New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Hi everyone,

I am very reluctant to start a thread with such a challenging topic, but I feel I must. I kind of want you to think about this topic in a science fiction kind of way, so that the challenge to these ideas are not abrubtly cut off. In doing this, we might be able to see the truth of what I am bringing to the table. If not, that's okay too. I am only spreading the word of what I believe to be true, no one else. Thank you for giving me a platform in which to speak. Peacegirl

[Janus]

So what do you want to discuss?

A future, peaceful society?

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:31 PM
So what do you want to discuss?

A future, peaceful society?
Yes, I want to talk about the possibility of peace in terms of knowledge that has not been revealed yet. I hope you are interested.

[Janus]

Yes, I want to talk about the possibility of peace in terms of knowledge that has not been revealed yet.
I don't quite understand you.

You want to discuss how a future peaceful society would work or how we would get there. Either way, it is a very broad topic.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:59 PM

Yes, I want to talk about the possibility of peace in terms of knowledge that has not been revealed yet.
I don't quite understand you.

You want to discuss how a future peaceful society would work or how we would get there. Either way, it is a very broad topic.
Peacegirl: It depends what you mean by a broad topic. Obviously, we have not found a way to create a peaceful solution, so it appears as if the topic is broad since there are so many issues to deal with; just as a car with all kinds of problems looks as if each part is broken down until they find out the the engine is the culprit. In other words, f we can get to a basic cause, all of the other problems will be eliminated.

[Janus]

So you want to have a debate over what this root cause is?

I would say that one of the main root causes is resources and that this cause is further perpetuated by problems such as ethnic/political divides.

[CoexisT]

I'm really confused right now...

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:36 PM
So you want to have a debate over what this root cause is?

I would say that one of the main root causes is resources and that this cause is further perpetuated by problems such as ethnic/political divides.
So you want to have a debate over what this root cause is?

I would say that one of the main root causes is resources and that this cause is further perpetuated by problems such as ethnic/political divides.

Peacegirl: Janus, yes, this is a discussion about the root cause. It is true that in order for peace to reign we must eliminate the causes that perpetuate the problem.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:40 PM
I'm really confused right now...
Why are you confused, nothing has been said yet?

[CoexisT]

Originally posted by peacegirl+Jul 21 2006, 04:56 PM--> (peacegirl @ Jul 21 2006, 04:56 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 04:40 PM
I'm really confused right now...
Why are you confused, nothing has been said yet? [/b]
Sorry, I should've been more clear. I was just confused about what you want to debate about.

[Janus]

Janus, yes, this is a discussion about the root cause. It is true that in order for peace to reign we must eliminate the causes that perpetuate the problem.
OK...

I don't really see a utopia where everyone is at total peace. There may still be some conflicts in the beginning but I seriously doubt that it will be more than petty squabbles, etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Heh, idealism.

Humans are always going to have their differences, and they're not always going to settle them peaceably or reach a compromise. Gimme a plausible scenario in which there are no more conflicts and I'll consider it. Until then, colour me skeptical.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by CoexisT+Jul 21 2006, 05:05 PM--> (CoexisT @ Jul 21 2006, 05:05 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:56 PM

[email protected] 21 2006, 04:40 PM
I'm really confused right now...
Why are you confused, nothing has been said yet?
Sorry, I should've been more clear. I was just confused about what you want to debate about. [/b]
It's really not a debate but rather a demonstration. Whether you see the proof of what is being said has yet to be determined.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:17 PM

Janus, yes, this is a discussion about the root cause. It is true that in order for peace to reign we must eliminate the causes that perpetuate the problem.
OK...

I don't really see a utopia where everyone is at total peace. There may still be some conflicts in the beginning but I seriously doubt that it will be more than petty squabbles, etc.
OK...

I don't really see a utopia where everyone is at total peace. There may still be some conflicts in the beginning but I seriously doubt that it will be more than petty squabbles, etc.

Peacegirl: Janus, of course that is how you feel when there appears to be no answer in a world of hatred.

[Dyst]

Disputes and such are more or less inevitable, at least in foreseable future.

However, I can imagine a society where wars and such are no longer existant.

Note that you can have a peaceful society which is also a shithole though. Like the poverty among most of the population can be bad, yet there are no wars.. Wars and (direct) conflicts among the population is far from the only problem today.

I believe it is true conflicts and opposite interests amongst people, that are never adressed publicly, that causes most of the harm in the older industrialized countries.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by peacegirl+Jul 21 2006, 05:49 PM--> (peacegirl @ Jul 21 2006, 05:49 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 05:17 PM

Janus, yes, this is a discussion about the root cause. It is true that in order for peace to reign we must eliminate the causes that perpetuate the problem.
OK...

I don't really see a utopia where everyone is at total peace. There may still be some conflicts in the beginning but I seriously doubt that it will be more than petty squabbles, etc.
OK...

I don't really see a utopia where everyone is at total peace. There may still be some conflicts in the beginning but I seriously doubt that it will be more than petty squabbles, etc.

Peacegirl: Janus, of course that is how you feel when there appears to be no answer in a world of hatred. [/b]
So what do you want to discuss?

A future, peaceful society?

Peacegirl: Yup!

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by peacegirl+Jul 21 2006, 05:49 PM--> (peacegirl @ Jul 21 2006, 05:49 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 05:17 PM

Janus, yes, this is a discussion about the root cause. It is true that in order for peace to reign we must eliminate the causes that perpetuate the problem.
OK...

I don't really see a utopia where everyone is at total peace. There may still be some conflicts in the beginning but I seriously doubt that it will be more than petty squabbles, etc.
OK...

I don't really see a utopia where everyone is at total peace. There may still be some conflicts in the beginning but I seriously doubt that it will be more than petty squabbles, etc.

Peacegirl: Janus, of course that is how you feel when there appears to be no answer in a world of hatred. [/b]
Heh, idealism.

Humans are always going to have their differences, and they're not always going to settle them peaceably or reach a compromise. Gimme a plausible scenario in which there are no more conflicts and I'll consider it. Until then, colour me skeptical.

Peacegirl: Skepticism is normal but it should never prevent new ideas from being proposed, otherwise, we will never make progress.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:50 PM
Disputes and such are more or less inevitable, at least in foreseable future.

However, I can imagine a society where wars and such are no longer existant.

Note that you can have a peaceful society which is also a shithole though. Like the poverty among most of the population can be bad, yet there are no wars.. Wars and (direct) conflicts among the population is far from the only problem today.

I believe it is true conflicts and opposite interests amongst people, that are never adressed publicly, that causes most of the harm in the older industrialized countries.
Disputes and such are more or less inevitable, at least in foreseable future.

However, I can imagine a society where wars and such are no longer existant.

Note that you can have a peaceful society which is also a shithole though. Like the poverty among most of the population can be bad, yet there are no wars.. Wars and (direct) conflicts among the population is far from the only problem today.

I believe it is true conflicts and opposite interests amongst people, that are never adressed publicly, that causes most of the harm in the older industrialized countries.


Peacegirl: Dyst, differences of opinion do not preclude the possibility of peace. I am not inferring that a peaceful world should come at the expense of a minority. You are right in that it can look good on the outside, but can be rotton on the inside. Conflicts are a huge problem because it indicates that people are unhappy with the status quo. Until we can create a world where everyone has the opportunity for abundance, we will have a legitimate problem.

[CoexisT]

Just a suggestion: It's kind of hard to read your posts when you have something in "[quote]" brackets and then have the same exact thing outside of them.


So, when you press the "Quote" button on somebody's post, just type what you want in the first box. The second box will show you what is going to be quoted.

:)

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:05 PM
Just a suggestion: It's kind of hard to read your posts when you have something in "[quote]" brackets and then have the same exact thing outside of them.


So, when you press the "Quote" button on somebody's post, just type what you want in the first box. The second box will show you what is going to be quoted.

:)
Coexist, thank you for your suggestion. I don't want to confuse anyone, but how can I copy the quote in the previous post so that it will be copied in the following post without having to remember what the quote was? I thought when I clicked the quote button it would show up, but it doesn't. I am so sorry, I am not adept at this but I am learning.

[CoexisT]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:09 PM

Just a suggestion: It's kind of hard to read your posts when you have something in "[quote]" brackets and then have the same exact thing outside of them.


So, when you press the "Quote" button on somebody's post, just type what you want in the first box. The second box will show you what is going to be quoted.

:)
Coexist, thank you for your suggestion. I don't want to confuse anyone, but how can I copy the quote in the previous post so that it will be copied in the following post without having to remember what the quote was? I thought when I clicked the quote button it would show up, but it doesn't. I am so sorry, I am not adept at this but I am learning.
Well, you did it right there. Unelss, I'm mistaken in what you're asking.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Skepticism is normal but it should never prevent new ideas from being proposed, otherwise, we will never make progress.

Well let's make progress then. What is your new idea?

[peacegirl]

Just a suggestion: It's kind of hard to read your posts when you have something in "[quote]" brackets and then have the same exact thing outside of them.


So, when you press the "Quote" button on somebody's post, just type what you want in the first box. The second box will show you what is going to be quoted.

:)
Coexist, thank you for your suggestion. I don't want to confuse anyone, but how can I copy the quote in the previous post so that it will be copied in the following post without having to remember what the quote was? I thought when I clicked the quote button it would show up, but it doesn't. I am so sorry, I am not adept at this but I am learning.
Well, you did it right there. Unelss, I'm mistaken in what you're asking.
Thanks for explaining; I'll try to get it right next time.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:18 PM



Just a suggestion: It's kind of hard to read your posts when you have something in "[quote]" brackets and then have the same exact thing outside of them.


So, when you press the "Quote" button on somebody's post, just type what you want in the first box. The second box will show you what is going to be quoted.

:)
Coexist, thank you for your suggestion. I don't want to confuse anyone, but how can I copy the quote in the previous post so that it will be copied in the following post without having to remember what the quote was? I thought when I clicked the quote button it would show up, but it doesn't. I am so sorry, I am not adept at this but I am learning.
Well, you did it right there. Unelss, I'm mistaken in what you're asking.
Thanks for explaining; I'll try to get it right next time.
I am having a difficult time with these codes. I clicked *report* and I don't know where it posted. Oh well, I'll try again. This discovery has to do with determinism but keeps the agent intact. The conventional definition negates the will entirely, as if we are robots at the mercy of cause and effect. We know this is utter non-sense because we are able to evaulate, analyze, and change our choices in mid-stream, but once the choice is made, it was never free. I will explain if anyone is interested.

[Hit The North]

Erm... Is anyone out there interested?

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 22 2006, 01:39 AM
Erm... Is anyone out there interested?
It's really sad when no one shows interest because they are positive there is no value in what is being said. I cannot penetrate this thick skepticism. Citizen, why didn't you ask me questions instead of asking if other people are interested? You are just as important as everyone else.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by peacegirl+Jul 22 2006, 02:38 PM--> (peacegirl @ Jul 22 2006, 02:38 PM)
Citizen [email protected] 22 2006, 01:39 AM
Erm... Is anyone out there interested?
It's really sad when no one shows interest because they are positive there is no value in what is being said. I cannot penetrate this thick skepticism. Citizen, why didn't you ask me questions instead of asking if other people are interested? You are just as important as everyone else. [/b]
Thank you for endorsing my 'importance', Peacegirl.

Frankly, I didn't ask any direct question because I'm skeptical that you have anything to say. We're on page 2 of this thread and you still haven't written anything meaningful.

Peacegirl, I think you're a bit of a tease. But if you do have anything to share with this forum then please get on with it.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+Jul 22 2006, 02:22 PM--> (Citizen Zero @ Jul 22 2006, 02:22 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:38 PM

Citizen [email protected] 22 2006, 01:39 AM
Erm... Is anyone out there interested?
It's really sad when no one shows interest because they are positive there is no value in what is being said. I cannot penetrate this thick skepticism. Citizen, why didn't you ask me questions instead of asking if other people are interested? You are just as important as everyone else.
Thank you for endorsing my 'importance', Peacegirl.

Frankly, I didn't ask any direct question because I'm skeptical that you have anything to say. We're on page 2 of this thread and you still haven't written anything meaningful.

Peacegirl, I think you're a bit of a tease. But if you do have anything to share with this forum then please get on with it. [/b]
Citizen, I have not teased anyone. I explained that this knowledge has to do with determinism but not the definition that is normally proposed. I asked if anyone wanted to hear more, and no one responded. In order to get on with it, I have to have an audience that is interested in learning, not just ready to attack because they are sure peace is impossible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

peacegirl, you have ignored my question. What is this new idea you have?

[which doctor]

It seems like we are all confused.

Of course a "peaceful society" is the topic of discussion, but that's a very broad topic.

peacegirl: How about you present some of your ideas on how a peaceful world can come about?

[kjt1981]

We're all ears Sweetheart. ..

Spill the beans!

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:20 PM
We're all ears Sweetheart. ..

Spill the beans!
I want to preface this because I actually don't know how I ended up in another forum. Forums don't work where this discovery is concerned since people misconstrue what is being said, or they don't understand the principles. I didn't realize that forums are biased toward a particular worldview and anything that is contradictory is not taken seriously. For instance, I registered on an objectivist forum and of course they couldn't even begin to allow themselves to grasp these principles for then they would have to give up their belief in compatibilism. Therefore, they quickly rejected undeniable knowledge that cannot be denied [if understood], just as you cannot deny one plus one equals two no matter how hard you try or what your reasons are for believing that one plus one equals three. So when you say spill the beans, I wish it was that easy. The minute I d, instead of their being open and honest discussionwhere sincere questions are asked, all I get is an attitude that this could not work. When I ask them what the two-sided equation is, they can't answer me. How can someone tell me something can't work when they don't understand the very core of the discovery?

The possibility for peace lies behind the door marked man's will is not free. This is not the discovery, but the gateway leading to the discovery. Man's will is not free because he is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. At each moment in time he can only make one choice and that choice must be what he considers, by all accounts, to be the best possible choice available given his circumstances and his limited options or knowledge.

I can elaborate if anyone is interested. I hope this is an open minded group. It appears you are all looking for answers but sometimes the answer comes in a different package altogether. I am not trying to tease anyone, but this is a deep subject and it goes against the grain of conventional thinking. It will take quite a bit of explaining to get you to understand, and even then you might not be able to see how we can achieve a world of peace through this knowledge. Whether you can grasp it or not does not negate the fact that it is an immutable law.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So when you say spill the beans, I wish it was that easy. The minute I d, instead of their being open and honest discussionwhere sincere questions are asked, all I get is an attitude that this could not work.

