2 of 190
2
Revolution In Thought
Posted: 12 March 2015 07:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
GdB - 12 March 2015 02:26 AM
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 02:06 AM

This is not my first rodeo and I know how people think in these forums, which is unfortunate because it is these very people who could understand this book but only if they understand it in its entirety which will take more than a cursory look.

If you know, why are you trying then? This is a forum to discuss ideas. So if you have ideas, then bring them. If they are difficult ideas, then be prepared to invest time here, so you can explain the detailed answers on our questions and objections. But don’t expect us to invest our time only on the promise that a set of ideas will solve all problems of humanity.

There are many more people who think they have ideas that will save the world than there are ideas that do save the world. So forgive us our scepticism. Show us what these ideas are, and what they are worth, or let it be.

And if you get angry, then obviously you blame us, which would mean you can’t even put these ideas into practice.

Getting frustrated does not mean I’m blaming anyone.  And, fyi, there is no way you can judge my reaction as proof that these principles don’t work when the conditions of the environment change.  That’s placing the cart before the horse.  I do forgive your skepticism but I am tired of people not meeting me half way.  I offered everyone the website where they can listen to the author reading and elaborating on his first chapter of his sixth book.  I also told people where to go to read a sample of the book.  At the very least you will have a basis upon which you can ask legitimate questions.  Why should I have to reinvent the wheel by explaining this chapter in an inferior fashion?  I also made it into an ebook so people wouldn’t have to pay much to read it.  Is $4.99 for a 600 page book a rip off?

http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All-Evil-Important-ebook/dp/B00ONA7JVQ/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426170541&sr=8-1&keywords=decline+and+fall+of+all+evil

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 07:29 AM

Why should I have to reinvent the wheel by explaining this chapter in an inferior fashion?  I also made it into an ebook so people wouldn’t have to pay much to read it.  Is $4.99 for a 600 page book a rip off?

http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All-Evil-Important-ebook/dp/B00ONA7JVQ/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426170541&sr=8-1&keywords=decline+and+fall+of+all+evil

As mentioned earlier, this is a discussion forum not a place to peddle your wares. All you have done is repeat the claims in the first chapter of the book, that this ground-breaking idea will change the world. We asked you to explain the idea and you doubled down with the claim but refuse to discuss the philosophical breakthrough. Nice try, but I ain’t buying.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
DarronS - 12 March 2015 07:35 AM
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 07:29 AM

Why should I have to reinvent the wheel by explaining this chapter in an inferior fashion?  I also made it into an ebook so people wouldn’t have to pay much to read it.  Is $4.99 for a 600 page book a rip off?

http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All-Evil-Important-ebook/dp/B00ONA7JVQ/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426170541&sr=8-1&keywords=decline+and+fall+of+all+evil

As mentioned earlier, this is a discussion forum not a place to peddle your wares. All you have done is repeat the claims in the first chapter of the book, that this ground-breaking idea will change the world. We asked you to explain the idea and you doubled down with the claim but refuse to discuss the philosophical breakthrough. Nice try, but I ain’t buying.

I wish I had the desire to continue, but based on the reaction so far I don’t know if I can.  I can almost predict how people are going to respond and it’s disheartening considering the fact that no one will even take a half hour of their time to do what I asked so we could have a productive discussion.  I know there are a lot of trolls out there, and this thread probably sounds a little crazy to someone not familiar with this knowledge, but it’s really not.  If anyone has a legitimate question based on Chapter One, I would be more than happy to answer you.

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 07:21 AM

Just because we don’t know how an event is going to manifest itself does not mean there is not a reason behind the outcome.  We just don’t know it.  Regardless of the quantum physics theory, this author is discussing human nature at a macro level and it is absolutely spot on.

Events can happen without “a reason behind the outcome”.

Can you explain the author’s “revolution in thought” concisely and explicitly?

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 09:45 AM

If anyone has a legitimate question based on Chapter One, I would be more than happy to answer you.

Yes. What I’ve asked before and you have refused to answer.

What is the revolutionary idea that will change society?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
kkwan - 12 March 2015 09:59 AM
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 07:21 AM

Just because we don’t know how an event is going to manifest itself does not mean there is not a reason behind the outcome.  We just don’t know it.  Regardless of the quantum physics theory, this author is discussing human nature at a macro level and it is absolutely spot on.

Events can happen without “a reason behind the outcome”.

Can you explain the author’s “revolution in thought” concisely and explicitly?

That is not proven.  Anyway, quantum physics does not negate this discovery.

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 10:53 AM

That is not proven.  Anyway, quantum physics does not negate this discovery.

What is this discovery?

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
kkwan - 12 March 2015 09:59 AM
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 07:21 AM

Just because we don’t know how an event is going to manifest itself does not mean there is not a reason behind the outcome.  We just don’t know it.  Regardless of the quantum physics theory, this author is discussing human nature at a macro level and it is absolutely spot on.

Events can happen without “a reason behind the outcome”.

Can you explain the author’s “revolution in thought” concisely and explicitly?

I can, and I’ve done it but I know that reading the text gives you a more clear picture.  If it’s too concise it won’t do this knowledge justice, as I’ve already said.  Why is it so difficult for you to go to the website and listen for a half hour.  Then come back and we can talk more. 

