pyraxis

Ok, here goes...

Depends what you mean by positive, but I doubt it. It's quite possible to take an action with the sole intention of hurting someone. Example, lashing out in anger without stopping to think about the consequences.

Not sure I understand this one. The intended meaning or the perceived meaning?

More likely, the element with the most flexibility is the most likely to be changed by another element that's exerting influence.

It would be nice if this was true, but the fact is that biology, genetics, etc. impose certain limitations. As much as I might want to be an olympic sprinter, fact is that because of my physical size, someone who invested an equal amount of determination and training but had longer legs would still win.

See #5. You may be communicating something, but it certainly might not be what you intended.

Only to the extent that any fact has no intrinsic value except what we assign to it. Character traits can certainly be negative or positive in relation to a particular moral code. I imagine a lot of people would have issue with the statement that callousness to the point of watching an innocent person die when it would cost nothing to step in and save them is not a negative trait.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=41857

There are lots of different theories for this one, it just depends on who you are. Me, I think personal growth is important, but it's not the end-all, worth pursuing for its own sake. It's simply a means of attaining happiness.

Unity with what? Other people? Some kind of universal soul? Debatable either way. What does it mean to be unified?

Again, not sure what this means (yeah, I know ). How is it different to #4, all knowledge is a construct? Which, while I agree with it, gets into the issue of whether there is any absolute truth.

__________________
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson