About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 2:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you very much, Stuart. The marital issue you point out is akin to "bait and switch": people entered the marriage under one set of assumptions and expectations, but suddenly one party unilaterally "changed the deal" on the other, insisting on something utterly unpalatable. As you said so well, "If such a betrayal of trust were sanctioned by Objectivism, it would be impossible to ever enter into a relationship of trust with an Objectivist."

Bingo. It's precisely that undermining of Objectivism that's at the core of my worries.

Oh, just a friendly warning. Some folks may leap on any terminology ordained to be Non-Objectivist in order to divert attention from the substance of the argument, and score purely rhetorical points. (Consider my "conventional" -- or was it intrincisist? -- use of "perfect," and the ensuing debates.) Your use of the term "duty" will no doubt raise protests among those who refuse to grasp that you were referring to a "responsibility" freely chosen, and not some Kantian moral imperative.

I raise this point pre-emptively so that they can keep their guns in their holsters, and focus instead on confronting the substance of the very telling argument you're making.

Post 61

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 2:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, the reason I didn't answer is because, frankly, it was a lightweight question, with a built-in contradiction.

On one hand you asked me that if Rand felt an intense sexual attraction for NB and didn't act on it, wouldn't she be "faking reality"? On the other hand, you declare that she "was satisfied with her long term relationship with her husband Frank."

Huh?

Two problems here. First, if she had been truly satisfied romantically, she wouldn't have felt the need for an affair. Second, is it your position that if we don't act upon every passing sexual attraction we may feel for others, we are "faking reality"?

Rand's meant her fictional heroes to be our role models. I seem to recall Dagny retaining strong sexual feelings for both Francisco and Rearden even after meeting Galt; but it was explicitly stated -- by Francisco, I believe -- that despite that "response," he knew she would reserve her romantic relationship for one man. Rearden understood and accepted the same thing. I don't have The Book with me, but I'm sure you all know the passages I'm referring to.

I'll leave the rest of your characterizations of my views to our readers to untangle. They can go back and re-read what I really said. I'll just state for the record that if I had meant to say what you claim I said, I'm quite capable of having done so. And in clearer language.

Marcus: I already pointed out that Kira was in a coercive context, so that example doesn't count. (Same with the heroine of "Red Pawn.") But you are wrong in every other example: NONE of her fictional heroes or heroines maintained sexual relationships with more than one person at a time. Ever. You suggest that a romantic triangle may have been Rand's private fantasy. Perhaps. But so what? Everyone has a fantasy life; but sexual fantasies are not the same thing as sexual acts. If we were to follow Michael's logic, above, we'd do nothing but bed-hopping. But I thought Objectivism had something to say about not indulging every random desire if reason told you it would be harmful?

Look, folks, to repeat: I've made my views on this issue clear, if not convincing to some. As of now, I have to drop out of this and get back to work, okay? Anybody who wants to continue challenging me is just going to have to shadow-box alone. Or argue with somebody else who agrees with me.
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/14, 2:46pm)


Post 62

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 3:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I already pointed out that Kira was in a coercive context, so that example doesn't count. (Same with the heroine of "Red Pawn.") But you are wrong in every other example: NONE of her fictional heroes or heroines maintained sexual relationships with more than one person at a time. Ever. You suggest that a romantic triangle may have been Rand's private fantasy. Perhaps. But so what? Everyone has a fantasy life; but sexual fantasies are not the same thing as sexual acts. If we were to follow Michael's logic, above, we'd do nothing but bed-hopping. But I thought Objectivism had something to say about not indulging every random desire if reason told you it would be harmful?"

Who said that Frank and Ayn were necessarily having a sexual relationship at the same time?
Barbara quotes Rand as saying that Frank never initiated sex himself.

Same thing with Dominique for example. Roark was the man she loved, but she seemed to get a kick out being a slut for Wynard - while Roark was quite aware of the situation.

Same thing with Dagney. Fransisco was the love of her life, but again she got a kick out of being a whore for Rearden -  again Fransisco was quite aware of it.

I would even go as far as to believe that in her Fiction -  all three involved in each situation are getting some turn on from it.

Let's face it, something about this situation obviously did sexually excite Rand. It is apparent from her novels.


 

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 2/14, 3:34pm)


Post 63

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 3:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marcus said:
I would even go as far as to believe that in her Fiction -  all three involved in each situation are getting some turn on from it.

