Two General Comments


Recommended Posts

I think there has long been a tendency for Objectivists to think that romantic relationships were primarily about identifying the person of the opposite sex with the most Objectivist virtues. This was brought up by Barbara Branden on the Psychology of Romantic Love thread in the Branden Corner area. But in addition to this, there has been a tendency to assume that one's proper romantic partner is chosen exclusively by conscious choices. There has been little regard for the individuality of sexuality in people due to the complex interplay of their unique biochemistry, of their experiences, and of many years of preceding thought patterns. What has been regarded as healthy sexuality and healthy romantic interest has been very narrowly defined in an excessively rationalistic way. Real people are not so simple as these perfectly spherical cow models of many Objectivists.

This is not to say that Objectivist ideas on romantic love are without merit. They have merit, but as a part of a much larger and more complex picture.

Much of Kevin Haggerty's comment above makes good sense to me, but I have a couple of reservations on it. He said:

This incest business: healthy adult sexuality involves a relationship with "the other." Healthy adult romance is all about reaching across differences and risking intimacy. With incest the possibility of healthy adult romance is virtually destroyed. At the heart of an incestuous affair is the psychologically sopporific effect of familiarity and familial safety, a feeling of riskless merging.

He correctly identifies a factor in many adult relationships and romantic love in particular which is of great importance. Generally people in romantic love go through a period of very heightened interest in one another which is based on this factor. In time, this factor commonly decreases in strength and many relationships fail when that happens. In good relationships, this factor may often have given two lovers the needed time to develop other important aspects of their close and intimate relationship. These other factors then become the primary reason for the ongoing love of these two people. So, is it not possible that there might exist, if not adult romantic relationships, then adult sexual relationships between siblings in which the kind of other factors of intimacy and shared interests have leaped past the initial need for the kind of adult romance in its early stages that Kevin Haggerty is talking about? In other words, siblings might possibly skip this phase of a relationship and enter into the phase that largely replaces it in many long-term adult relationships. Then one's evaluation of the relationship should be based on those factors, which we cannot do in a general and across the board manner.

The desire to make the leap between two initially different and substantially unknown people certainly is a factor that causes almost everyone to choose a non-incestuous relationship. However, I cannot agree with Kevin on the following either:

Healthy people, by virtue of their health, know this. They instinctually shudder at the thought of incest. Unhealthy, broken people, by virtue of their unhealthy brokenness do not.

My reasons above address part of my disagreement. In addition, I do not think it is a matter of instinct. It is mostly a reasonably conscious desire for the adventure of romance that Kevin properly pointed at in the above quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

I like finding other people's ideas that express my own perspective. Your post above does just that. Well said.

To be honest, I have not been following this thread, so I haven't yet read what preceded your post. One thing I like about the spirit of your perspective is the appreciation for the relativity of perspectives. That's refreshing to see in Objectivism. Objectivism tends to come from an absolute and judgmental perspective that cuts off understanding and discussion. If Objectivism is to be a philosophy that captures all of reality, an appreciation of the value of relative perspectives, that is implicit in your post, must be integrated.

btw-There is a right context for the absolute and judgmental orientation of consciousness.

Thanks,

Paul Mawdsley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning Ellen, Charles,

Thanks for your comments. Ellen, I certainly understand your time constraints. I mentioned my previous post only in hopes of jogging your memory, in case you'd been intending to get back to it and it had slipped your mind or some such. I certainly did not intend to exert pressure on you in any way.

Getting back to the topic at hand, you wrote:

...the vast majority of universal statements about what is and isn't psychologically healthy, I'm likely to disagree with on the general principle of the difficulty of universalizing in this area.

Yes, it's difficult, but that does not mean it's impossible or better left unattended. That you know of "some cases" of incest that you would consider healthy is distressing. What is the nature of these healthy incestual relationships? I expect our notions of what is and is not healthy may be at odds. Developmental psychology is a new and unfortunately, still pretty "wonky" science.

As I understand it, there are many journeys the psyche must undertake throughout life if it is to develop fully (incidently, what I'm talking about may very well be historically unprecidented, the human species has been so hampered in its psychological development by the need to simply survive, that very few individuals have heretofore had the quality of life necessary for healthy development). Humans have devised every conceivable way to shorten these journeys by skipping steps, and psychological science is only now beginning to take note of the cost of such abridgements.

Charles, you propose just such an abridgement in your post, suggesting that a healthy sexual encounter between two adults might successfully skip the otherness of which I speak as an early stage akin to infatuation. But I would say this "skipping" is precisely the psychic strategy behind incestuous intimacy. This is precisely where uninformed rationality ceases to be our friend, because what you say seems reasonable enough, but it ain't AFAIK the way the human animal works.

