Emotional Independence


Dglgmut

Recommended Posts

Recently I've defined "shame" for myself as: feeling you've failed yourself.

Also, I've decided that independence is the most respectable trait a person can exhibit.

I agree with Rand that self-esteem, the opposite of shame, is directly related to one's level of independence. Independence, though, does not mean isolated production, but includes voluntary trade (fair).

As we remain independent while providing others with an equal value to that which we receive from them, we remain emotionally independent when we are able to maintain a voluntary relationship with others.

If you respect someone--see them as emotionally independent, you will trust their judgment of you more, and therefore want their approval to prove your objective value, which represents your social trading value. Respecting someone does not necessarily mean finding value in them, as respecting a rattlesnake does not mean you want to be around rattlesnakes.

If you find value in the company of others, which we all do, the people you find the most value in are those that you want to have value to, so that you can fairly trade emotional value with each other, and both remain emotionally independent overall.

Independence in a social environment means having something to provide others. If you want something from others, you want to be able to bring something to the table for them.

Really, independence is about a feeling. It's about being able to proving for yourself given your circumstances. We don't feel ashamed for not being able to survive in space, we feel ashamed only for not being able to provide for ourselves in a situation in which we believe we should be capable of providing for ourselves.

We should be able to socially pull our weight, because we are human. Or at least that is probably how it would seem to most people.

Producing more than you consume is a big part of Rand's morality, and it seems to be a psychological need even at a social level. There is only two solutions, to learn how to provide value to others, or to stop looking for value in others. I don't think the latter would work; I don't think any human being can not find value in others because even the two most antithetical people on earth still have much more in common with each other than they have differences.

Rand's heroes could be hurtful to characters that could not provide them any emotional value; most people would never react so honestly in such situations... they would rather be kind as a way of protecting their reputation with people they did find value in (or God etc.).

Benevolence is the desire to give--to add to something... I think the human spirit is naturally benevolent, but leads to frustration when not effective. Roark was a giver, he was a "fountainhead"... he did not put the act of giving above the source of giving, though... and that is what altruism asks. Giving and taking support each other, and need to be balanced. That is Objectivist ethics, isn't it?

We give so that we may take, and we take so that we may give... isn't that how it goes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last is ambiguous: We ~ don't ~ "give so that we may take..and take so that we

may give". It reduces morality to a zero-sum game, and has a faint utilitarian

or apologistic taste.

Rather, we seek what we earn - in reality, per reason - and willingly allow

this to others, too. Which embodies benevolence, for me.

That apart, some good thoughts here, though.

Keep in mind : "The most selfish of all things is the independent mind that

recognizes no authority higher than its own, and no value higher than its

judgment of truth." AR

It's from this primary that emotional independence, practical and financial independence, all evolve and depend.

The Trader Principle always interests me, and i don't feel it is explored enough in O'ism.

Very often it's treated as an equal exchange of product for money, when it

obviously goes way up to include the recognition of worth in a person, for which one - should -

give unstinting credit, in return, and for justice's sake. My point is that so

often this is UNEQUAL, in different times and situations. How to measure a moment's support from another person (or your's for him) OR, the lifetime inspiration one may draw from someone's excellence?

There are debts one can never repay - as there is credit one should never collect, or even

recall. The "Trades" we make are complex and various, in value and emotion.

The highest of inter-personal exchange, that hardly needs expression -"emotional", one could say - is being 'seen' and 'seeing' in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We ~ don't ~ "give so that we may take..and take so that we

may give". It reduces morality to a zero-sum game, and has a faint utilitarian

or apologistic taste.

I meant it psychologically. We do not produce just so we may consume, we also consume so that we may produce.

For example, any form of gluttony is the equivalent to being stuck in taking mode... Frustration because you feel incapable of giving anything back (to the universe--or rather, your universe) can result in compensating by taking more.

Giving too much is equally a problem, though probably less common. The idea that we can continually give without taking will reflect in the quality of our giving...

Roark gave on his own terms, for the sake of it. He took what he needed to continue giving, because it was to his universe that he gave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trader Principle always interests me, and i don't feel it is explored enough in O'ism.

Very often it's treated as an equal exchange of product for money, when it

obviously goes way up to include the recognition of worth in a person, for which one - should -

give unstinting credit, in return, and for justice's sake. My point is that so

often this is UNEQUAL, in different times and situations. How to measure a moment's support from another person (or your's for him) OR, the lifetime inspiration one may draw from someone's excellence?

There are debts one can never repay - as there is credit one should never collect, or even

recall. The "Trades" we make are complex and various, in value and emotion.

The highest of inter-personal exchange, that hardly needs expression -"emotional", one could say - is being 'seen' and 'seeing' in return.

I think we choose to enter intimate relationships with people like we enter business relationships... we find someone we enjoy trading with. We want to know we can fulfill our end of the trade so that the relationship will last... and with that comes not only the benefit of the taking, but the security of knowing the other party is happy to give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...watching The Elephant Man for the first time... Just a thought, when the nurse enters the room and sees John Merrick, why does she scream? Why are most people generally frightened by the witnessing of a tortured soul (which is ultimately what I think she was afraid of).

