New Discovery

[Meno_]

Artimas:

That is why we should be focusing on the way the connections work rather then seeking new definitions of the constricts' needing connection.
The Natural Selection's choice in selecting underlying options is a good example of looking at it, in my opinion.
How this rebounds in terms of connective variables is not obvious , admittedly, but otherwise we get stuck in a harmonic no exit labyrinthic maze.
We will be forcefed information like rats.

[Meno_]

Back from exhaustive duties.

With help from Your kind reductive cooperation I am prepared in the most simple way of demonstrating the appearance of the submerged contraidication.
Using that word insreasnofnxontradiction because it expresses more dynamic flow.

Its like a musical piece in two keys, and here my premise is not without tangent cause calculus was discovered on a musical theme.

The tangent source is so belabored that it really WAS an act of inspiration that the derivation was noticed. Or was like discovering of a different rising from musical and mathematical plumbers. The coincidence was exquisite.

On one andntje minor premise.
Then will to make a choice, regardless of the quantifiable power to do so and the availability of it, is nwbwr apparently a matter of predicated or determined process, or partly so, because itnosnpart of it, and independent of it simultaneously.
The simultainity offers a glimpse of its collusive nature, nature was able to collude its conscious and it's dreamlike processes , intentionally and without reason at the same time.
That flows into the major premise, and here we see the contradiction building up a bubble, of awareness into it.

The bubble does burst at times, like when a thetic reasonalisation comes to light that sometime in the near infinite future , the earth will die, and Her death will either be out the natural realm of the process of evolution, or, that otnisnwithin it, however there is an endless cycle of reaffirmation and transcendence going on, which is able to overcome even the end.

Merely the major theme in the Copernicism which put an end to the limit as a function of perception.

This is no mere subjective perception of existential angst, as interpreted as the end of things, it is a reconfirmation of eternity based on what is an under lying major objective of Natural Process.

The minor key them become a tangential by moving toward the major, and , realizing within Its Self that the freedom to will, is a necessary part that has to be re-integrated partially into human nature, for it to enable IT to evolve it's self conscious state, and become noted and self aware .

Hence the creation of anti logic itself flows from this, and life becomes not merely a dream, but the creation of self analysis through existence , as well.
The Dasain becomes at rest at times , not because it"s exhausted ( of power),but it needs the companionship of the existential connextion the It's self as the function through which , it can apprehend it'self.
The moment of tangential touch, through this function, it reintegrated It-self into an appearent unity
and knows that though his will was satisfactorily applied as his only best choice, the connection to the requirements of Being, becomes, became , a universally binding ideal.

Someone else will have to translate for me because your writing can be understood only by those who are well versed in this philosophical language. My ignorance of your logic does not translate to ignorance of this discovery. For example, I don't need to understand someone's reasoning that one plus one is eleven, to know that one plus one is two. Please point out where you prove that we do not move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, because that is what is at issue here.

On one andntje minor premise.
Then will to make a choice, regardless of the quantifiable power to do so and the availability of it, is nwbwr apparently a matter of predicated or determined process, or partly so, because itnosnpart of it, and independent of it simultaneously.

We have the will to make a choice, and it's not a determined process in the sense that the choice is already fated or prescribed in advance. This is the way determinism has been defined, which is lacking in accuracy.

----
Philosophical language its use is if necessity if one has to understand implications of understanding in a universal sense, of whete one is coming from : the source of it.

It is like trying to understand a woman with or without make up, not that understanding are in fact totally and arbitrarily contra indicative, albeit that actually may be the case; but that there remind a trace that most people can identify within , and retaining pretty similar evaluations.

The point is, topically, and semantical-desriptively are pretty similar, You don't have to praise a great looking gal to high heaven in a bar ill lit , with loads of make up, and then demean her to help without it, tell, in the dawn of early light- without it.

The conjecture is there somewhere, and it has to be clarified, lest conceiving a mutually satisfactory appraisal.

Philosophical language is a must, but there are ways that a skillful rhetoritian may over come that obstacle.

An obstacle, incidentally, which can become so overwhelming that it quite interactively/sudden as to stop the flow and present an unnecessary block.

That said, I shall try to Your specific comments, which to or in my mind are of second tier necessity. Which in Your mind tells me, by some sort of functional psychic disability, to enable me to understand interfaced.

