Free will versus determinism

[s_lone]

It's repetitive because this is a difficult concept to grasp. This was mentioned in the foreword. But I'm sure you didn't read this, because you are rushing to judgment. Where are there errors in fact and logic? s_lone did not have a leg to stand on.

Errors in fact and logic.

Vision is not a sense.

We visually see the stars as they are in the present rather than as they are in the past. If the sun were to explode, we would see it instantly and not 8 minutes later.

In a blameless world, one would necessarily never do harm to anyone because it would be a mathematical impossibility. This implies that we have a perfect understanding of every single consequences of our actions, which we do not. I'd still like to know how a pedophile would be stopped from abusing a child in a blameless world. And if you respond that pedophilia would not exist in a blameless world than you need to explain the cause of pedophilia and how it can avoided.

I think the weak spot in Lessans world is in assuming that a blameless world would lead to nobody ever striking the first blow. People have varying moral standards and some people wouldn't hesitate to steal something from someone else if they knew they could get away with it. They wouldn't even feel guilty about. Lessans assumes we all have a perfect conscience but I fail to see how that is true.

 

[peacegirl]

I definitely agree with you on that. We don't necessarily need bad and devastating experiences to grow and evolve. In trying to make my point, I did make it sound as either/or but that was not my intention. But I stand by my point that difficult experiences do make us grow, so long as they don't destroy us.

That's true, but mankind has come of age since he is now able to prevent those things that were needed at a different time in history. We no longer have to suffer in order to grow and develop.

But doesn't the issue of ''intentions'' bring us back to one of the original problems considering Lessans theory? It's one thing to not be careless, but to be able to always calculate the consequences of every single one of our actions seems to require some form of superhuman ability. And isn't Lessans going in that direction?

No s_lone. This has nothing to do with predicting every outcome. You are confusing the conventional definition of determinism with the more accurate definition that Lessans has proposed.

As I already said, I can't blame him for trying to imagine a perfect world. At least he's trying to imagine what a truly good and gentle world could be like and for that, he deserves praise. Too many people just become cynics and figure that humanity is condemned to moral mediocrity.

I'm glad you are giving him a consolation prize. But it's much more than that. He is not just imagining the possibility of a world without war. He is proving that it is within our capabilities to create such a world.

To come back to the subject of love, I still stand by my point that we need challenging experiences to grow. Ot at least that challenging experiences are not a bad thing per se. Again that doesn't mean satisfying experiences can't make us grow. But it's a simple fact that when we are in a state of dissatisfaction, we need to be active in order to find satisfaction. And constant satisfaction, while being comfortable, tends lead to passivity and a static state of things. Life is challenging but that's part of the beauty of it.

Seriously, how can we be in a constant state of satisfaction. If we were, we would never make a move because in order to make a move we must feel a sense of dissatisfaction with the present position. Just because we are able to choose between the greater of two goods rather than the lesser of two evils, does not make life unchallenging. It makes it worth living. The beauty is that we now know this world is not chaotic, which is why this law of our nature is able to prevent that which blame and punishment could never accomplish.

I'm rather timid in real life. And I used to fall in love with girls desperately. It would cause me great suffering because I didn't have the self confidence to act upon my love interests. But there was another trickier aspect to this. I thought I was in love but I wasn't really. Being obsessed over someone you barely know is not love. What was happening was just a pathetically romantic projection of my notion of beauty onto one girl who I didn't dare talk to and who I actually didn't know very much. I'm sure many people fall into the same pattern, especially when they are young. A jungian therapist would say I was projecting my anima (I don't know if you are familiar with jungian psychology).

I have heard of jung in psychology 101. I don't believe you were projecting your anima; I believe you were struggling due to this imbalance caused by words only, exactly what the author expressed. This is why these words, that do not symbolize reality, are going to become obsolete out of absolute necessity.

What I'm saying is that I had to go through this pattern many times before I could finally understand it and have the lucidity to overcome it. In Lessans world (I'll use this instead of No Blame Land), humans are so incredibly lucid about every single little detail of their lives that my experience simply wouldn't have happened. You know what? He could be right! Maybe in 100 000 years, if humanity has survived that long, we will have evolved to such a state of brilliant lucidity in terms of our actions and inner psychological patterns. But for the time being, I have hard time seeing how Lessans view is realistic and how it could ever come to be.

