I can imagine how excited Iambiguous probably feels that this thread is fading away! Hopefully it is still kickin! I hope to continue on thanks to phyllo who said he would accept these two principles in order for me to move on.
Personally, I don’t understand how it’s impossible to blame someone if they have no [incompatibilist / libertarian / contra-casual] free will. Nonetheless, I don’t think that can stop me from understanding how responsibility can be increased in a world where noone blames anyone else. So I say, go ahead.
I’ll need to cut and paste Chapter Two in small portions in the order it was written. Then we can discuss it. I’ll start shortly. You can read it at your convenience as well. This boils down to whether his premises are valid and sound.
In Defense of Compatibilism: A Response to Edwards and Coyne
written by Ben Burgis at the quillette website
Back again to how, given free will as I understand it, one understands the meaning of coercion here. How is it determined where the line is to be drawn between the more deep-seated brain components autonomically bent on compelling certain behaviors in us and the part of “I” that is said to have the actual capacity to beat all that back and not choose to steal or to use heroin? How can that not also be profoundly different for each of us? As for the chip in the brain how “overwhelming” is the desire.
On the other hand, given the manner in which I understand the meaning of determinism, nothing that revolves around stealing or drug use or having chips implanted in your brain is not coerced by the laws of matter. Instead, the mystery here still revolves more around how matter was actually able to evolve into living matter evolving into the human brain. And, really, who knows, there may be life forms on other planets that are to us what we are to chimps.
Again, as much as I try to grapple with this sort of thinking above in regard not to P but to Mary “choosing”, choosing or “choosing” an abortion, it just doesn’t sink in. As long as I construe all factors to be intertwined in the only possible reality then any assessment like this is, as well, no less subsumed in it.
Unless of course someone does succeed in explaining to me how their own brain, no less the embodiment of the laws of matter than mine and Mary’s, does “hold” her responsible.
This part in particular:
“Nevertheless, they do not claim that P must be placed entirely beyond the influence of genetic and environmental factors to be responsible.”
Pertaining to Mary, what exactly are they claiming then?
First of course back to this:
And what I’m doing here given some capacity to choose of my own volition is expressing my views on free will, determinism and compatibilism. What I’m not doing however is accepting that only your own take on how that is to be done properly on this thread is the one that counts.
Once again, the answer I was compelled to make. Then back to the mystery of how, given your own understanding of determinism, you are still to be held responsible for the question.
And, of course, that settles it.
Thus…
Remember when, above, in regard to fulminating assertions such as this I asked you to…
Or, as with those like obsrvr524, is it always going to be Mr. Wiggle with you?
Again, first start with an explanation as to how either one of us are to be held responsible for the things we post here when the things we post here are inherently, necessarily derived from brains wholly in sync with nature’s material laws. How’s the “ghost” pull that off in your machine? Or do you have a “soul” instead?
No, the actual exchange is merely the context I insist is necessary in order to take the arguments down out of the clouds of abstractions. What really counts is the extent to which, given this context, philosophers and scientists can come to establish a definitive grasp on determinism.
It just gets surreal here for me in that I am assuming that even this is subsumed in the only possible reality. There appears to be no way in which to yank ourselves up out of this wholly determined reality in order to pin it down. Back again to the folks in Flatland.
Note to nature:
See you in the next round.
Note to nature:
What is it with you and these “conditions”? 
[i]CHAPTER TWO
THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION
Once it is 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 metals 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 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. You can prepare
yourselves to say good-bye to all the hurt and evil that came into
existence out of necessity. 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. God,
not me, is finally going to reveal the solution.
Since time immemorial the two opposing forces of good and
evil compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms,
with God responsible for all the good in the world and Satan
responsible for the evil while endowing man with free will so that
this separation could be reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some
other force of darkness as an explanation for the evil that existed
illustrates how religion tried desperately to cling to the belief in a
merciful God. But this dividing line between good and evil will no
longer be necessary when the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame,
demonstrates that once it becomes a permanent condition of the
environment, all the evil (hurt) in human relations must come to
a peaceful end. The absolute proof that man’s will is not free is the
undeniable fact that we are given no alternative but to move in this
direction once it is understood that this law can control man’s
actions only by obeying this corollary for then everything that came
into existence which caused us to blame and punish must, out of
absolute necessity, take leave of this earth. Mankind will be given
no choice; this has been taken out of our hands, as is the motion
of the earth around the sun.
The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we
work our problem backwards which means that every step of the
way will be a forced move which will become a loose end and only
when all these ends are drawn together will the blueprint be
complete. It is only by extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not
Blame, which is the key, that we are given the means to unlock the
solution. An example of working a problem backwards, follow this:
If you were told that a woman with a pocketbook full of money
went on a spending spree to ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every
one, a dollar to get out, spent half of what she had in each and
came out of the last place absolutely broke, it would be very easy to
determine the amount of money she had to start because the dollar
she paid to get out of the last store which broke her must represent
one-half of the money spent there. Consequently, she had two
dollars left after paying a dollar to get in, giving her three just
before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get out of the
penultimate store, this added to the three gives her four which
represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this
process eight more times it is absolutely undeniable that she must
have begun her spending spree with $3,069. As we can see from
this example, when a key fact is available from which to reason it
is then possible to solve a problem, but when it is not, we must
form conjectures and express opinions with the aid of logic. At
first glance it appears impossible not to blame an individual for
murder, or any heinous crime, but when we extend this key fact it
can be seen that these acts of evil are not condoned with the
understanding that man’s will is not free, but prevented.
