[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whazzitt?  You guys saying now that I'm a buzzkill?  hmmmmph! 
Me.... PMSing?  Well I never! 

Luke, I was just jokingly giving you a dose of your own medicine. I'm sure everything is wonderful and I look forward to meeting you and your wife when I'm in Florida again. Anyone who can stay on your keep list must surely be a keeper!    ;-)




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 8:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Angela Lucas, Jason Dixon, David Elmore and other advocates of thinking through the characteristics you want to find in a mate are not at odds with my viewpoint.  Having standards and developing friendships, romantic relationships, and marriages with others who have high and rational standards is extremely important.  Objectivists are commonly very good at recognizing this.  Evaluating other people and their particular actions is often a great challenge for them, as it is for everyone else.  When applying the standards of an Objectivist, it is very essential to be aware of the context of one's own knowledge and the context of the life of the person being evaluated.  While core values should be sought in those one would love and a list might be of some use in maintaining one's focus beyond, say, great sex, few of us could ever make a list that would flesh out someone we might actually love.  Of course, the list properties are not sufficient.

What is more, when a relationship is well-developed, there may be moments when you or your listee fall short on some essential standard.  Objectivists too often then either shoot themselves or the one they loved.  Very often, it is wiser to remember the entire context of a relationship and set out to simply solve the problem, rather than shout "Standard violation, you are no good."  You or your established friend, romantic interest, or spouse have a very great value in your past and may often have a very great value together in your future.  The advice that my mom and Michael Stuart Kelly's mom gave to work to have a good marriage simply recognized this fact of life.  The same holds true of friendships.  There were reasons for forming a friendship or for loving someone and it is important to remember them in the context of making a judgment of a present action.  You will constantly be doing this as a thinking person and you cannot afford to be a context dropper when doing so.

As long as a list is used with moderate expectations, for the sake of maintaining a reasonable focus, it may be a useful strategy.  But good and interesting people, even with the ability to search the whole world via the internet, are still a rare find.  Finding someone among that small set of people who is a perfect romantic match and will make a perfect marriage partner, is still likely to be an improbable outcome.  Most of us would not be perfect on our own lists.  I wish you all the best of luck.  I found my pretty good Objectivist wife 31 years ago and she has put up with her pretty good husband all that time.  It is not a perfect marriage, but it is a good marriage.  It has its trying moments and it has its heavenly moments.  I have three fine daughters to love. Some of you may be as fortunate and some may yet be as fortunate.  Many of you are likely to be less fortunate.  If I were a highly committed perfectionist in this, I would be alone today and that would not have been a life-affirming outcome.  I suggest you be realists and do the best you can do.  If you do not find the perfect partner, it does not necessarily mean that you have no standards.  It may just mean that the perfect partner was not in sufficient supply.  For you men, an unpleasant fact of reality is that there is about 1 woman per 3 men among the admirers of Ayn Rand in the Atlasphere directory.  It seems that there is an insufficient supply of good women, especially.  So treat the women you meet here well!




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 9:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Thanks for the favorable comment of my last post.  You and Kat have high ratings in my ledger, too!  I especially like women who purr pretty.

And the rest of you,

Now that you have seen my second post here, you will note that I have a sad tendency to preach.  Being a long-time Objectivist with too many ideas and too few people to talk to for a long time, SOLO HQ is a tempting place to unload them.  I figure I can count on many here to forthrightly tell me when I am presumptuous.  Just plain old disagreement is welcome too.




Post 63

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 9:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am going from memory here, but I remember Ayn Rand writing:

"Love is exception making."

So good list-making all you incorrigible list-makers. (Good exceptions too.)

Michael




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 9:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Charles,

Our posts crossed. Well you most certainly are welcome here. I look forward to reading more posts from you. You said 31 years of successful marriage as an Objectivist?

Dayamm!

Yes indeedy do. PLEASE stick around. Folks need people like you around here.