I'm sorry, but no matter where you go there will always be skepticism. Don't take it personally.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 04:08 PM
peacegirl, you have ignored my question. What is this new idea you have?
I didn't mean to ignore you. I gave a short explanation as to why man's will is not free in the previous post. Many people will say to me that we can move toward dissatisfaction. This is not true. We must choose the alternative that gives every indication of being the best possible alternative at each moment in time. If none of our choices available to us at a particular moment are satisfying, then we must pick the choice that is the least dissatisfying. It is also important to remember that what is good for me might not be good for you because a juxtaposition in each case involves alternatives that affect choice, so when you see someone choosing something that looks very dissatisfying or not in his best interest, that is because he is coming from a different environmental and hereditary background, and unless you understand all of the factors that led this individual to making his choice, you will have no way of understanding why he chose what appeared to you to be the worst possible choice but to him it was the choice that was the most preferable. Regardless of the reasons for a person's choice, it does not change the fact that he must, by his very nature, pick the choice of available alternatives the one that gives him the greatest satisfaction, which renders all other options impossible at that moment in time. In other words, if B is an impossible choice because it gives less satisfaction when compared to A, how can A be a free choice? Let me repeat: this does not mean he is completely satisfied with his choice, but it does mean that it was the best choice [for him] at that moment in time, under his particular set of circumstances. This knowledge can be verified by reasoning and observation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No offense, PGirl, but you sound about as confused as 'Free Floating Radical' who posted a few too many incoherent thoughts here several weeks ago.

Indeed: are you 'Free Floating Radical'?

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 10:14 PM
No offense, PGirl, but you sound about as confused as 'Free Floating Radical' who posted a few too many incoherent thoughts here several weeks ago.

Indeed: are you 'Free Floating Radical'?
I have no idea what a free floating radical is? Maybe you are projecting onto me what you are afraid you might be. That is possible. <_<

[peacegirl]

It doesn&#39;t seem like anyone has any questions and the only person who did respond sounds very arrogant and extremely sarcastic. I will wait to see if anyone else wants to discuss the discovery, otherwise, time to move on.

[bolshevik butcher]

Well im willing to take you seriously. I just feel that as long as there is a system of classes and a state in place there will be violence and differences. Engles correctly stated that the capitalist sate could be reduced to an armed body of men protecting private property and in my view this is true. The only solution to me is a workers state that will disolve as classes do alongside it.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 22 2006, 10:38 PM
Well im willing to take you seriously. I just feel that as long as there is a system of classes and a state in place there will be violence and differences. Engles correctly stated that the capitalist sate could be reduced to an armed body of men protecting private property and in my view this is true. The only solution to me is a workers state that will disolve as classes do alongside it.
Clenched Fist, in order to understand new knowledge and where that knowledge may lead, you must stay open to hearing it. Obviously, you have your own thoughts and ideas on many subjects but in order to truly hear a new idea, you cannot cloud the demonstration by interjecting your own thought system. Imagine every time Edison went to demonstrate how the lightbulb works, someone cut him off and said there is no way it can work because I believe it can only work this way [whatever that way is]. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, isn&#39;t it? The lightbulb was a success, thanks to Edison, and now we cannot imagine living without the lightbulb, whereas this other person&#39;s idea failed the litmus test. Consequently, you must put aside all of your beliefs and convictions at least for the moment, for the purpose of this conversation. Thanks for taking me seriously.

[bolshevik butcher]

Okay then. Could you please explain to me how peace would function in a functioning capitalist society with class differences? Seriously I don&#39;t mean that in a condesceindg manner.

[which doctor]

Well, this thread seems to be going no where. Peacegirl, tell us what you think about a peaceful world is&#33;


Originally posted by peacegirl+Jul 22 2006, 05:19 PM--> (peacegirl &#064; Jul 22 2006, 05:19 PM)
Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 10:14 PM
No offense, PGirl, but you sound about as confused as &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39; who posted a few too many incoherent thoughts here several weeks ago.

Indeed: are you &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39;?
I have no idea what a free floating radical is? Maybe you are projecting onto me what you are afraid you might be. That is possible. <_< [/b]
Best post, ever.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG: the way you responded suggests I was right.

[MrDoom]

Peace is meaningless and idealistic when the vast majority of humanity is not free.

Until there is revolution, no one will be free. When everyone is free, there will be no nation-states. With no nation-states, there is no war.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 22 2006, 11:03 PM
Okay then. Could you please explain to me how peace would function in a functioning capitalist society with class differences? Seriously I don&#39;t mean that in a condesceindg manner.
You are assuming there will be class differences when there will be no class differences[that is hard to imagine isn&#39;t it?], and you are assuming that capitalism will help the rich grow richer and allow the poor to grow poorer. Until you understand the discovery and how it works, there is no way you could possibly understand how the economic system benefits everyone and hurts no one.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Jul 22 2006, 11:06 PM--> (Fist of Blood @ Jul 22 2006, 11:06 PM) Well, this thread seems to be going no where. Peacegirl, tell us what you think about a peaceful world is&#33;


Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:19 PM

Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 10:14 PM
No offense, PGirl, but you sound about as confused as &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39; who posted a few too many incoherent thoughts here several weeks ago.

Indeed: are you &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39;?
I have no idea what a free floating radical is? Maybe you are projecting onto me what you are afraid you might be. That is possible. <_<
Best post, ever. [/b]
A peaceful world is a world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred.

A peaceful world is a world where we don&#39;t have to worry about someone robbing us, where we can keep our doors unlocked without the slightest fear of someone coming in and taking what does not belong to them.

A peaceful world is a world in which everyone has a decent standard of living without the constant fear of financial loss.

A peaceful world is a world in which government ends because we have learned to govern ourselves and we no longer need a group of people to tell us what to do.

A peaceful world is a world in which all countries get along and can cross the border without fear of attack because the specter of terrorism is gone.

A peaceful world is a world in which we are able to fulfill all of our desires but in the process of finding our own happiness we would never step over the boundary that would take someone else&#39;s chance of happiness away.

A peaceful world is a world in which we are all brothers, regardless of our nationality, gender, or race .

I could go on but I think you get the idea. ;)

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:34 AM
Peace is meaningless and idealistic when the vast majority of humanity is not free.

Until there is revolution, no one will be free. When everyone is free, there will be no nation-states. With no nation-states, there is no war.
Peace is meaningless unless all people are free. But the means to the end that you are proposing is not the solution; it will only cause more attack and counter-attack. Nation states can still exist in a peaceful world as long as everyone has economic sustenance and freedom from dictatorship in their own country.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 12:29 AM
PG: the way you responded suggests I was right.
No it doesn&#39;t. If this is the kind of conclusion you draw from this one post, then your premise needs revising. You should also be more careful about how you judge someone before you even know them or what they might have to offer.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by babblegirl
I will wait to see if anyone else wants to discuss the discovery, otherwise, time to move on.

Quit stalling and "enlighten us" to your new "discovery"; so far you&#39;ve written absolutely nothing except re-hashed "philosophical" garbage we should have tossed into the incinerator a couple hundred years ago.


You should also be more careful about how you judge someone before you even know them or what they might have to offer

Then get on with it already missy&#33;

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by peacegirl+Jul 23 2006, 02:07 AM--> (peacegirl &#064; Jul 23 2006, 02:07 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 12:34 AM
Peace is meaningless and idealistic when the vast majority of humanity is not free.

Until there is revolution, no one will be free. When everyone is free, there will be no nation-states. With no nation-states, there is no war.
Peace is meaningless unless all people are free. But the means to the end that you are proposing is not the solution; it will only cause more attack and counter-attack. Nation states can still exist in a peaceful world as long as everyone has economic sustenance and freedom from dictatorship in their own country. [/b]
Significant social change comes through social and political upheaval and revolution, violent or noviolent. Besides, the underclasses outnumber the capitalists more than 10:1. They would be quickly suppressed in any worldwide revolution.

As long as the ruling class (the capitalists) controls state power, no one is free, and imperialism reigns. What do you think the goal of Communism is in the first place? Allowing their crimes to continue?


Nation states can still exist in a peaceful world as long as everyone has economic sustenance and freedom from dictatorship in their own country.

As long as arbitrary, abstract, and false divisions amongst humans, like nations, races, and religions exist, on top of class struggle, there will be no peace and no freedom.

EDIT: It&#39;d also be nice if this thread had some sort of concrete purpose and intent.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG:


No it doesn&#39;t. If this is the kind of conclusion you draw from this one post, then your premise needs revising. You should also be more careful about how you judge someone before you even know them or what they might have to offer.

The more you post, the more you resemble &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39;; &#39;she&#39; even used to post single sentence paragraphs like you, all incoherent, all dogmatic, all quasi-religious.

And she could not answer my objections either.

Exhibit A:


A peaceful world is a world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred.

A peaceful world is a world where we don&#39;t have to worry about someone robbing us, where we can keep our doors unlocked without the slightest fear of someone coming in and taking what does not belong to them.

A peaceful world is a world in which everyone has a decent standard of living without the constant fear of financial loss.

A peaceful world is a world in which government ends because we have learned to govern ourselves and we no longer need a group of people to tell us what to do.

A peaceful world is a world in which all countries get along and can cross the border without fear of attack because the specter of terrorism is gone.

A peaceful world is a world in which we are able to fulfill all of our desires but in the process of finding our own happiness we would never step over the boundary that would take someone else&#39;s chance of happiness away.

A peaceful world is a world in which we are all brothers, regardless of our nationality, gender, or race .

All classic &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39; stuff -- and all obtained from off the mountain, or more likely, off-the-wall.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bill, if this is FFR (and I think it is), then you are wasting your breath -- she will never &#39;get to the point&#39;, but she will become increasingly enigmatic, irrational and dogmatic.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 06:31 AM
she will become increasingly enigmatic, irrational and dogmatic.
Heh, what an unusual feature on this board. Not really a characteristic of anyonelse that vistis here.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Bill Shatner+Jul 23 2006, 02:41 AM--> (Bill Shatner &#064; Jul 23 2006, 02:41 AM)
babblegirl
I will wait to see if anyone else wants to discuss the discovery, otherwise, time to move on.

Quit stalling and "enlighten us" to your new "discovery"; so far you&#39;ve written absolutely nothing except re-hashed "philosophical" garbage we should have tossed into the incinerator a couple hundred years ago.


You should also be more careful about how you judge someone before you even know them or what they might have to offer

Then get on with it already missy&#33; [/b]
QUOTE (babblegirl)
I will wait to see if anyone else wants to discuss the discovery, otherwise, time to move on.



Quit stalling and "enlighten us" to your new "discovery"; so far you&#39;ve written absolutely nothing except re-hashed "philosophical" garbage we should have tossed into the incinerator a couple hundred years ago.

Peacegirl: You sound like a commando and I don&#39;t take orders. I am also not intimidated by your response; it just shows me how deluded you are into believing you are right. And don&#39;t call me missy after that disgusting attack on my accurate knowledge regarding determinism, and then calling me babblegirl because you didn&#39;t understand it. What a cheap shot. I will get on with it when I find the receptiveness that is required for new knowledge to penetrate, otherwise, it will be rejected out of the need to protect your belief system at all costs, even at the cost of true progress. So far you sound more arrogant than the other poster. I thought this was an open minded group? :(

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by MrDoom+Jul 23 2006, 04:45 AM--> (MrDoom @ Jul 23 2006, 04:45 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:07 AM

[email protected] 23 2006, 12:34 AM
Peace is meaningless and idealistic when the vast majority of humanity is not free.

Until there is revolution, no one will be free. When everyone is free, there will be no nation-states. With no nation-states, there is no war.
Peace is meaningless unless all people are free. But the means to the end that you are proposing is not the solution; it will only cause more attack and counter-attack. Nation states can still exist in a peaceful world as long as everyone has economic sustenance and freedom from dictatorship in their own country.
Significant social change comes through social and political upheaval and revolution, violent or noviolent. Besides, the underclasses outnumber the capitalists more than 10:1. They would be quickly suppressed in any worldwide revolution.

As long as the ruling class (the capitalists) controls state power, no one is free, and imperialism reigns. What do you think the goal of Communism is in the first place? Allowing their crimes to continue?


Nation states can still exist in a peaceful world as long as everyone has economic sustenance and freedom from dictatorship in their own country.

As long as arbitrary, abstract, and false divisions amongst humans, like nations, races, and religions exist, on top of class struggle, there will be no peace and no freedom.

EDIT: It&#39;d also be nice if this thread had some sort of concrete purpose and intent. [/b]
Peacegirl: Significant social change does come through social and political upheaval and revolution, but the cost is severe and the outcome not guaranteed. Obviously, revolution is an act against the tyrrany of a class structure that doesn&#39;t work. When there is any government that controls state power, there is an inherent flaw which hurts the underclass. I am not disputing this but I am offering a different strategy to achieving the same end but without the death and destruction that a revolution would guarantee. You are also correct in saying that false divisions among humans, which are bigoted and based on illusion, add to the problem. Peace will only come when all people are treated fairly and with respect which these arbitrary divisions prevent.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 06:28 AM
PG:


No it doesn&#39;t. If this is the kind of conclusion you draw from this one post, then your premise needs revising. You should also be more careful about how you judge someone before you even know them or what they might have to offer.

The more you post, the more you resemble &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39;; &#39;she&#39; even used to post single sentence paragraphs like you, all incoherent, all dogmatic, all quasi-religious.

And she could not answer my objections either.

Exhibit A:


A peaceful world is a world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred.

A peaceful world is a world where we don&#39;t have to worry about someone robbing us, where we can keep our doors unlocked without the slightest fear of someone coming in and taking what does not belong to them.

A peaceful world is a world in which everyone has a decent standard of living without the constant fear of financial loss.

A peaceful world is a world in which government ends because we have learned to govern ourselves and we no longer need a group of people to tell us what to do.

A peaceful world is a world in which all countries get along and can cross the border without fear of attack because the specter of terrorism is gone.

A peaceful world is a world in which we are able to fulfill all of our desires but in the process of finding our own happiness we would never step over the boundary that would take someone else&#39;s chance of happiness away.

A peaceful world is a world in which we are all brothers, regardless of our nationality, gender, or race .

All classic &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39; stuff -- and all obtained from off the mountain, or more likely, off-the-wall.
Peacegirl: I have no idea who you are comparing me to, and that is so unfair. That&#39;s like judging someone because there is a resemblence to a serial killer and you are now acting as if this person is also a serial killer.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my answer to one of the posters about my idea of a peaceful world. I answered directly and succinctly so I have no idea where your observation that this response was obtained from *off the mountain* or *off the wall*. You sound like a very angry person ready to attack with the slightest grievance. Aren&#39;t you overreacting? FYI, I am not experienced with the codes and the tag buttons. Please forgive me for this, I will keep trying to get it right, but that does not connect me with this other person in any way. If this is how you do logic, you fail on soundness. In fact, everything you have said so far sounds like someone who draws all kinds of ridiculous conclusions based on false assumptions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG: keep going, the more you deny it, the more you sound like &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39;.

Stll loopy.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 02:03 PM
PG: keep going, the more you deny it, the more you sound like &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39;.

Stll loopy.
Rosa sweetheart, you are the one that is loopy, sorry to say that. The more you attack me, the more you prove your lack of true strength.

[Hit The North]

QUOTE: (peacegirl)



I am not disputing this but I am offering a different strategy to achieving the same end but without the death and destruction that a revolution would guarantee.

Sorry, but so far you&#39;ve offered nothing of the kind.

The correct way to go about something like this is to write a coherent outline of your ideas and then post them so that other posters can offer criticism and ask questions.

There are many people on this site who are receptive to the discussion of new (and not so new) ideas but your coquetish little dance around the subject makes it difficult for you to be taken seriously.

