Judith

I remember talking to Ed Hudgins at the 2005 TOC seminar in Schenectady about this subject. I'd love to see a project organized around helping local African people organize to change their governmental systems and bring more freedom to their area. It's the only way to help them. Ed said that there are such organizations in existence. I don't remember offhand what they are. But anyone who cares about the situation over there and wants to see it change needs to know that only liberty is going to help. Pouring money into the hands of the local dictators and corrupt officials isn't going to do a damned thing. Judith

I don't really like her for the part. She's too obviously "glamorous" and not obviously intelligent. I can't stop remembering the part in "Atlas" where the railroad workers suddenly notice that their vice-president is a woman and that she is beautiful. There's no way that one could say that about Jolie. I'm another big fan of Jodie Foster for the part. In fact, I can't imagine anyone else in the role. She has the perfect blend of intelligence, fragility, vulnerability, toughness, and understated classic beauty that doesn't hit you over the head for the role. Remember her in "Contact"? She'd do the same thing in this film. She's also a Yale grad and an atheist in addition to being an incredibly talented actress. Judith

The question does arise, however: what would keep the building owners from rebuilding it? Having disclosed the design, Roark couldn't go into their minds and make them forget it. I know the book was written in the age before photocopiers were invented, but surely there were so many copies of the designs in existence among the contractors and subcontractors that the entire master design could have been reconstructed without too much trouble. I've always wondered about that. Roark destroyed the physical embodiment of the design, but it's impossible to destroy the creation itself when the creation is an idea that has "backups", so to speak, that aren't accessible to him. Judith

You know, I did some more reading on types over the weekend, and on reconsideration, I don't think there's any way Rand could have been INTP. More specifically, I don't think there's any way Rand could have been a "P". Her dislike of surprises and her proclivity for pronouncing a liking or disliking for things (having "favorite" everythings, etc.) suggests, in fact, that she was probably a very strong "J". Judith

Fascinating. I wonder what the implications are for aging? Judith

Jeez, Rich. Here I was pondering things like, "Well if I were Adolph Hitler on the brink of WWII, I could commit suicide...." And I keep reading and see Legendary John Holmes.:devil: Judith

Victor and Angie, I think it's a pity that you've felt you've had to defend anything about yourselves or your relationship at this point. Now is a time for joy. Life is short. Joy is precious. Let the dogs bark and immerse yourselves in each other. Judith

Beautifully said, Michael. YOU are a man of honor! And Roger, "Objectivism as hot-house orchid" is a perfect metaphor for the attitude of so many. Truth is truth. There's no better way for the truth to come out than in open, fearless debate and discussion. Rand's writings will always be out there to show people the "original Objectivism" if anyone is concerned about later people "contaminating the philosophy", for heaven's sake. Judith

(*smile*) Guilty as charged. I'm unlikely to change. It's gotten me into trouble before, but it's a great way to live. I certainly hope you didn't take what I said as meaning that I was one of the naysayers. I don't question your certainty. Victor, one of my functions in life is to take people on opposing sides and find common ground and resolution. I've seen what looks to me to be a lot of venom on both sides of this conversation about what should be a happy occasion, and I thought I could throw a bit of light on it. Apparently there are undercurrents of which I was unaware. And yes, I suppose I do tend to try to exhibit generosity toward people as much as possible because I've been misunderstood myself so many times, and been left feeling hurt and bewildered by it so many times, that I don't want to do that to other people. So I give them the benefit of the doubt whenever they say or do something that might be taken as offensive and might also be taken in some less offensive context. Judith

Angie and Victor, congratulations and best wishes! It's wonderful to see people as happy as you obviously are! It's coming through loud and clear! Don't let anyone rain on your parade. The naysayers and cynics are focusing mostly on the fact that you haven't met in person yet. I have to ask you both this question -- not at all in the spirit of criticism, but simply out of curiosity -- how can you stand to have waited this long to get together in person? How is it that one of you didn't jump on a plane at least the very first weekend you discovered your feelings for one another? I know I wouldn't have been able to resist doing it, no matter what schedule juggling I had to do, and even if I were still a starving graduate student and had to eat Spaghetti-Os and Ramen noodles for months to pay for it. I've never experienced an internet romance myself. I DID develop two close friendships via the internet. It was about two years before we met in person in each case. One was with a man and one was with a woman. I found the experiences unpleasantly disorienting in both cases: here was this person who knew me intimately, to whom I'd bared my soul and vice versa, and yet I was looking at the face of a complete stranger. The "disconnect", so to speak, took a long while to go away; it took time for the "in person" relationship to catch up to the long distance relationship, even though we'd also developed a telephone relationship. So, guys, even though my experiences were both based on friendship and not on romance, I'd still say to you: hurry up and get together as soon as possible! Judith

