--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2008 10:29 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > As I described in my previous post, I will be sharing my thoughts
> > and experiences while studying Nathaniel Branden's works.
>
> And I first want to express my thanks and high esteem for your candid
> and fully identified expression of your thoughts on such personal matters.
>
> > First, I
> > should point out that I have just completed his book "Breaking Free
–
> > How to cut the bonds of childhood that are keeping you from reaching
> > your full adult potential". This book as a whole was very
> > interesting because a theme throughout the book was Branden's
> > insistence that most parents, through action or inaction, do a great
> > deal of psychological harm to their children in one way or another.
> > This point was especially interesting to me because, while I consider
> > my childhood to have been "mediocre" as an environment that is
> > conducive for children to develop into independent, rational, well-
> > adjusted adults, I hadn't realized that the lack of a good home
> > environment was so prevalent. Branden reiterates his conviction that
> > most home environments lack what he would consider a "healthy
> > environment".
>
> My own view is that this, "healthy environment" relative to growing
> children, is a deteriorating situation, in general even worse than when
> I was a child (and I do not consider my own growing-up environment
> particularly good but then neither was it highly negative). I think this
> is entirely to be expected based on all other trends of society and is
> one of the reasons why I am concerned about the course of current
> civilization.
>
> > In the context of this "healthy environment", the book
> > mainly focuses on the behavior of parents in that environment, and
> > how parental behavior can effect a child's (and the resulting
> > adult's) behavior. A very important aspect of this interaction
> > between a parent's behavior and the child's behavior as an adult is
> > that when the child becomes an adult s/he *is often unaware that s/he
> > is behaving in a manner that is harmful to hirself*.
>
> What this means in practice is that the child has only nominally become
> an adult (age 21, out on one's own, earning one' living, etc). Full
> adulthood is a "becoming" process, something that is never completely
> attained (as with a mathematical curve that approaches a certain line
> asymptotically). Unfortunately few people continue with the "becoming"
> process, but rather remain as stunted children all their lives.


I have thought about how it may be misleading to emphasize a person's
18th or 21st birthday as the attainment of "adulthood" or "maturity".
It seems that the attainment of a certain age does not necessitate a
minimum level of achieved maturity in a person. Perhaps this
"celebrating adulthood" at 18 or 21 encourages a person to conclude:
"I am now an adult and need no further personal development".


> Full
> human life must necessarily involve mental growth and development,
> which is why I often state that "Most people are dead by the time they
> are 30".


I have heard of this phrase and have always been concerned that it may
apply to me someday. However, it seems to me that I have developed
myself to have disposition to be constantly learning and growing, and to
have an open mind. Therefore, I think it is unlikely that I will ever
become developmentally "stagnant".

I wonder if it is possible to change someone's halted development. I
wonder what it is that makes a person's mind "turn-off" to the rest of
the world.


> > Studying this
> > book has brought to my attention that some behaviors in which I
> > engage are not optimal for my long-term health and happiness.
>
> Actually that is and will always be true for everyone, me included.
> It is only the number of areas in which this occurs, their extent and
> degree, which hopefully gets reduced over time. Furthermore, even
> though one may do one's best possible to estimate those actions that
> will optimally increase one's lifetime happiness, even an effectively
> *perfect* job of such estimating, there is always the chance aspect of
> reality (the factors required for full analysis are essentially
> unbounded in number and inter-related complexity and one's estimation
> time is necessarily limited) which can completely destroy or reverse
> one's best possible estimation. Again having one's estimations actually
> work out is something that one ought to be able to get better at with
> experience and thought, but I, for one, find it very frustrating that
> I don't get better at this much faster than I do.


Your description of the estimation process above makes sense. It
makes me think of the idea that mental development is the process by
which to improve one's chances at estimating correctly, since that is
what the mind is for. I enjoyed a book called "The Black Swan" by
Nassim Nicholas Taleb. In the book he describes how the social
world with which a human interacts is much more complicated now
than it was not so long ago. With improved communication and
transportation technologies, information and people can move around
the world so quickly that it makes it all the more difficult to make
accurate estimations.


