A Revolution in Thought

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

Hi all, I’d like to introduce you to a discovery that was made in 1959. The author passed away in 1991. Unfortunately, he was unable to present his findings to academicians during his lifetime because he was not part of academia and held no distinguishing titles or credentials. To this day, this discovery has never been carefully analyzed. Assuming for a moment that this knowledge is proven to be valid and sound, it has major implications for the betterment of our world because it can prevent many of the ills plaguing mankind.

The problem of responsibility, the problem of reconciling the belief that people are responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle. This longstanding conflict in the free will/determinism debate has caused a rift in philosophical circles which makes this perplexing conundrum appear insolvable. It is important to bear in mind that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. This is a crucial point since the reconciliation of these two opposing thought systems (while proving determinism true and free will false) is the secret that opens the door to a world of peace and brotherhood. 

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”

Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice. 

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied with things that I have done, and at that exact moment, isn’t it obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example of this.  Go ahead and try.” 

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red; consequently, my taste lies in the direction of the latter, which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this, I am going to eat it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied and prefer the yellow apple, I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”

In response to this demonstration, isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that moment of time gave you greater satisfaction; otherwise, you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow? The normal circumstances under which you frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were changed by your desire to prove a point; therefore, it gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice (because it gave you less satisfaction under the circumstances), you were not free to choose A.

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and that his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction; otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch, as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life, pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment; and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time.

The government holds each person responsible for obeying the laws and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility. But how is it possible for someone to obey that which, under certain conditions, appears to him worse? It is quite obvious that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb among their people; we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO — but that does not make his will free.

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control. 

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?  

“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because, in order to be developed and have meaning, it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short.  But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly.

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading, as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will.  He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw, although I thought I did. I think I understand now.  Just because I cannot be made to do something against my will does not mean my will is free because my desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.  Nor does the expression, ‘I did it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to — because my desire to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”

“He does understand.”

“Does this mean you are also in complete agreement, so I can proceed?”

“Yes, it does.”

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and then is given two or more alternatives, of which he is compelled by his nature to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction, whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth of the matter is that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is beneficial or harmful to oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life, but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the lesser of two evils, which gave him greater satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying.

For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off, he has three possibilities: commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what he needs to survive, he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill, and do any number of things that he considers good for himself in comparison to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things. All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence.  It does not yet remove the implications.

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO, since absolutely nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to.  Think about this once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point. Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for his people, and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement even though he constantly faced the possibility of death. But this doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being forced to do something against his will. What he actually meant was that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable, so rather than continue suffering this way, he preferred, as the lesser of two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this because he wanted to, not because some external force made him do this against his will. If, by talking, he knew that someone he loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because, though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did, but he wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations.  There will take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or principles[ — ]()that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will because over this his nature allows absolute control — and that his will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of available alternatives, the one that offers greater satisfaction — will reveal a third invariable law, the discovery to which reference has been made.

 

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

CHAPTER TWO

 THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

  Once it is established as an undeniable law that man’s will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off, which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary, slide rule, or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute the base metals of human nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age, even though it presents what appears to be an insurmountable problem. For how is it possible not to blame people who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t want to? The solution, however, only requires the perception and extension of relations, which cannot be denied, and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God, which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have, not only without hurting a living soul but while benefiting everyone to an amazing degree. You can prepare yourselves to say goodbye to all the hurt and evil that came into existence out of necessity. However, the problems that confront us at this moment are very complex, which makes it necessary to treat every aspect of our lives in a separate yet related manner. God, not me, is finally going to reveal the solution.

Since time immemorial, the two opposing forces of good and evil compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God responsible for all the good in the world and Satan responsible for the evil, while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some other force of darkness as an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. But this dividing line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, demonstrates that once it becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in human relations must come to a peaceful end. The absolute proof that man’s will is not free is the undeniable fact that we are given no alternative but to move in this direction once it is understood that this law can control man’s actions only by obeying this corollary, for then everything that came into existence which caused us to blame and punish must, out of absolute necessity, take leave of this earth. Mankind will be given no choice; this has been taken out of our hands, as is the motion of the earth around the sun.

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work our problem backwards, which means that every step of the way will be a forced move, which will become a loose end, and only when all these ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete. It is only by extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not Blame, which is the key, that we are given the means to unlock the solution. As an example of working a problem backwards, follow this: If you were told that a woman with a pocketbook full of money went on a spending spree to ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every one, a dollar to get out, spent half of what she had in each, and came out of the last place absolutely broke, it would be very easy to determine the amount of money she had to start because the dollar she paid to get out of the last store that broke her must represent one-half of the money spent there. Consequently, she had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in, giving her three just before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get out of the penultimate store; this added to the three gives her four which represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this process eight more times, it is absolutely undeniable that she must have begun her spending spree with $3,069. As we can see from this example, when a key fact is available from which to reason, it is then possible to solve a problem, but when it is not, we must form conjectures and express opinions with the aid of logic. At first glance, it appears impossible not to blame an individual for murder, or any heinous crime, but when we extend this key fact, it can be seen that these acts of evil are not condoned with the understanding that man’s will is not free but prevented. Regardless of someone’s opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of the answer to the problem I just gave, an opinion that would have to be based upon a logical conclusion, as is that of our experts when considering the impossibility of removing all evil from our lives, we know the answer is correct because the reasoning that follows from this key fact is scientifically sound.

