[Michelle R]

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises.

It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

This post has been edited by Michelle R: 26 May 2009 - 04:49 PM

[Chris Grieb]

Michelle; Good post!

[Ted Keer]

Michelle R, on May 26 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises.

It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

So, Michelle, how do you really feel about the ARI?

I don't much participate in such threads, but there will be plenty here expressing an anti-ARI point of view. I find it better to criticize specific people's actions and writings when theyt come up, rather than to attack the institution, which seems to have some reasonable adherents and to do some beneficial work.

You might enjoy my essay here and the thread that follows: The Sin against Objectivism (Peikoff as Pontifex)

[Michelle R]

Ted Keer, on May 26 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

Michelle R, on May 26 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises.

It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

So, Michelle, how do you really feel about the ARI?

I don't much participate in such threads, but there will be plenty here expressing an anti-ARI point of view. I find it better to criticize specific people's actions and writings when theyt come up, rather than to attack the institution, which seems to have some reasonable adherents and to do some beneficial work.

You might enjoy my essay here and the thread that follows: The Sin against Objectivism (Peikoff as Pontifex)

I don't really have any feelings about the ARI as an institution. It isn't worth thinking about in too much depth. I just can't comprehend some of the people who treat Objectivism like a cult, is all, and by and large these types of people seem to be associated with the ARI.

I'd criticize specific figures, but they, too, aren't worth paying so much attention to that I go out of my way to learn anything about them.

This thread was merely an admission of weakness. The weakness I exhibit when I still find myself shocked.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

It doesn't matter what we agree or disagree on.

Please don't ever change.

What you have is precious—not so much the accusation/denunciation part as the independent and serious thinking part.

It is an inspiration to see.

Michael

[Michelle R]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 26 2009, 09:18 PM, said:

Michelle,

It doesn't matter what we agree or disagree on.

Please don't ever change.

What you have is precious—not so much the accusation/denunciation part as the independent and serious thinking part.

It is an inspiration to see.

Michael

This gives me an opportunity to try and articulate something that I have never been able to articulate.
I would say that calling it 'precious' is an excellent choice of words, only, I have never felt that it was precious. I think that it is because one must have some degree of distance between "I" and a thing to call a thing precious. "This is precious to me" presupposes that the thing which is precious is not synonymous with the self. "My individuality is precious to me." Same thing: some distance there. I cannot even say that it is an aspect of my personality. In a sense it is. But I am also synonymous with that. I could say "I am precious," but, again, that tiny wedge of distance. So all I can say about this is that "I am."
"I am."
This cannot change, because it is I, and my essential self cannot be altered.
So, no, I won't change, because I can't change. One day, I will be annihilated, and it will be as when I was before I was born. That is, I will not Be. One cannot convey non-Being in language. Even saying "I will not Be," presupposes the I which will not Be. But I will never be a creature divided in essence. I am, now. I am not, after death. But no in-between.
I cannot feel joy or sorrow or pride in this, because it is too primal to be touched by anything - by judgments, feelings, beliefs, anything.
I have only just recently turned twenty-one. I would like to say this is all presumption, and that I might change, who knows, anything is possible. But I don't lie to myself, so lies to anyone else come with only the greatest of effort, and when they do come out, they're not very good.
I cannot convey what I mean without sounding like some kind of Zen mystic who sits in a temple staring at a wall all day long. But that is the best I can do within the context of the English language. And considering how individualistic a language English is, probably any language.

This post has been edited by Michelle R: 26 May 2009 - 10:13 PM

[Brant Gaede]

I just turned 65 Michelle. In 44 years you will be my age now--2053. You could easily live another 30 years or more longer. What are you going to do for the next 60-70 years? Let me tell you: the more you do now the more you'll be happier about later. Never mind not the not being bs, be.

--Brant

[Michelle R]

Brant Gaede, on May 26 2009, 11:40 PM, said:

I just turned 65 Michelle. In 44 years you will be my age now--2053. You could easily live another 30 years or more longer. What are you going to do for the next 60-70 years? Let me tell you: the more you do now the more you'll be happier about later. Never mind not the not being bs, be.

--Brant

I don't mind it. It is just an interesting thing to think about, because your mind never latches onto anything. A living thing cannot comprehend its own nonexistence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

I used to think very much like you do on my invincibility (for lack of a better word).

