Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (22271)	5/25/1998 6:07:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

jbe: No stones for you, just accolades for bringing up some very valid points. I am not the narrow-minded curmudgeon bastard that a handful like gsm, X, Evil Emile or Jaded Jane think I am. Don't be such a lurker, hang around a while longer sometime. I'm sure Christine would agree you are most welcome. Conversations can get heated here sometimes, true, but only because some of the players use emotional attacks instead of rational facts in their arguments against me. In truth, had X terribly sprained both her ankles in the wilderness somewhere and couldn't walk, I would carry her to safety and aid. It is not altruism but one human directly helping another in trouble. It shows respect for all men and women and the value one places on human life. How do I know I would do this? Well, I've actually already done it once several years ago when a woman jogger injured her leg in the Angeles forest. I carried her more than 3 miles on my back to get aid for her injury. I had never seen her before (but since then she sends me a Christmas card every year). But I do question the use of the word "banal" to describe my arguments. They are not trite or commonplace, indeed they fly in the face of today's popular "wisdom". X has gone so far to call my arguments for rationality and objectivity a "cry in the wilderness", is that banal? Hardly! To respond to several other points you raised: "The sun is still shining; go outside for a nice Memorial Day picnic." I have been so busy these past few weeks with my companies this is the first chance I've had to catch up on the doings at the FEELINGS thread. Ask Christine, I'm sure she'll tell you I haven't been around here much lately. BTW, I'm responding to posts with a laptop. Right now I'm enjoying a Mai-Tai sitting out by my pool. Don't worry about FT, he knows how to mix pleasure with pleasure! :-) "Isn't this thread supposed to be about FEELINGS?" Yes it is, but feelings based on irrational musings are worthless and when some argue a whole civilization should be built on FEELINGS, then it is very dangerous to the future of the world and Mankind. "But you can't argue about feelings -- feelings are what they are." I am not arguing about feelings. I am attempting to point out the errors that many exhibit by substituting illusion for reality. A person may have an opinion, but when facts are available opinions become worthless. "Perhaps if you were to bear in mind (and perhaps even analyze)the complexities of the feelings/beliefs/ideas interrelationship, you might come up with some genuinely interesting discussions." Feelings emerge from the conscious and unconscious values one accepts or rejects during their life. If objective reality is rejected, then the value system that is created is false and the feelings which emerge are self-destructive and can also be destructive to those around the person suffering from this self-inflicted condition. For a greater insight into the self, objectivity, reality and the entire epistomological/psychological matrix you speak of I invite you to pick up some of Nathaniel Branden's books. Father Terrence