When we are hurt we have two options; we can strike back ‘an eye for an eye’ or we can turn the other cheek. This knowledge prevents the first cheek from ever being struck, so there will be no need to do either.
I don’t know how to proceed because no one seems that interested.
Requiring people to read the entire book, before the discussion begins, seems to be a poor way of generating interest and getting your message out.
I’m not asking people to read the entire book but I am asking them to meet me half way by reading the first three chapters. If this is a true discovery, 130 pages is not that much to devote your time to. I can’t keep repeating the same thing over and over. I said that this discovery is based on the knowledge that man’s will is not free, but this is just the gateway that leads to the two-sided equation. The two-sided equation is the discovery itself which is explained in Chapter Two. I am not hiding anything. Another problem is if I shorten this anymore than I already have, the clarity could be further compromised. Would you ever think of demanding a synopsis of Nietzsche’s work, or any famous philosopher for that matter? Any of the great philosophers have been carefully studied and their work analyzed and dissected backward and forward. Haven’t you ever read a book the second time around and found things that you didn’t notice the first time. This is that kind of book. It deals with a serious topic and it’s a new perspective which does not permit a quick skim. I know that’s what everyone wants but it won’t do the book justice although I’ve been trying to cater to everyone’s wants since I’ve been here. I have said all along that this is not the best venue for introducing something new, but unfortunately I have been unable to reach philosophers interested in this topic who could be more instrumental.
Break it into small easy to digest pieces and lead the discussion. Move past people who are putting up roadblocks.
I’ve explained why man’s will is not free. No one seems to understand that the conventional definition of determinism is a problem. If you read the first chapter (which is not that long) and you have questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability. If you are intrigued and want to read Chapter Two, then after that we can discuss it. I will admit that the introduction and beginning of Chapter One is a little long winded but that is not here nor there. Form is not content. People have criticized the writing and never asked one pertinent question regarding the actual content.