My Dad

this link isn't working.

Post 1

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 5:53am

Michael says: So what happens to a young mind in a family that embraces an exciting philosophy like Objectivism? What does that person get that will help him or her better deal with the family environment? Unfortunately not much.

I strongly disagree. But, I can see where you would conclude this.

Michael says: What are you supposed to do with the love you feel, say, for a brother or sister who is extremely religious, for example? Ignore it? Chastise yourself for it? How do you reconcile the fact that you even feel a love like that with Objectivism, which you chose so carefully and passionately as a guideline for living?

And here you hit the problem squarely on the head. You see Michael you’re not supposed to do anything about that love you feel, except bask in it and return it where it’s earned. Objectivism is not a philosophy created in order to set you apart from others, but a tool by which you can better live your own life – not theirs. It’s not an either or proposition, and it was never intended to be. Unfortunately, far too many objectivists make it so. Living as an Objectivist is not supposed to be some sort of ‘Sophie’s Choice’ between members of your family that do not share all of your values and your highest values. This is a false alternative.

Never before in my own life have I been better able to understand, appreciate, accept, and empathize with my family. Objectivism used as a tool for living, helped me see my own family with greater clarity, a clarity that was impossible before. It depends on how one uses this tool of objectivism in their lives, is it really a tool for living, or have they applied it as a tool for self-justification or moral condemnation?

This isn’t about whether there is some unique quality to ‘family love’ that objectivist have perhaps missed. That I would feel a lifelong connection to a brother with whom I played with as a child, shared with, protected me, laughed with me, and gave me his wisdom – should not be a surprise. In our earliest youth, prior to being contaminated by false dichotomies and so much of the irrational – our highest values are clean, pure, albeit simplistic. Later on, when both my brother and I mature, he may become a religious nut, a hedonist, a criminal, or a poster on anti-war.com – but that will never erase a bond that was formed in a time when we were so innocent. In a sense, my brother has become the living embodiment of my highest and most beloved values. The power of those highest values that we once shared so intimately will cast a lifelong shadow.

No Michael, I feel no need to chastise myself for that love, in fact my reaction is quite the opposite, as I become older I feel a greater need to embrace that love. True, there is a point where I may have to completely break ties with my brother, perhaps even denounce him, say if he were become a dangerous criminal or cult leader. But even then, a certain type of love would forever remain. Love is so powerful a force that even as a shadow of that which, 'could have been or what was once before' - it will forever touch the heart of the man that experienced it.

The deep response we have to our childhood family members is no enigma; it is the logical consequence of having ones earliest and most lasting impressions being touched by a certain group of people. Those relationships become as embedded as the melodic music that you respond to. And much like that music, it does not always make you laugh and dance with joy – but quite often, like Tchaikovsky’s 6th Symphony, it will leave you with a sense of longing or even bitter-sweet pain.

You said, “The family is a cornerstone of our social organization.” I do not agree; I believe that the individual is that cornerstone. The family is the foundation upon which we first shaped our individual lives. And as such, it will forever wield an enormous influence, irrespective of the future paths we take.

Biological love you say? No, it’s the same love as you have experienced your entire life, simply in a different context. In conclusion you said, “I look at my parents and tears well up. I am fiercely proud of them both and I love them dearly.” – Michael, you have already answered your own question.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/07, 6:35am)

Post 2

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:00am

George wrote:
"Objectivism is not a philosophy created in order to set you apart from others, but a tool by which you can better live your own life – not theirs."

How true. Simple and true. When I stopped trying to alternately, fit in with my family, or remake them to my liking, I began to appreciate the things I did value in them.

John

Post 3

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 10:20am

Michael, I am enormously moved by your article, and I think it's terribly important -- and very courageous. Courageous because it is so honest, so fearlessly introspective. I'm only sorry that you missed so many years with your family; but perhaps that will help you to appreciate even more the years that remain.

Objectivists tend to think they should not love their families unless those families share their philosophical values -- Rand certainly thought so. . . at least much of the time -- and they cause a great deal of pain to themselves and to those they will not admit they love. I'm not suggesting that everyone loves his family; some childhoods are nightmares because of cruel and mindless parents -- yet even then, I think a longing to be able to love and be loved probably remains.

I'll write more later. This has been one of those nights when I haven't been to bed; the posts about antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com, and the reading I've been doing, have kept me up.