Then life happened and I reacted poorly.

I discovered that when you start to fall, often you fall much farther than you ever imagined possible—because of the nature of gravity, not because of any failure on your part. You suddenly see yourself doing things you thought simply impossible before. Things that are just not you. This does not mean that the start of the fall was not your failure, but that once a fall starts, it develops a nature of its own in addition to your initial failure and you get carried along.

There is some truth to the saying that the bigger you are, the harder you fall.

Now, since I am a real hardhead, I fell twice in the same manner. I was once addicted to alcohol. After I got over that, I fell off into crack cocaine. About 5 years each stint.

Maybe I needed two falls to widen my view. I used to be really blind about some things. I think the best thing I ever learned from this is on a sense-of-life level: I now know all the way down to my toes that I am not greater than reality.

It may sound silly, but I needed to learn that.

I used to have what I call a cognitive-normative inversion, where evaluation came before fact in my mind. (This is a huge problem with many Objectivists to this day.) In order to survive my falls, I had to learn the proper order on a premise level. In other words, identify, then evaluate.

It works, too.

This led to me checking every single principle I had ever adopted.

I was so delighted with the result that now I periodically check my principles on principle. Rand's phrase, "check your premises," is a great procedure to use periodically on all premises, even (and especially) hers.

If certainty in thinking is a value that led you to Objectivism (I know it was to me), this procedure provides much more certainty than the evaluate before identify temptation, often called euphemisms like "thinking in principles," or "Romanticism." There are some other colorful and cool-sounding names in the jargon.

Don't get me wrong. Thinking in principles when you should, or having a Romantic sense-of-life when you truly understand where it applies and where it doesn't, are perfect forms of mental activity that come with enormous benefits. With improper use, though, they become crutches and lead to all kinds of errors and heartaches and, especially, underachievement.

Here is one example (and there are many I could mention). Rand was an adamant proponent of love at first sight. When it works, the Romantic sense of life aligns with reality and it is wonderful. But love at first sight is basically a crapshoot. A person doggedly holding onto a horrible relationship because the he or she felt their sense of life could not have been wrong ("could have betrayed them" or something like that is how it is usually expressed) will get hurt. Really badly.

It's heaven being in love with the right person. It's hell being in love with an illusion. And it's not as easy as people make out to stop when you find out you are wrong.

There is a well-known fact about the Objectivist world: there are many failed relationships within it. I believe the cognitive-normative inversion is one of the main reasons.

I had to learn how to do it right—how to keep to the facts while keeping the passion going. I learned it the hard way, but I learned.

Now I have true certainty whereas before I had the allure of certainty and kept telling myself I had it. For example, I can say with total certainty, if I had to do it all over again, I would have done it differently. Coming out of that mess was no picnic.



But I don't know how I could have done it differently. Like I said, I was real hardheaded.

Still am...

Michael

[Michelle R]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 27 2009, 12:48 AM, said:

Michelle,

I used to think very much like you do on my invincibility (for lack of a better word).

Then life happened and I reacted poorly.

I discovered that when you start to fall, often you fall much farther than you ever imagined possible—because of the nature of gravity, not because of any failure on your part. You suddenly see yourself doing things you thought simply impossible before. Things that are just not you. This does not mean that the start of the fall was not your failure, but that once a fall starts, it develops a nature of its own in addition to your initial failure and you get carried along.

There is some truth to the saying that the bigger you are, the harder you fall.

Now, since I am a real hardhead, I fell twice in the same manner. I was once addicted to alcohol. After I got over that, I fell off into crack cocaine. About 5 years each stint.

Maybe I needed two falls to widen my view. I used to be really blind about some things. I think the best thing I ever learned from this is on a sense-of-life level: I now know all the way down to my toes that I am not greater than reality.

It may sound silly, but I needed to learn that.

I used to have what I call a cognitive-normative inversion, where evaluation came before fact in my mind. (This is a huge problem with many Objectivists to this day.) In order to survive my falls, I had to learn the proper order on a premise level. In other words, identify, then evaluate.

It works, too.

This led to me checking every single principle I had ever adopted.

I was so delighted with the result that now I periodically check my principles on principle. Rand's phrase, "check your premises," is a great procedure to use periodically on all premises, even (and especially) hers.