Regardless of someone’s opinion as to the rightness or wrongness
of the answer to the problem I just gave, an opinion that would
have to be based upon a logical conclusion as is that of our experts
when considering the impossibility of removing all evil from our
lives, we know the answer is correct because the reasoning that
follows from this key fact is scientifically sound.[/i]
[i]By a similar process of working our problem backwards we can
officially launch the Golden Age which necessitates the removal of
all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so
that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants
to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an
equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our
infallible slide rule which God has given us as a guide. By now I
hope you understand that the word God is a symbol for the source
of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between
good and evil using the word God only as a symbol for the former.
Actually no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to
me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain
compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction and for me
to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will it was
necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of
logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get
rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not
know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is
equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this
direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true.
Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned.
Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun; regardless of
how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire does not
negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of
what words I employ to describe God does not change the fact that
He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a difference
between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the
description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is a part
of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing
and say this is God, therefore we must assume because of certain
things that God is a reality, correct?”
We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a
discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or
believed that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the
solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun,
moon, earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is
there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular
direction? Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not
free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical
demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction
although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just
as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always
been just as harmonious as the solar system only we never knew it
because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and
man which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also
reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This
means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone.
Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation for nothing in
this universe when seen in total perspective is evil since each
individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that
choice hurts another as a consequence.
Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into
existence not because of my will, not because I made a discovery
(sooner or later it had to be found because the knowledge of what
it means that man’s will is not free is a definite part of reality), but
only because we are compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do
you really think it was an accident the solar system came into
existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from
the earth so we don’t roast or freeze; an accident that the earth
revolved just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions;
an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an
accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did? To show
you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that controls every aspect
of this universe through invariable laws that we are at last getting
to understand, which includes the mankind as well as the solar
system, just follow this:
Here is versatile man — writer, composer,
artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian, architect,
mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief, etc.,
whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature
and lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible
not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence
out of necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary
relations as to why will is not free and what this means for the
entire world which perception was utterly impossible without the
development and absolutely necessary for the inception of our
Golden Age. In all of history have you ever been confronted with
anything more incredible?[/i]
[i]In reality we are all the result of forces completely beyond our
control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are
able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to
prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into
existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full
significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting
the opposite principle of an eye for an eye by refusing to defend
himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his
inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because the
one was willing to cheat to get what she wanted while he was willing
to be cheated rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made
matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of time
he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction to let
her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both of them
were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction.
Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this knowledge nor did
the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that man’s
will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with
a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated
from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to
be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown
out for being an atheist but not for being a God-intoxicated man.
The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know
that the sun is also a reality but when the heat gets unbearable,
should I jump for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza
and myself. He was a gentle man, I am not. He refused to blame
his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he
was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other
hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when someone
can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct,
but if someone tried to take what belonged to me I’d fight him
tooth and nail. If an aggressive country should start a war before
this knowledge is released, it is only natural that we fight back with
everything we’ve got. Turning the other cheek under these
conditions could lead to further harm, which is why most people
reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight
back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the
justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ I
personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or
retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things
to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of
human conduct. Most of mankind is compelled, for greater
satisfaction, to move in this direction.
Therefore, it should be clear
that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you
should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that
man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going
to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us, something
that investigators like Durant have never done because the
implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the
vestibule. The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he
is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you
sock me I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back.
However, once man understands what it means that his will is not
free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I
will never blame you for hurting me. Until this knowledge is
understood we will be compelled to continue living in the world of
free will, otherwise, we would only make matters worse for
ourselves.
To show you how confused is the understanding of someone
who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in
my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that
man should not be blamed for anything he does which is true only
when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he
doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ
also received incursions of thought from this same principle which
compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being
nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his
enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him
to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But
they knew what they were doing and he could not stop them even
by turning the other cheek.
Religion was compelled to believe that
God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza
and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil
when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for
people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed
against them? And how was it possible for those who became
victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective? Is
it any wonder man cried out to God for understanding? The time
has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two
opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and
proceed with the investigation. Let me show you how this apparent
impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.[/i]
[i]If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him
to retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that in order
to do either he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt
and by turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself,
then he is given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded
by the laws of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our
basic principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you
will, is not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to
prevent man from desiring to hurt others when not to makes
matters worse for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the
very first blow. Once you have been hurt it is normal and natural
to seek some form of retaliation for this is a source of satisfaction
which is the direction life is compelled to take. Therefore this
knowledge cannot possibly prevent the hate and blame which man
has been compelled to live with all these years as a consequence of
crimes committed and many other forms of hurt, yet God’s
mathematical law cannot be denied for man is truly not to blame
for anything he does notwithstanding, so a still deeper analysis is
required. Down through history no one has ever known what it
means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit the world,
but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is absolutely
no way this new world, a world without war, crime, and all forms of
hurt to man by man can be stopped from coming into existence.
When it will occur, however, depends on when this knowledge can
be brought to light.
We have been growing and developing just like a child from
infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age
without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could
have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also
going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established,
beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my
discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this
impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely
impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any
wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this
point?
