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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 12:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daaarn tutin' they are!

Want a friend, be a friend. Want a good child, be a good person.

Hmph!

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 5:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George you're an S.O.B.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 5:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes. And little children are surprisingly more rational than we ever give them credit for. They have limited understanding of the world and simple logic, but more rational than not. And boy, are they ever suspicious of Santa Clause, God, and tooth fairy. Oh, shoot, I just remembered that I forgot my tooth fairy duty again last night. ;-)
(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/15, 7:31am)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 5:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hitler's folks must have been something...

Michael


Post 4

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 10:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Children are educated by what the grown-up is, and not by his talk
 
Word.


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

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 10:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,
What about your own children? Roark and Ragnar, aren't they? How old are they? How have you been raising them? Do you see them?


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 1:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

You caught me by surprise. Was your remark meant as cruelty? Being mean doesn't sound like you. I expect that kind of spite from some others, but not you. Anyway I will answer you.

No, I haven't seen Roark and Ragnar for many years. They are in their twenties. I'm anxiously awaiting the day when I will reunite with them. (There are personal issues involved as to why the delay that I am not willing to share with you or the public, but they are being resolved.)

When I left them, I had the luxury of being able to leave them with rich people (who wanted me out of the picture anyway). I probably would have stuck it out, otherwise. At least I knew that they would be well cared for.

I sincerely believe that creating a "hole" in the beliefs and customs they were being flooded with (Arabian culture and Catholic and all that lying and manipulating), I would be able to reach them after they grew up. By staying there, they had no chance to see a different moral form of living. The tribe would be all in their minds and there were too many for me to take on. Now my dear boys know that this form of life was rejected by their father. They must wonder why. Let's say that I left them for their psychological and moral good because that was all I had available to do in that society. I paid an excruciatingly high price for that decision.

I am also very grateful they did not have to see their father go through alcoholism and drug addiction. I would have said bad things to them and would have been a horrible example. It is possible that I might not have gone through those experiences if I had stayed with them - I don't know.

I seriously hope they are not like Hitler. (You might notice that many monsters in society have quite normal parents.)

Does that satisfy your curiosity?

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/16, 1:36am)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/16, 1:40am)


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

MSK,

 

Does that satisfy your curiosity?

 

I am still curious. You have been arguing about a “starving child lost in the wood” scenario for quite some time. Here are your own flesh and blood, left in what you consider a spiritual wilderness with a moral code quite different from that of your own. How can you reconcile your own life with what you appear to be advocating?

 
No, I don’t mean to be cruel. Just try to understand. If the truth is cruel, shall we shy away from it?
 


Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 4:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

I will take you at your word and answer this. I do admit that I was tempted to go into Ayn Rand mode, like when she was asked why she didn't have any children (I witnessed this live). Her answer, with hands on her hips and in a belligerent pose, was: "It's none of your damn business!" (Wild applause back then.)

The reason I was tempted is that according to the the way you phrased the question, it came off as implying "Gotcha! See? You're a hypocrite!" It didn't come off as an attempt to understand. This might be my impression, however.

Anyway, on to the principles. Like I said, I will not provide details that I prefer to keep to myself right now. I suppose I could email you. If you are really interested, email me and I will decide how much I wish to confide in you. If you need a review, I told the story of the context in my article, "Like a Lamb to the Slaughter." I will discuss some of the principles here, since you asked, but not the details.

To start with, you used a phrase about something that I "appear to be advocating." What would that be? I have been very specific - several times now - that I am not advocating anything at all right at the moment other than a need to examine this issue from all angles. Well, I also have been advocating recently that I see no need for sacrifice of either the adult or the child. That is a new position but it is true. I hold strongly that Objectivism should not preach sacrifice.

Like you said, why shy away from truth? Certainly not because it makes some people uncomfortable or that some people don't like me. Truth doesn't have any one human being or some kind of group of people as an owner - it only has reality.

Next point: the context I was in back when I left my family was one of being forced into a choice: either conform to the tribe or leave. Brazilian law would not let me leave with my boys, so my choice boiled down to: teach your boys by example that you must to conform to the tribe, even when you disagree with the lying and the manipulation, or create a doubt in their minds. I chose the second.

If my wife's family had been poor, it would have been easy simply to get up and leave with my family. As the tribe was rich, there were too many obstacles for me to deal with. I chose what I felt best for my boys and it broke my heart. Staying would have done that too. I had no other choice short of suicide or murder, which were not options to me. If I had to make that choice again in the exact same circumstances, I would make the exact same choice. If I had to choose to marry that woman again, I would not.

Your question actually does not cause me such discomfort that I need to shy away from truth. (Once again, there's that nasty psychologizing by innuendo.) You have no idea of how I was crucified by ALL of my acquaintances back then. I had a small public standing at that time - I was frequently in the news, so this episode made the society grape vine. I can tell you that Catholics have a lot more experience at crucifixion by questioning and innuendo than Objectivists - who are pikers by comparison.

