psychoanaleesis

A. Thanks. But I cooked, essentially, not for you. B. You're an ingrate. C. You're attempting to use contradictions i.e. implying the idea of "advancing negatively" D. I liked you better when you claimed to be using 'common sense' i.e. being like that of a child. E. Speculate on encountering Mayans who still cut your heart out and expect you praise them for their oh so accurate calendar. F. Good night.

Peter, you said: The “Individual Talents Found in Other Races,” is something to be examined scientifically. I have read that the Chinese invented gunpowder, and the Arabs (pre-Muhammad) the decimal system, Africans the throwing spear, and American Indians never created the wheel, except as a toy...[end quote] one question: Who among them did it? Surely, it cannot be a million people all thinking on the same problem at once. If they can, hey, "collective" effort does work wonders. This is assuming that there were NO forerunners for if there were, he/she/that set should be the only ones truly to deserve credit.

As with any "communal" object, the libraries in this country is in far much worse conditions than yours (through socio-economic factors). I'd prefer private ones though I cannot say that I have access. That is why I have my own though I cannot boast about its size and it does not include that book which you speak of. If no one knows what they've done and is only guilty of not being omniscient, then what's the problem again? Human activities just go on in its current pace. If you do not know what those "organic compounds" are or where or how they could be potentially be discovered from, then we (as owner and interested individual) won't get to cross paths and essentially, there won't be a 'we' in this case. However, since it is known that "novel organic compounds" can be found in such areas, then they (scientists/private individuals) should lay claim to it wherever possible and exploit it to whatever interest they have which is essentially the same game. The unnatural would be that when one who wants to claim but is stopped by another group who says that no one has the right to claim except "future generations" and that it must be preserved for them but not for the present. Woe to those who think that way because they play blind to the fact that without the present who can own, there could be no one else in the future as well. OR do they deceive others for they have something more sinister in mind like power over man's actions and thoughts? They say they want to preserve? That which you want to preserve but are ignorant of its nature will eventually reach an apex and as to the natural order, be replaced by other organisms via extraneous events out of your capability to stop with your shouts and placards. It's all good even if you do not agree with me but do analyze your language (3rd paragraph). I think it hints aggression. No use speculating what Rand would have felt. Also, she need not luck to be part of "common sense" as her system heralds that of Aristotle's though of added value -as even you say to the nature of common sense which do not even oppose hers- then it therefore makes sense to say that it is at least in part, already "common sense".

I never said anything about painting birds. Imitation from the Oxford Dictionary • noun 1 the action of imitating. 2 a copy. And the same dictionary also gives an example: Does "copying" here mean "making an exact clone"? Of course not. The same dictionary gives for "copy": "a thing made to be similar or identical to another", so a copy doesn't have to be an exact copy, it can also be something similar. Ooopps, I apologize Dragonfly and Newberry as well and all members of OL. I was responding to Newberry at that time. Okay, last one, I'm growing tired of this but Good Spar nonetheless. I know what you're denoting and actually, I agree. Of course, an exact copy of an object accurate to its quark component cannot be done. For example, there is only one Mona Lisa and only one. If I took a photograph, could I claim that it is the actual Mona Lisa? No. To be precise, I can claim that it is a photograph of the Mona Lisa. Another, if I painted one myself, could I claim it to be of similar value or price in money? No. I can only sell it for a lower price even if it could be said to be "better drawn". That's imitation for you. It can only be appraised for a lesser value than the authentic one. This is my claim: If one wants to attain a higher value than the original, what does one do? Of course, re-creates that thing and fashion it to his liking and thus, making another original i.e. not imitation. and that is what Art is all about which is basically, "making originals" that cannot be equaled by imitation.