> > The book relates the question-and-answer sessions of some of
> > Branden's group therapy sessions (at the time of the book he was a
> > practicing psychologist). This entire book is based of an epiphany
> > Branden had during one of his group sessions. He asked the group a
> > series of questions about how their parents treated them when they
> > were children. He found that when he asked an appropriate question
> > to a person to whom it applied, the person experienced a great
> > deal of enlightenment regarding certain important frustrations or
> > questions about hirself.
>
> This occurs to those who are really open and honest with themselves.
> Many (most?) people have a hard time doing that, at least not for every
> facet of their psyche. Many things remain hidden deeply, are never made
> conscious and are certainly not spoken of, often these are the things
> that are most important with respect to inhibiting/promoting their
> psychological development/growth.


I can picture how this process occurs within a great many people. When
a person points out an inconvenient truth about another person's history
or personality, it can be easier to make excuses for it, rather than admit
it, try to understand what is wrong with it, and take action to correct it.


> > As is likely the purpose of the book, I, as
> > the reader, experienced a significant number of enlightening moments
> > with respect to questions about myself and my personality.
>
> That is an excellent sign that you have a healthy mind, still open and
> capable of growth.
>
> > These experiences are what I want to share and will do so here.
> >
> > Below I describe my thoughts and experiences while reading this book
> > as it relates to a given category. The two categories of thoughts
> > and experiences I will discuss are: emotional withdrawal and sexual
> > roles.
> >
> > Emotional withdrawal
> >
> > I could really relate to the story of the first client, "Henry" (a
> > fake name), 24 years old, and his responses to the first question.
>
> Regarding the use of a fake name, this appears to be part of what is
> called patient confidentially. If that patient wants it, while that is
> still irrational, I can respect the need to adhere to that desire, or
> even contractual obligation. However, what I have never understood is
> the refusal to use the names of people who specifically do not want
> confidentially and even welcome their names being used and are fully
> willing to sign any necessary release (such as myself).
>
> [It is also possible that "Henry" is a composite of a number of
> Branden's clients rather than one single individual. A number of writer's,
> whether in the health care fields or not, use this technique for examples,
> rather than obtain permission to use that of a specific individual. These
> writers like this method also to combine the characteristics of several of
> their clients into one pseudo-person with the problems or situations
> they wish to discuss. **Kitty]
>
> [However, I consider such a technique to be invalid because the
> example is then not a *real* one in any fundamental sense, and,
> for any number of unforeseen reasons, may not be able to even
> occur in the reality of any single human. This is similar to using a
> unicorn or a truth machine within a philosophy example - totally
> unacceptable for discovering the truths of reality! --Paul]

This practice of using a composite person as an example, if engaged in,
does seem like an awfully dishonest way of communicating an example.
Given that each person responds to words and ideas differently based
on hir knowledge and experience, there's really no way to tell what a
"composite" person would do. This way of giving an example seems to
be no better than just making-up the person and hir response. And
doing so would not be reality, only the author's estimation of reality.

> > The chapter is called "The Unknowable". The question posed
> > to "Henry" in the book is as follows:
> >
> > "When you were a child, did your parents manner of behaving and
> > dealing with you give you the impression that you were living in a
> > world that was rational, predictable, intelligible? Or a world that
> > was bewildering, contradictory, incomprehensible, unknowable?"
> >
> > In this chapter, Henry responded to the question by giving a story
> > about how his parents behaved toward him when he was a child. Henry
> > states that when he was a child he once used some matches to set a
> > few leaves on fire in the back yard. His father discovered him and
> > told him that the police were going to take him to Juvenile Hall.
> > Then his mother came running up to Henry, hugging him, telling him it
> > was "OK", and telling him that he was her "darling angel". Henry
> > then remembers his father screaming at his mother and forgot all
> > about Henry's careless burning of leaves. Henry then states that
> > later that night, his father gave him a gift and seemed quite
> > cheerful. Henry recalled that this experience was very bewildering
> > to him and he didn't know what to think of it.
> >
> > Henry then describes how his parents were always shouting, his mother
> > was often crying, holding Henry and saying that "everything will be
> > okay when we're with Jesus". I agree with Henry: this is a confusing
> > situation for a child to grow up in.
>
> I was certainly fortunate in that my parents, while often having
> irrational ideas and actions that were negative for me and my
> thinking/growth, nevertheless practiced those ideas and actions
> reasonably consistently (even if such ideas and actions were not
> self-consistent as a whole). Although my parents thought of themselves
> and Christians, I also had none of this Jesus nonsense that is so
> prevalent in the US.


I agree: it *is* prevalent, it *is* nonsense, and (my thought) it *is*
frustrating!


