New Discovery

I notice that the very first sentence of the quoted extract actually falsifies the authors claim

As the twentieth century has already passed and we are still no nearer to solving the problem of evil assuming of course it can be solved
Even if the author had the solution to the problem it is not something that has been discovered within the specific time frame he stated

The third paragraph is wishful thinking of the highest order with not a single ounce of actual substance
What is the new revised date for the abolition of evil now that the twentieth century has already gone

I guess you didn’t read the following so I’ll post it again.

[i]I am hoping that when I am no longer here, those who understand
these principles will continue to carry the ball. It is important to
understand that my prediction of 25 years or that this great change
that would take place in the 20th century was based on my conviction that
there would be a thorough investigation and understanding of the
principles involved, but as yet it has not been. In other words, if
Gregor Mendel had predicted that his discovery about heredity would
come to light approximately 30 years after his death, he would have
been accurate, but he had no way of knowing when it would be
confirmed by science. He knew it was coming, but could not know
when. In my case, however, I was allowing 5-10 years for this
knowledge to be understood by science and the political world, taking
for granted that the intellectual capacity was available and would
thoroughly investigate what could not be denied. I still believe the
intellectual capacity to understand it exists today, but to quote
Morrison again, “Now we encounter the stubborn resistance of the
human mind which is reluctant to give up fixed ideas. The early
Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took 2000 years to convince
men that this fact is true. New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule
and abuse, but truth survives and is verified.”

Can you see the problem
I have with regard to my discovery? If it took 2 thousand years to get
the shape of the earth scientifically confirmed so that all mankind
would accept it, how long do you think it will take to get this
knowledge in my book scientifically confirmed and accepted when 98%
of mankind believe that man’s will is free and when this belief
hermetically seals a door behind which is the discovery that will bring
about this Great Transition. However, two things are certain. This
discovery must come to light sooner or later because God is giving us
no choice in this matter. Until that time, however, every effort must
be made to bring this knowledge to light in whatever way possible.
With the public’s help, there is every reason to believe that the dawning
of the Golden Age will take place some time in the 21st century. And
when it finally arrives, we will all be here to celebrate the inception of
this wonderful new world.
[/i]

I’m not sure where I need correction. Memory is extremely important to our perception of time but there is only one truth. There is no arrow of time where we can locate the past or future on a timeline. We live in the present, the sun shines in the present, we sleep and wake in the present. Some of the confusion, I believe, comes from the idea that has been accepted as fact for centuries. It is believed that when light reaches our eyes, we are seeing the past since the image is delayed due to a time lapse. If the author is correct, then we could not be seeing the past, but in real time. This opens up a big can of worms. But this conversation is for another day.

Ok will converse about that another time.
But-my time is limited by pressing matters, so as not to inconvenience you, will prefunctorily advance that ’ another time.

Time present is incalculable as well as inconceivable in the present.

Therefore , in those times, time is no longer a presence.

As such, it is a timeless epoch of absolute lack of determination.

What can determine any and all events, thoughts or its various manifestations, a part of what came before or may come after?

In the present moment there is absolute freedom to act and think without any constraint by any agency, intrinsic or extrinsic?

The moment indicate a absolute suspension of any effective agency to determine anything at all.

Here is the contradiction implicit, whereas the Author insists in the immediate presence of the immediate present, at that presence and present now, there is no determination but an absolute free will of choice.

It is only at that time when the lAnguage of choice between one thing and it’s opposite becomes even a possibility not less a contingency.

I do not know when this breakthrough will occur and mankind will be able to save itself from evil from that point on
However I have to remain sceptical until it actually does occur even though I am not expecting it within my lifetime
Given as you are the only one who actually thinks that it will happen then no one can take over after you have gone
And without anyone pushing it it will simply fade into oblivion and mankind will be none the wiser as a consequence

That’s always a possibility.

Meno, I don’t think you read anything pertaining to this book. Much of what you’re saying about free will the author agrees with. It’s all about qualification.

And certainly a possibility so remote as to make it happen in an absolutely negative sense.

But , and here is the saving grace,
that absolute sense of dividing a scintilla of possibility approach negative certainty, is the same one as the myriad of Angels who dance on the head ofnthe pin, make the miraculous in the opposite sense of certainty possible, absolutely.
That is why I believe in the force of biblical verse surrounding the travails of hope for that.

Faith, justice, permanence, and beauty of wisdom are ALL predicated on the affinity between quantum and Cosmological ascendancy.
Hate to get philosophical about it, but that is the only possible vindication of Your Author’s Discovery.

And confradiction within IS tantamount of a total qualified tautology of Identity.
It appears then , that argument does require per-necessity this identical yet partially differentiated reality.

There are others, many mansions co training them, and all containment are self included.

Many Mansions ref: Edgar Casey

Who is calculating time present? He made one very accurate observation, and that is we do everything in the present. If you don’t believe that this is true, then that’s fine, but this was an astute observation that I believe is accurate.

