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 2


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 9:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Roger wrote:

"I do think it would be good for him to see a counselor; couldn't hurt"

It mightn't hurt Linz but I'll bet the counselor hits the bottle afterwards... :-)




Post 41

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 11:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
test--this post is empty.

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 8/02, 12:33pm)




Post 42

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do you know who one of the worst enablers I've ever read about is?
It was a woman named Ayn Rand. She helped kill Frank O'Connor. There is no benevolent sense of life when you're drunk. And there's no benevolence about watching your spouse waste away.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jamie-

Clearly she financially enabled him- it wasn't like he had to stay on a career track or anything.  The thing about it is that she chose to stay with him. That's the real question. It was like putting a horse out to pasture. It seemed like he was down to drinking and painting. That's depressing shit.

I like the paintings of his that I've seen, I guess that counts for something.

I don't think I really believe in "enabling" though. Most of the people I know that use heavily don't need much help with it. I don't buy the thing about not pointing out unacceptable social behavior being a shirking of responsibility. I think your responsibility is to cut the relationship if you've had enough of watching the person deteriorate.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/02, 1:39pm)




Post 44

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Right on, Rich!

Ed




Post 45

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 2:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jamie, no one killed Frank O'Connor, certainly not Ayn Rand. I saw him as a vigorous man at the Ford Hall Forum in the early 1970s. The question of his being an alcoholic is an open one. I think you've got the kind of enabling Ayn Rand did backwards: She enabled thousands upon thousands if not millions to live happier, less guilty lives.

--Brant




Post 46

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 2:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant-

What about after he died, and they went into his studio and it had a very large amount of empties in it? I know what that kind of scene looks like, and it doesn't usually mean the person was having a lot of friends over for cocktail parties.  I've never heard anything to the contrary about Frank O. being a heavy drinker. The thought of it always saddened me. From what I can tell he at the very least was very withdrawn for quite some time around the end.

I could see getting into hitting it pretty hard in those times and conditions. I notice this topic, along with what had to be a very odd marriage at the end remains virtually unbreached compared to, er, other things.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting tabloid and cheap, here. But I don't think I'm the only one who has ever looked at the fact that their marriage was very tragic, he was isolated for a good period. And with that, the fact that Ayn Rand essentially died in a very alone, sad kind of way. It's all a terrible thing.  

(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/02, 2:55pm)




Post 47

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK, OK, I let my emotions get away from me. I apologize. But aside all the inspiring, life-cultivating things I learned from Rand (and the things for which I hold her in such high regard), I found the affair and her seeming disregard for her marriage to be the most contemptible. I would not be here posting if I didn't believe Rand and Objectivism changed not only my view of life, but my life.



Post 48

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

As far as I know, there is one written account (discounting repetitions in tertiary sources such as your post) that claims O'Connor was an alcoholic, based on second-hand information from unnamed sources. There are several people who knew him who deny it.

Almost exactly the same could be said of Linz after the recent "Drooling Beast" post. You have to decide what you believe based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence.

--
Richard Lawrence
Webmaster, Objectivism Reference Center




Post 49

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whether or not Frank O'Conner was an alcoholic, or whether he and Rand should have stayed together, you can't deny her devotion, according to Barbara's book, when she tried to nurse him back from his brain deterioration.



Post 50

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 7:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Agreed.  She made some bad decisions but it's obvious she loved the man.

---Landon




Post 51

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think that this discussion is being impoverished by the almost exclusive focus on chemical dependencies.  What about addictions to TV, sex, chess, the internet and gambling?




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 1:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Laj: I'm hard at work on a website that will make huge bucks by allowing addicts to satisfy all five of those cravings at once.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 5:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew,

You mean SOLO?



Post 54

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Abolaji, that was partly my point. TV and the internet can be just as addictive as any drug, although some drugs hold the potential for chemical dependence.



Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 12:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chess or whatever else someone is compulsive about can do damage, but it's nothing like drugs and alcohol do.



Post 56

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've met enough vidiots in my life to conclude that video games can be just as addictive—as in, people play them compulsively despite negative consequences—as can many drugs.



Post 57

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 2:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Laj, you are onto something about various addictions, but they weren't being discussed because of the reason for the posting of the quote. To keep your topic in focus, maybe you might want to start a new thread on the topic?



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is a very good book on addictions in Brazil (I can't remember the author) called Doce Veneno (Sweet Poison), which covers various types of drug and alcohol addictions. It starts with TV soap operas, though.

The psychological component of addiction is very powerful. Ask the guys in Las Vegas who built empires out of gambling casinos.

Still, as I mentioned above, this is a complex subject. There is no one size fits all, except for two points.

1. The addict always gets fucked in the end and he/she hurts a lot of people on the way.

2. The only 100% known cure is abstinence from whatever is causing the addiction.

The rest varies all over the place. Objectivism especially needs a bit of work in this area to be of any real use to addicts.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/03, 7:14pm)




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Sunday, August 7, 2005 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The psychological component of addiction is very powerful."
I agree fully with Michael's thoughts on addiction and just want to add how he helped me quit smoking a few months back with  a single telephone conversation.  We hadn't met yet but were talking on the phone daily.  We talked about values and contradictions and he framed the whole addiction thing in a very objectivist way that completely took away the psychological need to smoke.  I haven't had a cigarette since our conversation that day.

I realize that my situation was nothing like kicking crack cocaine but basically the bottom line is "check your premises" and that is how I kicked the habit. 


*purr alert*
Thank you Michael.  This is only one of the many things that made me fall madly in love with you.  You are my highest value. purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.