“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[DBT]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.

True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.

The past is gone and the future is yet to happen, yet the system - if deterministic - progresses or evolves from past to present and future states of the system without deviation or realizable alternate actions.

Each and every point in the past was a present state of the system, as shall each and every point in time in all future states of the system.

But you continue to omit that humans are part of the deterministic process, and not mindless meat puppets of the big bang. Deterministically, a menu of options is generated from which humans can determine the next output in the system.

I don't.

I have said many times that the human part of a deterministic world is inseparable from it.

Being inseparable, humans are a part or aspect of the evolution or progression of the events of the system.

If it is a deterministic system, everything you see, feel, think and do is inseparable from the progression of events that is the system, where nothing is able to act independent of it. If it did, it would not be a deterministic system.

Of course, but that’s the compatibilist position you deny.

But I don't deny the compatibilist definition of determinism. Never have and never will. I agree with it. Just as I agree with your constant conjunction.

The given definition of determinism is not the issue. It never has been.

The difference between the earth moving through space and an astronaut moving through the space is that the earth does not choose to do so, but the astronaut does.

That's where you refer to the given and agreed upon definition of determinism.


Constant Conjuction
Term used by Hume to describe the relation between two events one of which invariably accompanies the other. If catching influenza is always followed by fever, these events are 'constantly conjoined'; if there is no smoke without fire, there is a constant conjunction between the production of smoke and burning........''

​

 

[peacegirl]

The word “bad” or “immoral” would be hurting someone in some way judged by the person being hurt.

Absent telepathy, I doubt that such a standard could ever be workable. It could come fairly close, in a community that's close knit and very small, but it would fail spectacularly when dealing with people from very different cultural backgrounds to our own.

I could easily be judged by someone to have hurt him, while I was acting with the best of intentions - would that make me "bad’?

There’s no such thing as “bad”, just what we do in the direction of greater satisfaction based on our individual circumstances. If you accidentally knocked into someone, for example, the person would know it was unintentional because under the changed conditions there would be no reason for you to want to hurt them. You have to understand how different the environment will be that the intention to cause harm would never even be considered. We all know what a concrete hurt is regardless of our culture. Being shot is a hurt to anyone one who doesn’t want this and it’s the same in all cultures.

My dog bit me when I was trying to give him his medication. Was he being a "bad dog"? He hurt me; He even intended to hurt me. He (quite reasonably) thought he was acting in self defence, but I wasn't doing him harm - I was objectively doing him good.

Grey areas are everywhere. All absolute statements are wrong.

Dogs are trying to protect themselves. They don’t understand that you’re trying to help them. But it brings up an interesting question regarding force and in the new world forcing anything on anyone through coercion will no longer be a means to an end.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.

True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.

The past is gone and the future is yet to happen, yet the system - if deterministic - progresses or evolves from past to present and future states of the system without deviation or realizable alternate actions.

Each and every point in the past was a present state of the system, as shall each and every point in time in all future states of the system.

But you continue to omit that humans are part of the deterministic process, and not mindless meat puppets of the big bang. Deterministically, a menu of options is generated from which humans can determine the next output in the system.

I don't.

I have said many times that the human part of a deterministic world is inseparable from it.

Being inseparable, humans are a part or aspect of the evolution or progression of the events of the system.

If it is a deterministic system, everything you see, feel, think and do is inseparable from the progression of events that is the system, where nothing is able to act independent of it. If it did, it would not be a deterministic system.

Of course, but that’s the compatibilist position you deny.

But I don't deny the compatibilist definition of determinism. Never have and never will. I agree with it. Just as I agree with your constant conjunction.

The given definition of determinism is not the issue. It never has been.

The difference between the earth moving through space and an astronaut moving through the space is that the earth does not choose to do so, but the astronaut does.

That's where you refer to the given and agreed upon definition of determinism.


Constant Conjuction
Term used by Hume to describe the relation between two events one of which invariably accompanies the other. If catching influenza is always followed by fever, these events are 'constantly conjoined'; if there is no smoke without fire, there is a constant conjunction between the production of smoke and burning........''

​

That's all well and good, but smoke and fire are happening at the moment it happens (in the present). The point he was making is that a person can't use the excuse that the past caused him to act in a certain way; that he shot someone against his will because something other than himself made him do it. This is not true because there is nothing in this world (the past included) that can make a person do something unless he wants to do it, which means he has to give consent before something is done.

 

[pood]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.

True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.

The past is gone and the future is yet to happen, yet the system - if deterministic - progresses or evolves from past to present and future states of the system without deviation or realizable alternate actions.

Each and every point in the past was a present state of the system, as shall each and every point in time in all future states of the system.

But you continue to omit that humans are part of the deterministic process, and not mindless meat puppets of the big bang. Deterministically, a menu of options is generated from which humans can determine the next output in the system.

I don't.

I have said many times that the human part of a deterministic world is inseparable from it.

Being inseparable, humans are a part or aspect of the evolution or progression of the events of the system.

If it is a deterministic system, everything you see, feel, think and do is inseparable from the progression of events that is the system, where nothing is able to act independent of it. If it did, it would not be a deterministic system.

Of course, but that’s the compatibilist position you deny.

But I don't deny the compatibilist definition of determinism. Never have and never will. I agree with it. Just as I agree with your constant conjunction.

The given definition of determinism is not the issue. It never has been.

The difference between the earth moving through space and an astronaut moving through the space is that the earth does not choose to do so, but the astronaut does.

That's where you refer to the given and agreed upon definition of determinism.


Constant Conjuction
Term used by Hume to describe the relation between two events one of which invariably accompanies the other. If catching influenza is always followed by fever, these events are 'constantly conjoined'; if there is no smoke without fire, there is a constant conjunction between the production of smoke and burning........''

​

I initially raised “constant conjunction” in one of the other threads to make the point that the phrase, as Hume uses it, says nothing about free will or, for that matter, determinism.

“Constant conjunction” refers to the idea that when we observe over many instances event B following event A, then they are in “constant conjunction” and we infer from this observation that event A causes event B. However, we do not KNOW this — does, for example, the crowing of the rooster followed by the rise of the sun mean the rooster caused the sun to rise? — and, further, constant conjunction is undermined by Hume’s own Problem of Induction

Perhaps the truly relevant point, though, is that Hume was a compatibilist, and believed we are morally responsible for our actions, provided they are consistent with our known character and not because of some fleeting or erratic, uncharacteristic urge (such as going mad). It therefore seems perverse to invoke his thesis of “constant conjunction” in defense of HARD determinism, because he himself believed no such thing can be derived from his own thesis.

