Have a super day!!!

I am leaving for work, don't worry. I won't make any attempt to enlighten anyone again, at least not today!

With a large enough sample size accompanied by a large ego. Sure, to a certain extent.

That's okay, I've got a profile on you too

With a large enough sample size accompanied by a large ego. Sure, to a certain extent.

Not again :(

As Sheldon Cooper says, I'm not bipolar, I've been tested. 

This subject has certainly inflamed your ego. And you are totally off base. Are you trying to prove something with those comments? Do you think you know me so well that you can do a psychological profile on me, by what I post online?

Also this:

hippiechick wrote:
(from Wikipedia) 

Grandiosity is chiefly associated with narcissistic personality disorder, but also commonly features in manic or hypomanic episodes of bipolar disorder. It refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view others with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have anything in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people.

^{Also see:}

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

also see especially:

Megalomania is a psychopathological disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. 'Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs'.

^{You genuinely believe that by your words alone, you can threaten the existence of others.}

I assure you, that's not the case, nor is its belief healthy.

The ego is so strong that even a discussion about its diminishment causes people to feel threatened, because, if you are not this and that, who and what are you.

Buzz seems to be disappointed in my successes in life....

Your ego is so tied up that you find my comments a threat to your very existence.

1) Argumentum ad populum - this is a logical fallacy.  the fact that an alleged number of people find it useful, helpful or true, does not make it so.

Quite frankly, It did not appear to me you were engaged in any type of philosophical discussion, but rather in philosophical assertions. That does not mean that you did not make valid points, you did base on my perspective. However, because some of us hold a belief based on our private experience, it does not make it true for another and some opposing views can be very well as good if not better.

In other words, what works for you is good for you - It is simply not à propos to assume that it will be good for everybody, in all circumstances - and that their ways can be as good if not better than yours. Just my IMO

Millions of people have found inner peace from the teachings of these 2 men, including myself.(1) I have given Eckhart Tolle's book to many people and it has helped several, including the man I live with. Tolle himself admits that he didn't make this stuff up, he is just pointing the way, and the Dalai Lama says if it doesn't work for you, forget it. I am just sharing the information.

The ego is so strong that even a discussion about its diminishment causes people to feel threatened, because, if you are not this and that, who and what are you.

I thought I was having a philosophical discussion until the nastiness started. So whatever people. If your pain and suffering has taken over your life, or you just want to learn how to live a different kind of life, pick up the book, or study Buddhism. There are other tried and true methods. Whatever works for you, helps to bring you inner peace. That is all. 

This goes immediately off-topic again but the ¶ above that I bolded reminded me of this article I just read, on the definition and origin of the definition of "freedom."

 

Is Kurt still in this forum? Did he bail? 


Kurt! Yo KURTSTER! Get in here and clean up this mess! 

He started this party with a discussion on "the Pursuit of Happiness" in the context of the Declaration of Independence. That particular phrase replaced "Life, Liberty, and Property" in earlier drafts, signifying that property was equated with happiness. "Property" is more than chattel; it is the freedoms that accrued to the individual under natural law. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," the founders proclaimed, arguing that personal freedoms could not be taken away not just by the King, but by any mortal. 

Is there a "war" on personal rights? Who is waging this battle? And is it reasonable to expect that no change in the assessment of freedoms cannot have happened over 230 years? If we are to allow that, then we also allow our concept of natural law has been altered, perhaps irrevocably. Did this happen due to an enlightened treatment of women, slaves, and minorities? Was it also prompted by a much smaller, crowded world, one where land rights must be tempered by impacts on neighbors? 

I think this is the concept of happiness on which Kurt was seeking discussion. The founders would be puzzled by modern lamentations of personal happiness, which would fall squarely in the realm of priests, ministers, and God. 

clearly you havent been watching NG channel lately. It's not so different from Jerry Springer these days

clearly you havent been watching NG channel lately. It's not so different from Jerry Springer these days

Just trying to change the channel from Jerry Springer to National Geographic. 
 

Just trying to change the channel from Jerry Springer to National Geographic. 
 

Just trying to change the channel from Jerry Springer to National Geographic. 
 

trying to get back on topic? you MUST be new here.