satori

Simple and elegant. Good poll. For oldiesman, you should have made choice #5 "I am annoyed you didn't let me vote for being male, yet fondly kissing VP's foot."

Narcissism is infatuation with oneself. It is unhealthy to the person. It is therefore a self-destructive behavior, not a self-loving one. Rand's critics often refer to her essays as "frothing diatribes," or similar descriptives. I've read most, if not all, of her work. Never saw any "frothing diatribes." Her extremism is in her willingness to pursue the logical conclusion wherever it might lead, not in her emotionalism. I think the description is not at all accurate. It aptly describes the portraits her detractors have painted, but not the woman herself, or her writings. You say: "...my zeal for Rand's "system" broke down for me when I had to pit Jesus' admonition and example of sacrifice against Rand's frothing diatribes against such a notion as being duty." I have no idea what you are trying to say. How do you pit an admonition and example of Jesus against that which you consider a "frothing diatribe" in the first place? Also, the kind of "sacrifice" Rand spoke of was that of "altruism." As a Christian, I had always considered altruism to be a counterfeit of agape. Altruism robs individuals of their self-esteem, and of their property too. It is the philosophy of the "hive" mentality, the heart and soul of socialism. The individual has no rights and no property in a perfect, altruist world. Everyone is expendable (except those in charge). Christ did not "sacrifice" in the same way. He completed a transaction. He accomplished (as I understand it) something of value, and received something of great value in return - the "glory set before him." The perfect, capitalist scenario. Did Jesus have self-respect, or self-esteem? "I and my Father are one." I don't exactly know how that fits, but he was unique, and his "self" was tied into his mission and message, and his being the only begotten Son of God. His identity was one of "royalty," a fairly difficult perspective for most of us to imagine. Andrew and Phillip are princes - their self-esteem is propped up by position and status.

Abigail, For #1, I would say their self-esteem would be anchored in any value they might discover in themselves. It is very sad when parents do not love their children, or mistake flattery for the sort of encouragement which builds self-respect. #2 Those who know in their hearts they only gave 50% - for example - cannot tell themselves different. Their self-respect will be affected by their half-hearted effort and half-hearted contribution. #1(3) I think respect and esteem are very similar. To think of them differently might be worthwhile if it served some greater purpose of building understanding - writers often draw great semantic distinctions where none exist, for the sake if illustrating a point. Not much point here, at the moment. #2 (4) The great thing about rooting one's self-esteem in one's accomplishments is that you are not so easily criticized unjustifiably. If a crowd of friends and associates told you the sky was not blue, you'd still know the sky was blue. If they told you your accomplishment was a failure but you saw it succeed, you'd still know. You might want to look into why the crowd is so hostile, but they can't take away what you know. They can and will take back their favorable opinions of you. Better not to worry too much about those. Regards...

Happy birthday, songster. Many more.

Happy birthday, Tom, you maniac.

Practically speaking, the first 3 "pillars" (are they pillars?) are not "crap." Secondly, I have not said that rights are endowed by a Creator. I think that adopting this premise settles an otherwise difficult philosophical question, because the answer flies in the face of most dogmas, religious, political, or social. I did pose a question in hypothetical terms which may have led to that impression. But we are not here to avoid the difficult question, but to address it. The answer is that the individual is the least common denominator of society, and the cornerstone of our humanity. There are no rights but individual rights. There are no people but individuals. Jesus was an individual. Now that's an endorsement if ever there was one. "Civil rights" for example is a cliche, a meaningless one at that. What is a "civil?" Civils don't have rights. Individuals ONLY have rights. Next, rights must be derived from nature, but not "mother nature" - man's nature. Man at his best is a thinking, reasoning creature. For society therefore to become its best, its foundation must be built upon a philosophy which recognizes man at his best, and conveys, bestows, endows him with rights commensurate with that "best" within him. Love is nice, but love is not the best we're talking about here, unless it is the love of life, and self-love. Self-respect. Self-"esteem." "I am a worm, worthless and insignificant, but I LOVE ya, really I do!" That sentiment should make you sick. Who wants the love of someone who does not value him or her "self?" "I am the greatest living specimen of human magnificence on this wretched and undeserving planet, and I love YOU! Aren't you thrilled?" Likewise, this should make you sick. This is not self-love but pure narcissism. Self-infatuation and worship. Self-love is not a balance between self-hate and self-worship. It is entirely different. It is the recognition that you began with something valuable (like the parable of the talents) and you made something more valuable of it, or you at least STROVE to make something more valuable of it, with courage, with tenacity, with the best you could muster against the odds. Self-respect is not some badge of approval, given by others. That may be the result, sometimes, but never the source. Self-respect is the inner glow from knowing you've done well, you've done very well, if not your very best, you've made something wonderful. The more proud you can be of your effort, the more you will respect yourself. It's all about your own heart. Some with great accomplishments might know they only did half of what they were capable. Others with humble efforts might know they did their utmost. Who will have more self-respect, do you think? It might be a beautiful child, or a prosperous business, or a happy home, or an adventurer's life, or a body of work which makes you proud, but it is something which takes the blank slate of life and creates good. [This message was edited by satori on August 15, 2002 at 13:21.]

