RoR: Forum

Ed,

Achievement? What achievement? Loving your own mother is an achievement? You build monuments to it?

You think a mother is a merely means to a daughter's ends and not an end in herself, one that the daughter loves and values as an end in herself?

You mentioned supremacy. You think a mother on her death bed is a temptation to be altruistic and submit to slavery, or is an adversary in some kind of philosophical competition?

There are some premises that need to be checked here. Do you understand Rand's concept of love? I don't see any fundamental parallels between your example of a man commissioning a building and Barbara's situation (and article).

I see more of a parallel in Barbara's case with what Roark did for Camaron at the end of his life. (Did Roark "blank out" Camaron's alcoholism so he could act altruistically and submit to the supremacy of others?) Or in Atlas Shrugged, when Rearden kissed the Wet Nurse like a father and called him "Tony" right before he died (and Rearden most assuredly would not have done that if the boy's death were not imminent).

Rand said that love is exception-making. This is one of the finest things she teaches. She illustrated it well in her fiction, too. Instead of trying to nitpick arguments on Internet forums as you read, why not sit back, enjoy the story and try to soak up the wisdom that is really there?

Michael

Post 101

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 8:48am

Mike,

It depends on whether you lied to the kitten. Did you tell her everything was going to be fine? If so, we may conclude that there was a deep flaw in your relationship with that kitten. Not saying you did anything wrong with the lie�but the story cannot be told without highlighting that flaw. Your relationship with that kitten fell short of the ideal�why immortalize that?

Post 102

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 11:29am

My confusion is: How do Joe and Ed come to believe that Mother thought Barbara a sub-par decision-maker?

By analogy, if I tell a story of my mother�s being distraught about my future in my job, and that�s all I say, how do you know that the source of her concern is my being a delinquent who will quit for no good reason�as opposed to a belief my boss is an idiot who will fire me for no good reason, or a concern that my employer will go out of business, or some other reason?

You guys seem dead set on the first explanation.

Why?

Post 103

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 9:45pm

Good story, Mike E.

Warm and tender. I like that. To tell you the truth, if in your position, I would have most definitely reacted in the exact same way. I'd even write about it, too. Just like you just did. It's good to write about warm and tender things. They're important to everyone's well-being. It's good for us to acknowledge the need that all of us humans have for nurturing and celebrating life. Yeah, sure, some folks don't ever get to that place where they've acknowledged this need that they've always had, but just like unquenched thirst, dis-acknowledgment isn't 'enough' to make a real need go away.

Anyway, I'm digressing now, yet your question was so simply straightforward: does this act of sympathy on my part and the telling of this story immortalize forever this kitten's supremacy over me?

Supremacy is, perhaps, a bad word here. I'm beginning to regret quoting Rand's use of it. It brings up the notion of something ruling over something else. My answer to your simple question, of course, is no -- but I'm pretty sure the question was rhetorical; so let's drop the pretense and address the 'rhetoric' now ...

You're implying that I might be entertaining the notion that documented sympathy for another is an immortalization of the supremacy of that other -- in relation to oneself. I don't entertain that notion. It's actually pretty silly, when you think of it. In order for that notion to be true, then all sympathy would have to be seen as some kind of shackle, or ball-and-chain, that holds down the spirit of the sympathizer. But reality's not like that. Sympathy, when proper, can be so very good to have for other beings on earth. It's part of what makes us different from -- superior to -- non-human animals.

No, in order for there to be evidence of some kind of supremacy, there would have to be some kind of sacrifice (in the literal, Randian, sense of the term). And I don't see in your attempts to save -- or at least comfort --that little kitten, any such sacrifice.

Now, if you had a loved wife who had tried to get the kitten down from a tree, only for them to both fall and to both need immediate medical attention, and you then carried the kitten to the hospital while leaving your dying wife -- then I'd say that that kitten, somehow, had some kind of supremacy over you. And the reason is because kittens shouldn't normally hold more value than loved wives do -- it's objectively wrong to value a kitten more than the woman you love.

There are better and worse ways to be in the world, and there's our choice on which of these to focus (or immortalize). I'm not saying less than that, but be sure, I'm not trying to say more than that either.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/26, 9:50pm)

Post 104

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 10:37pm

MSK,

Loving your own mother is an achievement?