Again with the extreme examples. Is there no such thing as common sense here? If you own a massive tract of land like a rain forest and destroy it then you're going to have a real and measurable negative impact on the surrounding land that you don't own and the planet as a whole unless you first come up with a way to duplicate everything that the rain forest did and had the potential to do. I say potential because you just potentially destroyed the cure to cancer or HIV when you cut it down. I'm all for 'conquering' nature - as long as you're sure you know what the hell you're doing first. I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to act a bit conservatively, especially when we don't yet have all the answers. Sure, once you know that the septic system in your back yard that you refuse to fix won't hurt anyone but you, by all means do what thou wilt. I just don't want a bunch of ignoramuses running around thinking they're infallible and that their happiness is dependent on doing what comes impulsively without a basic understanding of the consequences. Your line of thinking is how you breed stupidity and kill off a civilization. Read the book - each of the civilizations in it thought they'd be just fine because they were too "advanced" to fail. I'm not saying you have to go hug trees or stop eating meat, I'm saying one should be conscious of their actions and that entails being knowledgeable. My good man, you will only get so far using common sense *read 3rd entry. Okay, you want some good stuff from everything being privatized too? Don't get all hot-headed. I was just playing with your examples. LOL. Let's say, I own a rain forest and a group of scientist suspects that the cure for cancer lies in a certain plant that grows in a certain part of it, if they get to me first, I could sell/loan them the "rights" to explore my land and keep anything that they find from it say provided I get 30% of "final products" derived from their finds plus credit to whatever material they publish or whatever I fancy as the owner. Then I can! In this example, I was using my reasoning to the best that I could. If I only see that far ahead, making a certain amount from short-term profits than seeing it through for aeons to come, then it's my fault and nobody else. If this is the case, would you suggest that as the rightful owner, I'd be imprisoned, coerced or muscled out by the government who has the monopoly to initiate the use of force? Or would you rather have me assassinated for the "common good"? (which is actually derived from individual rights i.e. Me and you but currently being used without acknowledging the source). One suggestion as interested parties, (assuming that you are moral) you could tempt me to sell it to you entirely or in trade terms: Buy me out. Sure, civilizations come and go because of their individual stupidity but you cannot lay claim for a fact that even if the Mayans have gone "extinct", you will find no trace of their genes in the natives in South America and thus, the potential for another rise still exists. (and if you can, I'll gladly remove this paragraph) You see, even when you "destroy", you actually cannot as demonstrated by the law of conservation of mass or energy. Each man, must understand that due to his nature (at least one of his remarkable qualities), that being he is a highly complex organism, that he is the most fragile as well and therefore, if he is to actualize his potentials, he has nowhere to go but up. This example is clearly evident in babies since they are the weakest animals on this planet and one who needs more care from its parent if it is to survive and survive properly at that. Tell you what, since you're so enthusiastic about me reading that book, send me a copy. I'll be happy to read it and critique it too i.e. give credit where it deserves and refute it to the best of my reasoning where it needs to be. We cool?

Indeed. Contrary to David's claim in post # 27 that a visual imitation of a bird is art, but an aural one is not, a composer's inclusion of identifiable imitations of bird calls would be a means of satisfying Rand's requirement that art must have objectively "intelligible subjects." In other words, it is not music's inclusion of bird calls and similar imitations that prevent it from satisfying Rand's criteria for art, but its lack of them. J I'm crying foul here. Dragonfly said "painting of bird" which I classified as art. Imitation from the Oxford Dictionary • noun 1 the action of imitating. 2 a copy.

