New Discovery

There is an ironic twist here for if all evils of our world no longer exist,
how happy would certain professions be to know that their services will no
longer be needed. Shouldn’t this news make those individuals very happy
who have been trying to correct the problems of the world? If the cry of the
clergy is ‘Faith in God’, isn’t it obvious that the priesthood would rather see
an end to all sin than to preach against it and shrive the sinners in the
confessional. They should be simply thrilled at the miracle God is about to
perform, even though it means putting them out of work. Isn’t it true that
politicians, statesman, the leaders of the world in general would much rather
see an end to all war and crime than to retaliate ‘an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth?’

If the Communist and Capitalist governments are truly
interested in the welfare of their people, then just imagine how excited they
will be to learn that the most perfect relations between all men will soon be a
reality even though it makes their services unnecessary. If a writer is just
about ready to submit his book to the public for the purpose of revealing
knowledge on how to raise children or live together in greater harmony as
man and wife, he will be absolutely in ecstasy to learn that God is going to
bring about such perfect harmony in a short time that all books purporting to
do this very thing won’t have any more value.

There is a good deal of irony
to this Great Transition for it reveals how completely dishonest we were
compelled to be with ourselves and others. A salesman is happy to make a
sale when he works on commission, but if he found out that another
salesman beat him to the punch he would be disappointed even though the
customer derived the benefits that were promised at the time of purchase.
The only difference between a salesman selling books and a doctor,
theologian, etc. is that the former must convince only his prospects while the
latter must also convince themselves. A salesman is not interested if anyone
uses his product, just so he is paid a commission. Doctors and theologians
and those in the helping professions are compelled to justify that they know
what they are advising and treating, otherwise, they could never accept a fee,
gratuity, or income for their service. Someone who struggles to earn a living
such as a salesman where the risk of injury is virtually nonexistent doesn’t
need the same kind of justification, and will even steal with a clear
conscience.

Though we would all like to see an end to evil, there are two issues that
need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income
was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their lives.
Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want
to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but
in some manner that confirms what has been looked for – Judgment Day.
The Chinese government would like to see an end to all evil, but in terms of
communism. Is it possible for the supporters of socialism and communism
to relinquish the thought that they are right, when they think they are not
wrong? Politicians would like to see an end to all evil, but they want to find
the solution. Would it be possible for the leaders of capitalism to willingly
resign their jobs when they think their services are no longer required? How
is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health,
for security; those that wage a war against the evils of humanity to be
sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their
ultimate satisfaction? Everybody would like to see a great change; “I have a
dream” said Dr. Martin Luther King, “this view from the mountain top, but
no one desires any intruders or interlopers.” These individuals, who at
present control the thinking of mankind, set up a fallacious standard for the
conscious purpose of protecting themselves against others and will react with
hostility toward anything that shows they may be wrong unless it is
presented in such a mathematical manner that it is impossible to disagree
without revealing a still greater ignorance.

If this book was not a
mathematical revelation – which scientists will soon confirm – what do you
think the clergy, the government, the medical and teaching professions, and
many others would do if they thought for one moment this work was
someone’s opinion that threatened their security, power, and leadership
position in world affairs? They would tear this book to shreds. This
discovery has incurred the wrath of the establishment because it threatens the
status quo. No one wants to willingly admit they don’t have the answer.
The fact remains that these individuals are actually trying to solve problems
that are very much over their heads and what is being revealed to them is
only a method to accomplish the very things they have been attempting to
do, without success.

Unfortunately, those endeavoring to correct our ills
appear to be cutting off the heads of a diseased hydra – the more
psychiatrists we graduate, the greater becomes our mental illness; the more
policemen and moralists we have, the greater and more prevalent become our
crimes; the more diplomats, statesmen, generals and armies we have, the
greater and more destructive become our wars. And as an expedient to the
situation we find ourselves being taxed to death while our cost of living
steadily rises. Wouldn’t you like to see an end to all this?

Do you prefer
war or peace, unhappiness or happiness, insecurity or security, sickness or
health? Do you prefer losing the one you have fallen in love with or winning
and living happily ever after? Since I know that happiness is preferable to
unhappiness, health to sickness, I shall now begin a revelation of knowledge
which no one will be able to deny providing the relations are understood.
While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and
wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery and
divorce will be coming to an end, changing the entire landscape of family
relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical?
And aren’t you jumping to a conclusion that this is against all human nature?

If all the people in the world who get displaced because their services are no
longer needed were to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that the
income necessary to sustain their standard of living, whatever the cost,
would never be stopped as long as they live, would they have any reason to
complain about someone showing them a better way – the only way to
accomplish that for which they are getting paid? Although they and others
will be dissatisfied to learn the truth when it deprives them of personal
fulfillment, they are compelled to be silent because to utter any words of
protest would only reveal their ignorance which will give them no
satisfaction. I shall now set sail on a voyage which will perform this virtual
miracle by igniting a chain reaction of thought that will explode across the
planet and destroy with its fallout every conceivable kind of hurt that exists
among human relations, never to return. It is now within our power to reach
that mountaintop – the Golden Age of man – that we have all hoped and
dreamed will one day become a reality.