[which doctor]

Do you think that by violent means we can achieve a peaceful world?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG/FFR:


Rosa sweetheart, you are the one that is loopy, sorry to say that. The more you attack me, the more you prove your lack of true strength.

No offense, once more, but I find it hard to believe that there could be two terminally vague wafflers on the planet, who have the same sort of dopey ideas, and airy-fairy style.

Surely, &#39;God&#39; is not that cruel....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zero; take my advice: if this is FFR, you will get Zero (forgive the unfortunate pun...) sense out of &#39;her&#39;, no matter how many times you try.

Check this compendium of confusion:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...sult_type=posts (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=58a167e03b128088d0ce402488b18bda&search_in=posts&result_type=posts)

[Hit The North]

R:

I&#39;m familiar with FFR&#39;s &#39;work&#39; and agree there are similarities with PG.

But I found this astonishing:


No offense, once more, but I find it hard to believe that there could be two terminally vague wafflers on the planet, who have the same sort of dopey ideas, and airy-fairy style.

You really should get out more. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


You really should get out more.

What, and meet nasties like you.

No fear....

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23 2006, 04:28 PM
QUOTE: (peacegirl)



I am not disputing this but I am offering a different strategy to achieving the same end but without the death and destruction that a revolution would guarantee.

Sorry, but so far you&#39;ve offered nothing of the kind.

The correct way to go about something like this is to write a coherent outline of your ideas and then post them so that other posters can offer criticism and ask questions.

There are many people on this site who are receptive to the discussion of new (and not so new) ideas but your coquetish little dance around the subject makes it difficult for you to be taken seriously.
Citizen Zero, I explained why man&#39;s will is not free. I got no curiosity, not even a query? All I got is a refutation as to why it sounds religious. That is so funny because this has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. I am not being secretive at all but I need to know what was understood. If there is doubt that man is constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, then please offer me an counter example so I can show you where you are incorrect. This is important because the discovery is based on the knowledge of determinism.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 23 2006, 04:31 PM
Do you think that by violent means we can achieve a peaceful world?
Fist of Blood, I believe that revolution has caused changes in the landscape of our world, but throughout history no revolution has created a lasting peace. Man is always striving to improve his situation especially if he feels he is being treated unfairly. If it takes resistance or an outright war, this might be the only option when considering the alternative which is to be at the mercy of an unfair government. So my answer is yes, revolution is necessary under certain conditions, but I am offering something completely different. I hope you will just take what I am saying as food for thought. I am not expecting you to agree if you don&#39;t see how this new system can work, but if you see the possibility by understanding the principles, then you might get excited about a world that you never imagined was possible.

[Hit The North]

So, peacegirl, how will your &#39;new discovery&#39; (whatever that proves to be) bring lasting peace?

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 04:47 PM
PG/FFR:


Rosa sweetheart, you are the one that is loopy, sorry to say that. The more you attack me, the more you prove your lack of true strength.

No offense, once more, but I find it hard to believe that there could be two terminally vague wafflers on the planet, who have the same sort of dopey ideas, and airy-fairy style.

Surely, &#39;God&#39; is not that cruel....
Rosa, your defensive response just proves that you are trying to make me look like a waffler when I have been anything but. Maybe it&#39;s because you don&#39;t like the subject matter, so you have to resort to name calling. If you don&#39;t agree, then just say so, but to constantly compare me to some person who I don&#39;t even know, in order to prove something about me that you can&#39;t possibly know [since you don&#39;t know me at all] is rather absurd and extremely childish.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: you are playing intellectual tennis with a pudding -- do not expect a return.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG/FFR:


Rosa, your defensive response just proves that you are trying to make me look like a waffler when I have been anything but. Maybe it&#39;s because you don&#39;t like the subject matter, so you have to resort to name calling. If you don&#39;t agree, then just say so, but to constantly compare me to some person who I don&#39;t even know, in order to prove something about me that you can&#39;t possibly know [since you don&#39;t know me at all] is rather absurd and extremely childish.

What, no mention of Kurt Godel?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 06:59 PM
Z: you are playing intellectual tennis with a pudding -- do not expect a return.
Yeah, well I&#39;m killing time waiting for Coronation Street to start. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: in fact, time is killing you....

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23 2006, 05:58 PM
So, peacegirl, how will your &#39;new discovery&#39; (whatever that proves to be) bring lasting peace?
If I give you a synopsis at this point, you will probably laugh in my face because it will sound impossible in the face of what we believe about man&#39;s nature. That is why I am asking you if you understand my explanation as to why man&#39;s will is not free. Even if you don&#39;t believe this is an absolute proof, can you at least acknowledge that you understand what was written. I can elaborate if you want me to.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If explaining why man&#39;s will is not truly free (Which I happen to agree with, but probably for different reasons than you do*) is an integral part of your "discovery" then post the whole thing - we won&#39;t get a good feel of your ideas if it only comes through in dribs and drabs, and the discussion will be disaggregated.

Outline your discovery, how it will be implemented, and how in it&#39;s implementation it will bring lasting peace. Don&#39;t hold back just because you&#39;re afraid we might not be fully accepting of your ideas - that&#39;s not how ideas are advanced - they have to be discussed, debated and defended from logical assault. If your ideas do not hold under criticism then they are worthless in the first place, quite frankly.

So post your "discovery" and let us discuss it, or quit wasting our time.

(*It has mainly to do with materialism and the fact that we are material beings with no soul)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 07:02 PM
Z: in fact, time is killing you....
I was hoping you weren&#39;t going to mention that :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I wasn&#39;t, well, not until you did.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 06:01 PM
PG/FFR:


Rosa, your defensive response just proves that you are trying to make me look like a waffler when I have been anything but. Maybe it&#39;s because you don&#39;t like the subject matter, so you have to resort to name calling. If you don&#39;t agree, then just say so, but to constantly compare me to some person who I don&#39;t even know, in order to prove something about me that you can&#39;t possibly know [since you don&#39;t know me at all] is rather absurd and extremely childish.

What, no mention of Kurt Godel?
You are all very witty and it is fun to quip back and forth. I am all for that, but sometimes jokes are not appropriate. In fact, they become a way to detour the entire discussion so it never gets off the ground. I hope that is not what you are trying to do [even though I know that I am an easy target[, because you would lose out on hearing a new idea, whether you agree or disagree. The more ideas we bring to the table, the greater we can figure out solutions to old problems.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion, as you are by now no doubt aware of my &#39;theory&#39; that PG is in fact &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39; (on holiday, perhaps in Ireland), and remembering the many hours we all wasted on &#39;her&#39; a month ago, may I suggest we all stop feeding this sub-troll.

&#39;She&#39; is obviously an attention-seeker; suffering no doubt from an internet version of Munchausen&#39;s...

http://sids-network.org/experts/msp.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR:


You are all very witty and it is fun to quip back and forth. I am all for that, but sometimes jokes are not appropriate. In fact, they become a way to detour the entire discussion so it never gets off the ground. I hope that is not what you are trying to do [even though I know that I am an easy target[, because you would lose out on hearing a new idea, whether you agree or disagree. The more ideas we bring to the table, the greater we can figure out solutions to old problems.

Save it, your randomly-typed posts don&#39;t work on me.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:07 PM
If explaining why man&#39;s will is not truly free (Which I happen to agree with, but probably for different reasons than you do*) is an integral part of your "discovery" then post the whole thing - we won&#39;t get a good feel of your ideas if it only comes through in dribs and drabs, and the discussion will be disaggregated.

Outline your discovery, how it will be implemented, and how in it&#39;s implementation it will bring lasting peace. Don&#39;t hold back just because you&#39;re afraid we might not be fully accepting of your ideas - that&#39;s not how ideas are advanced - they have to be discussed, debated and defended from logical assault. If your ideas do not hold under criticism then they are worthless in the first place, quite frankly.

So post your "discovery" and let us discuss it, or quit wasting our time.

(*It has mainly to do with materialism and the fact that we are material beings with no soul)
If you understand that we must move in the direction of greater satisfaction then you will be able to follow the two-sided equation which is the core of the discovery. The extension of this corollary into all areas of human relation shows the drastic change in human behavior as we apply this principle to the environment on a worldwide scale. Can you share with me what you think you got from my explanation as to why man&#39;s will is not free, so I can comfortably move on? So many people get caught up in words that do not symbolize reality, that they don&#39;t see when something is truly undeniable. I hope that doesn&#39;t happen here.

[peacegirl]

The only way I can explain this is through some excerpts. I am not plagarizing since I own the rights to this work.

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws and then
punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility; but how is
it possible for someone to obey that which under certain conditions appears to
him worse? As we just analyzed, it is quite obvious that a person does not have
to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is
also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t
want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under
the circumstances.

The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic revolution
against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they
wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted
to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb among their people, we wanted to.
It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures, even the
threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not
to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free
will’, which has come to signify this aspect – that nothing can compel man to do
what he doesn’t want to do – is absolutely true in this context because it
symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny; and here lies in part
the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT
CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP
HIS MIND NOT TO DO – but that does not make his will free.

Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied but I’m not. The
definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s
choices, decisions and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or
environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition we are
not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous
event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I
make up my mind not to do – just as you mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t
want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you
care to throw in can make me do it because over this I have mathematical
control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make
my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction in terms to say that man’s will is not
free yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him
drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a mathematical law that
nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do –
this is an extremely crucial point – he is nevertheless under a compulsion during
every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your
friend just pointed out, that man has mathematical control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction
of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in
the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only
words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced
with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite,
that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own accord; he wanted to
do it, he didn’t have to.’

The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions. As was previously stated, the expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean – ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free’, great
confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue for
although it is true man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he
considers good not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative.
The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious
relation because in order to be developed and have meaning, it was absolutely
necessary that the words ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short.

[peacegirl]

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man has been unconsciously
developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress was
doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean
that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like
choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man
himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it is
that already. As long as history has been recorded,
these two opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires,
theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that criticized determinism as
fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to
have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law
of satisfaction which makes the motion of all life just as harmonious as the solar
system – because we are these laws.
“I’m still confused. Could you explain this in another way?”
“In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t
like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very
things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he
must choose something to do among the various things in his environment, or
else commit suicide. Was it humanly possible to make Ghandi and his followers
do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? Therefore, when any
person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t
want to but had to – and innumerable of our expressions say this – he is
obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others
because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it,
done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference
gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time for one reason or another.”
“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw although I thought I did. I think
I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do something against my
will doesn’t mean my will is free because my desire not to do it appeared the
better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor
does the expression, “I did it of my own free will, nobody made me do it”, mean
that I actually did it of my own free will – although I did it because I wanted to –
because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me no free
choice since I got greater satisfaction.

[peacegirl]

Let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple reasoning that
proves conclusively (except for the implications already referred to) that will is
not free. Man has two possibilities that are reduced to the common denominator
of one. Either he does not have a choice because none is involved, as with
aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living regardless
of what his particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to
prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction, whether it is the
lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it
is absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a free choice,
though it must be remembered that the words good and evil are judgments of
what others think is right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth is that the
words good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to
oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having that
person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not because he is
compelled to do this against his will, but only because the alternative of
continuing to live under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not
happy to take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater satisfaction.
Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers
this the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced with
making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is compelled to choose an
alternative that is more satisfying. For example, in the morning when the alarm
clock goes off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get
up, go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the
question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though he
doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work he needs money, and
since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or being threatened with
lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up and go to work. He is not happy or
satisfied to do this when he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction
doing one thing than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu may
cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the other alternative
of paying too high a price for what he likes more is still considered worse under
his particular circumstances.

The law of self-preservation demands that he do
what he believes will help him stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is
hard-pressed to get what he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal,
kill and do any number of things which he considers good for himself in
comparison to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the direction of
satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does not yet remove the
implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ has been seriously
misunderstood for although it is impossible to do anything of one’s own free
will, HE DOES EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. To repeat: Was it humanly
possible to make Ghandi and his followers do what they did not want to do when
unafraid of death which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser
of two evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was to
lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point. Just because
no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does not mean
your will is free.

Ghandi wanted freedom for his people and it was against his
will to stop his non violent movement even though he constantly faced the
possibility of death; but this doesn’t mean his will was free, it just means that it
gave him greater satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against
his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he was being tortured,
he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others
because he could die before being forced to do something against his will. What
he actually meant was that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was
unbearable so rather than continue suffering this way he preferred as the lesser
of two evils to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this because
he wanted to not because some external force made him do this against his will.
If by talking he would know that someone he loved would be instantly killed,
pain and death might have been judged the lesser of two evils. This is an
extremely crucial point because THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT WILL IS NOT
FREE, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO
ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did – but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better choice. It is
extremely important that you clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to
every conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations. There will take
place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes
WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.
And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or principles – that
nothing can compel man to do anything against his will because over this his
nature allows absolute control; and that his will is not free because his nature
also compels him to prefer of available alternatives the one that offers greater
satisfaction – will reveal a third invariable law – the discovery to which
reference has been made.

If you understand this tract, then I will show you how this knowledge can benefit all mankind. If you are determined to prove me wrong, then at least show me where you think I&#39;m wrong. That way, you will win or I will win. Both of us can&#39;t win if we have opposing views. Someone has to be incorrect.
 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR: If the will is free, tell me why do lawyers charge for drawing one up?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 07:41 PM
FFR: If the will is free, tell me why do lawyers charge for drawing one up?
Oh dear :rolleyes: . Kindly leave the stage&#33;

[Hit The North]

Peacegirl,

I understand your first two principles. Please continue...

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 06:41 PM
FFR: If the will is free, tell me why do lawyers charge for drawing one up?
That was cute. But please stop calling me FFR.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23 2006, 07:22 PM
Peacegirl,

I understand your first two principles. Please continue...

Once it becomes established as an undeniable law that man’s will is not
free, as was just demonstrated, we cannot assume that it is free
because philosophers like Durant could not get by the implications.
Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off which means that we
are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary, slide rule or
basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute the baser mettles
of human nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age even though it presents
what appears to be an insurmountable problem, for how is it possible not to
blame people who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they
didn’t want to.

The solution, however, only requires the perception and extension of relations which cannot be denied; and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God (god in this context means the laws of our nature; it is not a religious term) which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have, not only without hurting a living soul but while benefiting everyone to an amazing degree. However, the problems that confront us at this moment are very complex which make it necessary to treat every aspect of our lives in a separate yet related manner.

I will reveal the two-sided equation if you are still interested, and if you can grasp this then you will be able to see how the transition into this new world is possible. The economic solution is the key that will allow this new world to become a reality and it does so without hurting a single individual. You must also remember that the changes about to take place are so far removed from our framework of thought, that you must keep an open mind until all of the facts are in. It is extremely difficult to envision how the economic system will work without understanding certain events that must take place first. So please try not to jump to premature conclusions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR:

"please stop calling me FFR."

Please stop calling yourself, PissGirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 09:11 PM
FFR:

"please stop calling me FFR."

Please stop calling yourself, PissGirl.
Rosa, you are ruining it for others who want to understand. Why don&#39;t you find another thread if this doesn&#39;t interest you. You certainly don&#39;t need this thread to stimulate you, and you don&#39;t need to rescue anyone because they can make up their own mind. Don&#39;t worry because I&#39;m not staying that long anyway.