If certainty in thinking is a value that led you to Objectivism (I know it was to me), this procedure provides much more certainty than the evaluate before identify temptation, often called euphemisms like "thinking in principles," or "Romanticism." There are some other colorful and cool-sounding names in the jargon.

Don't get me wrong. Thinking in principles when you should, or having a Romantic sense-of-life when you truly understand where it applies and where it doesn't, are perfect forms of mental activity that come with enormous benefits. With improper use, though, they become crutches and lead to all kinds of errors and heartaches and, especially, underachievement.

Here is one example (and there are many I could mention). Rand was an adamant proponent of love at first sight. When it works, the Romantic sense of life aligns with reality and it is wonderful. But love at first sight is basically a crapshoot. A person doggedly holding onto a horrible relationship because the he or she felt their sense of life could not have been wrong ("could have betrayed them" or something like that is how it is usually expressed) will get hurt. Really badly.

It's heaven being in love with the right person. It's hell being in love with an illusion. And it's not as easy as people make out to stop when you find out you are wrong.

There is a well-known fact about the Objectivist world: there are many failed relationships within it. I believe the cognitive-normative inversion is one of the main reasons.

I had to learn how to do it right—how to keep to the facts while keeping the passion going. I learned it the hard way, but I learned.

Now I have true certainty whereas before I had the allure of certainty and kept telling myself I had it. For example, I can say with total certainty, if I had to do it all over again, I would have done it differently. Coming out of that mess was no picnic.



But I don't know how I could have done it differently. Like I said, I was real hardheaded.

Still am...

Michael

Good, sparked a discussion!

Invincibility? How do you mean? I'm a tough girl but I'm certainly not superwoman

I like your analysis of cognitive-normative inversion. It makes a lot of sense. In fact, thinking about it, it quite helps me to understand the behavior of many people I've known.

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.
I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

You've been through quite a slice of Hell, haven't you? And yet you're back on your feet after all that.
I'm not the inspirational one, friend. You are.
And, before it crosses your mind, that isn't modesty. That is merely the truth as I perceive it. I have no tolerance for modesty or arrogance. Both are mere airs people put on for others.

You know what I've never been able to understand? Identifying with any sort of group. Even were I to agree with Rand on everything, I could never call myself an Objectivist. I am not anything other than me. Never have been and never will be.
Of course, this might explain the weird reaction to groups I have. I can't talk to groups of people. The moment a third person appears, intimacy vanishes, and people start changing how they appear to accommodate the additional person. Of course, considering this, was the face they were showing to me in intimacy their real face?

This post has been edited by Michelle R: 27 May 2009 - 01:05 AM

[Ted Keer]

Michelle R, on May 27 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.
I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

Love at first sight does exist. It is a combination of sight, smell and first impression. (Of course you may fall in love with someone at first sight and quickly fall out if they don't live up to the first impression. I have done that a couple times.) But I have had three such loves, the first ending with physical separation but continued friendship and the second only when my love was murdered. I still remember the exact moment I set eyes on my third, still my love today.

I didn't have my first love until I was 20. I wouldn't be so certain that you won't. My advicce, just don't push it, and don't pooh-pooh it either when it comes.

[Michelle R]

Ted Keer, on May 27 2009, 02:06 AM, said:

Michelle R, on May 27 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.
I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

Love at first sight does exist. It is a combination of sight, smell and first impression. (Of course you may fall in love with someone at first sight and quickly fall out if they don't live up to the first impression. I have done that a couple times.) But I have had three such loves, the first ending with physical separation but continued friendship and the second only when my love was murdered. I still remember the exact moment I set eyes on my third, still my love today.

I didn't have my first love until I was 20. I wouldn't be so certain that you won't. My advicce, just don't push it, and don't pooh-pooh it either when it comes.

That sounds like initial infatuation turning into love. Is a love that can be created and fall apart in the space of a day really love?
Then again, I've not experienced it, so I wouldn't know. My idea is based only on conjecture, but yours on actual experience.
(As to your second love: I'm sorry. I've had a friend who was murdered. The whole aftermath of the murder felt very unreal, except for the unexpected bursts of emotion I had. I don't cry too often, but when I start, I'll be damned if I can stop. I can't imagine how much worse it is to lose a love.)

