BEHOLD THE CRACKED.......LETTING IN MORE LIGHT !

How Ayn Rand torures me; invading my thoughts when I have other work to do. The cognitive dissonance is at it again, equilibrating and accommodating.

Was Ayn Rand was in denial about the importance of childhood? She barely wrote or spoke about her early years. It was as if like Athena, she popped out of her father's forehead, fully formed. Herein lies the source of what I see as the tiny flaw; the part that keeps me awake at night.

Ayn Rand gives credit to her intellectual father, only, in the development of her intellect. She forgets that the intellect has a debt to the body. She has ignored the existence and the importance of the value that is one's MOTHER, who first nurtured the body. The mother who helped prepare the foundation where the logical mind could lay it's first building block: OBJECT PERMANENCE.

Ayn Rand gives no credit to the primacy of mothering and loving. She rejects the significance of those baby feelings, and runs to the lap of Aristotle, her intellectual father. If Aristotle is the intellectual equivalent of Ayn Rand's dad, who could be the intellectual equivalent of the mom? Wonder of wonders, it's another male. Jeremy Griffith, AYN RAND'S INTELLECTUAL MOTHER. It seems that Ayn Rand, an aristocrat child, was denied the unconditional love that poor folk shower on their young; their most precious possessions. The virtuous poor give their infants everything they have. Mostly, they have only LOVE.

Ayn Rand lacked love in her early years; you can read it between the lines (something mothers and kindergarten teachers do all the time, in order to outwit their egocentric immature children). She was an eccentric; too much developed in the cognitive domain. She never found her true sense of life. She seemed always on the cusp of happiness, but never able to wallow in it.

It's too late to help the flesh and blood Ayn Rand; but if we put on all of our thinking hats; you know, the ones that Edward deBono tried to tell us about, perhaps we can appeal to her intellectual mother to fess up and tell how things went horribly wrong for a little girl who grew up to be, perhaps the greatest female mind. The woman who invented a new way of "being in the world"; a world where humankind can flourish, if we only use the tools Ayn Rand gave us; and the secrets that she never discovered at her mother's breast.

Griffith's essay; THE GREAT EXODUS, www.thehumancondition.info leads the way. His studies as a biologist, and his original thinking helped him to develop this notion most elegantly.

Having considered his ideas in the context of Objectivism I have had a leap of thought. Objectivists are HUMANITY'S ADOLESCENTS, kicking over the traces of parental, religious, government authority. Objectivists often present as an immature, squabbling, gaggle of food-fighters, who mostly avoid parenthood, because deep down they "know in their bones" that children can't survive and thrive with such grown-ups. Children need to be raised by adults.

Self-actualized persons come from homes led by what Griffith identifies as HUMANITY'S ADULT. Embrace for a moment, my Objectivist friends, this notion of Griffith as Ayn Rand's intellectual mother; and take a sober second look at "the human condition".

It's all in the aesthetics of modern art. Ayn Rand had tunnel vision here. Her aesthetic was founded on a unattainable romantic denial of reality. Modern art reflects a horror in the way that our babies and children are raised. What else could be the meaning of a woman's dress fashioned from the destruction of food, ie. freshly-killed animal flesh? What means, a crucifix submerged in urine? How about a bottle rack standing on a plinth? Huge canvases painted in a single colour? Anything goes, my friends. Our children are living the lives of raucous desperation; scribbling their pain as spray-painted graffiti. Grown-ups in deep denial keep themselves "busy" distracting themselves to death, and alienating themselves from the truth. Instead of studying and pondering the meaning of this graffiti, they form commando groups, they invent special expensive solvents and try to erase it out of existence. It lives, yet, in the hearts of the young artists, who are trying to speak truth to power and authority.

Is there one honest person on this list who has the ears to hear, the eyes to see, the mind to equilibrate, accommodate and assimilate? In a word, UNDERSTAND?

Send me a note. If you are in the Niagara area on Sunday, there's a place for you and you loved ones, at my dining table. It'll be lamb, ham and beautifully prepared vegetables; and that traditional Easter dessert of the Romanoff's, pascha , with fresh strawberries, of course.

