Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Journals of Ayn Rand: Sucking out all the Goodness

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog

When I was a little boy sitting with my family after Sunday dinner, my grandfather, then in his seventies, would sit at the end of the table while everyone talked, and pick apart the roast, chicken or whatever was the main course of that meal. And I do mean he picked it apart. He'd dismantle a chicken bone by bone picking and chewing each one clean. To most of us today in our processed, boneless, nuggetized world of cheap and plentiful meat this might seem a bit off-putting, but to a man who supported a family of five through The Great Depression on a postman's salary, it is simply basic survival tactics. By the time I knew him, although he no longer needed to do it, it was an ingrained habit and I always got the sense he actually relished it. He used to needle me about how much "good stuff" I was "leaving behind" on my drumstick.

And as someone who has read Atlas, and The Fountainhead numerous times, along with all of Rand's non-fiction, I feel somewhat like him as I make my way through The Journals of Ayn Rand. It's the same sort of messy, picking through the scraps of Rand's thoughts, but oh the flavor! There's no plot or drama to hold your attention, but if you're willing to sort through it, what you'll find is amazing.

I was always in awe of Rand's writing as finished work, thinking it so perfectly composed and flawless, but a bit intimidating, as though it came from some superhuman being, springing perfectly formed from her mind. The Journals humanize Rand, not to bring her "down a notch" but to show how superlatively rational and tenacious she is, how brilliance does not spring forth fully formed, but rather manifests itself in the tenacious drive to think, connect, integrate, edit, chew and refine until it is perfectly formed.

At the same time even when constructions are still developing you can see the gems of her thought already present. Her own conviction to core ideas already more mature. Although I'm not half through it yet, I had to share with you some examples of my favorite little nuggets of juicy goodness.

I. in 1928 at age 23 (23!), only two years after coming to America, Rand made her first notes in English for a novel. It was a malevolent universe premised novel called The Little Street. It's hero was a criminal, but with Howard Roark's sense of life. Already her in her notes you can see the themes of The Fountainhead, and her early ideas for the concept of a "sense of life."

He has a wonderful "sense of living." He realizes that he is living, he appreciates every minute of it, he wants to live every second, he is unable to exists as other men do. He doesn't take life for granted and live as he happens to be living - just calm, satisfied, normal. For him, life [must be] strong, high emotion: he has to live "on top," "breathing" life, tense, exalted, active...

Most people lack [the capacity for] reverence and "taking things seriously." The do not hold anything to be very serious or profound. There is nothing that is sacred or immensely important to them. There is nothing - no idea, object, work, or person - that can inspire them with a profound, intense, and all-absorbing passion that reaches to the roots of their souls. They do not know how to value or desire...

The boy is just their opposite. He is all passion, will and uncompromised absolutes. He takes everything seriously. Life is very serious and sacred to him. And, as Nietzsche said: "The noble soul has reverence for itself."

II. Her beginning notes about The Fountainhead were about it's fundamental ideas. You can see how thorough she was and how grounded she was in the ideas that would ultimately drive her stories, even as she's still trying to form them properly.

If the higher values of life (such as all ethics, philosophy, esthetics, everything that results from a sense of valuation in the mental life of man) come from within, from man's own spirit, then they are a right, a privilege and a necessity - not a duty.

III. Her character notes are just delicious. We get to see her talking about her characters, from outside of them. Discussing the key aspects both spiritual and physical of them. Some of this stuff made it into the novel of course but some of it, written in the "he should be like this" form is new or complimentary material.

An important thing to remember and bring out in the book: while Howard Roark, at first glance, is monstrously selfish and inconsiderate of others - one sees, in the end, his great consideration for the rights of others (when they warrant it) and his ruthlessness only in major issues; while Peter Keating, at first glance, is unusually kink, thoughtful, considerate of others and unselfish - in the end, it is clear that he will sacrifice anyone and everyone to his own small ends, whether he has to or not. In other words those who show too much concern for others and not for themselves, have no true respect for either....

[Howard Roark:] Tall, slender,. Somewhat angular - straight lines, straight angles, hard muscles. Walks swiftly, easily, too easily, slouching a little, a loose kind of ease in motion as if movement requires no effort whatever, a body to which movement is as natural as immobility, without definite line to divide them, a light, flowing, lazy ease of motion, an energy so complete that i assumes the ease of laziness.... His clothes always disheveled, disarranged, loose and suggesting an unknown. No awkwardness but a certain savage unfitness for closthes. Definitly red, lose, straight hair, always disheveled...