> [I on the other hand was raised in a home where my mother was a
> strongly adherent Catholic and my father was mostly so, keeping
> disagreements he had on the subject to himself, something I concluded
> when I was in my late 20s. When I voiced my very different ideas at
> age 16, the reaction however was not anger but rather more of confusion
> on their part.]


I recall actually getting a prompt backhand to the mouth from my
mother for disagreeing with religious ideas or for refusing to recite
a prayer at an appropriate time. This was when I was very young. However, now
that I reflect on this experience I see how it could
certainly affect my willingness to assert myself.


> [Also at that time, and even into my late 40s when they both died
> (less than a year apart), my ability to present my ideas in a cogent
> fashion was far less than it is now or was even 7 years ago. **Kitty]
>
> > Branden explains to Henry, on page 23, that Henry withdrew and
> > stopped trying to understand the world around him. This random,
> > unintelligible environment constructed by his parents confused him as
> > a child and as a result, Henry stopped trying to make sense of the
> > world. Henry had given up the hope of understanding. When reading
> > this book, I remember the next phrase in the book, something Branden
> > says to Henry:
> >
> > "When you withdrew, you gave up hope of understanding. You stopped
> > caring to understand. That's when you gave up your self-esteem".
>
> Exactly! One cannot have high self-esteem unless one is and sees oneself
> as efficacious with respect to reality.


I am still working at making a connection between the idea of self-esteem
and the feeling of being able to understand reality and act upon it
appropriately. As I read Branden's books I see that he makes this
connection, and describes how efficacy in dealing with reality is a
person's source of self-esteem because the mind is a person's main
way with which to deal with reality. He says that, since humans are
designed to deal with reality through the use of their "rational
faculty", full, successful use of this rational faculty is the source
of a person's self-esteem. However, I still can't see and understand
these connections in my mind. I'm thinking about them.


> And the first step to being
> efficacious is to understand that upon which one needs to act. The
> second is fully understanding the ultimate purpose and the immediate
> goal of one's action. Without both one has no basis for making a
> choice and certainly little chance that one's choice will be right
> (particularly since "right" would be yet to be defined in such a case).


This point is clear. If one constantly has choices to make, when
making choices, one must decide one's desired outcome (the goal).


> > This is the point in the book when I began to laugh, and cry,
> > simultaneously – both quite heartily. I think I became emotional at
> > this particular statement in the book because I have never really
> > understood the idea of self-esteem. I am still struggling to
> > understand it, and other parts of this book have helped me to
> > understand it. But Henry's story sounded very similar to parts of my
> > childhood. My parents could be quite random in their behavior,
> > laughing one minute, quiet the next, shouting at one another the
> > next, or drunk and loving the next.
>
> I was fortunate that my childhood and parents behavior was far more
> steady than what you have described.
>
> > It made a lot of sense to me
> > that a child in this type of situation would "give up" trying to
> > understand the behavior of others and would begin to "turn off",
> > emotionally. I think I have turned my own emotions off.
>
> But at least you did not give up trying to understand other, not emotion
> related things in life. That was your anchor to reality and what enabled
> your mind to retain sufficient health that you could now finally begin
> to examine emotions.


I had a wonderful, related experience with one of Branden's other
books, the Psychology of Self-Esteem. I agree: during these experiences
I had never given up at trying to understand non-emotion things, and that
I can now apply this inquisitiveness to myself.


> > Since some
> > things my parents did could be hurtful, or (in contrast) caring,
> > or irrational, I began to tune them out and to stop emotionally
> > responding to them.
> >
> > I still do this today. For example, I don't like a number of traits
> > about my mother and I am not very close to her, intellectually or
> > emotionally. However, on the rare occasions I see her or talk to her
> > on the phone, she will try to hug me or tell me she loves me. My
> > first response to these expressions of "love" is to ignore them or
> > tune them out. I don't want to respond to her, probably because my
> > response would be: "no you don't Mom, or you would act differently
> > than you do".
>
> What this means is that she does not really know what love means.
> She merely thinks of it as a duty that she owes to a son and can be
> accomplished simply buy using the word and taking the standard actions.
> She probably very deeply wants to love you but she does not know what
> love really entails nor how to actually do it.


What you describe above seems to accurately describe most people in my
family. I wonder how many other people think the same thing about the
actions of each of their family members.


