Mashimaro

I agree with you, Objectivism is severly lacking in psychological understanding. There are some things Objectivism does very well, and I do think there is some value to it, however psychology is not one of them. Look up some psychology books. I might not recomend Jung to you, as you seem to be of a more materialistic mind, however, much of psychology deals with exactly what you are asking for...the synthesis of the hard science and the soft science of the mind. You may find that it undermines your Objectivist beliefs...it seems to be a pattern with the study. At any rate, I doubt you'll find the answers you're looking for here. Then again, I'm not an Objectivist, so why believe me?

If you don't know what the concept of the 'unconsious mind' is you should read up on some Freud or Jung. I tried twice to write long detailed responses to this explaining the nature of dreams and involentary twitches, but both times my computer miraculously decided that it wasn't written to its satisfaction So I decided you should read about it yourself, as there is very valid research in the field of psychology that Objectivism seems to ignore.

1. Uhm, not really...sorry about any confusion. It was a jest. 2. Then I appologize, I did not realize. I often refer to intellectuals by simply their last name. If I had been addressing her in person I would have definetly said "Miss Rand", however, I'll keep that in mind for this forum. 3. I did not choose Carl Jung specifically for rationality, but because, when applied, his psychological ideas worked for me. I don't claim that this is the path for everyone, by any means, but I often suggest it because it worked so well for me. His views often intuitively melded with my own, and so I found myself agreeing with him in many subjects. Not all, but enough to cite him as a major influence in my life. 4. It's only my first language, I'll get better Again, it was a joke...and, just in case you didn't catch it, the first sentence after the number 4 was too

I'm here to learn. That was an honest curiousity to me...the Ayn Rand bit. I prefer the unconsious mind according to Jung, as Freud seems to think everything is about sex in some way. To answer your question more fully, I'm here because I'd like to know the Objectivist response to many of those 'holes'. So I'll probably be posting in questions alot. I'm not out to attack Objectivism or Rand, I simply wish to understand how Objectivists think. Your answer is "objectively", I'm sure. However, my outlook is not objective, but independent (which is a contradiction to you, I'm aware).

I'm here to offer you completely unobjective (or is it?) and completely different advice: Take the focus off of her and put the spotlight on yourself. Here's how: Find a quiet space to think. Reflect on why you feel attracted to this woman. Don't be intellectual about it...or completely intellectual about it. Just find the traits and emotions that are creating the attatchment. Realize then that you are simply projecting yourself onto this woman. The only way to "understand" another person is through your own experiences recorded in your mind. You are simply putting your qualities that you normally deny or rarely think about in yourself onto this girl. In doing this, you will realize your potential to grow. You may find that what you like about her is completely opposed to what you view yourself as...that's actually quite normal, and a sign that you've actually found something. Remember then, that in the future, you can choose to be that way at any time. This won't make the pain of a letting go of an attatchment (which is all it is at this point) go away. But it will give you something positive out of the experience. My advice as far as the girl is simply this: Let go. You can still talk to her and be friends, but only in letting go of her will you set yourself free...and it isn't easy. Good luck. Peace, Love, and Understanding

How does Objectivism deal with the idea of the unconsious mind? If all of your thoughts are not cognitive how is it possible to be absolutely objective? Also, how does objectivism compensate for Rand's own biases? Or is Rand left unquestioned?

ENFP....but then, I'm not Objectivist. Also, I took this test about a week before signing up for this account. I had to dig through my LJ to find it. At any rate, most people look at this test the entirely wrong way. It's based on Carl Jung's archetypes, this is true, however when Jung speaks about Archetypes it is not the same as "Personality Type". Archetypes are stable, people are not. What the test is really measuring is a state of being in the moment you are taking the test. You probably won't jump from INTP to ENFJ every five minutes unless you're very emotionally unstable, but your "result" is likely to change over time. Also, the descriptions of each "type" vary from site to site. I see all the proof I need to know there is some validity to the test right here. All of you had a form of NT personality...or, almost all (and mostly rather similar). This is not surprising because Rand dictates a certain brand of psychology and philosophy...and since you all, or almost all, buy into her ideas your perspectives will be similar. Especially if you are focusing on them while taking the test. Though, as there is some validity I would NEVER suggest using it to hire people. Jung's idea of archetypes doesn't exactly match employers' ideas of how to hire. The test questions are intentionally vague, by the way, in order to force you to choose instinctively. Letting your unconsious mind do the work.

how do you do, good people of the Objectivist forum! A friend directed me here because we have many a discussion about Philosophy and such unimportant (or are they important?) topics! He's the objective one though...I'm just here for the ride. He's heavily influenced by Rand and I'm heavily influenced by....no, it's not Kant...Jung If I don't change my mind about much, try not to ...I am very curious about Objectivism, and I am starting to read Atlas Shrugged (which same said friend bought me). At any rate, I will see you around the less restrictive areas of the forum (some of these rooms have SO many rules)...for at least a little while.