Peter, Sincerely, I do enjoy reading and replying to your posts. I'm glad someone else, you in this case, 'said so' as well as I did. you said: My first grandchild, Elizabeth will be baby-sat by my wife, mother-in-law, and my retired self starting in a week. She will be contented, and intellectually stimulated while with us for about 9 hours a day, but I will not be conducting any Skinner Box experiments on her. [end quote] -I'm different in a way that I'm distant from the culture and mores here. I have this constant curiosity about humans that I sometimes perform quasi-psychological experiments on my relatives just to see if a theory works - minus the electrodes. you said: (emphasis mine) With all that is going on in America and the World why is an examination of IQ important? We are headed for a global crisis. In our country the unfunded mandates for Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable. Our debt cannot be repaid. Our personal debt is equivalent to every American putting seventy-eight thousand dollars on their credit card EACH MONTH! Nationalized Healthcare may be the nail in our coffin. The world will need to think more rationally with whatever innate abilities we have. A crash was predicted back in the 1970’s and it never happened, but now things are a lot worse.[end quote] -Sad but not discouraging. Just to remind you Peter, need counts for little in idea and nothing in actuality though ability does for a lot at that. You can though, think for yourself relative to your desire to get out and consequently, rise above the dilemma you are experiencing. you said: Unfortunately, it may have reached its limit for Non-Africans around the 100 to 106 range, with doubts being cast upon the Mainland Chinese claim to a (g) of 106 (reflecting their nationalistic superiority.) I have not heard of any Flynn Affect studies with the one unique, high-end group, European Jews, who score 117 on average with one quarter of them scoring in the genius range. I presume they have also reached their upper end limit too.[end quote] -106 is still "average". If I ever meet the author of this ignorant work I'd tell him to get his race at least 116 points and even at that, the Chinese masses can't claim to be above others especially against individual talent of other races. you said: I want to thank the respondents who have exhibited rationality and benevolence towards this topic.[end quote] -You are very much welcome and I thank you as well. Good spar.

Would you say the same for murder? If a man was stabbed once or thirty-times, would it make a difference as to the senselessness it wreaked? Hmm, careful with the planet? If I have a piece of land, I could do whatever I want with it as long as it's within my "right of way" correct? I cannot, as a moral man, endanger my neighbors by poisoning the town's reservoir just to kill myself. I'd put cyanide in my coffee instead. If that rain forest was mine and no one else lays claim to it, yes, I'd build a casino if I so deem it potentially profitable. I'd post my reply again since you present a similar argument to another person on my blog: mabhhellee said i see your point... but dont you think we still need to protect our nature? would you and me be able to live with out it? ME, i can't!..... maybe environmentalism was implying on protecting the future OUR FUTURE.. i dont think its hypocrisy.... Can't we protect our nature and existing as MAN at the same time as you've pointed out? That having it protected means being a caveman? My reply: Nature has only come this far and we could use it to achieve so much more. Environmentalism is hindering Man from pursuing higher forms of knowledge and happiness on demand. For example, instead of preserving those plankton in our oceans, we ought to concentrate more on developing synthetic means of recycling CO2 to O2 again. Besides, there is NO definite result on the effect of Human made CO2 emissions as a major contributor to the supposed "global warming" and how do we differentiate the carbon dioxide coming from our cars and that of a volcano produced one in the atmosphere? And if there was and we found out that there is NO SIGNIFICANT effect? Would environmentalists shut their traps then? If there IS, then we should SOLVE it and overcome it instead of trying to reverse the effect. As a saying goes, "No use crying over spilled milk." You, may know for a fact that if we DID decrease the level of CO2 significantly in the atmosphere, another Ice Age would ensue. As man, we should be conquering matter and nature and find out how we could harness it all to cater to our happiness and survival.

Ah yes, after reading mangas and enjoying anime, how could I forget! Bingo Dan! A person could only attempt to imitate but not imitate and this is what I was hoping dragonfly would recognize after so many emphasis from moi. However, with the right instrument e.g. bird whistles, one could be "fooled" as you say. Given a flute (or other musical instruments) however, would make the sounds clearly distinguishable and thus, would be far from imitation because obviously, the musician adds his own style. Dragonfly did mention the word stylized which is one of the basics in art. This is why, even if I could successfully copy the Leonardo's Mona Lisa or play Bach seamlessly, I, as the artist would try to modify it to my sense of life and thus, it would be my art - even if no one else notices the slight difference in shade or tempo. It becomes mine. Mine! Mine I say! Lol. Kidding asides, it's like a person memorizing something as opposed to a person learning something. Which of the two would be of higher value? This is similar to the appreciation of arts where as opposed to imitation or copying, an additional order has been added. Similarly, if a writer copies the work of another without permission, he would not automatically be a novelist but rather a plagiarist. Journalism, while it has its merits cannot be called an art in itself because it presents things as they are and it does not lend itself readily to "style" for it would be colored with opinions and thus, would not become readily usable as its primary purpose is.