To my weary satisfaction, I have heard one person after another who crucified me at that time, but who kept in contact with my ex and my boys, tell me that I was right in the end. (Inside myself, what I really feel is, "Big fucking deal. What good does their change of opinion do my boys?")

Essentially I was run off and my kids were wrenched from me by rich folks. That is a great deal different than finding a starving stray kid somewhere. These are two different issues with different moral principles involved. However there is one principle that does connect them. It is a psychological one and the connection is me.

Since I felt that loss so deeply (it devastated me), this has probably inclined me to look at things from the child's view. The intensity of that emotional experience was on par with what I went through when I first read Atlas Shrugged. This experience came from reality and I have not been able to forget that, no matter how hard I have tried to fit it into an Objectivist mold. It exists.

The upside is that I no longer dismiss children philosophically as easily as I once did. This experience has allowed me to see that children are nothing more than a "logical inconvenience" to many Objectivists (to use a phrase I just wrote to a friend). It has allowed me to question whether the whole of human nature is present and accounted for in Objectivist ethics, or if there are areas that need more discussion and thought. I am now able to ask why the Objectivist concept of rights essentially refers to one stage of development (adult productive stage), yet man goes through several. It has allowed me to break a hardening of the categories in my thinking and question all premises, even the most sacred ones.

It has allowed me not to shy away from looking at the truth, even in the face of peer pressure and derision.

And it has allowed me ultimately to conclude that Objectivism does not need to be rejected because it leaves things out - people can add to it.

More questions?

Michael


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,
Thanks for indulging me. Yes, it would have all been none of my business if you haven't thrown your "Lamb" article and "starving child in the wood" scenario in everyone's face again and again.

"More questions?"

Just one more: how old were your boys when you left them?


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 5:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

I find the "throwing in their face" business insulting. I think I've had plenty thrown in mine. So as to your question, do the math.

Michael


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 7:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ahh Hong you have perfected your interrogation technique. But why?

I am aware of the details and dellemas Michael faced and I think he handled them in the best interests of all, but most of all himself and with a long term viewpoint. Life is funny. I hope he reconciles with his boys.

John

Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 8:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not a big fan of heartfelt personally revealing articles, and probably skipped over the lamb/slaughter article when it was first up - but nobody's forced to read it, and upon reading it now, nothing in that article 'thown' at us should be an afront to anyone. Mocking someone for making such revelations and their personal hardships is just fucking spiteful. MSK, you've been far more polite here than anybody need be.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 12:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Children are educated by grown up talk...
 
even when
 
perhaps especially when,
 
grown ups aren't talking to or with them...
 
sometimes that's when children do their best listening and learning - 
when we grown-ups think they're NOT...listening.
 
(Later for what we're trying to teach them, they're more interested in the stuff we dont' want them to know...*smile*)
 
We provide education by talking to, with and around children (in their presence).
 
I do think that children are more greatly influenced in the long run. and arguably obtain their most valuable education, via the examples set by grown-ups in their lives.
 
The elders in my family did lots of teaching through talking - admonishments, anecdotes, jokes, etc.
(those voices played in my head as I was growing up, telling me what to do and what not to do in given situations...even when I didn't make the choice to adhere...*s*)
 
The grown folk did a lot of talking AND set great examples.
 


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 12:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just wanted to add:

children are educated "by what the grown up is"

so of course, that is not limited to what we determine is "good" of ourselves

they learn from the shortcomings that all parents possess

and even our "fuck-ups"

yup those too.


Also important, we learn a great deal from our children, don't we?


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 9:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think Michael is responsible for his new family with Kat.  He has a woman now who makes things possible for him; he is finally home. He should not lose anymore more time thinking about the past, or he will take it from his happiness and from people who love him, and deserve his love.

Best of luck to you my friend, love your new children and have a lot of good sex with Kat.

This is your family!  

CD

 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK deserves to be ripped to shreds for a lot of things he's written on this and other websites, but I don't think his personal life from decades ago is should be fair game here. In fact, it shouldn't be brought up at all.

- Jason

Post 17

Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Jason.

This crap is starting to remind me of that abomination: The Drooling Beast. It smacks of manipulation and innuendo, and of collectivism and conformity to others' adopted norms. It's ad hominem to dive into another's past -- especially so in an internet forum based on Reason! -- and attempt to crucify an individual for something they did that might have been done better.

This is the kind of psycho-babble bullshit I deal with from our resident expert-on-the-soul, Newberry. We're not just a big family here, so let's not imitate the common errors of big families here -- mmkay?

Ed



Post 18

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 5:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro, you are a sweetheart!

((( hugs )))

Kat


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 7:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron, Jason, Ed,

Michael has experienced what few people have experienced. One of those experiences is being estranged from his own children for many years. Asking about this experience leads to understanding the contextual basis of Michael's belief's about adult behavior around children in need. You three would make this understanding "off limits". As Hong said:

"No, I don’t mean to be cruel. Just try to understand. If the truth is cruel, shall we shy away from it?"

I consider Michael to be a friend, but I also consider your attack on Hong beneath contempt.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.