I say:
Ladies and gentlemen, John Galt will not be speaking to you tonight on the world crisis. He need's a cold shower...

Adam


Post 64

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam said:
I take allegations of Frank's "suffering" etc with a big lump of salt.
Adam, maybe you should take them with a gulp of brandy. That's what Frank did.


Post 65

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alec,

Eyal Mozes has debunked this one conclusively.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 5:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne said:

And I'm interested in much more than your argument for the raw premise "everyone evades sometimes." Your premise has implications that would revise Ayn Rand's entire ethical system in a sweeping way. For instance, as it is, when I conclude that someone is evading, I get indignant with them, I think and feel "how dare they evade." Well, if all of us are determined to do the same thing, then how dare I get indignant? How dare I "cast the first stone"? It's just being who we are to evade. Maybe I should pat them on the back for being "human"?
This is package-dealing to the max!

Shayne, the empirical fact that everyone evades sometimes (due to psychological or biological forces) does not imply that they are immune from criticism -- from correction -- when they do evade. It does not mean that they can't correct themselves. It does not mean they are "determined" to. It does not mean that you, as a rare evader, cannot judge their evasions. Yes, it does mean that you shouldn't be so quick to follow moral judgment with self-righteousness and arrogance. And yes, that may imply a revision of some of the individual adaptations of Ayn Rand's ethical system. (CCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKLKLKLKLKLK a-HEM HEM, peikoffbrookbinswangertracinski) But it's certainly not incompatible.

You are suggesting that there is no difference between a 90%-evader and a 5%-evader. And that there are no degrees of evasion, no differing levels of importance in what one evades. Absurd! Just because we may have both been "blinded by love" at some or another, does not mean either one of us shouldn't prevent the other from foolishly submitting to some financial scam, or whatever.

Alec


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 6:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam R. writes in response to Robert B.:
Your analysis of of the Rand-Branden polyamorous arrangement as an abuse of "power dynamics" is anachronistic - the application of "power dynamics" to sexual relationships first emerged in feminist discourse of the 1970s, so there is no way that Rand or NB could have been "evading" that analysis in the 50s and 60s.
I don't agree with this assessment.  I've never even studied or read about "power dynamics" yet I implicitly understood the thrust of Robert's argument.  That academics came along and assigned more precise terms to the phenomenon after the fact does not change the fact of what was taking place and that the participants were well aware of it.

I recall you advancing a similar argument about Rand's views on homosexuality, suggesting that her negative view of it was largely based on the consensus of the psychological profession at the time.  I don't feel that argument holds sway either. 


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I post one comment and a day later there is something like 100 posts in response. Robert Bidinotto at least makes some reasonable arguments. He says essentially that Ayn Rand "pressured" Frank O'Conner into a relationship he didn't want to be a part of. I admit that's at least morally ambiguous. If a person is married, and is trying to get his/her spouse to agree to a polyamorous relationship, that person should be very careful to make sure their spouse is REALLY o.k. with it and is not just going along to please him/her. To do otherwise will cause all kinds of problems and pretty much ruin what should otherwise be a happy occasion. I still think that what Nathaniel Branden did was far worse though. To pressure someone into a relationship while still being honest with them is one thing, but to outright lie about it is virtually inexusable. In any event, I really just wanted to hear an explanation from the people who said Ayn Rand was acting immorally. I've heard the explanation now, and it's not an unreasonable one, so I have nothing further to say.

-----------------Tom Blackstone


Post 69

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Second, is it your position that if we don't act upon every passing sexual attraction we may feel for others, we are "faking reality"?


I hardly think anyone has suggested such a thing.

But, what if it is a lasting attraction, and one which all of the principles of the individual involved tell her that she should, rationally be feeling? Is it still “self-control” to dismiss such an emotion as unimportant?

Post 70

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Same thing with Dominique for example. Roark was the man she loved, but she seemed to get a kick out being a slut for Wynard - while Roark was quite aware of the situation.

Same thing with Dagney. Fransisco was the love of her life, but again she got a kick out of being a whore for Rearden - again Fransisco was quite aware of it.


I think you're taking both of these events out of context.