Swimming in general... love the resistance water gives, the pressure when I dive and the contemplating period it offers as I glide through the water.

Is it time for Civil disobedience? There should be a test case right after if it's ratified and another, and another and another... You still have the potential beloved America. Fight it, fight for your freedom and all those who love it shall rise up in answer to your noble and resolute call. Here and elsewhere, it's a lost cause and the only thing I can do for myself in the name of the spirit which you are founded, is not to give in. I take away my consent from the muck whenever I can. To uphold myself by rejecting their premise of man living for another. Godspeed to my beloved land and true home.

Things have just started to get interesting. --Brant Yup. Now it is a fight to the death between independent voters and the democrats. November is coming and the knives are being honed. Every democrat in a district or state with a large independent vote who voted for the Abomination, is now vulnerable. What happened in Massachusetts, can happen elsewhere Ba'al Chatzaf Oh no...no no no no....

Nice choice.

This is from a nationwide news paper here in the Philippines... gave me the chills News Article MANILA, Philippines—It’s one thing to turn your lights off for an hour for Saturday’s global celebration of Earth Hour, but it’s an entirely different thing to commit to make every hour of your life an effort to ensure the planet’s survival. Former Environment Secretary and now Earth Day Network chair Elisea Gozun says that more than just turning lights off, ensuring Earth’s survival means a change in lifestyle. “The key to achieving sustainability is changing the lifestyle of everyone. That’s what switching off really means,’’ she says. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Change... for whose benefit? Here's my response for last year's "Earth Hour"/Environmentalism in general: We going back to caves?! AGGGHH!! What is the true goal of environmentalism? The preservation of nature as a static environment without human intervention? The gradual wipe-out of the human race? The submission of Man to nature's cycles? Personally, I like seeing those wild animals free on their natural habitats - endangered or not but if I find my comfort and happiness threatened by these creatures, then I'd rather see them boiling in a cauldron. I do not imply that let's actively kill them for game because that would be purposeless but I recently watched/read on the news that some environmental group proposes that a portion of Baguio City (I do not know which) should be placed as a "protected" spot since they found two forms of "native mammals" there and that the cultivation of land for vegetable farms should be stopped in deference to these rats mammals. And I thought, What the hell? The prices of food (veggies in this case) are soaring off the market and the only thing that may alleviate that is by planting more and here they go saying that farmers SHOULD STOP planting?!? I'm not so much a veggie loving person but I seem to remember that somewhere in Australia, cattle farming went on a shutdown of some sort because some enviro-hippies said that the cows are destroying the soil? Errr... so what if the ground grows deeper than a few centimeters it's a small price to pay for me and all those who love burger patties. Okay, the argument there would be let's stick to veggies and become vegans which are proposed by some environmentalists. First of all, there are some nutrition that can only be acquired through the sustenance of meat and secondly, should I substitute my true joy for a fake? And granted everybody did switch to veggies, environmentalists will claim-just like Baguio-some areas of huge agro-industrial potential sealed off from human hands and use the government to point its guns at its own citizens. I'm beginning to see that the true purpose of environmentalism is the destruction of human property ergo achievements and consequentially, man as we know him. When certain areas become wildlife sanctuaries, the usual plan of these short-sighted people is Eco-tourism. That's laughable because how can you promote tourism if there is barely anything to eat? Wait, don't these people also want us to stop using cars, airplanes and boats? Are they suggesting that we bike up the mountain? Use row boats to travel from continent to continent? Use up precious human time in laborious activities when we have replaced them with something more efficient? Are those farmers just going to sit idly until a flock of tourists come once a year or move to cities which environmental groups will deter because people are already clogged up in cities and will therefore be another "excess" source of pollution? Environmentalism is some form of hypocrisy, where they scream "Let's not cut down trees!" but are enjoying a cozy winter inside a log cabin. "Let's save energy!" and parties all night. "Plastics are a danger to nature!" while holding a brand new cellphone while listening to his I-pod and typing away in front of their computers. Consider Earth Hour, where some fanatics of environmentalism really did turn everything off that uses energy (including their minds?) Just earth hour? why don't we have Earth Month or Earth Year? Let's see if you like it. While I'll be sitting inside a concrete house , sitting on a comfy-synthetic chair, listening to music through a stereo or watching TV with the lights and the AC on. Let me tell you that in submission to nature, you are turning away from Man's Hour. I would rather not join those environmentalists. So if you want to be cavemen again., you have the freedom to do it on your own. Don't drag others who are and want to continue existing as Man.

