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 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


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

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 7:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I want to re-post something I brought up in a different section of SOLO. Eventually I want to show how I went about determining some of my must haves and nice to haves. Maybe others might be willing to share the same.

 

Part of the original post:

 

I think the “ledger approach” (in my case a list) is an excellent approach. You do need to identify explicitly what it is that you want in a partner but you also need to make sure you are determining that rationally. That is the difficult part, knowing what should be included in the must haves and nice to haves columns, especially if you are currently in the stage of working within possible mistaken premises when determining your ideal.

 

Even that is just a start (if your goal is a long-lasting, life affirming relationship).

Identifying whether your prospective partner shares your core values is important but the matching of “sense of life” is just as important (in fact with the “sense of life” I think here is where the “ideal” person comes across.

 

You don’t necessarily have to find out one before the other but I think it is impossible for a healthy relationship to develop from opposed explicit fundamental core values.

 

One thing I want to point out though is that you can find out a lot about yourself if the shared fundamentals are there but you feel no chemistry. As well as with the situation where the “sense of life” connection is incredible but the shared fundamentals are diametrically opposed.

 

If I was in either type of those relationships for the long-term I would have to ask myself why I am settling. It also would give me clues to whether or not my original list was rational and/or if I was being honest with myself when it came to what I really valued in a woman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been refining my “list” for the last 2 years. One benefit I want to highlight to this

“ledger” approach (list) is when I had my top 5 must haves, I had to be honest with

myself and say “Do I offer those top 5 right now for this prospective lover”.

 

I expect the best, but do I yet deserve the best.

 
This encouraged me to continue vigorously with the psycho-epistemological work that I was doing. The desire for this “ideal” partner was not the primary reason for my self-improvement but it did make clearer one of the tremendous benefits of becoming “clean”.


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

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aquinas, you wrote:

I expect the best, but do I yet deserve the best.

What a wonderful adaptation of the do unto others as you would have them do unto you concept in Christianity.

 

One can use this benchmark of yours for many other areas also, not just with relationships or interaction with other people. What an inspiring command to rise...

 

I am impressed.

 

Michael




Post 2

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aquinas, I have gone through a similar process with this. 

At one point, a few years ago, I realized that the things I wanted were not yet deserved, and would thus have to wait.  The "cleaning out" of which you speak is not only relevant, but necessary.  It is unfair to seek the unearned.

Well done, my friend.  We'll have to compare notes.  :)

***

Michael, our posts crossed -- I agree with you that this methodology can be used for all areas of life.  It makes each victory that much more gratifying. 

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 5/22, 10:25pm)


Post 3

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 2:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The desire for this “ideal” partner was not the primary reason for my self-improvement but it did make clearer one of the tremendous benefits of becoming “clean”.
 
Aquinas. By the expression "becoming clean" it sounds like you have had a guilty conscience.
 
Or did you mean to write "coming clean"? There is quite a difference.




Post 4

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 4:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Marcus,

 

 

Do I have things that I have done in the past that I am not proud of? Definitely. Have I worked on addressing and correcting many of those premises that led to that behavior? Definitely.

 

When I talk about “becoming cleaning” I mean uprooting stored irrational premises.

 

Let me give a somewhat benign example:

 

Up until about 7 months ago, I had not worn jeans for about 6 or 7 years. I wore shorts, warm-up pants, or dress pants. I had been equating jeans with a disheveled appearance and a disheveled mind. I felt like I always had to be on and I did not want to give the impression (by wearing jeans) of being lazy. I was concerned people would draw the conclusion, lazy appearance, lazy mind (one that I was subconsciously drawing about a lot of other people, but not all). 

 

Another negative of this is I think I came across as someone that did not just relax (maybe too serious) in general. I realized that I could be serious about ideas/values and still wear jeans. My mind is sharp and wearing jeans does not diminish that :-)

 

This problem also made me realize that, partially at root, I was being second-handed in caring about how people saw me.