Wow. Who would've thunk that my one little sentence would start such a big debate? I don't know whether I should be dismayed or flattered. I'm certainly not going to take it back -- I meant it and I stand by it. (*smile*) Not a poetess -- just a wholehearted romantic. Thank you! The paradox is intentional; it leads the mind to a higher synthesis. (*smile*) See above. It's a romantic way of making a point. That is what Judith was trying to convey. Judith, that was a beautiful sentiment and I know exactly what you meant. Thanks, Michael. That says it very well, and saves me a whole lot of explanation! I had to laugh at this discussion and the ensuing one, because it calls to mind so vividly so much of what Ken Wilber discusses in much of his work. I could simply say, "Read Wilber!" But that's kind of arrogant -- to assume that one's readers will go off and read heavy tomes just to understand an online discussion. And actually, what the discussion calls to mind isn't so much Wilber as Spiral Dynamics, which Wilber didn't invent but upon which he relies heavily in his work. So I'll say here that Victor's and Dragonfly's responses struck me as being "orange", the fears that I would be offended by them struck me as being "green", and Michael's response struck me as being "yellow", and for explanation of those statements, I'll refer all of you to the articles I'm posting on Spiral Dynamics, so as not to hijack this thread from death, which, after all, is the main topic here. On the subject of death, I, too consider it to be final. I've struggled with it for years, and I can't so much say that I've made peace with it as that I've come to the realization that death comes for all of us whether we make peace with it or not. We can ignore it, or face it, or scream defiance at it, or make up pretty myths to make it less painful -- and none of it matters; it comes anyway. I hate it. It's the enemy. I will not go gentle into that good night; I'll go down kicking and screaming every step of the way. When someone you love dies, at first there's a numb sense of disbelief. You say, "No, that can't be right. Go back in time. Fix it. Restore a saved game." Then, when the reality sets in, you scream your defiance, and you wail your despair, and you demand to have him back -- and he's still dead. And you do it over and over and over and over -- and he's still dead. And it happens again and again and again -- with lesser and lesser frequency and intensity, but it never goes away entirely -- and life goes on, because life is nothing if not courageous -- and eventually you smile at the memories, but the loss is always there. And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. It's the price of being alive and loving. And if we're brave enough, we go out there and do it again, with our eyes wide open to what we're getting into. Judith

Well said; I hope you don't allow yourself to be tempted from that position! The piece stands well on its own. It's beautiful. I've often called myself an atheist who loves god with her whole heart and soul and mind and strength. Judith

Yeah, one of my best friends is an INFJ, and I sometimes inadvertently step on her toes. At work, I have to be aggressive to be heard at all; it's often a bit of an effort to remember that with her, a very soft whisper and a mild suggestion is all that's needed to get my point across, and if I forget and speak in my "work" manner, I can cause pain without intending to. Hmmm. Interesting. I've seen Rand listed by the experts in the books in the "lists of famous people" as INTP or INTJ, but never as NF, and my gut just leans against it; I just can't see her as that people-oriented. I looked up the URLs you listed, and found the following for INTP: "http://www.discoveryourpersonality.com/newsletter32.html: "Let's start with INTPs. What are the signs that an INTP is under stress? "Some things to watch for include being overly sensitive, becoming disorganized and unproductive, or focusing on minor logical inconsistencies to the point of excluding all else. Other INTPs can become caustic with their comments, with snide remarks or sarcasm. Some will display passive-aggressive behavior or have emotional outbursts. Finally, some INTPs will procrastinate, withdraw from others, and resent others who make demands upon them. "Stressors for INTPs include people they consider incompetent, particularly if they cause delays or trouble for the INTP. Other stress factors include irrational acts by others, or when people become emotional in response to an INTP's calm, rational evaluation of a situation or problem. If an INTP feels out of control in a situation, particularly when others are giving orders or instructions, and the INTP has little or no input into how the situation will be resolved, they can feel stress. Many INTPs feel time spent discussing personal issues or emotions is wasted time." Speaking as an INTP myself, I can say that that's certainly true of the type. It sounds reasonably consistent with what I've read about Rand as well. From the "Team Technology" web site, I found the following about INTP: "Recognising Stress "As stress increases, 'learned behaviour' tends to give way to the natural style, so the INTP will behave more according to type when under greater stress. For example, in a crisis, the INTP might: "withdraw to think about the central issue that needs attention "suggest various ideas, and use the feedback received to support the intellectual analysis "debate the issue from an intellectual point of view, and leave it very late before making a decision "criticise others efforts and ignore their feelings "Under extreme stress, fatigue or illness, the INTP's shadow may appear - a negative form of ESFJ. Example characteristics are: "expressing intense negative emotions towards others "being very sensitive to criticism "becoming preoccupied with details, without any logical basis "interpreting facts or events in a very subjective way "The shadow is part of the unconscious that is often visible to others, onto whom the shadow is projected. The INTP may therefore readily see these faults in others without recognising it in him/her self. " That also sounds like Rand. Judith

