Determinism

[peacegirl]

@iambiguous

@peacegirl

I already explained that abortion is not going to be a common practice. With better contraception, financial security, and happier relationships, people will want their babies. Even if a mother decides this is what she wants to do, it is up to her, even if other’s disagree.

@iambiguous

No, in my opinion, you have merely asserted these things. You have not at all adequately explained to me how all of this must unfold given the manner in which I argue that conflicting goods embedded in abortion [and in execution and in all of the other conflicting value judgments noted above] would seem to forever be among us. And, if they are, satisfaction and dissatisfaction will always revolve around the same set of behaviors. And, if some are dissatisfied with those who perform/obtain abortions, they will seek to punish those behaviors.

@peacegirl

I don’t know how many times, and in how many ways, I need to explain that there will always be conflicting value judgments in these grey areas. The only difference is that no one will force a mother to give birth against her will. You keep talking about executions. How does this come into play when no one will be executed as a means of punishment?

@iambiguous

Likewise, I have noted time and again how, in asserting this, you have not shown us the manner in which this can then be demonstrated empirically and experientially to be true. Whereas I argue that the reason there are now conflicting value judgments is because they are rooted in conflicting goods: some insist that the babies ought to be born, others insist that the women ought not to be forced to give birth.

How then will these conflicting goods not also exist in the “new world”? After all, if no one forces the woman to give birth her baby dies. And that will surely dissatisfy some to the point that they will then wish to punish this behavior.

This has nothing to do with how other people feel about abortion. It’s not up to them. In the new world no one is going to judge another person. Abortion has to be left up to the mother. There is no punishment that will stop someone from aborting a fetus, if that’s what they want to do. In the new world abortions will be performed less and less as women no longer conceive out of wedlock, and couples stay together.

@iambiguous

And, circularly, no one will be executed in the new world only because everyone has come to embrace Lessans’ discovery. But the only reason everyone has come to embrace Lessans’ discovery is that they must come to embrace it. And they must come to embrace it because Lessans’ discovery and the design are at one. Around and around the reasoning goes.

There is no circularity. You’re making it sound that way by how you constructed the sentence. Of course, the discovery has to be understood and applied on a global scale for these principles to work. How can anyone not embrace this discovery once it is confirmed valid. The end of evil (hurt) in human relations is what everyone has been hoping and praying for since time immemorial.

@iambiguous

None of this, however, is demonstrated much beyond you merely asserting that it is only what can ever be. Well, in the only opinion I can ever have now, anyway.

The conflicting goods embedded in capital punishment are still the same: justice for the family of the murdered victim or justice for the family of the man to be executed. How does that go away?

It goes away because we’re not going to be living in a punitive environment. Why would we have to punish when people stop doing that for which punishment came into existence?

@iambiguous

Now, if I understand you, it all becomes subsumed in this new “universal conscience” derived from the new understanding that we will all have about these things once Lessans’ discovery is understood by everyone to be the way these things can only be understood. Even though the fact that this is not understood in the world today is also the only way these things could ever actually have been understood today.

That is true, but no one has actually investigated this work. This book has not been distributed.

@iambiguous

You argue that scientists can in fact confirm Lessans’ discovery but that they won’t need to once they see the validity of his observations. But how is this any less just another assertion? And how will they see this when you stay here rather than go there?

I don’t know how they will see this, or if they will want to study the principles. I don’t even know whether they are the right people to investigate this work. Maybe I need a more open-minded group of people altogether. It’s ashame that I can’t get a response when I email them. All I know is that these principles are accurate. And conscience works exactly as he described. You can test this on yourself.

@iambiguous

The absense of war may well be an unjust peace. And some argue that since property is theft, any behaviors aimed at dismanting it leads necessarily to a better world. Indeed, some argue that capitalism itself ensures perpetuating a world in which the wealth of some is predicated on the poverty of others.

@peacegirl

We’re not talking about capitalism. Every one will have an equal chance to get ahead. And I am not talking about an unjust peace. I am talking about a just peace where there is no discrimination.

@iambiguous

How is this not just another idealistic assertion regarding what you believe to be true “in your head”?

@peacegirl

Because the demonstration is absolutely spot on. It was not just in his head, or my head for believing it. This is skepticism that has gone too far.

@iambiguous

This may well be true. But I will continue to raise my objections until I am satisfied that we are on the same page regarding what can in fact be construed objectively as an actual demonstration.

Note to others: If you do believe that this demonstration has been made, please, by all means, offer up your own assessment.

How can anyone offer an assessment of something they have not read iambiguous?

@iambiguous

In a world where an actual means of production must exist in order that the goods and the services we need to subsist from day to day are manufactured and distributed, decisions will have to be made regarding how this gets done…and who gets what. And throughout all of human history there have been [at times] brutally conflicting political narratives regarding how to accomplish this. And wealth and power have invariably been the deciding factor in “resolving” these conflicts.

@peacegirl

I understand that, but you are not understanding how this law extends into the economic system. He wrote a 100 page chapter on this. Without economic security these principles cannot work because self-preservation is the first law of nature.

@iambiguous

Okay, what is his argument regarding how we achieve “economic security” such that peace and prosperity will become available for all in the new world?

Peace and prosperity will become available for every human being, but you will never know his proof of this until you read the book. How can I even begin to discuss the economic chapter when you don’t understand the foundational principles?

@iambiguous

How in particular is this to be accomplished given the clearly entrenched arguments embedded in conflicting goods that revolve around assumptions that revolve around opposing assessments of the capitalist and socialist political economy? How for all practical purposes will their contradictory narratives be subsumed in this new “universal consciousness”?

There is an entire chapter (over 100 pages) on the economic system. For you to deny the possibility of peace based on your limited knowledge is being premature.

@iambiguous

For example, what will the actual existential relationship be between the individual in society and the role of the government pertaining to behaviors prescribed and behaviors proscribed. With regard to, say, conscription or property rights or the separation of church and state. Or, sure, abortion or execution.

You have no idea what you’re talking about in regard to the veracity of these principles. Really truly, if you find this book even a little bit intriguing, it seems to me that you would want to learn more.

@iambiguous

But how does one really distinguish what we think, feel and do in our dreams from our waking thoughts, emotions and behaviors? Sans free will, they still would seem to involve matter interacting with other matter only as matter can interact with other matter.

Now, dreams we clearly recognize as being beyond our control. They are instead an autonomic function of our brain. But are not our waking interactions autonomic functions of the design? We possess only the illusion of freely choosing what we think, feel and do. Then folks like you make the distinction between those who are or are not cognizant of this. But being or not being cognizant still does not change what must be.

@peacegirl

I never made the distinction that we fall outside of the design. I was only stating that we are more than sophisticated ants because of our ability to contemplate.

@iambiguous

But our ability to understand anything is not something that we choose freely to understand. We understand only what we must understand. The ants of course undertand none of this “philosophically”. But they are no less compelled to do what they do than we are. The design here is [of necessity] all. There is only recognizing this as you do or not recognizing it as me and the ants don’t. The ants however are never able to contemplate it in this way at all. But otherwise aren’t they just like us?

We’re alike in that sense, but you are assuming that because everyone must do as they must (even the ants), that we (as human beings) cannot change the trajectory of our lives. We can.

@peacegirl

There is no real difference in the sense that we are controlled by determinism. In our dreams we can do, say, and experience things that we could never do in our waking life even though everything we do, say, and experience in either a dream state or a waking state is a chemical/neurological interaction. This fact does not turn us into sophisticated ants even though we cannot help but choose what we must choose. Ants have no ability to ponder, meditate on, consider, think about, question, ruminate, contemplate, decide; and even though this ability is also part of the design it does offer us a choice, although not a free one.

@iambiguous

You seem to be acknowledging here that everything we do – either while dreaming or awake – is derived from inherent chemical/neurological components of the design. That, in other words, these interactions are derived in turn from the ubiquitous laws of matter. And, while I don’t know if ants dream, it would seem these same chemical/neurological variables pertain to their existence as well.

Bottom line then [mine]: If everything we “ponder, meditate on, consider, think about, question, ruminate, contemplate and decide” is no less rooted in the same laws of matter that compel the behaviors of the ants, then we are just more complex biological, organic mechanisms in the design.

But: We can know that we are and the ants can’t.

@peacegirl

As a species we are different from ants because we can alter our course by becoming aware of certain problems and finding solutions that go beyond mere instinct. In the sense of being part of a complex design, we are similar to other creatures.

@iambiguous

Yeah, that’s the distinction: we are aware that we choose our behaviors while the ants by and large are much closer to the brute facticity embedded in those autonomic chemical and neurological interactions.

But, just like the ants, we do only what we cannot not do. So, are we then better off or not being aware of the consequences of what we choose? Well, that depends on whether the consequences bring us pleasure or pain. Still, in any event, the behaviors that we choose, the pleasurable or painful consequences they bring and our subjunctive reaction to that is all of a whole. It is always a reflection of the laws of matter ineluctably spiralling into the fated future.

Nothing can escape that. Why? Because the design encompasses the totality of reality/existence itself.

As far as I can tell, this is where you stopped re my 2/15 post.

Every species is subject to deterministic laws, but humans are much more complex. This complexity is allowing us to be more than robots spiraling into the fated future without an ability to alter our course. That does not mean we are acting outside of the design, but it does allow us to veer in a new direction.

[iambiguous]

@peacegirl

I don’t know how many times, and in how many ways, I need to explain that there will always be conflicting value judgments in these grey areas. The only difference is that no one will force a mother to give birth against her will. You keep talking about executions. How does this come into play when no one will be executed as a means of punishment?

@iambiguous

Likewise, I have noted time and again how, in asserting this, you have not shown us the manner in which this can then be demonstrated empirically and experientially to be true. Whereas I argue that the reason there are now conflicting value judgments is because they are rooted in conflicting goods: some insist that the babies ought to be born, others insist that the women ought not to be forced to give birth.

How then will these conflicting goods not also exist in the “new world”? After all, if no one forces the woman to give birth her baby dies. And that will surely dissatisfy some to the point that they will then wish to punish this behavior.

@peacegirl

This has nothing to do with how other people feel about abortion. It’s not up to them. In the new world no one is going to judge another person. Abortion has to be left up to the mother. There is no punishment that will stop someone from aborting a fetus, if that’s what they want to do. In the new world abortions will be performed less and less as women no longer conceive out of wedlock, and couples stay together.

I can only repeat that you assert this but do not offer a substantive explanation as to how the conflicting goods embedded in abortion [as they clearly are in the world today] are somehow subsumed into your “universal consciousness” in the new world. Other than by insisting that everyone will be compelled by Lessans’ discovery to think like you do now.

Basically, you are saying that somehow people who believe that abortion is immoral [even premeditated murder] in the world today won’t think that way [in some less than clearly defined future] because somehow no one will blame the women who kill their babies. Meanwhile either the babies must die or the pregnant women must be forced to give birth.

@iambiguous

And, circularly, no one will be executed in the new world only because everyone has come to embrace Lessans’ discovery. But the only reason everyone has come to embrace Lessans’ discovery is that they must come to embrace it. And they must come to embrace it because Lessans’ discovery and the design are at one. Around and around the reasoning goes.

@peacegirl

There is no circularity. You’re making it sound that way by how you constructed the sentence. Of course, the discovery has to be understood and applied on a global scale for these principles to work. How can anyone not embrace this discovery once it is confirmed valid. The end of evil (hurt) in human relations is what everyone has been hoping and praying for since time immemorial.

From my frame of mind, you are arguing that in the future there will be no executions because no one will choose to behave in a manner that folks today would insist warrents execution. But the only way we can achieve such a world is when everyone thinks about blame and punishment the way Lessans does. But the only way they can do this to make contact with his discovery.

And this must be what does in fact happen or else we would not have this world where everyone does think like he did and you do.

And the really surreal part [for me] is that you are out there trying to convince folks to give Lessans’ book a try while predicting that Lessans discovery will necessarily be instrumental in bringing about a world that could not not have unfolded other than as it must. Lessans and his book are just two more cogs in the machine.

And yet you will sometimes seem quite exasperated when others do not embrace him now. All the while “just knowing” that the world must embrace him someday. And they must embrace him or else how can we come to embrace a world where in fact executions are a thing of the past. And where the sort of behaviors that precipitate calls for executions are also a thing of the past.

All of which you sincerely believe to be true in your head. And yet from my point of view this belief is basically in direct proportion to the lack of any substantial empirical/experiential evidence that scientists and others might use to verify his arguments. Or to replicate his observations.

Again:

@iambiguous

Now, if I understand you, it all becomes subsumed in this new “universal conscience” derived from the new understanding that we will all have about these things once Lessans’ discovery is understood by everyone to be the way these things can only be understood. Even though the fact that this is not understood in the world today is also the only way these things could ever actually have been understood today.

@peacegirl

That is true, but no one has actually investigated this work. This book has not been distributed.

How can one not sense here that in some manner you are blaming folks for not investigating his work when you are also aware that in not investigating it they are fully in accord with the design? And why can’t you just sit back knowing full well that it is inevitable that some day the world will. Otherwise how can this world that he predicts ever come to be.

Here in fact is where I always suspect that you have not fully given up the ghost in the machine yourself. Or whatever it is we wish to call this aspect of human consciousness that, in a truly visceral and intuitive manner, seems to persuade most of us that, in some capacity we not able to explain objectively, free will is “in there” somewhere. Somehow.

It’s just peculiar to me how you seem driven to help in creating a new world that you are absolutely convinced can never not become other than what it must become anyway.

It is as though you are that puppet who has discovered the strings which choreograph all that she thinks, feels and does; and instead of being appalled that none of it is what she has actually freely chosen of her own accord, takes pride in the discovery itself. In being “at one” with the very necessity of existence existing only as it ever could exist.

@iambiguous

You argue that scientists can in fact confirm Lessans’ discovery but that they won’t need to once they see the validity of his observations. But how is this any less just another assertion? And how will they see this when you stay here rather than go there?

@peacegirl

I don’t know how they will see this, or if they will want to study the principles. I don’t even know whether they are the right people to investigate this work. Maybe I need a more open-minded group of people altogether. It’s ashame that I can’t get a response when I email them. All I know is that these principles are accurate. And conscience works exactly as he described. You can test this on yourself.

But again that’s the beauty of the way in which you understand the world. It really does not matter at all that you don’t know how they will see it. Lessans’ discovery is such that they must see it. Otherwise his predictions about the new world necessarily collapse. Necessity in fact is everywhere in your narrative.