Actually, it is. The reason that this is true is because real love is an act of the mind, not a passive and blind (read: effortless) reaction of "the heart."

You build monuments to it?

You could. And that would be so proper and beautiful -- but, given your derisive tone, I don't expect you to actually "get that."

You think a mother is [ ] merely means to a daughter's ends ... ?

Wow. How'd you get THAT absurd notion from my words, Michael?? Honestly, what led you to think that? I don't get how you made that inference from my words, but I am pretty sure that, when you did it, you were not extending me any good will. Now, I am not in the position to COMMAND good will from anyone but, because I generally extend it myself, I'm going to 'call you out' when you refrain from extending it back to me -- like you just did here. My answer (in case you are somehow still curious)?: No one is ever a means to anyone's ends.

You think a mother on her death bed is a temptation to be altruistic and submit to slavery, or is an adversary in some kind of philosophical competition?

Wow (again). Amazing. I really don't know how to answer this one, Michael. It now just seems like a you are taking a disingenuous dig at me (given our previous disagreements about 'altruism' and 'philosophical competition'). Alright. How about this answer? No. Don't tell me "that's not good enough" though, okay? You're vitriol is pretty transparent here.

Do you understand Rand's concept of love?

See my first response in this post, Michael. And then ask, sincerely, of yourself -- this same question.

I don't see any fundamental parallels between your example of a man commissioning a building and Barbara's situation (and article).

That's because the only thing tying the 2 together was that they were going to be creations, immortalized. I alluded to that being the main criticism in this thread, remember? Not that certain actions were right or wrong, but that certain circumstances and actions "deserve" immortalization -- and that they do this better than other circumstances and actions do. This is my point, no matter what it is that you find yourself arguing against. There are better and worse ways to be, and the better ways to be 'deserve' immortalization -- it's a sense of life kind of thing, I guess.

I see more of a parallel in Barbara's case with what Roark did for Camaron at the end of his life.

I do too.

Rand said that love is exception-making.

I don't disagree.

Instead of trying to nitpick arguments on Internet forums as you read, why not sit back, enjoy the story and try to soak up the wisdom that is really there?

Oh great. Now you are on the band-wagon, too? Join-in with the Cordero's of the world in denouncing Ed's choices of how best to spend his time? Sounds a little hypocritical, I know -- considering that I've just judged Barbara about how she might have mis-'spent' her time writing this piece. But you sound just like a mystic, Michael -- telling me how I'm "supposed" to react to the story. No thanks. I'd rather keep my individualism than to kow-tow to the party-line.

I'm enjoying the damn thing, and soaking up wisdom, to boot -- but, apparently, I just have to soak up more of the wisdom that is "really there," right? Somebody pass me the wine and the cracker. I'm going to get transubstantiated on you now, Brother.

Ed

Post 105

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 10:45pm

It depends on whether you lied to the kitten. Did you tell her everything was going to be fine? If so, we may conclude that there was a deep flaw in your relationship with that kitten. Not saying you did anything wrong with the lie�but the story cannot be told without highlighting that flaw. Your relationship with that kitten fell short of the ideal�why immortalize that?

Jon, I admire you for writing this. It was so beautiful and poignant -- in those 5 sentences, you reminded me of Rand. I'd sanction you, but that would mean a 'sanction of the victim' -- don't you agree?

;-)

Ed

Post 106

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 10:55pm

Jon,

[1] ... if I tell a story of my mother�s being distraught about my future in my job, and that�s all I say, how do you know that the source of her concern is my being a delinquent who will quit for no good reason ...

[2] �as opposed to a belief my boss is an idiot who will fire me for no good reason, ...

[3] or a concern that my employer will go out of business, or some other reason?

Holding (and reversing) the analogy, [1] states that you're (i.e., Barbara's) no good, or can't be trusted, in a relationship -- and if that were true, then no relationship would settle Barbara's mother's spirit.

[2] states that the partner (i.e., Nathaniel or other) is the problem, something which Barbara's mother couldn't have believed -- else she wouldn't feel relieved upon hearing that Barbara was back together with "a problem" (Nathaniel).

[3] states that Nathaniel (or Barbara) is about to turn gay, or something like that -- and it is equally as absurd as the first 2 options.

