Polyamory - a rational approach to love and lust

[Jonathan]

Hell, who wouldn't allow her one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason? She was a passionate woman, too - and this was a very human episode.

It wasn't Rand's only "self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason." Like all other people, she had many "very human episodes" in which her passions thwarted her rationality.

I can't figure how a person's life and career can be measured by the exceptions to their excellence.

Why would you try to figure out such a thing? No one here is measuring anyone's life and career by the exceptions to their excellence.

Take any great, historical figure and observe all details of his life as closely as Rand's commonly is, and you'll see him become...ordinary.

This is fashionable skepticism, essentially stating "If you aren't perfect, then you must be like the rest of us."

Hey, you're the one who allows Rand only "one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason."

It is a revealing indictment of the skeptics, hardly the person targeted.

So, are you saying that if I disagree with your opinion that Rand had only one self-contradiction, and I recognize the reality that she had more, then I must be "targeting" Rand and therefore "indicting" myself?

When some Objectivists, too, appear to fall into the dichotomy of Perfection - or nothing, then Rand is given a heavy responsibility, still.

It appears that she's also given a heavy responsibility when allowed only one single mistake. There isn't a significant difference between adopting a "perfection or nothing" attitude and adopting an "I'll allow her one mistake and then nothing" attitude.

They'll learn hopefully, that there is no instant gratification in merely learning the philosophy, as it's only then that the real thinking begins. But set Branden as 'demon', against Rand as 'saint'- or vice versa; or Rand as thinker, against Rand as woman; or set instant Revelation against "nothing can be known with certainty": and the false dichotomies pile up.

Are you talking to me? If so, all that I said was that Rand had many very human episodes in which her passions thwarted her rationality. In doing so, I wasn't making anyone a demon or a saint. I wasn't asserting that "nothing can be known with certainty." I wasn't taking a philosophical position or making a philosophical statement, and I wasn't revealing anything about myself, indicting myself, or targeting anyone. I was simply pointing out that the observable facts of reality clash with your opinion that Rand had "one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason."

It's not an attack, so you really didn't need to start sharpening all of the psychologizing weapons.

J

[anthony]

Are you talking to me? If so, all that I said was that Rand had many very human episodes in which her passions thwarted her rationality. In doing so, I wasn't making anyone a demon or a saint. I wasn't asserting that "nothing can be known with certainty." I wasn't taking a philosophical position or making a philosophical statement, and I wasn't revealing anything about myself, indicting myself, or targeting anyone. I was simply pointing out that the observable facts of reality clash with your opinion that Rand had "one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason."

It's not an attack, so you really didn't need to start sharpening all of the psychologizing weapons.

J

No, man - not you specifically. Trying to get my head around why AR's opponents and supporters, alike, hold her to standards of perfection, that's all. Often, I run on from someone's thoughts, not sticking to their parameters (catch some flak for it too - I don't know why, it is all part of the endless discourse, and I'm happy to see anyone run on from my notions.)

Do Objectivists and others judge the philosophy on how happy, wealthy and wise Rand herself became?

Also, is there a perceived need for Objectivism irrespectively to elevate its adherents to sublime perfection?

I'd call that some sort of Jesus Complex - and for young O'ists it may only lead to disappointment and rejection of the ideology, though the contradictions are theirs' alone.

(As Brant and Ellen (and NB too) tell of the old NBI days, it looks like Rand and Branden had a hand in that. But that's ancient history now.)

[Leonid]

Romantic love is a response for values. One cannot be jealous of something which one doesn't possesses. They both weren't competing on the same thing. Ayn Rand understood that well. Others apparently not. Emotional response which is not guided by mind always hit hard.

That's what could have been, should have been, but not what was, I believe.

She was jealous - I don't think otherwise for a moment, and really why does that disappoint people

so much?

Don't forget her rage, or her subsequent re-direction of the blame with rationalized reasons, and her lifelong silence.

NB went outside the arrangement - very possibly, that he loved her admiringly, though unromantically, is why he at all consented to it at all - and admittedly was deceitful about it for a while. (For obvious reasons.)

It even could be argued that she was hoist on her own petard in initiating that one-sided arrangement. As bravely non-conformist as it was, could it be that she

recognized far later that its romantic - rationalist - motive could only have had one result in reality?

Guessing further (which is all we can do, largely) it may be her innocent lack of experience with such powerful emotions meant her jealousy caught her by surprise.