 

[peacegirl]

Against Pood's suggestion, I want to continue to paste excerpts that are extremely important for understanding, if there is any chance in hell. After all, the claim that we have the power to prevent war and crime is an extraordinary one, and any misstep will cause people to balk against what they believe is flawed. If there are no questions or if people show absolutely no interest because they believe he could not be right, then there will be nothing to discuss. It all depends on the interest after they read what the author wrote, not before. That's why he said he needs to proceed in a step-by-step fashion. This is not being done.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification please note that the words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’ and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone … is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other discoveries to be revealed if you can.

 

[peacegirl]

cont. Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

“I am still having a difficult time. Could you explain the two-sided equation again?”

At this present moment of time or life, 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, no one can cause or compel you to do anything to another you don’t want to do, and this other who is standing on this spot called there to which you plan to move from here, also knows positively that you cannot be blamed for your motion from here to there, regardless of what is done. Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that not only I but everyone on the planet will never blame or punish you for hurting me in some way, because you know that we are compelled to completely excuse what is beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think about this carefully) 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, will ever hold you responsible, ever criticize your action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what is completely beyond your control? But remember, you haven’t hurt me yet, and you know (this is the other side of the equation) that you do not have to hurt me unless you want to; consequently, your motion from here to there is still within your control. Therefore, the moment it fully dawns on you that this hurt, should you go ahead with it, will not be blamed, criticized, or judged in any way because no one wants to hurt you for doing what must be considered a compulsion beyond your control (once it is established that man’s will is not free), you are compelled, completely of your own free will, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never give you any satisfaction under these conditions, which proves that A — everybody on the planet — has the power to control B — everybody else — by letting B know, as is being done with this book, that no one will ever be blamed for anything that is done. In other words, the knowledge that there will be no consequences presents consequences that are still worse, making it impossible to consider this as a preferable alternative, for how is it possible to derive satisfaction knowing there will be no consequences for the pain you willfully choose to inflict on others? The reaction of no blame would be worse than any type of punishment society could offer. It is important to remember that punishment and retaliation are natural reactions of a free will environment that permit the consideration of striking a 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 move in the direction of conscious dissatisfaction, which cannot be done. If will were free, we could not accomplish this simply because we would be able to choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available, but this law of our nature will give us no alternative when we are forced to obey it in order to derive greater satisfaction.

The solution to this impasse, which removes the implications, is now very obvious because the advance knowledge that man will not be blamed for the hurt he does to others (this is the solution worked backwards) mathematically prevents those very acts of evil 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), he 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. I will rephrase this in a slightly different way: 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 that 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 principle Christ preached, “Turn the other cheek,” is that the former prevents the first cheek from ever being struck, whereas Gandhi, 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. Besides, how is it possible not to strike back when your very being moves in this direction for satisfaction? Gandhi 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? 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 where an entire nation can be wiped out from being struck on the first cheek. Let us, once again, observe what the perception of undeniable relations tells us.

 

[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. 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’s imagine for a moment that you are living in the new world and are confronted with a choice of whether or not to hurt me.

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. 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. 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 of 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. 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. 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 YOU HAVEN’T HURT ME YET — you are compelled, completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me 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,’ but this does not mean will is free. If you need further clarification, please reread Chapter One]. In other words, when you know that others will never blame or punish you for what they are compelled to excuse, but also that the other factors truly responsible for the dissatisfaction which engendered the consideration of hurting others as a possible solution will be permanently removed as a consequence of following our slide rule in all of its ramifications, you will be given no opportunity to ever again strike another blow of hurt. It becomes the worst possible choice to hurt another when it is known there will be no blame because there is no advantage in hurting those whom you know are compelled to turn the other cheek for their satisfaction. Conscience, this guilty feeling over such an act, will not permit it because you will get less satisfaction, not more. Let me say again that 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 another 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. 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.

“Wait a second. Will you admit that if I strike you first you are perfectly justified in striking back?”

 

[peacegirl]

“Of course you are not justified in striking a person who is compelled to do what he does by the laws of his nature.”

“But you know that an individual doesn’t have to strike another if he doesn’t want to.”

“But if he wants to, isn’t it obvious that this desire is completely beyond his control because it is now known that man’s will is not free?”

“Are you trying to tell me that if someone strikes me, I must turn the other cheek because he couldn’t help himself?”

“That’s exactly right. How is it humanly possible to justify some form of retaliation when you know that the person who hurt you is moved by laws over which he has absolutely no control?”

“But I do have mathematical control over not hurting you if I don’t want to.”

“I don’t know that, because it is impossible for me to judge what you can and cannot do since you are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and I don’t 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, since your will is not free.”

“Now I get it. Then, when I fully realize that under no conditions will you ever strike back because you must excuse what you know I am compelled to do — when I know that I am not compelled to hurt you unless I want to for over this I have mathematical control — I am given no alternative but to forgo the desire to hurt you simply because, under the new conditions, it is impossible for me to derive even the smallest amount of satisfaction.”

Wonderful! If each reader understood that there are two sides to this equation, then he would be able to follow me as I extend it into every part of our lives. Please note that I am extending the basic principle to show how it can prevent the first cheek from ever being struck. If our cheek has not been struck, there is no need to strike back or turn the other side of our face. If you find it confusing as to how the basic principle prevents the desire to hurt others as a preferable alternative, it is important that you reread this chapter in order to grasp the two-sided equation, which is the very foundation of this discovery. As we follow 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. By removing all forms of blame, which include this judging in advance of what is right and wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice from being struck. This corollary is not only effective by your realization that we (all mankind) will never blame you for any hurt done to us, but also by our realization that any advance blame, this judging of what is right for someone else, strikes the first blow since it is impossible to prevent your desire to hurt us by telling you we will never blame this hurt when we blame the possibility by telling you in advance that it is wrong. In other words, by judging that it is wrong to do something, whatever it may be, we are blaming the possibility of it being done, which only incites a desire to challenge the authority of this advance accusation that has already given justification. Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want from hurting us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right for someone else.