See now, Jon?

;-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/26, 11:08pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/26, 11:10pm)

Post 107

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 12:21am

Ed,

You wrote, �Warm and tender.� Of my open mockery, you wrote, �beautiful and poignant.� And I remind you of Rand?

Is there something wrong with you�in love or something?

Stop fucking up my sense of a stable world�I want the Vulcan back!

Post 108

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 5:19am

Isn't 'sympathy' and 'empathy' levels of 'response to values', better known as 'love' ? and isn't 'love' 'exception making' ?

Post 109

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 7:35am

Jon,

You wrote, �Warm and tender.� Of my open mockery, you wrote, �beautiful and poignant.� And I remind you of Rand?

Yep. You do. Get over it, if that is necessary.

;-)

Is there something wrong with you�in love or something?

Well, let me put it this way: either there's something wrong with me, or there's something wrong with you. As to the conclusion of this matter, I'll let the 3rd party readers decide this each on their own.

Stop fucking up my sense of a stable world�I want the Vulcan back!

Vulcans are easy to deal with. They are predictable. Now, be sure, I'm not a Vulcan -- though Vulcans wouldn't necessarily 'kick me out of bed' for expressing what it is that I've said here. No. Vulcans would agree with me (that better ways of existing are more moral and, preferentially, deserve more to be immortalized). And the worse ways of existing aren't ever properly immortalized.

;-)

Ed

Post 110

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 8:56am

Ed,

Just to make sure that I was not being unfair, I went back to your Post 96. You wrote:

"And this is what I see that Barbara has done here -- her story is not a monument to her own achievement(s). Instead, she's inadvertently immortalized another's supremacy over her, she's put it up forever. And all this makes me question whether there was another way for her to get her intended message across."

Here are the problems I have with this:

1. You stated as fact that "she's inadvertently immortalized another's supremacy over her, she's put it up forever." I can only gather from this statement that you know that Barbara's mother had supremacy over her and that is the reason for the white lie. This, of course leads to the conclusions I made, the ones you had difficulty understanding.

How do you know that her mother had supremacy over her? You did state that as a fact. And what kind of supremacy would that be? Certainly it was not supremacy by force. Her mother could not even get out of bed. So it had to be "sanction of the victim" kind of supremacy�in other words, a form of altruism. That is how I derived altruism from your words. All the other conclusions have similar reasoning, but I have limited time and you are intelligent enough to make the connections.

2. You channel Barbara's "intended message" without really telling us what that message was. I really would like to know what her "intended message" was, the one that she was incapable of communicating.

Despite not telling us, you are very clear that Barbara was not a good enough writer to get it across, at least not in this piece. How you actually know what her "intended message" was, or even that she did not get across what she did intend, is a bit of a mystery to me. Have you been in touch with Barbara offline? (Incidentally, I personally have not discussed this thread with her.)

3. The following was not an original objection, but due to your answer, it became one. You stated as a fact: "her story is not a monument to her own achievement(s)." Yet you wrote very clearly that you consider a mother's love to be an achievement. Well, Barbara most definitely did make an homage to her mother. So which is it? A "monument to her own achievement" or not? You seem to want it both ways, so long as Barbara is bashed either way.

As an alternative to all these alleged facts, Barbara's statement could be summed up as follows: "As love is exception-making, I loved my mother so much, her happiness was of such high value to me, that I put it above all else in my life, even my own honesty toward her, when time was running out. Price was no object."

This is called valuing. Both NB and Ayn Rand understood that. I find it really strange that other Objectivists do not.

But I see you have presented some facts. Hard facts. You are certain about them. And they all point to shortcomings of Barbara. I wonder what your source of information actually is.

If you were only engaging in speculation, thinking outside the box and thinking out loud, I withdraw my incredulous tone, but still I wonder why you would speculate only on Barbara's shortcomings and not on her valuing or her talent as a writer or something like that. I could speculate on what your intention is, but I won't. Your statement speaks for itself. If you actually do believe that your misguided observations constitute facts, the incredulity remains. How on earth could you possibly know those things?

As to your psychologizing, you attribute me with incorrect motives. You are dead wrong. I wish you well, not ill. And I think you have talent. You certainly are much better than that tripe you wrote. I am calling you on it and urging you to rise above it. If I wished you ill or if I were indifferent, I would ignore you or disparage you. I have no problem issuing negative opinions. Instead, I asked you questions to get you to think a little more.