THE FOUNDATION AND SCIENTIFIC
DEVELOPMENT
OF MY FIRST DISCOVERY

CHAPTER ONE – THE HIDING PLACE
CHAPTER TWO – THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

CHAPTER ONE

THE HIDING PLACE

Long ago man formed a theory that the earth was flat because he

could not conceive of it as a ball suspended in space. It became a
dogma, such a fixed idea that when the first astronomer, in
attempting to explain the reason why darkness came over the sun in the
middle of the day, was denied an opportunity to present his findings
because his discovery called into question this sacred belief. Let us
imagine the first astronomer being granted an interview by the leading
authorities of his time to explain the cause of a solar eclipse.

“Dear gentlemen, I have come to you to explain my findings about the

shape of the earth. In order for you to understand the cause of the darkness
coming over the sun, it is first necessary to understand that the earth is not
flat.
“What’s that? Did we hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell us that
the earth is round which means it is floating in space?”
“That is true, and my discovery lies locked behind the door marked the
earth is round.”
“This is absurd! Who are you to come in here and tell us that we are
wrong? We are not interested in your theory because we say the earth is
flat, [and since we are wiser than you, more learned than you, more
educated than you, you must be wrong], so why discuss this matter further.
Besides, our chief medicine man chanted the incantation that caused the
darkness to vanish. Thank you very much for coming out to give us your
explanation but we are not interested in discussing this matter further
because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the earth is flat.”

This is the second half of the primary problem.  The fact that a theory

such as the belief that the earth is flat can hermetically seal knowledge that
prevents our discovering the invariable laws of the solar system which, in
turn, prevents the knowledge necessary to land men on the moon. Children
were taught this by their parents who had received this knowledge from
their parents who were instructed by the medicine man who was considered
the wisest man of his time. Since there was no way the knowledge of the
medicine man could be proven false because no one knew any different, and
since he was considered the wisest man of his time, his conclusion that the
earth was flat brooked no opposition. Consequently, when those who were
judged inferior in wisdom or knowledge disagreed with the medicine man,
they were rejected. When an upstart scientist came along who concluded
that the earth was round after making certain observations, how was it
possible to get others to agree with him when they couldn’t follow his
reasoning which compelled them to compare him, not his knowledge, to the
medicine man, to the professors and teachers whose wisdom and knowledge
could not be impugned. To help you see how easy it is for a dogmatic
theory to prevent scientific investigation let us once again return, in
imagination, to the time when man knew nothing about the solar system,
and listen to a conversation.

“Say, Joshua; do you believe the earth is flat or do you go along with my

theory that it is round?”
“Even though most of mankind agrees that it is flat, what difference does
it really make what I think?” said our philosophical friend. “The shape of
the earth is certainly not going to be affected or changed no matter what my
opinion is, right?”
“That is true enough, but if the earth is really round isn’t it obvious that
just as long as we think otherwise we are prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery, consequently, it
does make a difference. How much so we are not in the position to know
just yet but thousands of years hence, perhaps in the twentieth century,
there may be all kinds of scientific achievements attributed directly to
knowing the true shape of the earth, such as landing men on the moon
which may never be possible without first knowing the true shape of the
earth.”

You may look back and smile at the unconscious ignorance of our

ancestors but pay close attention to what happened to me as I draw up a
perfect comparison with which you can identify. Because my discovery
was purely scientific, my attention was drawn to an article by Eric Johnson,
now deceased, who was once among other things the President of the
Motion Pictures Association. It appeared in the November 6, 1960 issue of
This Week Magazine of The Baltimore Sun.

“If there is one word which characterizes our world in this exciting last

half of the twentieth century, the word is change. “Change in political life;
change in economic life; change in social life; change in personal life;
change in the hallmark of our times. It’s not gradual, comfortable change.
It is sudden; rapid; often violent. It touches and often disrupts whole
cultures and hundreds of millions of people. Behind it all lies an explosive
growth in scientific knowledge and accomplishment. Some 90% of all the
scientists who ever lived are living today, and the total accumulation of
scientific knowledge is doubling every ten years. But this is reality. If we
remember that, then we will never flinch at change. We will adjust to it,
welcome it, meet it as a friend, and know it is God’s will.”

Since my discovery would bring about the greatest change in all of
history, it appeared that this man would be willing to let me explain my
findings. By convincing him on the phone that it was now possible to put a
permanent end to all war as a result of my discovery he agreed to meet me
on a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C. Our conversation went as
follows:

“I’m really not a scientist, Mr. Lessans, and in all probability you should
be talking to someone else. Your claims are absolutely fantastic, but I want
you to know that even though I wrote an article about science, I am not a
scientist. Besides, after you hung up I became more skeptical of claims
such as yours because they not only sound impossible but somewhat
ridiculous in view of man’s nature. Frankly, I don’t believe your claims are
possible, but I am willing to listen if it doesn’t take too long and if I can see
some truth to your explanation; I do have another engagement but I can
devote at least one hour. Would you get right on with it?” I then told him
the story about the earth being flat and he smiled at this, and then told him
that a theory exists regarding man’s nature that is accepted as true by 98%
of mankind, and I pointed out that this theory is actually preventing the
decline and fall of all evil because it has closed a door to a vast storehouse
of genuine knowledge.
“I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Johnson, but in order for me to reveal
my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its hiding place
because they are related to each other.”
“What is this theory?” he asked.”
“You see, Mr. Johnson, most people believe consciously or
unconsciously that man’s will is free.”
“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me that
man’s will is not free?”
“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnson. I don’t believe it; I know this for
a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door marked
Man’s Will is Not Free, just like the invariable laws of the solar system
were concealed behind the door marked The Earth is Round – until some
upstart scientist opened it for a thorough investigation.”
“I have always believed it to be free but what difference does it make
what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be affected by my
opinion, right?”
“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if the will
of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think
otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend
on this knowledge for their discovery, consequently, it does make a
difference. The opinion of our ancestors that the earth was flat could never
change its actual shape, but just as long as the door marked “The Earth Is
Round” was never opened thoroughly for an investigation by scientists
capable of perceiving the undeniable but involved relations hidden there,
how were we ever to discover the laws that allow us now to land men on
the moon?
“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of the
most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any discoveries to
change the world.”
“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were
presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness none of them
had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there. Most people do
not even know it is a theory since it is preached by religion, government,
even education as if it is an absolute fact.”
“Mr. Lessans, I don’t know what it is you think you have discovered but
whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it cannot be valid
because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank you very much for
coming out but I’m not interested in discussing this matter any further.”
And he would not let me continue.

Now stop to think about this for one moment. A discovery has been
made that will go down in history as that which will change the entire world
of human relations for the better, yet because it challenges a theory which is
held by many world religions, there is a hostile reaction when it is
questioned. This is a perfect example of how this preemptive authority of
false knowledge which is passed along from generation to generation by
theology, by government, and by various other sources does not even allow
a person to open his mind to hear the explanation. The theologians I
contacted, though they admit they pray to God for deliverance from evil
also believe it is impossible for man to accomplish this apparent miracle. In
a sense they are right because the law that was discovered is equivalent to
the law that inheres in the solar system, over which we have no control.
Any system or dogma, religious or otherwise, which shackles man’s mind
and prevents scientific investigation needs to be discarded, so that the truth
can be uncovered.

This is much easier said than done because the
knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free was buried deeper
than atomic energy, and presents problems that are almost insurmountable.
Convincing a few people of this truth is one thing; convincing the entire
world is something else. Supposing the very people whose understanding it
is necessary to reach refuse to examine the facts on the grounds that the
discovery could not be valid because it starts out with the premise that
man’s will is not free. To show you how confused are those who have been
guiding us, a rabbi was told that the author
of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil claims
to have the permanent solution to every problem
of human relation,
and he replied, “How do we know that God wants us to remove all evil?”
Now you tell me, if he is doubtful of this why do all theologians ask God in
the Lord’s Prayer to deliver us from evil?

Another rabbi criticized me for
not attending the synagogue to which I replied, “Isn’t the reason you go to
the Temple due to your faith in God, your belief that one day He will reveal
himself to all mankind? “That is true”, he answered. “Well you see,
Rabbi, the reason I don’t go to the synagogue is because I know for a fact
that God is real. I don’t have faith or believe this; I know that 2+2=4; I
don’t have faith or believe that this is true.” Still hoping that I could
convince a member of the clergy to hear what I had to say, I phoned a
Catholic priest for an appointment and our conversation went as follows:

“What do you want to see me about?”
“Father, when you utter the words of the Lord’s Prayer I take for granted
that you are sincere and would like to see us delivered from evil, isn’t that
true?”
“Certainly, what kind of question is that?”
“Well the reason I had to ask is because I have just made a scientific
discovery that will bring about the actual fulfillment of this prayer, this
deliverance from evil.”
“What’s that you say? Deliver mankind from evil? Absolutely
impossible, it cannot be done.”
“But how can you know without first finding out what it is I have
discovered? Isn’t this your fervent wish, that God perform such a miracle?”
“It is.”
“Well then, why don’t you let me come out and show you exactly how
all evil must decline and fall as a direct consequence?”
“It’s impossible, that’s why I’m not interested. The only time such a
world will become a reality is on Judgment Day.”
“But that’s just the point; this Judgment Day when interpreted properly
has actually arrived because it conforms to the basic principle.”
“This still doesn’t convince me that I should devote my precious time to
what sounds ridiculous.”
“Sounds can be deceiving, Father. Who believed the first astronomer
when he predicted an eclipse, or Einstein when he revealed the potential of
atomic energy? Your skepticism, if I told you without adequate proof that
this discovery will bring about the inception of the Golden Age, would not
be an unwarranted reaction, but the actual proof is explicit and undeniable.
It is only natural for you to be skeptical, Father, but this is never a sufficient
reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific miracle.”
“I’m afraid that I will have to end this conversation. My advice is to
take what you have to one of the secular universities. I’m sorry I couldn’t
be more helpful but thanks for calling anyway.”

Later on, I tried to engage a pastor in a discussion about free will and he
responded to me by asking, “If man’s will is not free, then you can’t blame
or punish anything he does, is that correct? And when I answered, “Right”,
he actually got up and walked out of the room. You see, this learned
ignorance presents quite a problem, and only by getting the world to
understand what it means that man’s will is not free can I hope to break
through this barrier. This law of our nature is not a premise, not an
assumption, not a theory, but when 98% of the world believes otherwise,
they might just close the windows of their mind to any scientific
investigation which requires rejecting a theory that has dogmatically
controlled man’s thinking since time immemorial.