We don't have to become incredibly lucid about every little detail of our lives. You really need to read the book at least twice to get a comprehensive understanding as to how this world can easily come about once science acknowledges this work as genuine.

You said that in Lessans world, nothing would stop someone from leaving someone else if that is what they really want. But what if the other person is still in love? What happens? Either someone is hurt by being abandoned. Or the other is hurt by staying in a relationship that no longer brings any satisfaction.

s_lone, with all due respect you came at me with such a vengence and now you are showing me how little you understood. I am asking you, as well as others, if there is something that is not clear, please ask a question before ranting and raving that this man has nothing to offer. You must have missed the very first page of Chapter Five where he explains why this situation is prevented by the basic principle.

I must remind the reader that our basic principle cannot prevent the impossible. For example, it cannot prevent a girl from rejecting a boy no matter how much he is in love, if not to do so makes matters worse for herself as would be the case if this necessitated that she reject the boy who is in love with her for the sake of meeting someone with whom she could fall in love with, as much as she is now being loved. In other words, not blaming your lover for breaking your heart by leaving cannot undo the rejection, just as not blaming the truck driver after an accident cannot prevent what has already happened. But it can prevent the desire to take risks that could get a boy and girl into this kind of situation where it is necessary to reject the person who is in love with them, just as it prevents them from desiring to take risks that lead to automobile accidents. Premarital relations will come to a permanent end as well as all adultery and divorce not because this is morally wrong and man has decided at last to obey the Ten Commandments, but only because we will be shown how to prevent our children’s hearts from being broken by love that is not returned. To have loved and lost may be better than never to have loved at all, but this is the lesser of two evils and presupposes that there must always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt.

 

[s_lone]

I just finished listening the lecture Dexter posted. It certainly is a thoughtful one. But I think the whole dilemma is very well summarized in the last question answered by the lecturer.

He states that the higher levels of reality (the human sphere vs. the cell or atomic spheres for example) do not escape determinism. The higher levels are determined. In the end we are highly complex moral decision makers but nonetheless determined. I might be missing an important thing here but I simply don't see how that makes free will compatible with determinism.

In other words, if free will is just a very complex set of deterministic events, we are back to square one.

 

[peacegirl]

Errors in fact and logic.

Vision is not a sense.

We visually see the stars as they are in the present rather than as they are in the past. If the sun were to explode, we would see it instantly and not 8 minutes later.

He may have been wrong about this; only time will tell. If Einstein could make a mistake and admit it, so could Lessans. There needs to be more empirical testing. I just don't want people to get caught up on this one comment and not read the rest of the book.

In a blameless world, one would necessarily never do harm to anyone because it would be a mathematical impossibility. This implies that we have a perfect understanding of every single consequences of our actions, which we do not. I'd still like to know how a pedophile would be stopped from abusing a child in a blameless world. And if you respond that pedophilia would not exist in a blameless world than you need to explain the cause of pedophilia and how it can avoided.[/quote}

I think the weak spot in Lessans world is in assuming that a blameless world would lead to nobody ever striking the first blow. People have varying moral standards and some people wouldn't hesitate to steal something from someone else if they knew they could get away with it. They wouldn't even feel guilty about. Lessans assumes we all have a perfect conscience but I fail to see how that is true.

It's not that people have a perfect conscience; it's that conscience cannot permit a person to strike a first blow under the changed conditions. In the world of free will (the world of judgment), we are able to justify doing the very things that threats of punishment are trying to prevent --- with dismal results.

 

[s_lone]

s_lone, with all due respect you came at me with such a vengence and now you are showing me how little you understood. I am asking you, as well as others, if there is something that is not clear, please ask a question before ranting and raving that this man has nothing to offer. You must have missed the very first page of Chapter Five where he explains why this situation is prevented by the basic principle.