A quick sharp mind, courageous and not afraid to be hurt, has long since grasped and understood completely that the world is not what he is. Consequently he can no longer be hurt. The world has no painful surprise for him, since he has accepted long ago just what he can expect from it. Indifference and an infinite, calm contempt is all he feels for the world and for other men who are not like him. He understand men thoroughly. And, understanding them he dismisses the whole subject. He knows what he wants and he knows the work he wants. That is all he expects of life. Being thoroughly a "reasons unto himself," he doe snot long for others of his kind for companionship and understanding...

Sex - sensuous in the manner of a healthy animal. But not greatly interested in the subject. Can never lose himself in love. Even his great and only love - Dominique Wynand - is not an all-absorbing, selfless passion. IT is merely the pride of a possessor.If he could not have her, it would not break him or affect him very deeply... His attitude toward Dominique is not: "I love you and I am yours." It's: "I love you and you are mine." It is primarily a feeling of wanting her and getting her, without great concern for the question of whether she wants it.

Nothing can really touch him. He is concerned only with what he does. Not how he feels. How he feels entirely a matter of his own, which cannot be influenced by anything and anyone on the outside.
His feeling is a steady, unruffled flame, deep and hidden, a profound joy of living and of knowing his power, a joy that is not even conscious of being joy, because it is so steady, natural and unchangeable
...

That last paragraph (bold mine) should have somehow made it into the novel, and I don't remember it. But it is stunningly great already.

IV. Her ruthless editing style is evident. Her desire to make sure everything integrates with her main ideas, that all character details contribute. After she finished a draft of Part I of The Fountainhead, in one of her editing steps she pulled out in outline form, each of the major details of each character in order so that she could examine them and see if what she had written developed each character consistently.

V. Finally for anyone who has ever been troubled by the rape scene in TF, I found this tidbit. There is not much commentary written by Rand on it, and many people I've known have had trouble with the scene. Over the course of reading and re-reading the scene I developed a sense of how I personally interpreted it, that the only reason Roark could be justified in committing such an act is that Dominique wants it to occur as a form of debasement, and he knows it. It's tough to tell from the actual prose since it is all so subtly suggested.

[For the scene by the granite quarry, when Roark and Dominique speak for the first time.]

His mockery in his quiet acceptance of the position she is imposing upon him - and when she attempts (faintly) to bring in the personal, it is he who refuses, sticking to the "Yes, Miss Francon" attitude of a respectful worker.

[Roark:] "You want me and I know it and I'll make it vile, to show you the enormity of your desire, because you'll want me still. I'm obedient to you now, I'm nothing before you - and it won't change things. I'll crush you in spite of it,

because
of it, when the time comes."

[Dominique:] "I have you in my power. I'll torture you. I enjoy it. I want you to know that. I enjoy debasing you, because I'm debasing myself through it, because you'll conquer me some day - I want it - I hate you and I'll punish you for it."

All this on what appears as a discussion of his living conditions and her interest in the workers.

Ha! I knew it! :)

If you're a fan of Rand, and you enjoy getting every little last drop of goodness out of her work, then The Journals of Ayn Rand will not disappoint.

233778292

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked up the Amazon page for this book, which referred me to this essay by Chris Matthew Sciabarra. According to Sciabarra, various editions of Ayn Rand's journals published by the Estate of Ayn Rand have significant differences in content and meaning. This is unfortunate, because it destroys the authenticity of the work. It might be acceptable if ARI made the original documents available, but since they do not, we have no way to know if these are really Ayn Rand's words, or someone's interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked up the Amazon page for this book, which referred me to this essay by Chris Matthew Sciabarra. According to Sciabarra, various editions of Ayn Rand's journals published by the Estate of Ayn Rand have significant differences in content and meaning. This is unfortunate, because it destroys the authenticity of the work. It might be acceptable if ARI made the original documents available, but since they do not, we have no way to know if these are really Ayn Rand's words, or someone's interpretation.

That is, if one trusts Sciabarra, the "dialectical libertarian" interpreter of Objectivism.

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006_04_01_monthly.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is, if one trusts Sciabarra, the "dialectical libertarian" interpreter of Objectivism.

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006_04_01_monthly.html

Yeah, I have to say, if Sciabara's scholarly integrity prevents him from citing the work, that can only be a good thing. The essay gives one point of evidence, and then an awful lot of arbitrary, "what else are they hiding?" sort of bunk.