How is it possible to
explain the solution when nobody wishes to listen because they think they
know there isn’t any? Where is there one iota of difference between this
attitude and that of our ancestors regarding the shape of the earth? To show
how confused is the thinking of the average person who is not accustomed
to perceiving mathematical relations of this nature, when I told someone
that his answer was incorrect, he replied with a tone of resentment, “That’s
your opinion, but I believe it is possible”, as if the answer could be one or
the other. The earth cannot be round and flat, it has to be one or the other
and your opinion can never change what is. Remember, I am going to bring
about an unprecedented change in human conduct, but I can only do this if
you understand what I am about to reveal. If you can’t follow my reasoning
as to why the earth is round, you will be compelled to believe that it is flat
for it gives you satisfaction not to be wrong.

In other words, if I were going
to offer an opinion as to why man’s will is not free, then your educational
rank, your scholarly background could assert itself as a condition more valid
to deny my claim, but when I declare that I am not going to reveal a theory
but will give a scientific, undeniable, demonstration, then regardless of who
you are you must wait to see the proof before rejecting the claim.
Therefore, it is imperative that you know well in advance that my reasoning
will be completely mathematical, scientific and undeniable; so if you find
yourself in disagreement you had better reread that which you disagree,
otherwise, your stubborn resistance, your inability to perceive these
relations will only delay the very life you want for yourself. Many
professors consider the free will/determinism debate nothing more than a
philosophical discussion equivalent to finding out what came first, the
chicken or the egg. To them what difference does it really make? But if
this discovery can put an end to all war, crime, and evil in general, it makes
a very big difference and it is imperative that the world listen so that this
evil in our lives can come to a permanent end.

It is time to draw an infallible line of demarcation between what is true
and what is false and you are going to be amazed at how much of what is
false passed for what is true. However, everything was necessary. As we
begin to understand the knowledge of our true nature what is revealed is
something amazing to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is
no accident, but that it was part of the harmonious operation called the
mankind system and was compelled to come into existence by the very
nature of life itself as part of our development. Once certain facts are
understood it will also be no accident that every form of evil will be
compelled to take leave of this earth.

Humanity has been gravitating at a
mathematical rate, and in an unconscious manner, toward this Golden Age
when the seeds of hatred and the domination of man over man will be a relic of our collective memory. It never
dawned on the theologians and philosophers that man’s choice of what he
considered better for himself, even though it may have been evil when
judged by others, came about in direct obedience to his nature or the will of
God who had reasons we were not supposed to understand – until now.
Many prophets foresaw the coming of this New World but didn’t know the
exact time frame, or from which direction, peace would finally make its
appearance although they were confident that when it arrived it would
change our world as we know it. Now the prophesies, conjectures, and
philosophies are no longer necessary for this long awaited Golden Age that
we have been looking forward to with prayers, hope, and great anticipation
has arrived at last.

This discovery I will soon make known to you reveals
the infinite wisdom guiding this universe, which is not only that long sought
standard and touchstone of truth and reality, but also that elixir of alchemy
for with it the baser mettles of human nature are going to be magically
transmuted into the pure gold of genuine happiness for every individual on
this planet, and for all generations to come. Please be perfectly honest, who
can object to relinquishing the belief in free will when the key to the decline
and fall of all misery and unhappiness lies behind the door of determinism?

In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages of
development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to
control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the
reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of
comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it
was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, in order to reach
this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by
performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get
man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously
or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion,
was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to
develop.

The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary
of evil for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s
deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve
his problems without blame and punishment which required the justification
of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed
that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a
special faculty which allowed him to choose between good and evil. In
other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by
sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free?
To punish him in any way you would have to believe that he was free to
choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that
he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was
given no choice but to think this way and that is why our civilization
developed the principle of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and
why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this
point because if man’s will is not free it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the
solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not
to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale
slaughter of millions?

Does this mean that we are supposed to condone
these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no
laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if
something is desired badly enough he will go to any lengths to satisfy
himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel?
What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what
they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free
strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies
the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in
power since time immemorial. Although free will has had a very long reign
in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and
for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true. A
friend shared a story with me to show you how difficult it is to get through
this established dogma.