I must remind the reader that our basic principle cannot prevent the impossible. For example, it cannot prevent a girl from rejecting a boy no matter how much he is in love, if not to do so makes matters worse for herself as would be the case if this necessitated that she reject the boy who is in love with her for the sake of meeting someone with whom she could fall in love with, as much as she is now being loved. In other words, not blaming your lover for breaking your heart by leaving cannot undo the rejection, just as not blaming the truck driver after an accident cannot prevent what has already happened. But it can prevent the desire to take risks that could get a boy and girl into this kind of situation where it is necessary to reject the person who is in love with them, just as it prevents them from desiring to take risks that lead to automobile accidents. Premarital relations will come to a permanent end as well as all adultery and divorce not because this is morally wrong and man has decided at last to obey the Ten Commandments, but only because we will be shown how to prevent our children’s hearts from being broken by love that is not returned. To have loved and lost may be better than never to have loved at all, but this is the lesser of two evils and presupposes that there must always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt.

You say I don't understand because of the question I asked. Then you post an excerpt that in no way answers my question. Then you ask me to ask questions instead of ranting about how Lessans has nothing to offer. I'm not following you there.

Let me rephrase the question and perhaps you can clearly answer it in your own words.

The excerpt clearly states that divorce would no longer be a reality in Lessans world.

Premarital relations will come to a permanent end as well as all adultery and divorce

Even if X and Y started their relationships and both of them were perfectly honest and true about their desire for another, how is it impossible that with time, X will simply outgrow the relationship and lose interest? Why can this not happen in Lessans world? Remember, he's clearly saying there will be no more divorce.

He may have been wrong about this; only time will tell. If Einstein could make a mistake and admit it, so could Lessans. There needs to be more empirical testing. I just don't want people to get caught up on this one comment and not read the rest of the book.

I'm glad you admit he may be wrong.

It's not that people have a perfect conscience; it's that conscience cannot permit a person to strike a first blow under the changed conditions. In the world of free will (the world of judgment), we are able to justify doing the very things that threats of punishment are trying to prevent --- with dismal results.

This brings us back to the question of whether or not all humans have a conscience. Do pedophiles have a conscience?Did Charles Manson have conscience? Do the kids who murdered James Bulger have a conscience?

Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You will probably say that the causes that lead Charles Manson to be a serial killer and the pedophile to lust after children and the 2 kids to murder another wouldn't exist in Lessans land. But you first have to explain these causes.

 

[JLM]

Why would anyone not want a world without war, crime, hatred, and misery? What have we all been searching for all these years if not to find a way to solve humanity's conflicts? As far as war goes, there really IS no middle ground talloola, at least not in the world I hope to live in.

You're a dreamer- that is not what this world is about. This world is about balance and adversity and misery and death. This world is a testing ground to see how we handle it. YOu're a world ahead of yourself, if you're a good girl in this world the world you describe may come next. Be patient. :lol::lol:

This brings us back to the question of whether or not all humans have a conscience. Do pedophiles have a conscience?Did Charles Manson have conscience? Do the kids who murdered James Bulger have a conscience?[/B]

Either no conscience of a hell of an ability to rationalize- take your pick. :lol::lol:

 

[peacegirl]

You say I don't understand because of the question I asked.

If you had understood this chapter that question would have not come up because it was already answered.

Then you post an excerpt that in no way answers my question. Then you ask me to ask questions instead of ranting about how Lessans has nothing to offer. I'm not following you there.

I am noticing a pattern when people say they disagree with something. They then come up with a response that shows me they either did not understand what they read, or they really didn't read it.

Let me rephrase the question and perhaps you can clearly answer it in your own words.

The excerpt clearly states that divorce would no longer be a reality in Lessans world.

Premarital relations will come to a permanent end as well as all adultery and divorce

Even if X and Y started their relationships and both of them were perfectly honest and true about their desire for another, how is it impossible that with time, X will simply outgrow the relationship and lose interest? Why can this not happen in Lessans world? Remember, he's clearly saying there will be no more divorce.

Instead of using the term "Lessans world", could you just say the new world? That way, it doesn't look like something Lessans contrived. I am going to post another quote from Chapter Eight --- Until Death Do They Part --- that helps to answer your question.

