|
Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive Re: response for paul the pharmacist... HOW ABOUT RESPONSE FOR KB'S ENNEAGRAM POST ON THE MAIN BOARD THAT YOU IGNORED WHEN YOU ANSWERED CORYS STUPID NON ENNEAGRAM POST RIGHT UNDER IT. BOARDRAGE! NOW I AM GOING TO FLAME YOU FOR IT YOU LITTLE SUCKUP PHONY PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL LITTLE NOBODY. YOU WANNA BE INCROWD BUM. I WILL NOT ALLOW POSTING REPLIES BY POPULARITYPosted by K.B. AND I HAD ENOUGH OF SEEING REPLIES POSTED BY POPULARITY AND NOT CONTENT. BOARDRAGE! I PUT UP WITH IT LAST YEAR AND NOW IM GONNA TELL ANY OF YOU SNOBS DARE TRY IT AGAIN THAT I WILL TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO REPLY TO THAT CORY POST ON THE MAIN BOARD AND IGNORE MY ENNEAGRAM POST RIGHT ABOVE HIS NON ENNEAGRAM POST? I AM GOING TO EXPLODE ON YOU WITH ENOUGH INVECTIVE TO MAKE YOU SHAKE EVEN THOUGH ITS ONLY ON THE NET AND ONLY THE PRINTED WORD. DONT BE SO STUPID AS TO IGNORE MY POST AND ANSWER HIS. YOU TOO WILL BE FLAMED AND BELIEVE ME IT AINT WORTH IT TO YOU TO GET FLAMED BY KB BECAUSE IT AINT NO BK WHOPPER FROM BURGER KING BUT IT AINT NO TREAT TO SEE THIS STUFF UNDER YOUR NAME. SO THINK ABOUT IT REAL GOOD BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT CORY POST IF YOU IGNORE MINE BECAUSE YOU TOO WILL FOIREVER BE KNOWN AND REVEALED HERE ON THESE PAGES AS A PHONY SNOB WHO IS STUPID ENOUGH TO ANSWER POSTS BY POPULARITY AND NOT BY CONTENT WHICH MEANS THAT YOU TOO WOULD BE A PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL MEDIOCRIITY LIKE YOUR PHONY NON INTELLECTUAL FRIEND ISAAC HERE WHO IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT BECOMING PART OF THE INCROWD THAN HE IS ABOUT DISCUSSING INTELLIGENT THINGS WHICH IS WHY HE PASSED UP MY ENNEAGRAM POST TO ANSER SOME STUPID FLUFF ABOUT CARS BY THE MORE POPULAR CORY ON THE MAIN BOARD INSTEAD. SO DONT MAKE THAT MISTAKE OR YOU TOO WILL GET THE SAME THAT I GIVE OCH-SPIT ISAAC. I PLAY NO FAVORITES. (152.163.194.204) on May 26, 2002 at 13:18:44: In Reply to: response for paul the pharmacist... posted by isaac (149.152.189.38) on May 23, 2002 at 14:49:31: : : Isaacs reasoning is sound but sometimes you can make a god of reasoning itself. : and what's wrong with making a god of reason itself? i admit that that is EXACTLY what i strive to do. i am struck with profound awe and love for rationality, purpose, and pride. i DO worship the best in mankind, and it is a more satisfying and tremendous emotion than anything i've ever imagined, than anything i could believe possible of the "supernatural". the process of worship and spirituality is important to humans. my god really exists (though some try hard to destroy his manifestation in their mind, at great cost to themselves!), and actually benefits me directly. to quote one of the greatest humanist philosophers of our time: : : but such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. what, then, is their source or referent in reality? it is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. yet apart from the man-degradition aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm that is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition. : it is this highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man. : ...the man-worshippers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it. the man-haters are those who regard man as a helpless, depraved, contemptible creature--and struggle never to let him discover otherwise. it is important here to remember that the only direct, introspective knowledge of man anyone possesses is of himself. : more specifically, the essential division between these two camps is: those dedicated to the EXALTATION of man's self-esteem and the SACREDNESS of life on earth--and those determined not to allow either to become possible. the majority of mankind spend their lives and psychological energy in the middle, swinging between the these two, struggling not to allow the issue to be named. this does not change the nature of the issue. : --ayn rand, forward to the 25th anniversary edition of _the fountainhead_, 1968 : : : paul, if they say that, then they are simply betraying their reasoning ability, and that is unforgivable. i've eaten lsd before, but i wouldn't say that i KNOW that the walls melt from time to time. in a severely altered brain state such as a nde, how can you say that your experience is a valid representation of reality? there is a much simpler explaination, that it is just the effect of losing control fo the senses and body for a while, and that the "light" is simply the effect of neurons firing as things turn back on. there is no need to appeal to mysticism. : : ahh, you know i don't care a whit about that silly stuff, paul :) : isaac
|
|