 

This made me examine other areas to see how this second-handedness was playing out. I came to realize that just how prevalent this problem was (I actually think this is the biggest problem for most people) and took (and taking) actions to correct it.

 

I hope that helps clarify what I meant.

 

Aquinas


Post 5

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 4:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks Michael and Jennifer.

It's been quite a journey. I still have things to work on though.

Aquinas


Post 6

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 5:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When I talk about “becoming cleaning” I mean uprooting stored irrational premises.
O.K. It seems you have quite a journey in front you.

Good luck with that. I also know from experience that it is an ongoing process, please don't give up. 

:-)



Post 7

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 5:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Before Kelly and I had fallen in love many years ago, she came to my house for an Objectivist party I was having. She walked into a back room of my house that was my office and writing space.

Next to my computer on the wall, she saw a list of my top values, including a list of things I wished to have in a woman.

She fit the bill.

:-)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 5:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
At one point, a few years ago, I realized that the things I wanted were not yet deserved, and would thus have to wait.  The "cleaning out" of which you speak is not only relevant, but necessary.  It is unfair to seek the unearned.

I agree up to a point. The caveat is that people can and do grow. Relationships can and do work where each party grows and develops over time, and so in some circumstances the criteria may be "potential for growth", rather than the current absolute level of maturity / moral perfection / whatever.

One of the complications implicit in all this discussion is that people seem to be talking about choosing a "permanent" partner. That is a malaise for heterosexual relationships in particular, given the possibility for children to become involved.

But for people concerned with their own personal development and their ability to "earn" their idealised partner, an essential part of that development is likely to be achieved by having shorter term relationships with people more developed, at least in some aspects, than they are.

I'd always be a little bit careful about this idea of waiting around until you achieve some sort of moral perfection. "Navel gazing" might be another term for it. Not only is this a recipe for deadly dullness, but also the improvement being sought is (partly) achieved through the cut and thrust of actually being involved in relationships.


Post 9

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 5:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with the gist of this thread.  To gain and to keep your ideal partner, you must become your own ideal, define the traits of your ideal partner, and find an overlap between what you want yourself to be and what your partner wants you to be.  Your partner needs to do the same exercises.  Only then can you both enjoy full cognizance of your uncompromised lives.

Most people who marry do not do this first, but they can still remodel their marriages after these ideals.  Hyrum Smith recounts a wonderful story about a couple who rescued their marriage from an impending divorce this way in his book The Ten Natural Laws of Successful Time and Life Management.

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 5/23, 6:02am)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 6:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Often couples develop their lists and realize that the greatest source of conflict is from stuff *not* on the list, and in fact is not an essential value at all. BUT the item in question *symbolizes* something on the list, and therefore becomes a source of distress.

Post 11

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 6:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Tim,

 

You bring up a good point about the fact that people can continue to grow. This commitment to using reason in all aspects of their lives is a must for me, whatever stage they currently are at. I have no problem being in a relationship with someone that is more psychologically developed (consistently rational) than I. I just don’t know how likely she will be willing.

 

I think if most of the must haves and many of the nice but optional matched she would be willing, but I really don’t know for sure.

 

Just to clarify, I’m not waiting to become the “ideal” before I pursue a relationship. It’s just that I can’t expect the “ideal” if I have not become my own “ideal”. Does that make sense?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As far as “navel gazing” goes, I usually limit that to when I am standing in front of the urinal.

 
Aquinas


Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Newnham makes a very important point about the limitations of romantic "checklists."

Admiring, even passionately loving someone, is a very different proposition from living with someone. What might seem to be minor issues of temperament, moods, style, emotional intensity -- especially that broad category of matters under the heading "lifestyle expectations" -- can have a decisive impact on whether a relationship will work in the long haul. Yet these are rarely the kind of things that are easy to put on some pre-screening checklist, because they're not always very obvious.