Therefore, all reasoning henceforth will be based on the fact that man’s will is not free and how using the knowledge of our true nature can create a harmonious relationship between husband and wife. As we continue to be guided by the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we will observe wonderful changes that must come about as God’s principle is put into practice. With this in mind I shall demonstrate, in a completely undeniable manner, His infinite wisdom as we observe how the most perfect relations between married couples offers them the very happiness they are so desperately seeking.

Someone asked me in the course of conversation, "How can you know this when years hence their feelings might change towards each other?"
I answered by asking him a math problem. "How long would it take a car traveling at 60 miles an hour, to travel 98 million miles?" Sixty times 24 hours equals 1440 miles; 1440 miles, which represents one day, will divide into 98 million 64,583 days; 365 days will divide into that approximately 176 years."
"But how can you know this when the car wouldn’t arrive until 176 years later? Supposing the car broke down, had a few flat tires, and maybe the driver wouldn’t live that long?"

"We’re assuming that the car travels at an average speed of 60 miles an hour, so even if there were several flat tires and several drivers had to be changed, it would still take approximately 176 years. You are able to do this simply by extending mathematical relations. I am going to do the same thing with this married couple. I am going to set up mathematical conditions that will force them (of their own free will or desire) to prefer traveling the full length of their lives together without ever desiring to commit adultery or get a divorce, and they will be given no choice because they will want what they see. Is it possible for a person not to want what he wants or, to phrase it differently, not to desire what he desires? But in order to accomplish this we must first uncover the irreparable harm that can occur when couples see each other through a distorted lens which creates the illusion of reality."

A serious imbalance develops in our present marriages when husbands and wives are not aware that they are seeing each other through a host of fallacious word slides that falsely reveal the superiority of one and the inferiority of the other. For example, the husband by feeling superior will criticize or judge what is right for his wife which strikes the first blow, and then when she does not agree or conform she is blamed. Painful feelings are often felt when a husband, not conscious that the very words he uses in conversation are an indirect source of hurt to his wife, strikes the very first blow. It doesn’t take long before he destroys the desire on her part to show her love for him because he has failed to show his love for her when he uses words that make her feel inferior; and when he sees that she is not showing him the love she once did he is unaware that the responsibility in this entire instance is his, although he justifies what he does by blaming her. Because the husband is now aware of the harm caused by words and has removed them from his vocabulary (and the wife has also become aware of this serious hurt) so that each person is treated with the utmost respect — love has no opportunity to diminish. His wife’s love and affection are permitted to grow because the first blow has been prevented, which makes it impossible for him to desire leaving her for someone else when he also knows this would be a real, not imaginary hurt for which she would never blame him. When they both understand these mathematical relations not only will the one be able to prevent any motion in the direction of retaliation, as was explained in the second chapter, but the other will be able to prevent any first blows from being struck, which will allow the Great Transition to get underway.

History has shown that it was impossible for a marriage to get off to a sound start because it was never on an equal footing. A young couple although they were married under the most favorable conditions would still end up having arguments (which is not healthy despite what the psychologists have professed) since it is impossible for two people to have a balanced equation of love and respect when words destroy this balance at the very outset. For what reason would Durant (the famous philosopher whose opinion was placed above all others) consider certain type women as decelerated dolls, perhaps like the wife of Socrates, if he did not perceive this difference in intelligence between these females? Now tell me, how is it possible for a person considered a genius to live in harmony with his spouse when he considers her intelligence, her education, her wisdom, her common sense, much inferior to his own? What happens when the thrill of her body diminishes, will he not wonder what on earth could have made him take such a woman? This kind of logic compelled philosophers like Nietzsche and Durant to believe that a couple should not be allowed to make too quick a decision about marriage, which only reveals the extent of their unconscious ignorance for which neither can be blamed.

This brings us back to the question of whether or not all humans have a conscience. Do pedophiles have a conscience?Did Charles Manson have conscience? Do the kids who murdered James Bulger have a conscience?

Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You will probably say that the causes that lead Charles Manson to be a serial killer and the pedophile to lust after children and the 2 kids to murder another wouldn't exist in Lessans land. But you first have to explain these causes.