Post 1

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 9:04am

Was Ayn Rand was in denial about the importance of childhood? She barely wrote or spoke about her early years.

That could be true of lots of writers.

Ayn Rand gives credit to her intellectual father, only, in the development of her intellect. She forgets that the intellect has a debt to the body.

The intellect doesn't exist without the body. It's not a debt thing.

She has ignored the existence and the importance of the value that is one's MOTHER, who first nurtured the body. The mother who helped prepare the foundation where the logical mind could lay it's first building block: OBJECT PERMANENCE.

Mothers, everyone has one. Some are good and some are bad. Mine was wonderful. A bad mother is not a value to you.

Ayn Rand gives no credit to the primacy of mothering and loving.

What lack of credit are you referring too? Primacy? What in being born?

She rejects the significance of those baby feelings, and runs to the lap of Aristotle, her intellectual father.

She rejects them? She tells you right where feelings are coming from. She embraces emotion in it's proper form: a reaction to value, not a means of knowledge.

It seems that Ayn Rand, an aristocrat child, was denied the unconditional love that poor folk shower on their young; their most precious possessions. The virtuous poor give their infants everything they have. Mostly, they have only LOVE.

This is meaningless specualtion. So rich people don't love their kids as much as the poor???????????

Ayn Rand lacked love in her early years; you can read it between the lines (something mothers and kindergarten teachers do all the time, in order to outwit their egocentric immature children). She was an eccentric; too much developed in the cognitive domain. She never found her true sense of life. She seemed always on the cusp of happiness, but never able to wallow in it.

Specualtion, inuendo, baeless, etc etc

Having considered his ideas in the context of Objectivism I have had a leap of thought. Objectivists are HUMANITY'S ADOLESCENTS, kicking over the traces of parental, religious, government authority. Objectivists often present as an immature, squabbling, gaggle of food-fighters, who mostly avoid parenthood, because deep down they "know in their bones" that children can't survive and thrive with such grown-ups. Children need to be raised by adults.

This last paragraph is insulting and baseless.

It's all in the aesthetics of modern art. Ayn Rand had tunnel vision here. Her aesthetic was founded on a unattainable romantic denial of reality. Modern art reflects a horror in the way that our babies and children are raised. What else could be the meaning of a woman's dress fashioned from the destruction of food, ie. freshly-killed animal flesh? What means, a crucifix submerged in urine? How about a bottle rack standing on a plinth? Huge canvases painted in a single colour? Anything goes, my friends.

Hmmmf.

Our children are living the lives of raucous desperation; scribbling their pain as spray-painted graffiti.

My child isn't.

Grown-ups in deep denial keep themselves "busy" distracting themselves to death, and alienating themselves from the truth. Instead of studying and pondering the meaning of this graffiti, they form commando groups, they invent special expensive solvents and try to erase it out of existence. It lives, yet, in the hearts of the young artists, who are trying to speak truth to power and authority.

Yeah, there are a lot of Objectivist graffiti artists. well, maybe not. Those poor kids who get all that unconditional love are the majority of the ones spray painting the walls. These kids need more romanticism and less post-mordernism.

Is there one honest person on this list who has the ears to hear, the eyes to see, the mind to equilibrate, accommodate and assimilate? In a word, UNDERSTAND?

I understand that I don't agree with what your saying here, but I'm going to read the essay you linked too anyways.

Ethan

Post 2

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 9:05am

I understand your link is broken......................

Post 3

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 9:15am

This is the proper link: http://www.humancondition.info/essays/TheGreatExodus.html

Post 4

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 9:31am

Well,

In the first paragraph of Griffith's essay (past the prologue) we have this gem:

The real, fundamental question about humans is why are we so competitive, aggressive
and selfish when the ideals are to be cooperative, loving and selfless? Are humans
essentially good and if so, what is the cause of our evil, destructive, insensitive and cruel
side?

You were right to post this in dissent. I'm going to read the whole thing, but if this is his premise and the one you accept I think you've missed the whole point of Objectivism.