And how would I test my conscience such that my assessment of conflicting goods is rendered null and void? And if my understanding of conscience as the embodiment of dasein is true than I am back to this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

I have yet to understand how Lessans’ discovery makes this any less reasonable. Or how in that new world it just goes away.

@iambiguous

In a world where an actual means of production must exist in order that the goods and the services we need to subsist from day to day are manufactured and distributed, decisions will have to be made regarding how this gets done…and who gets what. And throughout all of human history there have been [at times] brutally conflicting political narratives regarding how to accomplish this. And wealth and power have invariably been the deciding factor in “resolving” these conflicts.

@peacegirl

I understand that, but you are not understanding how this law extends into the economic system. He wrote a 100 page chapter on this. Without economic security these principles cannot work because self-preservation is the first law of nature.

@iambiguous

Okay, what is his argument regarding how we achieve “economic security” such that peace and prosperity will become available for all in the new world?

@peacegirl

Peace and prosperity will become available for every human being, but you will never know his proof of this until you read the book. How can I even begin to discuss the economic chapter when you don’t understand the foundational principles?

Well, we seem to be stuck then. Given all of the other obligations and commitments I affix my time to in the here and now, I need to be persuaded to invest what little of it I have left in an argument that, given all of your excerpts to date, contain almost nothing that would motivate me to expend it.

Here I react to you as to someone who embraces one or another religious narrative insisting that everything will become clear once I am willing to take the time to read their own rendition of the Bible. Meanwhile none of their excerpts have managed to convince me that their own beliefs are not just a leap of faith – a “knowledge” predicated on what they have come to believe is true “in their heads”.

They offer me nothing that might enable me to believe in turn that their God does in fact exist.

Back again to, “Where’s the beef”?

And here you do not even provide the excerpts.

@peacegirl

I never made the distinction that we fall outside of the design. I was only stating that we are more than sophisticated ants because of our ability to contemplate.

@iambiguous

But our ability to understand anything is not something that we choose freely to understand. We understand only what we must understand. The ants of course undertand none of this “philosophically”. But they are no less compelled to do what they do than we are. The design here is [of necessity] all. There is only recognizing this as you do or not recognizing it as me and the ants don’t. The ants however are never able to contemplate it in this way at all. But otherwise aren’t they just like us?

@peacegirl

We’re alike in that sense, but you are assuming that because everyone must do as they must (even the ants), that we (as human beings) cannot change the trajectory of our lives. We can.

But the crucial distinction for me is still the same: that we do not choose freely to change that trajectory. On the contrary, here we are interchangable with the ants, right? The only really substantial difference would seem to be that ants are oblivious to anything relating to either a “trajectory” or to “changing it”. Their “minds” are more clearly just material mechanisms wholely subsumed in the instincts given them by the evolution of life on earth. Our own minds on the other hand have evolved such they we are matter able to actually contemplate itself as matter “self-consciously”. But so what? Like the ants we are still no less compelled to do only what we must do.

@peacegirl

As a species we are different from ants because we can alter our course by becoming aware of certain problems and finding solutions that go beyond mere instinct. In the sense of being part of a complex design, we are similar to other creatures.

@iambiguous

Yeah, that’s the distinction: we are aware that we choose our behaviors while the ants by and large are much closer to the brute facticity embedded in those autonomic chemical and neurological interactions.

But, just like the ants, we do only what we cannot not do. So, are we then better off or not being aware of the consequences of what we choose? Well, that depends on whether the consequences bring us pleasure or pain. Still, in any event, the behaviors that we choose, the pleasurable or painful consequences they bring and our subjunctive reaction to that is all of a whole. It is always a reflection of the laws of matter ineluctably spiralling into the fated future.

Nothing can escape that. Why? Because the design encompasses the totality of reality/existence itself.

@peacegirl

Every species is subject to deterministic laws, but humans are much more complex. This complexity is allowing us to be more than robots spiraling into the fated future without an ability to alter our course. That does not mean we are acting outside of the design, but it does allow us to veer in a new direction.

But how is that really different from this:

Kyle: The Terminator’s an infiltration unit. Part man, part machine. Underneath it’s a hyper-alloy combat chassis. Microprocessor controlled. Fully armoured, very tough. Outside it’s living human tissue. Flesh, skin, hair, blood - grown for the cyborgs. We spotted them easy. But these are new. They look human. Sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero him.

In other words, within the design, a level of complexity is just understood. But the bottom line would always seem to remain the same: ants or humankind, we all do only what we must do.

Not calling us robots then is just semantics to me. If we must act “within the design” any new direction that we do veer into is only as it ever can be.

Just as with the ants sans minds able to grasp it.

[peacegirl]

@iambiguous

@peacegirl

I don’t know how many times, and in how many ways, I need to explain that there will always be conflicting value judgments in these grey areas. The only difference is that no one will force a mother to give birth against her will. You keep talking about executions. How does this come into play when no one will be executed as a means of punishment?

@iambiguous

Likewise, I have noted time and again how, in asserting this, you have not shown us the manner in which this can then be demonstrated empirically and experientially to be true. Whereas I argue that the reason there are now conflicting value judgments is because they are rooted in conflicting goods: some insist that the babies ought to be born, others insist that the women ought not to be forced to give birth.

How then will these conflicting goods not also exist in the “new world”? After all, if no one forces the woman to give birth her baby dies. And that will surely dissatisfy some to the point that they will then wish to punish this behavior.

But no one is going to punish anyone in the new world. That’s the whole point. How can we blame or punish anyone for doing what they are compelled to do? People will know this going in, and if they don’t want to sign the agreement that they will never blame anyone for anything, they don’t have to become citizens. This agreement is a requirement in order to get the transition underway.

@peacegirl

This has nothing to do with how other people feel about abortion. It’s not up to them. In the new world no one is going to judge another person. Abortion has to be left up to the mother. There is no punishment that will stop someone from aborting a fetus, if that’s what they want to do. In the new world abortions will be performed less and less as women no longer conceive out of wedlock, and couples stay together.

@iambiguous

I can only repeat that you assert this but do not offer a substantive explanation as to how the conflicting goods embedded in abortion [as they clearly are in the world today] are somehow subsumed into your “universal consciousness” in the new world. Other than by insisting that everyone will be compelled by Lessans’ discovery to think like you do now.

And I can only repeat that this particular issue is not going to be subsumed into the universal consciousness. There will be some people who will think it’s killing, other’s won’t. But just as women are not put in jail for aborting a fetus, so too, no one will blame or punish this woman for doing what she feels is necessary given her circumstances.

@iambiguous

Basically, you are saying that somehow people who believe that abortion is immoral [even premeditated murder] in the world today won’t think that way [in some less than clearly defined future] because somehow no one will blame the women who kill their babies. Meanwhile either the babies must die or the pregnant women must be forced to give birth.

This conflict may still exist, but since it’s the woman who has to bear the child, it is not up to others to tell her what she must do to satisfy them. They are not in her shoes. We’re learning to mind our own business and not judge the rightness or wrongness of anyone’s actions. I know you don’t understand how this makes conscience stronger, but that’s only because you have not read the book.

@iambiguous

And, circularly, no one will be executed in the new world only because everyone has come to embrace Lessans’ discovery. But the only reason everyone has come to embrace Lessans’ discovery is that they must come to embrace it. And they must come to embrace it because Lessans’ discovery and the design are at one. Around and around the reasoning goes.

@peacegirl

There is no circularity. You’re making it sound that way by how you constructed the sentence. Of course, the discovery has to be understood and applied on a global scale for these principles to work. How can anyone not embrace this discovery once it is confirmed valid. The end of evil (hurt) in human relations is what everyone has been hoping and praying for since time immemorial.

@iambiguous

From my frame of mind, you are arguing that in the future there will be no executions because no one will choose to behave in a manner that folks today would insist warrents execution. But the only way we can achieve such a world is when everyone thinks about blame and punishment the way Lessans does. But the only way they can do this to make contact with his discovery.

That’s true. This discovery needs to be brought to light. When people realize that removing all blame and punishment from the environment will make for a more peaceful world, they will desire this.

@iambiguous

And this must be what does in fact happen or else we would not have this world where everyone does think like he did and you do.

I don’t know of any other way that can permanently remove all of the ills that have been plaguing man’s relation to his fellow man.

@iambiguous

And the really surreal part [for me] is that you are out there trying to convince folks to give Lessans’ book a try while predicting that Lessans discovery will necessarily be instrumental in bringing about a world that could not not have unfolded other than as it must. Lessans and his book are just two more cogs in the machine.

You are absolutely right; it could not not unfold as it must, but part of the unfolding involves my participation, which is also part of the design. The world is the way it is because of our efforts, even though we are acting in accordance with our nature.

@iambiguous

And yet you will sometimes seem quite exasperated when others do not embrace him now. All the while “just knowing” that the world must embrace him someday. And they must embrace him or else how can we come to embrace a world where in fact executions are a thing of the past. And where the sort of behaviors that precipitate calls for executions are also a thing of the past.

I feel exasperated when people won’t even give me the time of day or the courtesy of giving this man the benefit of the doubt, especially after I made this book so affordable. But because I know that it is how it must be, it takes the sting away. It’s just a momentary feeling. It’s not about them embracing him. It’s about them embracing the principles which are undeniable. Whether it was him or someone else, this law of our nature is part of the real world; not some intellectual contraption that he conjured up.

@iambiguous

All of which you sincerely believe to be true in your head. And yet from my point of view this belief is basically in direct proportion to the lack of any substantial empirical/experiential evidence that scientists and others might use to verify his arguments. Or to replicate his observations.

Again:

@iambiguous

Now, if I understand you, it all becomes subsumed in this new “universal conscience” derived from the new understanding that we will all have about these things once Lessans’ discovery is understood by everyone to be the way these things can only be understood. Even though the fact that this is not understood in the world today is also the only way these things could ever actually have been understood today.

@peacegirl

That is true, but no one has actually investigated this work. This book has not been distributed.

@iambiguous

How can one not sense here that in some manner you are blaming folks for not investigating his work when you are also aware that in not investigating it they are fully in accord with the design? And why can’t you just sit back knowing full well that it is inevitable that some day the world will. Otherwise how can this world that he predicts ever come to be.

I’m not blaming anyone, but I am frustrated because I know that this is an important discovery that has the power to change our world for the better. It’s a heavy weight on me knowing that this discovery is here and very few people even know about it, and those who do don’t even care to learn more.

@iambiguous

Here in fact is where I always suspect that you have not fully given up the ghost in the machine yourself. Or whatever it is we wish to call this aspect of human consciousness that, in a truly visceral and intuitive manner, seems to persuade most of us that, in some capacity we not able to explain objectively, free will is “in there” somewhere. Somehow.

No it isn’t. It’s a delusion that we have free will. There is no ghost in the machine just because of a visceral feeling, which is nothing more than saying “I feel as if I have free will because I want to believe that I have free will.”

@iambiguous

It’s just peculiar to me how you seem driven to help in creating a new world that you are absolutely convinced can never not become other than what it must become anyway.

That is true, but my effort to bring this discovery to light sooner rather than later might tip the scale in favor of this new world coming into existence in 25 years rather than in another thousand years.

@iambiguous

It is as though you are that puppet who has discovered the strings which choreograph all that she thinks, feels and does; and instead of being appalled that none of it is what she has actually freely chosen of her own accord, takes pride in the discovery itself. In being “at one” with the very necessity of existence existing only as it ever could exist.

Now you are making stuff up. I don’t feel pride but I will have a sense of satisfaction knowing that I did my part, even though I could not not have done my part.

@iambiguous

You argue that scientists can in fact confirm Lessans’ discovery but that they won’t need to once they see the validity of his observations. But how is this any less just another assertion? And how will they see this when you stay here rather than go there?

@peacegirl

I don’t know how they will see this, or if they will want to study the principles. I don’t even know whether they are the right people to investigate this work. Maybe I need a more open-minded group of people altogether. It’s ashame that I can’t get a response when I email them. All I know is that these principles are accurate. And conscience works exactly as he described. You can test this on yourself.

@iambiguous

But again that’s the beauty of the way in which you understand the world. It really does not matter at all that you don’t know how they will see it. Lessans’ discovery is such that they must see it. Otherwise his predictions about the new world necessarily collapse. Necessity in fact is everywhere in your narrative.

Of course it is, and there will be those who see the validity of this psychological law. This has nothing to do with “the beauty of the way in which I understand the world.” Please stop making this MY issue. It has nothing to do with me.

@iambiguous

And how would I test my conscience such that my assessment of conflicting goods is rendered null and void? And if my understanding of conscience as the embodiment of dasein is true than I am back to this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

I have yet to understand how Lessans’ discovery makes this any less reasonable. Or how in that new world it just goes away.

It does go away but not in regard to the grey areas, which we have to surrender to if we are going to commit to not blaming or punishing anyone at all.

@iambiguous

In a world where an actual means of production must exist in order that the goods and the services we need to subsist from day to day are manufactured and distributed, decisions will have to be made regarding how this gets done…and who gets what. And throughout all of human history there have been [at times] brutally conflicting political narratives regarding how to accomplish this. And wealth and power have invariably been the deciding factor in “resolving” these conflicts.

@peacegirl

I understand that, but you are not understanding how this law extends into the economic system. He wrote a 100 page chapter on this. Without economic security these principles cannot work because self-preservation is the first law of nature.

@iambiguous

Okay, what is his argument regarding how we achieve “economic security” such that peace and prosperity will become available for all in the new world?

@peacegirl

Peace and prosperity will become available for every human being, but you will never know his proof of this until you read the book. How can I even begin to discuss the economic chapter when you don’t understand the foundational principles?

@iambiguous

Well, we seem to be stuck then. Given all of the other obligations and commitments I affix my time to in the here and now, I need to be persuaded to invest what little of it I have left in an argument that, given all of your excerpts to date, contain almost nothing that would motivate me to expend it.

That is up to you iambiguous. I hope you see value in our discussion and want to continue on. I am not obligated either.

@iambiguous

Here I react to you as to someone who embraces one or another religious narrative insisting that everything will become clear once I am willing to take the time to read their own rendition of the Bible. Meanwhile none of their excerpts have managed to convince me that their own beliefs are not just a leap of faith – a “knowledge” predicated on what they have come to believe is true “in their heads”.

They offer me nothing that might enable me to believe in turn that their God does in fact exist.

Back again to, “Where’s the beef”?

And here you do not even provide the excerpts.

You don’t have to take the time if you don’t want to. Who can force you? But I can’t prostrate myself and beg you to read what you don’t yet understand. This is up to you, according to the design you were meant to follow.