The idea that certain people don't have a conscience is yet to be proven. Every serial killer was once born an innocent child. It's true that some individuals may have a greater predisposition to violence, whereas others may not be as prone to these behaviors, given the same situation. When the basic principle is put into effect on a global scale, there will be no way children could develop into sociopaths or psychopaths because the hurt done to them (directly or indirectly) will be eliminated. When every bit of justification to hurt another is removed, conscience will not allow an individual to commit even the smallest crime, let alone a larger one. Manson had a grudge against society. Another Manson could never be created in the new world.

You're a dreamer- that is not what this world is about. This world is about balance and adversity and misery and death. This world is a testing ground to see how we handle it. YOu're a world ahead of yourself, if you're a good girl in this world the world you describe may come next. Be patient. :lol::lol:

Yes, this world is about adversity and misery and death. Where's the balance? This world has tested us, and now that we've been tested, we're going to be rewarded. Interestingly, we'll all become good girls and boys because there is no way we could not be good. :lol:

This brings us back to the question of whether or not all humans have a conscience. Do pedophiles have a conscience?Did Charles Manson have conscience? Do the kids who murdered James Bulger have a conscience?[/B]

Either no conscience of a hell of an ability to rationalize- take your pick. :lol::lol:

Rationalization is a big part of how people justify doing the things they do. But a person canot rationalize his behavior when he is not being blamed. In other words, knowing in advance that he would be judged for his bad behavior, if he was caught, allows him to rationalize his actions. When everyone stops judging, he will no longer be able to rationalize or justify what he is about to do.

 

[s_lone]

If you had understood this chapter that question would have not come up because it was already answered.

I am noticing a pattern when people say they disagree with something. They then come up with a response that shows me they either did not understand what they read, or they really didn't read it.

I noticed a similar pattern. If we don't agree with Lessans, we simply have not understood right?

Instead of using the term "Lessans world", could you just say the new world? That way, it doesn't look like something Lessans contrived.

I will use the term Lessans New World, because it does look like something he contrived. I have no doubt he honestly believed in it, like you seem to.

I am going to post another quote from Chapter Eight --- Until Death Do They Part --- that helps to answer your question.

You seem unable to answer with your own words. I'm not requoting his excerpt to save space.

Again, he argues that we need to remove all hurtful words of our vocabularies, which I think is not only unrealistic but an incredibly bad idea. Words like ''beautiful, pretty, ugly'' belong the subjective sphere of existence. I agree they have no basis in the outside world because they statements concerning human values. I value this painting over this one. Or I value Beethoven's 9th symphony over his 1st symphony. And so on. From a purely objective point of view, the difference between Beethoven's symphonies can be described in very neutral terms. But from the subjective point of view, one can easily argue that the 9th is more beautiful than the 1st because it has a deeper complexity.

So in the subjective sphere of existence, we deal with values. How can we evacuate this from our existence? I don't see how this is possible.

How do you really expect me to say that this girl is only ''different'' from the other. One is obviously prettier than the other and I expect many people to disagree with me.

Missing a tooth - Ugly Women and Girls - Funny Females

Photos of Marion Cotillard

I don't like being so superficial. But getting rid of beauty standards is impossible. It is part of who we are. I understand the fact that beauty is relative. One person's so-so can be the ''really cute'' of someone else. I'm not denying that. But I don't agree with Lessans that it's possible to live in a world evacuated of common standard of beauty. The subjective sphere of existence is as real as the exterior objective one and we can't deny half of reality.

I do agree however, that we need to be more careful with words. Lessans is definitely right about that.

That being said, there's nothing in what you posted that answers my question about why divorce is impossible in Lessans' new world. There's nothing mathematical in saying that one's love for another can only and necessarily grow in a world where no blame and judgement exists. Once you're not in love with someone you're in a relationship with, you either suffer and keep going, or you break up and the other one suffers. The first blow is either done to the other or to oneself.

 

[peacegirl]

I noticed a similar pattern. If we don't agree with Lessans, we simply have not understood right?

Let's look at it this way: If you understand the principles, then you will agree with Lessans.

You seem unable to answer with your own words. I'm not requoting his excerpt to save space.

