Revolution in Thought

[peacegirl]

Hi everyone, I am introducing a discovery that was made in 1959. The discoverer was never able to bring his discovery to light as he was not a member of a leading university, and held no distinguishing titles. It's has been over 50 years since this finding was made, yet this knowledge has never been given the attention it deserves. Sadly, the author passed away in 1991. This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism. It has the power to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.

[commonsense]

Please reveal the discovery.

This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism.

Please give an explanation for this.

It has the power to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.

How does this discovery prevent the return of a now-extinct taboo, and what is the proscribed behavior in question?

[henry quirk]

The 'discovery' is just a garden-variety denial of free will and of personal responsibility.

[peacegirl]

Please reveal the discovery.

This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism.

Please give an explanation for this.

It has the power to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.

How does this discovery prevent the return of a now-extinct taboo, and what is the proscribed behavior in question?

It prevents the return of a now-extinct taboo (a taboo that only exists in philosophical circles), just as the earth being flat became a taboo as new evidence negated the old.

[peacegirl]

The 'discovery' is just a garden-variety denial of free will and of personal responsibility.

It actually isn't garden-variety denial of free will and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, but I can't move forward when you make these assumptions before you even know what I'm talking about.

[henry quirk]

...I'm the same Henry Quirk who defended you on the 'Freethought Forum' so very long ago. And I'll defend you here...that is: I'll defend your right to speak your mind, not the content of your speech (which I think is just plain wrong and wrong-headed).

[peacegirl]

...I'm the same Henry Quirk who defended you on the 'Freethought Forum' so very long ago. And I'll defend you here...that is: I'll defend your right to speak your mind, not the content of your speech (which I think is just plain wrong and wrong-headed).

I learned a lot from that forum but I'm glad it's over. I don't want to give one more second of my time to this group. You really have no explanation as to why you think I'm wrong-headed other than using other people's ad homs to justify your response. Do you consider this a fair account without telling me where you think I'm wrong?

[henry quirk]

...I know you're wrong cuz I'm a free will (same as you).

So: if you and me (and everybody eise) are free wills, your dad's discovery is 'wrong' and your promotion of it is 'wrong-headed'.

[peacegirl]

...I know you're wrong cuz I'm a free will (same as you).

So: if you and me (and everybody eise) are free wills, your dad's discovery is 'wrong' and your promotion of it is 'wrong-headed'.

If it was proven true that man's will is free, then he would be wrong obviously. But if man's will is not free, then he would not be wrong-headed and it would be worth your time to hear what he has to say. Just because you believe that your will is free henry doesn't make you your will free.

[Lacewing]

Hi everyone, I am introducing a discovery that was made in 1959.

Hi! So, where and when, if not here and now in this thread that you've started? How are we supposed to comment on this?

Seeing Henry's responses, I'm wondering: are you yet another person endlessly obsessed with something? No offense... but truly... if you've hashed through this before elsewhere, why is time standing still? Have you, or has something, evolved?

[peacegirl]

Hi everyone, I am introducing a discovery that was made in 1959.

Hi! So, where and when, if not here and now in this thread that you've started? How are we supposed to comment on this?

Seeing Henry's responses, I'm wondering: are you yet another person endlessly obsessed with something? No offense... but truly... if you've hashed through this before elsewhere, why is time standing still? Have you, or has something, evolved?

If a group of people is convinced the earth is flat, and I've rehashed the fact that it's not flat, but round, does that make me wrong just because I've rehashed it elsewhere? Isn't that presumptious to believe that he must have been wrong? Let me just say that it's very hard to introduce a genuine discovery on forums like this. People wonder, well why isn't this discovery recognized if it's been so long? Do you understand how hard this was for this man who could not get his foot in the door during his lifetime because he was not considered a leading authority since he didn't belong to a university? Many times it's those who are unaffiliated that are able to think outside of the box. This IS the stumbling block. I am passionate about trying to bring this knowledge to light, but the hour is getting late. I'm doing whatever I can to get people to carefully study his work. He didn't have the internet. It is a mixed blessing because people today look for snippets and from there they form preconceived ideas. They don't want to take the time to study and investigate a work unless the author is already known. It's a catch 22.

[Lacewing]

If a group of people is convinced the earth is flat, and I've rehashed the fact that it's not flat, but round, does that make me wrong just because I've rehashed it elsewhere?

Respectfully, peacegirl, you didn't answer my questions.

What are you talking about, and why aren't you describing it in this thread? How are we supposed to comment on something without a description of what it is? Is this thread actually only intended for you to complain about an idea that hasn't been taken seriously in another time and place (in which case maybe you should have titled the thread: "When revolutions in thought are not taken seriously")? I don't even know what the supposed revolution in thought is. Although, admittedly, if you're obsessed with it, I probably won't be interested because I think life is about flowing and evolving... not about going over and over one "unique" idea rigidly for years. The world is FULL of "unique" ideas. I'm not impressed with any one thing over all else.

[henry quirk]

And your dad denyin' free will don't make it so.

And: I don't have a free will, I am a free will.

[peacegirl]

If a group of people is convinced the earth is flat, and I've rehashed the fact that it's not flat, but round, does that make me wrong just because I've rehashed it elsewhere?

Respectfully, peacegirl, you didn't answer my questions.

What are you talking about, and why aren't you describing it in this thread? How are we supposed to comment on something without a description of what it is? Is this thread actually only intended for you to complain about an idea that hasn't been taken seriously in another time and place (in which case maybe you should have titled the thread: "When revolutions in thought are not taken seriously")? I don't even know what the supposed revolution in thought is. Although, admittedly, if you're obsessed with it, I probably won't be interested because I think life is about flowing and evolving... not about going over and over one "unique" idea rigidly for years. The world is FULL of "unique" ideas. I'm not impressed with any one thing over all else.

I am posting the first three chapters. Please don't skim. I will answer any questions you may have (to the best of my ability) after you have read it. Please pay careful attention to pages 54 and 55 where he explains why determinism was faced with an impossible task due to how it has been defined. I also want to mention that he uses the word God throughout the book, but he meant that word to mean the laws that govern our universe. If you aren't religious, don't let that ruin it for you.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... tQkenlw6ek

[Lacewing]

I am posting first three chapters. Please don't skim. I will answer any questions you may have (to the best of my ability) after you have read it. Please pay careful attention to pages 54 and 55 where he explains why determinism was faced with an impossible task due to how it is defined. I also want to mention that he uses the word God throughout the book, but he meant that word to mean the laws that govern our universe. If you aren't religious, don't let that ruin it for you.

Okay, seriously, peacegirl... why would I want to read so much stuff about something I have NO summary about? You FIRST have to give me something to be interested in. My time and energy are valuable... and I don't commit myself to reading everyone's hair-brained idea they want to blab on and on about. You seem to expect a lot of people... while you don't answer their questions that are put to you. This tells me that you are likely intoxicated and obsessed with this idea. That's an indication that you're just going to rant on and on without actually connecting in a balanced exchange, right? I'm not interested. Good luck to you.