[YSR]

Don&#39;t worry because I&#39;m not staying that long anyway.

Thank God (using the term losely).

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 24 2006, 02:01 AM

Don&#39;t worry because I&#39;m not staying that long anyway.

Thank God (using the term losely).
It&#39;s sad that a group of apparently knowledgable people have to act like children and cannot even give someone the floor for two seconds. Could it be that you are insecure in your own ideas? I am not sure what the problem is but I&#39;m not invested in trying to figure it out. You missed out because creative ideas and truth often come from a novel source. Skepticism is a good thing but only when it is contained, for otherwise it turns into tomato throwing, ridicule, and opposition not because what is being offered is wrong, but because it doesn&#39;t conform to your way of seeing the world. Any discovery that was ever made had to oppose the thinking of the day. Because I have something different to offer (which you haven&#39;t even heard yet so you have no way of knowing whether it can work or not)it turns into a group of people who want their radical ideas to override any other radical idea. But isn&#39;t this self-serving? If you truly are searching for a way that could help the world, why can&#39;t you give someone else an opportunity to be heard? If I&#39;m wrong you can always go back to your previous beliefs. I am not taking anything away from anyone, but that is how you are all reacting.

[Hit The North]

peacegirl:


It&#39;s sad that a group of apparently knowledgable people have to act like children and cannot even give someone the floor for two seconds.

But the problem is you&#39;ve taken a lot more than two seconds. We&#39;re on page 4 of a thread that you started and yet:


Because I have something different to offer (which you haven&#39;t even heard yet so you have no way of knowing whether it can work or not)

Exactly.

I&#39;m willing to read your input, but I&#39;m not going to beg you for an audience (which is what you seem to want us to do&#33;).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: PG/FFR is an attention junkie -- if she/he/it had anything useful to say, she/he/it would have said it by now.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 24 2006, 02:49 PM
peacegirl:


It&#39;s sad that a group of apparently knowledgable people have to act like children and cannot even give someone the floor for two seconds.

But the problem is you&#39;ve taken a lot more than two seconds. We&#39;re on page 4 of a thread that you started and yet:


Because I have something different to offer (which you haven&#39;t even heard yet so you have no way of knowing whether it can work or not)

Exactly.

I&#39;m willing to read your input, but I&#39;m not going to beg you for an audience (which is what you seem to want us to do&#33;).
Citizen, do you see what I am up against? I do not want to talk to the wall, therefore I need an audience, and I also need an audience that is willing to listen. You and a very few others are at least opening your mind, just a tad. I cannot discuss something of such import with a group who is bent on attack. It is a bias audience, even if the audience is ONE, and I need that ONE to actually hear me. If that ONE is bent on proving me wrong no matter what, I will fail in here but not because I am bringing a lousy proof to the table. I can&#39;t argue with Hitler either, if Hitler thinks he is right and snubs his nose at me.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 PM
Z: PG/FFR is an attention junkie -- if she/he/it had anything useful to say, she/he/it would have said it by now.
This woman Rosa is starving for attention. Can&#39;t you see that? She thinks she is gods gift to intellect and she can&#39;t stand being pushed aside and not having the spotlight for even a minute. I cannot deal with a person like this. Why does she keep coming to this thread if she is so sure I have nothing to offer? She has so many threads to enjoy, so why does she feel compelled to come to this one? She treats all of you like children as if you have no mind of your own. Are you sheep following the leader of the herd, or can you listen to someone who isn&#39;t Rosa? I am not sure if this is not a cult.

[Hit The North]

Are you sheep following the leader of the herd, or can you listen to someone who isn&#39;t Rosa? I am not sure if this is not a cult.

OMG :blink:

Edited to remove offensive remark.


Peacegirl if you publish the third part of your &#39;new discovery&#39; the audience might flock to it. There&#39;s no point demanding an audience until you&#39;ve written the actual play, is there?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG/FFR:


This woman Rosa is starving for attention. Can&#39;t you see that? She thinks she is gods gift to intellect and she can&#39;t stand being pushed aside and not having the spotlight for even a minute. I cannot deal with a person like this. Why does she keep coming to this thread if she is so sure I have nothing to offer? She has so many threads to enjoy, so why does she feel compelled to come to this one? She treats all of you like children as if you have no mind of your own. Are you sheep following the leader of the herd, or can you listen to someone who isn&#39;t Rosa? I am not sure if this is not a cult.

Nice try FFR; but one small problem -- I do not, unlike you, think I am the messiah.

However, I suspect you know you are.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: I saw that remark before it was removed.

Nice to know you agree with looney-tunes: PG/FFR.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 24 2006, 03:44 PM

Are you sheep following the leader of the herd, or can you listen to someone who isn&#39;t Rosa? I am not sure if this is not a cult.

OMG :blink:

Edited to remove offensive remark.


Peacegirl if you publish the third part of your &#39;new discovery&#39; the audience might flock to it. There&#39;s no point demanding an audience until you&#39;ve written the actual play, is there?
You are very right about that, but imagine people presuming Edison is wrong at the outset. Even if he tried to explain his discovery people would have attacked him because of their predisposition to proving him wrong. I can&#39;t go through this with a group of people that are determined to prove one plus one is not two. I can&#39;t do it. I guess I am weak. :(

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 24 2006, 03:53 PM
PG/FFR:


This woman Rosa is starving for attention. Can&#39;t you see that? She thinks she is gods gift to intellect and she can&#39;t stand being pushed aside and not having the spotlight for even a minute. I cannot deal with a person like this. Why does she keep coming to this thread if she is so sure I have nothing to offer? She has so many threads to enjoy, so why does she feel compelled to come to this one? She treats all of you like children as if you have no mind of your own. Are you sheep following the leader of the herd, or can you listen to someone who isn&#39;t Rosa? I am not sure if this is not a cult.

Nice try FFR; but one small problem -- I do not, unlike you, think I am the messiah.

However, I suspect you know you are.
Rosa, that is the problem in a nutshell, you think your reasoning is the answer but you aren&#39;t being given the attention you crave. You are not the messiah, but I don&#39;t claim I am either. The laws of our nature are the messiah. Let the best man win, but I will not sit here and try to argue with a despot.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Can you share with me what you think you got from my explanation as to why man&#39;s will is not free, so I can comfortably move on?

Basically that we are slaves to our own wills and desires. But in my opinion that doesn&#39;t get to the root of the matter - what causes us to have such desires and needs? The vagaries of material reality of course.


Citizen, do you see what I am up against? I do not want to talk to the wall, therefore I need an audience, and I also need an audience that is willing to listen.

We&#39;re listening, but that doesn&#39;t signal agreement. Not at all.


You and a very few others are at least opening your mind, just a tad. I cannot discuss something of such import with a group who is bent on attack.

It was your initial unwillingness to spill the beans that&#39;s caused all these problems in the first place. If you had simply posted your idea upfront we wouldn&#39;t be discussing your lack of honesty and your unforthcomingness, we would be discussing your ideas.

Really, even if nobody sees any value in your ideas, you will not have lost much.

[peacegirl]

[QUOTE]Can you share with me what you think you got from my explanation as to why man&#39;s will is not free, so I can comfortably move on?

Basically that we are slaves to our own wills and desires. But in my opinion that doesn&#39;t get to the root of the matter - what causes us to have such desires and needs? The vagaries of material reality of course.

Peacegirl: That is not what I was saying exactly. It is true that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but the reason we hurt others is not always clear cut. As long as there is a reason to retaliate [because someone has hurt us first], we will continue striking back. But if no one has hurt us first, we cannot choose this option as a preferable alternative. Of course, we must remove those things that create the desire for others to hurt us [as part of a chain reaction] in which we are then compelled to strike back in return.


Citizen, do you see what I am up against? I do not want to talk to the wall, therefore I need an audience, and I also need an audience that is willing to listen.

We&#39;re listening, but that doesn&#39;t signal agreement. Not at all.


You and a very few others are at least opening your mind, just a tad. I cannot discuss something of such import with a group who is bent on attack.

It was your initial unwillingness to spill the beans that&#39;s caused all these problems in the first place. If you had simply posted your idea upfront we wouldn&#39;t be discussing your lack of honesty and your unforthcomingness, we would be discussing your ideas.

QUOTE
You and a very few others are at least opening your mind, just a tad. I cannot discuss something of such import with a group who is bent on attack.

It was your initial unwillingness to spill the beans that&#39;s caused all these problems in the first place. If you had simply posted your idea upfront we wouldn&#39;t be discussing your lack of honesty and your unforthcomingness, we would be discussing your ideas.

Peacegirl: Citizen, that is a red herring if I ever saw one. The reason I responded the way I did is because I knew what I was up against. I was trying to preclude what I knew was coming, and it still didn&#39;t help.

Really, even if nobody sees any value in your ideas, you will not have lost much.
QUOTE


Peacegirl: Maybe not, but the world will have lost a lot. Obviously, this discovery does not depend on this forum, so whatever happens will not affect the outcome of what must come about out of necessity [because the truth of our nature will be exposed eventually]; it just won&#39;t be this group who helps move the discovery along.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 24 2006, 03:44 PM

Are you sheep following the leader of the herd, or can you listen to someone who isn&#39;t Rosa? I am not sure if this is not a cult.

OMG :blink:

Edited to remove offensive remark.


Peacegirl if you publish the third part of your &#39;new discovery&#39; the audience might flock to it. There&#39;s no point demanding an audience until you&#39;ve written the actual play, is there?
Citizen, I am bending over backwards but now I have reservations because everyone in here is very submissive to Rosa. She is the boss in this forum, and don&#39;t let anyone step on her toes, or watch out.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 24 2006, 03:53 PM
PG/FFR:


This woman Rosa is starving for attention. Can&#39;t you see that? She thinks she is gods gift to intellect and she can&#39;t stand being pushed aside and not having the spotlight for even a minute. I cannot deal with a person like this. Why does she keep coming to this thread if she is so sure I have nothing to offer? She has so many threads to enjoy, so why does she feel compelled to come to this one? She treats all of you like children as if you have no mind of your own. Are you sheep following the leader of the herd, or can you listen to someone who isn&#39;t Rosa? I am not sure if this is not a cult.

Nice try FFR; but one small problem -- I do not, unlike you, think I am the messiah.

However, I suspect you know you are.
I don&#39;t think I am the messiah; I never implied this in any way, shape, or form, so why are you trying to twist my words to suit you? The only reason would be so you can have your throne back. I displaced you and you are angry. :(

[hoopla]

http://www.donatocalabrese.it/jesus/imago/Gesumise.jpg
Rosa earlier

:lol:



*Sorry*

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:47 PM
http://www.donatocalabrese.it/jesus/imago/Gesumise.jpg
Rosa earlier

:lol:



*Sorry*

funny :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR/PG:


Rosa, that is the problem in a nutshell, you think your reasoning is the answer but you aren&#39;t being given the attention you crave. You are not the messiah, but I don&#39;t claim I am either. The laws of our nature are the messiah. Let the best man win, but I will not sit here and try to argue with a despot.

Running away yet again, FFR?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Rosa earlier

Just wait till I return again on a cloud, sonny; then you will be toast.

FFR:


Citizen, I am bending over backwards but now I have reservations because everyone in here is very submissive to Rosa. She is the boss in this forum, and don&#39;t let anyone step on her toes, or watch out.

Yes, I thought it was jealousy that motivated you.

So much for &#39;free will&#39;....

[YSR]

Peacegirl: Just fucking say it. What is this third part?

Ugh, I&#39;m getting irritated just typing this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YSR, yes &#39;she&#39; did the same when &#39;she&#39; was known as &#39;Free Floating Radical&#39;: pissed everyone off.

I have to say that if &#39;she&#39; ever does post this earth-shaking gem of wisdom, if it is like the other &#39;stuff&#39; &#39;she&#39; posted, it will look like something not even George W Bush would mumble.

Remember, &#39;her&#39; middle name is "Attention-Seeker". Since I refuse to pander to &#39;her&#39; (unlike other comrades here), I am pissing &#39;her&#39; off in return.

[hoopla]

I&#39;m about to lose interest in someone who has a phd in dialectics :o
:lol:
Just answer the question: "Critical theory" etc. does not like positivism. Rosa doesn&#39;t let this bother her, and she is not an idiot for doing so, because..?
:rolleyes:

*Yawn*

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Just answer the question: "Critical theory" etc. does not like positivism. Rosa doesn&#39;t let this bother her, and she is not an idiot for doing so, because..?

I was going to reply with this:


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers

But then I thought better of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 24 2006, 10:37 PM
Peacegirl: Just fucking say it. What is this third part?

Ugh, I&#39;m getting irritated just typing this.
Young stupid radical, there is no way I can explain this knowledge with a pundit who won&#39;t let me explain. She will harrass me and I won&#39;t be able to get a word in edgewise because she is a Ph.D. Her credentials would have given her the authority to pooh pooh someone like Bill Gates when he was first starting out since he didn&#39;t have her education. How funny&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FFR:


She will harrass me and I won&#39;t be able to get a word in edgewise because she is a Ph.D. Her credentials would have given her the authority to pooh pooh someone like Bill Gates when he was first starting out since he didn&#39;t have her education. How funny&#33;

Nice excuse. I must try it myself one day.

[JimFar]

peacegirl wrote:


Her credentials would have given her the authority to pooh pooh someone like Bill Gates when he was first starting out since he didn&#39;t have her education. How funny&#33;

peacegirl comparing herself to Bill Gates? Now that is really funny&#33; :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And, of course, Bill Gates began life in the lap of luxury:


Gates’ parents were wealthy enough to send him to the most expensive prep school in Seattle and pay his full tuition at Harvard.

More here:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/595/...tesBuffet.shtml (http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/595/595_11_GatesBuffet.shtml)

[JimFar]

I believe that Bill Gates&#39; dad, who is a corporate lawyer and nows run his son&#39;s foundation, was already a millionaire when young Bill was a child. Sort of like that other rags-to-riches figure, Donald Trump, whose dad was a wealthy real estate developer.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, in the UK they say that it depends on whose bed you were born in, or into whose bed you crawl, how well you do.

Looks like the US is similar.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is true that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but the reason we hurt others is not always clear cut. As long as there is a reason to retaliate [because someone has hurt us first], we will continue striking back. But if no one has hurt us first, we cannot choose this option as a preferable alternative. Of course, we must remove those things that create the desire for others to hurt us [as part of a chain reaction] in which we are then compelled to strike back in return.

In that case, you simply exterminate once and for all those who insist on making your life difficult. Dead men don&#39;t fight back.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:31 PM

It is true that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but the reason we hurt others is not always clear cut. As long as there is a reason to retaliate [because someone has hurt us first], we will continue striking back. But if no one has hurt us first, we cannot choose this option as a preferable alternative. Of course, we must remove those things that create the desire for others to hurt us [as part of a chain reaction] in which we are then compelled to strike back in return.