Again, he argues that we need to remove all hurtful words of our vocabularies, which I think is not only unrealistic but an incredibly bad idea. Words like ''beautiful, pretty, ugly'' belong the subjective sphere of existence. I agree they have no basis in the outside world because they statements concerning human values. I value this painting over this one. Or I value Beethoven's 9th symphony over his 1st symphony. And so on. From a purely objective point of view, the difference between Beethoven's symphonies can be described in very neutral terms. But from the subjective point of view, one can easily argue that the 9th is more beautiful than the 1st because it has a deeper complexity.

There is no problem with using the word beautiful in reference to a symphony as long as it doesn't start an argument. What if another person says I think this symphony is more beautiful? Are you going to tell him what he personally likes is wrong? Deeper complexity doesn't make something more beautiful if a person doesn't like the music. You may think classical music is wonderful because of it's complexity and richness. You can teach me all about it's complexity until the cows come home, but if I don't like the sound of classical music, you might not get me to desire listening to it. Words like beautiful and ugly do not belong in the world of subjective experience, because they create a standard for everyone. We then become conditioned to believing that one person is actually more beautiful than another since we see this with our very eyes. Obviously, you did not understand Chapter Five AT ALL. Words like beautiful and ugly do not symbolize anything externally real, yet that's what they appear to do. To say something is beautiful is very different than saying I like something, or I am attracted to something therefore it has personal value for me.

So in the subjective sphere of existence, we deal with values. How can we evacuate this from our existence? I don't see how this is possible.

Who is saying we have to evacuate the subjective sphere from our existence? No one is saying this. In fact, it only highlights our subjective experience when we don't use these words that condition people by the word itself.

How do you really expect me to say that this girl is only ''different'' from the other. One is obviously prettier than the other and I expect many people to disagree with me.

Why say anything when you know that by calling someone pretty, it implies that the girl who is not called that name might think of herself as the opposite, or not as...

Missing a tooth - Ugly Women and Girls - Funny Females

Photos of Marion Cotillard

I don't like being so superficial. But getting rid of beauty standards is impossible. It is part of who we are. I understand the fact that beauty is relative. One person's so-so can be the ''really cute'' of someone else. I'm not denying that. But I don't agree with Lessans that it's possible to live in a world evacuated of common standard of beauty. The subjective sphere of existence is as real as the exterior objective one and we can't deny half of reality.

It's not that beauty is relative. Beauty does not exist in the real world and neither does ugly. You are not understanding this concept. And yet you don't like when I say this. What am I supposed to do, lie and tell you that you do understand? :roll: We are not denying half of reality. We are eliminating the word that creates a false reality.

I do agree however, that we need to be more careful with words.

Lessans is definitely right about that.

If you agree that we need to be more careful with words, and then in the next breath you say that it's okay to use words that hurt half the population, then you aren't being sincere. You know what will make you stop using these words? When you know for a fact that not only do these words misrepresent reality, but also that you are indirectly hurting people by using them, for which they will never blame you.

That being said, there's nothing in what you posted that answers my question about why divorce is impossible in Lessans' new world. There's nothing mathematical in saying that one's love for another can only and necessarily grow in a world where no blame and judgement exists. Once you're not in love with someone you're in a relationship with, you either suffer and keep going, or you break up and the other one suffers. The first blow is either done to the other or to oneself.

If you're not in love with someone, then you have every reason to leave. You can't stay with someone just so you won't hurt them. That's not what he is saying. What stops you from leaving is that you are in love. How can you fall out of love when you are happy with your partner in every way?

 

[karrie]

You mistake disagreement with a lack of understanding. Just because s_lone or Dexter or I disagree with you or Lessans on a subject, does not mean we don't understand what you're saying.

 

[s_lone]

It's not that beauty if relative. Beauty does not exist in the real world. You are not understanding this concept. And yet you don't like when I say this. What am I supposed to do, lie that you do understand? :roll: We are not denying half of reality. We are eliminating something that doesn't exist. The word beautiful has created a false reality.

I don't have much time right now but I can say this briefly.

When you are saying beauty does not exist in the real world, you are implying the subjective sphere of existence is not real. Because beauty is a subjective reality, it exists as such in the subjective sphere of existence. That does not give me the right to go to a stranger and tell them I find them ugly. But that does give the right to look at my girlfriend in the eyes and tell her how pretty I think she looks.