“The other day when I was in Temple a rabbi, during the course of his
sermon, made it very clear that man has free will. Professors, doctors,
lawyers, and just about everybody I know, agree that man’s will is free. If
this is a theory you would never know it by talking to them. Well, is it a
theory, or is this established knowledge?”
“Of course it is a theory,” I answered; “otherwise there would be no
believers in determinism. Is it possible for a person to believe that the earth
is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular shape? The only
reason we still have opinions on both sides of this subject is because we
don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the will of man is or is not
free.”
“But these theologians don’t agree with you; they say that man’s will is
definitely free. Look, here comes a rabbi; ask him if man’s will is free just
for the heck of it, and you will see for yourself how dogmatic he responds.”
“Rabbi, we have been discussing a subject and would appreciate your
opinion. Is it true, false, or just a theory that man’s will is free?”
“It is absolutely true that man’s will is free because nothing compels an
individual to choose evil instead of good; he prefers this only because he
wants to partake of this evil, not because something is forcing him.”
“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more alternatives
when making a choice?”
“Absolutely; that bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the bank, he
wanted to do it.”
“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to prove that
which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I mean.”
“Is it possible for me to do what has already been done?”
“Naturally it is impossible for me to do what has already been done,
because I have already done it.”
“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is equivalent to
asking is it possible for anyone not to understand four as an answer to two
plus two. Now if what has been done was the choosing of B instead of A,
is it possible not to choose B which has already been chosen?”
“It is impossible, naturally.”
“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of mathematics,
not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose B instead of A once B
is selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities
when in order to make this choice you must not choose B, which has
already been chosen?”
“Again I must admit it is something impossible to do.”
“Yet free will, in order to be proven true, must do just that – the
impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has
already been done, and then show that A – with the conditions being
exactly the same – could have been chosen instead of B. Since it is utterly
impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for
mathematical proof, free will must always remain a theory. The most you
can say is that you believe the bank robber had a choice, but there is
absolutely no way this can be proven.”
“I may be unable to prove that he was not compelled to rob that bank
and kill the teller, but it is my opinion that he didn’t have to do what he
did.”
“I’m not in the mood to argue that point, but at least we have arrived at a
bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable for we have just learned that
it is mathematically impossible for any person to prove, beyond a shadow of
doubt, that the will of man is free, yet a moment ago you made the dogmatic
statement that man’s will is definitely free.”
“My apology, dear sir; what I meant to say was that it is the consensus
of opinion that the will of man is free.”
“Thank you, Rabbi, and now one other question and I will let you go. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove the will of man free, is it possible
to prove determinism, as the opposite of free will, false?”
“Yes, it is possible.”
“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”
“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”
“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the opposite of
determinism, true? And didn’t we just prove that it is mathematically
impossible to prove free will true, which means that it is absolutely
impossible to prove determinism false?”
“I see what you mean and again I apologize for thinking this was a
matter of opinion.
“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is – although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving determinism
true, or free will false.

Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing your belief in free
will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge that, when released,
can remove the very things you would like to rid the world of, things you
preach against, such as war, crime, sin, hate, discrimination, etc., what
would you say then?”
“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s ways are
mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed talking with you son,
and perhaps I shall live to see the day when all evil will be driven from our
lives.”
“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is not far
away and that it must come about the very moment certain facts pertaining
to the nature of man are brought to light, because it is God’s will.”
“I must leave now but thank you for sharing your insights with me.”

After the rabbi left, our conversation continued.
“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will cannot
be proven true.”
“Let me show you why this is a mathematical impossibility by
rephrasing the question I asked the rabbi. Take your time with this.
“Is it possible not to do what has already been done?”
“Naturally it is impossible for me not to do what has already been
done…because I have already done it.”
“Now if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is
it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”
“No, it is not possible.”
“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A, once B
has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of
possibilities when in order to make this choice you must not choose B,
which has already been chosen? Yet in order to prove free will true, it must
do just that – the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time,
undo what has already been done and then show that A, with the conditions
being exactly the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such
reasoning is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is
mathematical; scientific; undeniable and, as I stated earlier, it is not
necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be
exact and scientific.” Let me rephrase this in still another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever it
is, is it possible to prove this something true?”
“Obviously the answer is no.”
“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If it is
mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false?
Isn’t it obvious that the answer must be no, it is not possible unless the
person asked does not understand the question. In other words, if
determinism could be proven false, this would automatically prove free will
true and we just demonstrated that this is impossible unless we can turn
back the clock. Let me repeat: Since it is impossible to prove free will true,
it is also impossible to prove determinism (as the opposite of free will)
false, for if determine was proven false, this would automatically prove free
will true. How is it possible to prove free will true when this requires doing
something that is mathematically impossible? We can never undo what has
already been done. Therefore, the first step is to prove undeniably that
whatever your reasons for believing free will true cannot be accurate
because it is impossible to prove this theory since proof requires going back
in time, so to speak, and demonstrating that man could have chosen
otherwise. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which
is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is
assume that he didn’t have to do what he did. To show you how confused
the mind can get when mathematical relations are not perceived, Will
Durant, a well known philosopher of the 20th century, wrote on page 103 in
the Mansions of Philosophy – “For even while we talked determinism we
knew it was false; we are men, not machines.” After opening the door to
the vestibule of determinism, and taking a step inside, he turned back
because he could not get past the implications. Now let us understand why
the implications of believing that man’s will is not free turned Durant and
many others away. Remember, most people know nothing about the
implications of this position; they just accept as true what has been taught to
them by leading authorities. If determinism was true, he reasoned, then
man doesn’t have a free choice; consequently, he cannot be blamed for
what he does. Faced with this apparent impasse he asked himself, “How
can we not blame and punish people for hurting others? If someone hurts
us, we must believe he didn’t have to, that his will was free, in order to
blame and punish him for what he did. And how is it possible to turn the
other cheek and not to fight back from this intentional hurt to us?” He was
trying to say in this sentence that philosophies of free will would never stop
returning just as long as our nature commands us to fight back when hurt,
‘an eye for an eye.’ This is undeniable and he was one hundred percent
correct, but this is not what he actually said. He, as well as many
philosophers helped the cause of free will by unconsciously using
syllogistic reasoning which is logical, though completely fallacious. He
accomplished this by setting up an understandable assumption for a major
premise. “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of philosophies of
freedom it is because direct perception can never be beaten down with
formulas, or sensation with reasoning.” Can you not see how
mathematically impossible is his observation?