Methinks the "scholar" who wants access to Rand's notes, and isn't granted it, doth protest too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall-

I thought I would post my response that I had originally posted on your blog, and suggest you put up your well-reasoned and sourced responses so all in the thread can discuss..

Yeah, I dove right into JoAR when I picked it up, it really is an amazing insight into her process and her discipline as an artist and thinker.

I'm curious about the independence aspect of her earlier heroes, for example in the excerpt on Roark, she seems to indicate that he doesn't need Dominique, and yet I can recall a scene in the novel where he admits to her freely that he does. Perhaps I'm thinking of a Rearden/Dagny scene, but either way, her views seem to change on the subject. I think early on she has a more simplistic, Neitzschean view of independence, where the idea of needing another person is a sign of weakness. At the same time she does qualify this by pointing out that she is specifically against an "all-absorbing, selfless passion" in her hero.

I think ultimately she modified her view of Roark as a person whom "Nothing can really touch", or perhaps she is referring to a certain part of him. But it seems to me in the novel that he does let Dominique into his life in a fundamental way.

Very interesting read in any case. I may have to dust it off and peruse again!

I should have time to pick this back up tomorrow morning..

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have to say, if Sciabara's scholarly integrity prevents him from citing the work, that can only be a good thing. The essay gives one point of evidence, and then an awful lot of arbitrary, "what else are they hiding?" sort of bunk.

Well I don't know much about Sciabra, but unless he is lying about the quotes he provides, I think the evidence stands on its own. It would be equally damning even if it was the exception, not the rule. Without access to the source, we have no way to know.

Methinks the "scholar" who wants access to Rand's notes, and isn't granted it, doth protest too much.

If the ARI wants the Archives to be a credible source for academic research, they can't impose ideological litmus tests for who gets to access them. It sounds like they only give access to editors working on ARI-sponsored projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't know much about Sciabra, but unless he is lying about the quotes he provides, I think the evidence stands on its own. It would be equally damning even if it was the exception, not the rule. Without access to the source, we have no way to know.

I'm not at all sure it would be equally damning if it was the exception. And the whole point, and why this argument falls flat to me, is that the source still exists. It's simply a matter of time.

If the ARI wants the Archives to be a credible source for academic research, they can't impose ideological litmus tests for who gets to access them. It sounds like they only give access to editors working on ARI-sponsored projects.

Well the Archives do have limited access from what I understand, and we can certainly debate that policy, but I'm not convinced that her journals ought to be the first things released, given her published works have yet to be widely disseminated and analyzed. Many of her formulations in her journals are crude and modify over time. Harriman makes specific point to call these discrepancies out and refer the reader to her published work where the issues is addressed. I would expect a WHOLE lot of out of context analysis of her in progress thoughts were these to be opened widely for academic research at this time.

Thanks, no. Sciabarra has hardly exhausted his analysis on her published works yet, and neither has the academic community. I can't say as I disagree with the policy.

Kendall-

I thought I would post my response that I had originally posted on your blog, and suggest you put up your well-reasoned and sourced responses so all in the thread can discuss..

I should have time to pick this back up tomorrow morning..

Scott

Thanks Scott, here's my response, at least for comparison to the journal entries.

"Coincidentally, that is the very reason I inserted that particular para on Roark. I think you are thinking of Reardon. Roark does express need, but it is not any sort of dependence. You have to read it very carefully. Galt also does not express his need this strongly. Reardon however, did. I'm not sure her views changed much, but this was definitely a contrasting statement to the way I originally read Roark. I think it is part of her view of masculinity / feminity as opposed to some fundamental idea around independence.

This is a conflicted Rearden to Dagny: "I held it as my honor that I would never need anyone. I need you. It had been my pride that I had always acted on my convictions. I've given in to a desire which I despise. It is a desire that has reduced my mind, my will, my being, my power to exist into an abject dependence upon you—not even upon the Dagny Taggart whom I admired—but upon your body, your hands, your mouth and the few seconds of a convulsion of your muscles."

But the next two I think still echo the same tone that Rand gives in her journals.

Roark to Dominique: "You'd rather not hear it now? But I want you to hear it. We never need to say anything to each other when we're together. This is—for the time when we won't be together. I love you, Dominique. As selfishly as the fact that I exist. As selfishly as my lungs breathe air. I breathe for my own necessity, for the fuel of my body, for my survival. I've given you, not my sacrifice or my pity, but my ego and my naked need. This is the only way you can wish to be loved. This is the only way I can want you to love me.