As opposed to your proposal, I'm trying to leave this country (Philippines) to go to the US. I may have to stop by some more socialist places along the way though...

Good points. Do correct me Michael, but those people who have the habit of bringing out their, "I'm an Objectivist" trump card in a discussion are frauds. That is to say, if you claim to use Objectivism or know it by heart, why do you still need to convince other people that you are? Further, if you're right- just stand by it. If you're wrong or have been duped - admit it when asked. If you're not sure, say so and then try to find out more (to the best you can relative to your degree of interest on the matter)...Either way, you're not really fooling anyone.

Pt1. I do not quite understand what is meant by "less coherent" in terms of responding to the test but the tests ARE environmentally malleable in the sense that the examinee,is free to process it however he/she likes as long as he/she gets the correct response or he/she may even attempt to invalidate the test by demonstrating how and where it's wrong. Also, it would be dependent on how he/she reports her condition on the exam date. Professionally, I would not advise continuing testing if the examinee tells me that he/she is feeling uncomfortable whether physically or psychologically. Pt2.Yep, agree with the Flynn Effect there but why the then does the Normal Distribution Curve is still bell-shaped as it was first conceived even after re-norming the population? It is because in a given population, there would always be someone who falls behind and someone who goes to the top most. Please note that the NDC has no O% and likewise 100%. Pt3. So based on Psychology qua her findings, if I had both genius American parents but we are currently living in the Philippines and are currently poor, then it would significantly delimit/increase my IQ??? Wait, another interpretation would be, If my potential genius father was rich and my potential genius mother was poor, then I would not have been conceived because of the law of propinquity i.e. they do not play around the same socio-economic circles? If that's the case, then yes, I assent to this point. Pt4. There are. However, if Gardner or Sternberg's theories were to have a "generalized" concept of intelligence, what does that give us? It's 'g'-factor which is open to analysis but it remains a fact that IQ is hereditary. Pt5. Everything starts with a premise my friends though there are infinite sets of it. From this follows attitude which yields to character to methods and consequently habits in both thinking and of course, approach to life. I find Tsai fine. She just summed what's already been known and that's her contribution.

Michael: Just a quick observation. I think you've just defined the characteristics/qualities of an actual O-Liar here for an Objectivist would not indulge in charades and more so, would not take anyone's word for it in the spirit of thoroughly believing hearsay nor taking it as gospel truth for this would amount to "faith" nor passing something which you have an inkling to be fraud and selling it to your good neighbors. Clearly this was not a case of persuasion but a degree in perversion. Persuasion is a phenomenon where I, the subject, gets convinced of an idea but then again, I get to test that idea (merely a hypothesis) for myself and then let the facts decide on whether that person (persuader) a chance in future transactions and of course recommendation to others.

