There Are No Shortcuts

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 minutes ago, regi said:

If you believe there are examples of, "where fear works well," is irrelevant to the question. Unless you believe fear always works well, the question pertains to those instances when someone experiences fear about which they are in doubt. What method do they use to determine if the fear is reality based or simply paranoia.

Heh.

This is another perfect example of restricted menu. But I don't have time to break it down.

I can do this in the time I have, though:

23 minutes ago, regi said:

The two sentences you misconstrued as, "menu items," only described the situation when the nature of fear is in doubt.

Precisely. (Except I didn't misconstrue them.)

23 minutes ago, regi said:

The question is entirely open ended.

Precisely.

That's how the double-bind works. 

Why not preface an open-ended question with open-ended menu items? They are presented as if they are part of the same message. But I know why.

It's because open-ended options don't lead to the preferred outcome.

Think about it.

I don't mind if you don't get it, though. (Defense mechanisms and all.)

I am 100% sure many readers will get it.

Michael

[regi]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I am 100% sure many readers will get it.

Me too!

[RobinReborn]

regi... your original post is pretty cynical.

 

I read 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (by Stephen Covey, not Franklin Covey), I thought it was pretty good.  Granted I wouldn't follow the advice literally but it is useful.  Same with Branden's book.

 

Not sure what you're trying to do here.

[regi]

15 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

Not sure what you're trying to do here.

I'm trying to enjoy the exchange of ideas, with the hope that somone might find some value in them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

58 minutes ago, regi said:

I'm engaged in the thankless task of helping the credulous, gullible, and superstitious develop some discernment.

This is called condescending vanity.

God knows what it's doing on a philosophy forum.

Why does one who hunts rabbits not go where rabbits are, but instead goes to the open sea and call his hunt "thankless"? If one is hunting for credulous, gullible, and superstitious people, why not go where there are credulous, gullible, and superstitious people?

OL was not designed to prepare the way for a savior of mankind.

And, although the martyrdom itch can be bothersome, nobody around here crucifies savior wannabes. So even that storyline falls flat...

btw - I am protective of regular OL members. If anyone wants to insult them as a collective, there is a huge Internet out there to do so. I am not running this place for that to flourish here.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is called condescending vanity.

God knows what it's doing on a philosophy forum.

Why does one who hunts rabbits not go where rabbits are, but instead goes to the open sea and call his hunt "thankless"? If one is hunting for credulous, gullible, and superstitious people, why not go where there are credulous, gullible, and superstitious people?

OL was not designed to prepare the way for a savior of mankind.

And, although the martyrdom itch can be bothersome, nobody around here crucifies savior wannabes. So even that storyline falls flat...

btw - I am protective of regular OL members. If anyone wants to insult them as a collective, there is a huge Internet out there to do so. I am not running this place for that to flourish here.

Michael

Thank you, Michael.