RoR: Forum

Ed,

Woah theah!

In terms of untruth, what Mike did was not fundamentally different than what Barbara did. He granted his aunt the possibility that God and an afterlife exist. He even knew that this was a Mormon God and afterlife in his aunt's mind. He thus left the door of hope open in her heart.

Maybe I misunderstood Mike up to now, but that position is not true to what he thinks.

There was a difference, but it was degree, not kind.

Mike and John,

The whole whoopla is over subtext. I will start with me, but the subtexts started earlier. I wanted to highlight that Barbara-bashing should not to be construed in Joe's post where he expressed dislike of her article. Ed wanted to highlight that Joe-bashing should not construed in the posts where disagreement with Joe was expressed.

I sincerely hope we were both correct.

I am starting to see the dawn of a new word. Instead of saying subtext, we could say "sub-bashing."

//;-)

Michael

Post 81

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 8:13pm

Mike:
Yeah, I can see where 'sub'-text can get ya in a wrong corner everytime; I've begun to wonder if there's something 'sub'-liminal (or, 'sub'-conscious?) about text-reading. --- Indeed, 'sub'-stituting ('sub-'?) interpretations on a text that is 'sub'-par in clarity (ie: ambigous) can definitely cause mere disagreements to 1st 'seem-like', then actually turn into, personal detractions ('sub'-praisings?) if not becoming, as usual, derogatory distractions from the original subject. --- I mean: Where's the Sub-Mariner when ya need him?

Checking my textual scuba-gear and snorkel...

LLAP
J:D

Post 82

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 9:12pm

Ed,

Please pay attention:

This is where Joe went wrong: "But given all of that, the story left me thinking that this was not a good relationship between Barbara and her mother. To be unable to tell the truth to someone, because that person doesn't think you're capable of making your own choices in life (or that you've screwed them up), takes away from the story."

I think it is a wrong interpretation of this story to think that Barbara and her mother did not have a good relationship. It is doubly wrong, and insulting to imply that Barbara was unable to tell the truth to her mother because she "screwed up". Barbara's mother, for her own peace of mind, was trying to clear up all of the loose ends of her life on the eve of her death. Barbara did what she could to ensure her mother's peace of mind. The point of her story was to demonstrate the lengths that Nathaniel was willing to go to help in this effort. That it was a necessary and good thing to do took a knowledge of Barbara's mother that only Barbara herself and people who had known her for many years, such as Nathaniel and Ayn Rand would have. That's what individuals do, they act on their own personal unique knowledge of situations in unique ways, possibly not even understandable to others. That's what exceptional stories like this do, illustrate for us that there are NO Biblical prescriptions for actions, not even OBJECTIVIST ones. We are individuals, we use REASON to produce the best outcomes for ourselves and our loved ones in life.

I lied, as Michael said, when I said "I hope it's true" to my aunt. I have no such hope. But I'm sure that's the best thing I could say to her at this time. I have known this woman for fifty years and have had countless conversations with her.

"Straw man"....God you're a twit sometimes.

Post 83

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 10:34pm

Michael & Mike,

Alright, alright -- so there was a difference in degree between what Mike and Barbara did (I get it).

Okay now, Mike E., I've still got a bone to pick with you ...

This is where Joe went wrong: "But given all of that, the story left me thinking that this was not a good relationship between Barbara and her mother. To be unable to tell the truth to someone, because that person doesn't think you're capable of making your own choices in life (or that you've screwed them up), takes away from the story."

I think it is a wrong interpretation of this story to think that Barbara and her mother did not have a good relationship. It is doubly wrong, and insulting to imply that Barbara was unable to tell the truth to her mother because she "screwed up".

This is were it gets ugly ...

You say that you think Joe's interpretation of the story (where that kind of final interaction between Barbara and her mother was suggestive of them not having a good relationship) is wrong. Now, I know it's good to be generous with folks, and especially so when speculating on their personal relationships with others. But you don't happen to have even an ounce of evidence indicating a "good relationship" (between Barbara and mother) -- do you, Mike? No. You are just granting a kind of blanket generosity, aren't you? And Joe, what's he REALLY doing, but explaining his very reasoning for the doubts that he had about their relationship being good. He's not even outright saying that it wasn't good -- his saying he finds reason for doubt, and that that "takes away from the story."

And more, if I asked you to explain your reasoning for the lack of doubt that you have about the relationship that Barbara had with her mother -- would you have anything substantial to say besides: "You shouldn't judge others, not when they're in dire times"?

And this business about Barbara being unable to tell the truth to her mother because she "screwed up"??? Please, please, please -- give me another reason, for that gentle deception on Barbara's part, BESIDES the one where the chips squarely fall on the notion that, in HER MOTHER'S EYES, Barbara's separation from Nathaniel WAS a mistake.

Ed

Post 84

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 11:13pm

Ed,

"This is were it gets ugly ..."

Agreed.

"But you don't happen to have even an ounce of evidence indicating a "good relationship" (between Barbara and mother) -- do you, Mike?"

Unless you think the entire story is a lie there is ample evidence in the story that Barbara had a good relationship with her mother.

"You are just granting a kind of blanket generosity, aren't you?"

That is my habit, yes, unless proven otherwise.

"And more, if I asked you to explain your reasoning for the lack of doubt that you have about the relationship that Barbara had with her mother -- would you have anything substantial to say besides: "You shouldn't judge others, not when they're in dire times"?"

Here I'm doubting your ability or willingness to read what I've written in my previous posts. Please refer to my above sentence which begins "Unless you think.." I would add that I have judged Barbara, I've deemed her worthy of admiration.

"And this business about Barbara being unable to tell the truth to her mother because she "screwed up"??? Please, please, please -- give me another reason, for that gentle deception on Barbara's part, BESIDES the one where the chips squarely fall on the notion that, in HER MOTHER'S EYES, Barbara's separation from Nathaniel WAS a mistake.
"

The purpose of the deception was to bring peace to a loved one on the eve of their death.

Post 85

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 11:16pm

�And this business about Barbara being unable to tell the truth to her mother because she "screwed up"??? Please, please, please -- give me another reason, for that gentle deception on Barbara's part, BESIDES the one where the chips squarely fall on the notion that, in HER MOTHER'S EYES, Barbara's separation from Nathaniel WAS a mistake.� [Ed]

Is it that hard? Perhaps Mother thought it was Nathaniel�s mistake.

Why the assumption that Mother is distraught at daughter�s �screw-up�? Why not that Mother is distraught that man who belongs with daughter has screwed-up?

�To be unable to tell the truth to someone, because that person doesn't think you're capable of making your own choices in life (or that you've screwed them up), takes away from the story.� [Joe]

How did you (Ed or Joe) derive, or where in the article did you find, that Mother thought Barbara incapable of making good choices or of having screwed something up?

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 1/29, 11:59pm)

Post 86

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 2:06am

Ed, do you ever get the impression that nobody is listening to you? Your efforts have been great, but I don't think you're going to get anywhere. Despite repeating over and over that neither you nor I think it was immoral for Barbara to lie, and that we would both probably do something under similar circumstances, there's still people lining up to "disagree" and tell us it was a good thing to do. Strawman is the right word.

The funny thing is the kinds of disagreements. MSK, for instance, actually agreed at the significance of the flaw in the relationship. In his words "Barbara's article is a warning against that and a sanction of the fact that it is OK to perceive defects in one's parents that one cannot change and still love them deeply." Later, of course, he denies that their is any defect at all. I won't bother trying to reconcile his contradictions.

Mike E. claims we have to assume their relationship is good, evidently for the reason that Barbara was willing to do something nice on her mother's deathbed. But that ignores the reason she had to act that way. Her mother disapproved of her choice, and Barbara had been unable in the past to convince her that one of the biggest choices in her life was a good one. Instead, her mother died disapproving of her choice (but being deceived into thinking she had abandoned it after all).

Jon asks: "Is it that hard? Perhaps Mother thought it was Nathaniel�s mistake." Was it Nathaniel's choice, and Barbara would have stayed married if given the choice? That's not how I understood the situation. And if that's not the case, doesn't that mean if her mother thought that, that Barbara had not been able to communicate her own role in the decision, and her evaluation of it? It still ends up portraying a flaw in the relationship.

And that's the whole point. This action, whether you think it's wonderful or pointless, is all because there was this huge gap between Barbara's choices and evaluations, and her mother's. Her last act towards her mother on her deathbed had to be deceit because of this problem in the relationship. We've heard plenty of excuses for the flaw in the relationship, and there's reason to be sympathetic to some of those, but it's still a flaw. Instead of being able to experience an openness and trust with her mother on her deathbed, that flaw caused her to have to deceive her mother, and to pretend a major choice in her life was a mistake. Does anyone really think this is the ideal way to part with a loved one? No, I'm not talking about an super-abstract "I made her happy" ideal. I'm talking about a very concrete "I deceived her into thinking my major choices in life were not real". Is that your ideal? Really?

If it's not, than you start to get a hint of what Ed and I have been talking about. You can start to see that this situation did not play out in an ideal manner, and that something caused that lack of ideal. What was it? I've described it as a flaw in the relationship. Maybe you think that's too harsh of a phrase. But this aspect of the relationship was the direct cause of a very non-ideal ending of the relationship. It seems more than justified to refer to something that causes a sub-optimal ending as being a flaw.

Post 87

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 7:23am

�Was it Nathaniel's choice, and Barbara would have stayed married if given the choice? That's not how I understood the situation. And if that's not the case, doesn't that mean if her mother thought that, that Barbara had not been able to communicate her own role in the decision, and her evaluation of it? It still ends up portraying a flaw in the relationship.�

I assume Mother was ignorant of the details. As to why Barbara was unable to communicate them to her, for one thing Barbara was sworn to secrecy that within a year of the wedding, Nathaniel was sleeping with the old philosopher. I certainly think THAT relationship was flawed, and the marriage was flawed, but how do you get from this that the relationship with Mother was flawed? I think you do only if you assume that Mother thought it was all Barbara�s idea to not be with Nathaniel. I don�t see where in the article you get that. If it�s historically so, OK, but I am still curious where you learned it.

Post 88

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 3:34am

Joe,

You just wrote:

"Later, of course, he [MSK] denies that their is any defect at all. I won't bother trying to reconcile his contradictions."

(The word should be "there," not "their.")

You don't have to reconcile any contradictions because I never wrote such a denial. The closest I came was:

"Frankly, I don't see distrust at all in their relationship in the manner you imply."

I did not deny distrust. I denied your implication about the nature of that distrust: being based on a "screw-up" by Barbara. Here is my sentence right before that one above to help with comprehension if that is difficult to understand:

"There are many elements and possibilities to this context other than 'Barbara screwing up.'"

Earlier in the same post, I also stated:

"I do not see this [wanting NB to care for Barbara once the mother was gone] as a distrust of Barbara by her mother so much as a refusal to let go of the past and come to terms with these maternal emotions..."

Once again, I did not deny distrust in the relationship. That quote was not discussing the relationship at that moment. I was talking about an aspect of her mother�the root of some of her mother's emotions.

As in the first quote, if it was difficult to understand, here is the passage right before it to get the context for proper comprehension:

"There is also the emotional involvement of wanting the best for their children. From the view of Barbara's mother, NB was the best, or at least a person she trusted to look out for Barbara (care for her dear child) once she was gone."

My point was that there was much more to the relationship than the "defect" you highlighted, so much more for Barbara to love and value. And that children do not control their parents' thinking, even after they grow up.

Apparently, your "ideal" is that the the parent is perfect and when, as in Barbara's case, the parent is pained by her daughter's situation, her daughter can make no "optimal" choice of what to say at deathbed or forge an "ideal" relationship for that context.

If this is not the correct conclusion about your position, I am at a loss to see how you can attribute lack of trust in the relationship solely (or primarily) to a "screw-up" by the child.

So I disagree on two counts.

1. Objectivist ethics can deal with making the best of a bad situation�an optimal choice�where the individual choosing has no control over one or more important factors. It's a question of value judgments.

2. The real issue of Barbara's article was the quality of her choice, one that expressed love and honor for her mother over sticking to a rule, in a conflicted situation where time was running out. The point emphatically was not to smear the quality of her relationship with her mother. Once again it was a value choice.

Barbara did not choose that death-bed situation, nor her mother's values. You make it appear like she did and that those who disagree with you hold that emergency situation up as an ideal mother-daughter relationship.

That is a premise that needs checking.

Michael

Post 89

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 7:54am

Although the mother-daughter relationship here is an interesting one, to me, this article is really about Ayn Rand and particularly, Nathaniel Branden. It is most interesting how they reacted in this particular situation. They accepted whatever that was Barbara's decision, and showed tremendous compassion and kindness. It is absolutely the only decent thing to do to be supportive of their friend in that situation.
(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/30, 8:26am)

Post 90

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 8:22pm

     I agree with Hong: why all the 'deconstruction' re the 'basic 3' PLUS all of everyone else's 'agreements/disagreements' with whom-/which-ever?

     This is all arguing Ethics as though it was 'abstract' (applicable to all situations of dealing with a dying person), whilst actually arguing in terms of personal 'faults' and/or 'praise.' --- Personal subjects publicly aired rarely call for 'arguments' about the ethics of the decisions made thereby. This is not one of them.

     Live and let live; let her...and their decisions...RIP.

LLAP
J:D

Post 91

Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 8:37pm

I let this thread lie unread for quite some time. Having gone through it, and having understood and sympathized entirely with the actions of all involved, and with Rand's wise concurrence, I have one comment, and one question.

Life is supposed to be the standard of the objectivist ethics. Barbara's mother's life was at an end. Her lie to her mother would neither shorten nor lengthen her own or her mothers life, nor impact either in any way except for one - her mother's happiness in her dying days. I don't separate the two in my book, since in order to be happy, one must be alive. But happiness trumps life any day in my book, and this was a good example.

And a question. In Atlas Shrugged, as the Wet Nurse lays dying in Hank Rearden's arms, and Hank kisses him and says that it will be all right, should he instead have lectured him on the consequences of siding with those who advocate faith and force? Who here read that scene and did not weep?

Ted Keer, 15 February, 2007, NYC

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 2/15, 9:18pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 2/15, 9:27pm)

Post 92

Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 10:49pm

Do you people think that it is moral to talk about Barbara's dead mother without her permission?
I personally think that this discussion has nothing to do with philosophy or anything else. It is pure low class garbage!
Be nice boys and learn your manner

Ciro

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 2/15, 10:55pm)

Post 93

Friday, February 16, 2007 - 3:14pm

Ciro,

You asked, "Do you people think that it is moral to talk about Barbara's dead mother without her permission?"

Barbara provided the permission when she very generously shared the story about her mother. And no one has spoken about her mother in a disrespectful way.

Certainly nothing in these posts justifies the phrase "pure low class garbage".

Some individuals (and some cultures) are very uncomfortable about anything to do with the dead or were raised with different rules in this area. Could this be where you are coming from?

Steve
(Edited by Steve Wolfer
on 2/16, 8:19pm)

Post 94

Friday, February 16, 2007 - 11:46pm

Some individuals (and some cultures) are very uncomfortable about anything to do with the dead or were raised with different rules in this area. Could this be where you are coming from?

Steve, I am I talian! How different am I from your culture?? No! we don't marry by pictures! We are the ones who love life, art, and have family values!

To answer your question : That has nothing to do with the fact that I am Italian, but only with the fact that many posts were written with the solo intent to say that Barbara is a lier, and that she also lied to Ayn Rand, period.
Even someone from Zanzibar would have understood that, and for me that is pure garbage! not philosophy!
Ciro

Post 95

Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 8:40pm

Ciro, Steve, bravi raggazzi! (I would have married Alida from a photo!) Both your points are well taken.

Post 96

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 9:09pm

I was just reading (actually, listening to a loved one read aloud to me) The Fountainhead, and I couldn't help but to make the connection between something in that book with the theme of the main criticism found in this thread.

On p 163 (paperback version, centennial edition), Mr. Robert L. Mundy is petitioning Roark to build a house "just like the Randolph place" ['The mansion of the whole county']. Roark says to the poor bastard: "It's a monument you want to build, but not to yourself. Not to your own life or your own achievement. To other people. To their supremacy over you. You're not challenging that supremacy. You're immortalizing it. You haven't thrown it off--you're putting it up forever."

And this is what I see that Barbara has done here -- her story is not a monument to her own achievement(s). Instead, she's inadvertently immortalized another's supremacy over her, she's put it up forever. And all this makes me question whether there was another way for her to get her intended message across.

Ed

Post 97

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 9:23pm

Ed, I really don't get that at all about this post, unless you drop the entire context of PARC's being published, BB's mother's impending death, and Rand's approval of the actions at the time in the '60's. It's not like she let us in on some petty sordid secret. She showed that her mother's happiness, which was mortal, meant something to her, and even to NB, while her mother still lived. Heck, her mom might even have realized they were putting on a show for her. BB Showed that Rand judged the actions in the context of the people involved.

Had BB listed the several dozen absolutely absurd and irrational and ugly things that she pretended to as fact in order to give pleasure to her undeserving witch of a mother, that would have been a monument to evil. But for her mother to hope she might get back with NB was, in the context, no such evil wish. Don't take this the wrong way, but with this post and the not-getting-fiction thing, were you raised by Vulcans?

Ted

Post 98

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 6:10am

===============
Don't take this the wrong way, but with this post and the not-getting-fiction thing, were you raised by Vulcans?
===============

The insinuation above is that I can't feel ("properly"), because I'm "too" logical about things. It is talk of mere partial 'evolution' or 'maturity', stagnated by that stalwart: "logic." But there isn't any necessary dichotomy between logic and feelings.

The natural response to understanding another who doesn't hold the same convictions as you do, is to uncritically believe that the 'other' is less evolved and more immature than you are -- else they'd hold your very convictions. I believe this to be true of you, Ted.

Tell me, Ted, how could I have taken your statement the "right" way? Hmm?

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 2/26, 6:26am)

Post 99

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 7:33am