From: Jim Baranski <BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Ayn Rand, Open vs. Closed Polyamory
Organization: Lanman Hill Farm, Norwich CT
Date: 2 Sep 1992 09:15:33 EST

RE: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)

<Ayn Rand>

"Or her eugenics..."

Excuse me? *what* are you talking about???  If you're going to make wild
accusations like that, please substantiate them.

"We already have 'ideal' capitalism so why bother with enlightend capitalism.
Neather fills the bellies of the needy, except as required to keep them in
check."

We do not have anything like an "ideal" capitalism.  We have a select bunch of
bozos who keep monkeying with our economic system...  Who keep 'the needy' from
finding jobs, places to live, etc, including food.

"There is no objectivity...   It may be that some other, outside my self, that
can 'approximate' a objective observer"

You contradict yourself.  Objectivity is an ideal.  Everyone is subjective to
some degree, but it makes a very usefull reality check to ask yourself
occasionally, 'Is what I think saw, really what happened?'  'Is my reaction to
what I think I saw appropriate to what is really going on?'

"Oh, give me a break! Read Abram Maslow, Eric Fromm, and a few other 'jewish'
writers, which would make Ayn roll over in her grave. The 'women's' movement
applied these principles very well to move women from the state of having to
'validate' their actions with some 'man'."

Give *me* a break!  I haven't read A.M.  I had read a few tidbits of Eric Fromm
in college, but I don't remember being very impressed.  The 'women's' movement
is unwilling to apply the concepts that have been so usefull to them in their
treatment of other people, so I am also less then impressed by the official
feminist movement.

"'Objectivism' really is nothing new and does not really forcefully have a
'peaceful' coexistence as its goal."

It certainly does.  One of the important concepts is that people should be left
alone to work towards those goals in their life that *they* hold important,
rather then some socially impose goals...

"Personally, I dislike Rand's books, ..."

So it seems...  The rest of your response wasn't very helpfull...

RE: slf@netcom.com (Sharon Fisher)

"I like some of her books.  Meaning, there's portions of them I like. I find
them inspiring.  When the world seems populated by incompetent bozos who get in
my way, I tend to go re-read either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.  Yes,
there's holes in her philosphy and she tends to make certain assumptions about
her characters' motivations, but that's true for practically any novelist."

Ayn Rand's stories are 'larger then life'.  Her heros, are heroic, and the bad
guys are scummy little villains.

"However, all the "you are responsible for your own actions" part aside, dunno
how applicable polyamory is to Rand, or vice versa.  I can't think of any
healthy polyamorous relationships in her books; Dominique gets raped and likes
it..."

Agreed...  Now supposedly, the rationale behind this is that these 'highly
principled' people go to extreme lengths for things/principles that are
important to them.  *I* think they're screwed up.

"And then there's Ayn Rand's personal life herself, where she had a long-term
affair with the husband of one of her best friends...you can read all about
that in The Passion of Ayn Rand, written by the best..."

Unfortunately, the rest of this got cut off... who is this written by?

RE: Fidelity

Someone said a while ago that a couple asking another couple to be
polyfidelious with them was "couple monogamy".  Well, that's not what "poly"
"amory" means.  "Poly" means more then one; four is certainly more then one.
a loving relationship between two couples or four people is certainly "poly",
whether it is an "open" relationship or not...

The difference here is whether the relationship is "open" or not, and some
people may not want to be limited to a 'closed' set of people.  That's fine for
them.  Myself, I'm interested in 'poly', but I'm not interested in 'open season
on anything that moves'.

Similiarly, another person complained that giving your partner 'veto' over
other relationships was 'a polyamorous relationships acting like a monogamy'.
Again, I don't think so.  I think this is another issue of 'closed/open'ness.
I can imagine a veto arrangement being horrible if it is used to control
another person.  

On the other hand, I would prefer that all my loves be interconnected; rather
then singly connected only through me.  I want my loves to love each other, so
allowing a partner to express their feelings about a new person (not as a
control issue) and allowing that to guide my actions is important to me.  I
would want the same respect.  Consider this a 'soft' veto.

Jim.

James Baranski            | It's Not Easy Keeping Vaxen Working ...  Underwater!
Vax Systems Analyst       | BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL 203-440-6510, 889-4968
Lanman Hill, Norwich CT   | Be: Thoughtfull, Honest, Yourself, Happy