@peacegirl

I never made the distinction that we fall outside of the design. I was only stating that we are more than sophisticated ants because of our ability to contemplate.

@iambiguous

But our ability to understand anything is not something that we choose freely to understand. We understand only what we must understand. The ants of course undertand none of this “philosophically”. But they are no less compelled to do what they do than we are. The design here is [of necessity] all. There is only recognizing this as you do or not recognizing it as me and the ants don’t. The ants however are never able to contemplate it in this way at all. But otherwise aren’t they just like us?

@peacegirl

We’re alike in that sense, but you are assuming that because everyone must do as they must (even the ants), that we (as human beings) cannot change the trajectory of our lives. We can.

@iambiguous

But the crucial distinction for me is still the same: that we do not choose freely to change that trajectory. On the contrary, here we are interchangable with the ants, right? The only really substantial difference would seem to be that ants are oblivious to anything relating to either a “trajectory” or to “changing it”. Their “minds” are more clearly just material mechanisms wholely subsumed in the instincts given them by the evolution of life on earth. Our own minds on the other hand have evolved such they we are matter able to actually contemplate itself as matter “self-consciously”. But so what? Like the ants we are still no less compelled to do only what we must do.

And that’s a good thing. This IS our saving grace even if you don’t see it yet.

@peacegirl

As a species we are different from ants because we can alter our course by becoming aware of certain problems and finding solutions that go beyond mere instinct. In the sense of being part of a complex design, we are similar to other creatures.

@iambiguous

Yeah, that’s the distinction: we are aware that we choose our behaviors while the ants by and large are much closer to the brute facticity embedded in those autonomic chemical and neurological interactions.

But, just like the ants, we do only what we cannot not do. So, are we then better off or not being aware of the consequences of what we choose? Well, that depends on whether the consequences bring us pleasure or pain. Still, in any event, the behaviors that we choose, the pleasurable or painful consequences they bring and our subjunctive reaction to that is all of a whole. It is always a reflection of the laws of matter ineluctably spiralling into the fated future.

Nothing can escape that. Why? Because the design encompasses the totality of reality/existence itself.

And you said it perfectly. Although we are part of the design, we have been given the ability to change our trajectory by which we can enjoy more pleasure and avoid more pain. What can be better than that?

@peacegirl

Every species is subject to deterministic laws, but humans are much more complex. This complexity is allowing us to be more than robots spiraling into the fated future without an ability to alter our course. That does not mean we are acting outside of the design, but it does allow us to veer in a new direction.

@iambiguous

But how is that really different from this:

Kyle: The Terminator’s an infiltration unit. Part man, part machine. Underneath it’s a hyper-alloy combat chassis. Microprocessor controlled. Fully armoured, very tough. Outside it’s living human tissue. Flesh, skin, hair, blood - grown for the cyborgs. We spotted them easy. But these are new. They look human. Sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero him.

In other words, within the design, a level of complexity is just understood. But the bottom line would always seem to remain the same: ants or humankind, we all do only what we must do.

Not calling us robots then is just semantics to me. If we must act “within the design” any new direction that we do veer into is only as it ever can be.

Not calling us robots is more than semantics. Robots have no conscience, even if they have been programmed to react in a certain way that makes it appear as if they do. Man is unique in that he does have a conscience, and he does have the mindfullness to think through and analyze situations that allow him to figure out how to make things better. We cannot compare ourselves to ants on this level, although we are all subjected to the laws of our nature. Nuff said.

@iambiguous

Just as with the ants sans minds able to grasp it.

It’s more than that iambiguous, and until you recognize this you will continue to defend your position even if it holds no weight.

[iambiguous]

@peacegirl

I don’t know how many times, and in how many ways, I need to explain that there will always be conflicting value judgments in these grey areas. The only difference is that no one will force a mother to give birth against her will. You keep talking about executions. How does this come into play when no one will be executed as a means of punishment?

@iambiguous

Likewise, I have noted time and again how, in asserting this, you have not shown us the manner in which this can then be demonstrated empirically and experientially to be true. Whereas I argue that the reason there are now conflicting value judgments is because they are rooted in conflicting goods: some insist that the babies ought to be born, others insist that the women ought not to be forced to give birth.

How then will these conflicting goods not also exist in the “new world”? After all, if no one forces the woman to give birth her baby dies. And that will surely dissatisfy some to the point that they will then wish to punish this behavior.

@peacegirl

But no one is going to punish anyone in the new world. That’s the whole point. How can we blame or punish anyone for doing what they are compelled to do? People will know this going in, and if they don’t want to sign the agreement that they will never blame anyone for anything, they don’t have to become citizens. This agreement is a requirement in order to get the transition underway.

I’m sorry, but I really do not see how your reasoning here is an adequate response to the points I raise. After all, everyone in the world today does only what they must, but blame and punishment is as rampant as ever.

And are not people going to sign or not sign this hypothetical agreement only because they either must or must not sign it?

And, signing it or not, when women become pregnant they will either choose to kill their unborn baby or they will choose to give birth in order not to be punished by those who choose to believe that abortion is necessarily immoral.

Old world, new world, the conflicting goods are still there.

@peacegirl

This has nothing to do with how other people feel about abortion. It’s not up to them. In the new world no one is going to judge another person. Abortion has to be left up to the mother. There is no punishment that will stop someone from aborting a fetus, if that’s what they want to do. In the new world abortions will be performed less and less as women no longer conceive out of wedlock, and couples stay together.

@iambiguous

I can only repeat that you assert this but do not offer a substantive explanation as to how the conflicting goods embedded in abortion [as they clearly are in the world today] are somehow subsumed into your “universal consciousness” in the new world. Other than by insisting that everyone will be compelled by Lessans’ discovery to think like you do now.

@peacegirl

And I can only repeat that this particular issue is not going to be subsumed into the universal consciousness.
There will be some people who will think it’s killing, other’s won’t. But just as women are not put in jail for aborting a fetus, so too, no one will blame or punish this woman for doing what she feels is necessary given her circumstances.

Well, for all practical purposes then, you are telling me that some people will still think abortion is immoral, wrong, the killing of an innocent human being etc., but they won’t blame [or punish] women who still choose to abort.

And, as I see it, neither you nor Lessans have provided any tangible evidence to substantiate this much beyond insisting that it cannot not happen because Lessans prophesized that it must happen in this “new world” that he envisions “in his head”.

Or:

@iambiguous

Basically, you are saying that somehow people who believe that abortion is immoral [even premeditated murder] in the world today won’t think that way [in some less than clearly defined future] because somehow no one will blame the women who kill their babies. Meanwhile either the babies must die or the pregnant women must be forced to give birth.

@peacegirl

This conflict may still exist, but since it’s the woman who has to bear the child, it is not up to others to tell her what she must do to satisfy them. They are not in her shoes. We’re learning to mind our own business and not judge the rightness or wrongness of anyone’s actions. I know you don’t understand how this makes conscience stronger, but that’s only because you have not read the book.

It’s not really up to the women either. Not freely up to them. Instead, they will “choose” to abort or not to abort in order to be wholly in sync with the design. No one is in his or her own shoes in that sense. The shoes [and the people in them] are all just necessary cogs in the machine.

And, just out of curiosity, you began this thread over 5 years ago. In the interim, how many people have you managed to convince to read this book? And how many of them came to embrace Lessans’ discovery? Is it possible for you to invite any that did to join us in this exchange? That way others might be able to come up with different ways in which to reframe Lessans’ arguments such they they might convince me to give it a shot.

@iambiguous

From my frame of mind, you are arguing that in the future there will be no executions because no one will choose to behave in a manner that folks today would insist warrents execution. But the only way we can achieve such a world is when everyone thinks about blame and punishment the way Lessans does. But the only way they can do this to make contact with his discovery.

@peacegirl

That’s true. This discovery needs to be brought to light. When people realize that removing all blame and punishment from the environment will make for a more peaceful world, they will desire this.

Okay, let’s focus on that. You seem to be suggesting here there is the possibility that Lessans’ new world will fail to materialize because you and others are not successful in convincing enough people [or the right people] to sign on.

Is this the case?

This would mean that, even though the future is fated to be only what the future can ever be [per the immutable laws of matter], the design may unfold such that you are not able to achieve what you tell us must be achieved.

Is this an accurate assessment? I was under the impression that you were arguing that Lessans and his book were in fact necessary components of a “new world” that necessarily must be.

If not, then I am all the more confused regarding how all of this plays out sans free will.

I point out:

@iambiguous

And the really surreal part [for me] is that you are out there trying to convince folks to give Lessans’ book a try while predicting that Lessans discovery will necessarily be instrumental in bringing about a world that could not not have unfolded other than as it must. Lessans and his book are just two more cogs in the machine.

@peacegirl

You are absolutely right; it could not not unfold as it must, but part of the unfolding involves my participation, which is also part of the design. The world is the way it is because of our efforts, even though we are acting in accordance with our nature.

So, will this “new world” necessarily be or not necessarily be as you and Lessans imagine it to be?

@iambiguous

And yet you will sometimes seem quite exasperated when others do not embrace him now. All the while “just knowing” that the world must embrace him someday. And they must embrace him or else how can we come to embrace a world where in fact executions are a thing of the past. And where the sort of behaviors that precipitate calls for executions are also a thing of the past.

@peacegirl

I feel exasperated when people won’t even give me the time of day or the courtesy of giving this man the benefit of the doubt, especially after I made this book so affordable. But because I know that it is how it must be, it takes the sting away.

But how could they when, per the design, they must not? And isn’t the “sting” itself just another inherent reaction necessarily in tune with the design.

@iambiguous

Now, if I understand you, it all becomes subsumed in this new “universal conscience” derived from the new understanding that we will all have about these things once Lessans’ discovery is understood by everyone to be the way these things can only be understood. Even though the fact that this is not understood in the world today is also the only way these things could ever actually have been understood today.

@peacegirl

That is true, but no one has actually investigated this work. This book has not been distributed.

@iambiguous

How can one not sense here that in some manner you are blaming folks for not investigating his work when you are also aware that in not investigating it they are fully in accord with the design? And why can’t you just sit back knowing full well that it is inevitable that some day the world will. Otherwise how can this world that he predicts ever come to be.

@peacegirl

I’m not blaming anyone, but I am frustrated because I know that this is an important discovery that has the power to change our world for the better. It’s a heavy weight on me knowing that this discovery is here and very few people even know about it, and those who do don’t even care to learn more.

I believe it is reasonable to suggest that you do project from time to time in an accusatory manner. But what does being or not being accusatory even mean when you can only project to others as/what you must. And, in turn, if others can only react to you as they must? As long as our subjunctive states are no less wholly integrated into the design, every reaction on our part is the right one.

For example, this reaction:

@peacegirl

It’s a delusion that we have free will. There is no ghost in the machine just because of a visceral feeling, which is nothing more than saying “I feel as if I have free will because I want to believe that I have free will.”

If even our most visceral feelings are on par with what we construe to be entirely rational arguments, then every single aspect of what we think, feel and do is channeled into the design’s…totality. Again, absolutely nothing escapes. Absolutely nothing about us is ever other than what it must always be.

Now, I can think about that and well understand why some might be enormously relieved to embrace this frame of mind as true… while others might be enormously distressed, dismayed…even horrified.

@iambiguous

It’s just peculiar to me how you seem driven to help in creating a new world that you are absolutely convinced can never not become other than what it must become anyway.

@peacegirl

That is true, but my effort to bring this discovery to light sooner rather than later might tip the scale in favor of this new world coming into existence in 25 years rather than in another thousand years.

How was that not already decided from the moment the law of matter itself began to unfold? Again, from my point of view, this is the perspective of someone who is convinced that the choices they make are not just on automatic pilot.

@iambiguous

It is as though you are that puppet who has discovered the strings which choreograph all that she thinks, feels and does; and instead of being appalled that none of it is what she has actually freely chosen of her own accord, takes pride in the discovery itself. In being “at one” with the very necessity of existence existing only as it ever could exist.

@peacegirl

Now you are making stuff up. I don’t feel pride but I will have a sense of satisfaction knowing that I did my part, even though I could not not have done my part.

How then is my description of you just “making stuff up”? The sense of satisfaction that you feel is just another tug from the design, right?

@iambiguous

You argue that scientists can in fact confirm Lessans’ discovery but that they won’t need to once they see the validity of his observations. But how is this any less just another assertion? And how will they see this when you stay here rather than go there?

@peacegirl

I don’t know how they will see this, or if they will want to study the principles. I don’t even know whether they are the right people to investigate this work. Maybe I need a more open-minded group of people altogether. It’s ashame that I can’t get a response when I email them. All I know is that these principles are accurate. And conscience works exactly as he described. You can test this on yourself.

@iambiguous

But again that’s the beauty of the way in which you understand the world. It really does not matter at all that you don’t know how they will see it. Lessans’ discovery is such that they must see it. Otherwise his predictions about the new world necessarily collapse. Necessity in fact is everywhere in your narrative.

@peacegirl

Of course it is, and there will be those who see the validity of this psychological law. This has nothing to do with “the beauty of the way in which I understand the world.” Please stop making this MY issue. It has nothing to do with me.

But if you can always fall back on the design to explain everything that you think, feel and do, why not argue that the design is beautiful. Human reality can’t possibly become more beautifully streamlined than to be shaped that way inherently.

@iambiguous

And how would I test my conscience such that my assessment of conflicting goods is rendered null and void? And if my understanding of conscience as the embodiment of dasein is true than I am back to this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

I have yet to understand how Lessans’ discovery makes this any less reasonable. Or how in that new world it just goes away.

@peacegirl

It does go away but not in regard to the grey areas, which we have to surrender to if we are going to commit to not blaming or punishing anyone at all.

So, basically, what you seem to be arguing here is that all of the angry and bitter antipathies that we feel for/about those who behave in ways that apall us, just dissolve once we sign this agreement not to blame others for doing those things that do appall us.

The pregnant woman kills her baby and those who find this to be an appalling thing to do abandon their own dissatifaction over it because the satisfaction of the pregnant women just somehow takes precedent. And maybe the woman can agree to stop eating meat in order to placate the dissatisfaction of those who find eating the flesh of animals immoral.

Do you really believe that, despite the world we live in now [bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting goods], everyone will just abandon the need to punish and blame others for doing the things that they find to be appalling, disgusting, sickening?

Wow. What I wouldn’t give if only just to imagine the world like that! To be inside the head of someone who is able to believe this. What must that be like?!