Rearden to Dagny: "I love you. As the same value, as the same expression, with the same pride and the same meaning as I love my work, my mills, my Metal, my hours at a desk, at a furnace, in a laboratory, in an ore mine, as I love my ability to work, as I love the act of sight and knowledge, as I love the action of my mind when it solves a chemical equation or grasps a sunrise, as I love the things I've made and the things I've felt, as my product, as my choice, as a shape of my world, as my best mirror, as the wife I've never had, as that which makes all the rest of it possible: as my power to live."

That's Rearden and Roark talking an awful lot of their love for the women in terms of themselves. [edit] at first reading it may not seem quite like that since the image for instance of needing air seems like a pretty strong "need", but read it carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great quotes, Kendall (I'm guessing you have the PC database.. wish they made that for the mac). Very briefly, I think the concept of "need" is a bit fluid throughout. Depending on the context, it would seem to mean different things. Ultimately I agree that there is no second-handed need or dependence per se in her characters, but what I take issue with is this statement, for example:

Sex - sensuous in the manner of a healthy animal. But not greatly interested in the subject. Can never lose himself in love. Even his great and only love - Dominique Wynand - is not an all-absorbing, selfless passion. IT is merely the pride of a possessor. If he could not have her, it would not break him or affect him very deeply... His attitude toward Dominique is not: "I love you and I am yours." It's: "I love you and you are mine." It is primarily a feeling of wanting her and getting her, without great concern for the question of whether she wants it.

I would argue that ultimately she did not present Roark as not deeply affected by his need for Dominique. As in Atlas, much of the tension of the plot comes from watching the heroes struggling mightily against their need and desire for Dominique and Dagny. Granted, what makes Rand's novels different is that that love is not the ultimate value, I think that's what she means when she says that love is not "all-absorbing" or "selfless". In any other novel, we would see Roark, Francisco, Rearden, and Galt compromising their own values and goals in order to have Dagny (ie, noncontextual romance).

I think if Rand had written Roark as she originally sketched him in those quotes, he wouldn't have been as compelling a character as he ended up being- complex, strong, but with a passionate emotional capacity (contrast this with Gary Cooper's robotic version of Roark who is more consistent IMO with that original sketch). I would like to go back and read that entire set of entries on Roark and TF to get a better picture of this, but my impression is that there were a lot of things that Rand developed and changed from her original notes and outline, and I would argue that this element is one of them.

I have to admit that I'm particularly interested in the subject as it is something that I'm struggling personally with right now. I have always considered myself to be very independent and strong, but having experienced a massively fulfilling, full-spectrum romance with an objectivist recently and having had to let it go for logistical reasons makes me question the idea of a rational man not being affected by such things. I am passionate about my music and that will always be the foundation of my happiness, but for me to say that I am just as happy now as I was when I was with her would just be straight-up bunk.

Perhaps this is something irrational I've internalized unknowingly. I think sometimes that even Objectivists can sometimes create an either-or dichotomy between work and love, but it seems that this quote:

Rearden to Dagny: "I love you. As the same value, as the same expression, with the same pride and the same meaning as I love my work, my mills, my Metal, my hours at a desk, at a furnace, in a laboratory, in an ore mine, as I love my ability to work, as I love the act of sight and knowledge, as I love the action of my mind when it solves a chemical equation or grasps a sunrise, as I love the things I've made and the things I've felt, as my product, as my choice, as a shape of my world, as my best mirror, as the wife I've never had, as that which makes all the rest of it possible: as my power to live."

..points to a continuity between the two where one can see the passion for work and for romance as part of the same whole. I will always find happiness in my work regardless of who appreciates it, but having known what it is to have that passion (or the fidelity to that passion) reflected romantically in an equal... let's just say it's extremely motivating :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ARI wants the Archives to be a credible source for academic research, they can't impose ideological litmus tests for who gets to access them. It sounds like they only give access to editors working on ARI-sponsored projects.

Not accurate. Here is Diana Hsieh's post about access to the archives.

Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by ideological litmus test. I 100% agree with a policy of excluding the Brandens, or Sciabarra, or David Kelley. But I doubt they would exclude some random libertarian or non-Objectivist.