Dominique accepted the relationship with Wynand because she wanted to feel degraded. Once Roark managed to talk her out of that malevolent sense of life, I don't believe she maintained any attraction to Wynand. I may be wrong, since there was a lot going on at that point in the book and I may not be remembering something that clarified “healthy” Dominique's feelings towards Wynand, but that is my understanding of that incident.

As for Dagny, she did not love Francisco during her relationship with Rearden. She remembered and loved the Francisco of her youth, but as far as she knew at the time, he had betrayed all his principles and become a playa. As long as she didn't know Francisco's motives, she could have no love for him, and hence Rearden was her only lover. And by the time she learned the full story of Francisco, she'd met Galt, and that made it a moot point anyway.

You are right that triangles like this did show up frequently in her writing—but, as has been noted, I believe it is always as a choice; the option of an actual polyamorous relationship never seems to be under consideration by the heroine. And it is interesting that Rand didn't make that option available to her heroines, since from the Affair it seems like she didn't disapprove of it.

Post 71

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

I just read Mozel's paper. It is terribly inadequate and insufficient. You must have a very loose idea of "debunking."

Alec


Post 72

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Bidinotto,

You've misstated my question and evaded it. My original hypothetical included "and was satisfied with her long term relationship with her husband Frank", I didn't say it was the "romantic" aspect of her relationship with Frank she was satisfied with. I was very careful with the wording of my original question. Your misstatement and evasion of it indicates it was not a lightweight question at all. And you completely dismiss the contents of the post in this thread where I refer to this question.

I will say this: The so called "marriage contract" and the conventional rules implied by it is the most successful piece of social engineering ever devised. If you think your conventional concept of "marriage" ought to apply to everyone equally, including people such as Ayn Rand, you are mistaken. All relationships are unique. Outsiders such as yourself,who are ignorant of 99% of the day to day agreements and possibly years of adjustments that a couple may have gone through to get where they're at in a relationship, have no right to judge those relationships based on your own subjective judgements about the supposed hurt feelings of one or the other of the people involved. I see nothing immoral in the actions of anyone involved in the AR and NB affair and "Objectivism" has nothing to gain by setting some sort of conventional condemnation of any of the parties involved. The objectivist position should be: All voluntary interpersonal relationships are private and no one else's business.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 9:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luther, please do pester your friends at Audible; it’s a great idea.

Robert, Rand said often – I don’t recall offhand if she wrote about it – that it would be a mistake to place one’s concept of the “perfect” outside of what which a human being can attain. That is, if some goal is by his nature or the nature of reality beyond man’s reach, there is no standard by which one can say he ought to reach that goal. In essence then, she would argue – convincingly – that one cannot reasonably say that moral perfection is impossible to man. If it’s impossible, it’s not perfection.

I agree with your essential point. I, too, have never seen moral perfection in anyone – nor have I discovered it by introspection – assuming that we are considering perfection to be the totally consistent practice of what Objectivism defines as virtues. I don’t know if the problem is with people, or with Objectivism. You said something very profound when you said:

“Unavoidable contextual factors -- physical hunger and fatigue, overwhelming emotional traumas, value conflicts whose sources are murky and whose solutions are anything but self-evident, the virtual impossibility of determining at any given moment THE best use of one's mind and time (from among countless plausible options), limitations of knowledge, limitations in understanding the implications of one's knowledge, difficulties in maintaining "a sense of proportion" about the relative significance of various facts and judgments that are competing for one's attention, innate limitations of intelligence and consequent limitations of one's ability to reason clearly and consistently, limitations on the time one has to think about certain issues -- these and many, many other factors make "perfect" objectivity well-nigh impossible to define, let alone practice.”

Your entire statement in this post -- #20 -- is of the greatest importance and value.

That is why I am slow to throw moral stones at people, including Ayn Rand. I don’t know to what extent the endless perceived traumas of her life had clouded her judgment about personal matters, and led her, in middle age, to do things she probably would not have done in earlier years. But when I say I don’t know, I truly mean that. I do not know, one way or the other. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I’m inclined to think she should and could and probably did know better; the other days, I suspect not.

Rodney, you wrote: “I think, then, that outside a philosophic discussion on the nature of the good, the word “immoral” should be reserved for clear, highly destructive cases of extensive evasion of thought.” I emphatically agree.

Brant! I’m so glad to see you here – instead of slumming as you’ve done of late. Solo is a much better place for you, and I hope you’re here to stay.