D'oh! I missed the question. Do I have a right to exist? Hmm, well where do "rights" come from? Are they mere corollaries to the arbitrary social contracts of human communities? Did they descend from Heaven like the Ten Commandments? Or do the Commandments themselves define rights? Does "Thou shalt not kill" mean "Thou hast the right not to be killed?" Do the Big 10 C's define rights before our fellow mens and womens, or only our duty to God Almighty? Yes, I have the right to exist. But from whence did it come? Thither, or yonder? ** cor·ol·lar·y (kôr-lr, kr-) n. pl. cor·ol·lar·ies A proposition that follows with little or no proof required from one already proven. A deduction or an inference. A natural consequence or effect; a result.

Hey Oak! Just picked up a new CD by the Fabulousblues Berries. Who, you ask, are the Fabulous Bluesberries? Bluesberries I ask myself that same question. Anyway, it's a great CD if you like to hear a great band rock the blues.

I think it's immediately obvious why the first tragi-heroic self-esteem thread failed to achieve the pinnacle of thread-hood, biting the dust in the mosh pit of Greasespottian angst. Someone can't seem to handle the topic. My diagnosis is that he suffers from low self-esteem. What luck! Maybe that person will turn his life around (finally), based on the eternal truths and verities about to be revealed on this very promising thread. Rarely does life afford such a golden opportunity for someone so undeserving, yet so painfully needy. I almost think we should make people sign green cards and fork over some of their hard-earned cash if they want to participate. Otherwise they may not be able to appreciate the fullness of the greatness of the magnificent tapistry of the revelation of the fullness of the...

Happy birthday Joanie!

You're welcome Lisa. If I recall, it was 84 (in one of his many, marvelous incarnations) who started that Self-Esteem thread to which you refer. Though it did not end gracefully, it was a valuable conversation for many of us.

You might try Nathaniel Branden's books. There may be no better writer on the subject. There are several titles, all good: How To Raise Your Self-Esteem Honoring The Self Six Pillars Of Self-Esteem Raise Your Self-Esteem The Art Of Living Consciously: The Power Of Awareness To Transform Everyday Life Taking Responsibility: Self-Reliance And The Accountable Life Nathaniel Brandens Self-Esteem Every Day: Reflections On Self-Esteem And Spirituality Self-Esteem at Work A Woman's Self-Esteem Power Of Self-Esteem The Psychology of Self-Esteem

Ba... da... bing! Ba... da... bing! Ba... da... bing bang BOOM! Good follow-up there, LG. I was wondering some of that stuff too.

Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the clarification. By the way you were being quoted I must have jumped to the same conclusion as a few others. Regards...