While I read this I want you to be an honest person who has the ears to hear, the eyes to see, the mind to equilibrate, accommodate and assimilate? In a word, understand and explain to me the basics of Objectism as you see them, because I fear you must not understand it. I await your answer.

Ethan

Post 5

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 2:13pm

Hi Ethan,

I appreciate your honesty and open-mindedness in agreeing to read Griffith's theory. He was not writing for the thinking Objectivist mind. As I recall, from my reading of his paper, he is trying at first, to establish common ground with those entrenched in mystical thinking; and thus reason them away from that unhelpful position. I don't know that Griffith knew about Objectivism. He would begin from a different context for you more highly-evolved thinkers.

If you can climb into the author's mind, however flawed, and trace his notion of logic, you may be able to show him how he is wrong GLOBALLY, rather than grind him down one point at a time. This is how I studied Rand in the first place. WHAT WAS HER INTENT ? I know the party line: to explain the philosophy lived by her characters.   How did calling people witchdoctors and Attilla the Huns serve her purpose? I just ignored those bits; and hypothesized that she had unresolved personal issues. Little did I know what was going on in the office.

To me, she wanted to make people aware that they could invent a new way of living by the sheer force of their minds. She had done it; and here it was. I never knew that her ideas weren't up for debate, until I stumbled in here last summer. I used my own limited logic to invent a way of life. My experiences were not hers; therefore, how could we have identical views on everything? It just never occurred to me that, that was what she and all Objectivists wanted. Telling people what to think was improper to me. Helping them to discover the truth was. Name calling is not an effective teaching strategy.

I spent my entire working life isolated with 3-7-year-old children. It takes a truthful logic to convince pre-operational children that their behaviour must change. I have read Ethan, that you are the parent of a young girl; you must know that. My mind has been sculpted by children. I have a naive innocence that permeates my thinking. Many people, not just Objectivists,  make assumptions about me that are totally inaccurate. They are applying their own egocentricity; they are trying to reason with their perspective, only, as to why; never how, I arrived at such a conclusion. They are not interested in my reasoning processes. They only want compliance with their view.

If you want compliance from a child you either use bribery and force, or you seduce the child with novel ideas. For example: rather than telling children to take their hands off something,  expecting compliance, and then using irrelevant rewards, force, or the threat of sanctions, if the child doesn't meet expectations; tell the child that the thing must not be touched, ask the child if she can put her hands in her pockets so that her fingers will stay away from the private property, so that the fingers will behave themselves, and not cause damage. Fingers do that sometimes.   To me, compliance is referenced in the child focusing on the body part that needs to be controlled. The "child" is separate from the action, the child doesn't yet understand about the sum of the parts. The fingers are not yet seen, automatically, as part of the person. Children can respond to the notion that they should have a little chat with their fingers. Ask the child to try and think of what could be said to make those fingers pay attention and obey. Obedience to the child, not obedience to the adult, or anyone else.

I didn't read about these strategies. I invented these ideas by understanding child development, and by observing children's behaviour, by trying to understand the child's thinking processes, by reflecting on the child's goals by trying to respond intelligently to challenges presented by children. By doing what Ayn Rand said.

THINK,     FORM PREMISES,     PROVE THEM, or discard them, LIVE BY THEM,     FIND HAPPINESS, THINK AGAIN.    I know how to do many things appropriately, because I have tried or imagined many other inappropriate ways.   I have no knowledge of formal logic. I have no knowledge of algebra. Is that a liability to living life well?     As an aside, I was hoping to ask Leibniz on another thread, to give me his growth strand for differential calculus; but he seems to have gone to Mass* today.

Does that mean that I don't know how to reason? That my thinking is illegitimate? That I can never have an original idea that can be respected ? What do Objectivists do with such people in their Objectivist world?

Do Objectivists recognize the legitimacy of insight; or does that notion incite them?