Thank you for that anonrobt. As for dragonfly, I looked this up on youtube as you suggested that I listen to it: Beautiful! It moves me... Getting back the topic at hand, I don't suppose any bird would have this kind call or squawk - or which specific time line do you speak of? As far as I can discern, there were no incongruent parts i.e. all the parts were music. Okay, again for the sake of argument I have a nightingale by my side "trained" to squawk on cue using the tune of my piano. I, as the musician, incorporated its "noise" and thus have made it into a melody most suitable to me as an audience and performer at once. The composer may had in mind a bird or the music is dedicated to a bird but it certainly does not imitate a bird at least none that I've ever heard of. Therefore, this piece and others like it as you have there in your example are what I call musical art not imitations.

Quoted from Peter: I agree that the general average IQ usually labeled as (g) does not tell the whole story about any ethnic group and tells virtually nothing about any individual (in the long run ) The tests that evolutionary psychologists give now are tests that measure intelligence in ten or more areas. I preferred the 12 area test when I was studying testing, years ago, but the 10 area test seems to be the preferred test now. Apparently the average IQ of 70 in Africa seemed too low to many of the testers so they devised more exact tests that took into account even more ethno-specific factors (language and background to a HUGE degree - they practically gave away some of the correct answers) so that the testers (many of them black) could be sure they were not applying a “Western” bias but the Africans still tested at an average of 70. When I first read this I thought, “what B.S.” and deleted the data so I cannot show it to you. Since then I have seen confirmation elsewhere, and I have re-thought my position.[end quote] Hmmm, this is rather interesting. Also, the issue whether you can gain admittance to a place based on your IQ scores. I'll try to illustrate here so please try to look at it this way gentlemen: If an African (presumably of pure descent) scored 70 in a standard US norm IQ test wants to gain admittance or is brought to the US for validation then he would necessarily have a difficult time adapting to the needs of the environment and to say more bluntly that without the help of an American (native of that place), he would DIE. Of course this works under the assumption of no linguistic or cultural interference but only that African is of such limited vocabulary that he cannot even ask for help. However, in application, I argue that even at score 70, they would only require some assistance especially to the nuances of that place but would be able to perform quite well given enough time to process (think). I think this scenario would be clearly evident for those who are gauged to be in the "Profoundly" retarded level. Same case is true for say those tribal people in Ethiopia where it could be presumed that due to their limited capacities (intelligence) and subsequently poor thinking skills, they remained as they are and would most surely die either out of natural selection (without Red Cross intervention) and most especially if they go to war with a more intelligent race e.g. Japan. Even if granted they both have healthy bodily constitutions and had the same armaments. Then it leaves to logic that the ONLY determining difference would be in their "strategies" in combat. Simply, IQ can determine how much of your environment can you make use of but thinking can verifiably determine how efficient and effective can you use the environment which you can presently deal with. PS I've been in the testing business for a couple of years now and I've witnessed it myself that its construct is valid in real life specifically in both potential and actual job performance. I've tested different people ranging from school children, teens to adults who are trying to get hired/currently has a job/trying to get promoted, etc. Most of the time, both the individual and other observers agree with the reports we've been sending regarding their characteristics and "fitness" on that job (or in any case for that matter). Therefore, I can conclude that intelligence (ability, aptitude and achievement-wise) and personality tests and their scores provide a valid and reliable profile of an individual to determine his strengths, weaknesses and needs or for what other purposes as so required by clients i.e. persons of interest. Please note that this is despite of the so called "cultural differences" since mostly we are using "Western" standardized tests.

