New Discovery

{(( .1( partially second that notion, and that fault not lies completely with her but her Author. ( of whom she constantly refers)2.)) }

I actually find walking my dog and watching the ducks in a pond near me, very relaxing. Smelling flowers too. :slight_smile:

Forums are not the right venue. I need to get this knowledge carefully analyzed by people in the field, especially those who lean in the direction of determinism. It’s very hard to start from scratch trying to convince people there is no free will because that’s not the discovery, and I haven’t been able to make headway.

I meant that the problem is that the way I’m going about it, in bits and pieces, is not doing the book justice. I also agree with the comment by Isaac Asimov. The attainment of truth and knowledge, regardless of the field, is what matters.

Love that, thank you!

Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and
all the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this
discovery. My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not
free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever
lived. Through the process of reading and studying I was privileged
to acquire information that led me to this answer. All knowledge is
a gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in his motion towards
greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line
when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find
answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the
credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him
towards murder and war. I am only obeying a law that forces me to
move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God
deserves the credit, not me. Before long tears will be flowing in
abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for
this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else.
None of us are given a free choice.

That is so true. Having new eyes to see things in a different way.

That’s the problem, I don’t know where to turn. I am having a hard time reaching people who will give this discovery the attention it deserves.

Because this knowledge is not an hypothesis or a theory. I can’t dilute what is absolute just to avoid criticism. I know that one plus one is two. Have you ever heard the saying: “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” Leo Tolstoy

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks
no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity
. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the If
you are sincerely interested in seeing this fantastic transition to a new
way of life which must come about the moment this discovery is
thoroughly understood, all I ask is that you do not judge what you are
about to read in terms of your present knowledge but do everything in
your power to understand what is written by following the
mathematical relations implicitly expressed throughout. Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark…the hour is getting late.
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8, so please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

Yes, and part of knowing thyself is knowing that man’s will is not free and what this means for our benefit so that no one will desire to hurt others under changed conditions.

One of the most profound insights ever expressed by
Socrates was “Know Thyself,” but though he had a suspicion of its
significance it was only an intuitive feeling, not something he could
put his finger on. These two words have never been adequately
understood by mankind, including psychiatry and psychology, because
this observation is the key that unlocks the first door to another door
that requires its own key, and where the hiding place to this discovery
was finally uncovered. However, the problem here is so deep and so
involved that even those like your philosopher Spinoza, who
understood that man’s will is not free, didn’t even come close to the
solution, and others like your William James and John Calvin would
be willing to bet their life that will is free. Why do theologians treat
this as if it is an undeniable reality? And what made it so obvious to
Durant that man’s will is free? Durant is now deceased but over 20
years ago I phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that
was hidden behind the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He
replied, “You must be on the wrong tack, but take what you think you
have to Johns Hopkins University for an analysis.” I not only
contacted that university but many others to no avail.

The changed conditions of the new world from a free will environment (an environment of blame and punishment) to a no free will environment (an environment devoid of blame and punishment). But remember, this doesn’t mean there will be no consequences; it’s just that the knowledge that there will be no consequences will be a worse consequence than any punishment society could offer. IOW, the knowledge that under no conditions will a person be blamed for anything that is done (under the new conditions obviously which require a transitional period; he didn’t say to suddenly stop blaming or it could make matters altogether worse) will be a much stronger deterrent not to do harm than any deterrent we now have. How this is accomplished is what this discovery is all about yet no one has even read Chapter Two, except for one person that I know of, who needs to read it again and maybe a third time. You cannot just gloss over it and expect to fully understand the magnitude of this discovery.

Do you think the need to institutionalized means a return to the anonymity of the institutionalized ref. to it’s authority, rather than the studies done on those who’ve who’se institutionalization is measured on opinion . let’s say of Szasz’s ?
Or is that still a behavioral/genetic controversy? And if it is, can it be hoped that the middle ground has already been attained? (Albiet bounderly -as merely by standards set bas borderline ? And as ascribed as a socially determined expectation compressed compressed by societal determinations?

