Hope to start a new thread based on an old thread

[peacegirl]

Only jokin'.

Sorry PG.

I accept your apology.

[peacegirl]

No one has any interest in this topic? I'm truly amazed. I can't make anyone want to learn something that's very important, especially when I am a nobody. But this knowledge is extremely important and one day it will be recognized for its contribution. Whether the people here will get a sneak preview is yet to be seen, but it doesn't really matter. What is true will be recognized in the end.

[BlurredSavant]

PG, many people here have already taken part in this. We've tried to read this book, we've tried to understand it, we've asked you questions, and got no answers. I'm afraid you probably don't have much of an audience here any longer.

[Only_Humean]

PG, many people here have already taken part in this. We've tried to read this book, we've tried to understand it, we've asked you questions, and got no answers. I'm afraid you probably don't have much of an audience here any longer.

Well, I got lots of answers. I didn't find them satisfactory, but it's not that PG doesn't do her best.

However, PG, you've had a lot of feedback that the presentation is unclear and obscures the points. That could be one reason for the lack of engagement.

[peacegirl]

PG, many people here have already taken part in this. We've tried to read this book, we've tried to understand it, we've asked you questions, and got no answers. I'm afraid you probably don't have much of an audience here any longer.

BlurredSavant, as I said earlier, I don't know who you are. You have never asked a question (unless I forgot, which could happen from time to time), but the biggest problem is that you are judging what other people feel. That shows me right that you are coming to all kinds of conclusions based on nothing substantial. In addition, I have answered questions and will continue to do so to the best of my ability, so please speak for yourself ONLY. That is all I am asking.

[peacegirl]

PG, many people here have already taken part in this. We've tried to read this book, we've tried to understand it, we've asked you questions, and got no answers. I'm afraid you probably don't have much of an audience here any longer.

Well, I got lots of answers. I didn't find them satisfactory, but it's not that PG doesn't do her best.

However, PG, you've had a lot of feedback that the presentation is unclear and obscures the points. That could be one reason for the lack of engagement.

Only_Humean, first I want to thank you for your support in defending me. Secondly, I don't believe the people in here read this book to understand it. They are reading it to find flaws because they can't believe anyone could make such claims unless they are well known in the field. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I know the way people think because the author went through it his entire life not because his knowledge was flawed, but because he was an unknown and he was ignored by the giants who would not give him the time of day. Another point I want to make is that philosophers are only looking in terms of empirical data because, in their mind, this is the only proof that matters. They do not believe that reasoning and astute observation of human nature, could discover anything new or valuable. Bias absolutely affects one's understanding, and there is a lot of bias in here whether you agree or not.

I am also putting a new version online because I am always trying to improve my writing. I am not a writer by profession, so people will have to forgive me for not being a prolific writer, but regardless of whether a sentence is perfect or not, I have compiled this discovery in a way that makes it easy reading and as clear as possible, although there will always be people who don't grasp the principles. I want you all to know that you are not the only ones reading this book, and I'm getting a lot of positive responses. Just something to think about before throwing out this knowledge.

[Only_Humean]

Secondly, I don't believe the people in here read this book to understand it. They are reading it to find flaws because they can't believe anyone could make such claims unless they are well known in the field.

I don't believe this to be so, but even if it were, that's a good thing, yes? If there are flaws, it's better to hear of them sooner rather than later. If one has ears to listen

Another point I want to make is that philosophers are only looking in terms of empirical data because, in their mind, this is the only proof that matters. They do not believe that reasoning and astute observation of human nature, could discover anything new or valuable.

This doesn't make sense - observation of human nature leads to empirical evidence. If someone proposes to revolutionise society and demands that we all change the way we think and feel about things, I don't think it's too much to ask for a little evidence to back up their reasoning, do you?

I am also putting a new version online because I am always trying to improve my writing. I am not a writer by profession, so people will have to forgive me for not being a prolific writer, but regardless of whether a sentence is perfect or not, I have compiled this discovery in a way that makes it easy reading and as clear as possible.

That's great Please share it here when it's ready, you might get more responses with a clearer revision.

