>Besides, Monty Python has a good deal more
>credibility in my eyes than Carl Jung.
Hey, I like Monty Python too (well, actually just
the Holy Grail. The rest of their films are subpar).
But I'd look into getting a new pair of eyes and
perhaps a little sense organ we call 'consciousness.'
Got to love all the unsupported and logically
undeveloped innuendos and assertions, not to mention
the crass attitudes of some of you kids who think you
can ever match wits with a mind like that of CG Jung,
not that I think any of you have actually read Jung.
I like to think of myself as a passionate person
capable of visceral reactions. But there is something
that could be said for temperance and for intellectual
depth and development. And I find these virtues
seriously lacking among those who contribute to this
Honestly, I was hoping to find a discussion that
rivaled that of the Chaos listerv, with scientists
from all disciplines exchanging diverse ideas freely
and seeking a common ground on which to communicate
from different epistemologies. It seems a little too
stuffy in here for me. Something about the pressure to
uniformity, the homogeneity of spineless, chinless
simps who cling to a herd for safety. To say that you
need some new blood is an understatement. What this
group needs is a transfusion.
--- Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >Founding member of Monty Python, huh? Perhaps you
> >interest me in something from the Knights who Say
> >J. Wyatt
> I thought he was supporting your position:
> "I'm not saying that George W. Bush shouldn't be
> allowed to kill as
> many people as he wants. After all he is the
> unelected leader of the
> most powerful country on earth, so if he can't do
> anything he likes,
> who can?"
> Besides, Monty Python has a good deal more
> credibility in my eyes
> than Carl Jung.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more