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.org

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
DarronS - 12 March 2015 10:06 AM
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 09:45 AM

If anyone has a legitimate question based on Chapter One, I would be more than happy to answer you.

Yes. What I’ve asked before and you have refused to answer.

What is the revolutionary idea that will change society?

I answered this already.  He shows why man’s will is not free.  Then he goes on to extend the corollary to this in order to show that the advance knowledge that we will no longer be blamed no matter what we do, actually prevents the justification to hurt others.  It must be said that in order for this principle to work all forms of hurt to us must be removed so that any hurt done to others becomes a first blow, not a retaliatory blow, which is justified.

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 12:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 11:50 AM
DarronS - 12 March 2015 10:06 AM
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 09:45 AM

If anyone has a legitimate question based on Chapter One, I would be more than happy to answer you.

Yes. What I’ve asked before and you have refused to answer.

What is the revolutionary idea that will change society?

I answered this already.  He shows why man’s will is not free.  Then he goes on to extend the corollary to this in order to show that the advance knowledge that we will no longer be blamed no matter what we do, actually prevents the justification to hurt others.  It must be said that in order for this principle to work all forms of hurt to us must be removed so that any hurt done to others becomes a first blow, not a retaliatory blow, which is justified.

What is so revolutionary about that? Philosophers have been discussing this for decades, if not centuries. We have several long threads on this very topic without reaching a unanimous consensus. Where we differ, however, is the degree of choice we have. This has, as I said, been discussed to the point of beating a dead horse. I am not going there again. See the archives.

[ Edited: 12 March 2015 02:59 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
DarronS - 12 March 2015 12:11 PM
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 11:50 AM
DarronS - 12 March 2015 10:06 AM
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 09:45 AM

If anyone has a legitimate question based on Chapter One, I would be more than happy to answer you.

Yes. What I’ve asked before and you have refused to answer.

What is the revolutionary idea that will change society?

I answered this already.  He shows why man’s will is not free.  Then he goes on to extend the corollary to this in order to show that the advance knowledge that we will no longer be blamed no matter what we do, actually prevents the justification to hurt others.  It must be said that in order for this principle to work all forms of hurt to us must be removed so that any hurt done to others becomes a first blow, not a retaliatory blow, which is justified.

What is so revolutionary about that? Philosophers have been discussing this for decades, if not centuries. We have several long threads on this very topic without reaching a unanimous consensus. Where we differ, however, is the degree of choice we have. This has, as I said, been discussed to the point of beating a dead horse. I am not going there again. See the archives.

I don’t have to see the archives.  I know this has been a longstanding debate but Lessans has a different perspective on it, which should allow you to pause for just a second before you throw these claims out.  That’s all I’m asking.  You may still say this is all bullshit and I will be okay with that, but my golly can’t you give this man a chance before you decide to do that?  confused

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

Well, by golly, explain his different take.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 07:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21

It’s a beautiful idea, that there is no beauty, no ugly, just who we are. The trouble is in convincing others. There are still a lot of people around who believe they are part of the chosen ones. Some of them live right down the street from me. Some others are cutting of the heads of those who disagree. How do you get their attention? This book has been around since 1976, seems like the ideas would have filtered in to the cultural imagination by now. Not that I’m dismissing it, but I’m wondering if you are willing to consider a critique of this work.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2015 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21

https://twitter.com/safeworld20
400 tweets that say “buy my book”
I’m no marketing expert, but if you want someone to be interested in your product, you have to give them a little teaser

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 March 2015 03:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
peacegirl - 12 March 2015 07:29 AM

I also made it into an ebook so people wouldn’t have to pay much to read it.  Is $4.99 for a 600 page book a rip off?

No, but taking the time to read 600 pages is.

I’ve scanned through the first pages, and even that it is written in a calm tone, the first half is just the same rant we know of all kind of crackpots: established science does not want to hear what my ingenious theory is. “And the same happened with (fill in a list of geniuses that originally were not recognised by the science of their time)”. Most of the times however, when scientists do not want to listen, is because they recognise very quickly that the ideas are rubbish, or at least not new. Calling the ideas a ‘Revolution In Thought’ that will save humanity, increases the chance that the ideas are rubbish.

You say that Lessans offers a different perspective on a longstanding debate: I assume the free will debate and its collaterals psychology and ethics. This supposes that you know the debate, and in what your father’s ideas differ: please mention these differences. Compare e.g. with Daniel Dennett (‘Freedom evolves’,‘Elbow room’), or e.g. this online article. You know all the ideas of compatibilist and incompatibilist theories of free will, of those incompatibilists that argue we have free will, and those who argued we have not? If you don’t know all these ideas, how do you know your father’s ideas differ from them?

And then: a rational idea does not necessary abolishes all evil. Of course, if all people share the same universal ethics, there will be peace. But that will be true for any universal ethics. Just to say that ‘if all people would recognise the idea, then we will get rid of all evil’ is pretty empty, because many ideas will do. We will have peace when I can convince all people that they should stop hurting each other. That is quite obvious, isn’t it?

Given this way I see things, I won’t spend much more time on this, except you can convince me of the idea beforehand.

[ Edited: 13 March 2015 04:04 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 190
2