As for the Sciabarra complaint, there is an innocent explanation for the difference between the two journal versions. AR wrote her notes twice. Once regular note writing, and then she would rewrite them chopping them down to essentials. Harriman mentions this in his preface. It's just as reasonable to think he used a different copy of her notes and didn't realize it as it is to think he did this on purpose. An email to Harriman would probably clear it all up quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that ultimately she did not present Roark as not deeply affected by his need for Dominique. As in Atlas, much of the tension of the plot comes from watching the heroes struggling mightily against their need and desire for Dominique and Dagny. Granted, what makes Rand's novels different is that that love is not the ultimate value, I think that's what she means when she says that love is not "all-absorbing" or "selfless". In any other novel, we would see Roark, Francisco, Rearden, and Galt compromising their own values and goals in order to have Dagny (ie, noncontextual romance).

I would argue the opposite, that in fact, she did portray Roark just as those passages would imply. The tension in the plots of Atlas and TF does not come from them struggling against their need for Dominique and Dagny, and I'd like to see this illustrated with some concrete passages or your thoughts on this.

My interpretation of Rand's journal passages is not that she is saying that Roark doesn't value Dominique highly, nor that he doesn't feel strong emotions for her, but rather she's speaking of the character's psychological response relative to his other values and his own view of himself.

Roark actually pretty calmly understands the fact that Dominique is struggling with her mind-body dichotomy, and he let's her do it. He even let's her hurt him in the process and he takes that all pretty amazingly well.

I have to admit that I'm particularly interested in the subject as it is something that I'm struggling personally with right now. I have always considered myself to be very independent and strong, but having experienced a massively fulfilling, full-spectrum romance with an objectivist recently and having had to let it go for logistical reasons makes me question the idea of a rational man not being affected by such things. I am passionate about my music and that will always be the foundation of my happiness, but for me to say that I am just as happy now as I was when I was with her would just be straight-up bunk.

Well, I've thougth about this a lot recently as well, and for the same reasons.

One thing to think about is that her heroes are idealized. In this case I think it manifests itself as a very strong integration between their rational evaluations and their emotional responses, almost instantaneous in fact. I think her principles about what love means to a healthy psychology are still correct. However, in her hereos we see it occur almost instantaneously, whereas in real life, it takes time for our automated emotional responses to catch up and become fully integrated with what we already know to be true.

Let me illustrate. By your quote above [in bold]. Are you saying that if you never meet another woman like the one you lost that you will always be less happy than you were with her, for the rest of your life? Think about that hard. To say there were logistical reasons is still to say that (if you weighed this rationally) that there were factors that would cause you to have to compromise some higher value in order to pursue the relationship. Maybe the time taken away from your music to pursue the relationship might have been too much. If that was rationally weighed, then you should be happier now (or at least at some point in the future) than you would have been had you pursued the relationship. Part of the emotional response we have is left over. It is either us needing to de-automate reactions that now do not integrate with our value choices, or it is us continuing to want our cake and eat it too. Now these can be very powerful emotional responses and having to deautomate them can make us very sad, but the fact remains that no love will consume you. You will find a way to go on, and in fact to be as happy as you could possibly be (given your value choices).

I think that Rand's heroes are very quickly able to get their emotions and their reason integrated. There is evidence for all of that in the books.

Fransisco resolves his love to Dagny when she is in the valley almost immediately.

The first time Reardon talks to Dagny after she returns from the valley and he knows she loves Galt he is fine with it.

So maybe you will take some time to get to that point, but you will get there (if you live rationally). Roark gets there immediately. That is what Rand means when she says that love cannot consume him, that it will never afffect him that deeply. It is also the thing we should strive for, ie. to have our emotions quickly get in line with our rational evaluations.

Twenty years ago, I had a relationship that took me over a year to get over. This was even after I knew that the split was for the best. My most recent breakup though, after I had worked through the rational evaluation of it, emotions started disappearing within hours, and I suspect it'll take only weeks to be fully emotionally integrated with it. And in fact, the most recent one affected me emotionally, when I was in it, much, much more strongly than the one twenty years ago. I think that is what one wants to strive for, and when they do, they'll response much in the way Rand characterized her heroes.

Perhaps this is something irrational I've internalized unknowingly. I think sometimes that even Objectivists can sometimes create an either-or dichotomy between work and love, but it seems that this quote:... points to a continuity between the two where one can see the passion for work and for romance as part of the same whole. I will always find happiness in my work regardless of who appreciates it, but having known what it is to have that passion (or the fidelity to that passion) reflected romantically in an equal... let's just say it's extremely motivating :P

Rand does not in any way comment on the absolute magnitude of the emotions that can influence us when we are in romantic love with someone. These can be very powereful. However, she does comment on them relative to our most fundamental value choices. Healthy romantic love will never consume you. It will always balance out relative to our more fundamental purpose, if we are living healthily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but rather she's speaking of the character's psychological response relative to his other values and his own view of himself.