But remember, it is not the knowledge that man’s will is not free that compels him to give up this judging in advance what is right for others; otherwise, the government, the unions, the religions, and all the writers who make a living expressing their opinions as to what is right and wrong with the world, with love, marriage, children, business, education, etc., would suddenly give up their manner of earning a living, which is a mathematical impossibility. Do you think that the manufacturers of candles and other inferior forms of lighting wanted to give up what gave them a source of income when electricity was discovered? They were compelled to adjust because they couldn’t find a market for their obsolete products except on a smaller scale. Do you think the adulterers want to give up their fun, the single males the pleasure of sexual intercourse before marriage? Do you think the people who are getting wealthy on the sweat, brawn, tears, and insecurity of extremely low wages will give this up just because God thunders down from heaven — Thou Shall Not Blame? Do you think that religion will willingly give up its great power and influence when it is learned that the will of man is not free, which reveals that God is a mathematical reality? The truth of the matter is that everyone will be compelled, of their own free will, to give up anything that hurts another in any way simply because this hurt will be considered worse under the new conditions. This, my friends, is the great secret of God’s infinite wisdom, which gives man no free choice as to the direction he must travel for greater satisfaction. However, it is extremely important for every individual to know that what came about on our planet was exactly as it was supposed to be. This, of course, doesn’t mean that the future will continue like the past, but it does mean that no one is to blame in any way for what happened, and consequently, everyone is permitted to turn himself upside down for the purpose of dumping out anything and everything for which he holds himself responsible. But remember, we are prevented from repeating an action that formerly hurt someone by the knowledge that we will never be blamed for what we know we can prevent, giving us no satisfaction. The solution lies in the fact that the people truly responsible for all the evil, hurt, and crime for which they cannot be held responsible, are actually unconscious of this responsibility and instead blame an individual who is not at fault for the very things of which they are innocently guilty. Therefore, the problem is to bring to the surface, with a mathematical, infallible line of demarcation, these hidden facts. Your philosopher Socrates grasped this when he said, “I know that I don’t know; other men don’t know either but think they know.” But now we know that we know, for the actual responsibility lies with everyone who judges and tacitly blames the actions of another before anything is even done. However, this advance blame is not only contained in our customs, conventions, morals, and laws, but in the very words that describe fallacious differences of value which permit superior, inferior, better, worse, good, bad, and innumerable other words and expressions to be used in relation to different individuals. We are completely absolved of all responsibility for anything we have ever done in the past and will never be blamed by anyone in the future, but the present is our very own responsibility since no one will ever again tell us what to do or what is better for ourselves.

 

[peacegirl]

As we end this chapter, there is one vital point that appears contradictory and needs clarification. If the knowledge that man’s will is not free is supposed to prevent that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary, and if a person who saw his child deliberately kidnapped and killed would be compelled to desire revenge as a normal reaction in the direction of satisfaction, how can this knowledge prevent some form of retaliation? Just because you have learned that man’s will is not free is not a sufficient explanation as to why you should not want to avenge this child’s murder by tracking down the criminal and cutting his heart out with a knife, so once again, we must understand what God means when He mathematically instructs us not to blame. When the knowledge in this book is released and understood, every person, as always, will be standing on this moment of time or life called here, so to speak, and preparing to move to the next spot called there. As the principles set forth in this book become a permanent part of the environment, you will know that the person who kidnapped and killed your child or committed some other form of hurt which occurred prior to the release of this knowledge — regardless of how much you hate and despise what was done — will never blame in any way your desire for retribution, which means that he will never run and hide to avoid your act of revenge because this is a form of tacit blame; and when it fully dawns on you that he will never make any effort to fight back no matter what you do to him, never lift a hand to stop whatever you desire to do, it becomes impossible for you to derive any satisfaction from this act of retaliation especially when you know that he will never again be permitted by his conscience — because of the realization that he will not be blamed — to do to another what was originally done to you and your family. As a result, the chain of retaliation will be broken, which will prevent any further criminal behavior.

Time and time again, a person desiring personal revenge has been able to experience a certain amount of control over his desire, but never to the degree that will permit this Great Transition to get under way — with the help of our slide rule. Presently, the man seeking revenge finds great satisfaction in contemplating what he is going to do to get even, but is prevented not because he decides not to blame when learning that man’s will is not free, but only because the other person on whom he desires to vent his venom has been given the knowledge of how to prevent this retaliation, while the one seeking revenge knows how to prevent the recurrence of a similar situation. When he fully realizes that the perpetrator whom he wishes to hurt in return will never desire to retaliate with further hurt or desire to commit another crime to anyone anywhere, he is compelled to lose his desire for revenge because it is impossible to derive any satisfaction from the advance knowledge that he will be excused by the entire world. The full realization that he can no longer justify this act of personal revenge because no one will consider it wrong or tell him what to do (remember, no longer will anyone judge what is right for another); that he will be able to do what he wishes to this person without any form of justification because he knows in advance that he will not be blamed and that everyone, including the one to be retaliated upon, will be compelled of their own free will to completely excuse what is definitely not his responsibility — ALTHOUGH HE KNOWS IT WOULD BE HIS RESPONSIBILITY — makes him desire to forgo what he knows he doesn’t have to do. He knows he is not under any compulsion to do what has not yet been done, and when he becomes aware that no one henceforth will judge his actions, that he is completely free from the trammels of public opinion to do, without the slightest fear of criticism, whatever he thinks is better for himself, and that he will not even be punished by the laws that were created for this purpose, it becomes mathematically impossible for him to desire hurting this other person under these conditions regardless of what was originally done to him. It would be equivalent to deriving satisfaction from continuing to beat up an individual who, though fully able to fight back, refuses to lift a hand in his own defense. This allows the Great Transition to get under way without any fear of harm. Let us observe why the perpetrator can no longer continue his crime spree under the changed conditions.

The potential kidnapper or criminal who is standing on this moment of time called here when this knowledge is released and before the act is done, is prevented from further contemplation of his crime by the realization that he will never be blamed, judged, criticized, or punished for this act (and by the removal of all forms of tacit blame that unconsciously gave him the motivation and justification), which compels him to get greater satisfaction in his motion to there, by giving up what he was contemplating. Up until the present time, there was nothing powerful enough to prevent man from risking his life to satisfy a desire regardless of who got hurt because the satisfaction of possible success outweighed the dissatisfaction of possible failure. But when he becomes conscious that a particular reaction of no blame will be the only response to his actions by the entire world, regardless of what he is contemplating, he will be compelled, completely beyond his control, but of his own free will or desire, to refrain from what he now foresees can give him absolutely no satisfaction. How can he possibly find satisfaction in doing something that the world must excuse, but he can no longer justify? This natural law of man’s nature gives him no alternative but to obey it in order to derive greater satisfaction and will prevent the first blow from ever being struck. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, and slowly unravel the causes of war, crime, and hatred — which are deep-rooted and interwoven — we will get a glimpse into the future and envision how life will be when all hurt in human relations comes to a peaceful end.