If possible, read Griffith with a childlike mind, and listen to his fascinating story. Think of it fondly, as a fiction.   I think that he learned a lot , as a boy, out there on that sheep farm. Marvel at Griffith's knowledge of cultural anthropology; then hold his premises under the cold light of reason. Perhaps you can show him the error of his ways, and convince him to become an Objectivist.

Do you think that because I was a kindergarten teacher, that I am an unworthy challenger, that those who were the victims of ineffective Maths teachers are less highly evolved humans?

Are there notions that Objectivists "don't get"?    Do Objectivists "get everything"? I can see how they, of all humans are capable of it.       I surely don't get everything, algebra being the least; but I'm not an Objectivist. Alas, I imagined myself once, to be a groupie.

BTW Are there Objectivist rites of passage, or rights of passage?    Hmmmmmmmmmm?

I thank you Ethan for initiating this conversation. Having a friendly Objectivist explore this important issue makes this truly a Good Friday*. I realize that I have a tendency to blather on. My granddaughter isn't finished yet, with me. hahaha

All Best
Sharon

* I mentioned Palm Sunday on another thread; and someone assumed me to be a Christian. How is that a logical conclusion?

Post 6

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 4:02pm

I shit thee not, this is brilliant stuff here. Well, maybe not...

(Edited by John Newnham
on 4/14, 4:04pm)

Post 7

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 4:27pm

Sharon,

I began to write you an indepth response but then I realized that you do not understand art in the way I do; nor the importance of idealism and projecting the things that you are for.

Michael

Post 8

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 5:11pm

About the mothering issues

The child's first relationship is with the mother. A relationship that has an influence that was never considered by Rand. Today's Objectivists have the luxury of up to date research. How can the child's first love affair be acknowledged, in 2006 as having no significance?  Why are Objectivists seemingly without curiosity about this?

Rand designated her ideal heroic mates as two men: one physically ideal, the other, intellectually so: until there was a falling out; and such a falling out there was. Then he was excused from the human race by the unforgiving Rand.

I interpreted Rand's relationship with Aristotle's teachings as the father of her philosophical underpinnings.  Freud metaphorically designated the "father" as the intellectual guide, and thus her intellectual father is Aristotle.

Likewise the nurturing physical mother bonds with her child and transfers physical manifestation of emotions to the foetus in utero, and after birth. The infant human is the storehouse for all these emotions. Who on earth claims to know anything about this aspect of the primacy of one's existence? Jeremy Griffith is one such person; and I sat him at the head of Rand's cradle beside Aristotle. Aristotle informing the logical mathematical intellect, Griffith interpreting, after the fact, the emotional intelligence, as Gardner names it. I was waxing metaphorically about this. Do Objectivists lack sustained curiosity about modern thinking about such notions?

Ayn Rand tried to trivialize the complexity and importance of her emotions. Griffith can show the folly of this arrogance.

Why should we care? Rand's emotions guided her decisions, subconsciously. Her idea that the adult life is the highest value is an immature premise. It is a high value, but it presupposes that each person will do as much as possible for herself regardless of others. If that is the case, how can a child be nurtured. Science demonstrates that the highest value in the animal kingdom is the offspring. The purpose of an evolving intellectual animal is the same for all other animals; to perpetuate the race. Humans do this by using their intellects to improve their lot in life. To say that my life is more important than my child's is to have a rule that sacrifices children in favour of their parents. This is a form of self-imposed genocide that will wipe out the entire human race.

Interesting that those closest to nature keep producing multitudes of children; doing what nature intended. The most intelligent such as the Objectivists, have fewer children or none at all. It takes more resources to raise an infant to become an educated high-functioning adult. Resources that Objectivists have, if you can believe their profiles. Rand's immature position that children are not humankind's highest value is against nature, which must be obeyed.

Next to being alive, a child's highest value is nurturing parents, grandparents and other devotees. Parents are hardpressed to raise children in communities that are hostile to children. If children are one's highest value, and everyone understands that this must be so, in order for the species to survive; then communities will act more benevolently towards children and their families. To

To hear Griffith speak of serving the needs of children as one's highest goal in life, is an ideal of such mammoth proportions; it stopped me so dead in my tracks, I had to stop reading and pour myself some brandy. It is an extremely mature idea, when taken to the creative extreme, that Rand carried the threads of her other thoughts. It puts to an end, the silly notion that Objectivists live for themselves. What is the good of that to our species? Are Objectivists planning to robotize themselves?