If you recall, Durant assumed that if man was allowed to
believe his will is not free it would lessen his responsibility because
this would enable him to blame other factors as the cause. If he
committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it was the
fault of the machine which had slipped a cog in generating him. It
is also true that if it had not been for the development of laws and
a penal code, for the constant teaching of right and wrong,
civilization could never have reached the outposts of this coming
Golden Age. Yet despite the fact that we have been brought up to
believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing what he was
taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law and order
up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of the
rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that
has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind
systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of
satisfaction, or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we
perceive these mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL
IS NOT FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING
HE DOES. This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood
that the mathematical corollary, God’s commandment, does not
apply to anything after it is done — only before.
“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies to
something before it is done, and not after. Does this mean you can
blame after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to
the same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial;
how to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of
our penal code? How is it humanly possible not to judge, not to
criticize, not to blame and punish those acts of crime when we
know that man was not compelled to do them if he didn’t want to?
If someone killed my loved one how is it possible not to hate the
individual responsible, not to judge this as an act of evil, not to
desire some form of revenge? I still don’t understand how not
blaming will prevent man from hurting his fellow man if this is his
desire. Though this may be an undeniable corollary, how is it
humanly possible not to hold someone responsible for murder,
rape, the killing of six million people, etc.? Does this mean that we
are supposed to condone these crimes or pretend they didn’t
happen? Besides, what will prevent someone from blaming and
punishing despite the fact that will is not free — if it gives him
greater satisfaction? Just because man’s will is not free is certainly
not a sufficient explanation as to why there should be no blame.”
This has always been the greatest stumbling block which kept
free will on the throne until the present time. It is a natural
reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The reason God’s
commandment does not apply to anything after it is done, only
before, is because it has the power to prevent those very acts of evil
for which a penal code was previously necessary, as part of our
development. At this juncture, I shall repeat a passage from
Chapter One to remind the reader of important facts that must be
understood before continuing.
[/i]
[i]To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary
— Thou Shall Not Blame — (for this seems mathematically
impossible since it appears that man will always desire something for
which blame and punishment will be necessary), it is extremely
important to go through a deconfusion process regarding words by
employing the other scientific fact revealed to you earlier. Consequently,
as was pointed out, and to reveal this relation, it is an absolutely
undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or do
anything to hurt another unless he wants to. As history reveals, even
the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do
to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He is not caused or
compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and
heredity but prefers this action because at that moment of time he
derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to
another that which 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
that he has mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse
to water but you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because
he must move in the direction of greater satisfaction. 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 in his
opinion and he must choose something to do among the various things
in his environment or else commit suicide. Was it possible to make
Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when
unafraid of death, which was judged the lesser of two evils? They were
compelled by their desire for freedom to prefer non-violence, turning the
other cheek as a solution to their problem. Consequently, when any
person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will
because the alternative was considered worse, that he really didn’t want
to do it but had to (and numerous words and 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 which means that his preference gave him satisfaction
at that moment of time, for one reason or another.
Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that
causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment
does not cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions
under which his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame
what is not responsible, but remember his particular environment
is different because he himself is different otherwise everybody
would desire to commit a crime. Once he chooses to act on his
desire whether it is a minor or more serious crime he doesn’t come
right out and say, “I hurt that person not because I was compelled
to do it against my will but only because I wanted to do it,” because
the standards of right and wrong prevent him from deriving any
satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only evoke blame,
criticism, and punishment of some sort for his desires. Therefore
he is compelled to justify those actions considered wrong with
excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of guilt to
someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not all the
responsibility which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a
world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity
since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he
really didn’t want to do.
You see it happen all the time, even when
a child says, “Look what you made me do” when you know you
didn’t make him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he
was careless and not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly
for an excuse to shift the responsibility to something that does not
include him. Why else would the boy blame his own carelessness
on somebody or something else if not to avoid the criticism of his
parents? It is also true that the boy’s awareness that he would be
blamed and punished for carelessness — which is exactly what took
place — makes him think very carefully about all that he does to
prevent the blame and punishment he doesn’t want. A great
confusion exists because it is assumed that if man does something
to hurt another he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I
couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” This is another
aspect of the implications which turned philosophers off from a
thorough investigation. In the following dialogue, my friend asks
for clarification regarding certain critical points.
“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve
this enigmatic corollary but it seems to me that this knowledge
would give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others
without any fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that
his will is not free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an
attempt to shift his responsibility?”[/i]
[i]“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate
reasoning. Because of this general confusion with words through
which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears
at first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man
to shift his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not
being blamed to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under
control by the fear of punishment and public opinion which judged
his actions in accordance with standards of right and wrong, but
this is inaccurate simply because it is mathematically impossible to
shift your responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with
something, when you know that you will not be blamed for what
you do. In other words, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your
responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged
improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that
criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by
others. The very act of justifying or excusing your behavior is an
indication that the person or people to whom you are presenting
this justification must judge the behavior unacceptable in some
way, otherwise, there would be no need for it. They are interested
to know why you could do such a thing which compels you for
satisfaction to think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the
circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your
action. If you do what others judge to be right is it necessary to lie
or offer excuses or say that your will is not free and you couldn’t
help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let
me elaborate for greater understanding.
