nevertheless.

C. Evil has a different meaning than "everything that's bad and we no longer want to happen". If you misuse the language, don't blame me for it.

C. The reason you wanted to take out the word "hate" was to defend against my argument. (You forgot this bit by convenient selective memory.)

D. But if you take out the word "hate" then your father's promise collapses.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

[peacegirl]

Yes, I am jumping into conclusions, no doubt about it, but those conclusions are pretty solid, not premature. If they are wrong, you have to prove that.

Those conclusions are pretty solid, really? The author proved that man's will is not free and from this he also proved how the extension of this knowledge, along with the corollary, leads to world peace.

Okay, you are not even aware you are getting back to square one? "The author proved..."
Where is the proof? In the book of course! (...Brach schoma kultur yechoma dochei...)

I gave you 15 pages to read. Is that too many? What's your excuse now?
-------------------

I am not going to write the third time why my conclusions, based on reality of crime and war, and based on claims by the blurb, are right.

But you're not right. You are trying to find a flaw because that's your goal, but you are failing miserably. Anybody can do what you're doing and think they disproved a concept by faulty logic. I repeat, the word hate is often a motivating factor based on feelings of unfairness. The word can be replaced by another word of your liking, as long as you understand the gist. This in no way proves your conclusion that the book is nullified because of this one word. This is getting ridiculous.

[-1-]

But you're not right. You are trying to find a flaw because that's your goal, but you are failing miserably. Anybody can do what you're doing and think they disproved a concept by faulty logic. I repeat, the word hate is often a motivating factor based on feelings of unfairness. The word can be replaced by another word of your liking, as long as you understand the gist. This in no way proves your conclusion that the book is nullified because of this one word. This is getting ridiculous.

My opinion is that you are not right, and you can't even tell a valid argument when you see one.

And why don't I read 15 pages? What business is that of yours? You are not the ruler of this world yet, so people don't hop to what you say, and perhaps that is one of your problems: you are still struggling to accept the dichotomy between your expectation (you are the ruler of this world, and people ought to obey you without resistance), and the reality you are experiencing (that you are not the ultimate ruler of the world).

[-1-]

But you're not right. You are trying to find a flaw because that's your goal,

No. My goal is not to find the flaw. I have found the flaw a long time ago. Everyone on the whole globe has found it.

My goal is to make you see the same fault, and you stubbornly refuse to do that.

[peacegirl]

I did not say you're wrong regarding other reasons than hatred for the cause of crime and wars. I am using the term "evil" to mean the things we wish we could rid the world of such as war and crime.
...
I did not say that hatred is the only motive for the evil (i.e., the hurt) that is plaguing mankind.

A. I did not say you said those things.

You are looking for something to debate that really is a triviality and has no bearing on the discovery.

B. But you still did want to take out the word "hate", nevertheless.

No, I'm not taking out the word hate. People have feelings of hatred against their fellowman. This is not the only emotion, but it is an emotion that is often present before an act of crime is carried out.

C. Evil has a different meaning than "everything that's bad and we no longer want to happen". If you misuse the language, don't blame me for it.

It was clarified in the book, but you wouldn't know.

C. The reason you wanted to take out the word "hate" was to defend against my argument. (You forgot this bit by convenient selective memory.)

The word that was used is insignificant. Replace the word to make it more to your liking. I don't care because IT'S INSIGNIFICANT.

D. But if you take out the word "hate" then your father's promise collapses.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

It does no such thing. Your reasoning is flawed.

[peacegirl]

But you're not right. You are trying to find a flaw because that's your goal, but you are failing miserably. Anybody can do what you're doing and think they disproved a concept by faulty logic. I repeat, the word hate is often a motivating factor based on feelings of unfairness. The word can be replaced by another word of your liking, as long as you understand the gist. This in no way proves your conclusion that the book is nullified because of this one word. This is getting ridiculous.

My opinion is that you are not right, and you can't even tell a valid argument when you see one.