[Meno_]

We have the will to make a choice, and it's not a determined process in the sense that the choice is already fated or prescribed in advance. This is the way determinism has been defined, which is lacking in accuracy.

[iambiguous]

I am compelled to suggest that you will not be able to move beyond this with [peacegirl] unless nature compels her to be moved beyond making these incredible statements predicated solely on the political prejudices that the author was compelled by nature to think are true in his head

One can always learn from another even if beyond a certain point discourse can no longer advance.

True enough. And I would never argue that peacegirl's argument is inferior to my own. Not in the sense that I can actually demonstrate it.

My point is only to suggest that from my perspective, her perspective is rooted more in this -- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 -- than in that which some might construe to be a more rigorous philosophical/scientific examination of the issue.

In my opinion, it is that she believes something in and of itself that allows her to anchor "I" to/in a more comforting and consoling outlook on life. Both regarding here and now and in her case the future.

But, again, I base this only on my own subjective experience with those I deem to be objectivist thinkers. I'm certainly not arguing that, based on different sets of assumptions, there are not other ways to think about it. Or other conclusions to be drawn.

The absolute certainty which comes from blind faith is a very fascinating topic in and of itself and arguably presents itself above. I say arguably because it does at least contain some degree of internal consistency even if the central premise cannot be demonstrated. Not holding on too rigidly to any perspective though is more beneficial because a ] the one which is being held might be wrong and b ] it is good to expose oneself to alternative ones because that is how an open mind actually functions.

I basically agree. But the complexities that revolve around individual motivation and intention here are always going to be beyond the capacity of anyone to really fathom. And thus to pin down. And about themselves as much as others.

There are just too many factors and variables in our life that predispose us to go in many different directions. Can we ever really grapple with them beyond a certain degree? For example, variables from our childhood alone that were either beyond our control or are now beyond that which we can even remember. People and experiences buried in our minds that now propel our behaviors largely subconsciously and unconsciously.

And that is assuming that "I" does in fact have some measure of autonomous control over the choices that are made. On the other hand, in a determined world [as I understand it], that would seem to reconfigure the psychological illusion of "free will" in the "choices" we make, into the imperatives of nature itself. We "choose" only that which we were never able to actually choose of our own volition.

Still, I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate this as either one way or the other.

But: how comforting and consoling can that be, right?

[Meno_]

We have the will to make a choice, and it's not a determined process in the sense that the choice is already fated or prescribed in advance. This is the way determinism has been defined, which is lacking in accuracy.

That lack of accuracy determines the trace left behind, I call it a tangent, which is only quantifiable partially differentiated from the level of objectivity we intend to bound by it.
Aesthetic distance is not a far stretch, harmonically to it, in terms of comparative aesthetic distance.

I do hope this makes some sense, or at least with a partiality , that can derive some cohesion or assemblage, otherwise my optimism will fade in terms of relating to Your Author, via-a-bus Your interloping efforts.

No, I never thought that the choice is ether fated or prescribed.
I wrote that I agree with that, however once a choice has been made, it effects are felt if not understood, in future casual progressions, as well as past ones.

An incredible almost unbelievable pro position , right?

Maybe belonging more to the list of believe it or not rather then. the sensible real world in which we live. Maybe may be not.

The point is, that in a transcendental world, humans should be appreciated more akin to regressed types like ants or bugs, in stead of gods supermen and angels.

Transcendence equals suspending time, as a quantifiable index of the present moment.

Sure remembrances of things past can be evoked by a faint smell, but such effort is merely indicative of an imperfect simulation.

Wait when HG wells time machine becomes a reality and we can move back to a prior time, and evoke a conscious realization of a wrong choice, and in such back to the future, encompass a different, yet unrecognizable world from the prior one we left behind, and cannot compare it with the original, because it is a braver new world.

However from this past perfect world, there again there may be no exit, or escape from within that particularly defined world.

And usually unhappy within any and all such flow, we again as Sysiphus , try again and again, presuming falsely that by killing ourselves, we can do without a bat of the eye realize the terrible sin of shirtcutting the substantial and unrecognized meaning in God's as some charity, of giving us up to but not inclusive chances to join him in harmony.


However the differentiation of major and minor themes are fixed as ideas as, the outmoded perceptual left over melody , that certain scenes intend to describe say in pasturals depicting a reaffirmed significance of visual clues, like Beethoven.

No wonder he grew deaf!