In that case, you simply exterminate once and for all those who insist on making your life difficult. Dead men don&#39;t fight back.
Noxion, yup; you figured it out. You kill everyone you don&#39;t like and then there will be no problems. :rolleyes:

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by peacegirl+Jul 25 2006, 07:56 PM--> (peacegirl @ Jul 25 2006, 07:56 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 07:31 PM

It is true that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but the reason we hurt others is not always clear cut. As long as there is a reason to retaliate , we will continue striking back. But if no one has hurt us first, we cannot choose this option as a preferable alternative. Of course, we must remove those things that create the desire for others to hurt us [as part of a chain reaction] in which we are then compelled to strike back in return.

In that case, you simply exterminate once and for all those who insist on making your life difficult. Dead men don&#39;t fight back.
Noxion, yup; you figured it out. You kill everyone you don&#39;t like and then there will be no problems. :rolleyes:
No man, no problem.

But all evil Stalinist quotes aside, the Capitalists stand in the way of freedom, and they will do anything in their power to keep themselves on top.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by MrDoom+Jul 26 2006, 05:51 AM--> (MrDoom @ Jul 26 2006, 05:51 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:56 PM

[email protected] 25 2006, 07:31 PM

It is true that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but the reason we hurt others is not always clear cut. As long as there is a reason to retaliate , we will continue striking back. But if no one has hurt us first, we cannot choose this option as a preferable alternative. Of course, we must remove those things that create the desire for others to hurt us [as part of a chain reaction] in which we are then compelled to strike back in return.

In that case, you simply exterminate once and for all those who insist on making your life difficult. Dead men don&#39;t fight back.
Noxion, yup; you figured it out. You kill everyone you don&#39;t like and then there will be no problems. :rolleyes:
No man, no problem.

But all evil Stalinist quotes aside, the Capitalists stand in the way of freedom, and they will do anything in their power to keep themselves on top.
MrDoom, every government is doing what they think is best for themselves and their people. The capitalists, the socialists, and the communists have a different viewpoint; each having its advantages and disadvantages. Until there is a system that works for everyone, people will continue to support what they believe is the best system even though there are flaws in all of them.

[peacegirl]

Is there anyone in this entire forum who can be open minded enough to not attack and to hear new ideas, even if they are far-fetched, or are you STUCK in your ideology that you can&#39;t even begin to get out of your ideas to hear a possible solution? I am not saying this IS the only solution, but it is a possibility. You guys won&#39;t even give me the time of day, and I do not want to hear from Rosa. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry PG, no such luck.

As far as I can tell, you are just posting banalities, and then more of the same ontop.

If you had anything substantive to say, you hid it very effectively.

Were you trained in camouflage, by any chance?

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 04:24 PM
Sorry PG, no such luck.

As far as I can tell, you are just posting banalities, and then more of the same ontop.

If you had anything substantive to say, you hid it very effectively.

Were you trained in camouflage, by any chance?
Rosa, sweetheart, I would never share with you what I know to be true because of your cautic responses based on false allegations. What can I say? :(

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:17 PM
Is there anyone in this entire forum who can be open minded enough to not attack and to hear new ideas, even if they are far-fetched, or are you STUCK in your ideology that you can&#39;t even begin to get out of your ideas to hear a possible solution? I am not saying this IS the only solution, but it is a possibility. You guys won&#39;t even give me the time of day, and I do not want to hear from Rosa. :(
PG

Yes, we&#39;re not worthy. You should move on and find an audience more receptive to the wisdom of prophets and mystics. <_<

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG:

Apologies, I will leave you alone.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 05:08 PM
PG:

Apologies, I will leave you alone.
I accept your apology if it&#39;s sincere, but at this point I don&#39;t know if there isn&#39;t already an extreme bias that will misconstrue anything I might say. It&#39;s like everyone is ready to pounce and it&#39;s impossible to have a productive conversation when I am pigeonholed as someone who is not to be taken seriously. I am sure you will say that if I had had something worthy to say I would have said it already. But just the fact that no one had any questions regarding my last excerpt makes me wonder what they understood. Rosa, you seem to think what I wrote about greater satisfaction is baloney. Without getting too wordy can you give me situation where you are not moving in the direction of greater satisfaction?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by peacegirl+Jul 26 2006, 09:39 AM--> (peacegirl @ Jul 26 2006, 09:39 AM)
Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 04:24 PM
Sorry PG, no such luck.

As far as I can tell, you are just posting banalities, and then more of the same ontop.

If you had anything substantive to say, you hid it very effectively.

Were you trained in camouflage, by any chance?
Rosa, sweetheart, I would never share with you what I know to be true because of your cautic responses based on false allegations. What can I say? :( [/b]
What can you say?

That&#39;s easy my little chick-a-dee:

Peace girl out&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG:


Without getting too wordy can you give me situation where you are not moving in the direction of greater satisfaction?

The terms of your question are far too vague to do anything with, I am affraid.

"moving", "direction", "greater satisfaction"???

But here goes: In my sleep perhaps? When I am mindlessly tapping a finger? When I deliberately annoy another poster, and then apologise -- with egg all over my face? Not very satisfying....

[Your argument (if I understood it aright) is a simpler version of one retailed 300 years ago by Hutcheson and Mandeville, refuted by Samuel Butler.]

It gives me no satisfaction all to say this....

However, one thing you should be suspicious of (and if there is anything that 2500 years of going nowhere slowly in philosophy has taught us, it is this): any and every conclusion about everything (or everyone) based on a quick &#39;analysis&#39; of what you think is the meaning of a few words (like "satisfaction"). Us human beings are not so lucky as to have a language that has built into it secrets about the real meaning of existence, which we can read off from our words in the comfort of our own minds. We do not live at the centre of the meaning universe....

[Hit The North]

However, one thing you should be suspicious of (and if there is anything that 2500 years of going nowhere slowly in philosophy has taught us, it is this): any and every conclusion about everything (or everyone) based on a quick &#39;analysis&#39; of what you think is the meaning of a few words (like "satisfaction").

Which means, apart from


You should either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers ,
that Rosa never has anything positive to say, only criticism of what other people assert.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 11:28 PM
PG:


Without getting too wordy can you give me situation where you are not moving in the direction of greater satisfaction?

The terms of your question are far too vague to do anything with, I am affraid.

"moving", "direction", "greater satisfaction"???

But here goes: In my sleep perhaps? When I am mindlessly tapping a finger? When I deliberately annoy another poster, and then apologise -- with egg all over my face? Not very satisfying....

[Your argument (if I understood it aright) is a simpler version of one retailed 300 years ago by Hutcheson and Mandeville, refuted by Samuel Butler.]

It gives me no satisfaction all to say this....

However, one thing you should be suspicious of (and if there is anything that 2500 years of going nowhere slowly in philosophy has taught us, it is this): any and every conclusion about everything (or everyone) based on a quick &#39;analysis&#39; of what you think is the meaning of a few words (like "satisfaction"). Us human beings are not so lucky as to have a language that has built into it secrets about the real meaning of existence, which we can read off from our words in the comfort of our own minds. We do not live at the centre of the meaning universe....
PG:


QUOTE
Without getting too wordy can you give me situation where you are not moving in the direction of greater satisfaction?



The terms of your question are far too vague to do anything with, I am affraid.

"moving", "direction", "greater satisfaction"???

The terms &#39;moving&#39;, &#39;direction&#39;, &#39;greater satisfaction&#39; are not vague if you understood it in the context of the explanation. I like your examples but they don&#39;t prove that you are not moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Tapping your finger or any mindless bodily movement are movements away from staying in the previous position, which is less satisfying, otherwise you wouldn&#39;t have tapped your finger. The motion of life pushes us in this direction. It isn&#39;t just about making choices, which is where the confusion comes in, since it appears we can choose one thing over another equally. You say that annoying another poster isn&#39;t satisfying, but there is an element of satisfaction otherwise you wouldn&#39;t do it.

I have no idea who Hutcheson was, or Samuel Butler. But I do know that this argument is correct if understood. If it isn&#39;t understood, it will appear fallacious and it will be refuted on unjust grounds, just as the illusion that the earth was round was refuted until people were ready to analyze the proof of its circular shape. It took a long time for the world to be receptive to this new idea or to even listen long enough to entertain the possibility that what the Greeks were saying for 2000 might actually be true afterall.

I understand your feeling about language and the fact that it does not necessarily reflect the real meaning of existence. First of all, I am not throwing around words; I am combining them in an irrefutable proof, but only if you don&#39;t use your idea of language to refute anything that is explained through language. There are some proofs that can only be given meaning through words, even though the reality of what is never changes. In fact, one of the chapters in the book is called, Words, Not Reality. You would enjoy this chapter. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG:


Tapping your finger or any mindless bodily movement are movements away from staying in the previous position, which is less satisfying, otherwise you wouldn&#39;t have tapped your finger.

And how do you know that?

Where is your evidence? Where are the brain scans, psychometric test results, data...?

As I indicated, you have used your (already biased) understanding of the application of a word to derive an a priori &#39;truth&#39;, and then you employ that &#39;truth&#39; as a way of fitting everything else to the conclusion you want -- with no data in support. [Your counterfactual wording gives you away, highlighted in the above quotation.]

If your claims were empirical (i.e., to do with the real world, not an artificial world created by your assumed meanings), you would await the evidence in support of your inference.


I have no idea who Hutcheson was, or Samuel Butler. But I do know that this argument is correct if understood.

Those who don&#39;t know the history of Philosophy are condemned to repeat its errors.


just as the illusion that the earth was round was refuted until people were ready to analyze the proof of its circular shape.

This was an empirical argument, based on evidence; your is an a priori extrapolation based on what you assume the meaning to be of a few words.


I am combining them in an irrefutable proof,

From what I could see, you loosely tied a few words together (ones that were ill-defined to begin with) and extracted a &#39;sort of result&#39; from it.

And, as I noted, this line of argument has already been refuted.

Another piece of advice: whenever you think you have come up with something new in philosophy, because the entire subject is based on word-juggling, and nothing else, the truth is that someone else will already have been there before you.

The fact that you seem to know little of the history of the subject has up to now prevented you from seeing this.


In fact, one of the chapters in the book is called, Words, Not Reality. You would enjoy this chapter.

Which book is this?

[Incidentally, may I correct an earlier error: this &#39;theory&#39; was put about by Mandeville alright (and Hobbes), but refuted by Hutcheson, not Butler. You can look these theorists up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Mandeville

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hutcheson_(philosopher)

Please note, I am advocating the thoughts of neither thinker, merely pointing out that new ideas in philosophy are exceedingly rare.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


that Rosa never has anything positive to say, only criticism of what other people assert

I do not think so; I reckon I have made it pretty clear that you, at least, are an expert in making a fool of yourself in publc.

How much more positive can you get than that?

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 27 2006, 12:05 AM

You should either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers ,
that Rosa never has anything positive to say, only criticism of what other people assert.
That is when she can string together enough "evil" words, to construct an insult. She mostly has ignored most of what I&#39;ve had to say.

You do realise, Rosa, that all your insults - they are only possible because of ambiguties of language, and we, as working-class people, ought to stop people from abusing language like you do :D

[hoopla]

However, one thing you should be suspicious of (and if there is anything that 2500 years of going nowhere slowly in philosophy has taught us, it is this): any and every conclusion about everything (or everyone) based on a quick &#39;analysis&#39; of what you think is the meaning of a few words (like "satisfaction").Yeah, I am fairly sure that this sentence is missing some words. Could youi explain what you mean by this sentence.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by hoopla+Jul 27 2006, 08:06 AM--> (hoopla &#064; Jul 27 2006, 08:06 AM)
Citizen [email protected] 27 2006, 12:05 AM

You should either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers ,
that Rosa never has anything positive to say, only criticism of what other people assert.
That is when she can string together enough "evil" words, to construct an insult. She mostly has ignored most of what I&#39;ve had to say.

You do realise, Rosa, that all your insults - they are only possible because of ambiguties of language, and we, as working-class people, ought to stop people from abusing language like you do :D [/b]
Yeah, the point being, that the claim that philosophical problems are meaningless is a philosophical problem (I mean, its not just a problem that midless banter is able to sort out, as mindless banter is subject to the exact same problems as philosophy, surprisingly), and ought to be examined with the theoretical rigor that any philosophical problem oght to be examined with.

Which, importantly, is the one thing missing from Rosa&#39;s discourse.

Yeah, like, I am tempted to start a thread for the sole purpose of Rosa to argue the case, with proper argumentation and critical examination, seeing as it would be a bit of a derail to do so here...

And it might make the mindless mystic actually interesting for a change :D

Edit: Has there been a discussion about the meaningless or not of philosophy (not just dialectics)? If so, can someone link to it :)

Thanks

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


She mostly has ignored most of what I&#39;ve had to say.

This is because you failed to take the adivce of that ancient Chinese sage who advised all who seek wisdom to:


remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Could youi explain what you mean by this sentence.

It means that:


You should either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers

I hope that clears things up....

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by hoopla+Jul 27 2006, 11:57 AM--> (hoopla &#064; Jul 27 2006, 11:57 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:06 AM

Citizen [email protected] 27 2006, 12:05 AM

You should either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers ,
that Rosa never has anything positive to say, only criticism of what other people assert.
That is when she can string together enough "evil" words, to construct an insult. She mostly has ignored most of what I&#39;ve had to say.

You do realise, Rosa, that all your insults - they are only possible because of ambiguties of language, and we, as working-class people, ought to stop people from abusing language like you do :D
Yeah, the point being, that the claim that philosophical problems are meaningless is a philosophical problem (I mean, its not just a problem that midless banter is able to sort out, as mindless banter is subject to the exact same problems as philosophy, surprisingly), and ought to be examined with the theoretical rigor that any philosophical problem oght to be examined with.

Which, importantly, is the one thing missing from Rosa&#39;s discourse.

Yeah, like, I am tempted to start a thread for the sole purpose of Rosa to argue the case, with proper argumentation and critical examination, seeing as it would be a bit of a derail to do so here...

And it might make the mindless mystic actually interesting for a change :D

Edit: Has there been a discussion about the meaningless or not of philosophy (not just dialectics)? If so, can someone link to it :)

Thanks[/b]
Hoop:

You could always respond to this thread

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52498

although I&#39;m not sure it meets your requirements

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 12:39 PM
Hoopla:


Could youi explain what you mean by this sentence.

It means that:


You should either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers

I hope that clears things up....
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=52498&st=25 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52498&st=25)

:angry:

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)You should either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers[/b]


Hoopla
any claims that what we are talking about is meaningless, will HAVE to be shown to be true

:angry:

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 06:47 AM
PG:


Tapping your finger or any mindless bodily movement are movements away from staying in the previous position, which is less satisfying, otherwise you wouldn&#39;t have tapped your finger.

And how do you know that?

Where is your evidence? Where are the brain scans, psychometric test results, data...?

As I indicated, you have used your (already biased) understanding of the application of a word to derive an a priori &#39;truth&#39;, and then you employ that &#39;truth&#39; as a way of fitting everything else to the conclusion you want -- with no data in support. [Your counterfactual wording gives you away, highlighted in the above quotation.]

If your claims were empirical (i.e., to do with the real world, not an artificial world created by your assumed meanings), you would await the evidence in support of your inference.


I have no idea who Hutcheson was, or Samuel Butler. But I do know that this argument is correct if understood.

Those who don&#39;t know the history of Philosophy are condemned to repeat its errors.


just as the illusion that the earth was round was refuted until people were ready to analyze the proof of its circular shape.

This was an empirical argument, based on evidence; your is an a priori extrapolation based on what you assume the meaning to be of a few words.


I am combining them in an irrefutable proof,

From what I could see, you loosely tied a few words together (ones that were ill-defined to begin with) and extracted a &#39;sort of result&#39; from it.

And, as I noted, this line of argument has already been refuted.

Another piece of advice: whenever you think you have come up with something new in philosophy, because the entire subject is based on word-juggling, and nothing else, the truth is that someone else will already have been there before you.

The fact that you seem to know little of the history of the subject has up to now prevented you from seeing this.


In fact, one of the chapters in the book is called, Words, Not Reality. You would enjoy this chapter.

Which book is this?

[Incidentally, may I correct an earlier error: this &#39;theory&#39; was put about by Mandeville alright (and Hobbes), but refuted by Hutcheson, not Butler. You can look these theorists up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Mandeville

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hutcheson_(philosopher)

Please note, I am advocating the thoughts of neither thinker, merely pointing out that new ideas in philosophy are exceedingly rare.]
PG:


QUOTE
Tapping your finger or any mindless bodily movement are movements away from staying in the previous position, which is less satisfying, otherwise you wouldn&#39;t have tapped your finger.

And how do you know that?

Peacegirl: Rosa, please try to listen to the reasoning. This is an observation about all of life, not just humans. The word satisfaction might be confusing (and it is being used for lack of a better word) because it assumes we are satisfied with the choices we make. But sometimes we aren&#39;t satisfied even though they are the best choices available to us. It is an observation that when one is satisfied with his position, he doesn&#39;t move off of that position. If I am satisfied talking to you online, I don&#39;t get offline until what I am doing becomes uncomfortable in some way. For example, if my fingers start to hurt from typing, I might decide to take a break, which is more satisfying at that moment then continuing to type.

Where is your evidence? Where are the brain scans, psychometric test results, data...?

Peacegirl: It doesn&#39;t require these types of tests. Empirical observation is enough to see that this is absolutely true. Please keep the word satisfaction in context. A bird that flies off of a branch doesn&#39;t know it is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but it is moving away from the spot called &#39;here&#39; (the branch it was sitting on) to a different spot called &#39;there&#39; as the movement it must take from one moment to another.

As I indicated, you have used your (already biased) understanding of the application of a word to derive an a priori &#39;truth&#39;, and then you employ that &#39;truth&#39; as a way of fitting everything else to the conclusion you want -- with no data in support. [Your counterfactual wording gives you away, highlighted in the above quotation.]

Peacegirl: Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied to
remain in one position for always like an inanimate object, which position shall
be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here for
the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and you are given
two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called
there or remain where you are without moving a hairs breadth by committing
suicide. What is your choice?

If your claims were empirical (i.e., to do with the real world, not an artificial world created by your assumed meanings), you would await the evidence in support of your inference.

Peacegirl: The knowledge that this is true is the foundation of other knowledge that can help us help our world, just as harnassing the knowledge about the solar system has allowed us to use this knowledge for our betterment. The knowledge that one plus one equals two is part of the real world. There is evidence that one plus one equals two occurs everytime we add two things together, with no exceptions; but the application of this knowledge once we know that this is a fact is what I am discussing here, because it leads us to other knowledge that would not be possible otherwise.

QUOTE
I have no idea who Hutcheson was, or Samuel Butler. But I do know that this argument is correct if understood.



Those who don&#39;t know the history of Philosophy are condemned to repeat its errors.

Peacegirl: This is not philosophy. This knowledge was born out of philosophical discussion but it is not theory or conjecture. I agree that there are very few truths that we can count on, and philosophy contains a lot of words that do not mean much in the real world. The author of this book read a tremendous amount of philosophy and literature. He was also a mathematician in his own right. Going back to the previous example, if I know one plus one equals two because the veracity of the knowledge is contained within itself, I do not need an authority figure to tell me that this is right. By the same token, just because I do not know who Hutcheson is does not negate a factual statement. I understand that you don&#39;t see how it is factual, but maybe you will in time.


QUOTE
just as the illusion that the earth was round was refuted until people were ready to analyze the proof of its circular shape.



This was an empirical argument, based on evidence; your is an a priori extrapolation based on what you assume the meaning to be of a few words.

Peacegirl: This is also based on evidence. It&#39;s not about the words; it&#39;s about the observation of what is taking place in the real world. I know all about syllogisms and this is not one of them.


QUOTE
I am combining them in an irrefutable proof,



From what I could see, you loosely tied a few words together (ones that were ill-defined to begin with) and extracted a &#39;sort of result&#39; from it.

And, as I noted, this line of argument has already been refuted.

Another piece of advice: whenever you think you have come up with something new in philosophy, because the entire subject is based on word-juggling, and nothing else, the truth is that someone else will already have been there before you.

Peacegirl: It&#39;s okay if someone else was already here before me. I don&#39;t care about that. I hope you can keep an open mind and not just shut the door because that would be just as bad as me using a few words to define reality unless those words are mirroring a truth that exists. There are many words for the number *one* but regardless of the word that symbolizes this concept, the concept of one is part of the real world.

The fact that you seem to know little of the history of the subject has up to now prevented you from seeing this.

Peacegirl: I don&#39;t need to know every philosopher who tried to prove that the earth was flat, to know that the earth is round. You are using this premise, as if this disproves what I am offering. The author was a tremendous thinker and whether someone thinks he can disprove one plus one equals two does not mean that he did prove it, and the fact that I don&#39;t know his proof to the contrary doesn&#39;t mean my proof is wrong.


QUOTE
In fact, one of the chapters in the book is called, Words, Not Reality. You would enjoy this chapter.



Which book is this?

[Incidentally, may I correct an earlier error: this &#39;theory&#39; was put about by Mandeville alright (and Hobbes), but refuted by Hutcheson, not Butler. You can look these theorists up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Mandeville

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hutcheson_(philosopher)

Please note, I am advocating the thoughts of neither thinker, merely pointing out that new ideas in philosophy are exceedingly rare.]

Peacegirl: You are right that new thoughts are rare. This discovery was made in 1959 and the author never had a chance to publish his work. I was given the rights to it, but it seems nearly impossible to get an audience with an open mind. He was a very skeptical man and he use to say, take everything with a grain of salt. I tried to compile his 7 books into one. There was no internet back then, and this book was never distributed. It might take another thousand years for this knowledge to be understood. It&#39;s not up to me; all I can do is discuss it in the hope that people will grasp the fundamentals.

[hoopla]

Without getting too wordy can you give me situation where you are not moving in the direction of greater satisfaction? When I accidently fall over.

When I give the wrong answer to a maths problem.

Or, when I get stuck on a maths problems.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:37 PM

Without getting too wordy can you give me situation where you are not moving in the direction of greater satisfaction? When I accidently fall over.

When I give the wrong answer to a maths problem.

Or, when I get stuck on a maths problems.
Many things that happen to us are beyond our control, although once something has occurred, such as a fall, we will do everything in our power to correct it. In other words, our compensatory reaction to repair or fix the original problem is in the direction of greater satisfaction even if we did not ask to fall or to do poorly on a math exam.

[hoopla]

So what you are saying, is we always want to satisfy ourselves :huh:

Yeah, like, I&#39;m probably agree that this is just the meaning of those words. If we don&#39;t want something, then it won&#39;t satisfy us. Barring all empirical eveidence, of course.

What about nihilists, or whatever, can they want things which aren&#39;t satisfying?

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:23 PM
So what you are saying, is we always want to satisfy ourselves :huh:

Yeah, like, I&#39;m probably agree that this is just the meaning of those words. If we don&#39;t want something, then it won&#39;t satisfy us. Barring all empirical eveidence, of course.

What about nihilists, or whatever, can they want things which aren&#39;t satisfying?
So what you are saying, is we always want to satisfy ourselves

Peacegirl: Always wanting to satisfy ourselves is different than moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Some people find satisfaction in denying themselves satisfaction such as the ascetics.

Yeah, like, I&#39;m probably agree that this is just the meaning of those words. If we don&#39;t want something, then it won&#39;t satisfy us. Barring all empirical eveidence, of course.

Peacegirl: That is true. If we don&#39;t want something, it won&#39;t satisfy us so we won&#39;t choose it. But you must remember that we are always comparing alternatives and sometimes we make a choice because there is no better choice available.

What about nihilists, or whatever, can they want things which aren&#39;t satisfying?

Peacegirl: Every living thing is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction; but where humans are concerned they have the ability to weigh alternatives which makes it appear as if their choices are free. Nihilists just make different choices than I would because of their beliefs, but still in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:25 PM
So what you are saying, is we always want to satisfy ourselves

Peacegirl: Always wanting to satisfy ourselves is different than moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Some people find satisfaction in denying themselves satisfaction such as the ascetics.
But you&#39;ve already said that we sometimes fail to satisfy ourselves, so, it must be the case that we are not always "moving in the direction of greater satisfaction" <_<

And ascetics - are they satisfying themselevs, or are they denying themselves satisfaction? They can&#39;t be both A, and not A.

A being satisfying themselves iyswim

[Hit The North]

And ascetics - are they satisfying themselevs, or are they denying themselves satisfaction? They can&#39;t be both A, and not A.

Presumably their abstinence is a greater satisfaction.

BUT WHAT I WANT TO KNOW:

Even if PG is right and there is no such thing as free will because all choices are conditioned by a drive to increased satisfaction...

SO WHAT???

How does this information help us to create a better world?

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 27 2006, 06:00 PM

And ascetics - are they satisfying themselevs, or are they denying themselves satisfaction? They can&#39;t be both A, and not A.

Presumably their abstinence is a greater satisfaction.

But, you see, they never did manage to abstain iyswim, I peacegirl is right.



BUT WHAT I WANT TO KNOW:

Even if PG is right and there is no such thing as free will because all choices are conditioned by a drive to increased satisfaction...

SO WHAT???

How does this information help us to create a better world?F* knows. Perhaps everyone will realise, and in one great f* you to the universe, decide to overthrow the status quo iyswim

More likely, its something that we could use as something that the subject knows, or will know, about herself. The problem being, that unless this points to a more authentic being, or something, then it means f* all more than a bunch of people thinking they are made of tomatoe paste iyswim.

If the realization doesn&#39;t point to a more authentic mode of being, then how different is it to any belief, true or otherwise. We might as well ask ourselves "what are the revolutionary potentials of everyone knowing that their hypothalamus secretes H10 while they sleep" - it would just be a useless fact, without any objectively better state of being that they become because of the knowldege (that there is no free will). iyswim

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by hoopla+Jul 27 2006, 05:42 PM--> (hoopla &#064; Jul 27 2006, 05:42 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 05:25 PM
So what you are saying, is we always want to satisfy ourselves

Peacegirl: Always wanting to satisfy ourselves is different than moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Some people find satisfaction in denying themselves satisfaction such as the ascetics.
But you&#39;ve already said that we sometimes fail to satisfy ourselves, so, it must be the case that we are not always "moving in the direction of greater satisfaction" <_<

And ascetics - are they satisfying themselevs, or are they denying themselves satisfaction? They can&#39;t be both A, and not A.

A being satisfying themselves iyswim [/b]
But you&#39;ve already said that we sometimes fail to satisfy ourselves, so, it must be the case that we are not always "moving in the direction of greater satisfaction"

Peacegirl: The fact that we fail to satisfy ourselves is not because we aren&#39;t trying. Sometimes we don&#39;t even know what will bring us satisfaction but our effort to find answers to this lifelong quest is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. It sometimes appears as if our choices are in the direction of dissatisfaction but that is only because we don&#39;t know all of the factors that determined someone&#39;s choices. You must bear in mind that we are always picking the choice that is the most preferable, even if our choices are the lesser of two evils. If I have to choose between going to a job I absolutely hate or having no money to pay my rent, both choices are distasteful, but I will choose the best of the two which is to go to my job. Someone else might leave his job as the choice that is most preferable, and risk being evicted because to him the idea of having to work at a job he hates is worse than living on the streets. Everyone is different to a degree and that is why our choices are going to be different even if we are faced with the same situation.

And ascetics - are they satisfying themselevs, or are they denying themselves satisfaction? They can&#39;t be both A, and not A.

Peacegirl: If you look at this carefully, you will see that the ascetics are also moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though it doesn&#39;t appear that way at first glance. They are just choosing not to satisfy themselves with material things in order to see whether this kind of denial will make them happier in the long run. Therefore, they are still moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[hoopla]

So what you are saying, is we always want to satisfy ourselves I take this back, you are saying we are always trying to satisfy ourselves - whats the difference? It does seem, that satisfaction by definition is something that we are trying to achieve :huh:

[Vinny Rafarino]


Originally posted by pissgirl
Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied to
remain in one position for always like an inanimate object, which position shall
be termed ‘death.’

[Thank you Rosie for the name "pissgirl"; it&#39;s so amazingly perfect I actually got mad that I didn&#39;t think of it.]

This sentence is very confused. "Life" termed as you have here does not carry consciousness and lacks the "ability" to rationalise its actions based on emotional staisfaction (yes swea&#39;pea, "satifaction" is an emotional response in sentient species).

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Bill Shatner+Jul 27 2006, 08:15 PM--> (Bill Shatner @ Jul 27 2006, 08:15 PM) 
pissgirl
Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied to
remain in one position for always like an inanimate object, which position shall
be termed ‘death.’

[Thank you Rosie for the name "pissgirl"; it&#39;s so amazingly perfect I actually got mad that I didn&#39;t think of it.]

This sentence is very confused. "Life" termed as you have here does not carry consciousness and lacks the "ability" to rationalise its actions based on emotional staisfaction (yes swea&#39;pea, "satifaction" is an emotional response in sentient species). [/b]
QUOTE (pissgirl)
Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied to
remain in one position for always like an inanimate object, which position shall
be termed ‘death.’



[Thank you Rosie for the name "pissgirl"; it&#39;s so amazingly perfect I actually got mad that I didn&#39;t think of it.]

Peacegirl: Calm down&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Why everyone gets such satisfaction out of name calling I&#39;ll never know. :o

This sentence is very confused. "Life" termed as you have here does not carry consciousness and lacks the "ability" to rationalise its actions based on emotional staisfaction (yes swea&#39;pea

Peacegirl: Life in all its variety is a movement from one position to another. The heartbeat, although involuntary, is an indicator that life does not want to stay in one position which the author termed death because if we never desire moving off of the spot called *here* then life will cease. All outer movements - even our smallest gestures - are indications that we are not satisfied with our present position or we would never fidget in our seats, or twirl our pencils etc; we would be completely content. Therefore, it can be concluded that when we move from one spot to another it is an indication that we are not satisfied to remain where we are for always. Animals are not conscious of what they are doing but they are unconsciously moving toward satisfaction. When they feel the need, they stretch; when they feel hungry, they begin to look for food because hunger is causing them to move off of the spot they are now on (remember the word *satisfaction* isn&#39;t as important as the concept it is trying to convey).

Human beings are conscious of their actions and can evaluate possible alternatives. Their choices are related to what they desire and they are an attempt to move off of the spot called here to the next spot called there in order to find satisfaction, because they are not satisfied staying in the present position. Humans think in terms of emotional satisfaction which becomes a part of their choice selection; but animals cannot do this. This does not change the fact that every creature is moving in this direction. You have to be cognizant of the way I use the term *satisfaction* or you will get confused.

[RevolverNo9]

Peacegirl, if you are perturbed by people&#39;s less than welcoming attitude it is because of your purposefully evasive and haughty approach.

If you want people to understand your ideas, explain them as best you can, without declaring (presumptiously and arrogantly) that you have found a &#39;great discovery&#39;.

Anyway, your principal doesn&#39;t really sound that remarkable.

How can you be so sure though? As Rosa noted, your argument is essentually a priori. Even Frued realised flaws in his &#39;pleasure principal&#39;. Why does the mind willfully recreate traumatic and anxiety-creating incidents in our dreams and visions? In his attempt to reconcile such evidence, he concluded (with reservation) that man has a &#39;death drive&#39;. Maybe this is the &#39;great discovery&#39; of peace you bring with you... the &#39;quiescence of the inorganic&#39;&#33;?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG:


Rosa, please try to listen to the reasoning.

I really have no desire to &#39;listen&#39; to yet more a priori dogmatics.

If you want to spout some more, that, I am afraid, is your punishment.

I have yet to see any &#39;reasoning&#39; on your part, just dogmatic assertions compounded by some very shaky &#39;logic&#39;.

I think Hoopla is your real target; he likes this sort of gobbledygook.

I have seen too much of this sort of stuff, and your fourth-rate &#39;musings&#39; are, shall we say, fit only for terminally naive disciples.

In short, I&#39;d rather read a telephone directory, from cover to cover, several times over, than attempt to unravel, and then make sense of, that tangled ball of wool you keep posting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


any claims that what we are talking about is meaningless, will HAVE to be shown to be true

I am sorry for my crass behaviour to one such as you, who reads everything I post with consumate care and attention, and who then posts comments that are, I have to say, a model to one and all.

I haven&#39;t said this before, and I cannot imagine why I have left it out of consideration up to now, but:


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers

Can I apoloigse for not passing this on earlier???

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:30 PM

So what you are saying, is we always want to satisfy ourselves I take this back, you are saying we are always trying to satisfy ourselves - whats the difference? It does seem, that satisfaction by definition is something that we are trying to achieve :huh:
We are choosing what is best for ourselves, even if we are wrong in our choice because of limited information. No matter what we choose, it is the better choice from our vantage point. The next moment, we might consider a different alternative based on the results of our previous choice. Nothing stays the same, and nothing can be predicted because each person has elements in his life that no one but himself can fully understand.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:58 PM
Peacegirl, if you are perturbed by people&#39;s less than welcoming attitude it is because of your purposefully evasive and haughty approach.

If you want people to understand your ideas, explain them as best you can, without declaring (presumptiously and arrogantly) that you have found a &#39;great discovery&#39;.

Anyway, your principal doesn&#39;t really sound that remarkable.

How can you be so sure though? As Rosa noted, your argument is essentually a priori. Even Frued realised flaws in his &#39;pleasure principal&#39;. Why does the mind willfully recreate traumatic and anxiety-creating incidents in our dreams and visions? In his attempt to reconcile such evidence, he concluded (with reservation) that man has a &#39;death drive&#39;. Maybe this is the &#39;great discovery&#39; of peace you bring with you... the &#39;quiescence of the inorganic&#39;&#33;?
Peacegirl, if you are perturbed by people&#39;s less than welcoming attitude it is because of your purposefully evasive and haughty approach.

Peacegirl: How would you expect Edison to approach you? Seriously? How should he approach people so that they take him seriously?

If you want people to understand your ideas, explain them as best you can, without declaring (presumptiously and arrogantly) that you have found a &#39;great discovery&#39;.

Peacegirl: I have not been arrogant at all at least from my perspective. If by saying I have a discovery is arrogant, what do all the people who have true discoveries say? Tell me because I need help in this area. <_<

Anyway, your principal doesn&#39;t really sound that remarkable.

How can you be so sure though? As Rosa noted, your argument is essentually a priori. Even Frued realised flaws in his &#39;pleasure principal&#39;. Why does the mind willfully recreate traumatic and anxiety-creating incidents in our dreams and visions? In his attempt to reconcile such evidence, he concluded (with reservation) that man has a &#39;death drive&#39;. Maybe this is the &#39;great discovery&#39; of peace you bring with you... the &#39;quiescence of the inorganic&#39;&#33;?

Peacegirl: I have to tell you that whatever reason people do what they do, even if we don&#39;t understand it, as in Freud&#39;s interpretation, one thing is certain; they are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is why this knowledge is so elemental. Very few observations are based on a basic principle which cannot be denied if carefully analyzed, but this is one of them. Otherwise, it would not be a discovery and I would never come online and make claims that would make me look ridiculous if I wasn&#39;t sure. The knowledge I am giving can be observed empirically. I am not tricking anyone into believing some kind of false assertion. Just remember that the knowledge that man&#39;s will is not free is the gateway into the discovery; it is not the discovery itself.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 11:29 PM
Hoopla:


any claims that what we are talking about is meaningless, will HAVE to be shown to be true

I am sorry for my crass behaviour to one such as you, who reads everything I post with consumate care and attention, and who then posts comments that are, I have to say, a model to one and all.

I haven&#39;t said this before, and I cannot imagine why I have left it out of consideration up to now, but:


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers

Can I apoloigse for not passing this on earlier???
PG:


QUOTE
Rosa, please try to listen to the reasoning.



I really have no desire to &#39;listen&#39; to yet more a priori dogmatics.

If you want to spout some more, that, I am afraid, is your punishment.

I have yet to see any &#39;reasoning&#39; on your part, just dogmatic assertions compounded by some very shaky &#39;logic&#39;.

I think Hoopla is your real target; he likes this sort of gobbledygook.

I have seen too much of this sort of stuff, and your fourth-rate &#39;musings&#39; are, shall we say, fit only for terminally naive disciples.

In short, I&#39;d rather read a telephone directory, from cover to cover, several times over, than attempt to unravel, and then make sense of, that tangled ball of wool you keep posting.

Peacegirl: Rosa, no one is telling you to answer to this thread. If you are the leader in this forum then everyone will follow like sheep. But that does not make me wrong. Only the proof will make me wrong or right, not your opinion which is definitely biased. Call it gobbledygook if you must, but you never had an intelligent question which shows me that you are negating it probably because it&#39;s not deep enough for your intellectual prowess. You have the right to move on to more important subjects and I will never intrude; but please give me the same consideration. This knowledge is anything but dogmatic and if you don&#39;t see that, it is your failing not the knowledge.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG:


Rosa, no one is telling you to answer to this thread. If you are the leader in this forum then everyone will follow like sheep. But that does not make me wrong. Only the proof will make me wrong or right, not your opinion which is definitely biased. Call it gobbledygook if you must, but you never had an intelligent question which shows me that you are negating it probably because it&#39;s not deep enough for your intellectual prowess. You have the right to move on to more important subjects and I will never intrude; but please give me the same consideration. This knowledge is anything but dogmatic and if you don&#39;t see that, it is your failing not the knowledge.

As I said, you are welocme to spout the details of your fourth-rate &#39;discovery&#39; all you like, I have no desire to comment on it.

I am already on page six of the London Telephone directory, and have learnt considerably more as a result.

[Hit The North]

PG:


Just remember that the knowledge that man&#39;s will is not free is the gateway into the discovery; it is not the discovery itself.


So are you ever going to tell us what the &#39;discovery&#39; is?

If not, please peace off and bother someone else.

BTW, given that Peacegirl has not given any indication that she is &#39;of the left&#39;, why does she continue to enjoy unrestricted membership?

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 12:01 AM
PG:


Rosa, no one is telling you to answer to this thread. If you are the leader in this forum then everyone will follow like sheep. But that does not make me wrong. Only the proof will make me wrong or right, not your opinion which is definitely biased. Call it gobbledygook if you must, but you never had an intelligent question which shows me that you are negating it probably because it&#39;s not deep enough for your intellectual prowess. You have the right to move on to more important subjects and I will never intrude; but please give me the same consideration. This knowledge is anything but dogmatic and if you don&#39;t see that, it is your failing not the knowledge.

As I said, you are welocme to spout the details of your fourth-rate &#39;discovery&#39; all you like, I have no desire to comment on it.

I am already on page six of the London Telephone directory, and have learnt considerably more as a result.
If it is knowledge that [in the final analysis] can help mankind to achieve peace through the understanding of his ultimate nature, and an economic system that gives everyone on the planet security with the opportunity to increase one&#39;s standard of living, then you are incorrect when you say it is gobbledegook. Have you ever been wrong Rosa, or are you always right and everyone must conform to your analysis? It really doesn&#39;t matter if you are wrong or right in the scheme of life, but it does matter if understanding brings recognition and development of a subject that is truly worth understanding. I truly understand and forgive your shortsightedness because your will is not free and you are only saying what you think is right.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 28 2006, 12:10 AM
PG:


Just remember that the knowledge that man&#39;s will is not free is the gateway into the discovery; it is not the discovery itself.


So are you ever going to tell us what the &#39;discovery&#39; is?

If not, please peace off and bother someone else.

BTW, given that Peacegirl has not given any indication that she is &#39;of the left&#39;, why does she continue to enjoy unrestricted membership?
So are you ever going to tell us what the &#39;discovery&#39; is?

If not, please peace off and bother someone else.

BTW, given that Peacegirl has not given any indication that she is &#39;of the left&#39;, why does she continue to enjoy unrestricted membership?

Peacegirl: Not until you understand why man&#39;s will is not free or the rest of the discovery will make no sense and I&#39;ll get more slack from Rosa than I can handle. If you want to exclude me from your precious membership, then do so, but do it now so I won&#39;t waste my time in here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PG:


If it is knowledge that [in the final analysis] can help mankind to achieve peace through the understanding of his ultimate nature, and an economic system that gives everyone on the planet security with the opportunity to increase one&#39;s standard of living, then you are incorrect when you say it is gobbledegook. Have you ever been wrong Rosa, or are you always right and everyone must conform to your analysis? It really doesn&#39;t matter if you are wrong or right in the scheme of life, but it does matter if understanding brings recognition and development of a subject that is truly worth understanding. I truly understand and forgive your shortsightedness because your will is not free and you are only saying what you think is right.

Now on page seven, and, amazingly, still learning more....

[Hit The North]

If you want to exclude me from your precious membership, then do so, but do it now so I won&#39;t waste my time in here.

Waste your time? :rolleyes:

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 12:33 AM
PG:


If it is knowledge that [in the final analysis] can help mankind to achieve peace through the understanding of his ultimate nature, and an economic system that gives everyone on the planet security with the opportunity to increase one&#39;s standard of living, then you are incorrect when you say it is gobbledegook. Have you ever been wrong Rosa, or are you always right and everyone must conform to your analysis? It really doesn&#39;t matter if you are wrong or right in the scheme of life, but it does matter if understanding brings recognition and development of a subject that is truly worth understanding. I truly understand and forgive your shortsightedness because your will is not free and you are only saying what you think is right.

Now on page seven, and, amazingly, still learning more....
Why are you counting pages as if this somehow proves that I have nothing to offer? Actually it is your general attitude [rush to judgment] that is preventing me from desiring to go forward. An unbiased audience is necessary for careful analysis otherwise that bias will take over, laugh at, name call, and use one&#39;s authority to discount knowledge that hasn&#39;t been carefully analyzed. This is what is happening here and I cannot get through this thick cloud of resistance, or to even give the people in here something new to think about. I can&#39;t even get that far.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by pissgirl
The heartbeat, although involuntary, is an indicator that life does not want to stay in one position which the author termed death because if we never desire moving off of the spot called *here* then life will cease.

More extreme confusion from "the author".

Sorry baby-doll, as I stated earlier, life as you describe it is not a conscious being and cannot "want" to do anything at all.

The heart beats in order to keep pump blood through your body, nothing more you silly little goose.


you have to be cognizant of the way I use the term *satisfaction* or you will get confused.

Are you sure muffin?

Or is it more accurate to say that the confusion is created by confused ramblings?

I have a question for you sweetie-pie: have you ever been prescribed neurological disorder medication by a psychiatrist?

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Bill Shatner+Jul 28 2006, 05:29 PM--> (Bill Shatner @ Jul 28 2006, 05:29 PM)
pissgirl
The heartbeat, although involuntary, is an indicator that life does not want to stay in one position which the author termed death because if we never desire moving off of the spot called *here* then life will cease.

More extreme confusion from "the author".

Sorry baby-doll, as I stated earlier, life as you describe it is not a conscious being and cannot "want" to do anything at all.

The heart beats in order to keep pump blood through your body, nothing more you silly little goose.


you have to be cognizant of the way I use the term *satisfaction* or you will get confused.

Are you sure muffin?

Or is it more accurate to say that the confusion is created by confused ramblings?

I have a question for you sweetie-pie: have you ever been prescribed neurological disorder medication by a psychiatrist? [/b]
QUOTE (pissgirl)
The heartbeat, although involuntary, is an indicator that life does not want to stay in one position which the author termed death because if we never desire moving off of the spot called *here* then life will cease.

Peacegirl: Maybe I am not explaining it well, but these were not the author&#39;s exact words.


More extreme confusion from "the author".

Sorry baby-doll, as I stated earlier, life as you describe it is not a conscious being and cannot "want" to do anything at all.