Barbara

Post 4

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 11:51am

Michael, I thank you for this article. There is much to think about here.
However, I am so impressed with George's answer to your article that I think you have most of the answers you are looking for in it. The focus of your life is YOUR LIFE- not Objectivism. Objectivism is a helpful tool to make YOUR LIFE richer.
Discovering how to live with your family and with those with whom you choose to live as a family unit is as important to your happiness as any decisions you make. Although I have made a mess of it personally, I know that my future happiness depends on how I pick myself up, fix my mistakes, and learn to find the right people with whom I wish to share my life. My biological family is a little too withdrawn from my daily life; something that I am starting to correct. I need also to expand my list of friends. Most importantly, I need to find the right partner. I need to reevaluate what I consider important about this person and think about how I can successfully build a happy relationship when I do meet him.
I know that I can profit from a discussion of many of the points you raise here.

Post 5

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:25pm

Michael, that was a beautiful and courageous piece of writing, and in it you touched upon some very important truths.

You are absolutely right that there is normally an emotional bond to one's family. I say "normally," not "inherently," since you probably won't experience it in a severely disfunctional family. And I won't call it a "biological bond," exactly, because I don't think its source is in biology; rather, it is a bond born of our recognition of an undeniable biological and developmental kinship.

When I look at my daughter, I can see in her both her mother and me, and our entire history of living experience together, but also a unique and wonderful individual so much worth knowing on her own. When I see her daughter -- my granddaughter -- I perceive all of us in her eyes, her face, her hair color, how she smiles and laughs and moves. When I see my brother, I experience in an instant our whole childhood in flashback, and our whole evolution and growth.

You are right that this experience of a bond is nearly universal. That's because our formative years are normally spent in a family setting; our most important early developmental experiences and passages are experienced and shared there. Like soldiers in combat, those kinds of shared experiences leave lasting marks on us, and one of them is a special connection.

In part, then, the emotional bond is our own connection to our past, to our roots. Viewing our family members becomes a form of mirroring, of self-objectification. Honoring and maintaining that bond is, in a sense, a kind of self-acknowledgment and self-acceptance, arising from an unwillingness to disown our past and our roots.

But it is only partly that, because our family members are also very distinct human individuals, with their own lives and paths. If they turn out in ways we like, we experience great vicarious joy and pleasure. But if they don't, we usually feel very conflicted emotions: disappointment or anger at their individual choices and actions, which we wish to disown; but simultaneously, that indelible bond, that kinship, that unwillingness to completely sever the connection because to do so is also to sever one's own roots.

These are feelings, not thoughts, and they are understandable and justifiable feelings.

I was very different from my parents in my values, interests, ideas, aspirations, talents. Yet I loved them dearly. I experienced and understood their context and their struggles and their successes and their mistakes and their suffering; I appreciated all they had done to make life better for me than it had been for them; and I always felt the connection of a love that would not, could not waver or die. Like you, tears come easily when I think about them. I remember them fondly, both for themselves and also as the nurturing source of the man I would become.

Your brilliant analogy tying the universality of the family bond to the universality of the appreciation of tonal music reminds me of something else that is probably relevant here. It is the "traditional" Objectivist dismissal of traditions. A dismissal that I believe is in some ways very mistaken.

Whenever you find a practice or custom that is virtually universal -- whether it is the romantic rituals of courtship (guy holds the door, picks up the woman and the check, etc.), or religion, or wedding ceremonies, or whatever -- the first thing to ask isn't, "Is this justified?" More rewarding a question would be: "Why do so many people do this? What are they getting out of it?" If you ask those latter questions first, you may discover that a tradition or custom is not honored simply because it is old, but perhaps because it is serving a profound and valid human need. I dealt with this topic at length in my recorded talks, "Experiencing the Moral Ideal" [ http://www.objectivismstore.com/p-139-experiencing-the-moral-ideal.aspx ], and "What Objectivists Must Learn From Religion" [ http://www.objectivismstore.com/pc-79-28-what-objectivists-must-learn-from-religion.aspx ]. But these emotional needs about traditions are in the same category as are our feelings about family, I think.

Thank you again, Michael, for a profound and moving essay.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 3/07, 1:27pm)

Post 6

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:26pm

George, I agree with James about your article. You have named some crucial components of our love of our families -- and you named them very beautifully when you wrote of the bond with your brother being formed "at a time when we were so innocent."

