New Discovery

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:29 pm

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination
regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion
or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary.
But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held
responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or
evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it
is believed that man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to,
and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what he
desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under his
particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong
or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had
he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note.

Supposing
the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself
because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his
will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice;
consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not
hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like
hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born,
growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but
cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and for
various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment
compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing,
shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed
his family the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if
he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil,
that he could have chosen an option which was good; in this case almost
any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it
appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three
that were available to him – so does this make his will free? It is obvious
that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is
also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if
they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the
circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every
moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We
cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out
our lives the best we can, or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with
this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own
desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to
employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is
absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time,
and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing
suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given
the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from
all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never
satisfied to remain in one position for always like an inanimate object,
which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment
of time or life here for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment
coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and
space called here and you are given two alternatives, either live or kill
yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are
without moving a hairs breadth by committing suicide.
“I prefer…” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to
answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that
you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here and
prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the
motion of life which is any motion from here to there is a movement away
from that which dissatisfies, otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain
here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the
motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an
expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously
move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction.

It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at
any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life obeys this
invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices,
decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during his lifetime
that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances.

For
example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his
benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his
motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater
satisfaction. During every moment of man’s progress he always did what
he had to do because he had no choice. There are no exceptions as you will
soon observe. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not
free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I
will elaborate.

Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we shall
designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum
of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that particular moment
of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could sway you
from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy,
given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something
considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be
possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an
alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are
they not compelled by their very nature to prefer A; and how can they be
free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of
their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction?
To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to
prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t
want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t
want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in
the direction of dissatisfaction.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:35 pm

To give you a more familiar example, let us imagine that a woman is late
for a business meeting and must quickly choose between two dresses. If
both are undesirable, she is compelled to select the dress that is the least
distasteful of the two; consequently, her choice in this comparison is the
preferable alternative. Obviously she has other options; she could leave
both dresses and wear something from home, continue to shop and call in
late, etc. This is a hypothetical situation for the purpose of showing that
once she decides to buy one of the dresses in her selection, she is compelled
to pick the one that gives every indication of being the best possible choice.
It is true that her purchase will be determined by many variables such as
price, quality, color, etc., but regardless of the factors that contribute to her
final decision she is compelled by her very nature to pick the dress that is
the most preferable after weighing the pros and cons. For example, if cost
is an important consideration, she may desire buying the less expensive
dress because it fits within her price range, and although she would be
happier with the more expensive dress, she moves in the direction of greater
satisfaction by picking the dress she likes the least.

If her will was free she
could just as easily pick dress B (the more expensive dress) over dress A
(the less expensive dress), but this would be impossible since, at that
moment, it would give her less satisfaction in comparison. This is where
people get confused. Moving toward greater satisfaction does not mean that
we are always satisfied. It just means that when comparing the options that
are available to us, we are choosing [what we believe to be] the best
alternative under our particular circumstances. After coming home and
trying on the dress, she may have a change of heart and decide that she
should have splurged on the more expensive dress. She may find greater
satisfaction in going back to the store to make an exchange or she may
decide to keep the dress even though she isn’t that happy with her choice.
Each moment offers a new set of options but always in the direction of
greater satisfaction. I will now put the conclusive proof that man’s will is
not free to a mathematical test.


Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage and
condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is
the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held
under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences,
are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is
preferable. The difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the
reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take
which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply
because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently,
since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly
possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your
decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?
“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”
“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you
prefer the other alternative?”
“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given
me any choice.”
“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you
should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In
other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of
alternatives, one is compelled completely beyond control to prefer A. It is
impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it could be
chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as an alternative.
Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A
for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over
which you have absolutely no control.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:38 pm

The definition of free will states that good or evil can be chosen without
compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact that there is a tremendous
amount of compulsion. The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are
preferable differences, otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at
all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word
‘choice’ is very misleading for it assumes that man has two or more
possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life,
always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of
differences what he considers better for himself, and when two or more
alternatives are presented he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer not
that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being
better for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the
comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature but he is
compelled to prefer of alternatives the one he considers better for himself.
Consequently, even though he chooses various things all through the course
of his life, he is never given any choice at all.