Why would we invent a word for something that doesn't exist?

There's nothing wrong in saying I find a symphony beautiful. It doesn't hurt anyone because nobody is forced to find it beautiful.

 

[peacegirl]

You mistake disagreement with a lack of understanding. Just because s_lone or Dexter or I disagree with you or Lessans on a subject, does not mean we don't understand what you're saying.

Karrie, please don't start this again. It adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[karrie]

Karrie, please don't start this again. It adds nothing to the conversation.

I'm merely trying to point out a wall you're building that is standing in the way of said conversations. But you're right... I won't start with you again.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't have much time right now but I can say this briefly.

When you are saying beauty does not exist in the real world, you are implying the subjective sphere of existence is not real. Because beauty is a subjective reality, it exists as such in the subjective sphere of existence. That does not give me the right to go to a stranger and tell them I find them ugly. But that does give the right to look at my girlfriend in the eyes and tell her how pretty I think she looks.

Why would we invent a word for something that doesn't exist?

There's nothing wrong in saying I find a symphony beautiful. It doesn't hurt anyone because nobody is forced to find it beautiful.

I said that it's fine to say this as long as it doesn't create an argument. If it does, then it's not a good thing. But when it comes to the word beautiful and ugly as it relates to humans, there is a lot of hurt involved and people will be compelled to stop using them when they realize how much they have hurt those who feel inferior physiognomically as a consequence. We didn't purposely invent words that are not symbolic. We actually believed these words were accurate. Then people became conditioned to liking certain features over others because of hearing the word beautiful mentioned only when certain type features were shown and not others.

I'm merely trying to point out a wall you're building that is standing in the way of said conversations. But you're right... I won't start with you again.

Thanks!

 

[JLM]

I'm merely trying to point out a wall you're building that is standing in the way of said conversations. But you're right... I won't start with you again.

I get the feeling that peacegirl is more of a talker than a listener. :smile:

 

[Curiosity]

Well I've read the additional commentary which has gone on yet another day and.....

I have to admit the Land of the Lotus Eaters comes to mind.... trying to bring reality to fiction is difficult when one finds a personality immersed in what appears to be a lifelong belief which comforts and assists in living life to the "owner's needs and desires", primarily based in pretention and word-salads.

What is reality for some may be irrational for others but if it creates a life goal with purpose and quality of discourse for the believer, it cannot be mocked - as frightening as it is for me to write this.

 

[talloola]

This world does not give people a lobotomy. It just shows how, under certain conditions, we could never step over the threshold of hurting another with a first blow. That's it. It's taking nothing away from our individuality, creativity, curiosity, and uniqueness. In fact, a peaceful world will give us the chance to pursue our God given talents. More importantly, it will allow us to live in harmony where we can have our families in one peace; not destroyed by premature death. Why would anyone not want a world without war, crime, hatred, and misery? What have we all been searching for all these years if not to find a way to solve humanity's conflicts? As far as war goes, there really IS no middle ground talloola, at least not in the world I hope to live in.

I did not say war needs to have a middle ground, if our world today was one of 'the middle ground', there would be no war, war would be gone. You repeat many times to others that they don't seem to understand,
then you twist my statement around to suit you, because you did not understand it.

 

[s_lone]

I said that it's fine to say this as long as it doesn't create an argument. If it does, then it's not a good thing. But when it comes to the word beautiful and ugly as it relates to humans, there is a lot of hurt involved and people will be compelled to stop using them when they realize how much they have hurt those who feel inferior physiognomically as a consequence. We didn't purposely invent words that are not symbolic. We actually believed these words were accurate. Then people became conditioned to liking certain features over others because of hearing the word beautiful mentioned only when certain type features were shown and not others.

Time out. Let's take it easy a bit. Let's try to change this into exchange and not a confrontation OK?

With my ex girlfriend, we had this little game we used to play which simply consisted in rating the physical beauty of people on a scale of 100%.

We both agreed that 100% was impossible. 100% could just exist in fantasy but not in real life. 60% was passable but really not appealing at all. You get the picture.