Oh, I'm sure it'll come some time. I'm just not actively seeking it out. I have my hands full enough dealing with my own life at the moment, anyhow.

[Ted Keer]

Michelle R, on May 27 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

Ted Keer, on May 27 2009, 02:06 AM, said:

Michelle R, on May 27 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.
I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

Love at first sight does exist. It is a combination of sight, smell and first impression. (Of course you may fall in love with someone at first sight and quickly fall out if they don't live up to the first impression. I have done that a couple times.) But I have had three such loves, the first ending with physical separation but continued friendship and the second only when my love was murdered. I still remember the exact moment I set eyes on my third, still my love today.

I didn't have my first love until I was 20. I wouldn't be so certain that you won't. My advicce, just don't push it, and don't pooh-pooh it either when it comes.

That sounds like initial infatuation turning into love. Is a love that can be created and fall apart in the space of a day really love?
Then again, I've not experienced it, so I wouldn't know. My idea is based only on conjecture, but yours on actual experience.
(As to your second love: I'm sorry. I've had a friend who was murdered. The whole aftermath of the murder felt very unreal, except for the unexpected bursts of emotion I had. I don't cry too often, but when I start, I'll be damned if I can stop. I can't imagine how much worse it is to lose a love.)

Oh, I'm sure it'll come some time. I'm just not actively seeking it out. I have my hands full enough dealing with my own life at the moment, anyhow.

Well, it is if it lasts 15 years.

Oh, and as for the crying, I have found it is a good thing to embrace the mourning. (I deeon't mean wallow in it.) When you cry don't fight it or be embarrassed, but realize that it is a tributr to the value of the loved one. If we didn't love, didn't value, we wouldn't mourn. Tears of grief are a good thing.

[Michelle R]

Ted Keer, on May 27 2009, 02:29 AM, said:

Michelle R, on May 27 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

Ted Keer, on May 27 2009, 02:06 AM, said:

Michelle R, on May 27 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.
I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

Love at first sight does exist. It is a combination of sight, smell and first impression. (Of course you may fall in love with someone at first sight and quickly fall out if they don't live up to the first impression. I have done that a couple times.) But I have had three such loves, the first ending with physical separation but continued friendship and the second only when my love was murdered. I still remember the exact moment I set eyes on my third, still my love today.

I didn't have my first love until I was 20. I wouldn't be so certain that you won't. My advicce, just don't push it, and don't pooh-pooh it either when it comes.

That sounds like initial infatuation turning into love. Is a love that can be created and fall apart in the space of a day really love?
Then again, I've not experienced it, so I wouldn't know. My idea is based only on conjecture, but yours on actual experience.
(As to your second love: I'm sorry. I've had a friend who was murdered. The whole aftermath of the murder felt very unreal, except for the unexpected bursts of emotion I had. I don't cry too often, but when I start, I'll be damned if I can stop. I can't imagine how much worse it is to lose a love.)

Oh, I'm sure it'll come some time. I'm just not actively seeking it out. I have my hands full enough dealing with my own life at the moment, anyhow.

Well, it is if it lasts 15 years.

Oh, and as for the crying, I have found it is a good thing to embrace the mourning. (I deeon't mean wallow in it.) When you cry don't fight it or be embarrassed, but realize that it is a tributr to the value of the loved one. If we didn't love, didn't value, we wouldn't mourn. Tears of grief are a good thing.

15 years, huh? Good for you! I enjoy seeing nice and happy couples together.
I think I'm too selfish to maintain a healthy relationship, however. I might have to settle for being a mistress or something.

Thanks. I do embrace them when they come at the right time, but when I'm trying to talk and I'm sobbing hysterically it grates on me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle R, on May 27 2009, 01:49 AM, said:

You know what I've never been able to understand? Identifying with any sort of group. Even were I to agree with Rand on everything, I could never call myself an Objectivist. I am not anything other than me. Never have been and never will be.

Michelle,

I know you must sense a difference between what I mean when I say I am an Objectivist and what someone from a more orthodox bent means, so I want to make it clear. You actually put your finger on it with the word "group."

One approach (the one I do not do) is to identify with a group of people who are making an "Objectivist movement" to save the world from an orgy of this or that. Another approach (which is the one I do) is simply to use the label as a point of reference in terms of a body of thought.