[BlurredSavant]

PG, many people here have already taken part in this. We've tried to read this book, we've tried to understand it, we've asked you questions, and got no answers. I'm afraid you probably don't have much of an audience here any longer.

BlurredSavant, as I said earlier, I don't know who you are. You have never asked a question (unless I forgot, which could happen from time to time

Yes, that is what has happened in this instance. You have forgotten.

but the biggest problem is that you are judging what other people feel. That shows me right that you are coming to all kinds of conclusions based on nothing substantial. In addition, I have answered questions and will continue to do so to the best of my ability, so please speak for yourself ONLY. That is all I am asking.

I am reiterating to you the comments that have already been made by other people. You see, I DO remember a few months back when this thread was very active, when many people were attempting to read this book and ask questions, and not getting answers to those questions but rather being told that they weren't trying hard enough to understand it. As for judging the thoughts/feelings of other people, well...

I don't believe the people in here read this book to understand it. They are reading it to find flaws because they can't believe anyone could make such claims unless they are well known in the field. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I know the way people think...

Now, all of that aside, I'm open to a new version of the book if you have one. If you can bring forth some kind of meaning out of it that would be much appreciated. Personally, frustration comes from being shown pages of examples as to why I should be open to this groundbreaking idea but never having that idea presented to me. A couple of paragraphs would do it. I mean, I wouldn't be trying to read it if I weren't open to trying to understand. I need no more convincing of that. I do, however, want to know what it is I should be trying to understand.

[peacegirl]

PG, many people here have already taken part in this. We've tried to read this book, we've tried to understand it, we've asked you questions, and got no answers. I'm afraid you probably don't have much of an audience here any longer.

BlurredSavant, as I said earlier, I don't know who you are. You have never asked a question (unless I forgot, which could happen from time to time

Yes, that is what has happened in this instance. You have forgotten.

but the biggest problem is that you are judging what other people feel. That shows me right that you are coming to all kinds of conclusions based on nothing substantial. In addition, I have answered questions and will continue to do so to the best of my ability, so please speak for yourself ONLY. That is all I am asking.

I am reiterating to you the comments that have already been made by other people. You see, I DO remember a few months back when this thread was very active, when many people were attempting to read this book and ask questions, and not getting answers to those questions but rather being told that they weren't trying hard enough to understand it. As for judging the thoughts/feelings of other people, well...

I don't believe the people in here read this book to understand it. They are reading it to find flaws because they can't believe anyone could make such claims unless they are well known in the field. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I know the way people think...

Now, all of that aside, I'm open to a new version of the book if you have one. If you can bring forth some kind of meaning out of it that would be much appreciated. Personally, frustration comes from being shown pages of examples as to why I should be open to this groundbreaking idea but never having that idea presented to me. A couple of paragraphs would do it. I mean, I wouldn't be trying to read it if I weren't open to trying to understand. I need no more convincing of that. I do, however, want to know what it is I should be trying to understand.

BlurredSavant, the updated version is not going to help you if you haven't already read the book in its entirety. The things I have changed have to do with grammar more then concept. If you can't explain in your own words what this author has proved (i.e. man's will IS NOT free and what this means for all mankind), then my suspicion is that you are hearing the words of others who have also not studied this work. Do you see the problem here? Just as much as something on the internet could turn into something good through word of mouth, it could also ruin someone's efforts to bring something important to the masses. I believe this is what is happening here. Instead of asking me to explain things better, why don't you ask me a question that would show me you understand what this discovery is all about. So far all you are doing is repeating what others have said.

[BlurredSavant]

BlurredSavant, the updated version is not going to help you if you haven't already read the book in its entirety. The things I have changed have to do with grammar more then concept. If you can't explain in your own words what this author has proved (i.e. man's will IS NOT free and what this means for all mankind), then my suspicion is that you are hearing the words of others who have also not studied this work. Do you see the problem here? Just as much as something on the internet could turn into something good through word of mouth, it could also ruin someone's efforts to bring something important to the masses. I believe this is what is happening here. Instead of asking me to explain things better, why don't you ask me a question that would show me you understand what this discovery is all about. So far all you are doing is repeating what others have said.

