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?