Here's one I found recently that's not likely to turn up too often. It's a translation from Spanish, by Octavio Paz (English translation by Muriel Rukeyser), so I'll include the original Spanish after the translation, in case anyone reads Spanish and would like to read the original. Judith --------------------------------- WATER NIGHT Night with the eyes of a horse that trembles in the night, night with eyes of water in the field asleep is in your eyes, a horse that trembles, is in your eyes of secret water. Eyes of shadow-water, eyes of well-water, eyes of dream-water. Silence and solitude, two little animals moon-led, drink in your eyes, drink in those waters. If you open your eyes, night opens, doors of musk, the secret kingdom of the water opens flowing from the center of night. And if you close your eyes, a river fills you from within, flows forward, darkens you: night brings its wetness to beaches in your soul. -------------------------------- AGUA NOCTURNA Le noche de ojos de caballo que tiemblan en la noche, la noche de ojos de agua en el campo dormido, esta en tus ojos de caballo que tiembla, esta en tus ojos de agua secreta. Ojos de agua de sombra, omos de agua de pozo, ojos de agua de sueno. El silencio y la soledad, como dos pequenos animales a quienes guia la luna, behen en esos ojos, behen en esas aguas. Si abres los ojos, se abre la noche de puertas de musgo, se abre el reino secreto del agua que mana del centro de la noche. Y si los cierras, un riote inuda por dentro, avanza, te hare oscura: la noche moja riberas en tu alma.

Sigh. He could have rescued the entire situation by laughing with everyone else and making a joke out of the whole thing. But then, if he had been that kind of person, the whole thing wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Yeah, I see why you regretted it. Having a bad concert wasn't worth it just to make a point. He probably didn't learn anything permanent from it. But I just had to hear the story. As a choral singer I sometimes sit behind the trombones, and it's interesting to hear things from their perspective. Luckily for me, I haven't suffered many bad conductors. Judith

Oh, I don't WANT to imagine. Please do tell -- what did you say? What did he say? What happened?

Oooh. I LOVE discussions like this one! Yes, I was thinking mostly of "The Comprachicos" when I made that statement, although Rand also made shorter comments of that type elsewhere, and referred to conflicts between children and adults in at least one essay in "The Romantic Manifesto" that suggested an "S" adult scolding an "N" child (I'm thinking of the "Buck Rogers never gets a cold" essay). Those essays resonated strongly for me when I read them, because they described my own childhood experiences pretty exactly (and they probably were based on her own experiences to a degree, and on projection to the degree that she was describing modern education). But after reading about personality theory and then re-reading Rand's essays, I realized that the essays DIDN'T describe the experiences of a good number of my little classmates. I must respectfully disagree with your and your wife's assessment of Rand as being NF. "T" versus "F" refers to whether one uses thinking or feeling as the way one intuitively decides what is true in the world, and what one relies on first and primarily to figure out what is true. Think about how Rand phrased her sentences. Think about her rabid aversion to statements like, "I feel this is true." Think about her statement, reported in Nathaniel Branden's "Judgment Day", (approximate paraphrase) "if the truth will slay them, then let them die"; I can't imagine any NF ever saying anything like that. NFs are primarily people-oriented, while NTs are primarily idea-oriented. Above all, NFs are supremely tactful and are terribly, terribly worried about hurting other people's feelings. Was that Rand? I don't think that someone who was simply trying to emulate an ideal man or to project such a character would behave this way so consistently; it was an integral part of her nature. Admittedly, NFs are literary and hero-worshipping, but not all literary and hero-worshipping people are NFs, and the rest of the picture simply doesn't fit. NTs have extremely intense emotions; they simply "don't see them as tools of cognition" (at least theoretically! that's not to say that they're not sometimes overwhelmed by them to the point where they don't see reason). As I said, the big picture points overwhelmingly to INT(something, probably J). Judith

I second Fran's recommendation. Even reading the descriptions of "S" versus "N" and "T" versus "F" will then help you understand where the questions in the survey are coming from and help you answer them better. And yes, I suspect that many, if not most of us NTs and NFs who grew up in SJ households are now celebrating our survival! Sometimes I wish I could find NT kids in such situations and mentor them. If I'd had just ONE sympathetic NT adult to help me understand the world on my own terms, it would have made a HUGE difference to me. SJ adults can be very hard on little Ns. Judith