Christopher: While I do agree that culture plays a significant role in cognitive development (especially in hindering it!) I would not readily subscribe to Vygotsky's theories although I do give credit to some of it. Would you agree that let's say my culture is very different from yours (complete opposites if you prefer) that if I threw a rock and hit you, would you see it coming as a piece of cotton and perceive it tickling you rather than pain from bashing your head? Would the memory be of friendship than acts of hatred for each of us? Also, not all IQ tests are culture biased. Raven's Matrices is at least one of the model examples since it deals with basic shapes, patterns and relationships thereof. Every culture possesses such shapes and must have some kind of logic to deal with it lest they couldn't have housing, pottery, storage, etc. See, if a culture interferes (as current thinking allows it to) then it could definitely explain why some culture driven races just survives in a jungle and those who are not so biased become relatively successful in science and technology e.g. the United States of America. Without the burden of culture i.e. parents/elders punishing a child for thinking in a certain manner or pursuing a certain subject of interest because "it's taboo" then people would become much better thinkers since they are free to think of the world as they see it which sadly is currently not the case. Also, should it not be that parents reinforce thinking in a child and more so, thinking to his/her fullest capacity? It seems that our last defense against such savagery is to check every premise and question what is being force-fed to us by culture when we are able to. Because men like us (Objectivists-Rationalists-Individualists) know that at some point in time those that they try desperately to preserve are nothing more than hollow shells of facts long past its era.

LOL. Wow, totally got it on the first reading!

Boy, Buber is full of "deepeties". So, a person cannot or should not ask his/her partner the, "Why do you love me?" because according to his system, the other automatically becomes an object and not another person and thus, loses the meaning of the relationship. Would it be preferable that your partner can identify the very reason why he/she loves you or you wouldn't like to hear him/her speak of it? This is where most people commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. Consider the following and see which you'd prefer to hear: Scenario A Woman: "Why do you love me?" Man: "I love you because I love you." Scenario B Woman: "Why do you love me?" Man: "Ah, let me count the ways..." (and causes to which he has come to that conclusion) "Why" automatically asks the observer to analyze and identify qualities which Buber's theory avoids altogether. In summary, he asks the practitioner to "just enjoy the moment..." while in implication, be blind, deaf and mute about expressing his reasons as to the cause of his feelings. Christopher, I ask you to look at the monstrosity here which I see: it keeps on emphasizing "oneness" and "unity" while the very name of the system itself has a split: I-Thou. See the dash? Why can't Buber coin a more fitting term for this? I am not denouncing the word "Kita" or "I and you together" because it is part of my vernacular. Please note that I am contesting its appropriateness to attach itself to the concept of love. Suppose I could ask Buber to demonstrate this in front of witnesses, what would the outcome be? If he and God are one and the same? He thinks in conglomerates and at the same time shattered ideas hastily pasted together to feed those who seek a shortcut. I must say, I am amazed by your stand. Keep at it, that is, if you want to.

Wow, I really have to draw on my own limited experiences here since I am by far the type of person who lives in the other world... Actually, I am not qualified to describe it. I suppose the best way I can think about it is to recognize that humans have a number of different needs, and the pursuit and fulfillment of each need offers some foundation for this ephemeral thing called an "ego." Perhaps the ego is like a collection of eggs in different baskets. In truth, I really don't know and I cannot answer your question. The works of Buber and Gilligan really blew my mind, but the funny thing is that their observations are based on a non-minority population of normal people in society, and the observations match up like a mirror to self-centric awareness. From what I've read and from a tiny bit of personal experience, it's like a parallel phenomenal universe with equal status to the one most of us on this forum generally reside in. I have more to say, but it would all be theoretical if coming from me. Have confidence Christopher. Do not be dissuaded by "deepeties". You know what's right. Express it even it is actually "all theoretical". Grope in the dark - but grope with your eyes open ready for the light. If you have to leap, leap! But with an aim in mind so you know where you'd eventually land!

I'm here temporarily assigned to another branch of my company and I'm going back to the main office in 3 days in Manila where connection is restricted only to server on our floor (WTF?!) and in the place where I usually stay, I have no PC nor net connection so I have to go to a computer rental shop to browse if I ever want it. Happy to report that though I'm going to miss OL and the good fellows that are in here, I'm not going to go haywire without the internet anytime soon (although I can buy the equipment anytime LOL). I just don't see a dire need for it. Heck, when I start my masters degree, I'd probably do it though not for now. David - Enjoy your stay in Manila. Bill P Thanks. I'm looking forward to my "home" and beyond it.