[Meno_]

I am compelled to suggest that you will not be able to move beyond this with [peacegirl] unless nature compels her to be moved beyond making these incredible statements predicated solely on the political prejudices that the author was compelled by nature to think are true in his head

One can always learn from another even if beyond a certain point discourse can no longer advance.

True enough. And I would never argue that peacegirl's argument is inferior to my own. Not in the sense that I can actually demonstrate it.

My point is only to suggest that from my perspective, her perspective is rooted more in this -- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 -- than in that which some might construe to be a more rigorous philosophical/scientific examination of the issue.

In my opinion, it is that she believes something in and of itself that allows her to anchor "I" to/in a more comforting and consoling outlook on life. Both regarding here and now and in her case the future.

But, again, I base this only on my own subjective experience with those I deem to be objectivist thinkers. I'm certainly not arguing that, based on different sets of assumptions, there are not other ways to think about it. Or other conclusions to be drawn.

The absolute certainty which comes from blind faith is a very fascinating topic in and of itself and arguably presents itself above. I say arguably because it does at least contain some degree of internal consistency even if the central premise cannot be demonstrated. Not holding on too rigidly to any perspective though is more beneficial because a ] the one which is being held might be wrong and b ] it is good to expose oneself to alternative ones because that is how an open mind actually functions.

I basically agree. But the complexities that revolve around individual motivation and intention here are always going to be beyond the capacity of anyone to really fathom. And thus to pin down. And about themselves as much as others.

There are just too many factors and variables in our life that predispose us to go in many different directions. Can we ever really grapple with them beyond a certain degree? For example, variables from our childhood alone that were either beyond our control or are now beyond that which we can even remember. People and experiences buried in our minds that now propel our behaviors largely subconsciously and unconsciously.

And that is assuming that "I" does in fact have some measure of autonomous control over the choices that are made. On the other hand, in a determined world [as I understand it], that would seem to reconfigure the psychological illusion of "free will" in the "choices" we make, into the imperatives of nature itself. We "choose" only that which we were never able to actually choose of our own volition.

Still, I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate this as either one way or the other.

But: how comforting and consoling can that be, right?

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

[peacegirl]

peacegirl,

Thanks for the reminder to smell the flowers!

So have you as of yet?!

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

This is the problem sharing a discovery in a forum like this because so much is being left out.

What kind of a forum might be better suited for this discovery?
Well then, it is the responsibility and the obligation of the writer to spell it all out and to be exact -- right?

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.

...because so much is being left out.

At first I thought that perhaps you meant so much that the writer had put into it being left out but perhaps you meant what Isaac Asimov said. It does not matter, whether science or philosophy, it is about the discovery of truth and knowledge.

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.

“A number of years ago, when I was a freshly-appointed instructor, I met, for the first time, a certain eminent historian of science. At the time I could only regard him with tolerant condescension.

I was sorry of the man who, it seemed to me, was forced to hover about the edges of science. He was compelled to shiver endlessly in the outskirts, getting only feeble warmth from the distant sun of science- in-progress; while I, just beginning my research, was bathed in the heady liquid heat up at the very center of the glow.

In a lifetime of being wrong at many a point, I was never more wrong. It was I, not he, who was wandering in the periphery. It was he, not I, who lived in the blaze.

I had fallen victim to the fallacy of the 'growing edge;' the belief that only the very frontier of scientific advance counted; that everything that had been left behind by that advance was faded and dead.

But is that true? Because a tree in spring buds and comes greenly into leaf, are those leaves therefore the tree? If the newborn twigs and their leaves were all that existed, they would form a vague halo of green suspended in mid-air, but surely that is not the tree. The leaves, by themselves, are no more than trivial fluttering decoration. It is the trunk and limbs that give the tree its grandeur and the leaves themselves their meaning.

There is not a discovery in science, however revolutionary, however sparkling with insight, that does not arise out of what went before. 'If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.”
― Isaac Asimov, Adding a Dimension: Seventeen Essays on the History of Science

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.

“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.”
Marcel Proust

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

Do you think a discovery of this magnitude can be determined to be genuine without a thorough investigation which has never happened?

What to you determines a thorough investigation and how will you know when the investigation is complete?

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.

If the "thorough investigation has never happened, then why not call the discovery an hypothesis or a theory? Why take an absolutist position? What is it that Jung has stated: "Truth needs the concert of many voices." though I am not so sure that that is true in light of much that has happened in human history so-called truth.

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.