As the transition from one world to the other is taking place there may be people who cannot control their impulses since their conscience has been severed. As a new generation is born into the new world, mental illness that leads to psychopathic behavior will be virtually wiped out. There may some individuals that are more prone to aggression genetically, but these aggressions will not be expressed when the triggers that activate them are gone. There may also be some opinion as to whether an individual who is already incarcerated could be released, given the type of crime he was engaged in. Remember, all of these societal determinations will continue until the transition comes to completion. Most professional criminals have a conscience that will control their behavior under the changed environmental conditions. Right now their conscience is at a 4 which is not enough to deter their criminal activities, but eventually their conscience will grow to a 10 which will be more than enough to deter any behavior that takes advantage or hurts another. I happened upon this article about Szasz. I haven’t read it yet but it looks interesting.

[i]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reality-play/201209/revisiting-the-myth-mental-illness-and-thomas-szasz

[/i]

As the transition from one world to the other is taking place there may be people who cannot control their impulses since their conscience has been severed. As a new generation is born into the new world, mental illness that leads to psychopathic behavior will be virtually wiped out. There may some individuals that are more prone to aggression genetically, but these aggressions will not be expressed when the triggers that activate them are gone. There may also be some opinion as to whether an individual who is already incarcerated could be released, given the type of crime he was engaged in. Remember, all of these societal determinations will continue until the transition comes to completion. Most professional criminals have a conscience that will control their behavior under the changed environmental conditions. Right now their conscience is at a 4 which is not enough to deter their criminal activities, but eventually their conscience will grow to a 10 which will be more than enough to deter any behavior that takes advantage or hurts another.[/quote

I get that as.an ideal.paradigm, based on the above noted idea , however what of those who according their expressed testimony showing that they , may prefer incertification / incarceration to freedom, based on having been less stress inducing to be institutionalised then be out?
And whereof their conscience 's development originates from, this subversive feeling or rationale?
Are partially differentiated clues testaments not prevy to any assumptions of the sort?

Of course you can ask any questions you want but many questions have been answered in the book. There may be tiny details that will need to be worked out, but this has nothing to do with the veracity of the knowledge. Prisoners will be the last to take the examination. If they don’t want to get out because they’re comfortable with prison life, they can stay there. But if they are guaranteed a standard of living, and there is no arrest conviction record that would prevent them from finding a job, they may find that living in a 6x9 cell will be less preferable than being free. I’m offering you these excerpts even though I’m pulling them out of context, which he urged not to do.

[i]Just as long as there will be
non-citizens, they must know they will be blamed and punished if
responsible for hurting others and this is why the portion of
government that protects the people during the transition will remain
in existence until the transition is complete. It is also interesting to
observe that if a motor vehicle operator wants to speed, go through red
lights, stop signs, or do any number of things that risk hurting others
without the police being on his back; or if someone wants to steal
without the possibility of going to prison, all he has to do is become
a citizen and he will be completely free of the laws. When he does
become a citizen he will be compelled by a superior law and the
guarantee which gives him financial security, to sacrifice any such
desires as that alternative which he finds better for himself. For the
first time he is truly free to do anything he wants but will never desire
to hurt others because his conscience will not allow it under the
changed conditions. This proves conclusively that just as soon as
science confirms this work as an undeniable blueprint of a world that
must come to pass out of absolute necessity when our political and
military leaders understand the principles, the inception of this
Golden Age can officially begin. The transition will be completed
when prisoners, the last ones to take the test, have passed the
examination. Remember, when prisoners are released after signing
the agreement, they will be entering a new world in which hurting
others as they did before whether in retaliation or a first blow will be
an impossible consideration. I know many of you will find this
difficult to believe, but only if you don’t understand the principles.

At first glance it may appear that non-citizens could take
advantage of the knowledge that they would be released from prison
after passing their examination should they get caught in breaking the
law. They could kill someone hated very much and not fear the
charge. They could successfully rob a bank of a million dollars, hide
the money, and if caught, take their examination and be released to
enjoy the fruits of their plan. You must remember that man must
always do what he thinks is better for himself which compels the non-
citizen to take into consideration the possible consequences. In trying
to kill somebody, he himself could become the victim. He could also
be killed while attempting to rob the bank. Furthermore, he must
also weigh the possible years he could spend in prison just waiting his
turn to take the examination which he might fail, with no one willing
to assume responsibility in his case. He might also be executed before
capital punishment becomes obsolete. Once the transition gets
officially launched, that is, once the leaders have set up their IBM
offices and become citizens by passing their examination, they will
forthwith abolish capital punishment. You have looked at a negative
possibility without comparing the positive benefits to the potential
citizen who is now a free man looking in, not looking out. Because
the comparison gives no free choice, everybody notwithstanding who
gets wind of this new world, so to speak, will desire to become a citizen
just as soon as possible. If a prisoner takes the examination and
passes, regardless of what he was in prison for, he will be a free man
because it will be mathematically impossible, under the changed
conditions, for him to ever desire hurting others again. But just as
the leaders of the world were first in taking the examination, so the
prisoners will be among the last.

