New discovery

[peacegirl]

"I still say, supposing there is no risk; supposing I was able to plan a perfect crime and never get caught."

 

"I am not denying the possibility but you can never know for certain, therefore, the element of risk must exist when you do anything that hurts another."

 

"Then I agree."

[peacegirl]

"Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man's will is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction – as well as the undeniable fact that nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do for over this he has absolute control – let us observe what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to reveal a third law.

 

Pay close attention because I am about to slay the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye' and ‘turn the other cheek', and open the door to this new world."

[bumab]

that's it, i give up on getting a response... even with generosity.

[peacegirl]

At the present moment of time you are standing on this spot called here, and are constantly in the process of moving to there. You know as a matter of positive knowledge that nothing has the power, that no one can cause or compel you to do anything against your will; and this other, who is standing on this spot called there to where you plan to move from here also knows positively that you cannot be blamed anymore for your motion from here to there because the will of man is not free.

 

This is a very unique two-sided equation which reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do, everybody else knows that you are not to blame because you are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction during every moment of your existence.

[peacegirl]

Now if you know absolutely and positively that not only I but everyone on earth will never blame or punish you for hurting me in some way because you know we are compelled to completely excuse what we know is definitely beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think very carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus far – the scientific discovery referred to) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt when you know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that no one, including myself who is the one to be hurt, will ever hold you responsible, criticize or question your action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control?

[Biochemist]

"These are thoughtful questions but they are like asking if it is mathematically impossible for man to do something what would you do if it is done? How is it possible for B (the father) to retaliate when it is impossible for B to be hurt? Contained in this question is an assumption that deliberate and careless hurt will continue. As we proceed with this investigation you will understand more clearly why the desire to hurt another will be completely prevented by this natural law."

 

"Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far, I still don't understand how or why this should prevent man from stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered; and how is it humanly possible for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his conduct?"

PG-

 

I don't know where you are cutting this from but;

 

1) it reads like a stream of consciousness,

2) it is written like a bad novel, and

3) it is not making any progress on our questions.

 

I suggest you stop. You seem to be saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Did I mention "and over" before?

[peacegirl]

Remember, you haven't hurt me yet, and you know (this is the other side of the equation) as a matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing, no one can compel you to hurt me unless you want to, for over this you have mathematical control; consequently, your motion, your decision as to what is better for yourself is still a choice between two alternatives – to hurt me or not to hurt me.

 

And when it fully dawns on you that should you go ahead with this decision to hurt me, you will not be blamed in any way because no one wants to hurt you in return for doing what everyone now understands is a compulsion beyond your control – ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN MAKE YOU HURT ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO – you are compelled, completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so under these conditions.

[peacegirl]

Furthermore, if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one in the entire world is going to blame you or question your conduct, is it possible for you to make others culpable, to extenuate the circumstances, to lie or try to shift your responsibility in any way? As was just demonstrated, it is not possible, just as the same answer must apply to the question is it possible to make two plus two equal five.

 

This proves conclusively that the only time you can say, "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free", or offer any kind of excuse is when you know you are being blamed for this allows you to make this effort to shift your responsibility. Let me explain this in still another way.

[Biochemist]

Maybe you could start a Q&A by correcting my post 198 with an analogous sequence that is correct in your mind.

[peacegirl]

When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you do, it also means that you must assume complete responsibility for everything you do since you cannot shift it away from yourself under the changed conditions. We have become so confused by words in logical relation that while we preach this freedom of the will we say in the same breath that we could not help ourselves, and demonstrate our confusion still more by believing that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, would lessen our responsibility when instead it does the exact opposite."

 

Did you ever see anything more ironically humorous? The only time you can use the excuse that your will is not free is when the world believes it is free. The world of free will has allowed people to lie and cheat in order to get what they want and then shift their responsibility away from themselves when questioned.

[peacegirl]

It is assumed that the knowledge of our true nature would only make matters worse, decreasing responsibility to an even greater extent and giving man another way to take advantage of others without having to worry about consequences. But this can only occur when man knows he will be blamed, which allows him to come up with reasonable excuses.

 

When he knows in advance that no matter what he does to hurt others he will not be held responsible because the world knows his will is not free, he cannot find justification for what he is about to do. In other words, knowing that the world must excuse what he can no longer justify prevents the desire to take even the slightest chance of hurting another. Under these conditions, responsibility reaches a level never seen before in all of history.

[bumab]

...you are compelled, completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so under these conditions.

 

That's one of the basics of Christianity, and many other religions.

[peacegirl]

"I understand the principle of no blame; but society does what it must do to protect itself. A person with scarlet fever is not blamed; but is nevertheless quarantined."

 

"That's just the point. If a person had something that was contagious, he would welcome this precautionary measure. Knowing that he would not be blamed even if he was responsible for spreading his illness to the entire region, he could never find satisfaction taking any chances that might cause further spread of the disease. This is similar to the question that was asked earlier, "If it is mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would you do if it was done? How is it possible for B (society) to protect itself when it is impossible for B to be hurt?

[Smokinjoe9]

"Therefore, our only concern is in preventing the desire to strike this first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to understand?"

 

"It's very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can even see that relation."

Simple to understand, humanly impossible, I stress the word Human....

Your cycle of will is curious, but for all intended purposes impossible for Humankind. A child will always be born(this will not change). I should have said a mind will always be born...

[peacegirl]

Contained in this question is an assumption that people will desire to strike out at society even when there is no justification. Just bear in mind that when man knows there will be no blame or punishment no matter what he does, he can only go in one direction for satisfaction and that is not to hurt others with a first blow.

 

He will be free to do so if he wants to, but he won't want to. It is important to understand that if someone is being hurt first, his reaction is no longer a first blow but a retaliatory blow. Under these conditions, he would have justification to strike back."

[peacegirl]

In order to hurt another man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back ‘an eye for an eye' which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they knew.

 

Punishment and retaliation are natural reactions of a free will environment that permit the consideration of striking the first blow because it is the price man is willing to risk or pay for the satisfaction of certain desires. But when they are removed so the knowledge that they no longer exist becomes a condition of the environment, then the price he must consider to strike the first blow of hurt – all others are justified – is completely out of his reach because to do so he must choose an alternative that is less satisfying which is impossible to do when an alternative offering greater satisfaction is available.

[peacegirl]

"I am still having a difficult time with the two-sided equation. Can you repeat what the two sides of this equation are?"

 

"When it has been established the world over that man's will is not free and the basic principle becomes a permanent condition of the environment (this will be discussed in detail in the economic chapter), man will be unable to derive greater satisfaction from hurting anyone with a first blow. The first half of the two-sided equation is as follows: I will no longer blame you for your motion from here to there, even if you decide to hurt me because I know your will is not free and you cannot help yourself; but... (here is the second half of the equation) you know that nothing in this world can make you hurt me if you don't want to (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink), for over this you have absolute control.