@iambiguous

Here I react to you as to someone who embraces one or another religious narrative insisting that everything will become clear once I am willing to take the time to read their own rendition of the Bible. Meanwhile none of their excerpts have managed to convince me that their own beliefs are not just a leap of faith – a “knowledge” predicated on what they have come to believe is true “in their heads”.

They offer me nothing that might enable me to believe in turn that their God does in fact exist.

Back again to, “Where’s the beef”?

And here you do not even provide the excerpts.

@peacegirl

You don’t have to take the time if you don’t want to. Who can force you? But I can’t prostrate myself and beg you to read what you don’t yet understand. This is up to you, according to the design you were meant to follow.

Yes, you tell me that, “[it] is up to you iambiguous. I hope you see value in our discussion and want to continue on. I am not obligated either.”

But if everything I think, feel and do is only what I must think, feel and do…how is that not being obligated? How am I not being forced [by necessity] not to read it here and now? How are we both not prostrate to the only possible existence around?

That’s still the part I can’t wrap my head around. In other words, that’s the part I can only not wrap my head around.

So, nobody can complain that it’s me – that I am simply not trying hard enough to understand it. Or to believe in God, or to make a lot of money, or to be happily married, or to be an upstanding citizen of my community. It just wasn’t meant to be. Instead, blame it on Reality itself.

Isn’t that a reasonable way in which to think about it in a determined world?

@iambiguous

But the crucial distinction for me is still the same: that we do not choose freely to change that trajectory. On the contrary, here we are interchangable with the ants, right? The only really substantial difference would seem to be that ants are oblivious to anything relating to either a “trajectory” or to “changing it”. Their “minds” are more clearly just material mechanisms wholely subsumed in the instincts given them by the evolution of life on earth. Our own minds on the other hand have evolved such they we are matter able to actually contemplate itself as matter “self-consciously”. But so what? Like the ants we are still no less compelled to do only what we must do.

@peacegirl

And that’s a good thing. This IS our saving grace even if you don’t see it yet.

It’s a good thing if you imagine that for all practical purposes human interaction is basically the equivalent of insect interaction --except the insects are unable to be consciously aware of the “philosophical” implications of it. We do what they do – subsist, reproduce, defend ourselves – but we know that we do it self-consciously. Only most of us are still under the illusion that we do these things freely, of our own more or less autonomous volition.

@peacegirl

As a species we are different from ants because we can alter our course by becoming aware of certain problems and finding solutions that go beyond mere instinct. In the sense of being part of a complex design, we are similar to other creatures.

@iambiguous

Yeah, that’s the distinction: we are aware that we choose our behaviors while the ants by and large are much closer to the brute facticity embedded in those autonomic chemical and neurological interactions.

But, just like the ants, we do only what we cannot not do. So, are we then better off or not being aware of the consequences of what we choose? Well, that depends on whether the consequences bring us pleasure or pain. Still, in any event, the behaviors that we choose, the pleasurable or painful consequences they bring and our subjunctive reaction to that is all of a whole. It is always a reflection of the laws of matter ineluctably spiralling into the fated future.

Nothing can escape that. Why? Because the design encompasses the totality of reality/existence itself.

@peacegirl

And you said it perfectly. Although we are part of the design, we have been given the ability to change our trajectory by which we can enjoy more pleasure and avoid more pain. What can be better than that?

Well, then we obviously disagree regarding the practical implications of having said that perfectly. We “change” our trajectory in the direction that it goes only because we could not change it to go in any other direction. Our “ability” then revolves entirely around the necessity to do what we could not not have done. And if we do avoid pain and achieve pleasure it is only because it could never have been any other way.

So, sure, if the design has unfolded such that you have considerably more pleasure than pain than what could be better? But, again we live in this world:

globalissues.org/article/26/ … -and-stats

Meaning that hundreds and hundreds of millions of us endure considerbly more pain than pleasure day in and day out. In fact, every 24 hours it is estimated that approximately 18,000 children aged 5 years or younger will die from starvation – one of the most painful and protracted ways in which one can die.

So I suppose for their sake we’d better hope that Lessans’ “new world” comes about closer to 25 years than to a 1,000.

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl

I don’t know how many times, and in how many ways, I need to explain that there will always be conflicting value judgments in these grey areas. The only difference is that no one will force a mother to give birth against her will. You keep talking about executions. How does this come into play when no one will be executed as a means of punishment?

@iambiguous

Likewise, I have noted time and again how, in asserting this, you have not shown us the manner in which this can then be demonstrated empirically and experientially to be true. Whereas I argue that the reason there are now conflicting value judgments is because they are rooted in conflicting goods: some insist that the babies ought to be born, others insist that the women ought not to be forced to give birth.

How then will these conflicting goods not also exist in the “new world”? After all, if no one forces the woman to give birth her baby dies. And that will surely dissatisfy some to the point that they will then wish to punish this behavior.

@peacegirl

But no one is going to punish anyone in the new world. That’s the whole point. How can we blame or punish anyone for doing what they are compelled to do? People will know this going in, and if they don’t want to sign the agreement that they will never blame anyone for anything, they don’t have to become citizens. This agreement is a requirement in order to get the transition underway.

@iambiguous

I’m sorry, but I really do not see how your reasoning here is an adequate response to the points I raise. After all, everyone in the world today does only what they must, but blame and punishment is as rampant as ever.

Of course it is, because people must blame and punish for wrongdoing. That is exactly where we are supposed to be in our development as a species.

@iambiguous

And are not people going to sign or not sign this hypothetical agreement only because they either must or must not sign it?

It is hypothetical now, but it won’t be after this knowledge is recognized and becomes a permanent part of the environment.

@iambiguous

And, signing it or not, when women become pregnant they will either choose to kill their unborn baby or they will choose to give birth in order not to be punished by those who choose to believe that abortion is necessarily immoral.

No woman who wants to abort will not abort due to fear of punishment. The only way to prevent abortions is to change the conditions that compel her to desire to abort her baby. You keep insisting that punishment is the answer when it clearly has not deterred hardened criminals from perpetrating their crimes.

@iambiguous

Old world, new world, the conflicting goods are still there.

Conflicting goods are part of the human condition. You are focusing on abortion, but even here, people must do what they believe is better for themselves. If a woman considers abortion the better choice in this regard, she will do whatever is in her best interest. If people feel abortion is killing, then they should be happy that we are creating the conditions that make abortion the less likely choice, unless their intentions are not what they appear to be.

@peacegirl

This has nothing to do with how other people feel about abortion. It’s not up to them. In the new world no one is going to judge another person. Abortion has to be left up to the mother. There is no punishment that will stop someone from aborting a fetus, if that’s what they want to do. In the new world abortions will be performed less and less as women no longer conceive out of wedlock, and couples stay together.

@iambiguous

I can only repeat that you assert this but do not offer a substantive explanation as to how the conflicting goods embedded in abortion [as they clearly are in the world today] are somehow subsumed into your “universal consciousness” in the new world. Other than by insisting that everyone will be compelled by Lessans’ discovery to think like you do now.

@peacegirl

And I can only repeat that this particular issue is not going to be subsumed into the universal consciousness.
There will be some people who will think it’s killing, other’s won’t. But just as women are not put in jail for aborting a fetus, so too, no one will blame or punish this woman for doing what she feels is necessary given her circumstances.

@iambiguous

Well, for all practical purposes then, you are telling me that some people will still think abortion is immoral, wrong, the killing of an innocent human being etc., but they won’t blame [or punish] women who still choose to abort.

Exactly. Punishment does nothing in these cases. Part of becoming a citizen, and the very extension of this discovery, demands that we not blame anyone for anything otherwise we are right back where we started; a punitive society based on free will which punishes us for doing what we could not help but do.

@iambiguous

And, as I see it, neither you nor Lessans have provided any tangible evidence to substantiate this much beyond insisting that it cannot not happen because Lessans prophesized that it must happen in this “new world” that he envisions “in his head”.

Or:

@iambiguous

Basically, you are saying that somehow people who believe that abortion is immoral [even premeditated murder] in the world today won’t think that way [in some less than clearly defined future] because somehow no one will blame the women who kill their babies. Meanwhile either the babies must die or the pregnant women must be forced to give birth.

And I have answered you numerous times in regard to point 1. As far as point 2, the conflict in values will not stop this new world from coming into existence. People who believe abortion is killing will have no choice but to accept the fact that others think differently. They will have to be dissatisfied until the conditions change whereby no one has a reason to choose abortion. When it comes to killing a live person (not an unborn fetus) in cold blood, most people would agree that this is an evil act. So where is the conflict in values that you talk about? Don’t most people in the world want to see an end to war (excluding an unjust peace), crime, hatred, rape, poverty, torture, and accidents?

@peacegirl

This conflict may still exist, but since it’s the woman who has to bear the child, it is not up to others to tell her what she must do to satisfy them. They are not in her shoes. We’re learning to mind our own business and not judge the rightness or wrongness of anyone’s actions. I know you don’t understand how this makes conscience stronger, but that’s only because you have not read the book.

@iambiguous

It’s not really up to the women either. Not freely up to them. Instead, they will “choose” to abort or not to abort in order to be wholly in sync with the design. No one is in his or her own shoes in that sense. The shoes [and the people in them] are all just necessary cogs in the machine.

And, just out of curiosity, you began this thread over 5 years ago. In the interim, how many people have you managed to convince to read this book? And how many of them came to embrace Lessans’ discovery? Is it possible for you to invite any that did to join us in this exchange? That way others might be able to come up with different ways in which to reframe Lessans’ arguments such they they might convince me to give it a shot.

You cannot go by how many people have embraced this discovery. What a poor measurement! I already told you that this book has not been thoroughly studied or even read. If I can’t convince you to give it a shot, I don’t think anyone else could do it either. So you’re stuck with me, and at this point I’m not hopeful. Your skepticism is getting in the way.

@iambiguous

From my frame of mind, you are arguing that in the future there will be no executions because no one will choose to behave in a manner that folks today would insist warrents execution. But the only way we can achieve such a world is when everyone thinks about blame and punishment the way Lessans does. But the only way they can do this to make contact with his discovery.

@peacegirl

That’s true. This discovery needs to be brought to light. When people realize that removing all blame and punishment from the environment will make for a more peaceful world, they will desire this.

@iambiguous

Okay, let’s focus on that. You seem to be suggesting here there is the possibility that Lessans’ new world will fail to materialize because you and others are not successful in convincing enough people [or the right people] to sign on.

Is this the case?

Not at all. I don’t know whether it’s the right timing. All I know is that I’m doing what I personally can do to help this cause. Whether it’s now or later, this law of our nature will be recognized because it’s not an intellectual contraption. It is an objective truth.

@iambiguous

This would mean that, even though the future is fated to be only what the future can ever be [per the immutable laws of matter], the design may unfold such that you are not able to achieve what you tell us must be achieved.

I was only saying that I don’t know when this truth will be recognized. Lessans may have been hundreds, if not thousands, of years ahead of his time. Because it is a universal law, and because it is part of reality, it is only a matter of time before this truth unfolds per the immutable laws of matter.

@iambiguous

Is this an accurate assessment? I was under the impression that you were arguing that Lessans and his book were in fact necessary components of a “new world” that necessarily must be.

If not, then I am all the more confused regarding how all of this plays out sans free will.

I point out:

And the really surreal part [for me] is that you are out there trying to convince folks to give Lessans’ book a try while predicting that Lessans discovery will necessarily be instrumental in bringing about a world that could not not have unfolded other than as it must. Lessans and his book are just two more cogs in the machine.

That is true. It will unfold the way it must unfold. The timing depends on how long it takes for this immutable law to be recognized. Then it will take but a relatively short time to get the transition started.

@peacegirl

You are absolutely right; it could not not unfold as it must, but part of the unfolding involves my participation, which is also part of the design. The world is the way it is because of our efforts, even though we are acting in accordance with our nature.

@iambiguous

So, will this “new world” necessarily be or not necessarily be as you and Lessans imagine it to be?

This new world will necessarily be when this discovery is recognized for its veracity.

@iambiguous

And yet you will sometimes seem quite exasperated when others do not embrace him now. All the while “just knowing” that the world must embrace him someday. And they must embrace him or else how can we come to embrace a world where in fact executions are a thing of the past. And where the sort of behaviors that precipitate calls for executions are also a thing of the past.

@peacegirl

I feel exasperated when people won’t even give me the time of day or the courtesy of giving this man the benefit of the doubt, especially after I made this book so affordable. But because I know that it is how it must be, it takes the sting away.

@iambiguous

But how could they when, per the design, they must not?

That’s what takes the sting away; that per the design, they could not help themselves, as frustrating as it is.

@iambiguous

And isn’t the “sting” itself just another inherent reaction necessarily in tune with the design.

Of course it is, but I would rather not feel the sting so I will do what I can to take it away, which is also in tune with the design.

@iambiguous

Now, if I understand you, it all becomes subsumed in this new “universal conscience” derived from the new understanding that we will all have about these things once Lessans’ discovery is understood by everyone to be the way these things can only be understood. Even though the fact that this is not understood in the world today is also the only way these things could ever actually have been understood today.

@peacegirl

That is true, but no one has actually investigated this work. This book has not been distributed.

@iambiguous

How can one not sense here that in some manner you are blaming folks for not investigating his work when you are also aware that in not investigating it they are fully in accord with the design? And why can’t you just sit back knowing full well that it is inevitable that some day the world will. Otherwise how can this world that he predicts ever come to be.

@peacegirl

I’m not blaming anyone, but I am frustrated because I know that this is an important discovery that has the power to change our world for the better. It’s a heavy weight on me knowing that this discovery is here and very few people even know about it, and those who do don’t even care to learn more.

@iambiguous

I believe it is reasonable to suggest that you do project from time to time in an accusatory manner. But what does being or not being accusatory even mean when you can only project to others as/what you must. And, in turn, if others can only react to you as they must? As long as our subjunctive states are no less wholly integrated into the design, every reaction on our part is the right one.

Yes, that is true, but you seem resigned to the fact that because we are all part of the design, there is nothing we can do to improve our world. When I say “for the better” I mean that we can still identify behaviors that will give us the most desired outcome in terms of peace, well-being, and happiness. Even though whatever is, is what must be, it is in our DNA to strive for those things we consider to be good, and “good” in this context is creating a world in which no one would desire to gain at another’s expense.

@iambiguous

For example, this reaction:

@peacegirl

It’s a delusion that we have free will. There is no ghost in the machine just because of a visceral feeling, which is nothing more than saying “I feel as if I have free will because I want to believe that I have free will.”