You are making a distinction between individuals who could not do harm, and those who could.

I think that under a particular set of circumstances every human being might be capable of doing harm and great harm. The thing which might stop them is the fact that they realize what they are capable of.
Know Thyself!

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.

As I said earlier, the individuals you are alluding to may have a severed conscience. In that case, they may need to be institutionalized just like a mad dog would. But these individuals are a small percentage of the population.

True.

Most run of the mill criminals are not psychopaths or sociopaths but are willing to take advantage of others, or even kill, in order to get what they want. Under the changed conditions they would not find it alluring to do anything that could hurt others, that's just the point.

This IS a one size fits all in the sense that under the changed environment, no one (barring the extremely mentally ill; the mad dogs) would desire to strike a first blow (an unprovoked hurt to others) as a preferable choice. This is not a slippery slope although he was not suggesting to suddenly stop blaming which could cause more harm than good.

What changed conditions?

Flowers...

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.

[Meno_]

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?

[peacegirl]

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.

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

[Meno_]

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.[/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?

[peacegirl]

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 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.

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.

<snip>

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.

[Arcturus Descending]

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.

[peacegirl]

peacegirl,

The below words are yours not Durant's right?

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.

[Meno_]

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.

[peacegirl]

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.

[Meno_]

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.

[peacegirl]

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.

[surreptitious75]

I have noticed peacegirl say that she has no problem with valid criticism but she appears to instinctively reject all of it irrespective of how valid it may be
The modus operandi it seems therefore is to present the premise in absolute terms and so sell it as a moral truth rather than critically assess it in any way

So what you re saying is not only do I need to accept criticism but I need to accept the criticism even if it is not valid. There is no MO just a clear demonstration
The fact that will is not free is absolute. It has nothing to do with moral truth. I have critically assessed the arguments so please dont say I havent. Is there a possibility that this discovery could be right ? You are assuming that this cant be true

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

[peacegirl]

I have noticed peacegirl say that she has no problem with valid criticism but she appears to instinctively reject all of it irrespective of how valid it may be
The modus operandi it seems therefore is to present the premise in absolute terms and so sell it as a moral truth rather than critically assess it in any way

So what you re saying is not only do I need to accept criticism but I need to accept the criticism even if it is not valid. There is no MO just a clear demonstration
The fact that will is not free is absolute. It has nothing to do with moral truth. I have critically assessed the arguments so please dont say I havent. Is there a possibility that this discovery could be right ? You are assuming that this cant be true

Not all criticism will be invalid and it is this that you should be paying attention to. You claim a clear demonstration but it is unfortunately only clear to you

How could it have been a clear demonstration surreptitious75 when I never got to Chapter Two.

- 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.

If the premises are correct, the outcome will be a safer world even though it isn't here yet, just as the person who formulated how to build a bridge knows that the bridge will be able to carry a certain amount of weight (due to his accurate mathematical formulation) even though it hasn't been built yet. The same can be said for mathematical calculations as to how to land men on the moon, and many others that first started out with an equation. Do you think they weren't absolutely sure, based on their calculations, that the astronauts would land the moon (barring anything unforeseen) or do you think it was just hit or miss? Not knowing whether this discovery (not my discovery) is right or wrong just because it hasn't been actualized yet is an invalid statement due to skepticism, not accuracy. If you think this is all in the author's head, and there's nothing to it, no one is forcing you to be here. I wouldn't hang around if I didn't think for a second that there was any value to being here. My time is too precious.

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?

[Meno_]

quote="Meno_l"]

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 into the 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 earliest 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. [/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

[peacegirl]

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 into the 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 earliest 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.

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.

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

But You are making this statement singularly, and that is exactly my point.

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

(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!

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

[surreptitious75]

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 are the one I believe that read Chapter Two right ? You did not have one
question so you must have understood it So tell me what is the discovery ?

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

[Artimas]

Artimas:

That is why we should be focusing on the way the connections work rather then seeking new definitions of the constricts' needing connection.
The Natural Selection's choice in selecting underlying options is a good example of looking at it, in my opinion.
How this rebounds in terms of connective variables is not obvious , admittedly, but otherwise we get stuck in a harmonic no exit labyrinthic maze.
We will be forcefed information like rats.

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.

[Artimas]

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.

[peacegirl]

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 are the one I believe that read Chapter Two right ? You did not have one
question so you must have understood it So tell me what is the discovery ?

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

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?