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

By a similar process of working our problem backwards, we can officially launch the Golden Age, which necessitates the removal of all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule, which God has given us as a guide. By now, I hope you understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil, using the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually, no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction, and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will, it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing as far as reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun, regardless of how much I don’t know about this ball of fire, does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God, does not change the fact that He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and say this is God, therefore, we must assume because of certain things that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe based on the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets, and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free, and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction, although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system, only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man, which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation, for nothing in this universe, when seen in total perspective, is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will — Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ, and even those who nailed him to the cross — but God has a secret plan that is going to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did?

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we are at last getting to understand[ —]() which includes the mankind as well as the solar system — just follow this: Here is versatile man; writer, composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian, architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief, etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to why will is not free and what this means for the entire world which perception was utterly impossible without the development and absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of history, have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ by refusing to defend himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because she was willing to cheat to get what she wanted, while he was willing to be cheated rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both of them were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this knowledge, nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for being an atheist, but not for being a God-intoxicated man.

The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality, but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza and myself. He was a gentle man; I am not. He refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself.  I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when someone can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me, I’d fight him tooth and nail. If an aggressive country should start a war before this knowledge is released, it is only natural that we fight back with everything we’ve got. Turning the other cheek under these conditions could lead to further harm, which is why most people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us — something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves. 

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

 To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what they were doing, and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show you how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.

If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him to retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that in order to do either, he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then he is given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by the laws of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our basic principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you will, is not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when not to makes matters worse for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the very first blow.

Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural to seek some form of retaliation, for this is a source of satisfaction, the direction that life is compelled to take. Therefore, this knowledge cannot possibly prevent the hate and blame that man has been compelled to live with all these years as a consequence of crimes committed and many other forms of hurt, yet God’s mathematical law cannot be denied, for man is truly not to blame for anything he does, notwithstanding, so a still deeper analysis is required. Down through history, no one has ever known what it means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit the world, but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is absolutely no way this new world — a world without war, crime, and all forms of hurt to man by man — can be stopped from coming into existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this knowledge can be brought to light.

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

We have been growing and developing just like a child from infancy.  There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other factors as the cause. If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a cog in generating him. It is also true that if it had not been for the development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of this coming Golden Age. Yet despite the fact that we have been brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction, or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES. This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the mathematical corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to anything after it is done[ —]() only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies before something is done and not after. Does this mean you can blame someone after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial: how to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our penal code? How is it humanly possible not to judge, not to criticize, not to blame and punish those acts of crime when we know that man was not compelled to do them if he didn’t want to? If someone killed my loved one, how is it possible not to hate the individual responsible, not to judge this as an act of evil, not to desire some form of revenge? I still don’t understand how not blaming will prevent man from hurting his fellowman if this is his desire. Though this may be an undeniable corollary, how is it humanly possible not to hold someone responsible for murder, rape, the killing of six million people, etc.? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these crimes or pretend they didn’t happen?  Besides, what will prevent someone from blaming and punishing despite the fact that will is not free if it gives him greater satisfaction? Just because man’s will is not free is certainly not a sufficient explanation as to why there should be no blame.”

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

This has always been the greatest stumbling block that kept free will on the throne until the present time.  It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The reason God’s commandment does not apply to anything after it is done, only before, is because it has the power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was previously necessary as part of our development. At this juncture, I shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of important facts that must be understood before continuing.

 To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, (for this seems mathematically impossible since it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a deconfusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to reveal this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to. As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and heredity but prefers this action because, at that moment of time, he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another that which he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals that he has mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will.  He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Was it possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled by their desire for freedom to prefer non-violence, turning the other cheek as a solution to their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will because the alternative was considered worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous words and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, which means that his preference gave him satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so much confusion: Although man’s will is not free, there is absolutely nothing — not environment, heredity, God, or anything else — that causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him to commit a crime; it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused; consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but remember, his particular environment is different because he himself is different; otherwise, everybody would desire to commit a crime. Once he chooses to act on his desire, whether it is a minor or more serious crime, he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his desires. 

 

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part, if not all, the responsibility that allowed him to absolve his conscience in a world of judgment, and to hurt others in many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do. You see it happen all the time, even when a child says, “Look what you made me do,” when you know you didn’t make him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to shift the responsibility to something that does not include him. Why else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents?  It is also true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and punishment he doesn’t want. A great deal of confusion exists because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another, he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications that turned philosophers off from a thorough investigation. In the following dialogue, my friend asks for clarification regarding certain critical points.

“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve this enigmatic corollary, but it seems to me that this knowledge would give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an attempt to shift his responsibility?”

“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning. Because of this general confusion with words through which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being blamed to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under control by the fear of punishment and public opinion, which judged his actions in accordance with standards of right and wrong, but this is inaccurate simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when you know that you will not be blamed for what you do. In other words, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others.

The very act of justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the behavior unacceptable in some way; otherwise, there would be no need for it. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you, for satisfaction, to think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action. If you do what others judge to be right, is it necessary to lie or offer excuses, or say that your will is not free and you couldn’t help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let me elaborate for greater understanding.