RoR: Forum

Luke,

You raise good questions in this article, but I am not convinced of the value of these particular images for me.

For as much as I want to externalize reason and passion into concrete symbols, one problem I face with your present symbols is that I just can't get past the popular usage of the word "queen" for "homosexual."

Thus, your examples of the Drama Queen's reactions start to take on a new light...

ahem...

(sorry folks, I'm trying to hold it in...)

(tears of laughter streaming down...)

Ah, hell!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

(Bonk.)

Michael

Post 1

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 10:04am

Well, I meant female archetypes in this article, though clearly the metaphor applies to anyone of any gender or orientation. Perhaps I should have used some androgynous term like Royalty or Monarch instead, but that just does not roll as well verbally. I hear the terms Drama Queen and Ice Queen in common usage for certain kinds of women but never Drama King or Ice King for corresponding brands of men. Why is that?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/03, 10:05am)

Post 2

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 11:10am

I hear the terms Drama Queen and Ice Queen in common usage for certain kinds of women but never Drama King or Ice King for corresponding brands of men. Why is that?

Because women are 'known for emotions' - while men either have none or rage [or so it seems]..... such are the typical chauvanistic notions from the tribalistic mindset...

(Edited by robert malcom on 2/03, 11:12am)

Post 3

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 12:24pm

Interestingly, an article in The Toastmaster some time in the last year or two examined men and emotions in Western culture. It argued convincingly that men had much more cultural freedom centuries ago to express emotions and documented numerous examples to substantiate the claim. It noted that the rise of the Industrial Revolution along with militarization demanded that men act diligently rather than emotionally and hence led to widespread male repression. I did not keep the article or I would quote passages from it. Basically, the article encouraged male Toastmasters not to fear public expression of the full pallet of emotions in their speeches.

Post 4

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 2:28pm

Luke,
What a warped view of emotions you have.
Michael

Post 5

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 2:54pm

Michael Newberry, please elaborate.

Post 6

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 3:56pm

Luke:

     Interesting...characterizations, but, it reminds me of 'gender' classifications by (I believe Robert E., though I'm not sure) Johnson when he wrote 2 separate books He and She attempting to out-do other past psychologists in characterizing (via near-medieval 'myth'-iconicness in his versions) male-oriented and female-oriented psychology. --- Granted, you're distinguishing basic types of 'female'-orientations, but, you get my gist.

    Problem is, without actually 'defining' your Archetypes (as, was done with, say, 'Attila' and 'Witchdoctor'), much (as clearly shown in the responses) is open to, almost Rorschachian, 'interpretation'-of-meaning.

     Elsewise, fairly thought-provoking, even if ambiguously applicable.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 2/03, 4:09pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 2/03, 4:11pm)

Post 7

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 4:10pm

John, yes, I see what you mean about my failure to define fully the archetypes. I meant them mainly as "sense of life" archetypes, but I can see how they might get misinterpreted.

Post 8

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 4:11pm

Luke,

Sure.

Are these two poles what you think passion is made up of? You offer us poison, neurosis on one end and neurosis on the other, and a cocktail of them for the middle. Have you read any Rand?

Really, my first reaction to your post was that it was a satire and maybe it is. But if it is not, you come across in this article clueless about emotions and also pretentious to write about such things. And I think your need to express this kind of view is more important to you than to find out if your view resonates with the experiences of healthy flourishing people.

I question your good faith.

Michael

Post 9

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 4:27pm

Michael Newberry, I have read plenty of Ayn Rand. I am not saying that these responses are healthy in all circumstances, though in some circumstances they might well be. I simply wanted to show a wide range of intensity of responses in a variety of situations.

Why would you say that they are neurotic or that I do not act in good faith? Perhaps you can write an article for us about your view of emotions and exactly what constitutes healthy, flourishing emotional responses.

Post 10

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 7:54pm

Luke, this was great! Clever, funny, and with an edge. These are two quirky and weird, but delightful archetypes.

Unike Michael, I think most readers could readily see that you were doing -literary- archetypes, extremes -not- to be followed, just as one would not want to follow either Attila or the Witch Doctor. You were not advocating that one be a clueless and over the top "Drama Queen" or a soulless, vicious "Ice Queen", correct? [ Memo to Michael Newberry: Sit up straight and put down the bottled water. Go back and reread the piece, trying to focus on author intent and language use. Have an outline and a summary on my desk before the weekend is over, young man. Do not misread the piece as advocating either DQ or IQ as the appropriate model for how to be emotional.]

