New discovery

[peacegirl]

And when it fully dawns on you that should go ahead and strike this first blow, not only I, the one to be hurt, but the entire world, 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 – although you know it is not beyond your control at this point since you haven't hurt me yet – you must relinquish the desire to follow through with this hurt to me because it can never give you satisfaction under the changed conditions.

 

In other words, the advance knowledge that there will be no consequences presents consequences that are still worse. No one can derive satisfaction from hurting someone with a first blow with the full realization that should he follow through with what he is contemplating, the person who is about to be hurt, along with the entire world, must turn the other cheek for satisfaction. The reaction of no blame would be worse than any type of punishment society could offer.

[peacegirl]

As long as man can pay a price for hurting others, his conscience will never be able to control his desires if he wants something badly enough. But when all blame is removed from the environment, and he knows that he will not be blamed by anyone anywhere, he cannot justify what he is about to do. The choice to hurt someone with a first blow would be a movement in the direction of dissatisfaction, which is mathematically impossible.

 

Remember, everyone is constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction and when the decision to hurt someone becomes the least favorable choice our problem is solved because we will get less satisfaction, not more. Under these conditions, it becomes impossible to strike a first blow when not to strike it becomes the better alternative.

[peacegirl]

The answer to this impasse which removes the implications is now very obvious because the advance knowledge that man will not be blamed for anything he desires to do (this is the solution worked backwards), mathematically prevents those very acts for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.

 

Instead of being able to absolve one's conscience by justifying an act of crime or some other form of hurt because of the knowledge that he will be blamed and punished (which permitted efforts to shift his responsibility while encouraging what had to be criticized and condemned), one is prevented from deriving any satisfaction from the contemplation of this hurt by the realization that he will never be blamed, criticized, punished or judged for doing what he knows everyone must condone, while being denied a satisfactory reason with which to excuse his contemplated conduct.

[peacegirl]

Let me repeat: Instead of being able to absolve one's conscience by being given the opportunity to justify an act of crime or some other form of hurt which permitted the shifting of one's responsibility while at the same time encouraging the crime, the knowledge that will is not free and what this means actually prevents an individual from deriving any satisfaction from the contemplation of this hurt to another by the realization that he will not be blamed, criticized, judged, or punished for this act.

 

The difference between this principle and the one Christ preached – "Turn the other cheek", is that in the two-sided equation the first cheek is prevented from being struck whereas Ghandi, in his bid for freedom and his belief in nonviolence, was forced to turn the other cheek although the first cheek was struck over and over again which took an untold number of lives. Secondly, man must be willing to die in order for turning the other cheek to be effective, consequently innumerable abuses cannot be prevented which starts a chain reaction of retaliation.

[Smokinjoe9]

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."

This statement is just not true, and again cannot be proven..the human mind will continue to bombard us with though processes, and even if the outcome is perceived as good, called good, there will be instances where harm is caused by thought processes, thus the cycle of hurt continues.....

[peacegirl]

Besides, how is it possible not to strike back when your very being moves in this direction for satisfaction? Ghandi said, "Kill us all or give us our freedom; we will not resist anything you do to us", compelling those in power, after many were already slain, to find more satisfaction in leaving them alone.

 

Many minorities, such as the Blacks, cannot apply this psychology because the situation does not call for such a sacrifice. How are these people to turn the other cheek when they are underpaid, overtaxed, and judged by Whites as one of the inferior races?

[peacegirl]

It has been their effort to correct these abuses – not by turning the other cheek – that has brought these people this far. By turning the other cheek (which also proves in a mathematical manner that man's will is not free), it absolutely prevents the second cheek from being struck because it is impossible, as the people of India demonstrated, to get satisfaction from continuing to hurt those who refuse to fight back, but as history has shown many were killed just by being struck on the first cheek.

 

My imparting the knowledge that no one will again blame you in any way, judge your actions or tell you what to do will mathematically prevent your first cheek from being struck which is necessary in a world of atomic energy when an entire nation can be wiped out from being struck on the first cheek.

[peacegirl]

Let us once again observe what the perception of undeniable relations tells us.

 

At this moment of time in our present world of free will you are trying to decide whether to hurt me in some way but you have had everything removed that could be used to justify this act. You simply see an opportunity to gain at my expense, but should you decide against it you will not be a loser.

 

In other words, you are considering the first blow which means that you are planning to do something to me that I do not want done to myself. You realize that there is a certain risk involved, if caught, because you must face the consequences. If the crime, misdemeanor or offense is not that serious, although you know you will be questioned and blamed, you may be able to get away with it by offering all kinds of reasonable excuses as to why you had no choice.