Species must be such a distasteful word to those who see no value in cooperative ventures.

I guess the real question is: can you understand how Griffith understands that survival of the human species is our reason to be on earth; the same as it is for every other living creature?

Rand's first premise was mistaken. It is not about me; it's all about my child, and your child, and everybody else's child. Why and how could that not be our highest value, and the recipient of our greatest thinking? Can you imagine?   Can you really imagine? What is that creative visualizer process that Robert Malcom does?   This is the most exciting thing, ever. The process of nurturing children has the highest value of every thing we do.

Put aside every assumption you ever had about children, and look at this idea with all the originality and creativity you can muster.

If adults are going to find happiness; they first must have had happy childhoods. How else will they recognize the feeling of happiness when they find it?    Make no assumptions about what constitutes a happy childhood. The child will tell you. Children are happy following their instincts, why shouldn't we adults?

When we go too far, our intellect will put on the breaks. Do Objectivists know the difference between free play and playing games with rules?

This probably doesn't answer your challenges Ethan. It's too mind-numbing to go back and forth trying to disect every sentence. Is that the only way to understand Objectivism? On another thread "WHO AM I ? " Newberry asked Jenna to just give the essence of who she was. That's the question we need here. What is the essence of what Objectivists seek?   Is Objectivism a contest? A game with no rules?

This is worse than those times I had to fight with all my being for the rights of four-year-olds to play at school. Who was I fighting with?     THE CHILD'S OWN PARENTS.     Some sad.

If Rand was indulging her "adolescent humanity" on the issue of her highest value, what of the other aspects of her philosophy?

Who speaks for children?               The happy heart.                                                                         Sadly, it wasn't Ayn Rand.

Post 9

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 5:41pm

Sharon, you said:

"Was Ayn Rand was in denial about the importance of childhood? She barely wrote or spoke about her early years."

Ayn Rand left her family at 21 and never seen them again, except many many years later, too late in my opinion, she was briefly reunited with her younger sister.

As soon as Rand got her Green Card, she tried to get her family to come to US, and failed. Soon after, all her family members except the sister perished during the brutal siege of Leningrad in WWII. What could one expect Rand to say about her family and her early years?

I was enormously moved that Rand, as soon as she found her younger sister, immediately invited her and her husband to come to the US. Rand rented an apartment for her sister and decorated it herself. She was obviously overjoyed. It was profoundly sad that the sisters had grown so far apart that they couldn�t understand each other any more.

For those of you who think that Rand did not value her family, please look at what she did, and not what she did not say.

And Sharon, are you a mother?

I found your take on Rand�s ideas quite bizarre.

Post 10

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 5:58pm

Sharon,
I see that you are passionate about children. However, I completely disagree with you that children, and you even say that any children, should be my highest value.

And I don't think that your irrational passion is actually a good thing for children.

Post 11

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 5:58pm

Sharon,

You remind me of the psychologist that thinks that everyone is mental; the cop that thinks its an evil world out there; or the star that thinks that they are the center of the Universe.

Teaching children is a wonderful value but it is a crime of sorts to expect people, brilliant in their fields to sacrifice their dreams, desires, potential, highflying intellect, and sophisticated emotions for all the world�s children. If your goal is to educate children to be successful and happy why would you not want that for them as adults?

I don�t know if you are religious or what but you have this Mother Teresa thing going on. And combine that with School Marm past and watch you sit in judgement of creators...its surreal.

I am also a teacher, and not a bad one�my approach with adolescents and teenagers is get them to dream their biggest dreams and then have them work their fucking butts off until they can�t do anything more�then they eat like a elephant and crash into bed like a lamb�the growth is phenomenal and they don�t whine because they are too busy making their dreams come true. But then I wouldn�t teach a pre-eight year old for anything!