Why does a freak like The Elephant Man seem like a tortured soul? What can he not do? He's too ugly to be able to bring positivity to relationships, or so it may seem to us. It is a handicap to not be able to affect people positively... and that, I believe, is the frightening part. Empathy towards someone who cannot possibly get what he wants because he has no value to trade.

Whether these observations are true is irrelevant, I believe these are the thoughts that make it frightening. Is it an accurate assessment? I'd imagine that a healthy mind is one that is not frightened by a freak. So is it just a misunderstanding that leads us to fear the experience of a tortured mind/soul?

I think empathy is necessary for this fear... an ugly object is not frightening, it's the idea of intelligent consciousness being tortured that is scary... Is it justifiable?

This relates to the thread topic because the weakness that makes people pity freaks is their inability to give (socially/emotionally).

---

Perhaps it is what we're expected to give that really frustrates people... A failure to surpass one's potential is not a failure at all, but not fulfilling one's potential is...

Nobody else can know our potential as we can, but people can expect whatever the hell they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One brings real values and virtues to every trade. Like it goes: you take yourself with

you wherever you go. Are they recognized? Are they matched? that's all one has to know.

All the rest follows, as emotions follow thought and action.

You mention Roark earlier.

I enjoyed Howard Roark as a character. Single minded, and an extreme type in Rand's stable.

I feel you'd know exactly where you stood with him all the time. As friend, he would however demand you

bring utter honesty and integrity, and pleasure in creating and respect for reality, with you. You could share

a beer, but probably not talk girls and football too much. He'd understand struggle and hardship better than anyone - but not make a fuss about it. Pain is not the meaning of life, for him.

Thing is to know one is not like him - uh, apart from 'him' being somebody's artistic creation - but to take away with one his core independence and certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trader Principle always interests me, and i don't feel it is explored enough in O'ism.

Very often it's treated as an equal exchange of product for money, when it

obviously goes way up to include the recognition of worth in a person, for which one - should -

give unstinting credit, in return, and for justice's sake.

The Trader Principle:: Value for Value. Money for goods and services is just one form, perhaps the most common

When I spend time talking to a friend or associate I expect that I will be able to impart something of value -- a fact, a view, perhaps the solution to a problem. I also expect to learn something that I can use or to experience a pleasure. Some people are -fun- to be around.

No money has exchanged hands, but the time of the encounter is time well spent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trader Principle always interests me, and i don't feel it is explored enough in O'ism.

Very often it's treated as an equal exchange of product for money, when it

obviously goes way up to include the recognition of worth in a person, for which one - should -

give unstinting credit, in return, and for justice's sake.

The Trader Principle:: Value for Value. Money for goods and services is just one form, perhaps the most common

When I spend time talking to a friend or associate I expect that I will be able to impart something of value -- a fact, a view, perhaps the solution to a problem. I also expect to learn something that I can use or to experience a pleasure. Some people are -fun- to be around.

No money has exchanged hands, but the time of the encounter is time well spent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yep, you've got what I'm getting at Bob. Such are the unexpected pleasures of life.

1+1 = 3, on those occasions.

Also, I think we forget that all "trades" - of stimulating encounters, friendships, deeper

relationships, intellectual discussion, business transactions, etc. - begin and continue with the trading value you

put on the table. Which is your own character and virtue (particularly independence, truth and

integrity) before any other trade. Value for value. What you are, before what you know and can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only "value for value": wealth building.

Sure, capitalism is inseparable from individualism: 1 + 1 = 3.

?. What I meant to say was trading motivates entrepreneurial actions, planning, learning new skills, thinking about other people and what they want, learning to get along with other people so as not to decrease your trading value with them. All of this internal driven, not coerced. This is what makes civilization and wealth possible. I don't think many people understand this. Simply saying "value for value" doesn't express enough what "trader" means, if more people understood less would support the welfare state and redistribution. I wasn't trying to be a smart ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I didn't think you were. I believe we understand each other.

What lies beneath 'value' is self-interest - and all I'm suggesting is

that value for value represents every human connection and 'trade' (or should.)

It expresses everything to me, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I didn't think you were. I believe we understand each other.

What lies beneath 'value' is self-interest - and all I'm suggesting is

that value for value represents every human connection and 'trade' (or should.)

It expresses everything to me, anyway.

Yes, me too. It's so frustrating to try to explain the trader principle to others who just hear "Another Capitalist Pig". I have co-workers who are simply brilliant at engineering but say things like "behind every pile of money is a crime", and if you allowed them to the "big corporations would take everything and leave 'the people' living in hovels and dying of cancer". The answer is "regulate, regulate, regulate", and redistribute of course. The founder of a start-up I worked for a few years ago told me he couldn't have gotten his Phd in Physics or the initial funding for his start-up without government programs and assistance. He supported pretty much all government programs to "help" people without reservation. It is so very, very difficult to make these arguments with people who are very capable but still can't see how they could have succeeded without "help", and don't see the strings attached or the wealth destruction that goes along with the "help". Or they see it as a necessary cost. I also can't even get to the point of explaining the destruction of personal responsibility that is incurred with a welfare state, the dishonesty and distrust of other people that becomes part of the culture which only increases the perceived dependance on government control and handouts. I wish I had an easy way of telling people that non-coercive trading, the Trader Principle, is the supreme value of a civilized society. Sorry, end of my coffee driven rant...

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