[peacegirl]

But if no excuse is acceptable as in a court of law after you have been found guilty, or when your parents, boss or others know you are obviously at fault, you could be sent to prison, electrocuted, hanged, gassed, whipped, severely punished in some other way, scolded, reprimanded, ostracized, criticized, discharged, beat up or any number of things.

 

You don't want this to happen if it can be avoided, but if you can't satisfy your desire unless the risk is taken, you are prepared to pay a price for the crime of hurting me with a first blow. Under these conditions it is impossible for your conscience to exercise any control over your desires because you cannot feel any guilt just as long as you are prepared to suffer the consequences. Now let us imagine for a moment that we are living in the new world and you are about to make a decision, whether to hurt me or not to hurt me.

[peacegirl]

As before you are trying to decide whether to hurt me in some way but you have had everything removed from which you might have been able to justify your act. You simply see an opportunity to gain at my expense, but you will not be a loser if you decide against it. In other words, you are contemplating the first blow under changed conditions.

 

You know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing in this world has the power, that no one can compel you to do anything against your will, for over this you know you have absolute control (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink). This means that you are completely responsible for your actions even though, due to circumstances, you may prefer hurting me.

 

To make absolutely certain that you know this is an undeniable law, try to shift away from yourself what is your responsibility or to some extraneous factor when you know that no one in the world will ever hold you responsible. It cannot be done, which was already proven.

[peacegirl]

This does not mean that other people are not often responsible for the hurt we do as part of a chain reaction as when an employer is forced to lay off his employees because the money to pay them has stopped coming in to him, but no one is blaming him for what is obviously not his responsibility and therefore it isn't necessary for him to offer excuses.

 

As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know as a matter of positive knowledge that you cannot be blamed anymore because it is an undeniable law that man's will is not free. This is a very unique two-sided equation for it reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I know you are not responsible.

[peacegirl]

For the very first time you fully realize that I must excuse you because it is now known that man must always select of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction, and who am I to know what gives you greater satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize that should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever you must also take into consideration the knowledge that under no conditions will I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to hurt you for doing what I know you are compelled to do.

 

This prevents you from thinking excuses in advance because you know you are already excused. You cannot say "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free" because you know I already know this.

[Smokinjoe9]

Blame and laws etc.., were not in effect first they were purposed due to human nature...For your idea to come clear you need to get rid of the human mind, thought, ideas(like this one), subconscious...A race of robots could be programmed to do exactly what your are talking about...Humans will always stike the first blow, it balances out good.....

[peacegirl]

You cannot apologize or ask for forgiveness because you are already forgiven and no one is blaming you. This means that should you decide to hurt me with this first blow or be careless and take the risks that lead to a first blow and I would have to choose between retaliating or turning the other cheek, you would know that I would be compelled by my nature to find greater satisfaction in turning the other cheek because of the undeniable fact that I would know you had no choice, since your will is not free. Remember, you haven't hurt me yet; consequently, this is still a choice under consideration.

[peacegirl]

And when it fully dawns on you that this hurt to me will never be blamed, judged or questioned in any way because I don't want to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control – ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN FORCE YOU TO HURT ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO – you are compelled, completely of your own free will, to relinquish this desire to hurt me with a first blow because it can never give you greater satisfaction under the changed conditions. [Note: It must be understood that the expression ‘of your own free will', which is an expression I use throughout the book only means ‘of your own desire because you want to', which is a true statement. If you are still confused, please reread pages 57-61].

[peacegirl]

It becomes the worst possible alternative to hurt someone when it is known in advance that you are not going to be blamed, because there is no advantage in hurting those whom you know must turn the other cheek for their satisfaction. Conscience, your guilty feeling over such an act, will not permit it because you will get less satisfaction, not more. If man's will was free we could not accomplish this because we would be able to choose what is less satisfying when something more satisfying is available.

 

The knowledge that man will no longer be blamed for striking a first blow since his will is not free – when he knows that nobody, absolutely nothing can compel him to hurt someone this way unless he wants to for over this he knows he has absolute control – enters a condition or catalyst never before a permanent factor in human relations and mathematically prevents those very acts of hurt for which blame was previously necessary in a free will environment.

[peacegirl]

Remember, it takes two to tango – each person and the rest of mankind – therefore this discovery which prevents man from desiring to hurt others is only effective when he knows in advance, as a matter of positive knowledge, that he will never be blamed or punished no matter what he does.

 

By following the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, which will act as an infallible slide rule and standard as to what is right and wrong while solving the many problems that lie ahead, we will be obeying the mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no choice when we see what is truly better for ourselves.