Although the definition of
free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or
necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is
under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?
“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference’?”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where
you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is
preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration,
doesn’t change the direction of life which moves always and ever towards
greater satisfaction. But what one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that a
juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that affect
choice. Someone who believed he had proof that man can move toward
dissatisfaction offered the following example.

He began, “Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I
prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently
my taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater
satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel
sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate that even
though I am dissatisfied – and prefer the yellow apple – I can definitely
move in the direction of dissatisfaction.” In response to this demonstration,
isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason he decided to eat the red apple,
and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that
moment of time gave him greater satisfaction, otherwise, he would have
definitely selected and eaten the yellow? The normal circumstances under
which he frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were changed by his
desire to prove a point; therefore, it gave him greater satisfaction to eat what
he did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to move
in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow
apple at that moment of time) was an impossible choice, he was not free to
choose A.

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the
results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From
moment to moment, all through life, man can never move in the direction of
dissatisfaction, and that his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a
natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater
satisfaction, otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could
never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses
dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to
remove the dissatisfaction of the itch; as urinating, defecating, sleeping,
working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are
unsatisfied needs of life pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction.
It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money
when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to
comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the
malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling
of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are
dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment; and your desire to get out
of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that
has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves
conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only
direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of
time.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:43 pm

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws and
then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility;
but how is it possible for someone to obey that which under certain
conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious that a person does not
have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to,
and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish
if they don’t want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for
themselves under the circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a
communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not
compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us
at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb
among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man
does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way, if he doesn’t
want to. The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel
or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this
observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will’ which
has come to signify this aspect – that nothing can compel man to do what he
doesn’t want to do – is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes
what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the
unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT
CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES
UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO – but that does not make his will free.

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

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have thought
of.”
“All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make
him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a mathematical law
that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind
not to do – this is an extremely crucial point – he is nevertheless under a
compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does.
This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has mathematical
control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must
constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that
nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever
have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a
deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused
man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite,
that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own accord; he
wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’

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

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

Nothing causes man to build cities,
develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war,
argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children
were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the
natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting his mistakes,
and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by choosing the best
alternative at each particular moment in time. Looking back in hindsight
allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections where necessary
since he is always learning from previous experience, but this does not
change the direction he is compelled to go. The fact that will is not free
demonstrates that man has been unconsciously developing at a
mathematical rate and during every moment of his progress was doing what
he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he
was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice
and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man
himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already; God does not cause – He is.

As long as history has been
recorded, these two opposing principles were never reconciled until now.
The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies,
and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that criticized
determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was
impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is
obeying this invariable law which makes the motion of all life just as
harmonious as the solar system – because we are these laws.
“I’m still confused. Could you explain this in another way?”
“In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he
doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do
the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered
worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his
environment, or else commit suicide. Was it humanly possible to make
Ghandi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of
death which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to – and innumerable of
our expressions say this – he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another
is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own
free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction
at that moment of time for one reason or another.”

“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw although I thought I did. I
think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do something
against my will doesn’t mean my will is free because my desire not to do it
appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater
satisfaction. Nor does the expression, “I did it of my own free will, nobody
made me do it”, mean that I actually did it of my own free will – although I
did it because I wanted to – because my desire to do it appeared the better
reason which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.
“He does understand.”
“Does this mean you are also in complete agreement so I can proceed?”
“Yes it does.”
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:49 pm

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

The truth is that the
words good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to
oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having
that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not because he
is compelled to do this against his will, but only because the alternative of
continuing to live under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not
happy to take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to
prefer, by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own life
because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying.
For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off he has three
possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to sleep, or
get up and face the day.

Since suicide is out of the question under these
conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though he doesn’t like his
job and hates the thought of going to work he needs money, and since he
can’t stand having creditors on his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it
is the lesser of two evils to get up and go to work. He is not happy or
satisfied to do this when he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater
satisfaction doing one thing than another. Dog food is good to a starving
man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices
on a menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is still
considered worse under his particular circumstances.

The law of self-
preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him stay alive
and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what he needs to
survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any number of things
which he considers good for himself in comparison to the evil of finding
himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things. All this simply proves is
that man is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction during every
moment of his existence. It does not yet remove the implications. The
expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ has been seriously misunderstood
for although it is impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, he does
everything he wants to since absolutely nothing can make him do what he
doesn’t want to. Think about this once again.

