i read all these posts on ayn rand. i've not read anything by her. i have a
friend who is a professor and teaches literature and composition. i
mentioned ayn rand's name the other day to her and she was very interested.
so i explained the discussion the list had running at the time and finally,
since i couldn't remember the details, i forwarded a few of the threads to
her. she responded to me and i felt her comments, especially on joni toward
the end were very interesting.
she read harper lou's post, clark's post, and colin's post. now, she wants
to know how to join the list and i'm all discombobulated about it. i mean,
...how can i have my in the flesh friends overlap with my cyber friends?
it's too much for me to consider today. nonetheless, i felt i should share
her comments with y'all.
patrick
np. natalie merchan - tiger lillies
but here are a few thoughts for you on these guys' posts:
~clark said~
<>
It's interesting that in arguing against a need for a spiritual life, clark
offers a most respectable apologia for that very life--what is the spiritual
life if not an appreciation of and quest for the mysteries? whether
approaching it from science or religion, this search is part of our nature.
we are spiritual beings, seeking to experience and/or understand the
mystery/mysteries of life. it's in us and around us. there's no way out of
it except through it.
~colin said~
<<Even when the motive is love of others, it is still a selfish act. The
worst kind of life and the most painful, is one spent only taking. Without
giving there
is no keeping. The only way to have love is to give love. If you doubt the
truth of
getting what you give, look around the world and it's troubles and tell me
where giving
hatred resulted in receiving love in return. Tell me where giving judgement
resulted
in love received. Tell me where taking resulted in love received. Tell me
where
condemnation resulted in love receieved. Tell me where arrogance resulted in
love received.>>
i can see why you like what clark said better. and i'm too tired right now
to find the right words, but it's his premise(s)--it seems he's using
circular logic: if you're selfish, you're selfish. if you're altruistic,
you're really selfish because you're being altruistic for selfish
reasons--feeling good--not for the purpose of being altruistic.
there's selfishness that actively destroys others. and then there's the
other kind--the "selfishness" (some call it altruism) that provides good
things for all parties involved. carl sagan touches the issue in an essay
called "the rules of the game." he talks about the zero-sum model of
win-lose propositions, and how we so often view everything in life in
win-lose terms. and he talks about the realities of lose-lose propositions
(nuclear war) and win-win propositions (art, music, love, friendship). to
see all giving or altruism as ultimately selfish is, i think, to view life
through that narrow, zero-sum (win-lose) window and to miss the richer
possibilities.
and this is where harper lou was all wrong about comparing rand with
joni--rand was very dualistic, but joni sees the truth of and in the depths
and layers. and i think the bursting of this kind of dualistic thinking is
at least part of her point in "both sides now"--there's more to clouds and
life and love and happiness (or not) than false win-lose dualities. it's not
a black and white, either/or win-lose-only world. there're always really
more sides than 'both,' and if we try to understand only in those dualistic
terms, we'll ultimately figure out--if we're really honest--that we just
don't get it at all.
(nouwen would talk about how we need to work at giving gratuitously--not
expecting to receive from the person to whom we've given, but trusting in the
broader picture that what we need will be given to us--but probably via
someone else. i'm not sure colin's model here has room for this either).
