My Life, My Land, My Home, My Wife, My Children, My Family!

[amicus]

Heh, interesting thread, but I take no credit for its inspiration (whereas a misunderstanding is the apparent cause). The excerpt from Rand sounds like an individualism manifesto to me, and I am certainly not contra to that--I love and revel in the individual, in the personal. I think group experiences are good only in the ways they add unique substance to the individual journey.

Initially, my distinction about possession (of loved ones) came from lack of need to own others, but it is in no means a shirking of self. I am an individual ("We are, too," shouts the Monty Python crowd), and because I have reached a particular point of sentience, I deserve to own certain important-to-me things. I own myself, including my attitudes, my fortune, my responsibilities, my mistakes, and with effort, my ability to correct my mistakes. I love owning them, and I, too, like Ayn, celebrate this fact and am wary of those who cannot identify with this earned aspect of my life.

But notice even she does not say, "Therefore, I can also own you." When this is done (even with the best intentions), this erroneously places oneself above someone else, and creates a false/superficial/at-best-temporary relation, attempting to take their individuality (or perhaps their chance to grow into an individual). So, I'd not claim a loved one as mine in any possessive sense. When I say "my <insert specific loved one here>" I mean it as an identifier only, that I have the fortune of relating to this person, hence I clarified in our PMs and named them as "companions" rather than "possessions." Hopefully, that is clearer (though probably not since I'm rushing so I can get back to work).

Not taking ownership is a whole other can of worms (opened in this thread). All reasonable people will understand how important personal responsibility is, hopefully, for I sure as hell won't take ownership for them.

PS: When Ayn talks about "this earth of mine", she isn't making an assumption of ownership, but of companionship. It influenced and nurtured and helped her grow into who she became, so she identified it as hers (hers to enjoy/appreciate/be a companion to/be a part of). That's my take, at any rate.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Hello again, Kev H, and thank you...I quoted your post because I can 'feel' the honest thought process you offer and perhaps it will gain another reader or so.

I have been asked to perform the marriage ceremony for my youngest son; I did it for my oldest son and can't very well decline...

Please know that my following comments, if they come out as I visualize them, are not intended to suggest women or children as 'chattel' or property.

Drawing upon what I have read and surmised about the species, a joining of a man and a woman, is more than two individuals agreeing to face the future together. It is also the friends and families of each that join, where past, present and future come together in a simple yet complex agreement.

It is also the community at large, or society, that will look upon those two in a different light, as a 'family', and thus change and act accordingly.

When a man chooses a mate, his individual life may stay basically the same or it may change a great deal When a woman says, 'yes', she is entrusting her future to her mate in many more ways than the man does.

In the normative world, each swears to respect and honor each other, and, in biblical terms, 'cleave only unto...' let me find an accurate quotation:

“Marriage is therefore God's first institution for the welfare of humanity.

It is ordained that a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, united in hope and aim and sentiment for all time.”

in taking the woman you hold by the right hand to be your lawful and wedded wife, before God and the witnesses present you must promise to love her, to honor her, to cherish her in that relation, and leaving all others cleave only unto her, and be to her in all things a true and faithful husband so long as you both shall live. Do you so promise?”

in taking the man you hold by the right hand to be your lawful and wedded husband, before God and the witnesses present you must promise to love him, to honor him, to cherish him in that relation, and leaving all others, cleave only unto him, and to be to him in all things a true and faithful wife so long as you both shall live. Do you so promise?”

***

Again, to restate, in a 'normative' world, marriage forms the basis for a 'family' the bearing, nurturing and raising of children to benefit the community and humanity in general.

Back to an earlier thought, that the woman has more invested in a marriage than does a man; although times have changed, the woman entrusts her mate to provide for her and her children. It is an earlier vision of the division of labor to facilitate an agreement, it is also the egoism, the self replication in a child, that will bear the looks and personality of both parents.

That oath, to share intimacies only with a chosen one and to reject all others, is intended to create a bond between not just the two, but the whole of society which will act to support and perhaps enforce that oath and bond.

There is also the matter of raising the children as a reflection of both the man and woman as the children will naturally copy and emulate the behavior of its parents.

My two sons and the are my sons, share features of mine in eye and hair color and even, to some degree, in dispostion and personality.

More than that, they carry my genes and chromosomes and will carry, already have, my unique existence into the future.

So, as I stated, not chattel or ownership, but certainly a special relationship between both the married couple and their offspring that easily justifies the description, 'my', wife and children.