Michael

Post 111

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 11:51am

MSK,

How do you know that her mother had supremacy over her?

As I said in post 103 (to Mike E.), supremacy is a bad word here. I don't know whether her mother had "supremacy" over her -- I just know what kinds of things reveal really good relations between folks; and what kinds of things hint at sub-optimal relations between folks

2. You channel Barbara's "intended message" without really telling us what that message was. I really would like to know what her "intended message" was, the one that she was incapable of communicating.

To be pedantic, her message was about how Nathaniel wasn't a complete bastard. How he had went along with a benevolent facade. How sometimes lies are cool. And how dying is a special thing requiring special attention. She successfully got these things across. I never said she was incapable. I questioned the kind of method she used, not her proficiency in communicating ideas.

Have you been in touch with Barbara offline?

No, I have not.

Well, Barbara most definitely did make an homage to her mother. So which is it? A "monument to her own achievement" or not? You seem to want it both ways, so long as Barbara is bashed either way.

It's not a good monument to achievement. And it is not that I don't care either way, as long as Barbara is bashed -- I have no axe to grind with the woman -- so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't continue to impune such motives onto me.

Barbara's statement could be summed up as follows: "As love is exception-making, I loved my mother so much, her happiness was of such high value to me, that I put it above all else in my life, even my own honesty toward her, when time was running out. Price was no object."

This is called valuing. Both NB and Ayn Rand understood that. I find it really strange that other Objectivists do not.

I understand that, too. It's not the point I'm making, though. I'm making a point about an overall method of communication, not about the specific actions that were taken by the relevant parties. This fact should be clear upon a critical review of the words that I typed in post 96.

... but still I wonder why you would speculate only on Barbara's shortcomings and not on her valuing or her talent as a writer or something like that. ... How on earth could you possibly know those things?

I don't know any "things" about any of Barbara's possible shortcomings. But I do know some things about human relations and human communications -- and that is all that I'm going on here. Tell me, have I ever even insinuated anything more than this??

You certainly are much better than that tripe you wrote. I am calling you on it and urging you to rise above it. ... I asked you questions to get you to think a little more.

Fine then. I've thought more about it now. And apparently, we're now done discussing it.

And I can live with that.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/27, 11:53am)

Post 112

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 2:38pm

Ed,

You asked:

"Tell me, have I ever even insinuated anything more than this??"

Yes. And I had just told you. Loud and clear. And I told you where I had problems with it. (Essentially, making negative statements of fact when they are nothing more than speculations. That's a rhetorical discipline that is not too hard to correct.)

But I am fine with ending the discussion on this. You and I should not be having tense communications anyway. We might not get the correct message across about our relations...

//;-)

Michael

Post 113

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 8:06pm

Against his Better Judgement, he Smiled

Obviously I don't think you lack emotions, Ed. The Vulcans don't either. The analogy was a brief way of saying that you often seem to over-intellectualize things, and seem to be overly suspicious of emotion. Think of the question of whether or not to deal with the bum cadging cigarettes. I said then that one doesn't normally live by explicitly considering general premises and then acting afterwards. Rather, the actions and the emotions come naturally, and as we mature we find we either already have the proper principles implicit in our minds, or we make the explicit effort to find the right ones, and correct ourselves.

In the case of Barbara Branden and her mother, most of the people here are looking at her actions with the benefit of the doubt. You seem to be looking at them and to be saying that because you can see a potential gap between abstract principle and action in her case, principle wins, she is condemned. (I realize these are not your own words, but are my impression, and hence the source of my comments.)

Likewise, we have argued elsewhere over whether animals can be happy, whether they have "minds" and so on. I get the strong impression that your stance on this issue as well does not come from having owned dogs and ridden horses, but from having accepted certain cartesian baggage implicit in, but not essential to Rand's thinking.

I guess the best antidote or example would be for me to tell you to have a child, to own a dog, to read Monty Roberts' Shy Boy and The Man who Talks to Horses and to have a loved one die on you. That last, hopefully, is a lesson you have not had to learn yet, and will not have to learn soon. But it is perhaps the biggest lesson in life. I am a different, and much better objectivist, having suffered the loss of loved ones, and I find that it is one thing to talk about, another thing to experience.