Was it humanly possible to
make Ghandi and his followers do what they did not want to do when
unafraid of death which was judged, according to their circumstances, the
lesser of two evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the
alternative was to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this
one point. Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything
against your will does not mean your will is free. Ghandi wanted freedom
for his people and it was against his will to stop his non violent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death; but this doesn’t
mean his will was free, it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to
face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

Consequently, when any
person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he
really didn’t want to but had to because he was being tortured, he is
obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others
because he could die before being forced to do something against his will.
What he actually means was that he didn’t like being tortured because the
pain was unbearable so rather than continue suffering this way he preferred
as the lesser of two evils to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but
he did this because he wanted to not because some external force made him
do this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he loved
would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged the lesser
of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because though it is true
that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN
MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like
what he did – but he wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no
free or better choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your
mind before proceeding. This knowledge was not available before now,
and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true
nature is something fantastic to behold for it not only gives ample proof that
evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of
hurt that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle
of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS
that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall
demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or principles – that nothing can
compel man to do anything against his will because over this his nature
allows absolute control; and that his will is not free because his nature also
compels him to prefer of available alternatives the one that offers greater
satisfaction – will reveal a third invariable law – the discovery to which
reference has been made.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:03 pm

 CHAPTER TWO

THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

Once it becomes established as an undeniable law that man’s will
is not free, as was just demonstrated, we cannot assume that it is
free because philosophers like Durant could not get by the
implications. Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off
which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you
will, corollary, slide rule or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME,
and transmute the baser mettles of human nature into the pure gold of the
Golden Age even though it presents what appears to be an insurmountable
problem, for how is it possible not to blame people who hurt us when we
know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t want to. The solution,
however, only requires the perception and extension of relations which
cannot be denied; and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame
for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God which will unlock
a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your breath in
absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately solve every problem
we have, not only without hurting a living soul but while benefiting
everyone to an amazing degree. However, the problems that confront us at
this moment are very complex which make it necessary to treat every aspect
of our lives in a separate yet related manner. 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 Satin 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 will 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 $3,060. 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 I just gave, or their opinion
when considering the impossibility of removing all evil from our lives
which would have to be based upon a logical conclusion, we know that the
answer is correct because there is positive proof.

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 including the power
that expresses itself through this law of greater satisfaction, 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.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:09 pm

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?

In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our control
but by gaining a new understanding as to why our will is not free, and what
this means, man will change direction for satisfaction where the desire to
hurt someone with a first blow will no longer be preferable when another
alternative becomes the better choice. 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. Turning the other
cheek under these conditions could make matters worse, which is why many
people strongly object to the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible
for a person not to fight back when he 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. Let me repeat:
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. You will understand
this much better as we proceed. 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.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:18 pm

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.

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 in
order to break the cycle of attack and retaliation.

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 mathematic
corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to anything after it is done
– only before.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:23 pm

Could someone give me notice when the link between determinism and intelligent design is discussed? I am a determinist myself, and therefore do not need this - admittedly quite well-written - introduction.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:23 pm

“I do not understand why it applies before something is done, and not
after. Does this mean that you can blame after it is done? And doesn’t this
go back to the same problem man has been faced with since the beginning
of time; how to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of
our penal code?”

“It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The reason
God’s commandment, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not apply to anything
after it is done – only before – is because this law has the power to prevent
those very acts of evil for which a penal code was previously necessary, as
part of our development. It is extremely important that we go through a de-
confusion process since it appears that man will always desire something
for which blame and punishment are necessary. At this juncture, I shall
repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of important facts
that must be understood before continuing.

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 Ghandi 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
alterative 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.


Please bear in mind that although man’s will is not free, there is
absolutely nothing, not environment, heredity, 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. The environment is different for him because he himself is
different; otherwise, everybody would desire to commit a crime. Once a
crime takes place he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person
because I wanted to”, 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 since it is
assumed that by not being blamed, man will become less responsible by
saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free, in order to
justify his actions. 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:
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:29 pm

Please ask questions in the other thread. I want to finish this so people can absorb what is written. The author doesn't get into evolution versus intelligent design but if you keep reading you will see that our deliverance from evil is evidence that there is a design to our world, which we couldn't prove until we solved this difficult problem.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:32 pm

“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. He could just say, “I’m sorry but I couldn’t help myself
because my will is not free. 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 or use any other excuse he feels will sound believable for the
same reason?”