PG, we have already had this discussion, and I do not appreciate your assumptions.

I have already told you I don't understand what the author is talking about, because there is nothing offered as proof to his "discovery." I am not the kind of person to let the claims of another person sway my opinion when they offer no support to their claim. That goes for people who may attempt to dissuade me from reading this book, and it also goes for people like you and this author who claim to know something that those as simple-minded as me just cannot grasp. I have told you over and again that I did not understand this book, and I have told you EXACTLY why, but you refuse to acknowledge that.

You continue to throw carefully cloaked insults at me and anyone else who tells you that they don't understand, faulting their mental capacity or all but calling them liars (i.e. telling them they couldn't have read anything, despite the fact that they've told you they have and probably wouldn't be saying anything at all if they hadn't tried). This has gone beyond ridiculous. I'm quickly forming the opinion that you are nothing more than a troll who's begging for attention. Open your eyes, and your mind, and prove me wrong if you actually have something to say, if you actually want this author's message to get out to people. Thus far, on this site and I'm sure a few others, your attitude has been the biggest detriment to anyone understanding the author's work. If his message is as important as you say, I do not think he would appreciate the way in which you try to convey it. If you do not recall what I'm speaking about, go back to the beginning of this thread and read it through. There are numerous examples of you brushing people off when they tell you they don't understand. If you're going to continue with this utter ridiculousness yet still believe that this author's message is so important, I think perhaps you should seek the help of someone who is more adept at writing/editing than you, who can release the point of this book from it's flowery bindings and set the message free. The problem is not the concept. How could I fault it, when I've had no inkling of what it truly is? The problem is the way it is presented. The WRITING.

[peacegirl]

BlurredSavant, the updated version is not going to help you if you haven't already read the book in its entirety. The things I have changed have to do with grammar more then concept. If you can't explain in your own words what this author has proved (i.e. man's will IS NOT free and what this means for all mankind), then my suspicion is that you are hearing the words of others who have also not studied this work. Do you see the problem here? Just as much as something on the internet could turn into something good through word of mouth, it could also ruin someone's efforts to bring something important to the masses. I believe this is what is happening here. Instead of asking me to explain things better, why don't you ask me a question that would show me you understand what this discovery is all about. So far all you are doing is repeating what others have said.

PG, we have already had this discussion, and I do not appreciate your assumptions.

I have already told you I don't understand what the author is talking about, because there is nothing offered as proof to his "discovery." I am not the kind of person to let the claims of another person sway my opinion when they offer no support to their claim. That goes for people who may attempt to dissuade me from reading this book, and it also goes for people like you and this author who claim to know something that those as simple-minded as me just cannot grasp. I have told you over and again that I did not understand this book, and I have told you EXACTLY why, but you refuse to acknowledge that.

You continue to throw carefully cloaked insults at me and anyone else who tells you that they don't understand, faulting their mental capacity or all but calling them liars (i.e. telling them they couldn't have read anything, despite the fact that they've told you they have and probably wouldn't be saying anything at all if they hadn't tried). This has gone beyond ridiculous. I'm quickly forming the opinion that you are nothing more than a troll who's begging for attention. Open your eyes, and your mind, and prove me wrong if you actually have something to say, if you actually want this author's message to get out to people. Thus far, on this site and I'm sure a few others, your attitude has been the biggest detriment to anyone understanding the author's work. If his message is as important as you say, I do not think he would appreciate the way in which you try to convey it. If you do not recall what I'm speaking about, go back to the beginning of this thread and read it through. There are numerous examples of you brushing people off when they tell you they don't understand. If you're going to continue with this utter ridiculousness yet still believe that this author's message is so important, I think perhaps you should seek the help of someone who is more adept at writing/editing than you, who can release the point of this book from it's flowery bindings and set the message free. The problem is not the concept. How could I fault it, when I've had no inkling of what it truly is? The problem is the way it is presented. The WRITING.