And after learning ALL ABOUT how not to do the marriage thing time and time again (how's that for one hell of a list for you?), I have decided to listen to my mother after all (like you did, except you were smarter than I was, you listened much earlier). And she has 53 years of a successful loving marriage to back her words up with. Gotta love. Gotta accept differences. And gotta work at it.

Kat and I love mightily. We accept our differences (not one fight yet, but several respectful disagreements). And we are both working like hell to make it happen for the long haul.

I would put those three things on any serious list (both sides - and for both hetero and homo relationships).

(btw - I find her purring the most lovingly charming thing that has ever happened to me.)

Michael




Post 65

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 9:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Charles,

Certainly nothing there I could disagree with. See what I meant about "I don't think all of us are that different in our approaches?"   I think we're on the same page here.

I will say I think there are certain emotional connotations (baggage?) that come with the language from the list-takers here (myself included, perhaps), so of course exceptions taken don't necessarily mean disagreement ;-)

Jason




Post 66

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Charles, congrats on your 31-year bond (not bondage) and your three fine daughters.

You are certainly right about the dearth of Objectivist women out there. I got lucky finding mine, but my journey to finding Kelly was, well, interesting. I may share a few of those encounters sometime in this forum. ;-)




Post 67

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Charles: Thanks for the clarification.
For you men, an unpleasant fact of reality is that there is about 1 woman per 3 men among the admirers of Ayn Rand in the Atlasphere directory.
Hiding somewhere in that idea is a joke along the lines "Mars Needs Women!" but I'm not feeling clever enough on a lazy Friday afternoon to come up with one! ;)





Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/q-and-a-answer.asp?QuestionID=94

I'm not an expert in objectivism. As a matter of fact, it's a worldview that I've stumbled on to fairly recently. I found this answer on another site and thought I'd forward it to you.

I married someone I was attracted to because she was vivacious, warm, smart, loyal, kind, and, well, HOT! After 13 years and 5 children, I have to say it's worked out great so far. It was a much a "gut feeling" response as it was a rational choice. That might not win me many objectivist brownie points, but that's how it happened for me.



Post 69

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 3:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That particular article makes a number of good points. What people say, and the beliefs they profess do not necessarily gel with what they *do*.



Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 4:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I like how the article contrasted casual dating with serious relationships.  However, since the article did mention the Hazelton audio tape "Objectivist Dating," I want to say that Hazelton actually advised against dating someone with whom no hope of a serious long term relationship looked likely.  She reasoned that such actions preclude leaving time and energy available to spend in search of a suitable partner for a deeper, more meaningful relationship.  By contrast, Roark and Dominique "stylistically" dated for a number of years through highs and lows before that relationship finally settled into something stable enough for a long term commitment.

I have seen occasionally mentioned in these forums and elsewhere the concept of a "friend" with whom one arranges casual sexual encounters to "scratch the itch."  That has always struck me as an odd statement in an Objectivist forum.  I have seen this concept mentioned in non-Objectivist forums as well, and an Objectivist online chat buddy told me she had such an arrangement with someone briefly.

When I raised this subject at SOLOC 4, one of the older persons there said that such arrangements can become "problematic" because the emotional bonding that naturally arises from the physical bonding of sex can lead to powerful internal feelings of conflict.  This objection confirms my own suspicious view of such arrangements.  At least a brothel makes no pretense about the nature of the trades within it.  One cannot say the same about a "fuck buddy."




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What a bunch of nice, rational people you all are!  I am very much impressed by the different atmosphere here compared to other forums where the greatest enjoyment is taken in putting someone else's comments into a form that allows them to squash the unwary with an Ayn Rand quote taken out of context.  You guys are fun and practical.  Seems that you have not lost sight of the central role reality is supposed to play in Objectivism.  Very refreshing.  How very uncultist!