What got interesting after doing this for a while is that we noticed that the people we learned to know better and that we appreciated consistently improved their physical appearance score. If friend X was at 70% when I met her, she was now at a solid 80% after I had discovered and appreciated her personality.

Similarly, we also noticed that people who got a high score as soon as you met them could easily lose points after you got to know them. If they were shallow and superficial, they could lose a lot.

That game was a bit superficial but it was honest. What I'm trying to say is that I do acknowledge that beauty is not an absolute.

It is true that we are conditioned to appreciate certain types of beauties. For example, if no single woman shaved her legs in this world, all men would simply be used to that fact and we'd continue to find women sexy.

But there is more than conditioning. A tall lean and healthy looking man is more appealing to almost all woman than a morbidly obese one. And this can easily explained by our biology. It's in our nature to be attracted to healthy looking people. Similarly, many experiments have shown that we all tend to find symmetrical faces more appealing.

Look at this guy's face. Tell me honestly. Could any human being fall in love with a face like that?

Freddy Krueger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[peacegirl]

I did not say war needs to have a middle ground, if our world today was one of 'the middle ground', there would be no war, war would be gone. You repeat many times to others that they don't seem to understand,
then you twist my statement around to suit you, because you did not understand it.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by 'middle ground'. I'm willing to admit that I didn't understand something, but no one seems to be able to do that. I feel like I'm getting nowhere fast. This can't go on for too much longer.

Time out. Let's take it easy a bit. Let's try to change this into exchange and not a confrontation OK?

With my ex girlfriend, we had this little game we used to play which simply consisted in rating the physical beauty of people on a scale of 100%.

We both agreed that 100% was impossible. 100% could just exist in fantasy but not in real life. 60% was passable but really not appealing at all. You get the picture.

What got interesting after doing this for a while is that we noticed that the people we learned to know better and that we appreciated consistently improved their physical appearance score. If friend X was at 70% when I met her, she was now at a solid 80% after I had discovered and appreciated her personality.

Similarly, we also noticed that people who got a high score as soon as you met them could easily lose points after you got to know them. If they were shallow and superficial, they could lose a lot.

That game was a bit superficial but it was honest. What I'm trying to say is that I do acknowledge that beauty is not an absolute.

It is true that we are conditioned to appreciate certain types of beauties. For example, if no single woman shaved her legs in this world, all men would simply be used to that fact and we'd continue to find women sexy.

But there is more than conditioning. A tall lean and healthy looking man is more appealing to almost all woman than a morbidly obese one. And this can easily explained by our biology. It's in our nature to be attracted to healthy looking people. Similarly, many experiments have shown that we all tend to find symmetrical faces more appealing.

Look at this guy's face. Tell me honestly. Could any human being fall in love with a face like that?

Freddy Krueger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When these words are no longer used, there is no telling who would be attracted to whom. The fact that people are attracted to healthy looking people does not mean they are beautiful. It just means that these many people are attracted to people who look healthy. The attraction is still personal. I know this is not easy to grasp.

 

[JLM]

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by 'middle ground'. I'm willing to admit that I didn't understand something, but no one seems to be able to do that. I feel like I'm getting nowhere fast. This can't go on for too much longer.



QUOTE]

You seem to be the one that's keeping it going. :smile::smile::smile:

Time out. Let's take it easy a bit. Let's try to change this into exchange and not a confrontation OK?

With my ex girlfriend, we had this little game we used to play which simply consisted in rating the physical beauty of people on a scale of 100%.

We both agreed that 100% was impossible. 100% could just exist in fantasy but not in real life. 60% was passable but really not appealing at all. You get the picture.

What got interesting after doing this for a while is that we noticed that the people we learned to know better and that we appreciated consistently improved their physical appearance score. If friend X was at 70% when I met her, she was now at a solid 80% after I had discovered and appreciated her personality.

QUOTE]

You hit the nail right on the head there. When I was a young feller I knew a girl who had a black mustache, at first it sort of bothered me & I sort of kept her at "arms length" but after a few months, I just considered her to be fairly average looking and never really gave the mustache any thought. Granted it was strictly a platonic relationship.