Don't take the Vulcan remark as an insult. Mr. Spock was always my favorite character, and his best moments were those when, against his better judgement, he smiled.

Ted Keer

Post 114

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 8:46pm

Love is Exception Making?

I have always had a problem with this "definition." It is not actually a proper genus/species definition in the first place (Neither is Rand's definition of happiness "non-contradictory joy" for that matter, since "non-contradictory" is not a proper differentia.)

I have always feared that this definition was self-serving - if you love me Frank, you will allow me to sleep with Nathaniel...

Just wanted to register my objection.

Post 115

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 9:25pm

When Mind and Heart Clash

One comment of Nathaniel Branden's that I remember reading, and remember being gratified when I read it, was his advice that while it is true that reason and emotions should not clash, when they do, it is not always the emotions that are wrong. Sometimes we may actually have the proper emotional response to an issue, or an emotional conflict, when an explicit reason, which we have up to now have accepted, is actually false, but our subconscious knows better.

The point is, be just as willing to doubt, or better, to examine your premises as you are willing to question your emotions. I think the context for Branden's statement was in relation to his conflict over the explicit Randian idea of romantic love, with Branden's allegation that Rand told him he should love her romantically even if Rand were in a wheel chair, and Branden's undeniable attraction to the charming, but not-as-brilliant-as-Rand Patrecia.

This brings to mind again Thomas Jefferson, who explicitly held that negroes were inferior to whites, that if slavery were ended, that they should be sent back to Africa, and who nonetheless loved and fathered children with Sally Hemmings. Sometimes the heart does love better than the mind, and neither is passive.

Ted Keer

Post 116

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 10:59pm

Ted,

Where did Rand say that her line about one of the attributes of love (exception-making) is a definition? She didn't.

If you want a concrete example from her literature of that attribute, try Dagny shooting the guard because the man she loved was in danger.

I understand this line to mean that a living value, an actual one who has touched one's life, not a hypothetical one that you can use for philosophical speculation, transcends an abstract principle, especially in life-and-death situations. You do things for a person you love that you would never do for a stranger, including making exceptions to your principles. That is, if you love them in the manner Rand postulated love ("highest value" for romantic love and close to that for all others).

Obviously there are limits, but not everyone knows how to love like that or even wants to. It scares the living daylights out of them. For the record, I do love like that. Price no object.

Also, I take exception to the denigration of Rand present in your quip. God knows, I have my own criticisms about her understanding of facets of human nature, but Rand was not a cold-hearted manipulative bitch with Frank. She really loved him and that memory should not be cheapened. I am convinced that she completely believed in what she was doing, all the way down to her toes. She made a terrible, terrible mistake. She took others with her and she was really callous about it. But she did it going for the highest she knew how to in her own life and she wished nothing less for those she loved.

Rand did not create that beautiful, insightful line about love just so she could rationalize cuckolding her husband or becoming a swinger with a moral sanction. I find no resonance within me for that thought. She was a wonderful, sincere and powerful artist and thinker.

Michael

Post 117

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 6:01am

Michael,
Good post. You said:

You do things for a person you love that you would never do for a stranger, including making exceptions to your principles. [Emphasis added.]

Do you think Rand intended this, or is it your opinion that this is part of the "exception making"?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 118

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 7:14am

Glenn,

Thank you.

I have no doubt Rand intended the highlighted part ("making exceptions to your principles"). For a very easy example, in Rand's early stories a common situation is a woman who sleeps with a man she despises because he holds life/death power over the man she loves. If that is not making an exception to a principle, I don't know what is.

In most every case I can think of in Rand's illustrations (in art and life) of this exception-making facet of love, the well-being of the loved person was at stake and a high price was paid. Often that price was what would be considered as betrayed integrity if the exception was made under normal conditions.

Like all exceptions, if taken too far too often, correct perception of reality will be breached. But I am sure that Rand did not mean for this statement to be used as grounds for a person to deceive himself, or as a rhetorical device for manipulating others. And there is one thing I believe Rand did not mean to be included as an exception, ever: forfeiting rational awareness of what the person was doing and why.

Michael

Post 119

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 12:08pm