“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning
because it is mathematically impossible to shift responsibility, to excuse or
justify getting away with something, when we know in advance that we will
not be blamed for what we do. Is it possible for you to say “I couldn’t help
myself because my will is not free” when you know that no one is going to
say you could help yourself? 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. In fact, 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 explain
why you did what you did. 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. 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.”

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.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:40 pm

The very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that no
one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does because his will is
not free, and there will be no more criticism or blame regardless of his
actions, it becomes impossible for him to blame someone or something else
as the cause for what he knows he has done, because he also knows that no
one is blaming him. Man is prevented from excusing or justifying his own
actions which compels him completely beyond his control, but of his own
desire, not only to be absolutely honest with himself and others since there
is no way he can shift the blame, but to assume full responsibility for
everything he does.

How is it humanly possible for him to desire lying to
me or you when he is not being given the opportunity since his actions are
not being judged; and how is it possible for him to make this effort to shift
his responsibility when he knows that no one is holding him 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 the very things our new
knowledge that man’s will is not free positively prevents. 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 our penal
code 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? Furthermore,
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 completely 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, or being criticized, reprimanded,
spanked, scolded, ostracized, or what have you, but this is the price you are
willing to risk or pay in order to satisfy certain desires. 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.”

“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.”
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:49 pm

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 nothing has the power, that no one can cause or
compel you to do anything against your will; and this other, who is standing
on this spot called there to where you plan to move from here also knows
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, everybody else knows that you are not to blame
because you are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction
during every moment of your existence. Now if you know absolutely and
positively that not only I, but everyone on earth, will never blame or punish
you for hurting me in some way because you know we are compelled to
completely excuse what we know is definitely beyond your control, is it
mathematically 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 when
you know beyond a shadow of doubt that no one, including myself who is
the one to be hurt, will ever hold you responsible, criticize or question your
action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be
considered a compulsion beyond your control?

Remember, you haven’t hurt me yet, and you know (this is the other side
of the equation) as a matter of undeniable knowledge that absolutely
nothing can compel you to hurt me unless you want to, for over this you
have mathematical control; consequently, your motion, your decision as to
what is better for yourself is still a choice between two alternatives – to hurt
me or not to hurt me. And when it fully dawns on you that should you go
ahead with this decision to hurt me, you will not be blamed in any way
because no one wants to hurt you in return for doing what everyone now
understands is a compulsion beyond your control – ALTHOUGH YOU
KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE
NOTHING CAN MAKE YOU HURT ME 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 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 for you to make others culpable, to extenuate the
circumstances, to lie or try to 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 everything you do
since 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
instead it does the exact opposite. Did you ever see anything more
ironically humorous? The only time you can use the excuse that your will
is not free is when the world believes it is free.

The world of free will has
allowed people to lie and cheat in order to get what they want and then shift
responsibility away from themselves when questioned. Many philosophers
have gotten confused over this one point because they believe that a world
without blame would make matters worse, decreasing responsibility and
giving man a perfect opportunity to take advantage of others without having
to worry about consequences. But this can only occur when man knows he
will be blamed, which allows him to come up with reasonable excuses.
How is it possible to come up with excuses when one is already excused?
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:11 pm

“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. Knowing that he would not be blamed under any
circumstances, even if he was responsible for spreading his illness to the
entire region, would prevent his desire 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? Contained in this question is
an assumption that people will desire to strike out at society even when
there is no justification. Just bear in mind that when man knows there will
be no blame or punishment no matter what he does, he can only go in one
direction for satisfaction and that is not to hurt others with a first blow. He
can 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, 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 because 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
pay to strike the first blow is completely out of reach because he cannot
find satisfaction in hurting those who will not blame him or retaliate in any
way. To hurt someone under these conditions an individual would have to
move in the direction of conscious dissatisfaction, which is mathematically
impossible. If will was free we could not accomplish this because we
would be able to choose what is worse for ourselves when something better
is available.

In the world of free will the threat of punishment cannot stop
someone who wants something badly enough. He may risk going to prison
or be willing to pay the ultimate price with his life for the satisfaction of
carrying out ‘the perfect crime.’ An individual
would not mind taking all kinds of chances involving others because there is
always some form of justification that could get him off the hook or he
could always pay a price, if caught, for the satisfaction of certain desires. If
someone 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. 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. Knowing in advance that there will
be no punishment for striking a first blow prevents the opportunity to justify
what he is about to do. This knowledge 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. How could anyone be
satisfied planning a crime knowing that the entire world would be
compelled to forgive him - even though they knew what he was about to
do?