Hell, who wouldn't allow her one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason? She was a passionate woman, too - and this was a very human episode.

The rage wasn't out of jealousy but out of repugnance caused by personal and philosophical betrayal. Barbara Branden clearly demonstrated that. Would you think for a moment that Ayn Rand was jealous of nobody whom Nataniel picked up as his lover?

[syrakusos]

Also, it is possible and known for one partner to remain uninterested in others and have the commitment be in one direction... Just adding another alternative to the complicated array of alternatives.

I understand your point, but I think an open relationship (normally) has to apply to all parties in principle, even if one of the parties doesn't have any interest in other relationships.

My basic point is that we shouldn't take our personal preferences and responses and universalize them, as if they apply to everyone else. Rand tended to do this in a number of areas.

We are on the same page with all of that. Also, your point about the difference between a (casual) sexual liaison and another committed emotional relationship was cogent. I have no answers. I agree also, of course, that generalizing from our own experiences is problematic: the attribution fallacy and confirmation bias are barriers to objectivity.

MSK: I understand the reptile brain thing. However, I must insist that people can and do choose to be more than that. Analogies to the animal kingdom are like operant conditioning: they fail when confronted by reason. You can "program" a person without their knowledge and we have apocryphal stories from college psych classes where the kids got the professor to lecture by placing his hand on his necktie all the time and so on... but once the trick is revealed, it no longer works. So, too, with the reptile brain. We can and do choose to be more than that. At least I do.

[Jonathan]

The rage wasn't out of jealousy but out of repugnance caused by personal and philosophical betrayal.

Heh. And what specific action of Branden's was considered a "personal and philosophical betrayal"? Why, it was his having an affair with with someone other than Rand! It was his falling in love with someone whom Rand had rated as a stupid "shop girl," while Rand remained married to someone who was, by any objective standard of measurement, less accomplished and worthy of romantic attention than the "shop girl." It's interesting that her marriage to Frank, and her remaining married to him after she found a real-life Roark or Galt in Branden, wasn't considered a betrayal of her philosophy.

Would you think for a moment that Ayn Rand was jealous of nobody whom Nataniel picked up as his lover?

I think that Rand was extremely jealous of Branden's preferring Patrecia -- his being turned on by her while, in comparison, being turned off by Rand.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I understand the reptile brain thing. However, I must insist that people can and do choose to be more than that.

Michael,

Of course they do.

People are more than their reptilian brains simply by having the rest of their brains.

The problem comes from either-or and equivalency thinking about this.

The brain is not either conscious thinking and will power OR subconscious control. It's both.

And the conscious thinking and will power part is not equivalent to the subconscious part. For one thing, your conscious mind needs sleep. Your subconscious is already there in terms of awareness.

Nothing is a straight line in the mind. Things come in waves and intervals.

Here's how some of the seesaw.works:

In an acute conflict of values, the conscious mind can overcome the subconscious temporarily. But as soon as its guard lets down, through weariness or distraction, the subconscious value kicks in. That is one kind of override, but it is limited.

Another kind is that the conscious mind can try to implant its value in the subconscious and try to atrophy the conflicting value that is operating there through a variety of techniques. That's another kind of override.

Both work. They both have specific limitations and results, but they work. And, as I said, they come and go in waves or intervals.

There is a hard-fast rule, though. If the conscious mind does not willfully act on its value, the conflicting value in the subconscious will govern thinking (the automatic thinking that surges) and behavior. So it's not enough to decide on a value that conflicts with your subconscious. You have to keep it in awareness to act on it--at least until you can modify or replace the other.

And there's this. Reptilian brain values are not chosen like conscious values are. They come built in and they kick in automatically, starting with the fight-flight response.

Michael

[syrakusos]

A three-valued system exists which categorizes people into those who discuss ideas, those who discuss facts, and those who gossip.

MSK: You have been reading and thinking about these ideas of the reptile brain and all that for years and thereby formulating your own beliefs. I understand the evolutionary model, of course, but I only read what you write and then think about that. You and I agree that we (not just you and I but the general "we") understand by analogy, by story. That is the reason why I remind you that the map is not the territory. Water may well be blue, but highways are not red and towns are not circles. And the so-called "reptile brain" would have to sit on the amphibian and fish brains and lead upward to the mammalian and simian brains. Where our crustacean and insect brains are, I have no idea. Did my avian brain respond to or cause my taking flying lessons? Is that why we experience the impulse to junp off tall buildings?