There will be many volumes extending this law into every area of human interaction. The answer to the world’s problems will satisfy Communism and Capitalism, the Blacks and the Whites, the Jews and the Christians, the Catholics and the Protestants, the rich and the poor, the cops and the robbers. However, it must be understood that in the world of free will, innumerable wars, revolutions, and crimes were a reaction to various forms of hurt, which did not allow any alternative but to retaliate. Consequently, man was compelled to blame, criticize, and punish as the only possible alternative when judged by his undeveloped mind. When those about to fight back discover that they will no longer be retaliated upon, it is also necessary for them to realize that the factors responsible for this consideration of war and crime, as the lesser of two evils, will also be removed; and are those responsible given any choice but to remove these factors when they know that those who they have been hurting will never blame them for this?

To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt — was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it is only necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate. It was impossible for any previous stage of our development to have understood the deeper factors involved, which were necessary for an adequate solution, just as it was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at an earlier time because the deeper relations were not perceived at that stage of development. But at last, we have been granted understanding which reveals a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in every way with the mathematical accuracy of the solar system, and we are in for the greatest series of beneficent changes of our entire existence, which must come about as a matter of necessity the very moment this knowledge is understood. Although this book only scratches the surface, it lays the foundation for scientists to take over from here. The undeniable knowledge I am presenting is a blueprint of a new world that must come about once this discovery is recognized, and your awareness of this will preclude you from expressing that this work is oversimplified. Because it would take many encyclopedias combined to delineate all of the changes about to occur, it would have been much too long for a book that was written for the express purpose of providing mankind with a general outline. It will be up to future scientists to extend these principles in much greater depth. As we leave this chapter, I hope I have made it clear that just as long as man is able to justify hurting others, he is not striking a first blow. Before I demonstrate how this justification is permanently removed by preventing the insecurities that have permeated our economic system and justify the act of self-preservation by whatever means necessary, I will allow you an opportunity to see exactly what happens in a human relation where this justification is already removed. In the next chapter, l shall reveal how all automobile accidents and carelessness must come to a permanent end. Before we move on, I must clarify a very important point. Christ and Spinoza turned the other cheek and paid the consequences because the justification to hurt them was never removed, but I am going to demonstrate how it is now possible to prevent the first cheek from being struck, which renders obsolete the need to turn the other cheek or retaliate. Although Gandhi won freedom for his people and Reverend King won certain civil rights, they accomplished this at great expense. However, all was necessary because we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which we have no control because this is God’s law or will. At this point I suggest that you study carefully, once again, Chapter Two, and then discuss it to make certain you understand that if you find any flaw, it exists only in your not understanding the principles, for they are undeniable.

 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER THREE

THE END OF CARELESSNESS​

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we never had to worry about people carelessly risking the lives of our loved ones, neighbors, and friends? Well, get ready for a miracle. I shall demonstrate, by applying this natural law, how it is now possible to change our environment and raise man’s conscience to such a degree that all carelessness, including automobile accidents, will be virtually wiped from the face of the earth because people the world over will do everything in their power to avoid the carelessness and risks responsible. Right now, there are more people killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend. These collisions take place only because man operates on 75% of his potential power, which is insufficient to prevent what nobody wants, even though he is doing everything in his power to prevent it. By understanding what it means that man’s will is not free, we plug in the extra 25% and then have the power to prevent the unintentional tragedies that continue to plague our lives.

Carelessness, just as the word implies, is an I do not care attitude. It arises from several factors. There are young boys and girls who want to make an impression on their friends, and this requires that they demonstrate their ability to handle a car like a race car driver, but they never give much thought to the other person because man’s first concern has always been for himself. The showoff wants to give his friends a thrill and demonstrate how to do what really takes guts. He doesn’t care if he is a menace to other drivers who happen to cross his path. If he is willing to risk his own life and happens to take others with him, that’s their tough luck. For this reason, you would often hear: ‘Drive carefully; the life you save might be your own.’ The drunks and dope addicts and people in a hurry cannot stand being behind a slow-moving vehicle even if this means passing on a curve or hill. They either don’t fully realize the danger or they don’t care since the risk is primarily to themselves with no thought of those who may be in the way.

There are other individuals who don’t care because this requires great effort, and they aren’t willing to exert the kind of energy it takes to protect the lives of others. Applying brakes when the light changes yellow as an alternative to speeding up and making it so stopping isn’t necessary is considered a nuisance. As a result, they often end up going through on the red and crashing into the driver who starts off before the light has changed to green. Then there is the mother, who is so fed up with the struggle to take care of the house and her children, and now that she is no longer in love with her husband, she just doesn’t care. She leaves matches and other potentially dangerous items lying around, and when the house catches on fire or they get hurt in some other way, she always comes up with excuses. What has added to her carelessness is that she never understood the meaning of fatalism, which is the doctrine that all things are subject to fate or that they take place by inevitable necessity. Consequently, when this belief in fatalism was expressed to me by a mother who didn’t seem to take much care in looking after her children, I asked her the following question:

“If you saw your infant getting ready to crawl in front of a truck, would you pick him up or let him go?”

“Naturally, I would grab him.”

“Why would you grab him if you believe in fate?”

“I can see that danger,” she replied.

“In other words,” I responded, “once you have done everything in your power to prevent an accident and then it occurs, you can say it was fate.”

Carelessness has allowed airplanes to crash into each other or to explode because the mechanics failed in their duty. It has allowed ships to ram each other, hotels, nightclubs, houses, etc. to burst into flames, and people to perish. It has allowed tires to blow out and brakes to fail; even buildings to collapse. There is no telling how many lives have been lost or mutilated (blinded, crippled, or what have you) all because of someone’s carelessness. And liability insurance came into existence out of absolute necessity to help prevent the aftereffects of an accident; otherwise, we would have more killings.

My friend remarked, “I don’t know about you but if it had not been for my ability to drive defensively, I would have been killed or hospitalized at least a dozen times. I agree that defensive driving is extremely important in this world, that is. I don’t know about the new world, but not everybody has this coordination and skill to drive defensively, just as they don’t have other talents and skills.”

“You’re right, however everybody does have the ability to apply the rules of good driving. Now observe how God compels this to come about.
When a car accident occurs in our present environment, the people involved are very dissatisfied because their car was just damaged, but what do they do for satisfaction? If there were no witnesses, they hurl accusations at each other until the police arrive. The person who did not have the right-of-way could possibly, in a courtroom with a clever lawyer, make the innocent party appear guilty in order to get his insurance company to pay for damages. If the one who had the right-of-way was under the influence of liquor, even though the accident was not his fault in any way, he is already judged guilty, as this offers a perfect reason for making the guilty party appear innocent. But when an extremely serious accident occurs where, let us say, two children and their mother were instantly killed while the father and the other driver were thrown clear, to assume responsibility for this is too horrible to bear, which compels them to think up a million and one excuses as to why it was the other person’s fault. If there were witnesses, and both drivers knew it was not the father’s responsibility, the guilty party would welcome whatever punishment could be dished out so that he could pay dearly for what he did, and the liability insurance he carries just in case, helps him, in a small way, to pay part of the price. If it was the father’s fault, he might not be able to stand this terrible feeling of guilt and might be forced to find some reason as to why this accident was unavoidable; otherwise, he could kill himself. However, to make it possible for him to continue living, just in case he can’t come up with a convincing reason for the accident, the law will charge him with manslaughter, and he will have to serve a prison sentence, which he welcomes, because this also helps him to pay for what he did. How many times, true or false, will the ability to use just these words make someone feel so much better — 'I couldn’t help myself.' 'It was not my fault.' 'It was unavoidable.' 'I’m terribly sorry.' And how many times in the course of history have the innocent been compelled to pay the price of the guilty, just because man was able to shift his responsibility?