Have we already forgotten 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, 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. It is
impossible for a person to derive satisfaction knowing there will be no
consequences for the pain he willfully chooses to inflict on others. Just the
knowledge that there will be no consequences presents consequences that
are still worse, preventing him from getting any satisfaction from striking
this first blow. The reaction of no blame would be worse than any type of punishment society could offer. This natural law raises man’ 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.”
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:29 pm

“Can you elaborate?”

“Punishment and retaliation are natural reactions of a free will
environment that permit the consideration of striking the 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 choose an alternative
that is less satisfying which is impossible to do when an alternative offering
greater satisfaction is available. Could you derive satisfaction from
hurting someone knowing full well that should you follow through with this
unprovoked act, the person you are hurting would be compelled to turn the
other cheek?

As long
as man can pay a price for hurting others, his conscience will never be able
to control his desires if he wants something badly enough. But when all
blame is removed from the environment, and he knows that he will not be
blamed by anyone anywhere, he will be compelled to change his ways.
Remember, everyone is constantly moving in the direction of greater
satisfaction and when striking a first blow becomes the worst possible
choice, our problem is solved because it will give us less satisfaction, not
more.

The answer to this impasse which removes the implications is now very
obvious because the advance knowledge that man will not be blamed for
anything he desires to do (this is the solution worked backwards),
mathematically prevents those very acts 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), one 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.

To paraphrase this in slightly different words:
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.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:32 pm

 The difference
between this principle and the one Christ preached – “Turn the other
cheek”, is that in the two-sided equation the first cheek is prevented from
being struck whereas Ghandi, 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? Ghandi
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 us imagine for a moment that
we are living in the new world and you are about to make a decision,
whether to hurt me or not to hurt me.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:34 pm

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?”

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: "How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment."

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

I suspect this is the crucial mistake the writer makes. Man does not have "absolute control" over his mind, as both he and his mind are subject to influences, conditions, - they are both deterministic. If man has any influence over his mind, he is only one - determined - factor among others determining it.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:37 pm

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.

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 NOTHING CAN FORCE YOU TO
HURT ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO – you are compelled, completely of
your own free will, to relinquish this desire to hurt me with a first blow
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 because you want to’, which is a true statement. If you are
still confused, please reread pages 57-61]. It becomes the worst possible
choice to hurt someone when it is known in advance that you are not going
to be blamed because there is no advantage in hurting those who you know
must turn the other cheek for their satisfaction. Conscience, your guilty
feeling over such an act will not permit it because you will get less
satisfaction, not more. 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 someone 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. By following 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. Consequently, by removing all
forms of blame which includes this judging in advance of what is right and
wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice from being
struck.

This corollary is not only effective by your realization that we (all
mankind) will never blame you for any hurt done to us but also by our
realization that any advance blame, this judging of what is right for
someone else strikes the first blow since it is impossible to prevent your
desire to hurt us by telling you we will never blame this hurt, when we
blame the possibility by telling you in advance that it is wrong. In other
words, by judging that it is wrong to do something, whatever it may be, we
are blaming the possibility of it being done which only incites a desire to
challenge the authority of this advance accusation that has already given
justification. Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want
which hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right
for someone else.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:42 pm

As we end this chapter there is one vital point that appears contradictory
and needs clarification. If the knowledge that man’s will is not free is
supposed to prevent that for which blame and punishment were previously
necessary, and if a person who saw his child deliberately kidnapped and
killed would be compelled to desire revenge as a normal reaction in the
direction of satisfaction, how can this knowledge prevent some form of
retaliation? Just because you have learned that man’s will is not free is not
a sufficient explanation as to why you should not want to avenge this
child’s murder by tracking down the criminal and cutting his heart out with
a knife, so once again we must understand what God means when He
mathematically instructs us not to blame. When the knowledge in this book
is released and understood, every person as always will be standing on this
moment of time or life called here, so to speak, and preparing to move to
the next spot called there.