You wrote: "Love is so powerful a force that even as a shadow of that which, 'could have been or what was once before' - it will forever touch the heart of the man that experienced it." How I wish more Objectivists understood this. I know of so many of them who have turned against their families and friends, and have broken their own hearts out of a sense of duty. How I loathe the word "duty.:"

I have found that the same issues that Michael and George have raised are involved with childhood friends. I have several women friends that I have known since we all were twelve years old. We went through adolescence together, and shared many of its joys and agonies. The bond there, too, is unbreakable. We disagree about many things, but none go as deep as that which binds us. We are friends for life, and we know it.

SOLO has given me something I badly needed. And that is contact with Objectivists and/or Objectivist fellow travelers who have none of the intellectual rigidity and emotional repression, none of the spiritual straitjacket of duty, that are so prevalent elsewhere. So many of you appear to have taken the best of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, and left the rest. It is a great joy to me to see it.

Barbara

P, S. I don't know if you know who Dr. Albert Ellis is. He's a prominent psychologist who whom I am in considerable disagreement. But he has a plaque in his office which I envy him. It says: DON'T SHOULD ON ME!

Post 7

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:45pm

Barbara, Thank you.

Robert said: Whenever you find a practice or custom that is virtually universal -- whether it is the romantic rituals of courtship (guy holds the door, picks up the woman and the check, etc.), or religion, or wedding ceremonies, or whatever -- the first thing to ask isn't, "Is this justified?" More rewarding a question would be: "Why do so many people do this? What are they getting out of it?" If you ask those latter questions first, you may discover that a tradition or custom is not honored simply because it is old, but perhaps because it is serving a profound and valid human need.

That was wonderful! Not wonderful enough for me to rate your blog over Sciabarra's, but close.

George

Post 8

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:48pm

George writes:

That was wonderful! Not wonderful enough for me to rate your blog over Sciabarra's, but close.

Bastard.

Post 9

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 6:10pm

What a perfect excuse for me to share my sister’s eulogy for my father, delivered February 22.

My Dad

By Debra Rawlings

When our family was young and living in Montreal North, behind our house stood a popular tree which was at least 40 feet high. As a child, this tree frightened me, especially in the darkness of night. We used to visit my Grandma every Sunday night and drive home late in the evening. As we drove home, I would lay down in the backseat of the car and pretend to be asleep. This was a calculated move on my part, as I knew my Dad would carry me up the stairs of our house and I would be protected from the scary tree.

My Dad has always and will forever be my hero.

He was the one who called me sweetheart.

He was the one who could fix anything, grow anything, cook anything.

He taught me how to fish and start a campfire.

He taught me how to bake a cake.

He was the one who let me have dessert, even when I didn’t finish my supper.

He taught me how to love.

His lap was the one I fit into best.

His arms were the ones that felt the best.

He was my first love.

Dad, I’ll see you at apple blossom time.

Debra Rawlings (Pointe Claire, QC)

To see the eulogy I gave (which was longer but, I am sorry to say, less moving), and that of my other siblings, go to Legacy.com and enter “Lester Rawlings.”

Post 10

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 7:38pm

Rodney,

My condolences for your loss. Both eulogies are very moving.

You said:

“My Dad-- / Now here was a man.”

You are evidence of that.

Your post is a perfect fit for Michael's article. Very nice topic. Thanks to all.

Post 11

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 11:21pm

Dear Michael,

This is a topic that fascinates me and troubles me at the same time. Thanks for bringing it up.

I got into Objectivism when I was 15 -- got into it with Atlas and Capitalism. The idea that we can choose our own values was so revolutionary and thus so appealing to me, that I became captivated by it. When I read Passion -- especially as it regarded Rand's childhood and her relationship with her parents -- I was taken aback and my eyes were opened. Rand, even as a young child, seemed to feel no emotional (or as some might say, irrational) affection for her parents. There was no false sympathy.

It was at this point that I started giving family members thoughtless speeches about how I loved them selfishly, perhaps out of fear that if I did think the matter through, reason -- and, what's more, Rand! -- would require that I not like them.

Thank goodness for my timely encounter with certain texts, people, and institutions. Now, I am less confident of my reasons but more confident of my love.

And to be honest, I prefer it that way.

Nathaniel Branden said that just because you don't know why you love someone, doesn't mean you should deny the love. You should enjoy it and, in time, you will discover the reasons.

Until I can be further enlightened, I will leave it at this.

Thanks again for posting.

