About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am currently reading the Fountainhead again.

It is interesting that the Gail Wynand story in Hell's Kitchen was a tearjerker for some people...it never affected me that way. I found it fascinating, even humorous at times. Despite the circumstances of Gail's life, his tenacity, cunning and intelligence shine through. It, like Toohey's childhood story, was also an excellent tool for Rand to explain how he learned the lessons that would inform his philosophy, and make him into the man it did.

But the only part of the story that ever brought me close to tears concerned the relationship between Cameron and Roark. Why was this story not a choice for a poll answer?

I was going to provide some specific Cameron/Roark passages as examples when I realized I couldn't; the profound nature and scope of the entire relationship is what makes the specific incidents poignant. Like the things that are already completely understood between them...and therefore remain unspoken, for instance. This is true from the moment Cameron first meets Roark, to the day he dies, with Roark at his bedside.

I voted "No" to this poll, and my vote is (technically) true. I did not cry during the Fountainhead.

Because I am really, really good at holding it in.

Erica




Post 1

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Never, never hold it in.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't cry. Tears of mourning and tears of joy are both tributes of their own kind, to values present, or values past. Simply tearing up can be caused by pain, but actually weeping only happens when some value is being acknowledged.

I try to weep (preferably for joy) as often as possible.

Ted Keer



Post 2

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Ted.

You're right, of course. About everything.

While reading (aloud to Ed) that Cameron's depression and alcoholism had finally reached a point where, in Rand's words, "(he) had finally lost the shame of his agony, and had come to his office, openly drunk and flaunting it before the walls of the only place on earth that he had respected," I had to take a second to absorb that before proceeding to the next paragraph, but I kept going.

While reading the page where Roark dutifully burned Cameron's papers and possessions, my voice wavered, but I maintained my composure.

And when Cameron, knowing his death was near, hastened to offer his final piece of professional advice and (finally), words of encouragement to Roark about the struggle he knows is coming for him, and after his voice finally fails him and he can only quietly sit and watch Roark for the final half hour of his life....

Let's just say I've always been (inexplicably) very macho about crying.

Frequently, though, I wish that weren't true.

Erica


(To all:  I know I said I wouldn't give examples...but I couldn't help it. Those come to mind immediately. What I said in the first post is still true, though...if one doesn't understand the context of their entire relationship, then these examples won't mean anything, anyway.) 



Post 3

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 6:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh crap...I forgot I even made this poll...  

Why was this story not a choice for a poll answer?
 I remember crying a bunch of times reading the book, but the Hell's Kitchen part was most vivid.  I was reading it at work and sobbing like a dork.  Yes, I cried reading the Cameron/Roark exchanges

I had to answer dozens of phone lines and I just KNOW I sounded terrible from crying.


Post 4

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erica,

When my sister died unexpectedly at 20 of an undiagnosed heart arrhythmia (she apparently just passed out without even realizing there was a problem) I had already been an objectivist for 8 years. I had to learn to deal with my grief. When it suddenly hit me that I cried because I cared, I realized that mourning is nothing other than the counterpoint to joy. Since then, when I remember her and weep it makes me happy. Of course I would cut off my arms to have her back, but given that that's not an option, I certainly don't wish I would stop mourning in her memory. I will sometimes break out sobbing when Yellow Ledbetter comes on the radio, but with a smile on my face. When this happens in public, people are sometimes very disconcerted. But when they ask why (the song came out the month she died) I just say that I am too happy to express my feelings in any other way.

Ted

Oh, and I am disappointed if a fiction book doesn't make me cry.

Post 5

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 8:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Oh, and I am disappointed if a fiction book doesn't make me cry.  (Ted Keer)


Amen to that, Ted.

love being moved to tears...I've just always been reluctant to have anyone else see them.
Silly, I know.

Erica


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 10:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
love being moved to tears...I've just always been reluctant to have anyone else see them.
Reluctant maybe, but not entirely resolute (thank Galt). I have been there to see this strong woman cry -- in a moment of upwelling tenderness. There's very little that I wouldn't trade in order to be with her then and there -- to be able to hear what it is that moves her so. As Ted has made clear, crying is a response to a value (gained, lost, or in danger). I witnessed her valuing something immensely. There's not much on earth that is as special as that. Witnessing the sincere crying of a loved one is like witnessing another's hierarchy of value, first-hand. It's immediately intimate.

Ed
[sorry for being so "mushy" -- but the poll is about crying, you know!  ;-)]



Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 12:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(1) Vulcan remark withdrawn.
(2) Unless the two of you buy into the emotion/reason dichotomy, stop qualifying and apologizing with such silly words as mushy and silly!

Ted

Post 8

Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Ted. For the advice, too.