If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to
wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases
everybody, is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects
of him? This isn’t a trick question, so don’t look so puzzled. If
your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way and
you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you
for doing what he wants you to do?”
“No, it is not possible. I agree.”
“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right,
then it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing
something judged wrong, is that right?”
“I agree with this.”
“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong
are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which
compels you for satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse,
to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable
opinion of your action, otherwise, if they were not judging your
conduct as wrong you would not have to do these things, right?”
“You are right again.”
“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one
is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no
one is going to question your conduct in any way because you know
that they must excuse what you do since man’s will is not free, is it
possible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause
for what you know you have done, when you also know that no one
is blaming you?”
“Why are you smiling?”
“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I
agree that it is not possible.”
“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, ‘I
couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,’ or offer any other
kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed
him in any way so he could make this effort to shift his
responsibility, right?”
“You are absolutely correct.”
Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of
judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my
will is not free” be made, since it cannot be done when man knows
he will not be blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a
shift of your responsibility for hurting someone, or for doing what
is judged improper, when you are held responsible by a code of
standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something
considered wrong by others. But once it is realized, as a matter of
positive knowledge, that man will not be held responsible for what
he does since his will is not free (don’t jump to conclusions, just
follow the reasoning — my problem is difficult enough as it is), it
becomes mathematically impossible for you to blame someone or
something else as the cause for what you know you have done
simply because you know that no one is blaming you.
To paraphrase this another way: Once it is realized that no one
henceforth will blame your doing whatever you desire to do,
regardless of what is done, because your action will be considered
a compulsion over which you have no control, it becomes
mathematically impossible to blame something or someone for
what you know you have done, or shift your responsibility in any
way, because you know that no one is blaming you. Being
constantly criticized by the standards that prevailed man was
compelled, as a motion in the direction of satisfaction, to be
dishonest with everyone, including himself, while refusing to accept
that which was his responsibility. He blamed various factors or
causes for the many things he desired to do that were considered
wrong, because he didn’t like being in the wrong. But the very
moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that no one
henceforth will be held responsible for what he does since his will is
not free, regardless of what is done, and there will be no more
criticism or blame, regardless of his actions, man is also prevented
from making someone else the scapegoat for what he does,
prevented from excusing or justifying his own actions since he is
not being given an opportunity to do so which compels him
completely beyond control, but of his own free will or desire, not
only to assume full responsibility for everything he does, but to be
absolutely honest with himself and others. How is it humanly
possible for you to desire lying to me or to yourself when your
actions are not being judged or blamed, in other words, when you
are not being given an opportunity to lie; and how is it possible for
you to make any effort to shift your responsibility when no one
holds you responsible? In the world of free will man was able to
absolve his conscience in a world of right and wrong and get away
with murder in a figurative sense — the very things our new
knowledge positively prevents. [/i]
[i]It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right
and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard
such as the Ten Commandments which came into existence out of
God’s will, as did everything else, and consequently you have come
to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that these
words which judge the actions of others are accurate. How was it
possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence unless
religion believed in free will? But in reality when murder is
committed it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a
certain point in his life considered better for himself under
circumstances which included the judgment of others and the risks
involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates
by taking this person’s life, this too, was neither right nor wrong,
just what gave greater satisfaction. Neither the government or the
murderer are to blame for what each judged better under their
particular set of circumstances; but whether they will decide to
think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not
on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong,
but solely on whether the conditions under which they were
previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain as
before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals
facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion
of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have
compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to
assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it
would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this
knowledge.
“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it was not for
the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking
more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more
a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from
satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will
be no consequences or explanations necessary? In the previous
example it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot
desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going
to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from
spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to
watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000
for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely
nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”
“These are thoughtful questions but they are like asking if it is
mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would
you do if it is done? How is it possible for B (the father) to
retaliate when it is impossible for B to be hurt? Contained in this
question is an assumption that deliberate and careless hurt will
continue. As we proceed with this investigation you will
understand more clearly why the desire to hurt another will be
entirely prevented by this natural law.”
“Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far,
I still don’t understand how or why this should prevent man from
stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no
more a condition to be considered; and how is it humanly possible
for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his
conduct?”
“We are right back where we were before, the fiery dragon —
but not for long. Now tell me, would you agree that if I did
something to hurt you, you would be justified to retaliate?”
“I certainly would be justified.”
“And we also have agreed that this is the principle of an eye for
an eye, correct?”
“Correct.”
“Which means that this principle, an eye for an eye, does not
concern itself with preventing the first blow from being struck but
only with justifying punishment or retaliation, is this also true?”
“Yes it is.”
“And the principle of turning the other cheek, doesn’t this
concern itself with preventing the second cheek from being struck,
not the first cheek?”
“That is absolutely true.”
“Therefore, our only concern is in preventing the desire to
strike this first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our
problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need
to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to
understand?”
“It’s very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can
even see that relation.”
“Let us further understand that in order for you to strike this
first blow of hurt, assuming that what is and what is not a hurt has
already been established (don’t jump to conclusions), you would
have to be taking a certain amount of risk, that is, you would be
risking the possibility of retaliation or punishment, is that
correct?”
“Not if I planned a perfect crime.”