> > But, rather than say that (which, in fact, I have on
> > occasion), I mute my emotional response. So one might say that I'm
> > emotionally withdrawn. Rather than express my true emotions and
> > thoughts and create conflict (since she will get angry with me and we
> > will get into an argument – it's happened many times before), I
> > ignore my feelings and even encourage myself to be non-responsive.
> > This "ignoring of feelings just to get through the situation" seems
> > exceedingly prevalent in my life.
>
> Far better would be to greatly reduce the likelihood of encountering
> such situations and instead seek emotional situations with people who
> understand them and act consistently with that understanding. The fact
> that she (and perhaps other people that are negative to your well-being)
> are biologically related should have no bearing on this decision.


I strongly agree that biological relation has no bearing on my decision
to interact with people, and have begun to apply this perspective in my life.
Since I understand this philosophy to be highly rational, I find it surprising
that so few people agree with it. Perhaps this is because so many people
have been indoctrinated by religion or family pride (or something else)
that they experience strong guilt if they refuse to interact with people
biologically related to themselves.


> I do
> not have a single biologically related person to whom I am close, mainly
> because none of them have any high regard for the ideas that I think are
> most important of all. In fact, they all appear to regard me as an
> impractical misfit and kook.


Paul, I think it is interesting that your family regards you as "an
impractical misfit and kook". I think this is very interesting because
from my knowledge, those people who have accomplished great things or
who have revolutionary ideas are often considered "misfits" and
"kooks" by their contemporaries. This relationship between unorthodox
ideas and accomplishment seems to make a lot of sense. If one wants to
make a great improvement to some aspect of reality, this desired
improvement implies that the current state of reality must be
*different*. Hence, those who discover something *different* (and
perhaps wonderfully beneficial) must *think differently*. In the
process of thinking differently they may also need to take the abuse
of their contemporaries for being "different".

It is very unfortunate that unusual ideas are treated with such hostility,
because improvement only comes through new ideas (a deviation from
the current idea).


> But so what? There are lots of other people
> in the world, some of whom have shown and will still show that they
> appreciate my most cherished ideas.
>
> [The description Paul gives for himself is near identical to mine.
> While he has 1 brother, 1 sister and 1 biological daughter (that he
> knows about - the others were from sperm donations), I have 2
> brothers, 2 sisters (all younger than me),


Kitty, I note that you are the oldest of your siblings, as am I. I
understand independence of thought tends to be more prevalent
in eldest children.


> and 2 sons (the oldest was surrendered for adoption as an infant
> - see http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/kiton040528.html )
> None of those closest of biological relationships are ones in which
> I have any (let alone close) contact with the other person because
> they do not verbalize or demonstrate in anyway that they have
> esteem for me. In fact, I have had written communication from 4
> of them during the past 8 years (one of them just last December)
> clearly stating their dislike for my ideas and actions.


Your above description seems like more evidence that many people
behave with indifference, or even hostility, toward unconventional
ideas. It is also evidence that one can not look to one's biological
relationships for friendship and camaraderie.


> So a biological relationship is no guarantee at all that two persons
> will have esteem for each other, and less that they will be close
> friends. **Kitty]
>
>
> > I have a difficult time expressing
> > my thoughts or feelings about a number of things, especially in my
> > employment setting, because I'd rather not "rock the boat" by
> > exclaiming, for example, that I really hate wearing a tie!
>
> One solution is to clearly make that statement by the simple action of
> acting differently ("actions speak louder than words"), and let the
> other person "rock the boat" by raising the issue.

I did try this, and was promptly requested to wear a tie next time. I
should have raised the issue.

> > While this "emotional muting" may not sound very harmful, Branden
> > says another very interesting thing about emotional responses. I am
> > having difficulty finding the exact quote, but Branden states that
> > emotional responses are value judgments. When a person has an
> > emotional response, the emotions are an automatic expression of how
> > that person values a certain event.
>
> Yes. Emotions are automatic, subconscious summations of your evaluation
> of something or someone. If rational and consistent (and mentally
> healthy) such evaluations are fully consistent with what you
> consciously think and profess. It is only that it would likely take
> you far longer (and would not likely even be as accurate) to
> consciously go through the entire evaluation procedure that the
> subconscious does for you. In this respect I have gone a little
> further than Branden. I call emotions "tools of cognition" because if
> they are made consistent with your consciously held principles, they
> can be used to help you understand and react to given situations and
> people much more quickly and accurately than can conscious thought.
> More than once in my life I have found my emotions telling me
> something that I did not at first agree with, but after a while came
> to realize was more consistent with my fundamental principles of
> behavior than the conscious choices and actions I was taking. However,
> for one to be able use and rely on one's emotions in this fashion one
> must deliberately and with great focus, and over time, go through a
> process that I call "reprogramming one's emotions" in order to ensure
> that they are consistent with one's most fundamental conscious
> convictions and their implications.