Garin

(Edited by Garin Hovannisian on 3/07, 11:33pm)

Post 12

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 11:58pm

Wow! Look at all the nice people around here. Frankly, I was nervous about posting this article. I thought that I would catch flack for being a bit too hammy, but I see that I did what I wanted to do, which was touch the honest best within readers. I was going to wait a few days before posting a reply, but the quality of what I have read here in just the first day on the air makes me want to thank each personally (in order).

David Baker - I hope you get the link figured out.

George Cordero - Thank you so much for such provoking and beautiful thoughts. I wish I could say that I agree wholly with everything you wrote, but I can't. I am especially not so sure that family type love (biological love as I called it) does not have unique qualities. I am still searching. But there is time for this. My purpose here was merely was to bring up the issue.

Since I don't want to turn this into one of those things like what I am reading on another thread about unwanted pregnancy that keeps going on and on and goes nowhere (except empty vituperation and name-calling), I will limit myself to one observation on what you wrote and state that I believe that your comments came from the very best within you.

I have read a few of your posts and I get the impression that you are a kick-ass take-no-shit kind of guy. Just for the record, let me state that I like this type very much. I tend to get that way myself when I get riled. But I am also one of those who like to see good people have success. I gather from your above post that you have a happy family life - that your approach to Objectivism has allowed room to include family concerns. Unfortunately that was not my case thirty-some odd years ago. But good for you. Good for you. I mean it.

My observation. There is something that I used to do constantly, which was to judge before I looked. Judge from Objectivism, especially. That is one of the reasons I shut my own eyes and accepted the darkness (family-wise) as reality. I now keep them open and damn the consequences to what I have learned if it differs from what I see. I now try to assimilate, then judge (especially Objectivism-wise).

For example, you mentioned my statement: “The family is a cornerstone of our social organization.” You promptly dismissed it and stated that the individual was charged with that attribute. OK. Fair enough from an Objectivist viewpoint. But now I would like you to take off your Objectivist glasses for a minute (please indulge me here) and look around you. Really look. Try to see what is out there without classifying it first.

To start with, whoever said that social organization had only one cornerstone? But I don't want to nitpick with you here. I want to point out that every society that I have ever heard of or read about has a solid body of laws, rules or quasi-legal traditions dealing with family at the core of its social organization. I have found no exceptions yet. Why is this? Could it be that family is a basic inner human need that must be dealt with, and that is precisely why it has been dealt with? Organized family structure is found everywhere you look. Now put your Objectivist eyeglasses back on. Now I would be very interested in hearing what you think.

There are also two off-topic points I want to mention. One. The individual (individual rights) is most definitely one of the (several) cornerstones of American social organization. It is to the glory of our founding fathers that they set it up, to the glory of Any Rand and others that they provided a moral base for it, and to the glory of America that it is now successfully exporting this idea to the rest of the world. Two. I often see someone trying to invalidate an obvious "in your face" kind of fact because exceptions exist. I step away from that approach. Just because some humans are blind or deaf, for example, does not invalidate the fact that the normal state of humans is to see and hear, with specific needs for such. Or, as in our case under discussion, just because some people are loners or come from horrible family environments, that does not invalidate family as a normal human need.

Well, there is one more thing. I agree with you about placing limits on brotherly love. If my own brother ever became so debased as to become a poster on antiwar.com, that would severely test all my newly restored love for him. Nobody's made of iron, like they say in Brazil.

John Newham - You did not address me, but you made a very interesting comment:

When I stopped trying to alternately, fit in with my family, or remake them to my liking, I began to appreciate the things I did value in them.

That is exactly what I now consider to be a proper "Objectivist" approach to family. But it needs work. Where are the limits to be set - or opportunities - for making family members aware that you staunchly hold certain ideas without constantly preaching to them or creating hostilities so that family love can flourish? A good example would be how to deal with respecting a family member's belief in God. This could easily turn into constant shouting and pouting and a general environment of abrasiveness. This issue is more complicated than it looks, especially as each family has its own characteristics and intellectual climate.

Barbara - Once again it is such a pleasure to hear your comments. I am tickled to death that you think highly of my efforts and that they have touched you. I have waited for over thirty years to contact my heroes (one of which is you, as I keep saying) and you cannot imagine what a treat this is for me. I know that I can get a little "over" in my enthusiasm, but I swear by all that I venerate, if I were a dog, I would be wagging my tail every time you get near. I don't care what anybody may think of this, either. To hell with them if they don't like it.