I comprehend the dismay and distress of many, who must, as circumstances dictate, farm their children out to schools and daycare and babysitters and do not feel that special bond of 'your' children, as they have been raised and influenced by others.

There is also the touchy matter of sexual intimacy, 'cleaving', to address. The value of chastity and/or virginity upon entering marriage is no longer widely practiced; perhaps it never was. I met a married lady in her 40's who claimed pride that she had only had sex with eleven other men before she married.

There is a value, I suggest, in sharing intimacy with one who has not been calloused by a dozen previous encounters. It is something that cannot be hidden in a relationship; certain acts or movements to 'assume the position' or other relevant indications of previous experience, become a fact in modern relationships.

But for two people, a man and a woman, to learn sexual intimacy from each other, both for the first time, there is a special bond that brings them both together into a 'oneness', that is, by definition, unlike anything else one can experience and it can only be done once.

Thus, if one owns, 'oneself', when two become one...?

And thus, if a child reflects the parents in life and no one else...?

It may not be ownership, which the words my and mine imply; perhaps I am called upon to create a word that conceptually identifies that special relationship between both man and woman and child?

regards...

ami

 

[Kev H]

There is also the touchy matter of sexual intimacy, 'cleaving', to address. The value of chastity and/or virginity upon entering marriage is no longer widely practiced; perhaps it never was. I met a married lady in her 40's who claimed pride that she had only had sex with eleven other men before she married.

There is a value, I suggest, in sharing intimacy with one who has not been calloused by a dozen previous encounters. It is something that cannot be hidden in a relationship; certain acts or movements to 'assume the position' or other relevant indications of previous experience, become a fact in modern relationships.

But for two people, a man and a woman, to learn sexual intimacy from each other, both for the first time, there is a special bond that brings them both together into a 'oneness', that is, by definition, unlike anything else one can experience and it can only be done once.

Thus, if one owns, 'oneself', when two become one...?

And thus, if a child reflects the parents in life and no one else...?

It may not be ownership, which the words my and mine imply; perhaps I am called upon to create a word that conceptually identifies that special relationship between both man and woman and child?

regards...

ami

Sexual intimacy/fidelity...now here are loaded concepts I've been dwelling on recently (thanks to the turn of my writing, from both a novella and a short for Lit). In theory, I agree with your implications. There's nothing sweeter, more idealistic, than experiencing the magic of sexual relations for the first time with your life partner (presumably once the bond has been formalized through marriage, though surely not required). You'd learn and grow experienced together (personalized only to them), based on the mutual desire to rock your companion's world. Versus bringing in distracting side issues like performance concerns (how do I really compare to her past lovers, who were all experienced?) and your mentioned callousness (which is a sad, sad reality that perhaps only the thoughtful and already-calloused pick up on).

When that idealism hits reality though... Whew! Talk about a breeding ground for control/repression/judgment and more--a whole slew of less-than-noble traits. So, where's the wise middle ground? Perhaps it lies in personal (read: independent) understanding, where education among the young is geared to impart such a balanced understanding that any choice is made with full knowledge of potential emotional consequences. Of course, this is too much to hope for, so it still remains in the realm of the impractical. Are there any practical solutions between the extremes of repressive mandates and promoting short-term self-interests?

As for finding verbiage that does not reflect ownership, well, now we're getting back around to my initial point--why I was so careful with my phrasing. Not sure you have to go to such lengths as coining a term, but maybe it's needed to remove the historical baggage on the concept. Is that your thought? Otherwise, heh, this wonderful language has far too many unused/underutilized words already, with a flexible construction system that can get the job done. Take the simple word I used, for example: companion. I guess you'd have to be buried in the BDSM scene pretty heavily for that term to imply any sense of ownership. In fact, I sense the word has too little possession in it for most people's liking.

 

[amicus]

Kev K, allo again; read your response, liked it, thank you, the kind of discussion I wish were more common place here.

Your phrase, when idealism meets reality, is an interesting thought and I fully agree and understand.

The original thought, with the list of 'My', things, was to challenge not just the usual ecomomic and political foundation of most of this forum, but also the underlying pyschological implications of sacrificings one's individuality in personal and intimate matters and how that factors in.

My, there that word is again, loyal opposition socialists on this forum, whom I refer to as the 'usual suspects', seem convinced that a sacrifice of one's energy, expertise and effort to the greater good, is a value, a moral and ethical value that no one could disparage...of course I do so, on a regular basis.

Thus I thought to prick the balloon of collectivism at a more primative level, that of personal possessions; those things we all refer to as 'mine' instead of 'ours'.

