Even if Peacegirl has a point and as any girl knows instinctively or should that men real men who have come up the gnostic ladder are strong enough to overcome such trifle differences: as they constitute the first line of defense.
Against what?
Again the recurring question…
No it does not Ecmandu. Love increases with sex when two people have a desire to please the other even more than themselves. You’ve had a bad experience which has formed the foundation of your philosophy. Please start a new thread dedicated to this and let my thread stay on track, which may not even be possible unfortunately!
Ecmandu: You haven’t responded in any intelligible way to my well reasoned posts… asides always happen in threads. It’s only a derail if you aren’t smart enough to address arguments in your own thread.
Peacegirl: You are not interested in this discovery abd you know it. You believe that not having free will would make us zombies. I ask you to find another place to share your philosophy.
Ecmandu: I’m fully prepared to discuss my learning curve argument with you.
No. Now your narcissism shows.
I MEAN !!! It hurts other people BESIDES the two people having sex.
Peacegirl: Who does it hurt when sex is treated with love and commitment? Leave well enough alone Ecmandu, and go your merry way!
Ecmandu: You are obviously a psychopath.
You violate the pleasurable exclusive access problem.
Peacegirl: I have done no such thing. You have committed a consent violation, so who is the psychopath according to your own definition?
Ecmandu: And… people felt entitled to talk about something else here because you refuse to answer everyone else’s long earned wisdom (not just mine) when you post here. It’s up to you to stay on topic in your own thread.
Peacegirl: Magnus Anderson was on track. He asked legitimate questions related to this knowledge that I’m making an effort to answer. You have not. I explained that the present definition of determinism is erroneous due to the word cause, and I explained why. Do you even understand the reason? Of course not. You haven’t listened to a word I said.
PG.
Magnus is not the most intelligent person here.
I am.
You’re manipulating Magnus.
That’s not cool.
What if I can prove that almost everyone makes the wrong decision everytime because they are not high enough on the learning curve of life experience?
Your entire OP is destroyed, and so is the psychology you cling to.
You know I already beat you in this debate. Thats why you avoid me like the plague when it comes to CONTENT!!!
[quote=“Ecmandu”]
PG.
Magnus is not the most intelligent person here.
I am.
You’re manipulating Magnus.
That’s not cool.
What if I can prove that almost everyone makes the wrong decision everytime because they are not high enough on the learning curve of life experience?
Peacegirl: Experience? You’re a child next to my experience. This is hilarious! 
Ecmandu: Your entire OP is destroyed, and so is the psychology you cling to.
You know I already beat you in this debate. Thats why you avoid me like the plague when it comes to CONTENT!!!
Peacegirl: This is not about winning a debate. It’s so much more than that. You’re in la la land.
Oh. Believe me when I say this.
There is only one competition worth winning.
Giving everyone everything they want at the expense of nobody.
Would you rather be debating me or shooting me?
Why would you shoot me if you can’t win the debate?
Because you’re insecure.
I repeat. Debate me about the learning curve problem. I’ll send the link again if you can’t find it.
Never eff with an author, lol.
PG.
Here it is. Debate this or you are trolling your own thread:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 6#p2867976
I’m going to set the sex argument that you cannot win off to the side for now and bring content to the OP.
You are here to prove that you have the answer to man’s problems because you believe you are God’s chosen one! Am I right?
No. You’re delusional.
Respond to something on topic for once in your thread:
I mislinked it…
Ecmandu: It’s worse than that.
A child who has no clue electricity even exists may stick some metal object in a live electrical outlet thinking it’s the best choice. And that child dies not having fun. Once the connection is made, the child cannot resist the force of the current to pull their hand off the fork until it is dead.
What I’m trying to explain in simple terms here is that differences in understanding reality make this whole discussion absurd.
Peacegirl: It is obvious that if a child is not aware of a danger he can’t protect himself from that danger because it’s not part of his knowledge base. That’s where parents step in. Duh!!
Ecmandu: Even if I explained to an older child that electricity exists and that’s a bad idea, they may decide not to trust me and may test it anyways - thinking I’m lying or trying to trick them.
Ecmandu: If they did think this way they would probably have a reason. But when all hurt is removed from the environment (and it will be), then this type of suspicion would not even come up. Do you see what you’re doing? You’re jumping to conclusions based on the world we are living in because you have no understanding of this discovery.
Ecmandu: There are so many instances where someone knows something someone else doesn’t that this argument about best options is absurd.
As they say… hindsight is 20/20
The problem with PG is she thinks foresight is 20/20.
And that’s very easy to refute and disprove.
Peacegirl: Foresight is 20/20 when it comes to predicting that no one, under the changed conditions of a no blame environment (along with other changes that must take place including the economic system and all forms of authority and control), could justify striking a first blow of hurt to another when NOT to is the better choice [in the direction of satisfaction].