If you know for a fact that
four equals two plus two, do you need to prove it syllogistically?
Obviously not, because then it would sound something like this: “If there is
an almost eternal recurrence of four equaling two plus two, it is because
two equals one plus one, and one plus one plus one plus one totals four.”
Using this same type of syllogistic reasoning he tried to prove freedom of
the will by demonstrating, in the same manner, that determinism could
never prove it false.
Because Durant started off with a false premise, his conclusion was
equally false. He begins with the assumption that direct perception (which
are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand) is superior to
reasoning in understanding the truth which made a syllogistic equation
necessary to prove the validity of an inaccurate perception. Thusly, he
reasons in his minor premise: “Free will is not a matter of reasoning, like
determinism, but is the result of direct perception, therefore”…and here is
his fallacious conclusion, “since philosophies of free will employ direct
perception which cannot be beaten down by the reasoning of determinism,
the belief in free will must eternally recur.” He knew that free will was a
theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with
the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the
other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to
write – “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of his
philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of free will was
the result of inferences derived from the inability to accept the implications.
Durant is anything but a scientist and an accurate thinker. According to his
reasoning he assumes that free will is true because, in his mind,
determinism is false, and the reason he thinks determinism is false is
because man is not a machine. Then, not realizing how mathematically
impossible is his next statement he claims that philosophies of free will
eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat down the
obvious truth of direct perception.

Take a look at that last statement very
carefully and see if you can’t tell why it is mathematically impossible. If
free will was finally proven to be that which is non-existent (and let’s take
for granted that you know this for a fact) and accepted as such by our
scientific world at large because the proof cannot be denied by anyone
anywhere, would it be possible according to Durant’s statement for
‘philosophies of freedom’ to recur anymore? Isn’t it obvious that the
recurrence of the belief in free will is a mathematical impossibility once
freedom of the will is proven to be a figment of the imagination or, to
phrase it differently, a realistic mirage? Is it humanly possible for the belief
that the world is flat to eternally recur when we have mathematical
knowledge that it is round? Consequently, the continued return of the belief
in free will can only be due to the fact that it is still a logical theory or
plausible conception that has never been analyzed properly, allowing the
belief and its philosophies to persist. But Durant states that ‘philosophies
of freedom eternally recur’ not because of the explanation I just gave, an
explanation that cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by this
philosopher himself providing it is understood, but because direct
perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with
reasoning. Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality
whatsoever? If Durant believed direct perception was considered superior
to reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his reasoning so
fallacious since the word ‘because’ which denotes the perception of a
relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is criticizing reasoning
while reasoning.

This doesn’t stop a person from saying – “I believe. It is
my opinion. I was taught that man’s will is free”, but it would certainly
stop him from trying to defend his position with an argument. One of the
most profound insights ever expressed by Socrates was, “Know Thyself”,
but though he had a suspicion of its significance it was only an intuitive
feeling, not something he could put his finger on. These two words have
never been adequately understood by mankind, including psychiatry and
psychology, because this observation is the key that unlocks the first door to
another door that requires its own key, and where the hiding place to this
fantastic discovery was finally uncovered. What made it so obvious to
Durant that man’s will is free? And why do theologians treat this as if it is
an undeniable reality? Durant is now deceased but over 20 years ago I
phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that was hidden behind
the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He replied, “You must be on
the wrong tack, but take what you think you have to Johns Hopkins
University for an analysis. I not only contacted that university but many
others, to no avail.

It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly
involved in my discovery. To give you a little background, it was
November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would
change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a priest
state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and the hair stood
up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t understand why that
happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at the time but felt that I was
chilled for some reason. Up until that time I never gave much thought to
the subject of free will, not rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill
occurred every time the subject came up I began to see the connection.
That night in a dream I kept hearing this phrase, “The solution to all the
problems plaguing mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that
man’s will is free. I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the
next day I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book
Mansions of Philosophy. When I completed it I remarked, “He really
doesn’t know what he is talking about and Spinoza is right, man’s will is
not free.” Then, after nine strenuous months I shouted, “Eureka, I have
found it!”, and I have had no rest ever since.

After opening the door of
determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free, I saw
another sign that read – ‘Hidden behind this door you will discover the
solution to the problem of evil – the long awaited Messiah.’ I applied the
key, opened the door, and after many months in the deepest analysis I made
a finding that was so fantastic, it took me several years to understand its full
significance for all mankind. I saw how this new world must become a
reality in a very short time.
The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was
because they never attempted to look behind the door marked ‘Man’s Will
Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced man’s will was
free. Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw
the truth but in a confused sort of way because the element of evil was
always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God
commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the
Bible told them that God said – ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
When his enemies nailed him to the cross he was heard to say – “They
know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek”, he said.

Because Christ
exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness – and because he
saw such suffering in the world – he drew to himself those who needed
help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity
was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a
world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused and in spite of
every possible criticism how was religion able to convince the world to be
patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their
inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil
with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very
simple manner by dividing good and evil in half and God was only
responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with
freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the
creator of all goodness and since man does many things considered evil they
were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that
God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to
Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile towards any person
who speaks against free will.

Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza plus
innumerable others pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder
Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the
thinkers of that time how could any intelligent person believe in Satan?
Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a
caring and loving God, therefore Satan was destined to be born as the
opposite of all good in the world.

Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of good
and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around quite a bit
but he did not know how to slay the fiery dragon so he pretended it wasn’t
even there: He stated, “We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when
seen in total perspective”, and he rejected the principle of ‘an eye for an
eye.’ Will Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s
philosophy, although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was
humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He also
went in and looked around very thoroughly and he too saw the fiery dragon,
but unlike Spinoza he made no pretense of its non-existence. He just didn’t
know how to overcome the beast but refused to agree with what common
sense told him to deny.

The implications really need no further clarification
as to why free will is in power. Nobody, including Spinoza and other
philosophers, ever discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free
because they never unlocked the second door which leads to the discovery.
The belief in free will was compelled to remain in power until the
present time because no one had conclusive proof that determinism was
true, nor could anyone slay the fiery dragon which seemed like an
impossible feat. Is it any wonder that Johnson didn’t want to get into this
matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond the
vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so difficult to
get this knowledge thoroughly investigated?

Since the modern world of
science was playing havoc with religion it needed a boost and along came,
just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave seven reasons why he believed
in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote his book, “Man Does Not Stand
Alone”, was almost convinced that God was a reality. He challenged Julian
Huxley’s conclusions written in his book, “Man Stands Alone”. Both tried
to answer the question, “Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this
universe?” Who is right? Huxley said ‘no there isn’t’, but Morrison’s
arguments were mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling
faith again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can
almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing happens
by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil. It went
something like this:

“Chance seems erratic, unexpected and subject to no method of

calculation, but though we are startled by its surprises, chance is subject to
rigid and unbreakable law. The proverbial penny may turn up heads ten
times in a row and the chance of an eleventh is not expected but is still one
in two, but the chances of a run of ten heads coming up consecutively is
very small. Supposing you have a bag containing one hundred marbles,
ninety-nine black and one white. Shake the bag and let out one. The
chance that the first marble out of the bag is the white one is exactly one in
one hundred. Now put the marbles back and start again. The chance of the
white coming out is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white
coming out first twice in succession is one in ten thousand (one hundred
times one hundred).
Now try a third time and the chance of the white coming out three times
in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one in a million.
Try another time or two and the figures become astronomical. The
results of chance are as clearly bound by law as the fact that two plus two
equals four.
In a game in which cards are shuffled and an ace of spades was dealt to
one of the players, ace of hearts to the next, clubs to the third and diamonds
to the dealer, followed by the deuces, the threes and so on, until each player
had a complete set in numerical order, no one would believe the cards had
not been arranged.
The chances are so great against such a happening that it probably never
did happen in all the games played anywhere since cards was invented. But
there are those who say it could happen, and I suppose the possibility does
exist. Suppose a little child is asked by an expert chess player to beat him
at chess in thirty-four moves and the child makes every move by pure
chance exactly right to meet every twist and turn the expert attempts and
does beat him in thirty-four moves. The expert would certainly think it was
a dream or that he was out of his mind. But there are those who think the
possibility of this happening by chance does exist. And I agree, it could
happen, however small the possibility. My purpose in this discussion of
chance is to point out clearly and scientifically the narrow limits which any
life can exist on earth and prove by real evidence that all the nearly exact
requirements of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by
chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the thickness of the
earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of carbon dioxide, the
volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his survival – all point to
order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to the fact that according to
the inexorable laws of mathematics all these could not occur by chance
simultaneously on one planet once in a billion times. It could so occur, but
it did not so occur. When the facts are so overwhelming and when we
recognize as we must the attributes of our minds which are not material, is
it possible to flaunt the evidence and take the one chance in a billion that we
and all else are the result of chance? We have found that there are
999,999,999 chances to one against a belief that all things happen by
chance. Science will not deny the facts as stated; the mathematicians will
agree that the figures are correct. Now we encounter the stubborn
resistance of the human mind, which is reluctant to give up fixed ideas. The
early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took two thousand years to
convince men that this fact is true.
New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth survives
and is verified. The argument is closed; the case is submitted to you, the
jury, and your verdict will be awaited with confidence.”

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in the world
could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil; consequently, he
was compelled to join the ranks of those who had faith. Nobody has yet
said he knows for a mathematical fact that God is real otherwise there
would be no need for faith. I know that two plus two equals four, I don’t
have faith that it’s true. Well, do you still believe there is no Supreme
Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws which include
the relation of man with man, and that everything happens by chance? Do
you believe that your faith in God has been in vain? You are in for the
surprise of your life.

This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the reader
the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The purpose of this
book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the universe. By
delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt is removed. Through
our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the evil is not removed to prove
that God is not a figment of the imagination, but only because it is evil. He
becomes an epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to
burn away the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the
cause of the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which
He also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these undeniable
facts. There is tremendous misunderstanding about the meaning of
determinism, therefore, it is necessary to show where the confusion lies and
prove absolutely and positively that will is not free so the reader will be
able to follow the reasoning which leads to my discovery. The fact that
man’s will is not free is the gateway that allows the reader to come face to
face with the fiery dragon himself, the great impasse of blame. It really
does not make any difference whether or not the proof of determinism is
established beforehand because undeniable proof is established in the
meaning; but for those who want proof before we attack the heart of the
problem I shall demonstrate in an undeniable manner exactly why man’s
will is not free. Once it is proven mathematically – which takes into
consideration the implications – there can be no more opinions or theories
expressed on the subject, just as our ancestors stopped saying, “I believe the
earth is flat”, once they knew for a fact it was round.