I enjoyed your discussion above, Paul. Perhaps your experiences are
what people call "going with your gut". However, I do agree that it is
most prudent if one "reprograms the gut" to respond in a way that is
in one's best interests.


> > To me, this means that if I fail
> > to emotionally respond to events, I also fail to experience and
> > *express* my value system.
> >
> > *And what do you know? I've had problems with asserting my values
> > and standing up for my convictions! Wow!*
>
> It is very enjoyable to see such insight!

It is very enjoyable to experience it! I feel as though I have made
much progress in a short period of time (the past few weeks). It is
invigorating, refreshing, and rewarding to see the world in a better
way.


> > All of these relationships between ideas made a lot of sense to me
> > and I'm still working on understanding their full implications. I
> > want to note here that taking the time to put these idea-
> > relationships into words (typing it out) helps with this
> > understanding. The process of writing a coherent story with an
> > audience in mind requires the author (me) to be able to clearly
> > explain the ideas. And being able to clearly explain anything
> > requires the author (or speaker) to understand the material.
> >
>
> No question about that being true.
>
> > Sexual roles
> >
> > A second, very important point in this book influenced my thinking
> > very much. Branden only briefly mentions the topic of sexual roles,
> > and compares male and female sexual roles. I will first briefly
> > discuss my experience with sexual roles.
> >
> > When I was in high school, approximately 16 years old, I had a
> > girlfriend who I dated for quite some time (18 months if I remember
> > correctly). During that time, being teenagers, we were both
> > interested in sex and exploring sexual desires with one another.
>
> Such a difference in 50 years. I was also interested in sex at that age,
> but there was absolutely no thought of taking any related action to
> explore sexual desires with a girl.

Not infrequently it is the girl who first initiates the exploration of
sexual desires. Another girlfriend I had in high school was *very*
sexually assertive. She was 16-17 years old. What was the sexual
environment like for young people at this age 50 years ago?


> > However, during our relationship, my girlfriend was very reluctant
> > to have sexual intercourse. This did not bother me, but many of her
> > peers learned of her preference for non-intercourse sexual
> > activities. Her peers proceeded to pressure her and mock her for not
> > wanting to have sexual intercourse.
> >
> > After a year of dating this girl, I was visiting with her family at
> > their cottage, and some of our friends came along. One night I snuck
> > into her room and we spent time together, talking, kissing, and
> > holding one another. I don't recall anything sexually-out-of-the-
> > ordinary occurring that night, but at one point she began crying
> > intensely. After I coaxed her into explaining what it was she was
> > upset about she described to me how her brother had sexually molested
> > her several years prior. She had been very reluctant about sexual
> > situations because this experience with her brother still bothered
> > her. At this point I began to understand why she had been reluctant
> > about sexual activities and *I resolved to not pressure her about
> > sex* (emphasis placed because I will come back to this point again
> > very soon).
>
> What was needed was to explain to her that loving, caring sexual
> activity is totally different and unrelated to molestation (although I
> would need to have the actual actions described before I can accept the
> word "molestation" as a correct naming of them).


I am interested to hear your thoughts about what constitutes
"molestation".


> In that sense you should never have pressured her


I made a mistake by using the phrase "pressure her". By pressure, I meant
that verbally asserting my interest in sex was considered by her to be
pressure. When I said above that I "resolved not to pressure her about
sex", I meant that as "I resolved not to ever mention sex so as to
avoid making her feel pressured".


> but merely described the possible joy of such
> activities. But then you were far too young to fully understand this
> at age 16.


Agreed.


> > Within the next couple of months, the pressure she encountered from
> > her peers intensified. Finally she said that she was tired of the
> > emotional grief from her peers regarding the context of sex in a long-
> > term relationship and she decided to end the relationship. I was
> > very hurt. I think I learned from this experience *not to pressure a
> > woman about sex, even if I have sexual desires* (again, I will come
> > back to this).
>
> Actually one should never "pressure" anyone about anything.


Again, it seems that I incorrectly used the word "pressure". I used the
word "pressure" to mean that, even the simple act of mentioning a topic
is considered to be "pressure", depending on the person. For example,
if I ask my father how he is feeling, he may become angry and say: "No
Steve, I haven't stopped smoking yet", even if I had no intention of
discussing his smoking habit. My asking about his health is construed
as "pressure" about his smoking habit.