And why don't I read 15 pages? What business is that of yours? You are not the ruler of this world yet, so people don't hop to what you say, and perhaps that is one of your problems: you are still struggling to accept the dichotomy between your expectation (you are the ruler of this world, and people ought to obey you without resistance), and the reality you are experiencing (that you are not the ultimate ruler of the world).

I am trying to accommodate this group by doing what they ask for (condensing the book and picking out the most important parts for people to read). Now you say "what business is that of yours whether I read 15 pages. Huh? And who said I was the ruler of the world? This would be humorous, if it wasn't so unfortunate.

[peacegirl]

But you're not right. You are trying to find a flaw because that's your goal,

No. My goal is not to find the flaw. I have found the flaw a long time ago. Everyone on the whole globe has found it.

Everyone on the globe? I can count the number of people on my one hand who even know about this book. Obviously, more people than 5 know about the book, but not many. I'm trying to change that.

My goal is to make you see the same fault, and you stubbornly refuse to do that.

Point out the flaw other than the ridiculous claim that the entire discovery is refuted because he used the word hate.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote:

The author made it very clear that the knowledge of determinism is NOT the discovery. It is the gateway to the discovery.
There is no world peace because the issue of moral responsibility has not been resolved.

I think that issue has been resolved, for some of us. The world is Deterministic but not predictable due to the chaos of future possibilities. It follows that the more a man knows and understands including self-knowledge the more free he is to select reasoned and/or beautiful choices. His choices will of course influence future possibilities as his choices become causes in their turn. The man who lacks personal responsibility lacks that particular source of knowledge which otherwise would have increased his choices.

[Eodnhoj7]

The question of responsibility and individual free will requires a based system of metaphysics or religion to effectively defined what the human condition, "is", "is not" and "what may be possible".

The problem is grounded in the continual divergence of philosophical and religious schools leading to a number of options that irrevocably result in chaos and uncertainty.

The application of conceptualization is a "root", not the root, to the problem considering to apply boundaries to one phenomenon results in the negation of another.

What is clear, is that problem itself is the answer, as what we observe is a continual process of "change" existing as not just a defining quality in itself but effectively a "boundary" for further change. Change is both a constant and relativistic in these regards and the fundamental premise of change leads us to questioning key foundational axioms of "being", the most universal of which is "space/time".

From these premises, as well as the implication in the title of the thread alone: "Revolution", we are left intuitively and rationally using spatial axioms as the foundational for consciousness that appeals to all degrees of thought, feeling and action in the respect that "space" is the universal axiom; it exists as is regardless of the observer being "empty" headed or not.

Geometry as the Foundation for the Golden Rule:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25189

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wrote:

The author made it very clear that the knowledge of determinism is NOT the discovery. It is the gateway to the discovery.
There is no world peace because the issue of moral responsibility has not been resolved.

I think that issue has been resolved, for some of us.

The issue has been resolved for some due to their particular environment and genetics. I'm trying to show you that moral responsibility will be increased for everyone, not just a few, with the application of this knowledge.

The world is Deterministic but not predictable due to the chaos of future possibilities. It follows that the more a man knows and understands including self-knowledge the more free he is to select reasoned and/or beautiful choices. His choices will of course influence future possibilities as his choices become causes in their turn. The man who lacks personal responsibility lacks that particular source of knowledge which otherwise would have increased his choices.

What you said is more or less true, but as you mentioned many people do not have the same ability or resources that would allow them to know where to start making better choices. Some people have to choose between the lesser of two evils because they have no free or better choice. That is what this book is about. It's about the fact that people are always choosing from among alternatives the best option that is available to them each and every moment of time.

[peacegirl]

The question of responsibility and individual free will requires a based system of metaphysics or religion to effectively defined what the human condition, "is", "is not" and "what may be possible".

The problem is grounded in the continual divergence of philosophical and religious schools leading to a number of options that irrevocably result in chaos and uncertainty.

The application of conceptualization is a "root", not the root, to the problem considering to apply boundaries to one phenomenon results in the negation of another.