“The most you can do with your plans is reduce the element of
risk, but the fact that somebody was hurt by what you did does not
take away his desire to strike a blow of retaliation. He doesn’t
know who to blame but if he did, you could expect that he would
desire to strike back. Consequently, his desire to retaliate an eye
for an eye is an undeniable condition of our present world as is also
your awareness that there is this element of risk involved, however
small. This means that whenever you do anything at all that is
risky you are prepared to pay a price for the satisfaction of certain
desires. You may risk going to jail, getting hanged or electrocuted,
shot, beaten up, losing your eye and tooth, being criticized,
reprimanded, spanked, scolded, ostracized, or what have you, but
this is the price you are willing to pay, if caught. Can you disagree
with this?”
“I still say, supposing there is no risk; supposing I was able to
plan a perfect crime and never get caught?”
“I am not denying the possibility but you can never know for
certain, therefore the element of risk must exist when you do
anything that hurts another.”
“Then I agree.” [/i]
[i] “Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will
is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that
nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind
not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe
what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to
reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay
the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my
discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’
and ‘turn the other cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.”
At the present moment of time you are standing on this spot
called here, and are constantly in the process of moving to there.
You know as a matter of positive knowledge that you would never
move to there if you were not dissatisfied with here. You also know
as a matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing has the power,
that no one can cause or compel you to do anything against your
will — unless you want to, because over this you have mathematical
control. And I, who am standing on this spot called there to where
you plan to move for satisfaction from here also know positively
that you cannot be blamed anymore for your motion from here to
there because the will of man is not free. This is a very unique two-
sided equation which reveals that while you know you are
completely responsible for everything you do since nothing has the
power to make you do anything you don’t want to; and while it is
mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility to some
extraneous cause when no one holds you responsible, everybody else
knows that you are not to blame for anything because you are
compelled, by your very nature, to move in the direction of greater
satisfaction during every moment of your existence. Now if you
know beyond a shadow of doubt that not only I, who am the one to
be hurt, but everyone on earth will never blame or punish you for
hurting me in some way, never criticize or question your action,
never desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be
considered a compulsion beyond your control since the will of man
is not free, is it humanly possible (think very carefully about this
because it is the most crucial point thus far — the scientific
discovery referred to) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever
from the contemplation of this hurt?
Remember now, you haven’t
hurt me yet, and you know as a matter of undeniable knowledge
that nothing, no one can compel you to hurt me unless you want
to, for over this you have mathematical control, consequently, your
motion from here to there, your decision as to what is better for
yourself, is still a choice between two alternatives — to hurt me or
not to hurt me. But the moment it fully dawns on you that this
hurt to me, should you go ahead with it, will not be blamed in any
way because no one wants to hurt you for doing what must now be
considered a compulsion beyond your control, ALTHOUGH
YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT
THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN FORCE YOU TO
HURT ME AGAINST YOUR WILL — UNLESS YOU
WANT TO — you are compelled, completely of your own free will,
so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can
never satisfy you to do so under these changed conditions.
Furthermore, if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no
one in the entire world is going to blame you or question your
conduct, is it possible to extenuate the circumstances, to lie or to
try and shift your responsibility in any way? As was just
demonstrated, it is not possible, just as the same answer must apply
to the question, is it possible to make two plus two equal five. This
proves conclusively that the only time you can say, “I couldn’t help
myself because my will is not free,” or offer any kind of excuse, is
when you know you are being blamed for this allows you to make
this effort to shift your responsibility. Let me explain this in still
another way.
When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you
do it also means that you must assume complete responsibility for
what you do because you cannot shift it away from yourself under
the changed conditions. We have become so confused by words in
logical relation that while we preach this freedom of the will we say
in the same breath that we could not help ourselves, and
demonstrate our confusion still more by believing that the
corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, would lessen our responsibility
when in actuality, responsibility is increased. This one point has
confounded philosophers down through the ages because it was
assumed that a world without blame would make matters worse,
decreasing responsibility and giving man the perfect opportunity to
take advantage of others. But, once again, this “taking advantage”
can only occur when man knows he will be blamed, which allows
him to come up with excuses. For example, he could just say, “I
couldn’t help pulling the trigger because my will is not free.” Did
you ever see anything more ironically humorous? The only time
a person can use the excuse that his will is not free is when the
world believes it is free.
But the question remains: “Why is an excuse necessary? Why
can’t he just satisfy his desires to his heart’s content when there are
no consequences, without explaining to others his reasons for doing
what he wants to do? Why can’t he just walk into a store, take
what he wants since nobody will be stopping him, and then just go
about his business?”[/i]
There she goes again…
Dumping all of these excerpts on us from The Book [I presume], but never really pointing out the parts where the author does with Free Will and Evil what the scientist does with the light bulb: explain how it functions as it does empirically, phenomenally in the material world given the laws of matters.
In fact where the scientists come up short is the part where they are unable to explain further why it functions as it does going back to an explanation of existence itself.
[i]“You must constantly bear in mind that man is compelled to
choose the alternative that gives him greater satisfaction, and for
that reason his will is not free. Consequently, to solve our problem
it is only necessary to show that when all blame and punishment
are removed from the environment, the desire to hurt others in any
way, shape or form is the worst possible choice.”
“I understand the principle of no blame but society does what
it must do to protect itself. A person with scarlet fever is not
blamed but is nevertheless quarantined.”