To understand why all automobile accidents must come to an end, out of absolute necessity, watch what happens when we apply our basic principle to show you exactly what takes place in our present environment before and after a collision, and then let you see the same accident under changed conditions. Most people are concerned with their own safety, but under the changed conditions they become more concerned that they are not responsible for hurting others as that alternative which gives them greater satisfaction. Remember, however, the new world is not yet here so we are going to imagine the same accident which will not occur, just so we can see why it will not. Actually, the only reason we are willing to drive carelessly and take risks in our present environment is because when we do have an accident, which means that when we have made a careless mistake resulting in a hurt to others, it is possible to gain satisfaction by paying the price or shifting responsibility. When it becomes impossible to do either, we must do everything in our power to prevent the accident as that alternative which is better for ourselves."

 

[peacegirl]

Not so long ago, a truck was heading west inside the city limits, doing 50 miles an hour in a 35-mile zone. It was past midnight, and very few cars were on the street. The driver was anxious to get home because he hadn’t seen his family for a week. He had driven this same route many times and knew it was safe to go at this speed at that time of the morning. His only concern was to keep an eye out for a patrol car so he wouldn’t get a ticket. Up ahead, four blocks away, he saw that a traffic signal was green when about a half block away, he knew that it would soon be joined by the yellow light and followed in a few seconds by the red, indicating that he would have to stop. Because he felt this was a nuisance since the amber light had not yet gone on and since the darkness enabled him to see that no headlights were coming from other directions, he felt safe to increase his speed to 65 miles an hour.

Heading north was a car carrying five people — a father, mother, and their three children. They had just attended a wedding and were on their way home. The father had been drinking rather heavily and completely forgot to put on his headlights. He was also traveling along at 50 miles an hour when he slowed down to 35 so he wouldn’t have to stop for the red light up ahead, but when he saw the yellow light go on for the other direction, knowing that the light would be green before he entered the intersection even if he resumed his 50 miles an hour, he did not hesitate to do just that. Now, just before the truck got to the crossing, the light changed, which meant that the driver would have to go through on the red. At that very moment, he saw the car without any headlights enter the intersection a fraction of a second ahead of him, but it was too late to avoid the collision. The father saw the truck at that instant, too. They both jammed on their brakes and turned their wheels instinctively, but the truck ploughed head on at a slight angle into the rear right side of the car. The parents were somehow only slightly injured; the truck driver was not hurt at all, but the three children were killed instantly. Standing on the corner was someone who noticed that the car’s lights were not on. Now let us analyze this.

If the truck driver had any inkling that such an accident would have resulted from his trying to beat the light, he certainly would never have considered it, but he chose to do what he did because it gave him greater satisfaction at that moment. However, we are not concerned now with what he should or should not have done but with what he must do for greater satisfaction following the accident. It is obvious that he feels absolutely terrible over what he knows was his fault, yet he does not want to be blamed for the deaths of these children. There is certainly no satisfaction in feeling the weight of this responsibility; consequently, he is going to do everything in his power to shift it away from himself. The police arrive and learn that the father was driving without headlights on and that he was highly intoxicated. The truck driver kept saying over and over again, “It was not my fault. That man went right through the red light and didn’t even have his lights on. The death of those children is horrible, but it was not my fault!” Before long, he was absolutely convinced that the accident would never have occurred had the headlights been on, and he was right because what made him speed up to beat the yellow light was his certainty that no car was coming. However, he could not tell the police the truth — that the right-of-way still belonged to the father even though intoxicated and without lights — although it made him feel as if it was not his responsibility.

In court, the father was found guilty of manslaughter even though he was innocent, which infuriated him. But because the deaths of his children were considered punishment enough, his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation. His wife, however, was not satisfied with the decision since she believed him guilty of killing their children (she had warned him time and again about his drinking at parties) and filed for divorce. The truck driver was awarded quite a bit of money in damages because he discovered that he was not physically the same after such a traumatic experience. Had the conditions been slightly different, making it impossible for the truck driver to shift his responsibility, the only avenue open for greater satisfaction would have been for him to pay a heavy price for what he did. His insurance would have compensated the parents to a degree for their tragic loss and they would have been satisfied to know that he was sent to prison. When released he would feel that he paid his debt to society and the family, and his conscience would be cleared. If he felt the least bit guilty for killing these children, he could always confess this sin to a priest or psychiatrist or atone for it in various ways. The father, on the other hand, who was found guilty although he was completely innocent, has built up a tremendous hatred for the entire system of justice and may desire to kill the truck driver in retaliation if he thinks he can get away with it. His life has been ruined, and he wants to hurt somebody in the worst way for what was done to him. Had this accident not taken anyone’s life, the driver of the truck might have volunteered that it was his fault so his insurance company could reimburse them for property damage. This could help compensate in some small way for what happened. Now pay close attention to the same accident under changed conditions so you can see why the truck driver, when faced with the choice of speeding up or slowing down, is compelled to prefer the latter, which avoids the tragedy.

The truck driver feels absolutely horrible over what he knows was his responsibility because he went through the red light, but he also knows that no one in the entire world will ever blame him for what was done. People standing around are shocked by the sight. The father and mother are weeping bitterly over the loss of their children, but they will not say to the truck driver, “Look at what you just did!” The police are not going to smell his breath or give him other tests because there are no more police (they will be displaced on a gradual basis, which will be explained shortly). There are no prosecutors who are going to try and prove his guilt in a court of law. An ambulance arrives to carry off the dead and tow trucks to clean up the debris. How do you think he feels? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if he was punished or could pay in some way for what he did? He would like to be blamed, criticized, condemned, punished, beat up by the father, and hated, but he knows these things will never take place because nobody alive holds him responsible. He would like to write a check to compensate in some way for what he did, but nobody is suing him or blaming him in any way, which compels him to hold himself responsible. Since he is unable to shift what is his responsibility or find any satisfaction whatsoever, he finds himself in an unbearable situation and will be compelled to go through life with the death of these children, the sorrow of the parents, and the destruction of their property, on his conscience. Let’s examine this from another point of view.