;-)

Ed



Post 9

Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 8:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Strange and wonderful how the subconscious works. Last night I dreamt of Elaan of Troius, the power of whose tears no man could resist. Also, in a recent article (probably in Discover or maybe Scientific American) I read that actual weeping, since it involves a large energy cost and leads to a loss of nutrients (tears are chock-full- of 'em) plausibly serves as a social marker of emotional sincerity. Children learn at a young age to cry to get what the want (as babies do) without tears. Around age two they begin to produce tears when truly emotional moved (weeping). Tearless crying is at that point a tool of getting what one wants, and people who continue in this habit are seen as insincere. Maybe, Erica, at some point your were told not to cry as a child for this reason? But tears, weeping, crying and sobbing are all different phenomena, and sincere weeping is obviously not something to suppress.

Ted Keer

Post 10

Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 8:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Voting for "I'd rather not say" seems to be the most reveling choice of all, if one thinks about it.

Ted

Post 11

Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I guess I have a weak 'emotional constitution' because crying comes very natural to me. I hate doing it with people around, so I don't usually read when I am around others.

I think I cried about ten to twenty times during my first reading of The Fountainhead. When something happened that I hoped would happen I would cry. When someone did something amazing to me I would cry. Hell, I cried when Roark turned down the offer to build the Manhattan Bank Building.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 9:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I guess I have a weak 'emotional constitution' because crying comes very natural to me. (Steve)
Nonsense, Steve. As Ted put it so beautifully,

Simply tearing up can be caused by pain, but actually weeping only happens when some value is being acknowledged. (Ted Keer)

Clearly, you are adept at recognizing, and acknowledging, values. Nothing "weak" about that.

:-)

Erica


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 9:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve, weeping is correlated with the the strength of your emotions, not with any weakness. Some people are so twisted up inside they don't cry or even feel anything. Be proud of your clarity of values that allows you to feel so strongly. As for crying in public, you are alive. Don't fear shedding a tear in front of the spiritually dead.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/29, 9:58pm)


Post 14

Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 10:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

love being moved to tears...I've just always been reluctant to have anyone else see them. (Me)


I hate doing it with people around, so I don't usually read when I am around others. (Steve)


As for crying in public, you are alive. Don't fear shedding a tear in front of the spiritually dead. (Wise Ted Keer, once again.)
That's the part of it Steve and I have to get over...

Thanks, Ted.

Erica



Post 15

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 7:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I find this discussion very revealing. I think that non-Objectivists reading this thread would be very surprised at the candor expressed here as their impression of Objectivists is that they are typically non-caring, hard-hearted, clinical sophists.

At my age, I have some problem with tearing of my eyes under normal circumstances and it becomes a flood when I do have an emotional reaction to some portrayal or other, so I sometimes avoid being exposed to that kind of experience in public — and it can be embarrassing.

Sam


Post 16

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 7:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In my pre-Obejectivist life I was a Christian and had once been in seminary. I can't remember one time that I ever preached or heard a sermon where I cried. However, when I see or hear or read of someone doing something amazing, something that we are meant to do, I tear up.

Ted, you mentioned the 'spiritually dead'. As a new Objectivist I'm not sure what place a 'spirit' has in a mans life, but I think I understand what you are saying. It is a shame the mystics took over that word.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 4:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
revised below
(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/31, 4:13pm)


Post 18

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
from my manuscript, The Spiritual Visualizer........


Spirituality pertains to the mindfulness of a person, the non-material aspect of reality that DIRECTS the usage of the material - NOT, as so often presumed, opposes the material... there has always been a despairing of the attainment of goods, yet the plentitude of the goods and their variety enriches our lives - so it seems only fair to utilize the 'this earth' attitude to justify the 'good life' and mark the accumulation NOT as being frivolous, but as having real depth to the wellbeing of the living... one could say it makes for the practical application of the ethics of viable values... it falls in line with Rand's assertion of aesthetics being 'the technology of the soul'... while she used the word 'Art', I in turn (since she equated aesthetics with art) use the broader term, because I consider the utilitarian aspects as much 'technology of the soul' as the contemplative aspects... spiritual needs involve 'meaning in life'... this covers both short term purposes as well as long term... as much of importance, it pertains to the real world, NOT the fantasy of some 'other world', or of the notion of the 'supernatural', which claims an incompetancy of humans, that they are incapable of knowing on their own,and thus must remain perpetually as overaged dependants - children - instead of the self-responsible independant adult... from a psychological standpoint, spirituality means operating at a high level of consciousness - engaging in self-awareness and self-examinations, integrating the issues of values and life... it is considering how one experiences existance - not thru the delusion of faith and negation of the mindfulness - but thru consciousness committed to its own growth, cultivating the ability to see reality in all its manifestations, and as such remaining truthful to 'that which is', emphasizing the difference between believing and knowing... this means reliance on the mind - which involves the issues of independence, self-responsibility, the contrasting of meekness and self-assertions... this, in turn, involves the courage to treat oneself and one's convictions with respect... the end result is living purposefully - creating one's own meaning of and to life, and being a participant as opposed to being an observer... it also raises the issue of integrity, which involves the issue not of how perfect we are in integrity but how concerned we are in correcting breaches...