Many years ago, the biology majors in my dorm insulted each other with the word "plant" for their lack of a central nervous system. I forget which chemical it is - some steroid, maybe; maybe adrenaline; it does not matter - but plants have this and use it for something totally different. We animals inherited it and put it to a totally different use. So, if you experience rage or fear or want to run, is that your "plant" acting?

You can have any explanatory model you wish, but it is the predictive models that are most helpful. Again, I get the reptile thing, but in the context of this discussion, clearly, millions of people interact socially on the basis of the highest abstractions, regardless of what their kidneys secrete.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

You say you get the reptilian brain thing, but I don't think you do.

You keep treating it as a threat to volition or some kind of insult. It's not. It's merely a description of what exists.

Here's a Wikipedia article on the triune brain theory, mentioning MacLean, the neuroscientist of the 1960's who came up with it.

In modern context, nobody takes this literally anymore. But it is an excellent virtual division of brain functions, which is why it is so popular. It's like rounding off numbers. And reptilian is more metaphor today than evolutionary biology.

In marketing, it's used as a shorthand to remind advertisers to put the pretty girl next to the car they are selling and show how the car's engine and features make the driver all-powerful. Macho-powerful. Lizard-macho powerful.

If they don't do that, they don't sell many cars.

The Lizard King has spoken.

Or would you call that effect on the consumer--proven effect, by the way--a form of interacting "socially on the basis of the highest abstractions, regardless of what their kidneys secrete"?

The truth is, we act according to all three virtual divisions of the triune brain. It's part of being human and the key phrase is not "rational versus instinct or emotion." It's a key word for the good life, not phrase. It's called "balance."

Michael

[Leonid]

The rage wasn't out of jealousy but out of repugnance caused by personal and philosophical betrayal.

Heh. And what specific action of Branden's was considered a "personal and philosophical betrayal"? Why, it was his having an affair with with someone other than Rand! It was his falling in love with someone whom Rand had rated as a stupid "shop girl," while Rand remained married to someone who was, by any objective standard of measurement, less accomplished and worthy of romantic attention than the "shop girl." It's interesting that her marriage to Frank, and her remaining married to him after she found a real-life Roark or Galt in Branden, wasn't considered a betrayal of her philosophy.

>Would you think for a moment that Ayn Rand was jealous of nobody whom Nataniel picked up as his lover?

I think that Rand was extremely jealous of Branden's preferring Patrecia -- his being turned on by her while, in comparison, being turned off by Rand.

J

I suppose that all these question you should have ask Ayn Rand. Only she knew the real value of Frank. And on what base you concluded that Frank "was, by any objective standard of measurement, less accomplished and worthy of romantic attention than the "shop girl." ? Is that why Ayn Rand dedicated " Atlas Shrugged" to him?

[Selene]

As brilliant as Ayn was, she was emotionally submissive and very childlike, replete with feats and phobias.

In other words, she was human and all of us, if we have any rationality, should just, as Nicholson explains, in A Few Good Men, "...say thank you, and move on..." @ 1:21 of vid...

[Xray]

This may go to what was said about jealousy stemming , perhaps, from one's level of (amount, recognition?) of self esteem.

Is Jim jealous of the qualities that Joe has or the fact that his wife is attracted to Joe, or attracted to those missing qualities or both? Does Jim harbor ill intentions in Joe's direction just because of Joe's qualities, a hatred of the good for being good kinda thing ? Or is jealousy something else, maybe defining 'jealousy' would be useful

Here's the free online dictionary definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jealous

jeal·ous (jls)

adj.

1. Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position.

2.

a. Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others.

b. Inclined to suspect rivalry.

3. Having to do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts.

4. Vigilant in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name.

5. Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic: a jealous God.

Jealousy is closely realted to envy but imo the fear of loss is emphasized stronger in jealousy than in envy.

Envy is mostly about wanting to have what someone else has.

Whereas in jealousy, the fear of losing to someone else what one wants to keep (e. g. the love of one's partner, the attention of one's friends, etc, one's position at work) is always a factor.

[Brant Gaede]

The human brain got us here--over 7 billion of us--making it ideal for survival of human DNA. It seems that brain, however, isn't going to evolve by itself to a better, more modern construct except for human intervention. That door is just in front of us slowly opening into a "Brave New World" as the race bifurcates into brains and stupidity, each literally going its own different way if brains don't get a little more respect from hoi polloi.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Only she knew the real value of Frank.