 

[peacegirl]

What if the father didn’t see the truck at all and was not certain of what happened? No matter how unbearable it was for the truck driver to feel this responsibility, just imagine how the father must feel to know that he was, or might have been, responsible for the death of his children, although this difference could hardly pass through the eye of a needle.

“I am not sure I understand. What do you mean when you say, ‘this difference could hardly pass through the eye of a needle?’”

If the father was even the slightest bit uncertain of what actually happened, as long as he knows it might have been his fault, he will suffer just as much as if he was certain because there is no way he can find out when no one blames him. He might actually believe that his drinking was responsible, that maybe it was the fact that he didn’t put on his lights or that he went through the red light because he just didn’t see it. How do you think he feels knowing that his carelessness might have caused the deaths of his own children? How will he ever know that he was not responsible unless he is fully aware at all times of what he is doing?

This means that the very thought of hurting others through carelessness is so terrifying when there will be no blame, punishment, or price to be paid for what we know is, or might have been, our responsibility, that when we are confronted with a similar situation as the truck driver, we could never find greater satisfaction in speeding up, while the father, knowing that drinking might cause him to get in an accident, figures out a way to solve his problem so he can still drink without taking on the responsibility of driving. If he has no one to drive his car but himself, and he feels that drinking might cause an accident for which he knows well in advance there will be no blame, he cannot afford the risk of placing himself in a position from which his conscience will torture him the rest of his life. People know they are not compelled to drink and drive, not compelled to pass on a curve or hill, not compelled to recklessly show off and race unless they want to, for over this they have mathematical control, and when it fully dawns on them that should they hurt others with their carelessness they will not be blamed or punished because everyone knows they were compelled to do what they did — WHEN THEY KNOW THEY WERE NOT COMPELLED — they are given no alternative but to do everything in their power to prevent a situation from arising that gives them absolutely no satisfaction.

The only reason that accidents resulting from carelessness were able to take place was because people could blame something else as the cause, thereby shifting what was their responsibility, and liability insurance didn’t help because those with ample coverage felt they were prepared to pay for their negligence.

“Does this mean there will be no more liability insurance?”

“To be held liable means that you are being blamed for the damage that was done, and since you are not to blame, each person will assume responsibility for the damage done to his own car and himself. In the new world, the parties involved in any kind of accident will assume the cost of the damage done to them, which means that when someone holds himself responsible for hurting others, he must also hold himself responsible for all the other expenses the victim and his insurance company must incur, thus hurting the victim of his carelessness all the more since the money he will have to spend on a new or repaired car could have been used either by himself or the insurance company for other things. If a person doesn’t have this [no-fault] insurance or sufficient cash reserve to cover his share of the damage, then we, all the people, will pay the cost because we know this person couldn’t help himself, that he was compelled to neglect taking out this insurance, or else he couldn’t afford it. But when he is guaranteed his standard of living (which will be explained in the economic chapter), then he will desire to carry this protection for fear that he will hurt others by making them pay for damages that he should be sharing. If a driver was to blame for a bad accident there would be no choice, as we have just witnessed, but to live out his entire life with this horrible feeling of guilt, having no way to relieve it. This explains why the ability to confess our sins allows the confessional to be a place where we can find the justification necessary to absolve our conscience. But when it becomes mathematically impossible to shift the responsibility for our negligence away from ourselves —when we are not being blamed — there is no way carelessness can be justified. If for any reason an accident should occur and it was not our fault, there would be no reason to feel remorse, but if we were not sure whether our actions contributed in some way, we would have to live with this uncertainty, knowing that we might have been partly or completely responsible. Consequently, the only way a person would know for sure that he was not responsible is to be aware at all times of what he is doing.

 

[peacegirl]

The right-of-way system in the new world becomes a mathematical standard by which each motor vehicle operator is forced to judge only himself. The truck driver knows he did not have the right-of-way; consequently, he was aware he struck the first blow when the collision took place. If he had gotten to the red light and no cars were coming, he would not have been striking a first blow had he decided to cross the intersection. By the same reasoning, his speed is no longer controlled by a patrol car being present or absent but by what he considers safe enough so that he will never have to encroach on another driver’s right-of-way. He cannot afford to drive with bad tires or brakes because if one should blow out and the other fail, forcing him to collide with other cars by entering their territory, he will know that he struck the first blow. If the tires were new but the mechanic failed to tighten the bolts on one wheel, which fell off at high speed, causing the accident, his conscience would be clear since this was something that happened to him as a part of a chain reaction. This applies to all types of transportation where there is a chain of responsibility. For example, when a plane crashes, it is the responsibility of all those who have anything to do with it — building, repairing, maintaining, piloting it, etc. — consequently, when these individuals know that they will never be blamed for taking thousands of lives or putting those lives in jeopardy, they will never allow a plane to go up unless they are absolutely certain that no one will be hurt. Everybody will be compelled to assume the responsibility of hurting others in these plane crashes because the others will never blame them for this hurt. The changed conditions will force all mechanics to be extremely careful so that they are never responsible for accidents due to their carelessness. Right now, the mechanics, engineers, etc. are justified in being careless because they know that somebody is going to blame somebody else right down the line of command, but when they know that nobody will ever blame anybody, they will all feel the weight of a tremendous responsibility, which compels them to ground a plane unless they can feel absolutely certain they are not sending a group of people to their deaths. There will be no reason for airplanes to crash as we begin to understand the factors that make skilled pilots, controllers, and mechanics vulnerable to human error, and find better methods of defusing those errors before an accident occurs. Furthermore, now that cockpit instruments can provide the pilot with information regarding altitude, speed, and direction — along with other technological advancements that can detect potential problems long before takeoff — airline travel will be safer than ever before. All engineers and mechanics who design, maintain, and repair aircraft systems will have no choice but to make safety a number one priority.

In the private sector, driving a car, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle that operates on public roads will be considered a serious undertaking. For example, before desiring to drive a car in the new world, we will want to know everything that could possibly make us responsible for hurting others in an accident which will then never occur. It will also prevent us from delaying other drivers from getting to their destination. If by not using directional signals when required (which excludes having to use signals when we are alone on the street or in a lane that only goes to the right or left) or by not moving over far enough when making a turn we see that we are holding up traffic for which we will not be blamed by the honking of horns, we will soon find greater satisfaction in not doing those things that interfere with the flow of traffic. By blowing horns in blame and by calling people names, we not only find justification to repeat that for which we are prepared to pay in terms of going to court, getting a ticket, etc., but we also get a certain satisfaction in irritating those whom we know will criticize this annoying habit. When it becomes impossible to pay a price for hurting or annoying others because there are no consequences, in other words, when all justification for tying up traffic has been removed, we are given no choice but to change our ways.