As the principles set forth in this book become a
permanent part of the environment (more will be explained in the economic
chapter) you will know that the person who kidnapped and killed your child
or committed some other form of hurt which occurred prior to the release of
this knowledge – regardless of how much you hate and despise what was
done – will never blame in any way your desire for retribution, which
means that he will never run and hide to avoid your act of revenge because
this is a form of tacit blame; and when it fully dawns on you that he will
never make any effort to fight back no matter what you do to him, never lift
a hand to stop whatever you desire to do, it becomes impossible for you to
derive any satisfaction from this act of retaliation especially when you know
that he will never again be permitted by his conscience – because of the
realization that he will not be blamed – to do to another what was originally
done to you and your family. As a result, the chain of retaliation will be
broken which will prevent any further criminal behavior.

Time and time again a person desiring personal revenge has been able to
experience a certain amount of control over his desire, but never to the
degree that will permit this Great Transition to get underway – with the help
of our slide rule. When he fully realizes that the perpetrator whom he
wishes to hurt in return will never desire to retaliate with further hurt, or
desire to commit another crime to anyone anywhere, he is compelled to lose
his desire for revenge because it is impossible to derive any satisfaction
from the advance knowledge that he will be excused by the entire world.
The full realization that he can no longer justify this act of personal revenge
because no one will consider it wrong or tell him what to do (remember, no
longer will anyone judge what is right for another); that he will be able to
do what he wishes to this person without any form of justification because
he knows in advance that he will not be blamed and that everyone,
including the one to be retaliated upon, will be compelled of their own free
will to completely excuse what is definitely not his responsibility –
ALTHOUGH HE KNOWS IT WOULD BE HIS RESPONSIBILITY –
makes him desire to forgo what he knows he doesn’t have to do.

He knows
he is not under any compulsion to do what has not yet been done and when
he becomes aware that no one henceforth will judge his actions, that he is
completely free from the trammels of public opinion to do, without the
slightest fear of criticism, whatever he thinks is better for himself, that he
will not even be punished by the laws that were created for this purpose, it
becomes mathematically impossible for him to desire hurting this other
person under these conditions regardless of what was originally done to
him. It would be equivalent to deriving satisfaction from continuing to beat
up an individual who, though fully able to fight back, refuses to lift a hand
in his own defense. This allows the Great Transition to get underway, as
you will see in greater detail as we proceed, without any fear of harm. Let
us observe why the perpetrator can no longer continue his crime spree under
the changed conditions.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:46 pm

The potential kidnapper or criminal who is standing on this moment of
time called here when this knowledge is released and before the act is done,
is prevented from further contemplation of his crime by the realization that
he will never be blamed, judged, criticized, or punished for this act (and by
the removal of all forms of tacit blame which unconsciously gave him the
motivation and justification), which compels him to get greater satisfaction
in his motion to there by giving up what he was contemplating.

Up until the
present time there was nothing powerful enough to prevent man from
risking his life to satisfy a desire regardless of who got hurt because the
satisfaction of possible success outweighed the dissatisfaction of possible
failure; but when he becomes conscious that a particular reaction of no
blame will be the only response to his actions by the entire world regardless
of what he is contemplating, he will be compelled, completely beyond his
control but of his own free will (or desire), to refrain from what he now
foresees can give him absolutely no satisfaction. How can he possibly find
satisfaction in doing something that the world must excuse, but he can no
longer justify? This natural law of man’s nature gives him no alternative
but to obey it in order to derive greater satisfaction, and will prevent the
first blow from ever being struck. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall
Not Blame, we will be able to unravel the causes of war, crime, and hatred,
which are deep-rooted and interwoven, and envision how life will be when
all hurt in human relations comes to a permanent end.


There will be many volumes extending this law into every area of
human relation. The answer to the world’s problems will satisfy
Communism and Capitalism, the Blacks and the Whites, the Jews and the
Christians, the Catholics and the Protestants, the rich and the poor, the cops
and the robbers. However, it must be understood that in the world of free
will innumerable wars, revolutions, and crimes were a reaction to various
forms of hurt which did not allow any alternative but to retaliate.
Consequently, man was compelled to blame, criticize and punish as the
only possible alternative when judged by his undeveloped mind. When
those about to fight back discover that they will no more be retaliated upon,
it is also necessary for them to realize that the factors responsible for this
consideration of war and crime, as the lesser of two evils, will also be
removed; and are those responsible given any choice but to remove these
factors when they know that those who they have been hurting will never
blame them for this?