Peacegirl: Life is a movement from one moment to the next, that is all he is saying here. All inner and outer movements are an indication that life is never satisfied (again the word satisfied does not mean in the literal sense) to remain in one position and that there is a compulsion to move in a certain direction, which is away from the present moment called &#39;here&#39; to the next moment called &#39;there&#39;. In order for this forward motion to take place, there has to be a desire to change one&#39;s position which (again you cannot take this word in the literal sense when we are talking about bodily functions or animals that have no ability to consciously choose) comes from a feeling of dissatisfaction. The explanation he gave on inner and outer movements is a necessary prelude to the discussion regarding choice. To help you understand this better I will share the following excerpt:

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every
moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot
stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the
best we can, or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to
prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want
to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to
be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for
a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of
the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable
relation.
Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all
inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied to
remain in one position for always like an inanimate object, which position shall
be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here for
the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and you are given
two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called
there or remain where you are without moving a hairs breadth by committing
suicide.
“I prefer…” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to
answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you
were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here and prefer
moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of
life which is any motion from here to there is a movement away from that which
dissatisfies, otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are,
you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves
away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the
present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater
satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot
called here is determined by a law over which we have no control because even
if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any
particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life obeys this invariable
law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices, decisions, and to
prefer of whatever options are available during his lifetime that which he
considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he
found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to
candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being alive, has
always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. During every moment of
man’s progress he always did what he had to do because he had no choice.
There are no exceptions as you will soon observe. Although this demonstration
proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping
these type relations, so I will elaborate.
Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we shall
designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of
your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time
if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could sway you from your
decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two
alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good,
instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer
the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly
impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled by their very
nature to prefer A; and how can they be free when the favorable difference
between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the
direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free
will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or
the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting
what one doesn’t want when what one does want is available as an alternative is
a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction.
To give you a more familiar example, if it were possible that B could be
selected even though A was the desirable choice, it would permit a woman to
spend on a dress she doesn’t like when a dress she does like is available, or to
pick out of a selection of dresses the one she finds the least desirable. Let us
imagine for a moment that this woman is late for a meeting and must quickly
choose between two dresses. If both are undesirable, she is compelled to select
the dress that is the least distasteful of the two; consequently, her final choice in
this comparison is the better alternative. Obviously she has other options; she
could leave both dresses and wear something from home, continue to shop and
call in late, etc. This is a hypothetical situation for the purpose of showing that
the dress she chooses must be the one that gives every indication of being the
best possible choice under the circumstances. It is true that the dress she ends up
purchasing will be influenced by many variables such as price, quality, etc., but
regardless of the factors that contributed to her final decision, she is compelled,
by her very nature, to pick the one that is the most preferable after weighing the
pros and cons of each choice. For example, if cost is an important consideration
she may desire buying the dress she likes the least because it fits within her price
range, and although she would be happier with the more expensive dress she
moves in the direction of greater satisfaction by picking the less expensive one.
If her will was free she could just as easily pick dress B (the more expensive
dress) over dress A (the less expensive dress), which is impossible under the
circumstances because it would be the least desirable choice. I will now put the
conclusive proof that man’s will is not free to a mathematical test.
Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage and
condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the
painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under
water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are
compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable.
The difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the
compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes one of
them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less
satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible
choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, providing no other
conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered
as an alternative?
“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”
“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer
the other alternative?”
“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any
choice.”
“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you should be
able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In other words, if B is
considered the greater evil in this comparison of alternatives, one is compelled
completely beyond control to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in
this comparison (although it could be chosen to something still worse) as long as
A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice,
you are not free to choose A for your preference is a natural compulsion of the
direction of life over which you have absolutely no control.
The definition of free will states that good or evil can be chosen without
compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact that there is a tremendous
amount of compulsion. The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are preferable
differences otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very misleading
for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities but in reality this is a
delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater
satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he considers better
for himself and when two or more alternatives are presented he is compelled, by
his very nature, to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives
every indication of being better for the particular set of circumstances involved.
Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature
but he is compelled to prefer of alternatives the one he considers better for
himself. Consequently, even though he chooses various things all through the
course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of
free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or
necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each
and every moment of time?
“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you remarked,
‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference’?”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you
are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while
other differences need a more careful consideration, doesn’t change the direction
of life which moves always and ever towards greater satisfaction; but what one
person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others especially
when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case present
alternatives that affect choice. This explains why two people when confronted
with the same situation may pick the opposite alternative as that which they
consider better for themselves. Once a choice is made, however, it is also true
that hindsight may elicit a different response the next time a similar situation
presents itself because man is always learning from previous experience, but this
does not change the fact that we are always moving in the direction of greater
satisfaction during every moment of our existence. Someone who believed he
had proof that man can move in the direction of dissatisfaction offered the
following example.
He began, “Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the
yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently my taste lies in
the direction of the latter which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very
thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am
going to eat it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied – and prefer the
yellow apple – I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.” In
response to this demonstration, isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason he
decided to eat the red apple, and even though it would be distasteful in
comparison, this choice at that moment of time gave him greater satisfaction,
otherwise, he would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow? The normal
circumstances under which he frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were
changed by his desire to prove a point; therefore, it gave him greater satisfaction
to eat what he did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to
move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the
yellow apple at that moment of time) was an impossible choice, he was not free
to choose A. Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the
results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment
to moment, all through life, man can never move in the direction of
dissatisfaction, and that his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural
effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction,
otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from
here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present
position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch;
as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking,
and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life pushing man always in
the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that
satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other
times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for
the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of
unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied
with the way you feel at that moment; and your desire to get out of the bathtub
arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown
uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will
is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers
only one possibility at each moment of time.


The heart beats in order to keep pump blood through your body, nothing more you silly little goose.

Peacegirl: Ugh&#33; If you have to call me a name, call me a swan not a goose. :D


QUOTE
you have to be cognizant of the way I use the term *satisfaction* or you will get confused.



Are you sure muffin?

Peacegirl: I am positive unless you are just trying to humor me and not really trying to learn.

Or is it more accurate to say that the confusion is created by confused ramblings?

I have a question for you sweetie-pie: have you ever been prescribed neurological disorder medication by a psychiatrist?

Peacegirl: These ramblings have rhyme and reason, and I don&#39;t have thoughts of grandeur so I don&#39;t need medicine from a psychiatrist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by pissgirl
These ramblings have rhyme and reason, and I don&#39;t have thoughts of grandeur so I don&#39;t need medicine from a psychiatrist.

So, honey-buns, you admit that they are indeed "ramblings"?

Since that is the case, it would be impossible for them to have "rhyme and reason".

In addition Mrs. Crapatollah Khomeini, "thoughts of grandeur" are not the only conditions necessary for there to be the presence of a neurological disorder.

See a doctor.

[kjt1981]

Peacegirl. Do you get out much?

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Bill Shatner+Jul 28 2006, 07:06 PM--> (Bill Shatner @ Jul 28 2006, 07:06 PM)
pissgirl
These ramblings have rhyme and reason, and I don&#39;t have thoughts of grandeur so I don&#39;t need medicine from a psychiatrist.

So, honey-buns, you admit that they are indeed "ramblings"?

Since that is the case, it would be impossible for them to have "rhyme and reason".

In addition Mrs. Crapatollah Khomeini, "thoughts of grandeur" are not the only conditions necessary for there to be the presence of a neurological disorder.

See a doctor. [/b]
QUOTE (pissgirl)
These ramblings have rhyme and reason, and I don&#39;t have thoughts of grandeur so I don&#39;t need medicine from a psychiatrist.



So, honey-buns, you admit that they are indeed "ramblings"?

Peacegirl: I was using your word to make life easier.

Since that is the case, it would be impossible for them to have "rhyme and reason".

Peacegirl: Once again, I used your word to underscore that this was NOT what I was doing.

In addition Mrs. Crapatollah Khomeini, "thoughts of grandeur" are not the only conditions necessary for there to be the presence of a neurological disorder.

See a doctor.

Peacegirl: This is getting really stupid. I came here to explain something important. Did you read the previous post? I am sure you didn&#39;t because playing these psychological games with me is more fun. :(

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by pissgirl
Did you read the previous post?

What are you nuts?


Whoops, nevermind. :lol:

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Bill Shatner+Jul 28 2006, 08:33 PM--> (Bill Shatner &#064; Jul 28 2006, 08:33 PM)
pissgirl
Did you read the previous post?

What are you nuts?


Whoops, nevermind. :lol: [/b]
Was that a question that was out of the ordinary? Oh my goddd, I can&#39;t even ask a normal question to know whether you read something without me getting a retort as if I said something wrong. I am beginning to believe I am in a nuthouse. I am so sorry to say this but what else can I conclude? You seem like a bunch of people clamoring to be right and throwing apples at me without one normal question. So now, because I am resisting your accusations, you are now trying in the worst way (a big gang up with Rosa and Bill and Kitt and Citizen, and all the others) to project your nuttiness onto me by making me look like the fool. I see through you, I really do. I get your game but I can&#39;t be a part of it. It isn&#39;t worth the time even though I need people who are good listeners. You don&#39;t fit the requirements. :(

[Vinny Rafarino]

Okay poopy-drawers, Bye&#33;

[hoopla]

Don&#39;t pretend you don&#39;t like it here, peacegirl ;)

[YSR]

What a delightful discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 29 2006, 04:42 AM
What a delightful discussion.
Young and stupid radical, I am so sorry that I can&#39;t continue a normal discussion in here. It&#39;s really sad. I am sure there are many good things about this site, but I am being condemned for saying I have a discovery. Now everyone is on the attack. I should never have said this even though I do. This group has failed in their open mindedness, and they are just as bad as the closed minded liberals or capitalists who are stuck on one idea and will not budge. In their mind, everyone else is wrong and should be excluded from the conversation. :(

[YSR]

Peacegirl, I have to hip you to an idea: this is an internet forum. You don&#39;t have to reply to every single person who contradicts you. And the amount of time it took you to say whatever it was you were trying to say was so extreme that it prompted more people, myself included, to start mocking you.

If you show up and waste our time and space, you can see why we get a little upset.

Thank you, that is all.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 29 2006, 04:22 PM
Peacegirl, I have to hip you to an idea: this is an internet forum. You don&#39;t have to reply to every single person who contradicts you. And the amount of time it took you to say whatever it was you were trying to say was so extreme that it prompted more people, myself included, to start mocking you.

If you show up and waste our time and space, you can see why we get a little upset.

Thank you, that is all.
I appreciate your response, young stupid radical, but I have not taken up extra space at all without the negative input that led to those responses. The ridiculous retorts coming from this group compelled me to react the way I did, which took up space and time I admit. If people had asked questions based on information, we would have definitely made progress, but all I have gotten is mocking and nothing to back up the cynical attitude that permeates this group of thinkers. It&#39;s as if someone knows that the earth is round and he mocks all efforts to prove it is not. There is nothing I can do if that is the attitude because I will be cancelled out no matter what proof there is, just as the proof that the earth was round was scorned way back when. We have learned so much from history; it should be used as a lesson not to repeat this, but it doesn&#39;t which seems to point to the problem with this audience, not with me. This seems to happen anytime a new discovery comes to light. Even Gregor Mendel, whose severest critic and the authority of his time (Nageli), criticized the core of Mendel&#39;s discovery, turned out to be wrong... but at whose expense? Mendel had to die first in order to be recognized as being right after all, and now he is the father of genetics posthumously. Not only that, many people are being helped by his knowledge, which could have helped many more people if they hadn&#39;t rejected him so prematurely. I am sure nothing i am saying makes a difference. That is what makes this really sad because I am talking to people who have decided to turn anything I say on deaf ears. :(

[kjt1981]

Peacegirl, ive followed conversation for the last few days and have read the last 8 pages, and other than regurgitate 250 year old philosophy im unsure as to what your actually saying.

No individual can possibly be called free; if the individual chooses one course of action over another because they feel it would grant them greater satisfaction then this cannot be called a free choice as the individual is choosing the preferable course? Is this Right?

Forgive me for being cynical as ive tried my best to read your posts with an open mind, but much of what ive read of yours upto yet is nothing that dissimilar to the type of drugged ramblings me and selected friends have every saturday morning around 4am. Just before Sandman comes a-knocking. Or are we "through the looking glass"?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:38 AM
I am sure there are many good things about this site, but I am being condemned for saying I have a discovery.
You tell us you have a discovery, but you don&#39;t tell us what this discovery is&#33;

Please do tell.

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:22 PM
Peacegirl, ive followed conversation for the last few days and have read the last 8 pages, and other than regurgitate 250 year old philosophy im unsure as to what your actually saying.

No individual can possibly be called free; if the individual chooses one course of action over another because they feel it would grant them greater satisfaction then this cannot be called a free choice as the individual is choosing the preferable course? Is this Right?

Forgive me for being cynical as ive tried my best to read your posts with an open mind, but much of what ive read of yours upto yet is nothing that dissimilar to the type of drugged ramblings me and selected friends have every saturday morning around 4am. Just before Sandman comes a-knocking. Or are we "through the looking glass"?
Peacegirl, ive followed conversation for the last few days and have read the last 8 pages, and other than regurgitate 250 year old philosophy im unsure as to what your actually saying.

No individual can possibly be called free; if the individual chooses one course of action over another because they feel it would grant them greater satisfaction then this cannot be called a free choice as the individual is choosing the preferable course? Is this Right?

Peacegirl: This is basically it. We cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a more preferable option is available. Therefore, no matter what the choice, once it is chosen it could never have been otherwise.

Forgive me for being cynical as ive tried my best to read your posts with an open mind, but much of what ive read of yours upto yet is nothing that dissimilar to the type of drugged ramblings me and selected friends have every saturday morning around 4am. Just before Sandman comes a-knocking. Or are we "through the looking glass"?

Peacegirl: Why would you say that this is a rambling if what I am expressing is an immutable law? Christ and Spinoza had incursions of thought regarding this truth, and so did many others [but they were never able to solve the impasse of blame, for if our will is not free we cannot be blamed for what we do, and wouldn&#39;t we become even less responsible and cheat others without the fear of retribution?]. Were they rambling also? I have said many times that the fact that man&#39;s will is not free is the gateway that can explain how we can prevent the need for punishment; but you must keep an open mind. How can I go on when everyone has disregarded this obvious truth. If they can&#39;t see the mathematical (undeniable) relations that man must act according to his nature which is to move in the direction of what gives him the greatest satisfaction each moment in time, then how can I explain the two-sided equation which is the core of the discovery? They will just laugh in my face once again. :unsure:

[peacegirl]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Jul 29 2006, 10:31 PM--> (Fist of Blood @ Jul 29 2006, 10:31 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 10:38 AM
I am sure there are many good things about this site, but I am being condemned for saying I have a discovery.
You tell us you have a discovery, but you don&#39;t tell us what this discovery is&#33;

Please do tell. [/b]
You tell us you have a discovery, but you don&#39;t tell us what this discovery is&#33;

Please do tell.

Peacegirl: I would explain the discovery if people were serious about hearing it. So far I am a big joke in here, and so is this discovery. If people are so positive I have nothing to offer, they won&#39;t hear me even if I explain the discovery in detail. They won&#39;t get it not because it isn&#39;t a discovery, but because they are sure I am wrong and this will interfere with their ability to understand.

[LSD]

Wow... just wow. I&#39;ve got to say I&#39;m quite disapointed in everyone who&#39;s participated in this thread.

Seriously people, why the hell are you people feeding this lunatic&#39;s ego? If she had anything worthwhile to say she would have said it already. Obviously this thread is nothing but attention seeking and you only encourager her further by buying into her bullshit line.

The only way she will stop this nonsense is if we all refuse to engage her.

And "peacegirl", do yourself a favour and piss off. This is a serious forum for serious and rational discussion, not a fucking sandbox for your narcisistic masturbatory ramblings.

We have wasted more than enough of our time and bandwith on your meaningless airheaded self-grangradulatory nonsense. People who have really made useful "discoveries" are not shy in announcing their findings. They certainly don&#39;t lounge about on message boards demaning that everyone "respect" them and "open their minds" before their "reveal" their "secret".

Any "new discoveries" should have been posted in the first page of this thread. Instead we&#39;ve gone on an astounding 8 pages and we are no closer to the great "revelation" than when we started.

That tells me one of two things, either you are lying about having a "discovery" and are just trying to extend this attention-fest for as long as possible; or you are insane and don&#39;t know what you&#39;re doing.

Honestly, I&#39;m not sure which one is true.

What I do know though is that charlaton or mental patient, this board is not your personal playground.

Either you buck up and start playing by the rules of this site, or you will start receiving warning points. Incoherent posts which do not actually accomplish anything constructive are called spam, peacegirl, and are not tolerated on this board.

Either you start making sense or you find somewhere else to post. Your choice.

Thread closed&#33;