 

[peacegirl]

As for whether we need permission from the government to drive, in our present environment, we need a license, and before this is granted, we are given certain tests to see if we qualify, which means that part of our responsibility has already been shifted. In other words, people who are really not qualified to sit behind a wheel are made to think that they are by receiving permission, and should someone make the comment, “You shouldn’t be allowed to drive,” By receiving permission, and should someone make the comment, “You shouldn’t be allowed to drive,” the response would be: “The government thinks so, or I wouldn’t have been given a license.” In the new world, there will be no such thing as a license to drive because man has come of age and can now assume responsibility for himself; therefore, the only person to tell you that you are sufficiently trained and ready will be you yourself. No driver henceforth will ever again be issued a license by a government agency to determine his qualifications. This means that the division of the Department of Motor Vehicles which determines the eligibility of a new driver by administering a passing or failing grade will be permanently displaced. The fact that certain inadequate standards were set up for others to determine our qualifications allowed many unqualified people to assume they were qualified because they passed the required exam. We will never again have to prove to anyone but ourselves that we are qualified to drive, and our vehicle is in good condition. We can see very clearly why our responsibility must increase to the maximum degree, since this is the only way we can prevent what we don’t want. Where before we couldn’t wait to pass the test so we could finally go wherever we wanted, we will not be that anxious to sit behind the wheel until we know for sure we can drive without causing collisions or delays. Even driving instructors will never tell us when they think we are ready because they would not want to assume this responsibility. Their job will be to teach us all the causes of accidents and delays and show us how to handle a car properly. They will have a thorough course of training that will include all the causes of accidents through carelessness, but it will be up to us to determine whether we are capable of driving without hurting anyone by comparing our ability with the tough driving standards set up by the driving schools. There will be no need for statutory speed limits that try to force compliance because nobody will desire to drive at a speed that endangers others. The speed limit will serve as a general guideline to indicate the maximum reasonable and safe speed to travel, as well as to alert the driver of dangerous road and weather conditions. Today we say — “Obey the laws or else you will be punished.” Tomorrow we say — “Don’t obey the laws of good driving if you don’t want to, but if someone gets hurt as a consequence, it will be impossible to blame anybody but ourselves.” Therefore, every suggestion to guide the new driver in the right direction will be willingly heeded because of this fear that someone other than ourselves (this is the least consideration in the new world), could be seriously hurt. Driving a car becomes a very hazardous profession because the very thought that someone might get hurt, for which there would be no blame or punishment and no questions would be asked as to whose fault it was, compels everyone to become an extremely skilled driver before undertaking what could very easily lead to the kind of accident just described, and there is no more unbearable form of punishment than to know that you are responsible for someone’s death or serious injury. However, to launch this new world and create the environment necessary to prevent crime, war, hate, and all the other evils plaguing our lives, we must remove every form of hurt to us that could justify retaliation, which is a separate problem that will be solved very shortly.

“Although I agree with everything you have demonstrated so far, reluctantly, and think it is absolutely marvelous, I can’t see how you can satisfy the whole human race, and that’s what you must do with your equation, which includes communism as well as capitalism.”

You keep forgetting one thing. I am not the one who will solve this problem. The astronomer who first observed the invariable laws between the planets, moon, and sun didn’t cause the eclipse; he perceived certain relations that made him aware it would occur at a certain time. And just because I have observed the invariable laws inherent in the mankind system, which allowed me to see the end of all war and crime because of what it means that man’s will is not free, does not mean that I am causing this to come about. The most I am able to do is reveal God’s laws, which gives me no choice but to move in a certain direction for satisfaction because we are all part of His laws. At this juncture, let me recapitulate certain salient points.

Man is compelled by his nature to move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction, and when he is blamed for hurting others through carelessness, he is permitted to find satisfaction in one of three ways. He can apologize, shift his responsibility to something or someone else as the cause for what he knows he has done, or if there is no way he can shift his responsibility, he can pay a price for the hurt he knows he caused. However, when he knows, well in advance, that all mankind are compelled to excuse everything he does because it is now known that his will is not free — while he knows that he doesn’t have to hurt anybody unless he wants to (for over this he knows he has mathematical control) — he is given no choice but to do everything in his power to prevent a situation from which he cannot find any satisfaction. How is it possible for him to find satisfaction in carelessly hurting others when he is denied an opportunity to apologize, to shift his responsibility, or to pay a price of atonement for what he did? Since this will eat at his conscience, and since he knows this well in advance, he is given no choice but to prefer the alternative that offers greater satisfaction, and in this case, the only avenue open is for him to prevent such a situation from arising. I realize that there is quite a difference between hurt that results from carelessness, which is something a person really doesn’t want, and deliberate hurt. There is also a vast difference between the blame that follows a hurt and blame that is in advance which is a judgment of what is right for someone else. This latter blame is discussed thoroughly in the chapter on marriage, where it is also demonstrated how such advance blame or judgment of others must come to an end out of mathematical necessity. This is the kind of blame that tells you how to wear your hair, how to dress, how you should live. It is the bully in various forms. These things are your business only as long as nobody is hurt by what you do. You will understand this much better as we proceed.

The belief in free will and the concomitant blame are equivalent to the thrust of a rocket in getting a satellite into space, for without it we could never have reached the outposts of this Golden Age. But just as the astronauts shed their excess baggage when their rocket has expended its energy in reaching orbit, so likewise will we shed this theory and all the blame that helped us reach this tremendous turning point in our lives. Well, is it any wonder this discovery was never found because the solution actually lies beyond the framework of modern thought since it cannot be understood in terms of our present knowledge? As I said, there are no precedents. I realize how difficult it must be for you to conceive of a world without liability insurance and the Department of Motor Vehicles, but you will learn soon enough that millions of people are going to be permanently displaced from their manner of earning a living, but they will not be hurt in any way, so don’t jump to any conclusions; just be patient. If you are slightly less skeptical and more willing to continue the investigation, you will see how effective these laws are as God puts an end to all war, crime, adultery, and divorce. Last but not least, though our magic elixir will not apply here, I shall reveal something about death in a mathematical, undeniable manner that will make every reader very happy. Don’t you think it strange that of all the millions of years Earth has been in existence (and what is a million years when the words through which you see this relation are clarified) you, of all people, should have been born to see the universe now; why weren’t you born 5000 years ago, or why shouldn’t you be born in the future? My friends, you are in for quite a pleasant surprise, but your mind is so filled with words like spirit, soul, reincarnation, heaven, etc., which have absolutely no meaning whatever, that you are terribly confused, especially those who think they know. You will soon learn that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death, which in itself will revolutionize your lives, but everything is related, so please bear with me since it is mathematically impossible to put everything down at one time. As I said, you will catch your breath in utter amazement at the infinite wisdom that governs this universe, and you will be given no choice but to change your ways. But first, I shall reveal my second discovery, which will play a vital role in the new world.