“What about gangsters, racketeers, bookmakers, dope peddlers,
and those who are paid to commit murder; do they get out as well
even though they earn a living hurting others?”

Anybody who makes his living by doing something that hurts
others has a choice to make. He can pass his examination and
become a citizen which guarantees his standard of living and allows
him to change his job without losing as a result of this change, or he
can continue to hurt others to earn his income with the constant
possibility of earning less while ending up in prison. Is he really given
a choice? When a drug pusher becomes a citizen he will lose the
desire to push the sale of his products with misleading information
which means that once all available facts about drugs are made public,
and all blame withdrawn, the user will find very little satisfaction in
taking this chance of hurting himself, but if he wants to, this will be
his business. The citizen will not find any satisfaction in remaining
in a business that hurts others under the changed conditions, and the
non-citizen, knowing that his standard of living is guaranteed when
he becomes a citizen and also realizing that just as long as he
continues to engage in illicit activities he is subject to the full penalty
of the laws, will be very anxious to study and pass his examination.[/i]

peacegirl,

The below words are yours not Durant’s right?

Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and
all the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this
discovery. My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not
free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever
lived. Through the process of reading and studying I was privileged
to acquire information that led me to this answer. All knowledge is
a gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in his motion towards
greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line
when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find
answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the
credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him
towards murder and war. I am only obeying a law that forces me to
move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God
deserves the credit, not me. Before long tears will be flowing in
abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for
this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else.
None of us are given a free choice.

These are Lessans’ words (the author), not Durant. These are not my words, I’m not the author.

Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and
all the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this
discovery. My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not
free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever
lived. Through the process of reading and studying I was privileged
to acquire information that led me to this answer. All knowledge is
a gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in his motion towards
greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line
when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find
answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the
credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him
towards murder and war. I am only obeying a law that forces me to
move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God
deserves the credit, not me. Before long tears will be flowing in
abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for
this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else.
None of us are given a free choice.

Ok, Lessan. After all this has been satisfactorily found.
At the same time , the author’s interpretation is only one of many other philosophical treatises, and the idea of responsibility for one’s actions becomes a.paramount consideration in relating to his idea of applying , as.to the last man dealing with how he handles all the accumulated knowledge , which hypothetically landed him in the position of having to interpret and then male a choice for his actions.

So the problem of resting here is still outstanding , and prevy to the same reoccurring problems that were present at the beginning of the cycle , from cave man up.
What cicilization has done is to bring awareness so much nearer to the precipice.

The responsibility for one’s actions becomes of paramount importance in regard to the application of these principles. The change from a free will (blame filled) environment to a no free will (blame free) environment (of which there is no precedent), stops whatever accumulated knowledge led this person to hurting others in its tracks. The person cannot do what he did previously under these conditions. Civilization has done much to help prevent crime, hatred, war, and poverty, but now we are at the precipice. Let’s not lose this opportunity just because many believe it can’t be done.

Right, but, taking the last man argument and the prisoner’s dilemma in conjunction to necessity, it is not ascertained that ( and this is only for the sake of argument) the progression of knowledge to the last man, will consist of the most agreeable decision.

There can not be agreement by a solitary figure, however much useful information has been acquired.

The last man in his prison cell is prone to base his nest last argument not in terms of an objective way to solve his predicament, but on a differing one, namely having to make a choice of the very earliest argumentative type of understanding: in or out, a solitary quest between staying within the confines of his own barbaric feelings about containment or abandonment.
That is how his final responsibility introduced intontje realm of the unanswered question: either stay in or go out.

Reductionism and simplification, deconstruction, have signed , sealed , and delivered this ultimatum, and there may not be a single , unified authority to deliver the message singularly.