If that was rationally weighed, then you should be happier now (or at least at some point in the future) than you would have been had you pursued the relationship.

I agree with your first statement but I don't think it leads the second.

What I derive as a value from being a mother is not the same kid of benefit which I derive from my productive work or romantic relationship. The loss of great value in one area is not possible to be recompensated by more in another - it can not make you happier... The loss of value however is possible to overcome. Recognizing that your life's happiness is your ultimate value and all of the other ones are just means of achieving it - you only let the pain reach so deep... and not an inch deeper, or at least not for very long. You let yourself grief and in time you move on. It is a choice that you make, choice driven by your commitment to your ultimate purpose.

Fransisco resolves his love to Dagny when she is in the valley almost immediately.

Which does not mean that, emotionally, he stopped being volunerable immediately. What you see is acceptance of reality by a man of unbreached self esteem.

It is also the thing we should strive for, ie. to have our emotions quickly get in line with our rational evaluations.

Yes but...

If you valued something through rational evaluation you would recognize the loss of a great value and thus your emotional response, as a valuer, should be that of grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on the nature of the original topic, that of discovering the humanity in an idealistic woman (in the sense o' life sort of way, not the philosophical sense), the ARI sent out an email to subscribers, which, if you're not subscribed to, I'll share with you here:

Facets of Ayn Rand now available on Web

Readers of Ayn Rand's works are often eager to know what the author was like as a person. What was the character and personality of one who could conceive such grand ideas, and present them so memorably and powerfully in novels like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead?

To help shed light on these subjects, the Ayn Rand Institute is proud to introduce a new Web site offering the complete text of Facets of Ayn Rand, a memoir by Mary Ann and Charles Sures, two longtime friends of Ayn Rand.

The book, presented in interview form, brings to light many aspects of Ayn Rand, from her approach to communicating ideas to friends, to her cats and her love of stamp collecting, to her marriage to Frank O'Connor and the joy she found in his art.

As Mrs. Sures explains at the book's beginning, "We want to preserve our recollections of Ayn Rand and our evaluation of her. Few people knew her for as long as we did—I for twenty-eight years and Charles for almost twenty. She was an extraordinary thinker and person, and we knew her in both capacities. In the years to come, people will be asking the same question they ask about her today: what was Ayn Rand like as a person, in her private life? We can answer that question."

The presentation of this book on the Web at no cost is made possible by the generous permission of Mary Ann Sures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your first statement but I don't think it leads the second.

What I derive as a value from being a mother is not the same kid of benefit which I derive from my productive work or romantic relationship. The loss of great value in one area is not possible to be recompensated by more in another - it can not make you happier... The loss of value however is possible to overcome. Recognizing that your life's happiness is your ultimate value and all of the other ones are just means of achieving it - you only let the pain reach so deep... and not an inch deeper, or at least not for very long. You let yourself grief and in time you move on. It is a choice that you make, choice driven by your commitment to your ultimate purpose.

Which does not mean that, emotionally, he stopped being volunerable immediately. What you see is acceptance of reality by a man of unbreached self esteem.

Yes but...

If you valued something through rational evaluation you would recognize the loss of a great value and thus your emotional response, as a valuer, should be that of grief.

Sophia,

In general we agree, so I'm not quite sure yet what it is that you think that I'm saying that you are countering.

Plus I'm curious to see if you agree then with exaltron that Rand did not then portray her characters the way she wrote them in her journal entries. I think both your and my statements are congruent with Rands statesments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious to see if you agree then with exaltron that Rand did not then portray her characters the way she wrote them in her journal entries. I think both your and my statements are congruent with Rands statesments.

I have not read her journals aside from what you posted here so I can't say.

But..

Rand's characters did have passionate emotional capacity. Yes... they did not allow themselves to be destroyed by a loss but it does not mean that they did not feel it. Remember that scene, when Francisco came to say goodbye to Dagny? He was tortured, in unbearable pain. He was going through a struggle!

Then Dagny's emotional struggle after:

She survived it. She was able to survive it, because she did not believe in suffering. She faced with astonished indignation the ugly fact of feeling pain, and refused to let it matter. Suffering was a senseless accident, it was not part of life as she saw it. She would not allow the pain to become important. She had no name for the kind of resistance she offered, for the emotion from which the resistance came from; but the words that stood and its equivalent in her mind were: It does not count...

She knew these were the words, even in the moments when there was nothing left within her but screaming and she wished she could loose the faculty of consciousness so that it would not tell her that what could not be true was true...