Adam, with regard to your post #26, I am, with all good will, at a loss about what to say to you. Not that I don’t know why I think you’re mistaken in your assumption that Rand had no responsibility for the disastrous result of her affair with Nathaniel and that he bears the total responsibility – but that I can’t imagine, if my book did not reach you, what words of mine possibly could.

I am shocked, however, at your idea that Rand tailored her advice on sexual matters, in Atlas Shrugged, to what you call the “primitive” knowledge of her readers. Surely the proponent of “the virtue of selfishness” did not tailor her ideas to anyone for any reason in any context.

Fred, thank you for telling me of your response to Passion. Your words mean a great deal to me. I’m almost jealous of your trips to Ouray; I’ve never been there. One day, perhaps.

Glenn, you are correct that neither I, nor, as I understand him, Robert, were arguing that we are all inescapably bound to be immoral at times. Rather, for me, the question is one of understanding what is and is not morally possible.

Tom, I can only suggest that you see my post to Adam.

Michael, I am more than delighted by your statement of what you learned from Passion. I saw so many people – and what a contradiction this is! – being terrorized out of reaching for the careers they wanted by having mistake after mistake after mistake pointed out to them in moral terms by their Objectivist mentors. by being told their judgment in those areas was faulty, their standards irrational, their goals questionable -- that it finally sickened me and I could endure no more. I could not wish for more than that a teacher understand that fear and self-doubt teach nothing.

Derek, thank you so much – and especially for saying that Passion “makes its subject come sizzlingly to life.” That’s a joy to be told.

Robert, what you say in a later post -- #40 – about Ayn’s callous treatment of Frank, is undeniably true. Her actions were terribly hurtful to him, as I know from many conversations with him. (Adam, you are not required to believe me.) Two of her actions tend to swing me in the direction of concluding she was immoral: her treatment of Frank, and the fact that after calling Nathaniel’s book, The Psychology of Self-Esteem, “a work of genius,” she tried to stop its publication.

Cameron, thank you. Yes, writing Passion was a massive task, and a wonderful one. But I never experienced it as requiring courage. I simply loved doing it, and it hardly occurred to me during my work on it that there was an outside world and that it might throw stones at me. Nothing would have seemed less important.

Andre, my thanks for the enthusiasm of your compliments. What you suggest that Ayn and Nathaniel should have done, unfortunately is not at all what they could have done. And I felt at the time that it probably was as well that the Objectivist movement was badly disrupted. The insanity of the events that followed: Rand’s incredible denunciation of Nathaniel and of me, the endless taking of sides that broke apart friends and families, the rage and vitriol that spewed out, the “enemies list” put together by Hank Holzer, the loyalty oaths required as payment for attendance at Peikoff’s lectures, etc, and etc, all attested to the fact that the movement had become fatally flawed.

To be continued. . . .


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to step aside from the issue of the ethics of the people involved in 'the Affair' and touch on a wider point: Benevolence in judging people.

Perhaps the thing I most strongly disagree with in this thread is Robert Bidinotto's dark view of people. And of the very same Objectivist subculture he and I have both known extensively: "after about four decades of up-close involvement with the Objectivist movement -- including first-hand interactions with many of the most prominent 'exemplars' of the philosophy (and I mean the leaders of ALL the partisan factions), I have never yet seen an individual practicing Objectivist virtues fully and consistently."

And he thinks he would be able to tell in every case? That he knows them well-enough to judge -in every case- without it being psychologizing?

I have had enormous frustrations with many Objectivists (and movement leaders) I've met. And I surrender to no one in being highly critical of the movement and of many of its members I have known. I have posted many times on OWL and elsewhere about the chronic blindnesses, mistakes, rashness, and shortsightedness of a movement and its members which could be much better and much more successful.

But there is all the difference in the universe between willfully evading and making all kinds of mistakes...even very serious ones. A partial list of alternatives that involve errors of knowledge rather than beaches of morality:

Social immaturity or lack of people awareness.
Blind spots.
Compartmentalization or slowness in integrating.
Psychological blocks that are not easy to see or dismantle.
Chronic errors in thinking methods.
Uncaught logic mistakes (including such fallacies as hasty generalization).
Bad premises absorbed from childhood or college or upbringing that one may not be fully aware of.

I've known many of the same people Robert has. And his reading of them is just simply inaccurate. It presumes an insight into the only possible reason for their actions -- the willful failure to see.