Ecmandu: PG doesn’t take learning curves into account, and by that doesn’t take into account that most choices people make are completely idiotic.
Peacegirl: The choices people make are based on their particular circumstances, not yours! You have no clue what drives people to do what they do, nor do you understand the psychology of those who feel cheated in life, angry at the world, and backed against the wall.
Your argument is that people always make the best choices. This is easy to disprove.
You’re totally avoiding that most adults (unless they’re trying to commit suicide) would never stick a metal thing in a live electrical outlet.
So now it’s not an issue of choice; it’s an issue of ignorance.
Given that the learning curve is so high, almost everyone does everything out of ignorance.
People with less wisdom think the best choice for them ends up being the worst choice for someone much wiser.
Your entire book rests upon the idea that people always move towards the best option.
Ignorance disproves that.
Maybe here we can return to this as partially derived(cut off) continuation to this:
“Psychopathy of course is on a spectrum just like autism.”
Since exceptional kids do not always> to psycopathy> then what analogue exists ti that to what’s implicit in the simulative/assimulative/stimulated content within another contentious shadow- that of the relative value in integrating Platonic ‘live’ with Jacob’s ladder?
Is the innocent autistic child’s ‘myopia’ not the very defensive statis that protects him from the vagrants of progressing to psychopaths?
Or is there no connection between the two-felt fold between them? (Jacob <> his father and Jesus’s naivite?~Nativity
dc.swosu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cg … t=mythlore
The above recourse is unprinteable ( for me) but I will try to work around it . In essence ladders of three kinds Plato, Diotema, and Jacob should conceivably be cross referenced.
In this way; the Ec introduced continuity between early childhood autism as progressing toward the psychopathology of later years; do have an orthogenesis; if conceived as some form of originally derived ‘sin’ or rather a karmic debt to be later repaid, at least in the process of liberation from the clutches of exogenous retribution bandage. From there a deus-ex-machina can be the only agency through which such bandage can be made insolvent.
This type of ladder involves Jacob and the Platonic progressions relatiin to this can not be placed in a similar continuum was it not the overcoming of that agency’s extra genius power. The last ladder ; that of Diotema, is some kind of rationalized in-between , supposedly.
without forgetting men’s role that of literally pitting naiveté against wisdom; a conscious retroactive tool is a contradiction in terms, regardless of which side is ‘chosen’.
Let the above ascribe to a fallacy ( solvable or not, understood or not, in it’s self or not>>>> rather then a contradiction in terms> or not.
If an ascribing to an unsolvable abstraction requires more sub textual definitions regarding the passage from contradiction to fallacy is required; then leave blank, and ascribe it to freely flown , cut off narrative and leave it at that.
But then i’no God, and I may also be wrong, as the son also rises.
Ecmandu: Your argument is that people always make the best choices. This is easy to disprove.
Peacegirl: What is good for you might not be good for someone else. You are not the judge of what someone else believes to be the best choice given his options at any given moment.
Ecmandu: You’re totally avoiding that most adults (unless they’re trying to commit suicide) would never stick a metal thing in a live electrical outlet.
Peacegirl: Of course not. Who is saying otherwise?
Ecmandu: So now it’s not an issue of choice; it’s an issue of ignorance.
Peacegirl: There are many things we are ignorant of. That’s why we have different skill sets.
Ecmandu: Given that the learning curve is so high, almost everyone does everything out of ignorance.
Peacegirl: And cultural beliefs and dictates.
Ecmandu: People with less wisdom think the best choice for them ends up being the worst choice for someone much wiser.
Peacegirl: That is true in this world because there is so much hurt.
Ecmandu: Your entire book rests upon the idea that people always move towards the best option.
Peacegirl: The best option that is in front of them. I may know eating that ice cream is bad for me, but I am getting greater satisfaction eating it at this moment than not, knowing I’ll pay for it later.
Ecmandu: Ignorance disproves that.
Peacegirl: Ignorance only means that a person might make a better choice the next time when he is given more information. It does not disprove that man has THE FREE WILL to choose what will offer him less satisfaction when comparing the pros and cons of each choice.
PG.
I want to add to this post.
I meant to say:
The best choice for THEM
The best option for THEM
This is all about how they feel for what they know.
Ignorance completely obliterates your argument.
At the level of ignorance … it’s all statistics, lottery…
Nothing cogent.
If a 70 year adult doesn’t know about electricity and sticks something metal in a live outlet… just because they think it’s a fun game (their best option)
They’re dead, and die a horrible death.
Ignorance disproves your entire book.
Ecmandu: It’s worse than that.
A child who has no clue electricity even exists may stick some metal object in a live electrical outlet thinking it’s the best choice. And that child dies not having fun. Once the connection is made, the child cannot resist the force of the current to pull their hand off the fork until it is dead.
What I’m trying to explain in simple terms here is that differences in understanding reality make this whole discussion absurd.
Even if I explained to an older child that electricity exists and that’s a bad idea, they may decide not to trust me and may test it anyways - thinking I’m lying or trying to trick them.
There are so many instances where someone knows something someone else doesn’t that this argument about best options is absurd.
As they say… hindsight is 20/20
The problem with PG is she thinks foresight is 20/20.
And that’s very easy to refute and disprove.
Peacegirl: Foresight is possible when it comes to predicting that no one, under the changed conditions, of a no blame environment (along with other changes in the economic system) could justify striking a first blow of hurt to another when NOT to is the better choice in the direction of satisfaction.
Ecmandu: PG doesn’t take learning curves into account, and by that doesn’t take into account that most choices people make are completely idiotic.
Peacegirl: The choices people make are based on their particular circumstances, not yours!
Ecmandu: Your argument is that people always make the best choices. This is easy to disprove.
You’re totally avoiding that most adults (unless they’re trying to commit suicide) would never stick a metal thing in a live electrical outlet.
So now it’s not an issue of choice; it’s an issue of ignorance.
Given that the learning curve is so high, almost everyone does everything out of ignorance.
People with less wisdom think the best choice for them ends up being the worst choice for someone much wiser.
Your entire book rests upon the idea that people always move towards the best option.
Ignorance disproves that.
————————-
Ecmandu: PG.
I want to add to this post.
I meant to say:
The best choice for THEM
The best option for THEM
This is all about how they feel for what they know.
Ignorance completely obliterates your argument.
Peacegirl: It does no such thing. We base our choices on what we know or believe in the moment. If someone moves toward satisfaction in saving a drowning person not knowing if there are sharks in the water, his ignorance at that moment is not under his consideration. His only thought is to save that person. If he gets bitten and loses his leg in the process, does that mean his ignorance about the shark obliterates his desire to save this person in the direction of greater satisfaction? No way! Maybe if he had known about the shark he may have hesitated, but that is not here nor there… after the fact.
Ecmandu: At the level of ignorance … it’s all statistics, lottery…
Nothing cogent.
Peacegirl: I agree, Some is luck. Why were we saved in a train accident and the person next to us was not. There are unforeseen variables that may come into play, good and bad. We make choices based on the info at our disposal.
Ecmandu: If a 70 year adult doesn’t know about electricity and sticks something metal in a live outlet… just because they think it’s a fun game (their best option)
They’re dead, and die a horrible death.
Peacegirl: Yes they do. Hopefully they aren’t suicidal and have learned not to do this at an early age.
Ecmandu: Ignorance disproves your entire book.
Peacegirl: Not in the slightest. We are constantly looking back in hindsight to make better choices if the choices that were made turned out differently than we wanted. Each moment offers us a new set of options based on new information as to what choice to make when a similar situation presents itself. It’s as simple as that. You yourself said you’re a different person as you got older and understood things better, or figured out a way to protect yourself. That’s growth!
PG.
We never stop learning. We are all infinite, eternal and immortal. We learn until the day we die and we never stop learning.
The question I pose to you, is that since foresight isn’t 20/20… how do you account for anyone making ignorant decisions forever?
Sex sends you to hell. Looking at people naked sends you to hell.
Why is it than that people use their entire minds doing these things as their best option?
People don’t get jobs to work. They get jobs to see naked people. That’s the reward for work.
So how are billions of people putting metal in a live outlet when you say they’re all making the best decision for themselves.
It makes zero sense.
At this point, when lack of ignorance isn’t the issue anymore and people still keep doing it…
You have to assess that they have an involuntary movement disorder… a tic disorder. Tourette’s syndrome. By the billions. Your book cannot undo that. Spirit can. But not your book.
There are exceptions.
Sex always sends you to hell.
Looking at an image everyone has access to of a celibate / chaste nude person is something you can masterbate to. No such photos exist on the World Wide Web …
The other exception to ALL of this!! Is changing existence structurally.
The way is the eternally necessary satisfaction gained by an equally necessary eternal return to undo the shadow’s incessant doubt, therefore finally pairing him to what a sacrifice it was to enhance his understanding of what such return entails
Ignorance can finally rest in the realization that such ‘gnosis’ is a necessary part in the last straw , man’s need to erase any fear of the absolute( beauty; wisdom, struggle, and falling that occurs . The question of the tragic- that of the birth, and the death is contingent on the crucial choice well stated in a cosmic age full of magic; " to be or not to be that is the question" and the answer is totally contextual; however with the implicit burning need to choose.
If it is to be, then a sacrifice needs to be repeated again and again for ever; if a nay; then existence becomes emptied of all meaning and a negation of material dialectical regression takes place ; which results not in actual punishment or even death, but a loss of any hope for reality as it might be.
Not then in some time after infinite reincarnations; not that such can not be had gradually; but even now; .
Then if that happens; It will immediately be known what It really is; create an instant image of what It means and how It’s done.
That is the way the very structure of reality is changed for ever.