RoR: Forum

Post 80

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:39am

Link

Edit

I would like to repeat a point I just made on another thread. It relates to the point that Joe was originally trying to make.

What is very important in relationships and life in general is keeping your honesty and integrity. Obviously this was Bob's problem.

Bob thinks he is protecting a value. To spare the feelings of his partner. However he must sacrifice his honesty and integrity in order to do it. He must lie to her and be dishonest. This is not only a major sacrifice of his own values, but it also dulls his sense of life and makes his heart grow cold. He ends up in this way killing off the thing that he initially got value from. Namely, romantic love.

Objectivists could learn from this - in the spirit of "to thine own self be true" - because once you betray your own values by lying and cheating someone whose feelings you care about - you also have started an inner perversion of your own values which one day will catch up with you.

Not only that but you will begin to lose sight of what objective truth is. You delude yourself for a short-term gain. Ultimately you betray your partner and you betray A=A.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 5/22, 10:41am)

Post 81

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 11:54am

Link

Edit

Marcus,

I agree with you and just sanctioned your post - as I feel that it makes an important point.

However, I would like to temper the thought with a word that Objectivists rarely use - at least I hardly ever see it:

Balance.

You can be honest, and there is a full spectrum of ways to do so without going around hurting someone's feelings needlessly.

My "favorite" (sarcasm here) line is: "After all, I can't lie to you. You deserve my sincerity."

This is usually said after a devastatingly callous blow, like choosing a moment of extreme happiness and laughter to suddenly blurt out, "I think we should break up because, after thinking it over, I came to the conclusion that I really don't love you." Then comes that punch line: "After all, I can't lie to you. You deserve my sincerity."

The subtext is that the person wants to be admired for "respecting" you enough to do it that way.

My own response in this case has been the traditional, "Go fuck yourself."

Not very original, but such "sincerity" isn't all that great either.

Michael

Post 82

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 11:55am

Link

Edit

Somehow this article reminded me of Hank and Lilian Rearden. What is Rearden's problem compared to Bob?

Post 83

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:34pm

Link

Edit

This is usually said after a devastatingly callous blow, like choosing a moment of extreme happiness and laughter to suddenly blurt out, "I think we should break up because, after thinking it over, I came to the conclusion that I really don't love you." Then comes that punch line: "After all, I can't lie to you. You deserve my sincerity."

Yes, there is always tact. However, Bob was evading over a long time period.

And what if he had been asked a question straight out and gave a wrong or dishonest answer on purpose? I think if one is asked a question by a friend or partner one should answer honestly.

Unless it is an embarrassing place to do it in. Then you should say. "I will answer that question in private".

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 5/22, 3:26pm)

Post 84

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 3:16pm

Link

Edit

Hong asked:

Somehow this article reminded me of Hank and Lillian Rearden. What is Rearden's problem compared to Bob?

Bob needs a real woman like Dagny Taggart to awaken him from his stupor and show him how life -- and love -- might be and ought to be.

Would Hank have ever smelled the coffee if not for Dagny?

MSK exploded:

My own response in this case has been the traditional, "Go fuck yourself."

Her response:

"I will have to do that for a while until I find someone to replace you. Got any batteries? Oh, by the way, we can still be friends, can't we? I still need someone to run my errands, change my oil, buy me dinner, blah, blah, blah..."

;-)

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 5/22, 3:57pm)

Post 85

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 5:56pm

Link

Edit

Luke,
Are you saying that Rearden basically made the same mistake as Bob? I feel quite the same. Although Rearden did not let Lilian dictate any other part of his life (work, etc.). It is sad to see such a brilliant mind failed so miserably in this important aspect of life.

Post 86

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 6:22pm

Link

Edit

Yes, Hong, I think Hank had sadly resolved himself to his lot in life with respect to sexual love. He did not understand that reason and passion apply in all areas of life, not just his career. It took Dagny Taggart to awaken him to this just as it took Howard Roark to awaken Dominique Francon to what was truly possible.

This awakening to what is possible may be the biggest challenge to actualizing the SOLO Credo of "total passion for the total height." I am a skeptical person and so I am still trying to awaken to this. I find it difficult and remain wary of the traps of self-delusion that can engulf the naive.

Hank, of course, lost interest in Lillian after two weeks of marriage and launched himself into his work to avoid dealing with her. He still had his sexual needs, though, which he "cursed" but fulfilled with Lillian as best he could. By contrast, Bob knew early in his relationship that he would have felt better without his girlfriend than with her. In that respect, Bob engaged in much more dishonesty and evasion than does Hank, since Bob had the opportunity to end the relationship before making a lifetime commitment via marriage.

While Hank remained married because of his own selfish sexual needs, Bob married because of the emotional needs of his wife rather than his own needs. Hank practiced implicit but imperfect egoism while Bob practiced genuine altruism.

Post 87

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 6:51pm

Link

Edit

Luke,

This awakening to what is possible may be the biggest challenge to actualizing the SOLO Credo of "total passion for the total height." I am a skeptical person and so I am still trying to awaken to this. I find it difficult and remain wary of the traps of self-delusion that can engulf the naive.

I like what you said here. To use my favorite metaphor, tree, we need to have our root firmly in the earth before we can reach high in the sky.

While Hank remained married because of his own selfish sexual needs.

I think he also took the path of least resistance. But, where does "the sanction of the victim" come into the picture? For Rearden and for Bob?

Post 88

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 7:25pm

Link

Edit

Luke,

That "We can still be friends, can't we?" thing has been a very curious poltergeist in my life. Most all of my breakups have been pretty final on my end, and almost all of my exes wanted to return - and they almost always sought me out, not the other way around. (There is only one exception I remember right now...) It also took a bit of time before I could see them as a friend because of the hurt - I give totally, so when I get hurt, I really need some time. But I always came around after a year or so.