“If a person had something that was contagious, he would
welcome this precautionary measure. The knowledge that he would
not be blamed under any circumstances, even if he was responsible
for spreading his illness to the entire region, would prevent him
from desiring to take any chances that might cause further spread
of the disease. This is similar to the question that was asked
earlier: If it is mathematically impossible for man to do
something, what would you do if it was done? How is it possible
for B (society) to protect itself when it is impossible for B to be
hurt? Once again, there is an assumption that deliberate and
careless hurt will continue. When man knows there will be no
blame or punishment no matter what he does, he can only go in
one direction for greater satisfaction. He can hurt others with a
first blow if he wants to, but he won’t want to. It is important to
understand that if someone is being hurt first his reaction is no
longer a first blow, but a retaliatory blow. Under these conditions
he would have justification to strike back.”
In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this, that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back an
eye for an eye, which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely
and positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and
others if they knew. Blame itself which is a condition of free will
and a part of the present environment permits the consideration of
hurt for it is the price man is willing to pay for the satisfaction of
certain desires, but when blame is removed so that the advance
knowledge that it no longer exists becomes a new condition of the
environment, then the price he must consider to strike the first
blow of hurt is completely out of reach because he cannot find
satisfaction in hurting those who will refuse to blame him or
retaliate in any way. To hurt someone under these conditions he
would have to move in the direction of conscious dissatisfaction,
which is mathematically impossible.
From a superficial standpoint
it might still appear that man would take advantage of not being
blamed and punished and risk hurting others as a solution to his
problems, but this is a mathematical impossibility when he knows
that blame and punishment are required for advance justification.
In other words, the challenge of the law absolves his conscience
with threats of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which is
payment in full for the risks he takes. He may risk going to prison
or be willing to pay the ultimate price with his life for the
satisfaction of certain desires. An individual would not mind
taking all kinds of chances involving others because he could always
come up with a reasonable excuse to get off the hook, or he could
pay a price, if caught. If he borrowed a thousand dollars and was
unable to pay all of it back, he could easily say, “Sue me for the
rest.” If he tries to hold up a bank, however, and fails, the legal
system does not allow him to excuse himself and he is sent to
prison. Without the knowledge that he would be blamed and
punished should he fail; without this advance justification which
allowed him to risk hurting others, the price of this hurt is beyond
his purchasing power. How could someone plan a crime knowing
that no one — not even the ones to be hurt — would ever blame
him or retaliate in any way — even if they knew what he was about
to do? Has it been forgotten already that we are compelled, by our
very nature, to choose the alternative that gives us greater
satisfaction, which is the reason our will is not free? Consequently,
to solve this problem it is only necessary to demonstrate that when
all blame and punishment are removed from the environment —
and when the conditions are also removed that make it necessary
for a person to hurt others as the lesser of two evils — the desire to
hurt another with a first blow will be the worst possible choice. [/i]
[i] Inthe world of free will man blamed man and excused himself. In the
new world man will be excused by man for everything he does and
consequently will be compelled, of his own free will, to hold himself
responsible without justification. In other words, once man knows
that he is truly responsible for what others will be compelled to
excuse and he would be unable to justify, he is given no choice but
to forgo the contemplation of what he foresees can give him no
satisfaction. It becomes an impenetrable deterrent because under
these conditions no person alive is able to move in this direction for
satisfaction, even if he wanted to. This natural law raises man’s
conscience to such a high degree because there is no price he can
pay when all humanity, including the one to be hurt, must excuse
him.
“I am still having a difficult time. Could you explain the two-
sided equation again?”
At this present moment of time or life you are standing on this
spot called here, and are constantly in the process of moving to
there. You know as a matter of positive knowledge that nothing,
no one can cause or compel you to do anything to another you
don’t want to do, and this other who is standing on this spot called
there to which you plan to move from here, also knows positively
that you cannot be blamed for your motion from here to there,
regardless of what is done. Now if you know as a matter of positive
knowledge that not only I but everyone on the planet will never
blame or punish you for hurting me in some way, because you
know that we are compelled to completely excuse what is beyond
your control, is it mathematically possible (think about this
carefully) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever from the
contemplation of this hurt when you know beyond a shadow of
doubt that no one, including myself, will ever hold you responsible,
ever criticize your action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing
what is completely beyond your control? But remember, you
haven’t hurt me yet, and you know (this is the other side of the
equation) that you do not have to hurt me unless you want to,
consequently your motion from here to there is still within your
control. Therefore the moment it fully dawns on you that this
hurt, should you go ahead with it, will not be blamed, criticized or
judged in any way because no one wants to hurt you for doing what
must be considered a compulsion beyond your control (once it is
established that man’s will is not free), you are compelled,
completely of your own free will, to relinquish this desire to hurt
me because it can never give you any satisfaction under these
conditions, which proves that A — everybody on the planet — has
the power to control B — everybody else — by letting B know, as
is being done with this book, that no one will ever be blamed for
anything that is done.
In other words, the knowledge that there
will be no consequences presents consequences that are still worse
making it impossible to consider this as a preferable alternative for
how is it possible to derive satisfaction knowing there will be no
consequences for the pain you willfully choose to inflict on others?