I have no clue about people without dreams�other than I think they should get some pretty quickly and make it happen.

Post 12

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 7:23pm

Sharon, do you even understand what a "value" is? Rand didn't focus on children because children are the result of values, not their cause. Do you understand that?

Producing a child isn't a value like producing a cure for cancer, or discovering new compounds, or figuring out how to grow more food in less space.

Likewise the nurturing physical mother bonds with her child and transfers physical manifestation of emotions to the foetus in utero, and after birth. The infant human is the storehouse for all these emotions.

Sharon, this is just plain new age crap. The brain isn't a warehouse where emotions are "stored." They're the product of value judgements, which can change as values are changed, acquired, or dismissed.

Ayn Rand tried to trivialize the complexity and importance of her emotions. Griffith can show the folly of this arrogance.

Rand never "trivialized" much of anything, actually. Life, and everything in it, was serious business to her.
Griffith sounds like a snake oil salesman.

Science demonstrates that the highest value in the animal kingdom is the offspring

Right... is that why so many species eat their young?

Interesting that those closest to nature keep producing multitudes of children; doing what nature intended.

You mean people living in mud holes? Interestingly, they also have the highest infant mortality rate.

I can't bare to read any more, Sharon, I'm sorry, but you're just not making any sense, let alone a clear argument against anything in Objectivism.

Post 13

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 8:52pm

Hi Hong

Thanks for stopping by. I don't know what to say to you, to reassure you that loving children cannot ever be a negative value. Is this what you concluded from Griffith's essay?   Do you not see loving as nurturing? Are you confusing loving with smothering? Are you thinking that I am some self-indulgent namby pamby that doesn't know how to modulate a child's wants and desires?   Have you heard of Barbara Coloroso? She and I are pretty much on the same wavelength; although I haven't read anything of hers in many years. I'm talking about the notion that whatever is in the child's best interests is the same as what is in my best interests, and everyone else's best interests too. Can you see that Utopian vision? Sort of a Galt's Gulch for Children. Right here in town.

I've heard you talk about a son. Just for fun please ask him what Galt's Gulch for Children would be like. Remind him that everything has to be in his best interests. How could he create that world for himself and his friends?   Perhaps you've played this game with him already. .

As for Ayn Rand's childhood, an article was published on this site, July 21, 2005, wherein Ayn Rand recalled several anecdotes from her early childhood. I just looked it up, and as I thought, all the news was negative. Barbara Branden, who was the interviewer, has become controversial; so that's another fly in the ointment. Happy fulfilled childhoods can become a reality, if we all agree it should be. What rational person would not want to support happy childhoods? How is it anyone's long term best interest to deny children the best possible, for no valid reason?

All that is required is a new premise; children have a higher priority than adults, because otherwise the species will not be adequately nurtured, will become pathological, perhaps die out.           Children are so fun! We'll be better for it. They might teach us a thing or two about how to develop a sense of life.

Please ask your son. We might start learning something right away. We could start a new thread: A Word From the Wise.

You're right Hong, my ideas are bizarre. It doesn't make them invalid. I'm voting for a new premise.

Sharon

Post 14

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 10:16pm

Hi Newberry

You're correct about my not understanding romanticism as the highest expression of a visual aesthetic. I have gone to your site and those large window pieces are something that I have looked at more than once. Don't ask me why, I can't evaluate my own stuff, let alone somebody else's.

Mother Teresa was not a teacher. She was a hospice worker who knew how to witness to suffering. She comforted the dying. It was her chosen job. I have ideas about her childhood as well. How do you liken me to her? Can you not see the logic behind giving our best to our children? What if our parents had done that for us? How much further we would be on the way. What if we could convince everyone we know, to look into this idea seriously and logically as has Jeremy Griffith? They would see that to do otherwise is a way of wasting the human potential in a developing young mind. It wouldn't be a crime to expect them to help raise other people's children; they'd be doing it willingly. Is this so far away from the metaphor of Rand's description of Galt's Gulch? Everyone's potential would be nourished. In one generation, less than 20 years, our lives would be beyond our wildest dreams. Can you not see it?