 

[steve_bank]

Stating the obvious.

As a matter of practicality we have a representative democracy, we vote for people to make decisions and address problems. If enough people do not like the decisions and policies they get voted out.

Com unity safety is the purview of government. Licensing and testing drivers is a mater of public safety.

Constitutionally 'all rights not enumerated in COTUS are relegated to the states'.


Is peacegirl a libertarian? One of those who thinks they do not have to pay for fire and police if they do not want the service?

 

[bilby]

This whole thesis appears to be using an unnecessary number of words to say:

"If only people were perfectly honest, always thoughtful, and infallably aware of their own best interests, the world would be a much better place".

Which seems to me to be in equal parts bleeding obvious, and vanishingly unlikely to ever happen.

Using several thousand words, to say something that can readily be conveyed in two dozen, is only explicable by the observation that nobody will pay for, nor likely much respect, a book that contains only a single sentence.

I would publish a scathing critique of vacuous self-help books as a genre, but am too lazy to expand the above paragraph to 80,000 words, while adding no further meaning.

 

[peacegirl]

Stating the obvious.

As a matter of practicality we have a representative democracy, we vote for people to make decisions and address problems. If enough people do not like the decisions and policies they get voted out.

Com unity safety is the purview of government. Licensing and testing drivers is a mater of public safety.

Constitutionally 'all rights not enumerated in COTUS are relegated to the states'.


Is peacegirl a libertarian? One of those who thinks they do not have to pay for fire and police if they do not want the service?

You obviously have no idea why licensing (which is necessary in this world) actually gives permission to drive when one is not necessarily qualified. It was right there in the text. And, by the way, you are talking about what occurs now. The author was talking about a new precedent that will prevent the need for government licensing under the changed conditions because a person would never desire to take a chance driving unless he was fully prepared by learning the do's and don'ts of good driving. Let me spoon feed this to you again because you obviously either understood nothing or you didn't read it. I believe it was the latter.

As for whether we need permission from the government to drive, in our present environment, we need a license, and before this is granted, we are given certain tests to see if we qualify, which means that part of our responsibility has already been shifted. In other words, people who are really not qualified to sit behind a wheel are made to think that they are by receiving permission, and should someone make the comment, “You shouldn’t be allowed to drive,” By receiving permission, and should someone make the comment, “You shouldn’t be allowed to drive,” the response would be: “The government thinks so, or I wouldn’t have been given a license.” In the new world, there will be no such thing as a license to drive because man has come of age and can now assume responsibility for himself; therefore, the only person to tell you that you are sufficiently trained and ready will be you yourself. No driver henceforth will ever again be issued a license by a government agency to determine his qualifications. This means that the division of the Department of Motor Vehicles which determines the eligibility of a new driver by administering a passing or failing grade will be permanently displaced. The fact that certain inadequate standards were set up for others to determine our qualifications allowed many unqualified people to assume they were qualified because they passed the required exam. We will never again have to prove to anyone but ourselves that we are qualified to drive, and our vehicle is in good condition. We can see very clearly why our responsibility must increase to the maximum degree, since this is the only way we can prevent what we don’t want. Where before we couldn’t wait to pass the test so we could finally go wherever we wanted, we will not be that anxious to sit behind the wheel until we know for sure we can drive without causing collisions or delays. Even driving instructors will never tell us when they think we are ready because they would not want to assume this responsibility. Their job will be to teach us all the causes of accidents and delays and show us how to handle a car properly. They will have a thorough course of training that will include all the causes of accidents through carelessness, but it will be up to us to determine whether we are capable of driving without hurting anyone by comparing our ability with the tough driving standards set up by the driving schools. There will be no need for statutory speed limits that try to force compliance because nobody will desire to drive at a speed that endangers others. The speed limit will serve as a general guideline to indicate the maximum reasonable and safe speed to travel, as well as to alert the driver of dangerous road and weather conditions. Today we say — “Obey the laws or else you will be punished.” Tomorrow we say — “Don’t obey the laws of good driving if you don’t want to, but if someone gets hurt as a consequence, it will be impossible to blame anybody but ourselves.” Therefore, every suggestion to guide the new driver in the right direction will be willingly heeded because of this fear that someone other than ourselves (this is the least consideration in the new world), could be seriously hurt. Driving a car becomes a very hazardous profession because the very thought that someone might get hurt, for which there would be no blame or punishment and no questions would be asked as to whose fault it was, compels everyone to become an extremely skilled driver before undertaking what could very easily lead to the kind of accident just described, and there is no more unbearable form of punishment than to know that you are responsible for someone’s death or serious injury.

 

[Elixir]

Right now, there are more people killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend.

When was THAT written?

 

[peacegirl]

This whole thesis appears to be using an unnecessary number of words to say:

"If only people were perfectly honest, always thoughtful, and infallably aware of their own best interests, the world would be a much better place".

Which seems to me to be in equal parts bleeding obvious, and vanishingly unlikely to ever happen.

Using several thousand words, to say something that can readily be conveyed in two dozen, is only explicable by the observation that nobody will pay for, nor likely much respect, a book that contains only a single sentence.

I would publish a scathing critique of vacuous self-help books as a genre, but am too lazy to expand the above paragraph to 80,000 words, while adding no further meaning.

If that is what you got from the two chapters I posted, and you think it's vacuous, then it's good you know this now rather than later. You won't have to waste any more time here. I'm going to post just the beginning of Chapter Six, which is not in the sample chapters I gave. If you respond, I will not respond back because I already know your type, therefore I'm not interested in pursuing a discussion with you.

 

[peacegirl]

Right now, there are more people killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend.

When was THAT written?

He wrote this years ago and we still have a very troubling problem. It is still true that "more people are killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend" and with all of the police and all of the laws to deter careless and negligent driving, the problem still exists.

Car Accident Statistics For 2024

Car accidents are a fact of life. In 2022, a total of 42,514 fatal car accidents occurred on roadways across the United States. Another 1,664,598 crashes resulted in injuries and 4,226,677 caused property damage. In all, the number of police-reported crashes that year hit 5,930,496.¹ Car accident

www.forbes.com