I'm an I*N*T*p (with the asterisks representing very strong traits on those continua and the small letter representing being very weak on that continuum). I can appreciate just about anyone except for an SJ who won't tolerate creative people who won't follow strict rules (and therefore won't tolerate ME) and an SP who thinks that life is just about action and people like me who like to talk theory are "boring". Mind you, I like lots of SJs and SPs -- it's just the SJs and SPs who are intolerant of NTs that I don't get along with well. As I understand it, the N-S difference is the hardest gap to bridge between people. I've found Myers-Briggs/Jungian personality theory to be extremely useful in understanding people and valuing people who are different from me. I'd think that a lot of Objectivists who run around calling other people "evil" all the time might do well to study the theory and understand that many people will never be like them and that those people are valuable in their own right. Many of Rand's writings about children were assuming an NT child, and were quite true -- for an NT child. She was introspecting. Those assumptions wouldn't hold true for other children. Judith

Judith, just so you know, in case you ever decide to come travelling to the UK with your dogs - the quarantine laws have been replaced with doggy passports, microchipping (the dogs - they've not quite started doing that kind of thing to humans yet) and rabies vaccinations. The microchips are used instead of photos - which is sensible as I think customs would have a hard time distinguishing between all those yellow labradors... There are lots of Americans and Europeans who bring their dogs to show at Crufts every year. Although you don't have to show your dogs, to be able to take them. Wow -- thanks for the info! I wish I'd known that about a year ago. A guy I work with moved to England last year and had to find homes for his dogs because he thought his only other option was the long quarantine period. I'll keep it in mind; people here get transferred every now and then. My dogs have microchips in case they're ever lost or stolen. I never knew they could be used for international travel! Judith

I love it when people reply to old threads so that they come up as new and I get to see them for the first time. I never browsed the entire board when I joined; I generally just look at new stuff, and I never saw this one before. This is great, Michael and Kat; what a delightful story! And LONG LIVE SILLINESS! I've often thought to myself that we laugh at the absurd because we know that it can't hurt us. Whatever it is, I love it! Judith

Point taken. Now is such a good time to be alive! In fact, now that you mention it, I remember reading Florence King's "Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady", in which she mentions the elaborate lies she tells the doctor about being "about-to-be-married" when, as a co-ed in the '50s, she gets fitted for a diaphragm. Sigh. You're quite right, of course; without birth control women can't have any true freedom unless they choose to be celibate, which isn't a real choice at all. (That's why I said I would have been a nun, albeit a very unhappy one.) Fortunately, at least for now, the anti-abortionists don't seem to be going after most contraceptives (with the exception of the morning-after pill and IUDs, of course), and responsible contraception is usually effective. Still, no method is foolproof. Even tubal ligation has one chance in 2,000 of failure. I remember thinking, a few months ago, that the proposed federal legislation to make it illegal for anyone other than a parent or guardian to take a minor across state lines to bypass state abortion laws requiring parental notification or consent would cause a great deal of harm to young girls. They would have to get on a train or a bus (or even, gods forbid, hitchhike), all alone, and travel all the way across the country to New York, or Oregon, or DC, or whatever those other few other states are that don't have such legislation, with whatever money they could save or steal, manage to find a place to sleep, get their abortions unassisted, and probably (for financial reasons and legal reasons -- they'd be runaways, remember) leave for home without waiting to see if they would have any medical complications. They'd be at the mercy of predators just like any other runaways. But if they had any spirit at all, they'd do it rather than have babies they didn't want; they'd find a way, and possibly get seriously hurt or killed in the process, all because of this legislation that made it a crime for some friendly adult to give them a hand. Monstrous. One would hope that some kind, generous adults would "ask her to water the plants" while they were on vacation for a few weeks and broadly hint without actually saying where they keep the car keys and a large stash of cash, and then really go away; it would be the only real way to help. I'm firmly convinced that the only way to settle the abortion debate permanently is to find some way for a woman to induce an abortion privately, safely, and completely unassisted, in her own home, with commonly available materials that can't be traced. It might even come down to biofeedback methods for that matter, but until that technology is available, the issue will rage on. Judith