Well what do we know already? Is PFAL a firm foundation, law of believing and all? No, it isn't. It is a patchwork of plagiarized work and bogus scholarship. To accept PFAL, the "harmony of the gospels" for instance, you must close your eyes to a world of better scholarship outside of Wayworld. RG knows this. "Faith" should come from hearing, not from stopping your ears, but that is what Wierwille's organization insisted upon. Did TWI work just fine until Martindale showed up? Not if you talk to those who watched early on as Wierwille dumped successful and inspired leaders on both coasts to get control of the money and the corporation. Plenty of other stuff happened well before Craig showed up, as happy and stupid as "Odie" in the Garfield comic and long before he was poisoned. One might read "The Cult That Snapped," by what's-his-name for further information. RG, you never did answer laleo's question. Neither did you define or refute those "witty sophistries," leaving me to wonder if you aren't indulging yourself in a bit of wink n' nod inuendo. Couldn't be. Love rejoices in the truth. Must be my imagination. Long Gone says give it a chance. If it's of God (so to speak) it will flourish. The Mormons have been saying that for decades, and flourishing. TWI flourished until it stopped flourishing. Roman Catholicism has certainly flourished. Islam is really, really flourishing today. Will CFF ("Can't Fault the Fuhrer" - I wish I'd thought of that but it belongs to somebody else) flourish? It may depend less upon God's will than upon good management and a certain, rabid zeal. I remember the old fellowships, and the love, and the good stuff from TWI 1. It was officially gone by the time I arrived, but there were plenty of "remnants," individuals and fellowships, to experience before Wierwille's "God Squad" drummed them out of Wayworld. It was good. But it was not good for the reasons we believed. It was good because TWI's deceptions were close enough to some higher truth to allow the best in us to manifest itself. Maybe CFF can recreate those sweet deceptions for a while, and maybe that will permit some brief return to the idyllic, groovy Way days gone by. It can't last because the deception, being after all a foundation of sand, will faulter under the weight of human nature. Some new transmogrification of Martindale's memory will arrive to reap the harvest left in the field, as with TWI, and so many other insignificant little movements. Sure, give it a try. But you so-called "leaders" should experiment with your own lives, not anyone else's. It never works out that way, does it?

Let us recall what Rev Splinter said to Dot Matrix. Let us recall that Rev. Splinter was ordained by CFF. You are known by the company you keep. I wonder if Rev. Splinter will be making his PFAL/butt hygeine remarks to CFF followers, or are they reserved for those to whom he reveals his other face? He certainly represents the heart & soul of TWI today. Wonder why they threw his foot out. Maybe he was too nasty for TWI. (Is that possible?) Or did he leave because he didn't like the way they treated people? Yeah, right.

If TWI were the RC Church, the splinters might be the reformation offshoots. Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists... Each with their own personalities. In the end they will each pay their own lipservice to a God they do not know and render a disservice to the followers they entertain. ** But does it really matter? Reading the thoughts of people who want to follow, maybe it's good to keep them occupied and off the streets. I mean, where would those followers go if these splinters weren't around? They'd only wait for another shepherd to come along and promise them the Great Beyond. I mean, 70 virgins might sound like more fun than 5 crowns, but is the promise all that different? "For a hamburger today, I would gladly pay you for two, tomorrow." ** Tell you what. Follow me instead. I PROMISE that after you die, you will come back to re-live this lifetime, but the Supreme Bippy, your new deity, will deposit a million bucks in a Swiss bank account for you. SB tells me you'll be much better looking next time around, and taller, and you'll be able to avoid all the mistakes you made this time. Yes YOU can re-live the PAST! And do it in style!! But wait, there's more! You will shrewdly invest your cool mil in Microsoft (or your penny stock of choice) long before anyone else does and leverage it into a Solomon's fortune. You will retain all your knowledge from this go-around so you will be able to prevent all kinds of accidents, save the Twin Towers, and all kinds of good stuff. Everyone will love you. Amaze neighbors and friends. Get that hotty that never gives you a 2nd look into the sack without even trying! Just follow my teachings below and I promise this will come true - after you die. Lesson One: Send me all your money, except what you need to live and maintain an income. Lesson Two: If you're a hot babe (and legal), present yourself at my doorstep wearing nothing but a trenchcoat and take a number. (If not, see Lesson One.) I sure could use a foot massage, and a back rub, and... well it's tough being an apostle. I have big needs ya know. But you'll be rewarded BIG TIME, just as soon as you kick the bucket. Glory, and "PTL!" (Pass the loot.)

Ginger, though we occasionally disagree on things, I generally think you are brilliant, and in ways which go far beyond your keen intellect. People may foolishly underestimate you. Use it to your advantage.

Happy Birthday, Dee

Happy Birthday, Krys You truly deserve it.

Happy birthday Raf. satori

I threw a dictionary up into the air. When it fell open I tossed a coin onto the open page where it came to rest on the word... I have no idea what it was. As I walked up to read it, I tripped over the dictionary sending the coin flying, and the book fell closed when it landed across the room. Dang it! So I stopped allowing random universal forces to control my cyber-destiny and picked "satori" because I like it. I've offered other explanations in the past. But this one isn't true either.