There may be little practical value in such a discussion, aside from, as you referenced, story creation, and perhaps one or two that might reconsider how they educate their children or perhaps grand children.

It all comes down to values, those things we seek to acquire and possess, that add security and comfort, even pleasure to our individual lives. I maintain that those values are universal and individual, my opponents suggest that they are subjective and collective.

I shall be verbally drawn and quartered for mentioning Romeo and Juliet as an example, if fictional, of that special, one on one, male/female special and unique relationship worthy of dying for, or in a better sense of the metaphor, worth living for, in such a matter as to maintain and protect that value.

I tend to view each life, from the moment of conception, as an unique and special life, one to be cherished, protected and nurtured with those universal values that determine the quality of the humanity we share.

I suppose the above will be viewed as somewhat 'dry', but it is actually loaded with emotional content if one comprehends the nature of that which I speak.

I too am in the midst of creating a main character for a lengthy novel and his cool, withdrawn, intellectual approach to matters, need be tempered by a feisty female and he needs to find his pants around his ankles, so to speak.

I wish you well in your attempt...I trust you render me the same courtesy.



regards...

ami

 

[Kev H]

It all comes down to values, those things we seek to acquire and possess, that add security and comfort, even pleasure to our individual lives. I maintain that those values are universal and individual, my opponents suggest that they are subjective and collective.

Just a speculation here, but what if all four adjectives you mentioned (and others within that range) encompass legitimate values? Can a good value be universal while another equally good value be subjective? (I offer for examples, right to life versus tolerance.) And certainly a great value can be individual, while another works only with a collective. Perhaps disparaging one set is like removing the filling from a pie, or like mastering lust while ignoring love... Separate them and you have less than you had. Maybe?

I tend to view each life, from the moment of conception, as an unique and special life, one to be cherished, protected and nurtured with those universal values that determine the quality of the humanity we share.

Excepting the usual suspects?

I too am in the midst of creating a main character for a lengthy novel and his cool, withdrawn, intellectual approach to matters, need be tempered by a feisty female and he needs to find his pants around his ankles, so to speak.

I wish you well in your attempt...I trust you render me the same courtesy.

I've seen this happen, and it's wonderful for however long it lasts. And of course I do: happy writing to you.

 

[amicus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
It all comes down to values, those things we seek to acquire and possess, that add security and comfort, even pleasure to our individual lives. I maintain that those values are universal and individual, my opponents suggest that they are subjective and collective.

Just a speculation here, but what if all four adjectives you mentioned (and others within that range) encompass legitimate values? Can a good value be universal while another equally good value be subjective? (I offer for examples, right to life versus tolerance.) And certainly a great value can be individual, while another works only with a collective. Perhaps disparaging one set is like removing the filling from a pie, or like mastering lust while ignoring love... Separate them and you have less than you had. Maybe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
I tend to view each life, from the moment of conception, as an unique and special life, one to be cherished, protected and nurtured with those universal values that determine the quality of the humanity we share.

Excepting the usual suspects?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
I too am in the midst of creating a main character for a lengthy novel and his cool, withdrawn, intellectual approach to matters, need be tempered by a feisty female and he needs to find his pants around his ankles, so to speak.

I wish you well in your attempt...I trust you render me the same courtesy.

I've seen this happen, and it's wonderful for however long it lasts. And of course I do: happy writing to you.

~~~

And happy writing to you...your style here, reminds me of the absent Black Shanglan, with whom I shared many a civil debate on issues.

Your example, 'right to life versus tolerance', is one which carries far too much imbedded emotionalism on both sides to be addressed with reason. One could continue with 'examples', for instance, the 'death penalty', which also breaks along Party lines, so to speak, or one can search for an underlying premise upon which to base ones position on a variety of issues.

I would offer this: that tolerance and the acceptance of diverse opinions and lifestyles can be a good thing, if the issue or issues in question, do not violate a basic moral premise.

"Thou shalt not Kill", a biblical commandment, has its' counterpart in the laws of all societies across time and space. Without the religious imperative of a 'commandment', rational men and societies are left with the thorny problem of dealing with the concept on an intellectual basis, sans God.

And, no, I don't except the 'usual suspects', although they frustrate my sense of reason as they pick and choose issues without regard to consistency or congruency and often express contradictory opinions, a great big 'no-no', to a rational person.

There are no easy, simple, recipe's to moral certitude; if it were easy there would be no necessity to debate and discuss opposing opinions.

Always a pleasure

ami