To fully understand the fact that conscience – our
feeling of guilt – was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature
necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it
is only necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is
constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate. It was impossible
for any previous stage of our development to have understood the deeper
factors involved which was necessary for an adequate solution, just as it
was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at an earlier time
because the deeper relations were not perceived at that stage of
development; but at last we have been granted understanding which reveals
a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in every way with the
mathematical accuracy of the solar system, and we are in for the greatest
series of beneficent changes of our entire existence which must come about
as a matter of necessity the very moment this knowledge is understood.

Although this book only scratches the surface, it lays the foundation for
scientists to take over from here. The undeniable knowledge I am
presenting is a blueprint of a new world that must come about once this
discovery is recognized, and your awareness of this will preclude you from
expressing that this work is oversimplified. Because it would take many
encyclopedias combined to delineate all of the changes about to occur, it
would have been much too long for a book that was written for the express
purpose of providing mankind with a general outline. It will be up to future
scientists to extend this scientific principle in much greater depth.

As we leave this chapter I hope I have made it clear that just as long as
man is able to justify hurting others, he is not striking a first blow. Before I
demonstrate how this justification is permanently removed by preventing
the insecurities that have permeated our economic system and justify the act
of self-preservation by whatever means necessary, I will allow you an
opportunity to see exactly what happens in a human relation where this
justification is already removed. In the next chapter, l shall reveal how all
automobile accidents and carelessness must come to a permanent end.
Before we move on, I must clarify a very important point. Christ and
Spinoza turned the other cheek and paid the consequences because the
justification to hurt them was never removed, but I am going to demonstrate
how it is now possible to prevent the first cheek from being struck which
renders obsolete the need to turn the other cheek or retaliate. Although
Ghandi won freedom for his people and Reverend King won certain civil
rights, they accomplished this at great expense. However, all was necessary
because we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction over which
we have no control because this is God’s law or will. At this point, I
suggest that you study carefully, once again, Chapter Two and then discuss
it to make certain you understand that if you find any flaw it exists only in
your not understanding the principles, for they are undeniable.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:05 pm

Just as I thought: a complete misunderstanding of the will:

absolutely nothing can compel you to hurt me unless you want to, for over this you have mathematical control

Translation: if the will arises in me, i.e., if "I" (there is no subject) become a vehicle of the will to hurt "you" (i.e., to change the physical (including cerebral) configuration of the cluster of impressions I refer to as "you"), "I" (who am also just such a cluster of impressions) am supposed to have "mathematical control" over this will (or the exercise of this will - which cannot really be distinguished from it)? I think not: the will is a vector (really the resultant of innumerable vectors) of force; whatever would control this would then also have to be a vector of force, and the resultant would be yet another vector of force.


consequently, your motion, your decision as to what is better for yourself is still a choice between two alternatives – to hurt
me or not to hurt me. And when it fully dawns on you that should you go
ahead with this decision to hurt me, you will not be blamed in any way
because no one wants to hurt you in return for doing what everyone now
understands is a compulsion beyond your control – ALTHOUGH YOU
KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE
NOTHING CAN MAKE YOU HURT ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO

First, it is not a "decision" to hurt you, but an overwhelming passion (the will to power is a pathos). Secondly, this whole "discovery" is due to a confused idea of what "I" am: am "I" an entity somehow separate from my body (in which the will to hurt you arises), which can coolly and detachedly contemplate on whether to allow this will to be exercised or no? And if it is thusly separate, how can it exercise control over my body? This dualism leads to muddled formulations like the following:

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 conditions.

I am neither compelled, nor do I have free will: I am a bundle of force vectors whose resultant we call "my will".
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:06 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
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?”

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: "How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment."

You missed a part where the author defines the 3 things that can allow a person to justify a hurt to another. "In order to hurt another 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 ane' 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." When every bit of justification is removed, he will be unable to derive satisfaction in any act of violence that is a first blow. Under the new conditions, he cannot pay a price, and could not live with himself knowing that he caused pain to another when no one will ever hold him responsible.

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
I suspect this is the crucial mistake the writer makes. Man does not have "absolute control" over his mind, as both he and his mind are subject to influences, conditions, - they are both deterministic. If man has any influence over his mind, he is only one - determined - factor among others determining it.