BlurredSavant, I'm not assuming anything; I just feel that you have not read the book. In fact, I'm almost positive. To tell you the truth, it really doesn't matter at this point what you think. I am not going to spoon feed anyone, especially when I know when someone is really not interested. If they were, they would have relevant questions based on the text. If I brushed anyone off, my apologies, but you have no idea how nasty people can be, and I have lost patience. I'm sure there are more interesting threads to go to, so for all those people who feel this thread is a waste of time, please move on. BTW, if the book has nothing to offer, why is it going on 23,000 hits, and counting?

[BlurredSavant]

BlurredSavant, I'm not assuming anything; I just feel that you have not read the book. In fact, I'm almost positive. To tell you the truth, it really doesn't matter at this point what you think. I am not going to spoon feed anyone, especially when I know when someone is really not interested. If they were, they would have relevant questions based on the text. If I brushed anyone off, my apologies, but you have no idea how nasty people can be, and I have lost patience. I'm sure there are more interesting threads to go to, so for all those people who feel this thread is a waste of time, please move on. BTW, if the book has nothing to offer, why is it going on 23,000 hits, and counting?

Oh my goodness, are you SERIOUSLY that ignorant? Not only do you do exactly what I've said you would do, assume that I'm lying about attempting to read this book, but then you go on to tell me that you KNOW I'm not interested. How, pray tell, do you know this? Are you in my fucking head?

I'm not asking you to "spoon feed" me anything. I've not been nasty to you, though I'm quickly approaching the point where I'm going to lose my temper and be just that. I really feel bad for the deceased author of this book. Obviously he felt that he'd figured out something that needed to be publicized, and yet it's fallen into the hands of someone grossly ill-equipped to spread that message.

You know what? Warning be damned, you are a fucking idiot. I never said this book was a waste of time, but YOU are a waste of time. You are nothing more than a sad little girl who doesn't know the difference between positive and negative attention, and so you go about trolling websites to get people to look at you. Well guess what, PG. I see you. I see you for the miserable, ignorant, bothersome little shit-covered fly you are. Do you even have the capacity to understand the things I've said to you previous to this? Your responses, a few months ago and more recently, show me that you do not. Grow a fucking brain, bitch.

There, perhaps people will feel badly for you over this abuse and they'll try to read your piece of shit book.

[peacegirl]

BlurredSavant, I'm not assuming anything; I just feel that you have not read the book. In fact, I'm almost positive. To tell you the truth, it really doesn't matter at this point what you think. I am not going to spoon feed anyone, especially when I know when someone is really not interested. If they were, they would have relevant questions based on the text. If I brushed anyone off, my apologies, but you have no idea how nasty people can be, and I have lost patience. I'm sure there are more interesting threads to go to, so for all those people who feel this thread is a waste of time, please move on. BTW, if the book has nothing to offer, why is it going on 23,000 hits, and counting?

Oh my goodness, are you SERIOUSLY that ignorant? Not only do you do exactly what I've said you would do, assume that I'm lying about attempting to read this book, but then you go on to tell me that you KNOW I'm not interested. How, pray tell, do you know this? Are you in my fucking head?

I'm not asking you to "spoon feed" me anything. I've not been nasty to you, though I'm quickly approaching the point where I'm going to lose my temper and be just that. I really feel bad for the deceased author of this book. Obviously he felt that he'd figured out something that needed to be publicized, and yet it's fallen into the hands of someone grossly ill-equipped to spread that message.

You know what? Warning be damned, you are a fucking idiot. I never said this book was a waste of time, but YOU are a waste of time. You are nothing more than a sad little girl who doesn't know the difference between positive and negative attention, and so you go about trolling websites to get people to look at you. Well guess what, PG. I see you. I see you for the miserable, ignorant, bothersome little shit-covered fly you are. Do you even have the capacity to understand the things I've said to you previous to this? Your responses, a few months ago and more recently, show me that you do not. Grow a fucking brain, bitch.

There, perhaps people will feel badly for you over this abuse and they'll try to read your piece of shit book.

There's no point to discuss this any further. Conversation over!

[BlurredSavant]

Oh I'm sorry, did I not make it clear that the conversation was already over? You should have gathered that from what I said, but there I go giving a complete moron credit again.

