New 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?

You mean counterfactuals? Or showing a way to falsify it? It’s still very abstract for me. For me to do that, I need a concrete example of what in the book is not showing this contrast? He is speaking without any reference to the content.

But the differentiation was discussed thoroughly. If we had free will (differentiation from determinism), we would be able to choose what we don’t prefer in favor of what we do prefer when comparing alternatives. We could choose otherwise given the same exact scenario, but we know first of all that it is impossible to prove this. I’m not sure what I’m missing, but thank you for trying to explain.

It’s reasonable if it’s clearly explained. He is making assumptions that everyone should be able to understand his very confusing terminology. I asked him to give a concrete example. He hasn’t done that. I asked him what is the discovery. He didn’t answer. How can someone give any kind of critique without knowing what the discovery is? :-k

As I said, there is a differentiation between free will (the ability to choose either this option or that option equally when there are meaningful differences), and not having free will (being unable to choose what is less preferable or valuable to the individual given meaningful differences). He has proven that it is impossible to choose what offers the least satisfaction when something of greater value is offered as an alternative. Why are people making much to do out of this, when it is so obviously true using themselves as a reference. No one can judge what is good for the collective in this case since this is part of the problem; this constant judgment of what is right for everyone. The only thing this knowledge can do is remove any justification that would give someone permission to hurt others. How? By preventing all hurt to them, all critical judgment, and all blame from the environment. Obviously that’s not an easy task, which is why he did not say we should suddenly stop blaming. There’s much more to it than that. I agree that semantics is not a problem if it can be straightened out. The terms “free”, “greater satisfaction”, “will”, “choice”, “cause”, and “determinism” can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated. There is a definite problem with the conventional definition of determinism (which brings up a cascade of issues with all the other terms) since nothing causes us to do anything (which is implied in the definition) if we don’t want to, or against or will. Iambiguous still doesn’t understand that, and says it’s an intellectual contraption in the author’s head. :laughing:

What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.

Right?

Whole “discoveries” can then be created in the heads of some simply by insisting that only their own definitions count.

Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.

Wow. The human will itself embedded [and then said to be embodied] in a cascade of definitions.

Though some suggest that nothing causes this argument to be made other than by way of nature compelling the one making it to define the words only as, well, nature intended her to.

Only that brings us to yet another quandary: What does it mean to speak of the “laws of matter” as “intended”?

By God perhaps?

Or, as some of us suspect, by whatever the final explanation for existence itself is.

In other words, if it’s not God.

And yet in a way that still escapes me, I suspect she will argue in turn that I do not understand that only because nature has not [as of now] compelled me to.

So, I’m off the hook, but…but still able to be held responsible for “choosing” not to understand it.

You tell me what this means. You know, for all practical purposes.

By the way…

Peacegirl [of late] has apparently been compelled by nature not to respond directly to the posts I create here. Our own exchange has been…terminated by her?

Why?

Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that her own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to her is that it is not what she believes is true that matters nearly as much as that she believes that all others are obligated to share in that belief.

Another psychological embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296