I have met women who filled every item on my then-existing checklist. "On paper" they were marvelous, and seemed a total match for me. But later experience with them led to unsettling discoveries about subtle factors that I would never have thought of, let alone thought important enough to list. And those factors eventually caused the relationships to come apart.

On the flip side of this, I've met women with whom I seemed to have significant differences "on paper," but with whom I found, much to my surprise, that I meshed very well on a romantic level. The "significant" checklist issues didn't prove to be as significant in the long run as did these more unexpected factors.

Morning or night person? Messy or neatnik? Rigid time planner, or more spontaneous? Spender or saver or miser? Easy-going or control freak? Style of humor? Financial and lifestyle expectations? Cook at home or eat in restaurants? How much conversation and interaction daily, and how much private time? Etc.

I've found that these are among the subtle compatibility issues that can determine whether people mesh well on a day-to-day basis. They are not often predictable, either: they're the kind of issues that usually arise out of the blue, after you're already smitten and deeply involved with someone. Once discovered, you could add such factors to some checklist; but many aren't obvious until you get to know someone -- especially by living with him or her.

The older I get, the more wary I become of aprioristic approaches to things -- and romantic checklists are one. People prove to be much more complex than can be reduced to any list of qualities. Sometimes (not always) this is symptomatic of a more general platonic approach to relationships: to looking for some "dream" mate who embodies some abstract, idealized image, such as a fictional character in a novel or film -- or looking at romantic prospects symbolically, rather than for who they really are. I confess that I wince every time somebody tells me that he or she is looking for a Galt or Rearden or Francisco or Dagny -- or who claims to have found one. There's an unreality to perceiving real people through the filter of fantasy, as if romance were role-playing.

Thankfully, this is a moot issue for me, now that I am recently and happily remarried. But I want to post this as a cautionary note for others, for what it may be worth.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 5/23, 9:22am)


Post 13

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 7:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As far as “navel gazing” goes, I usually limit that to when I am standing in front of the urinal.

LOL. Aquinas watch out that you don't piss on the shoes of the guy standing next to you while you are doing it :-)

But seriously. What comes out of these discussions is that basically there is no magic formula, you are either happy in the relationship or you are not.

One proviso of course being that you have to work at relationships if you want them to last. If you flee whenever you have a problem or always think that the "grass must be greener on the other side" you are suffering from just as much cowardice as the person that stays in a relationship and tries to ignore the problems he or she might have.

If you flee from a loving relationship when confronted with a problem you are likely to be continuously involved in a string of romances with unhappy endings.


Post 14

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 7:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I think you make an important point here. 

My 'checklist' is now comprised of several critical core values, as the subtleties of successful relationships are, in fact, made up of much more. 

I have experienced lots of "good on paper" scenarios, but the other dynamics simply did not work.  Personality accounts for a lot, as does energy level, etc.  Again, it's the must-haves vs. the nice-to-haves.


Post 15

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 7:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert quite correctly notes that the differences between dating and marriage can be as stark as night and day.  It strikes me as odd that our culture uses "dating" as a method of finding a "marriage" partner.  There must be a better way.  I have not seen one yet, though.

Post 16

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 8:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, Luther, you've gotta try before you buy.  ;)

Post 17

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Thank you.  


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John N and Robert B,

You both defined the the checklist problem with me. Those darn women just don't want to stay put on one. They slide around all over the place. Once I get one pegged as crappy, she will do something absolutely adorable and vice-versa.

(Maybe there's no hope for control freaks, though. These irritating creatures practice the virtue of consistency without mercy.)

There is a lot to be said for dialogue and just plain trying to make things work after they get underway.

And there is a GREAT DEAL to be said of the Aquinas Equation: If I expect the best, I have to deserve the best.

And you know something? I have had a REALLY HARD time trying to keep my own self on that damn check list.

Michael


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 10:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My checklist has only three words....

Michael Stuart Kelly


purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.