Thanks for your comments Michael, Jason, David, and Angela.  Yes, Michael, love brings exceptions with it and so does friendship.  A good friend is also worth working to keep.  Loyalty to your loves and to your friends is a good practice.  Sure, loyalties need to be evaluated, but the point of loyalty is to keep you focussed on the larger context of a relationship which has been a long time building or even which came about by virtue of recognizing the value of a sense of life which someone spent a lifetime creating. I am already seeing some great sense of life people here so if I do step on anyone's toes, I would appreciate a chance to set things right.  So, thanks Angela for giving me a second chance.

Jason, I agree that rational people who recognize the value of toleration and have a benevolent sense of life will not find their approaches to relationships to be too very different.  Recognizing and valuing good people, treating them with respect and justly, and loving the good for being good, should make perfect sense to us all.  I wish you the best of friendships and the best that love has to offer.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Welcome Charles (and family if you are here too). 

It is wonderful to hear of successes in love objectivist style. I look forward to your posts in parenting and other areas too.  Please ask your wife to come on in and join us as well.

Knowing there are happy objectivist couples like you, the Elmores, the Enrights and others is very inspiring to Michael and myself.  We love mightily and intend to make it last.  And Michael is the first to ever make me purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr




Post 73

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 12:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aquinas: "One thing I want to point out though is that you can find out a lot about yourself if the shared fundamentals are there but you feel no chemistry."

I take this to mean that in such a case you are led to negative conclusions about yourself -- that you do not really accept the "fundamentals" you tell yourself you accept. But this surely need not be the case. We have all met so-called Objectivists who apparently accept our philosophy, but the chemistry is not there, not even that sufiicient for our liking them. This often means that such people are giving lip service to ideas which are not integrated into their characters and sense of life. For instance, Leonard Peikoff and I share a certain metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics (loosely), but the chemistry sure ain't there!

Barbara




Post 74

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Love that 'loosely'........



Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 10:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm glad Jason brought up this point, but I'd like to stress that an explicit list is necessary for good romance in the long-term. I think you have to know consciously and viscerally why a person is either right or wrong for you.

More specifically, I think you need to know what you explicitly want in life and partnership -- or you'll simply be befuddled by actions and words of your intended lover.
After having much opportunity to discuss such things over the past few days, I am more convinced than ever that an explicit list is completely necessary, and that the Aquinas Equation, as MSK calls it, must be applied -- do we offer that which we are asking?

Often there are things we greatly desire in a partner, but we may lose sight of whether or not we have committed to achieving those values within ourselves, and whether our methods are working.  Perhaps we have allowed developments in our lives (work, stress, etc.) to distract us, and inconsistent behaviors we may have previously dealt with have crept back in, either subtly or explicitly.  If we do not pay careful attention, we could repel rather than attract the kind of person we ultimately want to be with -- by projecting the wrong sense of life -- and defeat our own purposes.

As a personal example, I know that in looking at my own list, there is tweaking needed from my side of the equation.  I cannot expect to find the sanctuary of love I seek without solidly creating my half of its foundation.  Cynicism and intolerance have clouded some of my views without my realizing it, and project negativity where joy should be present.  Since I would never accept that in a potential mate, it is impossible for me to attract a joyous person -- the sense of life would be a complete mismatch.

The list acts not only as a guide for finding him or her, but for finding ourselves.    




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

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 10:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,

That was one hell of a post.
The list acts not only as a guide for finding him or her, but for finding ourselves.
Full, total and unconditional agreement.

Michael




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 6:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Often there are things we greatly desire in a partner, but we may lose sight of whether or not we have committed to achieving those values within ourselves
This may seem like a superficial example, but this is the attitude I take regarding health, fitness, and the physical.  Too many out-of-shape people just deride the "superficiality" of other people.  They think, "Shouldn't I be accepted for me?"  Yet if they never present themselves at their best or at least close, how are they going to attract people so that that great person can be discovered?  One has to acknowledge that physical attraction to a person is important.

Jason




Post 78

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 6:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Beautiful statement there Jennifer.



Post 79

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 7:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK put it perfectly, Jennifer. That was one hell of a post!

It is true that in creating our own list, we should be evaluating not only what we want but also what we are and should be. Great stuff.




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.