What's more, I disagree that the encounter with "the other" is only relevant in the beginning phase of adult intimacy, but an awareness that must be maintained if a relationship is to thrive and grow psychologically throughout its life, a relationship mirrored in the constantly growing and developing relationship of each participant with him or herself. "Comfortable" and "reassuring" are not necessarily hallmarks of health in conscious beings, though many, many people no doubt long (regressively, I'd say) for just such conditions.

For example, living as a literal slave is not without its comforts; true freedom can create enormous anxiety in people and many, many would and do choose something else. Now I would say this aversion to freedom is regressive and by no means contributes to the proper development of one's psyche; it ain't healthy.

The greatest obstacle to any of this being made clear to a scientific mind is that the scientific mind barely acknowledges the existence of what I'm talking about. I imagine all manner of studies could be undertaken in which people living as slaves were hooked up to EKG's and what have you, along with a group of nonslaves and the results suggesting that the slaves where as "healthy" and "happy" as the free ("along certain gradients even more so").

What I'm talking about is an emerging awareness of what actually is good for the human psyche beyond mere survival and freedom from pain. Do you, Charles and Ellen, disagree that such things may actually exist as yet unquantified by science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin,

First, human relationships are so complex that I certainly do not think that science has or likely will reduce them to quantifiable measures which will allow us to easily assess their healthiness, except in the extreme cases of really good vs. really bad, maybe.

Of course, comfort has its good points. I have never chosen to sleep on a bed of nails. Of course, there are many other aspects of mature marriages that are important. Among these are a really close friendship and a very close partnering, along with, usually, an on-going sexual relationship. I for one could not live happily without the sexual relationship. In all of these aspects, we are constantly still learning about each other. In fact, this is not only because we are complex to begin with, but it is also because we are both still developing as people.

I have four sisters. I do not know any of them so well that they would not be cause for myriad discoveries about their nature and thoughts. At the end of four years of marriage, I had to have known my wife as well or better than I know any of my sisters. Each of my sisters is a relatively rational and productive person. Each is a pretty good person. I would not choose to have a romantic relationship with any of them, but they are certainly more worthy of love than the vast majority of women I have known. So, introspectively, I actually think that I am lucky to have found someone to love who is better for me than any of them would have been. So, it is not obvious to me that absolutely anyone with absolutely any wonderful sister would be unhealthy in loving her in a sexual manner and making her his life-partner.

Now, I will really never have to worry about holding a political office. An atheist who is not revolted by thoughts of incest will never have such a problem!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Thanks for your support! Having a philosophy with good, sound fundamental principles does not assure us that the understanding of our world will be simple. Our world is rich in complexity and full of nuance. We as individuals are exceedingly complex. An Objectivist must be determined to use reason to try to understand this rich complexity of reality and must not deny it. An Objectivist, above those of other philosophies, should not only be able to recognize the complexity of each person and their unique individuality, but they should welcome it. Unfortunately, there is a tendency on the part of many to look for intellectual short-cuts. There is a large school of Objectivists for whom the model of a person is at least too nearly spherical.

If you mean essentially this when you talk of relative perspective, then we agree. I tend not to use the word relative in this context because of other connotations it carries with it. I have no desire to diminish the importance of understanding reality, I simply want to be responsible in my effort to understand it and realize that I cannot do this if I underestimate its complexity. I for one really enjoy its rich complexity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

I use the term relativity because, causally, the concept is parallel to Einstein's Special Relativity. We each occupy a unique place in the universe with our own unique motion. These unique perspectives make us see existence slightly differently from one another. But we are each seeing the same absolute reality regardless of our relative perspective of it. I just think that our perspective is more complete if we can discover and integrate the relative perspectives of those we share reality with. Being able to view the world through the lens of someone else's eyes by taking an empathic perspective allows us to study reality from different angles. Studying reality from different angles allows us to use a parallel process approach to unearthing truths about reality. This can be a powerful tool.

Of course, taking an empathic perspective also allows us to operate more effectively in relationships. Win-win!

Paul Mawdsley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Basically, it sounds as though we each have respect for the individuality of others and the complex interplay between individuals, their environment, and their history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

I think so. I'm going to take some time to read your previous posts to better understand your perspective. I am reluctant to over extend myself and get involved in too many discussions, but the other discussions I'm involved in seem to have come to a halt for now. I look forward to the chance to compare notes.

Paul Mawdsley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 13 years later...

Thinking of Barbara Branden this fine Sunday. 

On 3/12/2006 at 10:18 PM, Barbara Branden said:

Dragonfly, one of the problems leading to the attempts at intimidation you describe is simply the psychology of the intimidators. If someone is a bully, or would like to be brave enough to be a bully, before he discovers Objectivism, he is likely to have the same psychology after he has read Rand. We don't easily jump out of our psychological skins. Objectivism doesn't magically elevate one to sainthood. Dependent people, nasty people, cruel people, dishonest people, need more than philosophy to change them; in most cases, they need psychological treatment. And until and unless they get it, or have some life experience which awakens them to the mistakes they are making, they will be dependent, nasty, cruel, dishonest Objectivists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now