Go ahead, say something else. I know you want the last word.

*edit* To those who will read what I've said, I apologize. I went and lost my temper. It happens.

[peacegirl]

Oh I'm sorry, did I not make it clear that the conversation was already over? You should have gathered that from what I said, but there I go giving a complete moron credit again.

Go ahead, say something else. I know you want the last word.

*edit* To those who will read what I've said, I apologize. I went and lost my temper. It happens.

It does happen Blurred, but I can't let you end this thread this way. I WILL have the last word. I do forgive you for your insane outburst, but I must move on. Therefore, if anyone is still interested in this topic (which they may not be because of all the prejudice in here), please don't hesitate to share your thoughts. This is an important subject regardless of what anyone thinks. I cannot be intimidated by some person who doesn't get the reason for my determination.

[BlurredSavant]

Oh, make no mistake, I wasn't apologizing to you, sweetie, so you can shove your forgiveness right up your ass. Fuck you very much

*edit* Don't worry, I won't be saying anything else here. I know PG must have the last word, she can't help herself. Yes, the conversation is truly over now. She can go on and talk to the wall if she'd like.

[peacegirl]

Oh, make no mistake, I wasn't apologizing to you, sweetie, so you can shove your forgiveness right up your ass. Fuck you very much

*edit* Don't worry, I won't be saying anything else here. I know PG must have the last word, she can't help herself. Yes, the conversation is truly over now. She can go on and talk to the wall if she'd like.

You are a very angry person, but I do forgive you for being this way. There is always a reason why a person is so angry, and you are definitely ANGRY! This is not directed toward me personally, but to something else in your life. I beg you to go to another thread because this is thread is upsetting you more than it should.

[peacegirl]

I'm still here for anyone who has any questions regarding this discovery. Only_Humean, are you a moderator. Are you forbidding me to give the link to the book? I thought this was required in essays, so as not to post something too long.

[Only_Humean]

I'm still here for anyone who has any questions regarding this discovery. Only_Humean, are you a moderator. Are you forbidding me to give the link to the book? I thought this was required in essays, so as not to post something too long.

I haven't forbidden you to post a link at all. Given the nature of the board, a summary or precis of the thesis you're advancing should be given along with it.

[peacegirl]

I'm still here for anyone who has any questions regarding this discovery. Only_Humean, are you a moderator. Are you forbidding me to give the link to the book? I thought this was required in essays, so as not to post something too long.

I haven't forbidden you to post a link at all. Given the nature of the board, a summary or precis of the thesis you're advancing should be given along with it.

I have tried to do that, so I'm not sure where I have failed in your expectations.

[Only_Humean]

Peacegirl,

I saw this blog post the other day and it might give you an insight into the world of thinkers that you have been aiming to reach:

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=2031

I don't know if this helps place your experience in context, but I genuinely believe it's not name-dropping and snobbery that gets you places in the philosophical world (at least, not this end of the philosophical world), so much as demonstrating you're aware of the minimum requirements.

[peacegirl]

PG, many people here have already taken part in this. We've tried to read this book, we've tried to understand it, we've asked you questions, and got no answers. I'm afraid you probably don't have much of an audience here any longer.

Well, I got lots of answers. I didn't find them satisfactory, but it's not that PG doesn't do her best.

However, PG, you've had a lot of feedback that the presentation is unclear and obscures the points. That could be one reason for the lack of engagement.

I just happened to stop by and I read some of the posts again. I'm wondering what in my presentation was unclear and obscures the point. The only way I can correct any misundertandings is to know what it is that you misunderstood? Even though you were one of the few who actually tried to condense this knowledge into a logical construct, I think part of the problem is that you want to see empirical proof, as if this is the only kind of proof there can be. Reasoning and astute observation of human nature has no place. Correct?

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl,

I saw this blog post the other day and it might give you an insight into the world of thinkers that you have been aiming to reach:

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=2031

I don't know if this helps place your experience in context, but I genuinely believe it's not name-dropping and snobbery that gets you places in the philosophical world (at least, not this end of the philosophical world), so much as demonstrating you're aware of the minimum requirements.