> To be
> effective and successful, all influencing should be done by means of
> persuasion (reasoned argumentation) related to the lifetime happiness
> of the other person.


I agree, and try to practice this at all times. Since humans are designed to
operate within reality by using their rational faculty, appealing to that
faculty is a good way to influence a person.


> > In this book, Breaking Free, Branden briefly describes sexual roles.
> > I have taken the time to find the excerpt from the book where Branden
> > describes this point. It is on page 206 (in the Bantam edition first
> > published December 1972):
> >
> > Branden: "Masculinity or femininity entails an affirmative attitude
> > towards one's sexual nature and one's sexual role." (Next on page
> > 212): Branden: "Now here's something I regard as of prime
> > importance. [A man's sexual role is] not being afraid of the
> > responsibility of masculine self-assertiveness. If you're a woman,
> > [it's] not being afraid or inhibited about responding to the man,
> > about surrendering sexually."
> >
> > My first response to reading the above was that it was unfair of the
> > man to be sexually assertive (phrased: "masculine self-
> > assertiveness") and expect the woman to "surrender sexually".
>
>
> I had the same response and still do. I see the roles in romantic love
> as almost completely equal, with which partner is doing the initiating
> (not "asserting", that is far too forceful a word) alternating from time
> to time depending on natural desires. So here is one place where I
> disagree with Branden's rather old fashioned, almost patriarchal idea.


I have thought about your label of Branden's idea as "patriarchal" and
it seems to be a good way to describe it.


> > However, I contemplated this point at length and realized that I
> > likely have this response because of my experiences with women who
> > had been sexually abused (I have dated one other woman who had also
> > been sexually abused.)
>
> I hate this much and often improperly used word "abuse". I simply will
> not accept any usage of that word unless and until I am told the full
> details of what is called an abusive action.
>
> > I understand how such women can be afraid of
> > sexual encounters and therefore I had resolved not to sexually assert
> > myself.
>
> If someone is still bothered so fundamentally by such an occurrence in
> hir past then you are better to not get involved with hir in any way
> related to sex, unless you first help hir get this "bother" resolved and
> ended.


This resolution is a lengthy process, one which I thought I could help with.
In this regard I had been acting for the benefit of others, rather than
myself, which is wrong.


> > However, in deciding this, I also am denying my sexual role
> > and sexual nature (if Branden's evaluation of these are accurate).
> > And this contradiction seems likely to cause a fair amount of
> > frustration, for both myself and any woman with whom I am in a sexual
> > relationship.
>
> There is no doubt that many women look for a man to always be the
> assertive one, but I think that is irrational thinking on their part and
> needs to be cleared up. IOW, do you really want a sexual relationship
> with such a woman while she still thinks that way?


Good point. No I don't. I had been in a relationship with a woman who
thought this way and it was very frustrating. I constantly had the
responsibility of sensing her desires (exactly as you describe below).
Of course, since I can not read the minds of others I could not always
do this successfully and she felt "unwanted" during the times that she
had desires and I didn't sense them. Very frustrating, and unrealistic.


> To me such thinking
> also puts a lot of pressure on the man to always be able to sense the
> woman's desires and make the right assertiveness decision. I have never
> liked that situation. Like you somewhat, I would always rather do
> without than to make a mistake.


Right, I had decided to do without rather than make a misteak. (Haha,
I left that there in reference to our previous discussion on that joke.)
:)


> > I must consider these points more. I am currently reading "The
> > Psychology of Self-Esteem" by N. Branden and have been taking notes
> > on my experiences while reading. I will consider the possibility of
> > also sharing these other experiences with the group.
>
> That would be good for both you and the readers, I expect, although it
> is a little dismaying that after all this time there has been no
> response to your very frank, honest and friendly post.
>
> > I hope some of the readers find my personal experiences above to be
> > enlightening, encouraging, or at least, interesting. I look forward
> > to comments and discussion.
> >
>
> And why none have come, I simply do not understand.
>
> > ---
> > Steve Floyd
>
> Again thanks for posting this.


You're welcome. I'm glad that we discussed it. Even if there
are not yet any other posts to this, there is always the possibility
that it may be read, thought about, and considered by others in the
future. That's why I chose to post in a public forum.


---
Steve


> --Paul