She fought it. She recovered. Years helped her to reach the day when she could face her memories indifferently...

Years...

So, they felt a loss and pain like any human being would. They just assumed a position of control (like in every other aspect of their life). That resistance to making the pain matter (eventhough they felt it) came from their life force; it came from their granting pain less importance in life than happiness.

How inspiring!

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read her journals aside from what you posted here so I can't say.

But..

Rand's characters did have passionate emotional capacity. Yes... they did not allow themselves to be destroyed by a loss but it does not mean that they did not feel it. Remember that scene, when Francisco came to say goodbye to Dagny? He was tortured, in unbearable pain. He was going through a struggle!

First of all, no one is arguing that Rand's characters didnt' have a passional emotional capacity. Do you think that any of what you say is contradicted by what Rand write? If not, then why the "but"? I'm really curious as to what it is that you think you are saying that I'm not...

As to Fransisco's pain, the Rand journal passage specifically discusses Roark's perspective relative to Dominique. In that scene, Fransisco was facing more than just giving up Dagny. He was being asked to give up everything. He was being asked to abandon his own company, destroy it. It is not an example of what we're talking about here.

So, they felt a loss and pain like any human being would. They just assumed a position of control (like in every other aspect of their life). That resistance to making the pain matter (eventhough they felt it) came from their life force; it came from their granting pain less importance in life than happiness.

How inspiring!

It is terribly inspiring. How is it different from what Rand writes? She writes that Roarks love for Dominique is not an "all-consuming, selfless passion..." Is that not what you've described here?

I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're debating me, yet I don't know what your position is. What do you take issue with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really curious as to what it is that you think you are saying that I'm not...

I thought that you were implying that Rand's characters were not deeply emotionally affected by a loss of love and that they got rid of those emotions fast (and you have offered their integration as an explanation). I don't think they stopped having those emotions quickly, instead, that they did not allow their emotions to affect their actions in a negative way. So it is not not feeling but rather not acting.

If I misunderstood you - I apologize. I wanted to make this distinction clear.

In that scene, Fransisco was facing more than just giving up Dagny. He was being asked to give up everything. He was being asked to abandon his own company, destroy it. It is not an example of what we're talking about here.

I think that scene is mostly about giving up Dagny because he knows she is not ready to give up Taggart Transcontinental yet. She is a big part of his struggle in that moment. His first response to her: What can't you give up? was: You and then he said: And everything. Knowing how precise Rand was the sequence of his responses is not insignificant here.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interpretation of Rand's journal passages is not that she is saying that Roark doesn't value Dominique highly, nor that he doesn't feel strong emotions for her, but rather she's speaking of the character's psychological response relative to his other values and his own view of himself.

I think whether you say they felt strongly, but "did not allow their emotions to affect them in a negative way", or whether they stopped having them quickly, it is to say the same thing I'm saying above. Quickly is a relative term, and the fact that "one day" they came to the point where there emotions did not any longer affect them that way, whether it is years or not reflects the fact that, as Rand said in her journal that "if he [Roark] could not have her, it would not break him or affect him very deeply."

In exaltron's case, even though the type of fulfilment he gets from one face of his life, and another are not the same, he ultimately made a decision based upon some ultimate combination of the two. Some ultimate long term value judgement. I called that his ultimate happiness. That doesn't mean he shouldnt feel loss now, but it does mean that at some point in time he will not, and as a result, he should not let his emotions as you say affect him in a negative way.

I view grief a bit differently than you do. It is made up of many things, most of which have to do with untangling our automated emotional responses to our valuing of someone. One component of that grief certainly is a continued valuing of something, but that component remains long after grief is gone. That is, we learn how to value something for what it was. That is generally a joyful (if poignant) feeling, and I'm not sure it is the basis of grief. Most of grief is us wishing things were not what they were.

If you look at how Fransisco responds to Dagny in the valley, he is valuing her, but that is not grief.

If you look at what Rearden says to Dagny the first time he sees her after she returns, after he has spent sleepless weeks searching for her, and after he has heard her in her radio address refer to his relationship with her in the past tense. What he expresses is value, not grief.