I feel the same way. I believe that Ayn Rand said somewhere that whoever invented birth control should be made a saint! I often ponder what I would have done had I lived a few hundred years ago. I'd probably have been a nun -- it would have been the only way to pursue a relatively free and intellectual lifestyle. Of course, the celibacy part and the religion part and the vow of obedience wouldn't have gone down very well.... Maybe I'd have been one of those eccentric single women and ended up being burnt at the stake as a witch -- sigh. I also consider dogs to be an essential part of my life, and I'm willing to put up with an incredible amount of inconvenience to have them there. They ARE a big responsibility, and I believe that in the UK, there are insane quarantine requirements if you're travelling -- something like 9 months if a dog is brought into the country. I wouldn't even consider moving there while my dogs are still living for that reason. Once you're settled somewhere permanently, there's a great book I recommend to everyone on choosing a dog -- it's called "The Right Dog for You", and it evaluates all the dog breeds by how much exercise they require, how active they are indoors and outdoors, how dominant they are with people and with other dogs, how much coat care they require, how intelligent they are (intelligence isn't always a good thing if you don't have the time to put that intelligence to work; my Mastiffs aren't that smart, and that's a good thing considering how much time I'm away from home -- otherwise, they'd be solving problems like, "What's the most interesting way to eat this couch?" and, "How can I get the biscuits out of the cupboard?"), and just about everything else you need to make an informed decision about choosing a dog to fit your lifestyle. It's just not fair to bring a Border Collie into your life if you work 10 hour days; picking a good match is important for both of you! And if your heart's already set on a certain breed, at least you'll know what you're getting into. Good luck! Judith

I just now came across this thread, so forgive the lateness of my reply. I'm in my mid-forties. I chose not to have children, and I actively thank my younger self for having made that decision fairly frequently. I never actively wanted children, and through my twenties, I kept my options open, but at thirty-one, I was sure enough to make the decision permanent. I often say it was the best thing I've ever done. When I go through airports or stores or restaurants or other places where babies are screaming and fussing and toddlers are running around and pre-pubescent children are making smart remarks and teenagers are being teenagers, I close my eyes and say, "Thank you, younger self, thank you! Now GET ME OUT OF HERE!" Consider particularly what one of the other people said earlier about whether you value solitude and silence. I do -- very highly -- and it's one thing you won't have for years on end if you have children. Consider how important it is to you to read or work or listen to music or do just about anything else uninterrupted, and consider that you won't be able to do that for many years on end if you have children. Consider your freedom to stay late at work if you wish, or to go somewhere after work on the spur of the moment, or go somewhere for the weekend without tons of planning, and whether you would be able to do that if you had children. Consider how you want to spend your limited vacation days -- does sitting on the beach watching kids make sand castles or herding kids through Walt Disney World sound like fun to you? How do you want to spend time with your partner? Do you want the vast majority of it to have something to do with the children? Do you want to risk becoming a "mom" in his eyes, more than a woman? And consider, also, that you are bound to be seriously sleep-deprived for at least the first few years of the lives of however many children you have. How well do you handle sleep deprivation? What will you do if you "don't like" your children? Kids tend to be born with distinct personalities, and there's no guarantee you'll be able to raise a little Objectivist; you may have a little Peter/Petra Keating and have to sigh and resign yourself to doing the best you can to set him/her on track for the best possible life he/she can have -- or, you could make both you and the child miserable by tormenting him/her to be someone he or she is not. Just a few thoughts that come to mind off the top of my head. Judith

There was an article on National Review's website in August by Heather MacDonald arguing that conservatism should not be based on religion and arguing against the truth of JudaeoChristianity. She based her attack on the truth claims of Western religion on the classic argument of "If God is good, why do bad things happen to good people, and why isn't everyone treated the same way?" She also said: "And that is why I am uncomfortable when a political leader invokes God — assuming that he is serious in doing so — because he is operating beyond reason. When President Bush said in one of his debates with John Kerry: 'I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's one part of my foreign policy,' there is no way to dispute the claim. Perhaps if a president invoked his belief in human destiny as set out in the Koran as a support for his policies, a few more people would be uncomfortable as well." In an earlier article she said: "Skeptical conservatives — one of the Right's less celebrated subcultures — are conservatives because of their skepticism, not in spite of it. They ground their ideas in rational thinking and (nonreligious) moral argument. And the conservative movement is crippling itself by leaning too heavily on religion to the exclusion of these temperamentally compatible allies. "Conservative atheists and agnostics support traditional American values. They believe in personal responsibility, self reliance, and deferred gratification as the bedrock virtues of a prosperous society. They view marriage between a man and a woman as the surest way to raise stable, law abiding children. They deplore the encroachments of the welfare state on matters best left to private effort." Not quite the same as Objectivism, with its emphasis on "traditional American values" such as "marriage between a man and a woman", but not a bad group of people with which to build coalitions.... Judith