That's what I've been saying: her judgments of Frank were subjective. I think she was primarily attracted to him because of her enjoyment of his physical appearance. She fell in love with his heroic image at first sight, and then proceeded to believe that he was, on the inside, what he looked like on the out.

And on what base you concluded that Frank "was, by any objective standard of measurement, less accomplished and worthy of romantic attention than the "shop girl."

What I mean is that there are objective standards by which to measure and contrast different individuals' drive, ambition, knowledge, intelligence, talent and success. Both Frank and Patrecia were interested in acting. Though Patrecia's life was significantly shorter than Frank's, she had already accomplished much more in the field of acting than Frank had.

Is that why Ayn Rand dedicated " Atlas Shrugged" to him?

I don't think that she really dedicated the novel to Frank. She dedicated it to the fictional version of Frank that she had invented and fallen in love with. When I first read her dedication to him, prior to knowing anything about her or her personal life, I assumed, from her description of Frank, that he must have been a world-renowned surgeon, or finincial wiz, etc. But no, it turned out that he was just a cuckolded househusband. He was a very sweet man, but one without accomplishments, including those of an average "shop girl."

J

[syrakusos]

Gossiping about Ayn Rand is much easier than admitting to having loved two people at the same time and having to choose between them.

[anthony]

Gossiping about Ayn Rand is much easier than admitting to having loved two people at the same time and having to choose between them.

No problem from me about loving two people at the same time. Tried it -don't see it can last

for anyone.

(btw: When did she choose between them?)

"Gossiping"? Well, don't you think it's better out in the open, so it can be finally ( until the next time...)

put to rest? Anyway, I think of it as psychologizing, which although is not fair to Rand on the limited

facts we know - and barely relevant to her work - is interesting and revealing.

Big surprise: Rand was not 100% rational, 100% of the time. Life is very long, and she didn't shy away from

confronting any of it. No ivory-tower'd intellectual was she.

Over all I have much too much respect and admiration for her (affection also, if it's possible) to make

excuses for her..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What the hell's wrong with gossip?

Michael

[Selene]

Big surprise: Rand was not 100% rational, 100% of the time. Life is very long, and she didn't shy away from

confronting any of it. No ivory-tower'd intellectual was she.

Over all I have much too much respect and admiration for her (affection also, if it's possible) to make

excuses for her..

Yep. Clay feet.

I never understood the apparent difficulty big "O" bjectivists had with Ayn being a slut in bed...seemed rational to me...

A...

[syrakusos]

Gossiping about Ayn Rand is much easier than admitting to having loved two people at the same time and having to choose between them.

No problem from me about loving two people at the same time. Tried it -don't see it can last

for anyone.

I was surprised by that comment. You must know the fallacy. Even if you and your paramours attempted a rational resolution, talking about your feelings, and otherwise working through to a positive outcome for all, and if that failed for you, you cannot generalize past that specifically because I have said (now three times) that I know of other people, some of them Objectivists, for whom it worked and works.

You are not the only person who ignores the discussion.

[We Erred Rand]

>>>That is interesting... No. Not really in the sense that we gather control groups and subjects, test their self-esteem, and then put them in relationships that are subjected to triangles, and then administer an instrument (questionnaire; survey) to see how they respond. That would be scientific proof.

No proof.

>>>What we do have is explanatory models from Freud, through Adler and Jung, to Maslow and the Americans, Gestalt and TA, and so on, up to Branden.

Any quotes or excerpts from their writings supporting your opinion?

>>> If you have self-esteem, whatever you feel for the loss of opportunity, it will not be jealousy or envy.

In other words, if an alpha-male with presumed "high self-esteem" actually were to feel jealousy or envy, he could simply deny it, and claim that he actually felt something else. Conversely, if an alpha-male actually did admit to feeling jealous over something or someone, you could claim that his self-esteem must not have been as high as originally thought.

It's a very neat, clean, convenient model correlating two subjective unmeasurables. Since you admit there's no objective evidence, and haven't provided any quotes, excerpts, or references of the self-esteem/jealousy linkage you claim are available in the works of Freud, et al., many of us are wondering just how you came up with the idea in the first place. Did you read it at some point in one of the works of the authors cited above?

Anyway, I don't think Rand would have claimed that high self-esteem is some sort of "protective shield" against feelings of jealousy. It's pretty obvious that John Galt experienced jealousy pangs over Dagny's affair with Rearden. And the almost violent jealousy that Rearden experienced when plying Dagny with questions about her sexual history were not because of a lack of self-esteem on his part.