@iambiguous

If even our most visceral feelings are on par with what we construe to be entirely rational arguments, then every single aspect of what we think, feel and do is channeled into the design’s…totality. Again, absolutely nothing escapes. Absolutely nothing about us is ever other than what it must always be.

Now, I can think about that and well understand why some might be enormously relieved to embrace this frame of mind as true… while others might be enormously distressed, dismayed…even horrified.

It’s just peculiar to me how you seem driven to help in creating a new world that you are absolutely convinced can never not become other than what it must become anyway.

@peacegirl

That is true, but my effort to bring this discovery to light sooner rather than later might tip the scale in favor of this new world coming into existence in 25 years rather than in another thousand years.

@iambiguous

How was that not already decided from the moment the law of matter itself began to unfold? Again, from my point of view, this is the perspective of someone who is convinced that the choices they make are not just on automatic pilot.

When you say “automatic pilot”, I am not a robot that is mindlessly doing what I have been programmed to do. There is nothing automatic (without conscious input) about evaluating and analyzing a particular choice. How in the world can you then make the leap that because I don’t subscribe to the notion of being “a cog in a wheel,” that I am not a strict determinist?

@iambiguous

It is as though you are that puppet who has discovered the strings which choreograph all that she thinks, feels and does; and instead of being appalled that none of it is what she has actually freely chosen of her own accord, takes pride in the discovery itself. In being “at one” with the very necessity of existence existing only as it ever could exist.

@peacegirl

Now you are making stuff up. I don’t feel pride but I will have a sense of satisfaction knowing that I did my part, even though I could not not have done my part.

@iambiguous

How then is my description of you just “making stuff up”?

Because you are accusing me of being prideful. That is making stuff up.

@iambiguous

The sense of satisfaction that you feel is just another tug from the design, right?

Yes, the sense of satisfaction is another tug from the design. And it’s a “good” tug. I like the feeling of fulfillment (satisfaction) even though that also is part of the design, of which there is no escape.

@iambiguous

You argue that scientists can in fact confirm Lessans’ discovery but that they won’t need to once they see the validity of his observations. But how is this any less just another assertion? And how will they see this when you stay here rather than go there?

@peacegirl

I don’t know how they will see this, or if they will want to study the principles. I don’t even know whether they are the right people to investigate this work. Maybe I need a more open-minded group of people altogether. It’s ashame that I can’t get a response when I email them. All I know is that these principles are accurate. And conscience works exactly as he described. You can test this on yourself.

@iambiguous

But again that’s the beauty of the way in which you understand the world. It really does not matter at all that you don’t know how they will see it. Lessans’ discovery is such that they must see it. Otherwise his predictions about the new world necessarily collapse. Necessity in fact is everywhere in your narrative.

@peacegirl

Of course it is, and there will be those who see the validity of this psychological law. This has nothing to do with “the beauty of the way in which I understand the world.” Please stop making this MY issue. It has nothing to do with me.

@iambiguous

But if you can always fall back on the design to explain everything that you think, feel and do, why not argue that the design is beautiful. Human reality can’t possibly become more beautifully streamlined than to be shaped that way inherently.

It IS beautiful, and it becomes more beautiful with the realization that this design is moving us toward a world of peace and harmony.

@iambiguous

And how would I test my conscience such that my assessment of conflicting goods is rendered null and void? And if my understanding of conscience as the embodiment of dasein is true than I am back to this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

I have yet to understand how Lessans’ discovery makes this any less reasonable. Or how in that new world it just goes away.

@peacegirl

It does go away but not in regard to the grey areas, which we have to surrender to if we are going to commit to not blaming or punishing anyone at all.

@iambiguous

So, basically, what you seem to be arguing here is that all of the angry and bitter antipathies that we feel for/about those who behave in ways that apall us, just dissolve once we sign this agreement not to blame others for doing those things that do appall us.

The pregnant woman kills her baby and those who find this to be an appalling thing to do abandon their own dissatifaction over it because the satisfaction of the pregnant women just somehow takes precedent. And maybe the woman can agree to stop eating meat in order to placate the dissatisfaction of those who find eating the flesh of animals immoral.

As I already stated, these “grey” areas of conflict may not go completely away. There may always be people who disagree with abortion and the eating of meat. Do we punish people because they want to eat meat? Maybe a person will agree not to eat to placate the dissatisfaction of those who find eating the flesh of animals immoral. Or maybe they won’t. Maybe a person who eats meat justifies this due to his need for self-preservation and he feels weak when he does not eat animal flesh. What ends is the hurting of others that cannot be justified.

@iambiguous

Do you really believe that, despite the world we live in now [bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting goods], everyone will just abandon the need to punish and blame others for doing the things that they find to be appalling, disgusting, sickening?

Wow. What I wouldn’t give if only just to imagine the world like that! To be inside the head of someone who is able to believe this. What must that be like?!

It’s a hopeful feeling. Maybe you’ll feel it one day too.

@iambiguous

Here I react to you as to someone who embraces one or another religious narrative insisting that everything will become clear once I am willing to take the time to read their own rendition of the Bible. Meanwhile none of their excerpts have managed to convince me that their own beliefs are not just a leap of faith – a “knowledge” predicated on what they have come to believe is true “in their heads”.

They offer me nothing that might enable me to believe in turn that their God does in fact exist.

Back again to, “Where’s the beef”?

And here you do not even provide the excerpts.

@peacegirl

You don’t have to take the time if you don’t want to. Who can force you? But I can’t prostrate myself and beg you to read what you don’t yet understand. This is up to you, according to the design you were meant to follow.

@iambiguous

Yes, you tell me that, “[it] is up to you iambiguous. I hope you see value in our discussion and want to continue on. I am not obligated either.”

But if everything I think, feel and do is only what I must think, feel and do…how is that not being obligated? How am I not being forced [by necessity] not to read it here and now? How are we both not prostrate to the only possible existence around?

That’s still the part I can’t wrap my head around. In other words, that’s the part I can only not wrap my head around.

The only part that you are missing (as far as this discovery goes) is that you are being forced by necessity. Nothing is forcing you to do anything. This leads into his second principles which states that nothing on this earth can force or compel you to do anything you don’t want to do.

@iambiguous

So, nobody can complain that it’s me – that I am simply not trying hard enough to understand it. Or to believe in God, or to make a lot of money, or to be happily married, or to be an upstanding citizen of my community. It just wasn’t meant to be. Instead, blame it on Reality itself.

Isn’t that a reasonable way in which to think about it in a determined world?

Nobody is complaining that you could have acted differently than you did. In fact, I know that up until this moment you could not have done otherwise, but that does not mean that before something is done that you are being forced by the designer to kill, embezzle, or rape if you yourself don’t want to do these things. So when a determinist says, “I was forced (by the designer, by God, by external circumstances, etc.) to do what I really didn’t want to do”, that is a false statement.

@iambiguous

But the crucial distinction for me is still the same: that we do not choose freely to change that trajectory. On the contrary, here we are interchangable with the ants, right? The only really substantial difference would seem to be that ants are oblivious to anything relating to either a “trajectory” or to “changing it”. Their “minds” are more clearly just material mechanisms wholely subsumed in the instincts given them by the evolution of life on earth. Our own minds on the other hand have evolved such they we are matter able to actually contemplate itself as matter “self-consciously”. But so what? Like the ants we are still no less compelled to do only what we must do.

@peacegirl

And that’s a good thing. This IS our saving grace even if you don’t see it yet.

@iambiguous

It’s a good thing if you imagine that for all practical purposes human interaction is basically the equivalent of insect interaction --except the insects are unable to be consciously aware of the “philosophical” implications of it. We do what they do – subsist, reproduce, defend ourselves – but we know that we do it self-consciously. Only most of us are still under the illusion that we do these things freely, of our own more or less autonomous volition.

That is true, but the very fact that we have this self-consciousness and that we can ponder, evaluate the pros and cons, analyse a situation, etc., gives us the ability to change the trajectory of our lives but still be within the framework of determinism.

@peacegirl

As a species we are different from ants because we can alter our course by becoming aware of certain problems and finding solutions that go beyond mere instinct. In the sense of being part of a complex design, we are similar to other creatures.

@iambiguous

Yeah, that’s the distinction: we are aware that we choose our behaviors while the ants by and large are much closer to the brute facticity embedded in those autonomic chemical and neurological interactions.

But, just like the ants, we do only what we cannot not do. So, are we then better off or not being aware of the consequences of what we choose? Well, that depends on whether the consequences bring us pleasure or pain. Still, in any event, the behaviors that we choose, the pleasurable or painful consequences they bring and our subjunctive reaction to that is all of a whole. It is always a reflection of the laws of matter ineluctably spiralling into the fated future.

Nothing can escape that. Why? Because the design encompasses the totality of reality/existence itself.

@peacegirl

And you said it perfectly. Although we are part of the design, we have been given the ability to change the trajectory whereby we can enjoy more pleasure and avoid more pain. What can be better than that?

@iambiguous

Well, then we obviously disagree regarding the practical implications of having said that perfectly. We “change” our trajectory in the direction that it goes only because we could not change it to go in any other direction. Our “ability” then revolves entirely around the necessity to do what we could not not have done. And if we do avoid pain and achieve pleasure it is only because it could never have been any other way.

So, sure, if the design has unfolded such that you have considerably more pleasure than pain than what could be better? But, again we live in this world:

globalissues.org/article/26/ … -and-stats

Meaning that hundreds and hundreds of millions of us endure considerbly more pain than pleasure day in and day out. In fact, every 24 hours it is estimated that approximately 18,000 children aged 5 years or younger will die from starvation – one of the most painful and protracted ways in which one can die.

So I suppose for their sake we’d better hope that Lessans’ “new world” comes about closer to 25 years than to a 1,000.

That’s why I’m doing what I’m doing, but if my effort to get this knowledge into the “right” hands (scientists who can give this work a thorough investigation and confirm its validity), it will probably be closer to 1,000 years.

[Pec_of_Uliar]

@iambiguous

And this, to me, is like a religionist assuring me that even though God is omnipotent and is cognizant of everything I will ever think, feel and do, He has given me free will to choose only what He already knows that I will choose.

I’m not sure why you find this to be a problem.

I can do x or y. If I do x, God will know, in advance, that I will do x. If I do y, then God will know, in advance, that I will do y. I can do x or y. But I can’t do x if God knows in advance that I will do y; and I can’t do y, if God knows in advance that I will do x.

There is no problem for free will there, because I can still do either x or y. I just can’t outwit God.

Generalizing to what peacegirl seems to be arguing (she’ll correct me if I’m wrong), I can do x or y. But if x gives me the greatest satisfaction I’ll do x; if y gives me the greatest satisfaction, I’ll do y. But I can’t do x, if y gives me the greatest satisfaction; and I can’t do y, if x gives me the greatest satisfaction.

Offhand I don’t see a problem with that, except for the fact that I’m not sure if this formulation impugns our free will. It certainly does not impugn free will in the presence of God; why would it impugn free will in peacegirl’s formulation?

I will necessarily do what I think, rightly or wrongly, gives me the greatest satisfaction. I don’t see how doing what I think will give me the greatest satisfaction undermines my free will, any more than God knowing what I will do in advance, undermines my free will. But maybe it’s just a semantical issue. We could say: We have no free will, because we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction; but this seems precisely equivalent to saying that we DO have free will, because we always freely choose what we think to be the most satisfactory choice.

[peacegirl]

@Pec of Uliar

@iambiguous

And this, to me, is like a religionist assuring me that even though God is omnipotent and is cognizant of everything I will ever think, feel and do, He has given me free will to choose only what He already knows that I will choose.

I’m not sure why you find this to be a problem.

I can do x or y. If I do x, God will know, in advance, that I will do x. If I do y, then God will know, in advance, that I will do y. I can do x or y. But I can’t do x if God knows in advance that I will do y; and I can’t do y, if God knows in advance that I will do x.

There is no problem for free will there, because I can still do either x or y. I just can’t outwit God.

Generalizing to what peacegirl seems to be arguing (she’ll correct me if I’m wrong), I can do x or y. But if x gives me the greatest satisfaction I’ll do x; if y gives me the greatest satisfaction, I’ll do y. But I can’t do x, if y gives me the greatest satisfaction; and I can’t do y, if x gives me the greatest satisfaction.

Offhand I don’t see a problem with that, except for the fact that I’m not sure if this formulation impugns our free will. It certainly does not impugn free will in the presence of God; why would it impugn free will in peacegirl’s formulation?

Of course it impugns our free will in the presence of God. The sticky point is that God (the designer) cannot force us to do something against our will. Assumed in the standard definition is that something other than us is FORCING us to do what we do, even if we don’t want to do it. I hope you digest this carefully because it is causing a problem in our understanding of determinism. If the definition is inaccurate, we have to alter it to reflect reality. We don’t fit reality into the definition.

[quote="Pec of Uliar"I will necessarily do what I think, rightly or wrongly, gives me the greatest satisfaction. I don’t see how doing what I think will give me the greatest satisfaction undermines my free will[/quote]
How can it not undermine your free will if you cannot do other than what you do, in the direction of greater satisfaction? Free will implies that you can choose A over B even though B is the more preferable choice. How is that possible? That is the only way your will would be free, which is absolutely 100% impossible.

@Pec of Uliar

, any more than God knowing what I will do in advance, undermines my free will.

The fact that God knows what we will do in advance does not undermine anyone’s free will. What does undermine it is the fact that, to repeat, we cannot choose B if A is the preferable choice. Free will implies that we can choose B over A even when our desire pushes us in the direction of A. That is impossible to do.

@Pec of Uliar

But maybe it’s just a semantical issue. We could say: We have no free will, because we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction; but this seems precisely equivalent to saying that we DO have free will, because we always freely choose what we think to be the most satisfactory choice.

Where does “free” enter into this at all? The fact that we can choose among different alternatives, which other animals cannot do, does not give us free will because whatever we choose between meaningful differences can only go in ONE direction, not two. Thanks for your input. I hope you continue to participate as long as this thread stays active.

[Pec_of_Uliar]

Why not just say, given two choices, x and y, no person will ever choose y, if x gives that person the greater satisfaction?

Or: All humans, without exception, will always choose what they think will give them the greatest satisfaction.

If you phrase it in these terms, you skirt the fraught debate over free will and determinism, and you get the result you want.

If all humans, without exception, always choose what they they think will give them the greatest satisfaction, it follow that there is no use blaming anyone for what they choose.

What follows from that?

[peacegirl]

@Pec of Uliar

Why not just say, given two choices, x and y, no person will ever choose y, if x gives that person the greater satisfaction?

Or: All humans, without exception, will always choose what they think will give them the greatest satisfaction.