I am a realist. I have to assess a child's level of development, determine the teachable moment, and do it. In a New York minute sometimes. That's my goal, but I also know how to ask forgiveness when I've gone overboard and expected too much. or not enough. Children are very forgiving. An idealized view of childhood is not what children need from me. They need a visionary who can see the far and distant goal while recognizing what is achieveable today. They need a guide who can provide just enough cognitive dissonance to engage each of them, without creating too much frustration.

What assumptions are you making about me as a teacher, Michael? What do you mean by a schoolmarm? Is that some kind of perjorative? Who are these people who are bereft of dreams? I'd say adults, who have had their childhoods stolen from them by adults who didn't know any better. Do you have a theory that if children are successful and happy, that it could only be achieved at the suffering of adults? I think that you have not experienced the euphoria of working with five-year-old brains chugging on all cylinders. Some days I would lose track of time, I would forget to tell them it was time to tidy up. The parents would become annoyed because the children weren't ready to go out the door when the bell rang. I had to appoint one of the children to keep an eye on the clock and make the announcement. Can you not see that if raising children in the most superlative way were to become the norm, all of us would be so filled with the excitement of children's ideas, and helping them come to fruition, that some adults would be trying to give up their day jobs, just so they could be classroom volunteers?.

You think that this is a joke. I spent the last 20 years of my career like this; and I got paid cash money at the end of the month. Do adults have no respect for those they do not fear? Wouldn't Objectivists be able to see the logic in this? What would be the disadvantages? Change one premise, and change the world.

Sharon

Post 15

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 11:13pm

Sharon,
Yes, let me tell you one thing about my son. Last year, for a school assignment, he interviewed me and asked me a bunch of questions about my childhood, what I liked to do, what were my favorite things, etc. The last question was "what do you want others to remember you by?" I said "I want to be remembered for being a good person and a good mother." He thought a little bit, and said "No. You want to be remembered for being a great scientist." He was 8 then. Shall I not fulfill his wish?

Yes, I do my best to satisfy every need he has. At the same time, both my husband and I also set examples for him as we work hard and pursue our goals in life. Hopefully he will do the same when he grows up.

Do you have children yourself?

As for Ayn Rand's own account for her childhood. Have you read Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand? I wonder how many people would know how biased one can be about one's own childhood? I left my family and came to American also in my 20s. There were things in my own childhood that I remember strongly. I did exactly the same thing as Rand would have that as soon as I could, I invited first my mother and then both my parents to visit me in US. On those few occasions when they were here, they would tell me something about my childhood which had completely slipped my mind. They would tell me their feelings and thoughts about certain events in the past, which turned out to be quite different from that of my own. It helped me tremendously in understanding the many meanings of the past experiences. Having my own child provides yet another perspective into one's own childhood.

Do you know what emotional and psychological impact a person may sustain when he or she is completely cut off from his/her family and early years? I would have gone insane. Or at very least would have lost my perspective about my own childhood. Rand was handicapped yet again in that she never had her own child. Gosh, if I hadn't met a very supportive husband, I wouldn't be able to have a child either. Rand was wise not to have talked much about family, children and mothering issues given her limited experience in these things.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/14, 11:27pm)

Post 16

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 12:26am

Thank you for your input Teresa

To let you know; the ghastly feeling you are experiencing over my suggestion is likely similar to the one I and others, including Michael Kelly, have had to endure while listening to what I consider scurrilous arguments about children's emergencies. I can imagine that the thought of a stranger's kid being placed above you, when you have been on top yourself, all these years, must be something akin to the thoughts and feelings of  those individuals  who had to give up their slaves, akin to those men who had to share control with their wives and face jail if they beat them, (some still haven't got over that one)

Objectivists argued their own rights only, as if the child was some baggage. I asked for volunteers to rescue my granddaughter because my daughter and I had been mugged in the park. The bleeding heart Michael Kelly came forward, and a woman whose surname is Stuttle offered to do what she could. Two others had other priorities, and others on the list didn't even mention if they had heard my request for volunteers. I could hear them joking around the corner.    This did not surprise or dismay me, because I know that it is the party line. What did shock me was, that all those who were certain that someone would volunteer, were unwilling to see the tenuous position held by children under Objectivist rule. No one thought it appropriate to change anything. I went online later and found an essay on one of the major Objectivist sites proposing a last resort 10 % flat tax for such emergencies. Nothing like that here. Staus quo positions only. I knew that a solution could be found. That's what humans do best, generate solutions.