The reaction of no blame would be worse than any type of
punishment society could offer. It is important to remember that
punishment and retaliation are natural reactions of a free will
environment that permit the consideration of striking a first blow
because it is the price man is willing to risk or pay for the
satisfaction of certain desires. But when they are removed so the
knowledge that they no longer exist becomes a condition of the
environment, then the price he must consider to strike the first
blow of hurt — all others are justified — is completely out of his
reach because to do so he must move in the direction of conscious
dissatisfaction, which cannot be done. If will was free we could not
accomplish this simply because we would be able to choose what is
worse for ourselves when something better is available, but this law
of our nature will give us no alternative when we are forced to obey
it in order to derive greater satisfaction.[/i]
I guess that’s a No then… and I revived this thread back to (a better) life, too.
[i]The solution to this impasse which removes the implications is
now very obvious because the advance knowledge that man will not
be blamed for the hurt he does to others (this is the solution
worked backwards) mathematically prevents those very acts of evil
for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.
Instead of being able to absolve one’s conscience by justifying an
act of crime or some other form of hurt because of the knowledge
that he will be blamed and punished (which permitted efforts to
shift his responsibility while encouraging what had to be criticized
and condemned), he is prevented from deriving any satisfaction
from the contemplation of this hurt by the realization that he will
never be blamed, criticized, punished or judged for doing what he
knows everyone must condone, while being denied a satisfactory
reason with which to excuse his contemplated conduct. I will
rephrase this in a slightly different way: Instead of being able to
absolve one’s conscience by being given the opportunity to justify
an act of crime or some other form of hurt which permitted the
shifting of one’s responsibility while at the same time encouraging
the crime, the knowledge that will is not free and what this means
actually prevents an individual from deriving any satisfaction from
the contemplation of this hurt to another by the realization that he
will not be blamed, criticized, judged, or punished for this act.
The
difference between this principle and the principle Christ preached
— “Turn the other cheek,” is that the former prevents the first
cheek from ever being struck whereas Gandhi, in his bid for
freedom and his belief in nonviolence, was forced to turn the other
cheek although the first cheek was struck over and over again which
took an untold number of lives. Secondly, man must be willing to
die in order for turning the other cheek to be effective,
consequently innumerable abuses cannot be prevented which starts
a chain reaction of retaliation. Besides, how is it possible not to
strike back when your very being moves in this direction for
satisfaction? Gandhi said, “Kill us all or give us our freedom; we
will not resist anything you do to us,” compelling those in power,
after many were already slain, to find more satisfaction in leaving
them alone. Many minorities, such as the Blacks, cannot apply
this psychology because the situation does not call for such a
sacrifice. How are these people to turn the other cheek when they
are underpaid, overtaxed, and judged by Whites as one of the
inferior races? It has been their effort to correct these abuses —
not by turning the other cheek — that has brought these people
this far. By turning the other cheek (which also proves in a
mathematical manner that man’s will is not free), it absolutely
prevents the second cheek from being struck because it is
impossible, as the people of India demonstrated, to get satisfaction
from continuing to hurt those who refuse to fight back, but as
history has shown many were killed just by being struck on the first
cheek. My imparting the knowledge that no one will again blame
you in any way, judge your actions or tell you what to do will
mathematically prevent your first cheek from being struck which is
necessary in a world of atomic energy when an entire nation can be
wiped out from being struck on the first cheek. Let us, once again,
observe what the perception of undeniable relations tells us.
At this moment of time in our present world of free will you are
trying to decide whether to hurt me in some way but you have had
everything removed that could be used to justify this act. You
simply see an opportunity to gain at my expense, but should you
decide against it you will not be a loser. In other words, you are
considering the first blow which means that you are planning to do
something to me that I do not want done to myself. You realize
that there is a certain risk involved, if caught, because you must
face the consequences. If the crime, misdemeanor or offense is not
that serious, although you know you will be questioned and blamed,
you may be able to get away with it by offering all kinds of
reasonable excuses as to why you had no choice. But if no excuse
is acceptable as in a court of law after you have been found guilty,
or when your parents, boss or others know you are obviously at
fault, you could be sent to prison, electrocuted, hanged, gassed,
whipped, severely punished in some other way, scolded,
reprimanded, ostracized, criticized, discharged, beat up or any
number of things. You don’t want this to happen if it can be
avoided, but if you can’t satisfy your desire unless the risk is taken,
you are prepared to pay a price for the crime of hurting me with a
first blow. Under these conditions it is impossible for your
conscience to exercise any control over your desires because you
cannot feel any guilt just as long as you are prepared to suffer the
consequences. Now let’s imagine for a moment that you are living
in the new world and are confronted with a choice of whether or not
to hurt me.
As before you are trying to decide whether to hurt me in some
way but you have had everything removed from which you might
have been able to justify your act. You simply see an opportunity
to gain at my expense, but you will not be a loser if you decide
against it. In other words, you are contemplating the first blow
under changed conditions. You know as a matter of undeniable
knowledge that nothing in this world has the power, that no one
can compel you to do anything against your will, for over this you
know you have absolute control (you can lead a horse to water but
you can’t make him drink). This means that you are completely
responsible for your actions even though, due to circumstances, you
may prefer hurting me.