Thanks for the link. I am going to read it, but the truth is I don't know whether philosophy is the right venue at all. I have other possibilities that might just bring this discovery to light a lot quicker. But while I am waiting, it can't hurt to continue the conversation if there is a legitimate interest.

[Only_Humean]

I think part of the problem is that you want to see empirical proof, as if this is the only kind of proof there can be. Reasoning and astute observation of human nature has no place. Correct?

No, absolutely incorrect. I have the impression that you don't understand what empirical proof is.

You have mathematical proofs. The don't talk about the real world, just about theoretical relationships. Like, say, Pythagoras' theorem. Not empirical, pure reasoning.
You also have observable facts. These are tested by observing what happens under certain conditions. Like your 'astute observation' - this is empirical data.
Now, anyone can say "hey, have you ever noticed that when such and such is the case, so and so happens?" And you can agree, or disagree. But in order to convince anyone that there really is a fact to be had here, you have to note down all the variables, explain exactly what was measured, what the results were, such that other people can repeat your work if they want.

Say you have the astute observation that women wearing blue tops often wear red pants. That's not evidence, that's just a theory. So you go out to a certain place, at a certain time of day, and count how many women there are wearing blue tops, and note what colours their pants are. You measure different places, different times, then you get to see whether women in general wear red pants with blue tops, or whether it just so happened that where you were looking, that was the case.

If Mr Lessans has theories based on astute observations, they can probably be codified and tested. But until they are, observation only leads to anecdote and theory, however astute. And no-one's going to overthrow the current order of things based on one man's observation that things seem to be one way.

Once you have empirical data (that is, controlled, reported and repeatable observations) about the world, you can use reasoning on it; reasoning alone is sterile. I hope that's cleared things up.

[peacegirl]

I think part of the problem is that you want to see empirical proof, as if this is the only kind of proof there can be. Reasoning and astute observation of human nature has no place. Correct?

No, absolutely incorrect. I have the impression that you don't understand what empirical proof is.

You have mathematical proofs. The don't talk about the real world, just about theoretical relationships. Like, say, Pythagoras' theorem. Not empirical, pure reasoning.
You also have observable facts. These are tested by observing what happens under certain conditions. Like your 'astute observation' - this is empirical data.
Now, anyone can say "hey, have you ever noticed that when such and such is the case, so and so happens?" And you can agree, or disagree. But in order to convince anyone that there really is a fact to be had here, you have to note down all the variables, explain exactly what was measured, what the results were, such that other people can repeat your work if they want.

Say you have the astute observation that women wearing blue tops often wear red pants. That's not evidence, that's just a theory. So you go out to a certain place, at a certain time of day, and count how many women there are wearing blue tops, and note what colours their pants are. You measure different places, different times, then you get to see whether women in general wear red pants with blue tops, or whether it just so happened that where you were looking, that was the case.

If Mr Lessans has theories based on astute observations, they can probably be codified and tested. But until they are, observation only leads to anecdote and theory, however astute. And no-one's going to overthrow the current order of things based on one man's observation that things seem to be one way.

Once you have empirical data (that is, controlled, reported and repeatable observations) about the world, you can use reasoning on it; reasoning alone is sterile. I hope that's cleared things up.

Only_Humean, I don't mean to upset you but it has not cleared things up at all. I do understand empirical data which says that just because something appears to be true doesn't make it absolutely true. There needs to be testing to see if the data holds up. But there is something that feels very biased here, and that is what is keeping you from taking this major work seriously, or even being curious about it. You seem to be so sure that because he didn't test empirically, the claims are nothing more than an assertion. This is unequivically false. Empiricism is one way to prove certain things, but it is not the only way. I am sure there are epistimologists who believe that reasoning based on observation can be valid and sound. This is not the kind of proof where the author used independent and dependent variables to prove his case, nor is it based on reasoning that is built on top of empircal testing. That does not mean this knowledge is unfalsifiable; it just means that pure reason (along with observation) has mathematically proven this discovery valid and sound. I understand also that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and these principles do work.