There isn’t absolute freedom intrinsic or extrinsic because we have memory which is part of the process of evaluation and contemplation. Animals are also acting in accordance with the law of determinism, for although they are not contemplating their next move the way we do, they are still moving away from one position to the next. Life itself pushes all living things in this direction. This is not a conscious decision on the part of animals, nor does it come from the subconscious. These behaviors are instinctual. I gave an example of a bird pruning itself and suddenly taking off in flight. Obviously the bird wasn’t thinking in terms of the words “satisfaction” or “dissatisfaction” but they were moving in that direction nevertheless.

You misunderstood him. That’s why if you don’t care to read any of his writing you will be creating a lot of non-sequiturs.

We can’t identify anything that suggests the past IN REALITY. We can’t go back to the past IN REALITY because it doesn’t exist. Having only the present in no way means that we have free choice. Humans are able to remember events in the past which allow them to make choices that are contingent on those events held in memory. Once again, just because we live in the present and just because there is no such thing as the past IN REALITY does not mean we cannot choose what gives us greater satisfaction based on antecedent events. But this all comes from our memory bank and how we interpret those events. If we had amnesia we could not make choices based on the past. Our brains would only register the present which is why people that have electro shock therapy forget that they were depressed since they don’t have memory of their circumstances that led them to their emotional state.

I got it Peace Girl, the quantum state: Be present or aware, rather then try to evaluate what “IT” is that is aware to ‘it’
The latter changes the format preception Into it’s idea, and the idea of it can not represent It’s Self.
(In time).
Thanks for Your patience, if I understand correctly.

If not, per Your observation, it’s very close. My requirement of needing the absolute reflection of literal and figurative components has been satisfied.

Meno: I got it Peace Girl, the quantum state:

Peacegirl: No you don’t. Stop acting like you do. It’s insincere!

Meno: Be present or aware, rather then try to evaluate what “IT” is that is aware to ‘it’

Peacegirl: totally unrelated

Meno: The latter changes the format preception Into it’s idea, and the idea of it can not represent It’s Self.
(In time).
Thanks for Your patience, if I understand correctly.

Peacegirl: you understand nothing

Meno: If not, per Your observation, it’s very close. My requirement of needing the absolute reflection of literal and figurative components has been satisfied.

Peacegirl: nothing has been satisfied based on your input, sorry

Then back to the philosophical debate, which I shall not conclude , sans the idea of god. I was tempted to say that I will conclude with what has been said, but promised I was not a quitter.

You can quit if you want. None the worse for wear! lol

Your whole manner has changed that is understood in terms of some intangible thing , that is also obvious.

That two pages since, You or your Author have commended my view as similar in kind, is testamental. .

The provocative manner still haunts a non - quitter whch was again attested to.

What remains is Your direct disclosure as to Your own interpretation rather then simply repeating tendency of moving to better situations ,more pleasing places in time!

Finally, Your suggestion that I am free to quit, does not phase out the idea of expressing contraindicated signals, that can only be expressed in the language of determinancy.

That language is pseudo constructive, since it is processed as an entailment, of the inductive kind, effecting a reconstructive process.

Finally, You may disqualify me on some basis, other then the one given.

That is part and partial to any one seeking the truth., including using sense and no sense figuratively, with a broad spectrum effigy : non-sense.

Until you can tell me what the discovery is Meno, you have no basis to agree or disagree.

Even thought of an analogy, consisting of an extended koan.

The monk asks the Master if by the examples given, he thinks if he is enlightened. The Master in disbelief claps his hand and days : if you think you are, then you’re not.

But perhaps it’s another version of the ontological question as it relates to Nothingness: is it something?

What is enlightenment but knowing the truth. John 8:32: The truth shall set us free. O:) Sound thinking and reasoning based on careful observation are important elements of the scientific method. It’s not that reasoning is a poor method of finding truth; it’s whether the reasoning itself is sound. Enlightenment can come in many forms as Zen Buddhist monks have illustrated, but reasoning (based on accuracy) can’t be left out of the equation in our search for truth.

Ok. Rationalism .Reason is a method to acquire the real, as opposed to fantasy, supernatural sources are excluded or disallowed to play a part in the formation of the interpretation through which language plays a part.

This is an important point because this is where Descartes still haunts the halls of illusion with which wise ones grappled to find the philosopher’s stone.

The real is rational and the rational is real.

Modernism has rescinded this type of reality to the places of technocracy, where Enilightement of the historic Western kind , found a kissing cousin in the East. But so different.

The two are like the interweaving of two coiling snakes, the one primordial, the other thoroughly modern.

Are they working together or perpetually at war? Are they even aware of what is behind their mutual level of trust or distrust?

If not, only a collusive emptying of content , of denial by memory lapse can salvage their relationship.

Their perception of their relationship is understood by an adaptation to increasing rates of ‘process’ de-differentiation.

The super duper computered man, the savior tech avenger can do what no one before.

But how rational can he become, within the constraints of a passing literacy? His vision of very long lasting and exemplified timescapes have receeded .

