MikeJoyous

Hi Rich:) Makes sense to me that moral indignation towards the person avoiding the starving child could be from loving this world and identifying with human beings, generally. Unfortunately my post focused upon straight child identification and losing context, rather than the natural outgrowth from loving kids and identifying with living things, generally. I would modify it, were I to remake it, by identifying healthy urges as well as mistakes! best always, Mike R

Hi Paul:) Absolutely! Our adult values may be very different than those of us as a kid or of our parents'. If you were a Freudian analyst, and you saw me picking apart a spider at, say, age 8, and then I became a surgeon as an adult, you would conclude (given psychic determinism) that I was simply acting out my sadistic impulses in a socially approved manner as an adult! About the maintenance of our personalities: I agree with George Weinberg about this. (See "Self-Creation" by Weinberg). We have many habits and unknowingly recapitulate our personalities every day by giving into habitual urges that lead us to do the same old things:) As I understand your ideas about making of personality, this would mean making rational choices even though they might be scary, effortful, stressful, or involving change. Is this essentially what you mean, Paul? best always, Mike R.

Hi Rich:) Yep, the estimate of one's self is the most important estimate you can get. My post was about getting to that estimate efficiently:) best, Mike

Hi Paul:) I agree with you. Everything is not inspired by one's parents! Is extreme moral indignation in this case inspired by one's parents? That is the question, amigo. Did you try the thought experiment I suggested? best wishes, Mike

Hi folks:) First off, the hidden premise of Dr. Branden's email is: With respect to a helpless child, NOT HELPING is the moral equivalent of ACTING MALIGNANTLY. When presented in this way, it becomes clear that is not so. What then is the source of this intense moral indignation? Almost all of us identify with, say, a starving child. Why? There have been times when we have been hungry as a kid and not fed promptly. That identification serves as a conduit to block the full context of the situation and transform the stranger into our father (or mother)! This is also easy to do. There have been times when our parents hurts us as kids, simply because they made some mistakes, if nothing else. As kids, we felt an emotional certainty that it is *wrong* for our parents not to attend to our needs. That emotional certainty becomes our current intense moral indignation. The proof lies in a simple thought experiment I created--I invite you to try it yourselves. I imagined first a starving child approached by a stranger who has 2 apples in a bag. The stranger could give an apple to the child but chooses not to. Result: instant moral indignation. Then I let myself experience my own younger self, maybe as a baby, hungry and not fed promptly by my dad or mom. I let myself feel the righteousness of it. I know my parents are wrong about this. Finally I switch back to the original visualization. Stranger with bag of 2 apples approaches starving child. Stranger looks at child a moment and then walks on. MY OWN MORAL REPUGNANCE HAS DISAPPEARED! I don't like that stranger. I wouldn't like to know him or her. But I don't regard the action as evil either. One final thought: one poster mentioned that if you came to a country where starving was a general condition then he or she would contribute nothing to anyone--it would not help. I see this differently. If I came to such a country, I would look intensely at the eyes of different children until I found one with whom some kind of inner chord, an empathy, was struck. I would devote my charitable resources solely to that child. Doing so would be upholding my deepest values. best wishes all, Mike

Hi Michael:) Oh, when I talked about Kelly's theories of benevolence, I should have said "David Kelly." Hope you didn't think I meant you! Me happy? Well...sometimes:) I think everyone should take time out to judge themselves, Michael. Not in a harsh critical way, but in a way that Rand never mentioned and I believe did not countenance: talking to one's Inner Child. Asking the Inner Child how he (or she, as the case may be) feels about you right now in response to what you just did or did not do. In my thinking about personality, the Inner Child is about more than present emotionality. My own Inner Child cuts through the tremendous repressed pain of early years, letting me know immediately the effect of my action upon my self-esteem. Yep, an artist needs his audience, alright. But Michael, suppose when Rand finished the Fountainhead, there *were* no audience, no interested publisher? Somehow she'd have had to look within herself and her husband and maybe a friend or two for spiritual nourishment. best always, amigo, Mike

Hi Roger:) Doin' OK. Are you still playing ye piano at Disneyland? If so, when? I'm overdue to go to Disneyland again --I got the primal urge! About your explanation of "fact"---when I thought it over, I had to admit (albeit reluctantly) that you're right about this:) A "fact" does indeed refer to that which is true, not an idea about that which is true! best, Mike

Hi folks:) I'm generous because I have additional time, money, or skills available to me that I don't immediately use. Given that abundance, I need an appreciative audience, someone like me (or so I fantasize) to whom I can give this overflow who apparently needs it at that time. At the time I give of myself, I may not be aware of the need for appreciation. I may seem to be giving in order to strictly help an individual. However, if I take a moment then and ask myself, "Mike, how do you feel about about me this moment?," what comes out is a variant of "I really love you this moment, Mike." Sometimes that appreciative audience is me, appreciating my acceptance of a common bond of humanity. From this perspective, talking about it, as Kelley does, in terms of an investment in society or some type of indirect social exchange is wildly beside the point. best wishes, MikeJoyous

Hi Roger:) Long time no hear:) A "fact" is an idea that is true. Ideas are not independent of consciousness! best, Mike