Time is of the essence , to go back to the arliest possible recycle, and change things there, and not leave it on the hands, of a single authority whose main concern is one to do with guilt / lack of responsibility. For that is what reduction entails: into a participation mystique of tribal organization.

[/quote]
Agreement by a solitary figure? An ultimatum? A single unified authority? Guilt/lack of responsibility? Reduction into a participation mystique of tribal organization? None of this applies. :-k

Not all criticism will be invalid and it is that that you should be paying attention to. You claim a clear demonstration but it is unfortunately only clear to you which means either you are wrong or you are not being clear enough in explaining your philosophy [ for want of a better word ] I actually have no idea if your discovery is right or wrong because that is only something that can become known in time. And so your absolute certainty that it is is not something that you can know for sure This demonstrates beyond all doubt that you are not as critical as you should be. You cannot know the future though you can fool yourself into thinking that you do

I don’t know the future, but I do know that this discovery will help to shape the trajectory of our world in amazing ways, once it is understood and applied on a global scale. To be fair to the author, do you even know what the discovery is? You’re the one, I believe, that read Chapter Two, right? You didn’t have one question so you must have understood it. So tell me, what is the discovery?

quote=“Meno_l”]

[/quote]
Agreement by a solitary figure? An ultimatum? A single unified authority? Guilt/lack of responsibility? Reduction into a participation mystique of tribal organization? None of this applies. :-k
[/quote]
----???------???-----???

But You are making this statement singularly, and that is exactly my point.
(And keep in mind I am in Partial agreement, only that a hypothetical begs for substantive reasoning, and as hypothetical as motivated reasoning-it may demand for justification down the line: referentiality requires it!

That is the only trace that is left unresolved, and even a minute amount of it is like taking a minute amount of poison.

That is why partially re-integrated difference, requires to be taken into account.

Maybe I’m negating a logical extension into this, what may be a secondary derivative, and You may wish not to go there, however I see plenty of pressing utilization , whereby to reduce what may turn into a bubble, based on Artemis’ idea of a reverse triangle.(pyramid); It’s a.concern, nevertheless.

Thanks. Peace

----???------???-----???

What statement are you talking about, and what difference does it make if I am making it singularly?

The reasoning couldn’t be any more substantive, and it’s justified. Referentially? In what way do you mean?

Huh? How can that be the only trace that is left unresolved when nothing has been explained? I’ll ask you the same question I asked surreptitious75. What is the discovery?

You keep talking about there being a difference that needs to be reintegrated. I’m still not sure what you’re referring to.

How can you negate a logical extension when there is no foundation upon which you can do this? What secondary derivative are you using that I may not want to go to? What pressing utilization do you see that could turn into a bubble? You speak very abstractly.

I need to read more because I have only read it once so I will read from the extracts you have posted here
I wish I had the book but after I ordered it it was not in stock so all I have are what you post on the forum

Agree, but everyone has to be on the same page with semantics or misinterpretations will occur really. Maybe not if an understanding is achieved, of what needs to be understood to progress.

Pg

I don’t want to speak for Meno but what I interpret from that, is that contrast or differentiation has to exist for the other to exist and he may mean for you to reintegrate that differentiation or contrast back into your philosophy so it can make sense logically/reasonably.

The only way we can exist is through balance of varying differentiations. Take ignorance and wisdom for example, can’t be wise if there is no ignorance to be wise over. There are two or more variables in any case. Same for Determinism, we can only discuss determinism because there is a contrast or differentiation to it. If that’s what he means, Do you get it?

He might mean you may be lacking a little vision if discussing singularly I think, though I am not completely sure because I’m not In Meno’s body and mind as my functioning identity. It only seems abstract, usually when thinking or discussing we think of the mass and collective of humanity, at least I do or in my own experience of discussing, it isn’t just me I think about. To evolve the species, you have to think and implement for the species collectively and figure what’s best. It may seem abstract, but it’s reasonable. If you think singularly then you only think for you and your perception is limited by you.

So before we progress we may need you to agree there is a differentiation/contrast and the semantics though they matter to an extent, won’t matter so much as long as it’s known and understood.

I’m working on getting that fixed. Are you able to read the first three chapters I gave a link to, or is the text too small?