There is a great deal
of irony here because the philosophers who did not know it was impossible
to prove freedom of the will believed in this theory because they were under
the impression their reasoning had demonstrated the falseness of
determinism. The reason proof of determinism is absolutely necessary is to
preclude someone quoting Durant, and interjecting a remark about man not
being a machine. Is there anything about my demonstration thus far that
would make the reader believe man is now a machine? On page 87 in
Mansions of Philosophy he writes, “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.” In other words, he assumes that this kind of
knowledge, the knowledge that states man’s will is not free, allows a person
to shift his responsibility for what he does. One individual blames society
for his crimes as he rots in prison while another blames the mechanical
structure of the machine which slipped a cog and made him into a fool.
However, you will soon see that not only Durant but all mankind are very
much confused by the misleading logic of words that do not describe reality
for what it is. This is why it is imperative that we proceed in an undeniable,
not logical, manner otherwise someone may quote Durant, a priest,
professor, lawyer, judge or politician as an authority for believing in
freedom of the will. I recently had a conversation with a friend who was
very sincere in his desire to understand the principles in my book. His
questions were predictable coming from a superficial understanding of
man’s nature and represent the confusion many people feel when the issue
of determinism comes up.

“Isn’t it obvious that we must have standards of some kind so that a
child can be taught the difference between right and wrong, good and evil?
Supposing all individuals in a society are told that it is wrong to steal (I
hope you’re not going to tell me this is right), yet certain ones deliberately
ignore this and take what belongs to someone else; isn’t it obvious that we
must blame them because they were warned in advance that if they should
steal they will be punished? Are you trying to tell me there is no such thing
as a standard of right and wrong?”
“If you know the difference between right and wrong, and you also
know that a person cannot be blamed or punished for what he does because
his will is not free, isn’t it obvious that we are given only one alternative
and that is to prevent the desire to do what is wrong from arising which then
makes it unnecessary to blame and punish? Just as long as man has this
safety valve of blame and punishment, he doesn’t have to find the solution
to this doing of what is wrong. Parents can be very careless and excuse
themselves by blaming their children; and governments can be careless and
excuse themselves by blaming their citizens while plunging the entire world
into war.”
“But supposing they are not careless and they are doing everything in
their power to prevent children and citizens from doing what is wrong so
that blame and punishment are not necessary, what then? Are we not
supposed to blame and punish them, for our own protection, when they do
something wrong?”
“That’s just the point. Once it is discovered through mathematical
reasoning that man’s will is definitely not free, then it becomes impossible
to blame an individual for what he is compelled to do; consequently, it is
imperative that we discover a way to prevent his desire to do the very things
for which blame and punishment were previously necessary, as the lesser of
two evils.”
“This new world which looks good, sounds good, and seems
theoretically possible in its blueprint form…so far (since you haven’t shown
me yet how to rid the world of war and crime – two most important items),
it may be just another dream, and even if it isn’t, it took the Greeks two
millennium to convince mankind that the earth was a sphere. Even today,
there are still some people who don’t believe it, so how do you expect
people to listen to something that not only sounds impossible, but is so far
removed from contemporary thought?”
“This is the stumbling block I am faced with.”
“Are you telling me that this discovery, whatever it is, will prevent man
from desiring to commit murder, rape, start a war, annihilate 6 million
people, etc., is that right?”
“That’s correct. The corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, when it is
extended does not mean that we will be forced to condone what hurts us,
but we will be shown how to prevent these evils by mathematically
extending the corollary. And the amazing thing is that both sides of this
equation are correct. Christ said ‘Turn the other cheek’ and Durant said
‘This is impossible.’ Just think about this for one moment. Would you
believe that both principles are mathematically correct?”
“How is that possible?”
“God made the reconciliation of these two principles the time when He
would reveal Himself to all mankind. But to get here you can see what had
to be done first since the paths leading up to this understanding were
camouflaged with layers upon layers of words that concealed the truth.”
“Is proving that man’s will is not free the key to open the door and your
second discovery?”
“Of course not; I just told you that the fiery dragon must be killed to get
the key. First, I must prove that man’s will is not free so we can come face
to face with the fiery dragon, and I will prove it in a mathematical,
undeniable manner. Then I shall jab him in the right eye, then the left, then
I shall cut out his tongue. I took fencing lessons for the job. And finally I
shall pierce him in his heart. Then when I have made certain he is dead…
“I thought you killed him already.”
“I did, but there was a dragon for each person, so instead of giving
everybody a sword; steel is high these days, I shall slay him so the whole
world can see he is dead.”
“Do you mean to tell me there is absolutely no way all evil can be
removed from our lives without knowledge of your discovery?”
“That’s absolutely true.”
“Then your discovery must be the most fantastic thing ever discovered.”
“It truly is because God is showing us the way at last. However, before I
show how it is possible to resolve the implications it is necessary to repeat
that I will proceed in a step by step manner.

This dragon has been guarding
an invisible key and door for many years, and this could never be made
visible except for someone who saw these undeniable relations. If,
therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone as
Morrison understood from his scientific observations; that God, this
Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then
what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire
world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where
they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove
conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free
will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and
positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that
determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish
undeniable proof that free will is false.” So without any further adieu, let us
begin.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.