Shortly after, I found the dreaded Jeremy Griffith and his premise: that since we are of the animal domain it is the rule, generally, that survival of the species depends on special treatment for the young.   He also cited bonobo research that suggests that primates who evolved to become humans became cooperative with each other as a survival strategy. Work is continuing in this area. Is this also, impossible for you to read?

Denial of a child in utero receiving emotions registered by the mother, does not lessen their impact, the emotions are stored in the physical body, not in the brain. I didn't try to mislead you. This is provoking more research; hypothesizing that children are not born "tabula rasa" as far as emotions are concerned; but with all kinds of baggage from the mother's emotional judgements.

My understanding of new wave is a kind of superstition; like astrology, and crystals.  Dismissing Griffith out of hand,as being in this category, is not a logical stance Teresa. I think that you have not read his essay. It is long hard slogging. Like Barbara Coloroso says "Kids Are Worth it !

My proposal has to do with rethinking Ayn Rand's first premise that an adult individual's life is prime. I am siding with Griffith and taking the position that to ensure the survival and flourishing of our species, the young require a collective response. This is a logical and science-based proposal. Ayn Rand used logic and natural science to argue all her other positions, she lacked the new findings available in 2006, and inadvertently passed over the importance of helpless children, whose main purpose in life is to become productive happy benevolent adults who will procreate and raise a new generation that is even more productive and happy. Happiness creates more happiness, Teresa. It is exponential.

It is time to show some leadership and apply the best Objectivist minds to this solution. A minor correction is needed. If Objectivists cultivate benevolence as a value, how could this change anything for the worse?  In fact, having empathy with babies will increase benevolence in older children. It's known as the wisdom of babies Think of the effect it would have on Objectivists.

There has been so much vituperative talk since this topic of children came up, I don't understand it. My nefarious self just has to get back at those guys who ignored my call for help a few days ago.       www.rootsofempathy.org        They're everywhere, they're everywhere!

I had to do it Teresa

Post 17

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 1:38am

Hong,

I respect your ideas very much and I feel the tenderness in your voice. I believe that you are a devoted mother, as well as a gifted scientist. As we say in my neighbourhood, "If I had your brains I'd burn mine"

You are missing the point I am making. You are the incarnation in adulthood of the child who was well-loved, treasured, and nurtured by your parents. And when you were pregnant, I'll bet that your husband put you and your unborn child first. You are concrete proof that there is at least one fully functioning Objectivist family with Humanity's Adults as Griffith describes them, at the helm.  All except that one little error in judgement last week.

You have asked me twice if I have children. Have you forgotten it was I, who was looking for volunteers to rescue my granddaughter, if my daughter* and I were mugged in the park?               Could I pencil you in now? haha    That is what I'm advocating for all our children. Objectivists are doing for their own children, that which is wonderful and nurturing. It is the emergency cases that we need to address.

Something in your post makes me ask if you think I am promoting taking children from their homes to live separate from their families? Absolutely not, children belong with their parents, of course. Some parents have made grave errors; and their children's lives have been ruined. Recovery for some will not be possible. Care given when children are in their formative years lasts a lifetime. So does abuse. Remediation is always more costly, than doing it correctly in the first place. The jails of North America are populated with the offspring of Humanity's Adolescents. It is in all our best interests to raise children to adulthood, but first they must overcome adolescents

All Best to you and your little family, Hong
Sharon                                                                                                                                               * in addition, I have a son

Post 18

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 3:10am

"Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives." - Ayn Rand

Post 19

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 4:48am