X-Message-Number: 11036
From: "Timur Rozenfeld" <>
Subject: Self-esteem
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:37:27 -0700

> There is another very quick 4-page rundown on the problem with

> Please read CREATING pp100-103 by Robert Fritz (1991; Fawcett : ISBN

> Or, again, read almost any major book by psychotherapist Albert Ellis,
creater of RET (now REBT)
> Rational Emotive (Behavioral) Therapy, of which there are literally

If I have the time I will certainly do this, but as of this point, you have
not given me any reason to do so. I can just as easily tell you to read
several of Branden's books on why self-esteem is valuable. You brought up
the subject on the list, not me. I don't have any issues with self-esteem,
you do. I have evaluated the topic already and have found self-esteem to be
an important concept that   has benefited me in my life significantly. I
have seen no arguments yet  to counter that view...

> Or ignore what I have written and read nothing new on the subject.

> That's easier, of course.

> The consideration of new ideas is always harder.

I have considered what you have written, and thank you for the time you have
spent discussing this topic. Like I said before, I can just as easily tell
you to read X, Y and Z as well, and if you don't, then imply that you must
be closed minded and not willing to consider new ideas.

> PS I did a postgraduate thesis comparing Branden and Ellis's approaches in
1973.  Old even then.

That's great, but it never hurts to take a fresh look at the topic.

> Then exactly WHO is not seeing the relevance?  Are "you" the experiencer,
or NOT?

Okay, *now* you are presenting some real arguments:

> It is precisely BECAUSE you "ARE" the experiencer, that esteeming the self
is actually
> IMPOSSIBLE, an illusion.  The experiencer cannot be experienced.  How can
you measure "you"
> which cannot be known, against any standard, remembering that this
measurement IS self-esteem
> by definition?

You have identified yourself as the experiencer. By what means did you come
to this conclusion? By introspection. This means that you are able to direct
your awareness at your inner self as well as the outer world. You were able
to identify the "you". The fact that you can perform introspection means
that you can see aspects of yourself and thus evaluate it. (This is probably
the core of the issue and you would probably agree that the rest of the
argument against follows from here, so I will focus on this aspect)

> (ASIDE: You should understand that I do NOT accept at least two of the
three "axiomatic
> principles" of Objectivisim due to the evidence drawn from Bell's Theorum
and Aspect's
> experimental support, not to mention the evidence of the last 90 years of
> physics.  Along this line, Godel's proof may be embarrassing to those
supporting dogma but it
> does not go away. Dr. Ellis does not rely on any of these scientific
evidences for his
> criticisms, I might add)

(ASIDE: I find that hard to believe considering that the very concepts of
evidence and experiment presuppose the axioms. Besides the fact that this
discussion would be impossible without them...)

Timur Rozenfeld

PS: My last name has a "Z" in it.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11036