[studiodekadent]

I'm not sure if I'd say that Polyamory is rationally mandated or anything, but I am very uneasy with romantic jealousy/possessiveness (it feels like treating another person as property), and I don't see any reason why there's anything wrong with polyamory.

Perhaps some people are just naturally predisposed towards Polyamory and others are not. This is something only each person can decide/discover for themselves.

Do I think it is worth questioning the default presumption of monogamy as the only natural kind of relationship structure? Absolutely.

[Jonathan]

...I have said (now three times) that I know of other people, some of them Objectivists, for whom it worked and works.

You're claiming to know how well other people's relationships have worked or are working? If so, that's bullshit. People who are very close friends of romantic partners are often fooled by the facade that they put on for others. It's a common occurance to discover that the perfect, happy couple wasn't happy at all. Romantic partners often even give each other the impression that they are happy when they're not.

Plus you're an Objectivish type, which means that you're quite likely bordering on ineptitude when it comes to things like reading facial and body language and other nuances of expression. You don't know what you're claiming to know.

J

[syrakusos]

>>>What we do have is explanatory models from Freud, through Adler and Jung, to Maslow and the Americans, Gestalt and TA, and so on, up to Branden.

Any quotes or excerpts from their writings supporting your opinion?

You are an interesting troll and have gotten some positive replies here. As for who said what, I only reply that this is common knowledge. I am not doing your homework for you.

In other words, if an alpha-male with presumed "high self-esteem" actually were to feel jealousy or envy, he could simply deny it, and ...

No, a person of self-esteem, if they experienced that would say, "I feel jealous. Hmmm..." and would introspect to understand why. You seem to have no idea what an alpha male is or what self-esteem is. Why do you think that alpha males must of necessity possess self-esteem?

... and haven't provided any quotes, excerpts, or references of the self-esteem/jealousy linkage you claim are available in the works of Freud, et al., many of us are wondering ...

I do not know how many of you are writing under that name, but you are (all) reading something into my writing that was not there. All I said was that we have a long history of explanatory theories of human behavior, none of which provides empirical evidence in the positivist sense of formal science. He asked for "proof." If his own observations do not provide it to him, then I cannot put what I perceive in his head. I can explain my ideas further, of course, and perhaps more narrative will bring us together.

And the almost violent jealousy that Rearden experienced when plying Dagny with questions about her sexual history were not because of a lack of self-esteem on his part.

That is further evidence that you do not understand what I am talking about. Rearden's lack of self-esteem was reflected in and by his sense of guilt several times in relationship to his feelings for Dagny. She knew it and asked him about it at least twice. It was not "Dagny", of course, but Ayn Rand who was speaking.

[syrakusos]

You're claiming to know how well other people's relationships have worked or are working? If so, that's bullshit. People who are very close friends of romantic partners are often fooled by ...

I only know what 40 years or more of friendship has revealed to me. Some do not work out. Some do. That is the point. Polyamory is an option and it does work. My observation is that it requires high self-esteem and close communication.

... the facade that they put on for others. It's a common occurance to discover that the perfect, happy couple wasn't happy at all.

You are generalizing beyond the context. And I never said that it is always Valentine's Day. It never is for any couple, at least as far as I know... But if you are committed and committed to working on that commitment, then, in the long run, everyone lives more or less satisfactorily ever after. I will say that simply putting up a facade is the easiest way to destroy a relationship, if not prevent one in the first place, and this is especially true when exploring relationships from introspection and via open communication.

Plus you're an Objectivish type, which means that you're quite likely bordering on ineptitude ...

Ah... I do not know them, but you know me. Of course...

[syrakusos]

I'm not sure if I'd say that Polyamory is rationally mandated or anything, but ... and I don't see any reason why there's anything wrong with polyamory.

Thanks for your reasoned reply.

One consideration is the fact of infidelity. It runs deep in our species and across all cultures. Monogramy does work, also. Many animals bond for life and it is not surprising that perhaps 30% or more of human couples do, as well. Monogamy runs about as deep as infidelity, I guess... On another note, two male geese will take up a mateship with each other, but, since no one lays any eggs, they never stop decorating the nest.

The question is what you do about what you experience, how you make your choices, how you define them and decide.

[Selene]

Folks:

Polyandry has been seriously considered by me and the participants were more than willing.

The ONLY reason that I did not dive into it was the FACTOR of my age.

However, had I been younger, I would have delved into it fully and completely.

A...