You stated that I had courage. I can't begin to verbalize the insecurity I overcame to post this article (similar to what I went through in my first post to you). I exposed something very precious inside of me to public scrutiny. I once read that courage without fear is not courage, it is irresponsibility. Well there certainly was a heavy dose of fear this time around - and I am much more used to being "irresponsible" in this sense. Your praise has more meaning than I can express. Thank you so much.

BTW - I fully agree that what I am talking about extends to childhood friends. I still wonder if there is some core that is not explicitly learned from experience in all this, though. Something we are all born with, sort of like our need to eat and drink. Just vague thoughts right now. Dr. Albert Ellis almost redeemed his Rational Emotive Behavioral excesses in my mind with that plaque. Really funny.

James Kilbourne - As you can see, despite my sincere appreciation of George's comments, I didn't find all my answers yet. Thank you for your very kind comments and sharing some of your personal experiences. From what I gather from your post, we could exchange war stories sometime on how to choose unwisely and then expend serious efforts in screwing up love relationships.

Robert Bidinotto - Wonderful post. Thank you very much for your personal experiences and comments. You sound like you have a wonderful family. I especially appreciated your comments on how to approach traditions. I will get to your linked articles a little later tonight, but I want to return a complement. Let me say that I enjoy your writing style very much. It seems that one idea flows effortlessly into another and that, from what I have read so far, you have the enviable ability to cover some pretty dry issues (when needed) without being boring.

Rodney Rawlings - What can I say? What a horrible experience. Please accept my condolences. You father, from your linked description, sounds like he was someone who would have been a wonderful neighbor. I am grateful that you posted that link and the beautiful eulogy by your sister, Debra. I empathize strongly with the powerful emotions that lead to doing something like that. Thank you for sharing.

Mike Ericson - What a splendid thought!

Well folks, I really am grateful for all this response. Shucks. More than words can say.

Michael

PS - Garin, I just saw that we are crossing posts, so I will thank you later.
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/08, 1:50am)

Post 13

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 7:08am

Thank you, Michael. I'd say the same about your own posts.

Post 14

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:11am

Michael: I am especially not so sure that family type love (biological love as I called it) does not have unique qualities.

It has a unique context, not quality. The context of that love occurs during the overwhelmingly important formative period of our lives, thus it's overwhelming effect throughout our lives. My negative reaction to the word 'biological' is the intrinsic quality that that word carries with it.

Michael: I have read a few of your posts and I get the impression that you are a kick-ass take-no-shit kind of guy.

I am, BUT, I am also a sentimental fool with a romantic streak a mile wide. No dichotomy here, both are very much a part of who I am.

Michael: For example, you mentioned my statement: “The family is a cornerstone of our social organization.” You promptly dismissed it and stated that the individual was charged with that attribute. ... To start with, whoever said that social organization had only one cornerstone?

You used the word 'cornerstone' in the singular, thus leading me to conclude that you were speaking in terms of the 'primary'.

Michael: But now I would like you to take off your Objectivist glasses for a minute (please indulge me here) and look around you. Really look.

It's when I really *do* want to *really* look, that I put those glasses *on*. The problem is not with the glasses Michael, its with having the correct prescription when purchasing the lenses.

Michael: I want to point out that every society that I have ever heard of or read about has a solid body of laws, rules or quasi-legal traditions dealing with family at the core of its social organization. I have found no exceptions yet. Why is this? Could it be that family is a basic inner human need that must be dealt with, and that is precisely why it has been dealt with?

I agree with the first part of that statement, and Robert elaborated on it in his post. But, I reject the idea that this is some form of innate (intuitive, instinctual) process. As Robert said, "Why do so many people do this? What are they getting out of it?" ... because it is serving a profound and valid human need." The family unit as an idea was the logical consequence of the male-female relationship that includes children. Add to this the element of the universal tradition of marriage, with all the emotional responses that that entails, and one can easily see why the family unit is among, if not THE, most psychologically impacting institution ever devised by man. I suppose you could say that it is 'biological' in the sense that this institution was found to best serve the nature of man/woman/child as a group in the face of adversity and competition from others. But it is chosen, not biologically built in. Our universal emotional responses to our family is for the reasons I gave you already, "The context of that love occurs during the overwhelmingly important formative period of our lives, thus it's overwhelming effects throughout our lives."

Let me move away from my responses to you, and touch on something much more important. Your article was a heartfelt moment of expressing an enormously important aspect of your life; namely the nature of your love for your family for a person that has chosen objectivism as his philosophical tool for living life. Now, you can chose to focus on these peripheral issues we have discussed, or you can chose to focus on the far more important central issue that you raised. If you chose the former, this thread will quickly devolve into intellectual musings on the nature and structure of the family unit.

In itself, this subject is interesting, and is certainly an important subject. However, it does not even come close in import to the central (and personal) questions you raised in your article. When you stated in your article, “What are you supposed to do with the love you feel, say, for a brother or sister who is extremely religious, for example? Ignore it? Chastise yourself for it? How do you reconcile the fact that you even feel a love like that with Objectivism, which you chose so carefully and passionately as a guideline for living?” It was in this moment that you captured something substantive to your life, and not merely an intellectual exorcise.

Notice that Barbara Branden zeroed in on this with her comments on my response to you. She captured the essence of my long response by quoting a single sentence, "Love is so powerful a force that even as a shadow of that which, 'could have been or what was once before' - it will forever touch the heart of the man that experienced it." She is a master at cutting through bullshit, and once again she displayed that mastery.

Would a thorough and clear understanding of the nature of the family unit help one better understand their emotional response to their family; of course. But in my opinion, given the underlining theme of your article – it would NOT be my starting point, or point of primary focus.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/08, 10:39am)

Post 15

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 11:03am

Michael, in your response to me you wrote: "I can't begin to verbalize the insecurity I overcame to post this article (similar to what I went through in my first post to you). I exposed something very precious inside of me to public scrutiny."

I don't recall the exact words, so I'll paraphrase, but Emerson once wrote that when you reach deeply inside yourself for that which is most intimate and personal -- you have found a universal.

Barbara

Post 16

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 11:11am

Barbara says to Michael: I don't recall the exact words, so I'll paraphrase, but Emerson once wrote that when you reach deeply inside yourself for that which is most intimate and personal -- you have found a universal.

Now you see, this is another reason I hate Barbara Branden, she can better convey in 2 sentences what took me 10 paragraphs!

You are unforgivable.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/08, 11:13am)

Post 17

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 11:30am

I'm deeply touched by your loathing of me, George. It's true that I'm very good at essentializing -- especially when I have the assistance of people like Emerson, Shakespeare, Rand, Aristotle, and Justin Raimondo.

Barbara

I figured, why not throw him in? Who will notice?

Post 18

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 12:12pm

Thank you again Barbara and George.

Barbara - I have been sniffing around deeply inside myself recently. That was an exceptionally insightful thought from Emerson that you just posted. Yes I am on a quest for universals, not just sharing personal feelings - although I certainly don't knock that. (Wag, wag, wag...)

George - I am delighted that you find the central idea more important than the peripheral ones. You had written earlier:

"You see Michael you’re not supposed to do anything about that love you feel, except bask in it and return it where it’s earned."

I honestly thought that you had dealt with this to your satisfaction. I'm still having trouble with that "earned" part in this context, but I would love to hear more on this from a person of your intelligence. Misunderstanding the whole family issue cost me plenty. Frankly, I'm still groping and trying to keep a very open mind on identifying the real issues, regardless of where they may take me (even if they should take me back to where I started, which I doubt at this point - but it is still open right now). I may not want to swallow your views wholesale, but I do find your input extremely valuable.

Garin Hovannisian - Thank you also for putting your doubts and experiences out there. It is refreshing to see so many people being honest in public when they don't have the full answer. One interesting thing you mentioned was the impression you got of Ayn Rand as a girl from Barbara's book:

"Rand, even as a young child, seemed to feel no emotional (or as some might say, irrational) affection for her parents."

Personally, I was able to imagine her about 5 or 6 (or even older) hugging and kissing her mother and father, crying when she fell and seeking her parents' comfort, fighting with her siblings, and other typical growing-up family things - despite much of this "angle" not being explicitly stated. If I read correctly, she even blubbered all over herself when her sister showed up in New York (regardless of what happened later). Powerful stuff, family.

Why were you predisposed to think of her as so devoid of normal emotional life as a child? Seriously, I'm curious. I know that this has been my kind of mistake, so I am not pointing a finger here. The answer to questions of this kind is precisely one of the reasons I started this quest.

BTW - Nathaniel Branden's advice on accepting love, then dealing with it, is right on when you don't know what to do or how to understand it. I wish I had done that years ago...

Michael

Post 19

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 3:19pm