It's like calling a university professor a Kantian or an Aristotelian. This designation does not mean that the Kantian professor is trying to band together with others to save the world in the name of Kant. All it means is that the professor studied Kant's works, focuses substantial intellectual effort on his thought, and agrees with a portion of it. Calling such a person a Kantian merely helps others properly identify when they are presented in public with a vast array of different professors.

By calling this site "Objectivist Living," I thus communicate to people interested in, say, the Jehovah's Witness denomination of Christianity or in the poetry of Yeats or whatever that this is probably not the venue where they will find the information and discussions they seek. I also communicate to people interested in Rand and even libertarianism that this is a place where they can likely get information and discussions they seek.

The orthodox doesn't like this approach or approve of it, but that doesn't bother me. They are into group thinking and making a movement to save the world. (Guess who they want to be in charge if they succeed? )

I am into independent thinking, even if the intellectual starting point is well-defined like "Objectivism."

Right from the start of OL, this difference was clear in my mind. Same word. Different meanings. Different goals.

I thought about using a different word because of the conflict I imagined it would generate with people I don't like very much. But then some overly-zealous souls tried to bully me into giving up the designation "Objectivist" and it didn't work.

Michael

[Thom T G]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 27 2009, 07:47 AM, said:

Michelle R, on May 27 2009, 01:49 AM, said:

You know what I've never been able to understand? Identifying with any sort of group. Even were I to agree with Rand on everything, I could never call myself an Objectivist. I am not anything other than me. Never have been and never will be.

Michelle,

I know you must sense a difference between what I mean when I say I am an Objectivist and what someone from a more orthodox bent means, so I want to make it clear. You actually put your finger on it with the word "group."

One approach (the one I do not do) is to identify with a group of people who are making an "Objectivist movement" to save the world from an orgy of this or that. Another approach (which is the one I do) is simply to use the label as a point of reference in terms of a body of thought.

It's like calling a university professor a Kantian or an Aristotelian. This designation does not mean that the Kantian professor is trying to band together with others to save the world in the name of Kant. All it means is that the professor studied Kant's works, focuses substantial intellectual effort on his thought, and agrees with a portion of it. Calling such a person a Kantian merely helps others properly identify when they are presented in public with a vast array of different professors.

[...]

Michelle,

I am in agreement with MSK on this. (See this thread for my condition for being an Objectivist.) When I identify a body of thought, I credit the person who originated it. When Ayn Rand called herself an Aristotelian, she identified and credited Aristotle for having originated a body of thought for establishing the foundation for all true thoughts and for identifying reason, as opposed to mysticism or skepticism, as the means for knowledge. (ARA 148d) So for me, crediting a body of thought to its originator is a matter of civility. In Rand's case, she gave hers a name, "Objectivism," in order to depersonalize it for a very practical reason. She was both a novelist and a philosopher. While I am both a Randian (or a Rand fan)--because I enjoy her novels, and an Objectivist--because I understand her philosophy; others need not be.

[Selene]

Folks:

Nice thread. I understand what you mean by "Objectivist", I use the small "o" to express the same purpose and assumptions.

My roommate while I was doing my teaching would say about me that I fell in "lust" at first sight which, in retrospect, was accurate in a number of cases.

As Ted pointed our there is a legitimate experience of love at first sight. I experienced it when a woman walked into my classroom ten minutes late after being absent for the first class.

Eighteen years later it ended.

On that precise issue that Ted mentioned, psychologist Mark Kristal from the University of Buffalo explains the chemistry in romantic relationships.

“There are several types of chemistry required in romantic relationships,” he says. “It seems like a variety of different neurochemical processes and external stimuli have to click in the right complex and right sequence for someone to fall in love.” The chemistry in romance requires certain elements of love.

1. Smell. We fall in love partly because of smell. The scent of a bouquet of red roses, for instance, is a cultural preference that boosts the chemistry in romantic relationships. Dr Kristal says, “Smell forms part of the framework that conforms to cultural attractiveness standards. For example, smelling like a strawberry instead of mildew [makes you attractive].” Smelling delicious could be part of why we fall in love.

2. Love pheromones. Invisible signals are part of what makes people fall in love. “Pheromones are unlearned, and perhaps unsmellable, signals that enter the brain through the olfactory system. They can function in sex, alarm, territoriality, aggression, and fear,” says Dr Kristal. He believes that we choose specific mates not solely due to pheromones, but for other reasons. Other sensory cues are better explanations for why we fall in love, such as touch, smell, and hearing.