Dot, While there are parallels, this movie is anything but a slice of life (no pun intended). I haven't seen the movie but there is plenty out of Hollywood these days that attempts to marginalize Christianity. I'm wondering if this movie had more of a political agenda than a psychological message. The left often competes with Christianity for the "moral high-ground" and in cases where there is cooperation, Christianity becomes much more like social activism, rooted in ethical dogma rather than spiritual experience. Where there is competition, the left attempts to paint Christianity as an ignorant and reactionary superstition. (There may be a few examples of that, but Jerry Falwell is their most popular target, unfairly. He's had conferences with gay leaders. I doubt the left would ever be so accommodating of their ideological opposites. Generally they're given to shouting down their opposition.) I guess I'd need to see the movie for myself, but you don't make it sound too appetizing. It will probably show up on cable someday. What marks TWI and most other Christian "extremists" is a strong sense of self-preservation. I don't believe the Jim Jones cult was altogether "Christian" in that respect, but then again many of those people were murdered, if I recall. The real wackos to watch are the ones who don't mind dying for their cause. TWI is predictable and relatively "safe" because its leaders are fundamentally greedy - self-interested in the worst way. Whatever damage they might do, and there's plenty, I don't expect we'll see them committing atrocities. It's the Presbyterians I'm worried about.

Hey Steve you maniac. Hope you had a great birthday. To keep from being late again, let me wish you happy birthday for 2003 right now, and that way I'll be the first. Sorry to have been late to wish HB to one of GS comic luminaries and most insightful posters. I still think Proclamation was one of the best threads ever. satori

Arizona is an inferno at the moment. Tens of thousands of acres have been incinerated and more by the hour. The cause? "Fire prevention." When natural fires are quickly extinguished in favorable conditions, the forest is able to grow thick with trees and other vegetation. Forestry experts say the ideal number of trees in a manageable forest is 50 per acre. Arizona has about 12,000 (or 1,200?) per acre. Anyway, it's way too much. When conditions are eventually unfavorable (hot and dry) the inferno ensues. All the best efforts of fire crews are futile. Too much fuel. People are the same way. If we attempt to contain our conflicts they will go unresolved and build. I suggest letting them burn themselves out. Coolwaters makes a good point. The audience fuels the phenomenon. What good is an insult that nobody hears? But the phenomenon is NOT the fight. And you thought it was! Nope. Ain't so. What is the real issue? The "fighters?" They are in the "ring" of their own volition. The real issue is the rubber-necking of others. In my experience, the fighters do not whine and snivel at Pawtucket day and night to "please dear God make it stop!!!" It's almost ludicrous, but the whiners are those who could easily go on to read something else. But they don't. They are FASCINATED, hoping to see blood I think. Like a driver who bitches about rubber-necking traffic ahead of him and then stops himself to gawk at the carnage when he has a good view. There are two sides of ourselves at work. The "parent" and the "child." Remember "transactional analysis?" - Boy, that's going back a few decades. Still useful now and then. It divided the human personality into three alternating, interactive and competitive behavior patterns: the rule-enforcing authoritarian "parent," a.k.a. Gladys K; the emotional, impulsive "child," and the mature, self-directed, conscious "adult." Using this paradigm, the "child" rushes into the thread with all the fireworks to watch the action ringside, while the "parent" hounds Pawtucket to enforce "something, anything, just give us law and order." Same person, parent and child. The "adult" is nowhere to be found. In other words, the problem is not the fight or the fighters, who have good reason to be involved or they wouldn't be. It's the audience which refuses to behave responsibly. Therefore if there are rules, they should be directed to the audience. ** Rule 1: If you don't like "fights," don't READ those threads! And don't *****-foot around them pretending to be superior, adding comments like "Hmmm, shouldn't this be in the Soap Opera forum?" You know what that is? That is being a weasel. a) You're OFF topic, and B) You know damn well YOU are adding more fuel to the conflict by adding YET a 3rd contributing factor - that of the invalidating judge/petulant smartass. Rule 2: If you don't like "fights," and you insist on READING them anyway, don't bitch to Pawtucket about it afterward. You didn't have to read it. Rule 3: Three rules is one too many. ** Great topic laleo.