When I kept things on a friendship level, I gained wonderful friends. When I tried to reawaken the old flame (twice I did this), the results was the same disasters as before.

My most blatant "fuck you" came from bunny - it came from her and didn't go to her at the time like it should have. Once she ran through every red cent I had (bunnies are extremely expensive), I heard this for dessert to my realization of my imminent poverty:

"What? You don't have no more money? Not even hidden somewhere? Well I can't stay with you, honey, if you don't have any more money!"

Exact quote. Those words are engraved on my heart in scar tissue.

Still, I will take the lunge for the brass ring over being safe. I have loved and lost, but by God I have loved! I have loved with all my heart - not once, not twice, not three times. (That's enough, folks, I ain't telling no more yet.) And I intend to keep on loving with all my heart until I can breathe no longer.

I am tremendously excited that I finally found the right woman, so maybe this time I can get it right. If not - well, there's no "if not" for me - not this time. It's all or nothing. I pre-evaluated when the emotion struck. I balance sheeted a little. I chose. I plunged. I am not looking back. Bring on the joy or let me be destroyed trying! That's my mindset.

The only reason I am saying this, Luke, is not to get mushy in public. It is to tell you that this is possible. Crazy mad people like me do exist and the joy that comes from it when you get it right is indescribable. Marcus was right - go get drunk sometime. Just once.

(I can't anymore, but I am not talking about addiction - I am talking about letting go of the control over your own joy. It hurts like hell when it goes south on you, but the memory of how it felt on the high is magnificent. I would not trade the good intense memories I have had with all my exes - and professional triumphs too, btw, but we are not discussing that here, for any amount of time I have spent at home being safe.)

Now back to Bob's sellout and Rearden's coffee. I do believe that Rearden was inept with women - so it was simply easier to give to his profession the part of his love that should have gone to his wife. Notice the change in him after he started going out with Dagny - buying jewelry, traveling, dinners out, spending time with her and so forth. Once she went with Galt, I am sure that Reardon would not have women trouble anymore. I certainly don't see him as a bachelor all the rest of his life (but maybe Ayn did - she liked to make her men to wait years for her heroines).

Bob was a sellout, but not completely. Altruism was just the excuse. He had his little payoffs over the years. He sure seems to me like a squirrelly little dude. Playing it safe - because not only did he not have to hurt his wife's feelings - he didn't have to sell his personality anymore to strange women to get laid or worry about getting hurt by falling in love and being rejected! That's the biggest payoff and biggest sellout of his whole relationship.

Michael

Post 89

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 7:11am

Link

Edit

It's better to have loved and lost than spend your life wanking.

That's what I always say anyway.

Post 90

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 8:45am

Link

Edit

Tim: "It's better to have loved and lost than spend your life wanking."

Well, yes, that's one way to put it!

I cannot help but feel that 'analysis' could easily become a rationalizaton for people with intimacy problems. (Not that I am saying that anyone on this list has intimacy problems). As in: EVERYONE has some annoying traits. Bad habits. SO whatcha gonna do, put him/her under the microscope until you find something wrong, magnify it until it drives you crazy, and then do the break up thing? I would temper the analysis with the the observation that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. And to paraphrase Cinderella, "Dont Know What You've Got 'Til Its Gone..." In other words, dont fuck up a good thing because you are holding your partner to ridiculous standards.

That said, aren't the most important things in a partner the relatively small ones? To find someone with a similar sense of humor, someone who is kind to you? A great companion with similar interests who is neither controlling, or physical or emotionally abusive? Someone with interests of their own, but with whom you'd prefer to spend most of your time? I mean, in Objectivist circles, you get alot of "professionally successful" and "great capitalist" or a laundry list of Rearden or Taggart attributes from the books as Objectivist mate wish lists. I think that's a mistake long term (well, short term, too, because some chick's impressive business card doesn't arouse me sexually). People need intimacy in their lives, even if it isn't perfect. The key is, see what you have for what it is, then judge it. If you can do better, then you owe it to yourself to do so. But I am definitely 100% against any ideas which compel people to be socially retarded or hermits.

Post 91

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 9:04am

Link

Edit

Scott, you are absolutely correct, and this is the "analysis paralysis" of which Kat was speaking. The 'list' could be easily implemented as a mechanism to keep intimacy far from the reaches of a human being intimidated by it. I know, because when I was younger, I used said method to magnificent effect.

Now that I am older and wiser (heh), I have realized that while it is important to share core values with someone, the little things, in the end, determine how far a relationship can go. "Perfect on paper" is equivalent to "good in theory, not in practice."

Post 92

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 9:27am

Link

Edit

Scott and Jennifer, you are right.

I am reminded of another facet which is how very easy it seems to be to find love, and how much harder to keep it going.

John

Post 93

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 8:06pm

Link

Edit

Wow, that's interesting, John. I find it difficult to find someone I really like AND am attracted to (ok, the attracted to part is easy because evidently I am easy or something...) But once we are together, everything seems to flow pretty naturally. I think alot of couples start taking each other for granted. That is the easiest thing in the world to do. It's important to remember that, even if you are each very busy professionally and otherwise such that dont aren't spending as much time together, you still must do everything in your power to let the other know how important they are. I think you can do this with only a quarter of the time and effort that new courting requires, and it is well worth the investment--EVERYONE likes to feel appreciated and loved!

Post 94

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 2:26am

Link

Edit

Yes - one should never take anyone for granite - some turn out to be sandstone.....