If the laws of nature encompass all matter [including brain matter] unfolding from the past into the present into the future only as these laws compel it to, what isn’t nature responsible for?

And how would not the laws of matter be wholly responsible for any definitions that any particular brains – as matter – are compelled by nature to think up?

I’m still perplexed [compelled or otherwise] by how you reconfigure [compelled or otherwise] these relationships “in your head” into the “choices” that we make that “for all practical purposes” would seem to unfold only as they must.

There you go again making these “exceptions”. This mysterious “choice” that “I” makes in the present that is both somehow compelled by nature and not compelled by nature. And over and over and over again, it can be pointed out that in regard to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments, what some construe to be right behaviors others construe to be wrong behaviors. And precisely because in behaving either way someone gets hurt.

I challenge you to bring this part…

…down to earth. Note a particular context in which behaviors come into conflict over hurting others and note how this might be “removed” by the author’s discovery.

In other words, assuming that we do possess some measure of autonomy and all of these words that we are typing back and forth were not only as they ever could have been typed back and forth.

My only recourse here is to repeat myself:

Now, nature will either compel you to wiggle out of actually responding to these points once again, or it won’t.

So these qualitative differences exist but for all practical purposes nothing changes. The matter in our brain is still no less a necessary part of the natural world unfolding per the immutable laws of matter.

Only “I” get to “choose” to type these words that I was never able not to type.

What you mean of course is that the more nature compels us to define words more specifically the more nature will still unfold only as it ever could have.

In other words…

Again and again: even in a world where free will prevails, once a choice is made it stays made. That’s just common sense. But if we are a part of nature and nature unfolds in sync with its own inherent material laws, than nothing can be external to it. Yet somehow you and the author [b]in the moment of “choosing” itself[/b] are external to it. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

But that is “demonstrated” to us in a world of words said to be defined only as all the rest of us are obligated to define them in turn. Even though obligations themselves are but another inherent manifestion of nature having evolved into human brains compelled to make them.

Your own brain being compelled to note things like this:

And all of those things that influence us…how are they not in turn but more manifestations of nature and the laws that propel it?

You got knocked down by the crane because nature compelled you to “choose” to be where the crane could knock you down. And you “chose” to be there because nature compelled you to think/feel/believe that being there embodied your greater satisfaction.

Now the crane operator was compelled by nature to knock you down. But some are compelled by nature to think that he knocked you down on purpose. Nature then compels them to go to the police who are in turn compelled to arrest him so that nature can compel the court system to put him on trial.

And yet in the midst of all these “choices” there is a flicker of “I” that is somehow “external” to nature.

Which nature has now complelled you to fail to demonstrate. Or so nature now compels me to insist.

How can I not but stick to the meaning that nature has compelled me here and now to believe is correct? I don’t profess this capacity at the moment of “choosing” itself to be external to nature.

But if you are compelled to believe by nature that the author was compelled by nature to define all of his words such that no further demonstrations are needed to insure our “progressive future”, then you’re the lucky one. Nature has provided you with a frame of mind that comforts and consoles you. It has provided me with no such thing at all. Quite the opposite. At least until someday [perhaps] when, in the moment of “choosing”, nature will compel me to be outside of it long enough to delude myself into believing that I am not just another of its dominoes.

In other words, nature has yet to compel me to define cause here as it has compelled you to.

Look, as long as you keep your arguments revolving around “concepts” all you’ll ever need are words to define.

Only when nature compels you to understand that how you insist it all works when your brain as an inherent component of nature compels you to shift the blame to me will you recognize that what you construe to be your “permission” at the moment of “choice” here is really just the psychological illusion of choice that nature has in turn compelled you to embody.

Only I’m at least willing to acknowledge that I have no capacity to demonstrate that this is true. Why? Well, because, among other things, I am not a neuroscientist probing actual brains functioning in the the act of choosing. I [like you] am stuck instead with a world of words that define and defend other words in that gap between what “I” think I know here and now and all that there actually is to be known about all of this.

Then you post another “world of words” assessment from the author.

But, again, in all those words…

“I challenge you to note even one thing here that folks like us [here and now] can do to verify this account. Something that is beyond all doubt “scientifically confirmed” to be true about this future.”

How is his “scientific miracle” manifested in a way that becomes clearer to us? How is it described in such a way that we can grasp its application to and implication for our own lives?

All the while demonstrating in turn how, at the moment in which we “choose” to react to it, we are somehow both at one with nature and simultaneously beyond nature compelling us to choose only what the laws of matter propel us to.

Then provide us with that which you construe to be the best examples of this.

Note to others who have read parts or all of the book:

Does the author [in your view] provide hard evidence to back up his theoretical assumptions about this progressive future?

I don’t believe the words rational and reason (not reasonable) are synonymous. You speak in very generic terms. In your last post you said if someone claims to be right about something, that’s an indication they are wrong. How absurd! I wish you would try to understand his writing rather than find reasons to dispute what you have no knowledge of.