What is clear, is that problem itself is the answer, as what we observe is a continual process of "change" existing as not just a defining quality in itself but effectively a "boundary" for further change. Change is both a constant and relativistic in these regards and the fundamental premise of change leads us to questioning key foundational axioms of "being", the most universal of which is "space/time".

From these premises, as well as the implication in the title of the thread alone: "Revolution", we are left intuitively and rationally using spatial axioms as the foundational for consciousness that appeals to all degrees of thought, feeling and action in the respect that "space" is the universal axiom; it exists as is regardless of the observer being "empty" headed or not.

Geometry as the Foundation for the Golden Rule:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25189

Interesting and very thought provoking!

[Eodnhoj7]

The question of responsibility and individual free will requires a based system of metaphysics or religion to effectively defined what the human condition, "is", "is not" and "what may be possible".

The problem is grounded in the continual divergence of philosophical and religious schools leading to a number of options that irrevocably result in chaos and uncertainty.

The application of conceptualization is a "root", not the root, to the problem considering to apply boundaries to one phenomenon results in the negation of another.

What is clear, is that problem itself is the answer, as what we observe is a continual process of "change" existing as not just a defining quality in itself but effectively a "boundary" for further change. Change is both a constant and relativistic in these regards and the fundamental premise of change leads us to questioning key foundational axioms of "being", the most universal of which is "space/time".

From these premises, as well as the implication in the title of the thread alone: "Revolution", we are left intuitively and rationally using spatial axioms as the foundational for consciousness that appeals to all degrees of thought, feeling and action in the respect that "space" is the universal axiom; it exists as is regardless of the observer being "empty" headed or not.

Geometry as the Foundation for the Golden Rule:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25189

Interesting and very thought provoking!

So far, based upon self-reflective and interpersonal dialogue, these foundations seem immutable at the rational/intellectual and intuitive/emotional level of being as well as the sensory/empirical level.

The argument and "proofs" have to be polished is both "wording" and applied sources, but the premise is child-like and simple:

everything stems from a simple point, line circle manifesting itself in infinite variations while still necessitating a deterministic type of law reconciling freewill and determinism to be one and the same thing.

In a short and overly simplistic statement of ethics: We are responsible for ourselves, eachother, and "creation" as all exist as extensions of the other through the Logos or "Divine Reason". Mankind is a "logos" through the "Logos", and as such all actions of creation/destruction/maintainance have moral and ethical foundations by there congruence with a cosmic order which exists "as is".

Our basic actions, whether of thought/word/deed, may have more meaning than we believe and our "role" much more significant.

[henry quirk]

Challenge accepted. I'll read the fifteen this weekend and comment after. Please, post the link again or send it to my in-forum mailbox.

[peacegirl]

Challenge accepted. I'll read the fifteen this weekend and comment after. Please, post the link again or send it to my in-forum mailbox.

Please know that this 15 pages (pages 45-60) explains why man's will is not free. It IS NOT the discovery, which is in Chapter Two. Chapter Three shows how these principles work in a real life situation.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... tQkenlw6ek

[Eodnhoj7]

Challenge accepted. I'll read the fifteen this weekend and comment after. Please, post the link again or send it to my in-forum mailbox.

Please know that this 15 pages (pages 45-60) explains why man's will is not free. It IS NOT the discovery, which is in Chapter Two. Chapter Three shows how these principles work in a real life situation.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... tQkenlw6ek

While reading through the material, I will respond to this statement of "absence of free will".

1. If man has no free will.

2. And the question of free will observes a dualism in the matter.

3. Then free will is an illusion.

4. But if free will is an illusion, and illusions necessitate a form of deception, then man has free will.

5. Man has both free will and no freewill; however this dualism is quantitatively objective.

6. A center point approach is necessary where free will is merely a medial point of observation between extremes of a situation (internal or external).

7. As a center point free will may simply be a process of synthesising the extremes observed, diverging them, or effectively doing nothing but move with them and as such maintaining them.