Self-Possessed

I recall a passage in The Fountainhead in which the author described Toohey as "self-possessed." I assume from her use of the word in that way that she considered his state of "self-possession" unearned or misused. I see "self-possessed" as naturally a good state for the noble soul but bad for the ignoble one.

Did this strike anyone else into a double take when you read it?

Post 1

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 11:37am

Maybe give a page reference or at least the sentence where she used the term.

Jordan

Post 2

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 11:40am

Self-possessed in this sense simply means appearing dignified through control of one's actions - kind of like Obama.

Post 3

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 2:59pm

I think "self-possessed" is the opposite of "non-plussed," of being at a loss as to what to do or say. A self-possessed person is not uncomfortable in the situation, is not anxious or overly angered, certainly not enraged, never "hurt," or defeated, and not overly surprised at any turn of events. They know who and what they are, what they want, and how to go about getting it.
Toohey could be as self-possessed as anyone else, though not in all the same situations. I would suggest that Toohey was not self-possessed when he asked Roark what he, Roark, thought of him, and heard Roark's answer, "But I don't think of you." (paraphrased.)
Toohey couldn't be self-possessed in the face of that, because that was the expression of an independent mind, and Toohey's whole mind-set, and method of operating was to create and exploit psychological and ideological dependency. Faced with an independent mind, Toohey was helpless, at a total loss. It was as if he faced his own non-existence.

Post 4

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 3:01pm

In that particular case, he did...

Post 5

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 3:56pm

Exactly, Mindy.

After I irrevocably repudiate Steve Wolfer, I shall appoint you my intellectual heir. Unless, in the meantime, he has appointed you his intellectual heir. Unless he has also repudiated you, in which case you're back in the running.

Post 6

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 4:24pm

Oh goody, I think...

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 4:24pm

Mindy, I would make the following distinctions. A self-possessed person is able to experience high levels of anger, fear or hurt without losing control to those emotions. It includes the capacity to experience the emotions without fearing them or being in conflict with them. It means an appropriate relationship to one's emotions. It also includes an independence from the wishes, wants, and emotions of others. Someone can express anger at a self-possessed person and it is perceived, but more like the anger was put before them on a table, where is could be inspected, or not. And it would not be seen as a threat by itself or felt like a storm that blows one off course. It does not include someone who represses emotions or avoids things that trigger emotions or is over-balanced on the intellectual side (i.e., analytical at the expense of feeling).

A self-possessed man could be defeated in a concrete context, but not in spirit. He could be surprised, but the surprise doesn't defeat him. He could feel rage or fear or hurt, but he could also set them aside enough to be in whatever control the situation required. He would neither be an adversary nor a puppet to his emotions.

A good example would be Clark Gable's portrayal of the character of Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind. In a room full of soon to be Confederate warriors who are bragging about how they will defeat the Yankees, he is comfortable telling them how badly they will lose - he isn't hesitant to contradict the powerful sentiments, nor feeling a need to contradict, nor feeling a discomfort at expressing his thoughts. He grieves and the tears pour from him when his daughter is killed. And his famous line, "Frankly, I don't give a damn."

To be self-possessed requires a combination of awareness and being comfortable in one's skin - combined with a natural ease in pursuing one's own purposes.

Post 8

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 4:51pm

I like your example, Steve. I don't see the "distinction" between what you said and what I had said, though.

Post 9

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 4:59pm

Mindy, it wasn't a strong distinction, as in disagreement, but rather making it clear that emotions aren't absent. Popular media often portrays heroes as without emotions which often makes it not just unreal but takes away one of the heroic components of a self-possessed man. I liked your descriptions and Ted's - I think we are all on the same page. (Except for his apparent wishy-washy approach to making an intellectual bequest)

Post 10

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 5:34pm

Yes, Steve, he does seem preoccupied with self-dispossession!

Post 11

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 7:00pm

Or pseudo perhaps...

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 7:23pm

I always too self possessed literally. As in, in possession of his self. Acting deliberately and methodically at all times.

Post 13

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 8:45pm

One might use the term self-possessed as nothing more than description of one who is in control of their demeanor, like Ted first mentioned. But I like taking this term and expanding on it more as if it were a measure self-esteem or psychological strength.

The height of self-possession is the possession of sufficient comfort with one's self to be natural and purposeful at the same time. As young adults almost no one finds themselves in just that spot. And, therefore, finds they need to grow either more relaxed with their emotional self (less controlling, less rigid, more trusting in their 'instincts', while staying purposeful and adequately linear), or they find they need to grow more in command of themselves and less at the beck and call of their emotions or the concerns of others and more purposeful and linear - at a deep level.

Actually, since all most no one has the just-right balance in their early years, the bulk of our lives are spent moving towards that balance (hopefully) - at least to the degree we are maturing well. Introspection is a good thing - it is how we chart our course in this journey. And defensiveness will not be seen with high levels of self-possession.

I think there is a powerful tie-in between the degree of self-possession we see in a man and the clarity and certainty of his sense of identity - his sense of who he is. More than that, the clear sense of the person he sees himself to be in the future will directly determine the strength of his will power. It is a kind of a law of identity applied to the psychology of who one will become. It is that sense of our future self, metaphorically reaching back through time to influence how one behaves today. For previous generations this was a function supplemented by duty. For today's generation it must come more from with-in and be self-discovered and self-directed.

A man who is self-possessed has a clear and consistent sense of who he is. You can almost feel the power of will, strong but never rigid or inflexible - and the ease with which he steers his course through life.

Post 14

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 8:12am

A being of self-made soul.......

Post 15

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 11:08am

That's a great phrase, Robert. I had that, with the first part, engraved on an ID bracelet I gave my first fiance. Unfortunately, some people think it is saying that if a man makes his own money, he has equally made his own soul. They ignore the "as."
I've just been reading a book on art and art criticism that is remarkably consistent with Objectivism, even astonishingly so. It is The Arts and The Art of Criticism, by Theodore Meyer Greene. Do you know of it?
If you're interested, I'll start a thread and post some quotes.

Post 16

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 1:18pm

That book's been around for some time - see one with 1940 date in Amazon... have ordered one [1947] for $1.92...;-)
(Edited by robert malcom on 1/18, 1:22pm)

Post 17

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 2:21pm

That's great! We can cross-refer. Mine is a 1952 printing, same edition, though, so I trust the pagination will be the same. It has liberal plates of visual art-works, more material for analysis of "deep" value-judgments.
Do you, does anybody know if Rand's theory of what art expresses is supposed to be radically original? Clearly, her formulation explains the value of art in terms integral to her whole system, so the formulation can use language that is original without the insight regarding art's role in expressing basic values' being original. I have a vague memory that Harry Binswanger has presented the theory as original.

Post 18

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 2:50pm

I was informed many years ago it was original - and yes, took their word at it, since my excursion into aesthetics produced much in mysticalness and an aversion to seeking further...

Post 19

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 6:43pm