To make absolutely certain that you know
this is an undeniable law, try to shift away from yourself what is
your responsibility or to some extraneous factor when you know
that no one in the world will ever hold you responsible. It cannot
be done, which was already proven. This does not mean that other
people are not often responsible for the hurt we do as part of a
chain reaction as when an employer is forced to lay off his
employees because the money to pay them has stopped coming in
to him, but no one is blaming him for what is obviously not his
responsibility and therefore it isn’t necessary for him to offer
excuses. [/i]
[i]As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know as
a matter of positive knowledge that you cannot be blamed anymore
because it is an undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is
a very unique two-sided equation for it reveals that while you know
you are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I
know you are not responsible. For the very first time you fully
realize that I must excuse you because it is now known that man
must always select of available alternatives the one that offers
greater satisfaction, and who am I to know what gives you greater
satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize that
should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever you must also
take into consideration the knowledge that under no conditions will
I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to hurt you for
doing what I know you are compelled to do. This prevents you
from thinking excuses in advance because you know you are already
excused. You cannot say, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free,” because you know I already know this. You cannot
apologize or ask for forgiveness because you are already forgiven
and no one is blaming you. This means that should you decide to
hurt me with this first blow or be careless and take the risks that
lead to a first blow, and I would have to choose between retaliating
or turning the other cheek, you would know that I would be
compelled by my nature to find greater satisfaction in turning the
other cheek because of the undeniable fact that I would know you
had no choice, since your will is not free. Remember, you haven’t
hurt me yet; consequently, this is still a choice under consideration.
And when it fully dawns on you that this hurt to me will never be
blamed, judged or questioned in any way because I don’t want to
hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a
compulsion beyond your control — ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW
IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT
SINCE YOU HAVEN’T HURT ME YET — you are compelled,
completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this
desire to hurt me because it can never give you greater satisfaction
under the changed conditions. [Note: It must be understood that
the expression ‘of your own free will,’ which is an expression I use
throughout the book, only means ‘of your own desire,’ but this does
not mean will is free. If you need further clarification, please
reread Chapter One].
In other words, when you know that others
will never blame or punish you for what they are compelled to
excuse, but also that the other factors truly responsible for the
dissatisfaction which engendered the consideration of hurting
others as a possible solution will be permanently removed as a
consequence of following our slide rule in all of its ramifications,
you will be given no opportunity to ever again strike another blow
of hurt. It becomes the worst possible choice to hurt another when
it is known there will be no blame because there is no advantage in
hurting those whom you know are compelled to turn the other
cheek for their satisfaction. Conscience, this guilty feeling over
such an act, will not permit it because you will get less satisfaction,
not more. Let me say again that if man’s will was free we could not
accomplish this because we would be able to choose what is less
satisfying when something more satisfying is available.
The knowledge that man will no longer be blamed for striking
a first blow since his will is not free — when he knows that nobody,
absolutely nothing, can compel him to hurt another this way unless
he wants to for over this he knows he has absolute control — enters
a condition or catalyst never before a permanent factor in human
relations and mathematically prevents those very acts of hurt for
which blame was previously necessary in a free will environment.
Remember, it takes two to tango — each person and the rest of
mankind — therefore this discovery which prevents man from
desiring to hurt others is only effective when he knows in advance,
as a matter of positive knowledge, that he will never be blamed or
punished no matter what he does.
“Wait a second. Will you admit that if I strike you first you are
perfectly justified in striking back?”
“Of course you are not justified in striking a person who is
compelled to do what he does by the laws of his nature.”
“But you know that an individual doesn’t have to strike another
if he doesn’t want to.”
“But if he wants to, isn’t it obvious that this desire is
completely beyond his control because it is now known man’s will
is not free?”
“Are you trying to tell me that if someone strikes me I must
turn the other cheek because he couldn’t help himself?”
“That’s exactly right. How is it humanly possible to justify
some form of retaliation when you know that the person who hurt
you is moved by laws over which he has absolutely no control?”
“But I do have mathematical control over not hurting you, if
I don’t want to.”
“I don’t know that, because it is impossible for me to judge
what you can and cannot do since you are compelled to move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, and I don’t know what gives you
greater satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize
that should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever, you must
also take into consideration the knowledge that under no
conditions will I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to
hurt you for doing what I know you are compelled to do, since your
will is not free.”
“Now I get it. Then when I fully realize that under no
conditions will you ever strike back because you must excuse what
you know I am compelled to do — when I know that I am not
compelled to hurt you unless I want to for over this I have
mathematical control — I am given no alternative but to forgo the
desire to hurt you simply because, under the new conditions, it is
impossible for me to derive even the smallest amount of
satisfaction.”
Wonderful! If each reader is able to understand that there are
two sides to this equation, then he will be able to follow me as I
extend it into every part of our lives. [Please note that I am
demonstrating how the basic principle can prevent the first cheek
from ever being struck. If our cheek has not been struck, there is
no need to strike back or turn the other side of our face. If you
find it confusing as to how the basic principle prevents the desire
to hurt others as a preferable alternative, it is important that you
reread this chapter in order to grasp the two-sided equation, which
is the very foundation of this discovery]. As we follow the corollary,
Thou Shall Not Blame, which will act as an infallible slide rule and
standard as to what is right and wrong while solving the many
problems that lie ahead, we will be obeying the mathematical
wisdom of this universe which gives us no choice when we see what
is truly better for ourselves. By removing all forms of blame which
include this judging in advance of what is right and wrong for
others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice from being
struck.[/i]