If you phrase it in these terms, you skirt the fraught debate over free will and determinism, and you get the result you want.

If all humans, without exception, always choose what they they think will give them the greatest satisfaction, it follow that there is no use blaming anyone for what they choose.

You are absolutely right. How can we blame people for doing what they have no control over?

@Pec of Uliar

What follows from that?

What follows from that begins in Chapter Two.

[i]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

Once it is established that will is not free, as was just demonstrated,
we cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like Durant could
not get by the implications. Therefore, we must begin our
reasoning where he left off which means that we are going to accept
the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary, slide rule or basic
principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute the baser
mettles of human nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age even
though it presents what appears to be an insurmountable problem, for
how is it possible not to blame people who hurt us when we know they
didn’t have to do this if they didn’t want to. The solution, however,
only requires the perception and extension of relations which cannot
be denied, and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame
for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God which will
unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch
your breath in absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately
solve every problem we have not only without hurting a living soul but
while benefiting everyone to an amazing degree. However, the
problems that confront us at this moment are very complex which
make it necessary to treat every aspect of our lives in a separate, yet
related, manner.[/i]

[Pec_of_Uliar]

Your argument seems to go like this.

1. Everyone always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction.

2. Because of this, no one can do, other that what they do (that which brings the greatest perceived satisfaction).

3. If no one can do, other than what they do, it is illogical to blame people (or praise them, for that matter) for what they do, since they could not have done otherwise.

4. If everyone on earth accepted 1., 2., and 3., then they would never blame or punish people for what they do. Even stronger, they could not blame or punish people for what they do, because blaming or punishing people who are not blameworthy would bring less satisfaction than not blaming or punishing them.

5. Therefore, all people know that they will not be blamed or punished for what they do, because no one can blame or punish anyone else under these changed conditions.

Is the above a correct formulation of your argument?

If it is, we now need a conclusion – what follows from the above? – or additional premises, if necessary, to support the conclusion. If the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is valid. Assuming that all the premises are true, then the argument is sound. Remember that it is possible for an argument to be valid but unsound.

So, what is the conclusion?

[iambiguous]

@peacegirl

But no one is going to punish anyone in the new world. That's the whole point.  How can we blame or punish anyone for doing what they are compelled to do?  People will know this going in, and if they don't want to sign the agreement that they will never blame anyone for anything, they don't have to become citizens.  This agreement is a requirement in order to get the transition underway.

@iambiguous

I’m sorry, but I really do not see how your reasoning here is an adequate response to the points I raise. After all, everyone in the world today does only what they must, but blame and punishment is as rampant as ever.

@peacegirl

Of course it is, because people must blame and punish for wrongdoing. That is exactly where we are supposed to be in our development as a species.

But this still does not explain – substantially explain – the relationship between the world we live in now [where blame and punishment are rampant], Lessan’s discovery and the new world in which the conflicting goods that revolve around issues like abortion are still around. But a world in which blame and punishment are not.

@iambiguous

And are not people going to sign or not sign this hypothetical agreement only because they either must or must not sign it?

@peacegirl

It is hypothetical now, but it won’t be after this knowledge is recognized and becomes a permanent part of the environment.

How do we know that this is true however other than in noting that you assert that it is true? In the new world, people sign it only because they must sign it. No one is really able to freely choose not to sign it. Just as no one is really able freely to choose not to recognize Lessans’ discovery.

@iambiguous

And, signing it or not, when women become pregnant they will either choose to kill their unborn baby or they will choose to give birth in order not to be punished by those who choose to believe that abortion is necessarily immoral.

@peacegirl

No woman who wants to abort will not abort due to fear of punishment. The only way to prevent abortions is to change the conditions that compel her to desire to abort her baby.

But those conditions either change or do not change within the framework of matter’s immutable laws. Lessan and his discovery are still just cogs in all that must unfold. No less so than this exchange we are having. And this is always the part that, try as I might, I am unable to think about in the manner in which I think that you think about it.

@peacegirl

You keep insisting that punishment is the answer when it clearly has not deterred hardened criminals from perpetrating their crimes.

No, I keep insisting that, in a world of conflicting goods, our behaviors will ever come to collide around opposing value judgments. I am simply unable to grasp [yet] how Lessans’ argument makes those conflicts go away. You acknowledge these “grey areas” but you subsume them in a “universal consciousness” that will motivate citizens to sign an agreement not to blame and to punish others for doing things that they object to. Like killing unborn babies. Or eating animal flesh. Or being homosexual. Or owning guns.

You say:

@peacegirl

Conflicting goods are part of the human condition. You are focusing on abortion, but even here, people must do what they believe is better for themselves. If a woman considers abortion the better choice in this regard, she will do whatever is in her best interest. If people feel abortion is killing, then they should be happy that we are creating the conditions that make abortion the less likely choice, unless their intentions are not what they appear to be.

As though this does make them go away. As though the circumstances [conditions] that exist today that motivate some women to abort their babies [which many rationalize instead as a “clump of cells”] will no longer exist in the new world.

@peacegirl

And I can only repeat that this particular issue is not going to be subsumed into the universal consciousness.
There will be some people who will think it’s killing, other’s won’t. But just as women are not put in jail for aborting a fetus, so too, no one will blame or punish this woman for doing what she feels is necessary given her circumstances.

@iambiguous

Well, for all practical purposes then, you are telling me that some people will still think abortion is immoral, wrong, the killing of an innocent human being etc., but they won’t blame [or punish] women who still choose to abort.

@peacegirl

Exactly. Punishment does nothing in these cases. Part of becoming a citizen, and the very extension of this discovery, demands that we not blame anyone for anything otherwise we are right back where we started; a punitive society based on free will which punishes us for doing what we could not help but do.

Punishments exist in any society in order to make people think twice about doing things that the majority [through the law] has deemed inappropriate behavior. Take away the punishment and what is the incentive to stop doing it? Basically, what you are arguing is that once citizens have acquired an understanding of Lassens discovery, they will embrace this hypothetical “universal consciousness” and stop blaming/punishing women for killing their babies. And we know this because you assert it.

And, again, all of this unfolds as it does while not a single solitary one of us does anything other than what we could only have done anyway. Meaning no one can ever really be held responsible anyway. At least not in the manner in which we hold others responsible for aborting their babies in assuming they were free to choose not to abort it.

In other words, yes, it does seem absurd [to me] to speak of blame or punishment for those who either do or do not blame and punish others because they could not have not done otherwise. I just can’t wrap my head around that.

@iambiguous

…just out of curiosity, you began this thread over 5 years ago. In the interim, how many people have you managed to convince to read this book? And how many of them came to embrace Lessans’ discovery? Is it possible for you to invite any that did to join us in this exchange? That way others might be able to come up with different ways in which to reframe Lessans’ arguments such they they might convince me to give it a shot.

@peacegirl

You cannot go by how many people have embraced this discovery. What a poor measurement! I already told you that this book has not been thoroughly studied or even read. If I can’t convince you to give it a shot, I don’t think anyone else could do it either. So you’re stuck with me, and at this point I’m not hopeful. Your skepticism is getting in the way.

Well, if, eventually, “everyone” comes to embrace it, it seems reasonable to ponder just how close those who have already embraced it are to bringing that into fruition.

But since you could not not be “not hopeful” here, it’s not like you really bear any responsibility for it. But then that would seem [to me] to be the beauty of surrendering one’s “will” to the design.

@peacegirl

This discovery needs to be brought to light. When people realize that removing all blame and punishment from the environment will make for a more peaceful world, they will desire this.

@iambiguous

Okay, let’s focus on that. You seem to be suggesting here there is the possibility that Lessans’ new world will fail to materialize because you and others are not successful in convincing enough people [or the right people] to sign on.

Is this the case?

@peacegirl

Not at all. I don’t know whether it’s the right timing. All I know is that I’m doing what I personally can do to help this cause. Whether it’s now or later, this law of our nature will be recognized because it’s not an intellectual contraption. It is an objective truth.

Are you saying then that Lessans’ discovery must prevail. And that, in prevailing, the “new world” as you describe is a sure thing?

@iambiguous

And isn’t the “sting” itself just another inherent reaction necessarily in tune with the design.

@peacegirl

Of course it is, but I would rather not feel the sting so I will do what I can to take it away, which is also in tune with the design.

Yet even the fact that you would rather not feel the sting is the only possible thing that you can feel. Thus what you do in order not to feel it is in turn what you can only do. From my perspective once you acknowledge that everything that you think, feel and do is wholly concomitant with an existence necessarily unfolding as it must, then even in speaking about it in this exchange is just one more inherent facet of it.

@iambiguous

How can one not sense here that in some manner you are blaming folks for not investigating his work when you are also aware that in not investigating it they are fully in accord with the design? And why can’t you just sit back knowing full well that it is inevitable that some day the world will. Otherwise how can this world that he predicts ever come to be.

@peacegirl

I’m not blaming anyone, but I am frustrated because I know that this is an important discovery that has the power to change our world for the better. It’s a heavy weight on me knowing that this discovery is here and very few people even know about it, and those who do don’t even care to learn more.

@iambiguous

I believe it is reasonable to suggest that you do project from time to time in an accusatory manner. But what does being or not being accusatory even mean when you can only project to others as/what you must. And, in turn, if others can only react to you as they must? As long as our subjunctive states are no less wholly integrated into the design, every reaction on our part is the right one.

@peacegirl

Yes, that is true, but you seem resigned to the fact that because we are all part of the design, there is nothing we can do to improve our world.

If I am resigned I must be resigned. Just as you must react to the manner in which you construe me being resigned as you must. And in improving the world from my perspective others will see it as making it worse. And you know what that takes us back to.

@peacegirl

When I say “for the better” I mean that we can still identify behaviors that will give us the most desired outcome in terms of peace, well-being, and happiness. Even though whatever is, is what must be, it is in our DNA to strive for those things we consider to be good, and “good” in this context is creating a world in which no one would desire to gain at another’s expense.

Notice, however, how abstract this is. It does not obviate the fact that our desired outcomes frequently come into conflict. And that, however it is all decided, we can be sure that it had nothing to do with what we freely choose to do or not do. We are all instead seamlessly embodied in the design. Human interaction then would seem to be no different from the interaction of matter in an earthquke or a tsunami or a volcanic eruption. It’s all matter doing only what matter must do. And just as we would not describe the consequences of these natural disasters as immoral, it really makes no sense to describe our own interactions that way in a determined world.

Things either happen or they do not. Morality then is just part and parcel of the illusion of free will.

@peacegirl

That is true, but my effort to bring this discovery to light sooner rather than later might tip the scale in favor of this new world coming into existence in 25 years rather than in another thousand years.

@iambiguous

How was that not already decided from the moment the law of matter itself began to unfold? Again, from my point of view, this is the perspective of someone who is convinced that the choices they make are not just on automatic pilot.

@peacegirl

When you say “automatic pilot”, I am not a robot that is mindlessly doing what I have been programmed to do. There is nothing automatic (without conscious input) about evaluating and analyzing a particular choice. How in the world can you then make the leap that because I don’t subscribe to the notion of being “a cog in a wheel,” that I am not a strict determinist?

Obviously, we think about these relationships differently. No, you are not mindlessly doing what you do, but you are mindfully doing only what you ever could do.

And when a robot does only what it can ever do per the program how is that really different from you and I doing only what we can ever do per the design? Again, for all practical purposes, they are the same thing. The robot is simply not conscious of being programmed.

@iambiguous

Do you really believe that, despite the world we live in now [bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting goods], everyone will just abandon the need to punish and blame others for doing the things that they find to be appalling, disgusting, sickening?

Wow. What I wouldn’t give if only just to imagine the world like that! To be inside the head of someone who is able to believe this. What must that be like?!

@peacegirl

It’s a hopeful feeling. Maybe you’ll feel it one day too.

But here is how I always react to that given that we do live in a wholly determined world: I would feel that way only becasue I could not not feel that way. And that always seems to spoil it for me.

@peacegirl

You don’t have to take the time if you don’t want to. Who can force you? But I can’t prostrate myself and beg you to read what you don’t yet understand. This is up to you, according to the design you were meant to follow.

@iambiguous

Yes, you tell me that, “[it] is up to you iambiguous. I hope you see value in our discussion and want to continue on. I am not obligated either.”

But if everything I think, feel and do is only what I must think, feel and do…how is that not being obligated? How am I not being forced [by necessity] not to read it here and now? How are we both not prostrate to the only possible existence around?

That’s still the part I can’t wrap my head around. In other words, that’s the part I can only not wrap my head around.

@peacegirl

The only part that you are missing (as far as this discovery goes) is that you are being forced by necessity. Nothing is forcing you to do anything. This leads into his second principles which states that nothing on this earth can force or compel you to do anything you don’t want to do.

Let’s just say that we view the necessity of matter unfolding only as it must/can unfold differently. Are you and I not just more matter? Just because nothing is “outside” of our existence compelling us to be as one with the design unfolding only as we must does not change the fact that we freely choose nothing of what we think, feel and do.

You always insist that I want what I choose as though I can choose what I want. Freely choose what I want. Instead, what I want is, in turn, only what I must/can want.

@iambiguous

But the crucial distinction for me is still the same: that we do not choose freely to change that trajectory. On the contrary, here we are interchangable with the ants, right? The only really substantial difference would seem to be that ants are oblivious to anything relating to either a “trajectory” or to “changing it”. Their “minds” are more clearly just material mechanisms wholely subsumed in the instincts given them by the evolution of life on earth. Our own minds on the other hand have evolved such they we are matter able to actually contemplate itself as matter “self-consciously”. But so what? Like the ants we are still no less compelled to do only what we must do.

@peacegirl

And that’s a good thing. This IS our saving grace even if you don’t see it yet.

@iambiguous

It’s a good thing if you imagine that for all practical purposes human interaction is basically the equivalent of insect interaction --except the insects are unable to be consciously aware of the “philosophical” implications of it. We do what they do – subsist, reproduce, defend ourselves – but we know that we do it self-consciously. Only most of us are still under the illusion that we do these things freely, of our own more or less autonomous volition.

@peacegirl

That is true, but the very fact that we have this self-consciousness and that we can ponder, evaluate the pros and cons, analyse a situation, etc., gives us the ability to change the trajectory of our lives but still be within the framework of determinism.

I can only try to grasp what it must be like to actually think like this; to think as you do given all of the objections I raise. But then I keep coming back to accepting that, in a wholly determined world, it is utterly futile to grasp anything other than what I am prefabricated to grasp as a material cog in the material machine that is the totality of existence itself.