 
Spiritual comes from the word, 'spirit', which meant 'wind', referring to one's breath, 'wind of life', as it were.. there is a sense of it when the phrase 'he/she has spirit' or 'the horse is spirited', meaning there is much life in the individual, be it human or animal... so, from the beginning, there was a recognition in reality of a non-materialness involved within the fabric of reality... the major error of understanding it came with the notion that there was such a thing as the supernatural, a supposed realm somehow 'outside' reality which 'somehow' affected reality... but since the universe is the sum of that which exists, there can be nothing 'outside the universe', that the notion is a fantasy bourne from the times of primeval ignorance, when there was little understanding of the nature of reality, or how it operated, and virtually no understanding of the self, of the mind, and how it functions... the consequnce of pandering to that fantasy was that there arose the notion, again false because of its non-reality orientation, that the spiritual must, then, pertain to dealing with another 'life', one which must be more desirable than the squaller that abounded among the humans of ancient times... the consequence proved to be a very deadly one, as instead of attention being paid to learning more of its true nature, and the improvement of being human and living in the world, the focus turned to demanding acceptance of the squaller as a normalcy, imposing the most evil notion possible to foister on to the ignorant and innocent - the damning of them for the mere fact that they existed, that they were human and as such should be ashamed of being such... one doesn't even give a cockroache or a dog that distinction, nor rats or snakes... only the hatred of one's fellow humans would produce such an abomination, hatred which sanctified domestication of humans - physically as in slavery, and mentally or spiritually as in slavery as well, instituting the false dichotomy of a mind/body split which had one part supposedly 'warring' against the other, and demanding that the 'mind' part be concerned with matters NOT of the real world, but of some 'realm beyond the grave', where all the desires could then be had that were not to be had in reality... this mis-understanding of what 'spiritual' really means persists yet today, despite the overwhelming evidence that life in reality is and can be most wonderous and not to be despised...



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Newton, Darwin, Rand: Setting the Spirit free from Faith

Steve, you wrote:

In my pre-Obejectivist life I was a Christian and had once been in seminary. I can't remember one time that I ever preached or heard a sermon where I cried. However, when I see or hear or read of someone doing something amazing, something that we are meant to do, I tear up. Ted, you mentioned the 'spiritually dead'. As a new Objectivist I'm not sure what place a 'spirit' has in a mans life, but I think I understand what you are saying. It is a shame the mystics took over that word.

You'll definitely want to read Romantic Manifesto. As I keep repeating, that and ItOE are Rand's two most profound non-fiction lifetime works. These two books deal with how the mind works, rather than just with politics and economics (Of course, TVoS is both vital and ethically radical.)

To give my take on spiritualty in an Objectivist context:

The words spirit, holy, sacred, and even good and value (which some materialists and relativists decry) all have to have actual valid referents. If these concepts did not have some referent in reality, no matter how poorly understood, they would long ago have lost their power. Religious faiths have hijacked these concepts, and the fact that many concede these concepts to faiths is all that irrational religions have left going for them. Note how God used to been seen as literally living in the sky. In most languages, sky and heaven are still the same word - Himmel, le ciel, el cielo, etc. As God has retreated into what He is not, the only thing theologians have had to cling to is the notion that without God there is no real right or wrong, no verifiable good or evil, no objective truth or beauty. Newton freed physics from faith. Darwin freed biology from faith. Rand frees spirituality from faith.

Spirit is just the reification of the emotional and valuing faculties of the self, in the way that the word mind is a reification of the conscious thinking faculty. The word is a useful way of referring to one's capacity to pursue and react to values and to defend values. Rand also used the term sense of life which is a spiritual analog of the mental term psycho-epistemology.

Humans are, of course, animals and entirely physical creatures but we are not merely dumb organisms or passively driven conglomerations of flesh. We are uniquely self-conscious and profoundly valuing creatures of, in Rand's words, self-made soul. Our lives are sacred in so far as we hold them to be. This is not meaningless - rather it is the most meaningful thing about us. It lies behind an individual's highest aspirations, whether that be art, scientific discovery, children, work, or other human pursuits based upon our nature. Atlas Shrugged, The Twin Towers, Einstein's Equations, all are endowed with their creators' spiritual being. (Those who would destroy the good know this instinctively - We must preach it explicitly.) It is said that when Einstein's equations were conclusively proven after (I believe) the observation of the warping of light due to the gravity of the sun, he walked around in a speechless state of blissful ecstasy for days. The equations of relativity themselves are just a set of characters representing the concepts of relations between the motions and energies of bodies and the speed of light. But Einstein's quest, whether he described it as "a search for truth" or in Spinozistic terms as a "search to understand the mind of God," was emotionally - spiritually" - motivated and his emotional response to the confirmation of his theory shows that connection.

Men are not Vulcans. (Even Vulcans, if they were real, couldn't truly be emotionless.) We don't fight or work or learn or even get out of bed in the morning without an underlying motive - a value that expresses itself as joy when it is achieved. The more profound the value experienced, the more profound the joy expressed, unto tears. This is spirituality.

Ted Keer


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


User ID Password or create a free account.