I will make an even more extreme claim which I can't prove here (it is empirical): The overwhelming majority of the leaders of the Objectivist movement, including Ayn Rand, including David Kelley.... and, yes, including Leonard Peikoff... are good people.

Usually VERY GOOD PEOPLE.

Sometimes I am less than impressed by their intelligence, judgment or knowledge. Some of them make really dumb, horrendous, hair-raising mistakes (for example, Peikoff's harsh judgmental view of people who disagree philosophically...which Robert in some ways seems to be sharing with regard to people with whom he DOES agree). But you can explain those mistakes in many cases by things like not being out of touch with certain facts, disciplines, areas of knowledge.

(Often psychology.)

The whole 'he is an Objectivist or she is a brilliant mind and should have known better/had to have known better" idea is an unwarranted jump beyond the evidence for many reasons.

There are people I've known who get emotional, get angry too easily and 'miss' things. That is not necessarily evasion. There are people who hurt other people, even those they love... and should have been aware of this and not done it but they weren't.

And years or decades later on they slap themselves in the forehead and deeply regret what was a blind spot or lost in the emotional shuffle. Or a product of immaturity and callowness. But it wasn't evasion, as proven by the fact they would have given everything to have had greater knowledge then.

Robert, I don't know if you heard my lecture 'How to be Benevolent', but the tape is available from TOC.

I respectfully (but very strongly) suggest you listen to it. I discuss some of the Catholic-Hangover Judgmentalism (excuse me for taking the literary license) mistakes you are making here.

--Philip Coates

(PS, there is considerably more to say on this subject than is possible in a post...and I don't prefer the email debate or post-counterpost format, so I won't fully address rebuttals or side questions here. But any silence in responding will not signify agreement.)



Post 75

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 9:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just for clarification:

Regarding the post I made a few minutes ago, I want to make more clear exactly what I'm disagreeing with.

The quote from Robert I gave discusses the failure of every one of the Objectivists he's known to -practice- the virtues of Objectivism. This leaves open the possibility that it is not immorality in his view ( just like when you attempt to master and practice an arduous skill but sometimes fall short but not through immorality ).

I should have used this quote from Robert [post 40]: "I don't draw conclusions of evasion because someone may, on a single occasion, do some dumb thing. I draw such conclusions when I see a frequently repeated pattern of stubborn resistance to facts, even when made obvious."

That makes it more clear that he is asserting outright immorality in all those people.

Not merely error or slowness in mastery.

And that's what I'm contesting.

--Phil

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There've been a zillion posts dince I went off to my day job, & I don't propose to add much. It's very apparent that there are some entrenched puritanical/conventional views on The Affair that I would never have attributed to Objectivists & that won't be budged. I just want to say to Shayne & Robert, who seem to think I was trying to shut down debate (presumably with my "Nuff said" comment) that I most certainly was not. I simply meant that I personally didn't think I had anything useful to add to what I had just said, & I didn't think that anything someone else might add would be useful either. That remains the case.

"No need for huffing & puffing" I said—yet apparently Objectivism itself is doomed if anyone suggests that The Affair was consonant with Objectivism! There are some assertions that are too silly to dignify with serious rebuttal, & that's one of them, surpassed in silliness only by the excruciatingly PC claim that Rand was immoral for abusing the "power dynamic" (ugh!) among the Fab Four. Seeing Mr. Cordero, of all people, endorse such bollocks, I withdraw my praise of him in my Writers' Report Cards article for having a low BS threshold.

Bottom line—four adult human beings with brains & tongues paid their money & took their chances, uncoerced. "Power dynamics" (ugh!) do not coercion make. In the end, they all got hurt. Funny thing about life—that happens sometimes. No one's necessarily "immoral"—it's perfectly possible for honest people to do things in good faith that have painful consequences. Big deal. Grow up, religionists!

I don't know who's worse—the ARIans who carried on pretending The Affair didn't happen even after Barbara's book came out, or the Objecti-Christivists who still insist that it shouldn't have happened. Since they're so expert in how people caught up in such an unusual situation ought to behave, perhaps the Objecti-Christivists might specify here just what should have been done by whom? In particular, by Ayn Rand—what do they think she should have done, as opposed to what she did do?

Linz




(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 2/15, 1:17am)


Post 77

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The stories are not that simple.