On a serious note (I hope Michael can take a little knuckling in the head since he likes to dish it out), this reminds me of what I don't like about the use by Linz and others of the term "passion" as something Objectivists should display. He's -close- to identifying something Objectivists should have but there are two errors of language:

(1) it's not passion, precisely. It's the wrong word.

And (2) "display" it is not the right formulation either.

Anyone want to guess why before I give my reason for this? There will be the usual prize for guessing what I am about to say before I say it.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 2/03, 7:57pm)

Post 11

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 8:19pm

Phil:

     I'm tempted to agree about the terminology. Let me try some alternatives...

     "Manifested Intensity" (hmm, too dogmatically-nationalistic sounding)

     "Emotionally Reasonable" (uh, ok; definitely something off there)

     "Rationally Emoting" (sigh; ditto. Plus, sounds like psychotherapy from some a-h's book)

     "Steadfastly Exhuberant" (e-h-h-h-h...nope)

     "Exhilaratingly Justifiable" (sigh; another flunkee)

     I give up. So much for a 'Terminology Idol' winner. (Where's the Grand-'Quiticizer, Simon, when ya need him?)

     I guess we'll just have to defaultedly stick with "Display of Passion."

     :D

LLAP
J:D

Post 12

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 8:57pm

Ahem...

Loudmouth?

Does that count? Is that "objective"?

Michael

Post 13

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 9:38pm

This thread is weird, its like a bunch of guys drinking beer, sitting around a table, and playing cards�and there are these puppets, or for Luke�s style, inflatable dolls, that have Passion, Love, Joy, Desire written on their foreheads. Once in awhile an urge grabs a guy and he leaps up and punches the shit out of one of the dolls.

Phil,

You may not get my outline right away, I will need to deliberate very, very carefully, with lots a diligent study of Luke�s article, and damn, then I will need to ponder it over and over again until I grasp each and every detail and nuance and after days, months, and perhaps years (!) I hope to understand the whole. I will be sure to let you know when I have arrived at the absolute definitive synopsis of what Luke wrote but I don�t know if I will be able to come up with his brilliant brevity; my synopsis may be pages and pages, I mean, the subtlety, nuance, and analogies and their implications it could very well turn out to be an in-depth essay or even a book. Meanwhile I want you to know that even if you see that I post other things elsewhere I, in all my spare time, am working to fulfill your orders.

Michael

Post 14

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 9:45pm

Michael,

Checkmate!

(Er... sorry... wrong game... you said cards...)

Michael

Post 15

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 10:30pm

> every detail and nuance and after days, months, and perhaps years...I, in all my spare time, am working to fulfill your orders [Michael N]

Very good, Michael.

I'm enormously proud of you.

I can see that you realize it is not an all or nothing kind of thing.

Post 16

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 10:32pm

Johnny D and Mikey SK, it's much simpler.

Post 17

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 11:37pm

Philly-poo,

I have a nice buzzy-bussy-word that all Objectivists should assimilate.

Balance.

In fact, all people should assimilate it (specifically, emotion/reason balance).

But then you can't be Drama Queen or Ice Queen no more.

Phooey.

Back to loudmouth...

Michael

Post 18

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 2:19am

Phil is wrong that the article takes no sides regarding the more appropriate form of passion.

He shouldn�t be telling Newberry to read it again. Rather, Phil should read it again. This time noticing that the Drama Queen�s behavior is usually described in negative terms (�grandstands,� �loudly justifies,� �superficial qualities,� �failed attempt at flailing�) and she usually falls on her face, while the Ice Queen is depicted as an island, she uses objectivist catchphrases ("But I don't think of you") and she prevails.

I consider this article to be anti-Linz. And so does MSK, thus his post #0. I am puzzled by the decision to publish this.

Other than that, I see no value in it, frankly. The archetypes are not well defined, there is no explanation as to why the hotness/coldness of their passion leads to the actions illustrated. In the rape example, I would expect the hot passion Drama Queen to take his eyes out, but she just �flails� instead. What is the message? What is any of it supposed to mean, other than that Linz sucks?

Post 19

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 5:26am