There are many factors that 'cause' someone to do what he does. I am in agreement with you. What the author means when he says man has absolute control is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This was said to distinguish the idea that something else is responsible for man's actions. In other words, if I hit you with a stick I am responsible. I am the one that did it, regardless of the factors that led up to the act.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:36 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
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?”

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: "How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment."


You missed a part where the author defines the 3 things that can allow a person to justify a hurt to another. "In order to hurt another man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this;

I think the concept of justification belongs in a world of culpability: otherwise what does it matter if something is "not justified"?

Secondly, I don't consider the will to self-preservation to be the cardinal drive, but the will to power. "Satisfaction" is simply the feeling of power. If it gives me a greater feeling of power to hurt you then not to hurt you, I should do the former.


When every bit of justification is removed, he will be unable to derive satisfaction in any act of violence that is a first blow. Under the new conditions, he cannot pay a price, and could not live with himself knowing that he caused pain to another when no one will ever hold him responsible.

This makes no sense to me. That he does not need to shift responsibility I understand, as there is no responsibility. But why should he not be able to live with himself? What should he care about another's pain?


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

I suspect this is the crucial mistake the writer makes. Man does not have "absolute control" over his mind, as both he and his mind are subject to influences, conditions, - they are both deterministic. If man has any influence over his mind, he is only one - determined - factor among others determining it.


There are many factors that 'cause' someone to do what he does. I am in agreement with you. What the author means when he says man has absolute control is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This was said to distinguish the idea that something else is responsible for man's actions. In other words, if I hit you with a stick I am responsible. I am the one that did it, regardless of the factors that led up to the act.

Neither something else is responsible for man's actions, nor man himself. You are neither compelled to hit me with a stick nor do you have a choice to do so.

"How can we tell the dancer from the dance?"
[Yeats, Among School Children.]
Last edited by Sauwelios on Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:41 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Just as I thought: a complete misunderstanding of the will:

absolutely nothing can compel you to hurt me unless you want to, for over this you have mathematical control

Translation: if the will arises in me, i.e., if "I" (there is no subject) become a vehicle of the will to hurt "you" (i.e., to change the physical (including cerebral) configuration of the cluster of impressions I refer to as "you"), "I" (who am also just such a cluster of impressions) am supposed to have "mathematical control" over this will (or the exercise of this will - which cannot really be distinguished from it)? I think not: the will is a vector (really the resultant of innumerable vectors) of force; whatever would control this would then also have to be a vector of force, and the resultant would be yet another vector of force.

You are confusing the traditional definition of determinism with this author's definition. The confusion lies in the misunderstanding of the word 'cause', because it implies that an external force (other than the person himself) that can make him violent.

consequently, your motion, your decision as to what is better for yourself is still a choice between two alternatives – to hurt
me or not to hurt me. And when it fully dawns on you that should you go
ahead with this decision to hurt me, you will not be blamed in any way
because no one wants to hurt you in return for doing what everyone now
understands is a compulsion beyond your control – ALTHOUGH YOU
KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE
NOTHING CAN MAKE YOU HURT ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO

First, it is not a "decision" to hurt you, but an overwhelming passion (the will to power is a pathos). Secondly, this whole "discovery" is due to a confused idea of what "I" am: am "I" an entity somehow separate from my body (in which the will to hurt you arises), which can coolly and detachedly contemplate on whether to allow this will to be exercised or no? And if it is thusly separate, how can it exercise control over my body? This dualism leads to muddled formulations like the following:

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 conditions.

I am neither compelled, nor do I have free will: I am a bundle of force vectors whose resultant we call "my will".


Let's carefully dissect the wording. Maybe you can help me clarify it for the reader because you are asking very pertinent questions and that's the only way I will get better at explaining it.

[/quote]
First, it is not a "decision" to hurt you, but an overwhelming passion (the will to power is a pathos).

Yes, there is such resentment in the world in which we live that the desire to retaliate is irresistable. But if he knew that by this overwhelming passion to kill someone in retaliation would cause his family to be shot dead, he would resist this impulse in order to save his family.

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 conditions.

I am neither compelled, nor do I have free will: I am a bundle of force vectors whose resultant we call "my will".


There are definite vectors (as you call them) that are guiding us toward the choices we make, but this does not mean that we don't have control. In the new world, you won't be able to use this as an excuse as to why you had to do hurt someone because no one will be blaming you. I want to complete the last chapter for today, as this will give you a better understanding as to how this principle works in real life.

[/quote]
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users