From my recollection of Fountainhead, Dominique has already begun her romance with Roark. When she does become the wife of Wynand - Roark actually encourages it. Then, there is definitely the element of both Roark and Dominique admiring Wynand together.

In Atlas Shrugged, Fransisco is quite aware that Dagney has taken Hank as her lover. Again it seems that both Fransisco and Dagney simultaneously adore Rearden.

My point is this. It seems Rand liked the idea that her female characters would at some point become so swept away with some attractive male, that men involved in relationships with her would have to be swept along too. It is almost like - this is inevitable we can't do anything about it - we both recognize his value.

Now, as far as Rand is concerned herself. This is exactly how she rationalized the affair to the others. "Look guys, this is inevitable that Nathaniel and I should be attracted to one another - you have to adore this man and see what worth it is to me."

However, it goes even deeper than that. As Barbara pointed out in her book, Rand had a history before Nathaniel of being attracted to other young men during her marriage, but those men usually did not captivate her long enough to be long-lasting infatuation.

Was Rand being immoral? I don't think so, because she was out in the open about her intentions. She may have well honestly believed from her psychology outlined above that her actions were entirely benevolent.

However, I think Frank was wrong to passively suffer because of it, instead of taking action and delivering an ultimatum or simply leaving her.

Barbara's case is different to Franks because she had more or less separated from Nathaniel by this stage. Also she was still very young and still very much in awe of Rand. Her silence about the affair is completely understandable.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 2/15, 1:21am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would like to add another view of perfection. Here's the etymology of the word:

perfect (adj.)
c.1225 (implied in perfectiun), from O.Fr. parfit (11c.), from L. perfectus "completed," pp. of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in Eng. as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from 1398. Perfectionist is 1657, originally theological, "one who believes moral perfection may be attained in earthly existence;" sense of "one only satisfied with the highest standards" is from 1934.

This would suggest that perfection IS obtainable. If one is imperfect, it would mean that one is "incomplete." Depending on your value system, it would mean to seek out that which would complete you. In Christianity, God completes you ("sin"= seperation, "religion" equals relinking). In analytic psychology, it means integration of ego to self, and in Objectivism, it means something similar.

But does that mean that there is only one monolithic area of perfection in our lives? We could be complete in some areas, but incomplete in others. Is it possible to be one hundred percent complete? I doubt it."Jack of all trades, master of none." To hold Ayn Rand to a standard of "completeness" in all areas would be to claim she was omnipotent, which is what Barbara was trying to debunk.

Then of course, there is the the question of the role of other people in completing a person, which is another topic...

"Mini me, you complete me..."

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

The "Affair' is one topic that prior to that post to Robert, I have never commented on before. The reason is that I find the subject as a whole to be one that should have long ago been consigned to the dusty shelves of objectivist history. My comment was not on the affair itself, but Robert's post. The use of the two words 'power dynamics' was not intended on my part to be some sort of appeal to late 1960s psychobabble.

In my opinion the core issue is not one of the conventionality, or lack of, of the arrangement, but the means by which it was introduced into the relationship of the two couples. I simply do not buy into the idea that all 4 were equally responsible. I agree with Robert that NB and AR manipulated BB and FO'C into agreement by means of rationalizations and emotional blackmail. Although there is guilt on the part of all four: it is not an equal guilt. I do not buy into a moral equivalency between the actions of NB and AR, and the re-actions of BB and FO'C. The primary immorality in my view was not the affair itself, but the immoral exercise of power wielded by two of the participants over the other two. That was what I meant to express with my use of the words power dynamics - nothing more.

To try and flip this discussion into one about 'conventional moral values', or absurd references to Christianist/Christivist is ridiculous. I stand by my support of Robert's post, and believe he nailed the essence of my own opinion of this matter when he said, "I thought the aspect of this Arrangement obvious from Barbara's account was that it was the result of emotional and intellectual extortion." This was the same conclusion I came to after reading The Passion of Ayn Rand.

George

PS: Linz, don't play ping-pong with your praise/sanction of someone; you should not put the praise ‘in’, and then believe that you can later accomplish something by the ‘withdrawal’ method. The withdrawal method has been discredited as an effective means of protection during ‘discourse’. I suggest you either leave the praise in - and take your chances, or try abstinence.

 

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 2/15, 5:39am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.