@iambiguous

We “change” our trajectory in the direction that it goes only because we could not change it to go in any other direction. Our “ability” then revolves entirely around the necessity to do what we could not not have done. And if we do avoid pain and achieve pleasure it is only because it could never have been any other way.

So, sure, if the design has unfolded such that you have considerably more pleasure than pain than what could be better? But, again we live in this world:

globalissues.org/article/26/ … -and-stats

Meaning that hundreds and hundreds of millions of us endure considerbly more pain than pleasure day in and day out. In fact, every 24 hours it is estimated that approximately 18,000 children aged 5 years or younger will die from starvation – one of the most painful and protracted ways in which one can die.

So I suppose for their sake we’d better hope that Lessans’ “new world” comes about closer to 25 years than to a 1,000.

@peacegirl

That’s why I’m doing what I’m doing, but if my effort to get this knowledge into the “right” hands (scientists who can give this work a thorough investigation and confirm its validity), it will probably be closer to 1,000 years.

Well, if it is about a thousand years from now, it means that, in the interim, approximately 18,000,000 more children will die from starvation. But a determinist can at least take solace in the fact there really wasn’t anything different that he or she could have done to change that.

And, if I understand you, there is not even a God to afford us [and the dead children] divine justice.

[iambiguous]

@Pec of Uliar

@iambiguous

And this, to me, is like a religionist assuring me that even though God is omnipotent and is cognizant of everything I will ever think, feel and do, He has given me free will to choose only what He already knows that I will choose.

I’m not sure why you find this to be a problem.

I can do x or y. If I do x, God will know, in advance, that I will do x. If I do y, then God will know, in advance, that I will do y. I can do x or y. But I can’t do x if God knows in advance that I will do y; and I can’t do y, if God knows in advance that I will do x.

There is no problem for free will there, because I can still do either x or y. I just can’t outwit God.

Let’s dispense with the Xs and the Ys.

Mary is pregnant. She can either choose to abort her baby or not to abort it.

God is omniscient. He knows in advance that Mary will choose to abort the baby.

So, what will Mary “choose” to do?

And if she chooses to kill the baby how will God choose to react to that? Will He choose to send her to Hell?

In other words, will she go to Hell for “choosing” a behavior that she could not not have chosen given that God knows in advance everything that she will ever “choose”?

Now, there are arguments cited by religionists to account for this:
comereason.org/omniscience-and-free-will.asp

I have just never been able to wrap my head around them. At least not such that my own assumptions go away.

@Pec of Uliar

I will necessarily do what I think, rightly or wrongly, gives me the greatest satisfaction. I don’t see how doing what I think will give me the greatest satisfaction undermines my free will, any more than God knowing what I will do in advance, undermines my free will. But maybe it’s just a semantical issue. We could say: We have no free will, because we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction; but this seems precisely equivalent to saying that we DO have free will, because we always freely choose what we think to be the most satisfactory choice.

From my perspective, that which “I” have come to see as satisfying is rooted largely in dasein: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

But what I choose to pursue as satisfying can easily come into conflict with others who do not find it satisfying at all. And this becomes entangled in conflicting goods.

To wit:

Mary chooses to abort her baby because she finds it satisfying to retain her job. And giving birth will jeopardize that. Bob [and others] find it satisfying to live in a world where no babies are aborted. They have succeeded in passing a law such that, if Mary does choose to abort her baby, she will be arrested and charged with first degree murder.

A world of conflicting goods.

So, how does your frame of mind fit into a context like this?

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl

But no one is going to punish anyone in the new world. That's the whole point.  How can we blame or punish anyone for doing what they are compelled to do?  People will know this going in, and if they don't want to sign the agreement that they will never blame anyone for anything, they don't have to become citizens.  This agreement is a requirement in order to get the transition underway.

@iambiguous

I’m sorry, but I really do not see how your reasoning here is an adequate response to the points I raise. After all, everyone in the world today does only what they must, but blame and punishment is as rampant as ever.

@peacegirl

Of course it is, because people must blame and punish for wrongdoing. That is exactly where we are supposed to be in our development as a species.

@iambiguous

But this still does not explain – substantially explain – the relationship between the world we live in now [where blame and punishment are rampant], Lessan’s discovery and the new world in which the conflicting goods that revolve around issues like abortion are still around. But a world in which blame and punishment are not.

And? What are you saying? Just because there may be differences of opinion in these grey areas, that we will be unable to achieve a world without war, crime, or poverty?

@iambiguous

And are not people going to sign or not sign this hypothetical agreement only because they either must or must not sign it?

@peacegirl

It is hypothetical now, but it won’t be after this knowledge is recognized and becomes a permanent part of the environment.

@iambiguous

How do we know that this is true however other than in noting that you assert that it is true? In the new world, people sign it only because they must sign it. No one is really able to freely choose not to sign it. Just as no one is really able freely to choose not to recognize Lessans’ discovery.

People will sign it only if they want to. Nothing is forcing them to sign anything, not even the designer himself.

@iambiguous

And, signing it or not, when women become pregnant they will either choose to kill their unborn baby or they will choose to give birth in order not to be punished by those who choose to believe that abortion is necessarily immoral.

@peacegirl

No woman who wants to abort will not abort due to fear of punishment. The only way to prevent abortions is to change the conditions that compel her to desire to abort her baby.

@iambiguous

those conditions either change or do not change within the framework of matter’s immutable laws. Lessan and his discovery are still just cogs in all that must unfold. No less so than this exchange we are having. And this is always the part that, try as I might, I am unable to think about in the manner in which I think that you think about it.

It is true that we are all subject to the immutable laws of nature, but what you seem to be missing here is that nothing can make a person do anything without his consent, not even God himself. You seem to be blaming everything on the design, as if we have no say in the matter.

@peacegirl

You keep insisting that punishment is the answer when it clearly has not deterred hardened criminals from perpetrating their crimes.

No, I keep insisting that, in a world of conflicting goods, our behaviors will ever come to collide around opposing value judgments. I am simply unable to grasp [yet] how Lessans’ argument makes those conflicts go away. You acknowledge these “grey areas” but you subsume them in a “universal consciousness” that will motivate citizens to sign an agreement not to blame and to punish others for doing things that they object to. Like killing unborn babies. Or eating animal flesh. Or being homosexual. Or owning guns.

You say:

@peacegirl

Conflicting goods are part of the human condition. You are focusing on abortion, but even here, people must do what they believe is better for themselves. If a woman considers abortion the better choice in this regard, she will do whatever is in her best interest. If people feel abortion is killing, then they should be happy that we are creating the conditions that make abortion the less likely choice, unless their intentions are not what they appear to be.

As though this does make them go away. As though the circumstances [conditions] that exist today that motivate some women to abort their babies [which many rationalize instead as a “clump of cells”] will no longer exist in the new world.

It is true that in order for war and crime to end, there are certain preconditions that are necessary in order to achieve this. We don’t put people in jail for eating meat, or for being homosexual, or for aborting a fetus. These are choices that each individual must make based on his or her worldview. We are developing as a society where homosexuality is accepted (in many parts of the world, not all) even in many religious quarters. Conflict over gun ownership exists because people get hurt with guns. When guns no longer kill, we will not have to set up laws to prevent gun ownership. We are no longer going to tell people what to do, which is the very thing that is going to put man’s conscience in high gear. You may not want people to abort babies, but this conflict of values is not going to go away through punishment. The only way it will go away is when people stop wanting to abort. The conditions of the new world will prevent situations where women are forced to abort as the lesser of two evils, so your dream of no abortions will be achievable. Doesn’t that make you happy?

@peacegirl

And I can only repeat that this particular issue is not going to be subsumed into the universal consciousness.
There will be some people who will think it’s killing, other’s won’t. But just as women are not put in jail for aborting a fetus, so too, no one will blame or punish this woman for doing what she feels is necessary given her circumstances.

@iambiguous

Well, for all practical purposes then, you are telling me that some people will still think abortion is immoral, wrong, the killing of an innocent human being etc., but they won’t blame [or punish] women who still choose to abort.

@peacegirl

Exactly. Punishment does nothing in these cases. Part of becoming a citizen, and the very extension of this discovery, demands that we not blame anyone for anything otherwise we are right back where we started; a punitive society based on free will which punishes us for doing what we could not help but do.

@iambiguous

Punishments exist in any society in order to make people think twice about doing things that the majority [through the law] has deemed inappropriate behavior. Take away the punishment and what is the incentive to stop doing it? Basically, what you are arguing is that once citizens have acquired an understanding of Lassens discovery, they will embrace this hypothetical “universal consciousness” and stop blaming/punishing women for killing their babies. And we know this because you assert it.

Yes, if these more primitive societies don’t agree to stop blaming and punishing, then they will not gain citizenship. But there is so much to celebrate by uniting with all nations as we move toward a world of peace, I can’t imagine any country not wanting to be part of this momentous change in history, once science stamps this discovery with the brevet of truth.

@iambiguous

And, again, all of this unfolds as it does while not a single solitary one of us does anything other than what we could only have done anyway. Meaning no one can ever really be held responsible anyway. At least not in the manner in which we hold others responsible for aborting their babies in assuming they were free to choose not to abort it.

In other words, yes, it does seem absurd [to me] to speak of blame or punishment for those who either do or do not blame and punish others because they could not have not done otherwise. I just can’t wrap my head around that.

Blame and punishment are what we are removing because of that very thing. How can we blame anyone for doing what he is compelled to do? If people want to blame and punish, they don’t have to become a citizen of this new world. It’s as simple as that. But you have to remember that people do what they believe is better for themselves, and when they realize how much better their lives will be (especially when their standard of living will never go down), they will want what they see.

@iambiguous

…just out of curiosity, you began this thread over 5 years ago. In the interim, how many people have you managed to convince to read this book? And how many of them came to embrace Lessans’ discovery? Is it possible for you to invite any that did to join us in this exchange? That way others might be able to come up with different ways in which to reframe Lessans’ arguments such they they might convince me to give it a shot.

@peacegirl

You cannot go by how many people have embraced this discovery. What a poor measurement! I already told you that this book has not been thoroughly studied or even read. If I can’t convince you to give it a shot, I don’t think anyone else could do it either. So you’re stuck with me, and at this point I’m not hopeful. Your skepticism is getting in the way.

iambiguous"]Well, if, eventually, “everyone” comes to embrace it, it seems reasonable to ponder just how close those who have already embraced it are to bringing that into fruition.

But since you could not not be “not hopeful” here, it’s not like you really bear any responsibility for it. But then that would seem [to me] to be the beauty of surrendering one’s “will” to the design.

True, but just because I don’t bear any responsibility for what I do does not mean that I will be able to excuse behavior that hurts others unjustifiably. That is the other side of the equation. Most philosophers believe that if we stop blaming, people would become irresponsible because they have nothing holding them accountable. It’s the exact opposite.

@peacegirl

This discovery needs to be brought to light. When people realize that removing all blame and punishment from the environment will make for a more peaceful world, they will desire this.

@iambiguous

Okay, let’s focus on that. You seem to be suggesting here there is the possibility that Lessans’ new world will fail to materialize because you and others are not successful in convincing enough people [or the right people] to sign on.

Is this the case?

@peacegirl

Not at all. I don’t know whether it’s the right timing. All I know is that I’m doing what I personally can do to help this cause. Whether it’s now or later, this law of our nature will be recognized because it’s not an intellectual contraption. It is an objective truth.

@iambiguous

Are you saying then that Lessans’ discovery must prevail. And that, in prevailing, the “new world” as you describe is a sure thing?

I believe that this discovery will prevail once it is confirmed valid by the scientific community.

@iambiguous

And isn’t the “sting” itself just another inherent reaction necessarily in tune with the design.

@peacegirl

Of course it is, but I would rather not feel the sting so I will do what I can to take it away, which is also in tune with the design.

@iambiguous

Yet even the fact that you would rather not feel the sting is the only possible thing that you can feel. Thus what you do in order not to feel it is in turn what you can only do. From my perspective once you acknowledge that everything that you think, feel and do is wholly concomitant with an existence necessarily unfolding as it must, then even in speaking about it in this exchange is just one more inherent facet of it.

That is all true, but if the unfolding encompasses a change in the trajectory mankind has been going, that would be something to be excited about.

@iambiguous

How can one not sense here that in some manner you are blaming folks for not investigating his work when you are also aware that in not investigating it they are fully in accord with the design? And why can’t you just sit back knowing full well that it is inevitable that some day the world will. Otherwise how can this world that he predicts ever come to be.

@peacegirl

I’m not blaming anyone, but I am frustrated because I know that this is an important discovery that has the power to change our world for the better. It’s a heavy weight on me knowing that this discovery is here and very few people even know about it, and those who do don’t even care to learn more.

@iambiguous

I believe it is reasonable to suggest that you do project from time to time in an accusatory manner. But what does being or not being accusatory even mean when you can only project to others as/what you must. And, in turn, if others can only react to you as they must? As long as our subjunctive states are no less wholly integrated into the design, every reaction on our part is the right one.

@peacegirl

Yes, that is true, but you seem resigned to the fact that because we are all part of the design, there is nothing we can do to improve our world.

@iambiguous

If I am resigned I must be resigned. Just as you must react to the manner in which you construe me being resigned as you must. And in improving the world from my perspective others will see it as making it worse. And you know what that takes us back to.

You don’t have to be resigned before you choose to be resigned, if you see a reason not to be. We all know that once you feel resigned, you can’t take that moment back but that doesn’t mean you can’t change your attitude if new information compels you to think differently. And as I said plenty of times there is a difference between these conflicts in values regarding abortion, and a conflict in values when it comes to murdering a person who has already been born. Maybe this difference passes through the eye of a needle, but to many it’s enough of a difference to justify abortion and be unable to justify killing someone.

@peacegirl

When I say “for the better” I mean that we can still identify behaviors that will give us the most desired outcome in terms of peace, well-being, and happiness. Even though whatever is, is what must be, it is in our DNA to strive for those things we consider to be good, and “good” in this context is creating a world in which no one would desire to gain at another’s expense.

@iambiguous

Notice, however, how abstract this is. It does not obviate the fact that our desired outcomes frequently come into conflict. And that, however it is all decided, we can be sure that it had nothing to do with what we freely choose to do or not do. We are all instead seamlessly embodied in the design. Human interaction then would seem to be no different from the interaction of matter in an earthquke or a tsunami or a volcanic eruption. It’s all matter doing only what matter must do. And just as we would not describe the consequences of these natural disasters as immoral, it really makes no sense to describe our own interactions that way in a determined world.