3. The brain. We fall in love partly because of hormones. Oxytocin and vasopressin are present when people fall in love and stay together for a long time. Dopamine is also part of the chemistry in romantic relationships. So, when you’re wondering “Why doesn’t he love me?” you may have to look to brain chemistry as the answer. It’s not necessarily you, it’s just that your brain chemicals didn’t mesh. Lack of hormones could explain why we fall in love.

Adam

[Christopher]

Michael said:

This led to me checking every single principle I had ever adopted.

I had a hard fall many years ago as well at a time when I depended on love to satiate and validate my existence. The external dependency led me into oblivion when the relationship ended. Afterwards, I didn't know what to do, what to believe, what to live for. I read a book on codependency, which suggested raising self-esteem. So I walked into the self-help section of the book store, picked up a book entitled The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, and the rest is history.

Perhaps the most important lessons were: reality exists as it is and despite whatever I think. From this knowledge, I studied and recreated myself, checking every belief, every value, every principle I had ever adopted, and logically determining what is right. Worked for several years, then I realized I still had to work on integration after I had redefined myself. I'm still in the process of integration to this day.

I attune with the comment that sometimes it's more difficult to find intimacy when a third person enters the scene. 2 people is almost the precondition for intimacy. When a third person enters, sometimes my conversational partner changes, becomes something else that I don't think of as quite real and honest and true to their spirit. I feel like I can suddenly be talking to an illusion or image. But... with all my work on integration, I find I was partly right, partly wrong. There is definitely a positive thing called "group intimacy," which is nothing more than a communal affiliative feeling. It is not the individualistic intimacy that I feel is so wonderful between 2 people, but it is its own feeling that is unique, distinctly human, and not an illusion as I once thought. Being whole is hard work, and the self's parts are not the same, so it's hard to know what is a real part and what's a fake part (or even where to begin defining real and fake). To my autonomous self, communal intimacy and empathy can feel very threatening... but it's real, it's natural, and it's a part of my spirit. Because my autonomous self finds my communal self threatening, my communal self also feels threatened by my autonomous self. I don't think of these self-images as cognitively driven, I believe they are founded in separate neuromechanics. But that is simply another way of say... both parts are real, and both parts are required for me to be whole.

Christopher

[Michelle R]

Of course. It's a kind of short-hand. The problem is that there are two aspects to this
one of identity: Am I an Objectivist or an individual who has adopted Objectivism?
and
one of knowledge: Is objectivism an open-or-closed system - method or revealed truth?

This post has been edited by Michelle R: 27 May 2009 - 02:04 PM

[studiodekadent]

Michelle R, on May 27 2009, 08:37 AM, said:

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises.

It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

I agree with you entirely, although I don't think every member of ARI is inevitably like this (not saying you do either).

I've found many so-called "Objectivists" to be very hostile to my own tastes. I am gothic and often I find some "Objectivists" will instantly knee-jerk and accuse me of having a malevolent sense of life. Additionally, I find many "Objectivists" to be extraordinarily touchy about any perceived criticism of Objectivism. For instance, a while ago a computer game called "BioShock" was released, and many Randroids went into panic-mode, claiming it was now 'open-season on Objectivism.' The irony of this is that BioShock (a brilliant game) was designed by an Objectivist-sympathetic libertarian who clearly made the game demonstrate that 1) Objectivism did not cause the collapse of the game's underwater utopia (if anything, it was hypocrisy and power-lust that caused the collapse of the utopia), 2) One of the game's villains was clearly a Randian villain, to the point where he uses charity to recruit the poor into his army and use them as pawns (for the record, I think this specific villain is the best Randian villain since Ellsworth Toohey) and 3) The fall of the utopia is clearly a tragedy, implying the utopia's founding ideals were beautiful and noble. The game's creator chose Objectivist ideals because he considers them good. And as someone that has personally corresponded with the game's creator, as well as finished the game numerous times (unlike many of the Randroids that simply condemned the game without playing this), I can provide documentation of every point above.

But yes, I agree many alleged "Objectivists" are in fact Randroids that didn't understand the chapter in Galt's speech about "independence."