To me grief is separating an emotional whim to have things as they were, from the true expression of a high value which is to go forward valuing them in the only way reality leaves open to you. That certainly takes time, and it certainly does not try to belittle the depth or extent of the feelings incurred, nor that they should not incur. BUt it certainly is true that such emotion cannot be all-consuming, since you arrive intact at the other end of the process. In fact, you will the process forward in order to do so.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kendall and Sophia, just wanted to apologize for letting this get away from me and thank both of you for your insight into this highly complex issue. Without going back and responding point by point to all your posts, I would say I generally agree with the approach you are both taking, but I would still argue that Rand did alter her idea of a heroic man from one who was "not deeply affected by love" to one who- as you both pointed out- is deeply affected, but through force of will and rational thought, does not allow himself to be overcome or fundamentally held back by his grief.

KendallJ:

I view grief a bit differently than you do. It is made up of many things, most of which have to do with untangling our automated emotional responses to our valuing of someone. One component of that grief certainly is a continued valuing of something, but that component remains long after grief is gone. That is, we learn how to value something for what it was. That is generally a joyful (if poignant) feeling, and I'm not sure it is the basis of grief. Most of grief is us wishing things were not what they were.

I remember when I was really struggling with the loss of love recently, I began writing a song about that specific concept of being able to value someone even though they are no longer in your life. It was then that I started to understand the difference between what I was feeling now, which was sadness and loss over something that was wonderful and rational, as opposed to what I had felt in the past which was anger, resentment, frustration over relationships that ended senselessly and felt like an irrational waste of time. I think this couplet:

And if this sweet sorrow is the cost

Then I know it's really something that I've lost

sums up what I feel about that relationship most of the time. As much as the concept of "sweet sorrow" isn't necessarily compatible with the concept that pain doesn't matter and has no meaning, I used poetic license to delineate the difference between the type of senseless pain that is the product of irrational premises and the type of pain that is worth suffering and getting past, with the understanding that the love I experienced far outweighed the disappointment of having to let it go.

I think that may be a departure from what you're describing above, Kendall. And in my worst moments I definitely have experienced what some might call "too much wishbone and not enough backbone". Perhaps this is a symptom of having had the experience of conjuring my ideal woman in song and then having that ideal fulfilled (So much for The Secret..). But seriously, I think this may be one of hardest lessons I'm learning from Objectivism- that even when you do everything right and are completely honest, sometimes things just don't go your way, and you have to accept that and move on.

KendallJ:

To me grief is separating an emotional whim to have things as they were, from the true expression of a high value which is to go forward valuing them in the only way reality leaves open to you. That certainly takes time, and it certainly does not try to belittle the depth or extent of the feelings incurred, nor that they should not incur. BUt it certainly is true that such emotion cannot be all-consuming, since you arrive intact at the other end of the process. In fact, you will the process forward in order to do so.

Agree. I'm still not convinced that this is consistent with Rand's notes on Roark, but I am beginning to see how she was more focused on the idea of Roark being independent to the extent that he couldn't be broken by love, that he wouldn't compromise or dilute his values for love. I think perhaps the phrase "Nothing can really touch him" is what I bristle at. I don't think she means that he is not capable of love, emotion, loss, grief, etc., but that is why I would argue that such a statement belongs in the notes and not in the novel.

Ultimately, I think the elements of Rand's fiction that depict the heroic struggle that it should require to get past the loss of someone who truly reflects your values on all levels have much more resonance for me than those that depict her characters moving on without any untangling of emotions. I suppose it's just hard for me to believe that anyone who has lived with integrity their entire lives and then experienced a relationship that entails a manifestation of that fidelity to one's values, can experience the massive complexity of emotions and the "letting go of the reins" that I believe is proper to such a relationship, without having to do some serious work to get over it. At the very least I think the "maiden voyage" would tend to be a rough one.

I'm certain that my next relationship will be much smoother in that it won't represent the fulfillment of something I didn't even know was possible. Kendall, I think you mentioned that your recent relationship was much easier to get over; I wonder if this wasn't a function of having experienced something similar in a previous relationship and having known that life goes on?

~Sophia~:

So, they felt a loss and pain like any human being would. They just assumed a position of control (like in every other aspect of their life). That resistance to making the pain matter (eventhough they felt it) came from their life force; it came from their granting pain less importance in life than happiness.

How inspiring!

It certainly is helping me these days. As new-agey as it sounds, I actually find value in the struggle I've had over the past few months. It's taught me a lot about who I am and where I can find strength when I need it. For any Objectivist who hasn't experienced it, I highly recommend getting your heart stomped on by a real life Dagny or Galt :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But seriously, I think this may be one of hardest lessons I'm learning from Objectivism- that even when you do everything right and are completely honest, sometimes things just don't go your way, and you have to accept that and move on.

How right you are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...