Things either happen or they do not. Morality then is just part and parcel of the illusion of free will.

So let’s not call certain behaviors immoral. Lessans doesn’t. Let’s just think in terms of whether something is a hurt or not.

@peacegirl

That is true, but my effort to bring this discovery to light sooner rather than later might tip the scale in favor of this new world coming into existence in 25 years rather than in another thousand years.

@iambiguous

How was that not already decided from the moment the law of matter itself began to unfold? Again, from my point of view, this is the perspective of someone who is convinced that the choices they make are not just on automatic pilot.

@peacegirl

When you say “automatic pilot”, I am not a robot that is mindlessly doing what I have been programmed to do. There is nothing automatic (without conscious input) about evaluating and analyzing a particular choice. How in the world can you then make the leap that because I don’t subscribe to the notion of being “a cog in a wheel,” that I am not a strict determinist?

iambiguous"]Obviously, we think about these relationships differently. No, you are not mindlessly doing what you do, but you are mindfully doing only what you ever could do.

And when a robot does only what it can ever do per the program how is that really different from you and I doing only what we can ever do per the design? Again, for all practical purposes, they are the same thing. The robot is simply not conscious of being programmed.
[/quote]
It is absolutely true that we can only do what we are compelled to do, but the trajectory of our lives can change such that what we choose in the direction of greater satisfaction changes dramatically based on the change in antecedent conditions.

@iambiguous

Do you really believe that, despite the world we live in now [bursting at the seams with all manner of conflicting goods], everyone will just abandon the need to punish and blame others for doing the things that they find to be appalling, disgusting, sickening?

Wow. What I wouldn’t give if only just to imagine the world like that! To be inside the head of someone who is able to believe this. What must that be like?!

@peacegirl

It’s a hopeful feeling. Maybe you’ll feel it one day too.

@iambiguous

But here is how I always react to that given that we do live in a wholly determined world: I would feel that way only becasue I could not not feel that way. And that always seems to spoil it for me.

I think it spoils it for you because you think in terms of being nothing more than a robot. In terms of not being able to choose otherwise, I can understand why you would think this way. The fact that my ability to calculate and analyze, and be mindful of my the best choice possible of the alternatives available does not make feel feel like an automaton. It is mankind’s saving grace because it is what is going to allow this new world to unfold.

@peacegirl

You don’t have to take the time if you don’t want to. Who can force you? But I can’t prostrate myself and beg you to read what you don’t yet understand. This is up to you, according to the design you were meant to follow.

@iambiguous

Yes, you tell me that, “[it] is up to you iambiguous. I hope you see value in our discussion and want to continue on. I am not obligated either.”

But if everything I think, feel and do is only what I must think, feel and do…how is that not being obligated? How am I not being forced [by necessity] not to read it here and now? How are we both not prostrate to the only possible existence around?

That’s still the part I can’t wrap my head around. In other words, that’s the part I can only not wrap my head around.

@peacegirl

The only part that you are missing (as far as this discovery goes) is that you are being forced by necessity. Nothing is forcing you to do anything. This leads into his second principles which states that nothing on this earth can force or compel you to do anything you don’t want to do.

Let’s just say that we view the necessity of matter unfolding only as it must/can unfold differently. Are you and I not just more matter? Just because nothing is “outside” of our existence compelling us to be as one with the design unfolding only as we must does not change the fact that we freely choose nothing of what we think, feel and do.

You always insist that I want what I choose as though I can choose what I want. Freely choose what I want. Instead, what I want is, in turn, only what I must/can want.

@iambiguous

But the crucial distinction for me is still the same: that we do not choose freely to change that trajectory. On the contrary, here we are interchangable with the ants, right? The only really substantial difference would seem to be that ants are oblivious to anything relating to either a “trajectory” or to “changing it”. Their “minds” are more clearly just material mechanisms wholely subsumed in the instincts given them by the evolution of life on earth. Our own minds on the other hand have evolved such they we are matter able to actually contemplate itself as matter “self-consciously”. But so what? Like the ants we are still no less compelled to do only what we must do.

@peacegirl

And that’s a good thing. This IS our saving grace even if you don’t see it yet.

@iambiguous

It’s a good thing if you imagine that for all practical purposes human interaction is basically the equivalent of insect interaction --except the insects are unable to be consciously aware of the “philosophical” implications of it. We do what they do – subsist, reproduce, defend ourselves – but we know that we do it self-consciously. Only most of us are still under the illusion that we do these things freely, of our own more or less autonomous volition.

@peacegirl

That is true, but the very fact that we have this self-consciousness and that we can ponder, evaluate the pros and cons, analyse a situation, etc., gives us the ability to change the trajectory of our lives but still be within the framework of determinism.

I can only try to grasp what it must be like to actually think like this; to think as you do given all of the objections I raise. But then I keep coming back to accepting that, in a wholly determined world, it is utterly futile to grasp anything other than what I am prefabricated to grasp as a material cog in the material machine that is the totality of existence itself.

@iambiguous

We “change” our trajectory in the direction that it goes only because we could not change it to go in any other direction. Our “ability” then revolves entirely around the necessity to do what we could not not have done. And if we do avoid pain and achieve pleasure it is only because it could never have been any other way.

So, sure, if the design has unfolded such that you have considerably more pleasure than pain than what could be better? But, again we live in this world:

globalissues.org/article/26/ … -and-stats

Meaning that hundreds and hundreds of millions of us endure considerbly more pain than pleasure day in and day out. In fact, every 24 hours it is estimated that approximately 18,000 children aged 5 years or younger will die from starvation – one of the most painful and protracted ways in which one can die.

So I suppose for their sake we’d better hope that Lessans’ “new world” comes about closer to 25 years than to a 1,000.

@peacegirl

That’s why I’m doing what I’m doing, but if my effort to get this knowledge into the “right” hands (scientists who can give this work a thorough investigation and confirm its validity), it will probably be closer to 1,000 years.

Well, if it is about a thousand years from now, it means that, in the interim, approximately 18,000,000 more children will die from starvation. But a determinist can at least take solace in the fact there really wasn’t anything different that he or she could have done to change that.

And, if I understand you, there is not even a God to afford us [and the dead children] divine justice.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[Pec_of_Uliar]

@iambiguous

@Pec of Uliar

@iambiguous

And this, to me, is like a religionist assuring me that even though God is omnipotent and is cognizant of everything I will ever think, feel and do, He has given me free will to choose only what He already knows that I will choose.

I’m not sure why you find this to be a problem.

I can do x or y. If I do x, God will know, in advance, that I will do x. If I do y, then God will know, in advance, that I will do y. I can do x or y. But I can’t do x if God knows in advance that I will do y; and I can’t do y, if God knows in advance that I will do x.

There is no problem for free will there, because I can still do either x or y. I just can’t outwit God.

Let’s dispense with the Xs and the Ys.

Mary is pregnant. She can either choose to abort her baby or not to abort it.

God is omniscient. He knows in advance that Mary will choose to abort the baby.

So, what will Mary “choose” to do?

And if she chooses to kill the baby how will God choose to react to that? Will He choose to send her to Hell?

In other words, will she go to Hell for “choosing” a behavior that she could not not have chosen given that God knows in advance everything that she will ever “choose”?

Now, there are arguments cited by religionists to account for this:
comereason.org/omniscience-and-free-will.asp

I have just never been able to wrap my head around them. At least not such that my own assumptions go away.

The Come Reason Ministries article you link is correct. Omniscience does not impugn free will. Free will may be impugned for other reasons, perhaps even for the reasons peacegirl is putting forth, but omniscience is not one of those reasons.

Let me try to explain why more formally.

Your argument about Mary and abortion commits what is called a modal scope fallacy.

It says, in effect, that if God knows beforehand that Mary will have an abortion, then Mary must have an abortion.

That is, Mary has no choice in the matter: her action is necessary, even in advance of her doing it.

This is false.

What is true, is that if Mary has an abortion, God will know that fact in advance; and if Mary does not have an abortion, then God will know that fact in advance, instead.

Mary can either have an abortion or not have an abortion. She just can’t fool God.

Modal scope fallacy: If God knows in advance x, then x must happen.

Corrected argument: If God knows in advance x, then x will happen (not must happen).

More formally:

Necessarily, (if God knows in advance x will happen, then x will happen).

The necessity operator lies in the joint relation between antecedent and consequent, not in the consequent alone. The consequent (Mary having an abortion, or not) is contingent, not necessary.

Hence Mary is free to abort or not to abort. All that is necessary is that whatever choice she makes, God will know that choice in advance of her making it.

If my responses aren’t timely I’m sorry; when I submit them they keep going to a moderation queue, and then don’t get posted up for a long time. I guess that’s because I’m a new member, but it is frustrating. I’m still waiting for my post introducing myself in the members’ intro thread to appear, and I submitted that on Sunday morning.

[Pec_of_Uliar]

Somehow this post did not make it through. So let me repost. This is to peacegirl:

Your argument seems to go like this.

1. Everyone always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction.

2. Because of this, no one can do, other that what they do (that which brings the greatest perceived satisfaction).

3. If no one can do, other than what they do, it is illogical to blame people (or praise them, for that matter) for what they do, since they could not have done otherwise.

4. If everyone on earth accepted 1., 2., and 3., then they would never blame or punish people for what they do. Even stronger, they could not blame or punish people for what they do, because blaming or punishing people who are not blameworthy would bring less satisfaction than not blaming or punishing them.

5. Therefore, all people know that they will not be blamed or punished for what they do, because no one can blame or punish anyone else under these changed conditions.

If this is right so far, we now need a conclusion – what follows from the above? – or additional premises, if necessary, to support the conclusion. If the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is valid. Assuming that all the premises are true, then the argument is sound. Remember that it is possible for an argument to be valid but unsound.

So, what is the conclusion? Or what additional premises may be needed to establish the conclusion?

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

Recently approved posts

@Pec of Uliar

Your argument seems to go like this.

1. Everyone always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction.

2. Because of this, no one can do, other that what they do (that which brings the greatest perceived satisfaction).

3. If no one can do, other than what they do, it is illogical to blame people (or praise them, for that matter) for what they do, since they could not have done otherwise.

4. If everyone on earth accepted 1., 2., and 3., then they would never blame or punish people for what they do. Even stronger, they could not blame or punish people for what they do, because blaming or punishing people who are not blameworthy would bring less satisfaction than not blaming or punishing them.

5. Therefore, all people know that they will not be blamed or punished for what they do, because no one can blame or punish anyone else under these changed conditions.

Is the above a correct formulation of your argument?

If it is, we now need a conclusion – what follows from the above? – or additional premises, if necessary, to support the conclusion. If the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is valid. Assuming that all the premises are true, then the argument is sound. Remember that it is possible for an argument to be valid but unsound.

So, what is the conclusion?

[peacegirl]

@Pec of Uliar

Somehow this post did not make it through. So let me repost. This is to peacegirl:

Your argument seems to go like this.

1. Everyone always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction.

2. Because of this, no one can do, other that what they do (that which brings the greatest perceived satisfaction).

3. If no one can do, other than what they do, it is illogical to blame people (or praise them, for that matter) for what they do, since they could not have done otherwise.

4. If everyone on earth accepted 1., 2., and 3., then they would never blame or punish people for what they do. Even stronger, they could not blame or punish people for what they do, because blaming or punishing people who are not blameworthy would bring less satisfaction than not blaming or punishing them.

5. Therefore, all people know that they will not be blamed or punished for what they do, because no one can blame or punish anyone else under these changed conditions.

If this is right so far, we now need a conclusion – what follows from the above? – or additional premises, if necessary, to support the conclusion. If the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is valid. Assuming that all the premises are true, then the argument is sound. Remember that it is possible for an argument to be valid but unsound.

So, what is the conclusion? Or what additional premises may be needed to establish the conclusion?

You are on the right track, but you need to have a better understanding as to why a no blame environment prevents those very acts of crime that blame and punishment have been unable to prevent. In other words, you have an understanding as to why man’s will is not free, which is one side of the two-sided equation. You need a grasp of the other side because this IS the discovery. It shows why a person in a no blame environment cannot find satisfaction in striking a first blow under these changed conditions.

[Pec_of_Uliar]

@peacegirl

@Pec of Uliar

Somehow this post did not make it through. So let me repost. This is to peacegirl:

Your argument seems to go like this.

1. Everyone always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction.

2. Because of this, no one can do, other that what they do (that which brings the greatest perceived satisfaction).

3. If no one can do, other than what they do, it is illogical to blame people (or praise them, for that matter) for what they do, since they could not have done otherwise.

4. If everyone on earth accepted 1., 2., and 3., then they would never blame or punish people for what they do. Even stronger, they could not blame or punish people for what they do, because blaming or punishing people who are not blameworthy would bring less satisfaction than not blaming or punishing them.

5. Therefore, all people know that they will not be blamed or punished for what they do, because no one can blame or punish anyone else under these changed conditions.

If this is right so far, we now need a conclusion – what follows from the above? – or additional premises, if necessary, to support the conclusion. If the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is valid. Assuming that all the premises are true, then the argument is sound. Remember that it is possible for an argument to be valid but unsound.

So, what is the conclusion? Or what additional premises may be needed to establish the conclusion?

You are on the right track, but you need to have a better understanding as to why a no blame environment prevents those very acts of crime that blame and punishment have been unable to prevent. In other words, you have an understanding as to why man’s will is not free, which is one side of the two-sided equation. You need a grasp of the other side because this IS the discovery. It shows why a person in a no blame environment cannot find satisfaction in striking a first blow under these changed conditions.

But that’s what I’m asking you to present: to finish the argument. Either state the conclusion from the above premises, or add whatever additional premises you think need to be made to establish the conclusion.

Not all of the above are actually premises; one is an intermediate conclusion and another constitutes an assumption. But that’s not really important. Let me rephrase: does the argument presented above so far represent your argument? If it does; good, then move on and present the additional premises and conclusion that you need to flesh it out.

[Pec_of_Uliar]

Let me offer two additional premises:

6. People strike a first blow (i.e., find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow, then in refraining from doing so) precisely because they know in advance that they will be blamed or punished for striking a first blow: This prospective blame or punishment constitutes their justification for striking a first blow.

7. One everyone knows that they will not be blamed or punished for striking a first blow, they will no longer be able to strike a first blow, because their justification (blame or punishment) for acting in this way has vanished. Thus, the direction of “greater satisfaction” will always be to refrain from striking a first blow.

[Pec_of_Uliar]

Conclusion: Once 1. through 7. are universally understood and accepted, no one will be able to strike a first blow.