Hi David,

I appreciate your comments to our discussion and I enjoyed them. I
responded to them below.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "David Thomas Jackemeyer"
<Olehenry1@...> wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> > > On 11/05/2008 10:29 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> > > Hello everyone,
> > > As I described in my previous post, I will be sharing my thoughts
> > > and experiences while studying Nathaniel Branden's works.
> >
> > And I first want to express my thanks and high esteem for your candid
> > and fully identified expression of your thoughts on such personal matters.
> >
> > > First, I
> > > should point out that I have just completed his book "Breaking Free –
> > > How to cut the bonds of childhood that are keeping you from reaching
> > > your full adult potential". This book as a whole was very
> > > interesting because a theme throughout the book was Branden's
> > > insistence that most parents, through action or inaction, do a great
> > > deal of psychological harm to their children in one way or another.
> > > This point was especially interesting to me because, while I consider
> > > my childhood to have been "mediocre" as an environment that is
> > > conducive for children to develop into independent, rational, well-
> > > adjusted adults, I hadn't realized that the lack of a good home
> > > environment was so prevalent. Branden reiterates his conviction that
> > > most home environments lack what he would consider a "healthy
> > > environment".
> >
> > My own view is that this, "healthy environment" relative to growing
> > children, is a deteriorating situation, in general even worse than when
> > I was a child (and I do not consider my own growing-up environment
> > particularly good but then neither was it highly negative). I think this
> > is entirely to be expected based on all other trends of society and is
> > one of the reasons why I am concerned about the course of current
> > civilization.
> >
> > > In the context of this "healthy environment", the book
> > > mainly focuses on the behavior of parents in that environment, and
> > > how parental behavior can effect a child's (and the resulting
> > > adult's) behavior. A very important aspect of this interaction
> > > between a parent's behavior and the child's behavior as an adult is
> > > that when the child becomes an adult s/he *is often unaware that s/he
> > > is behaving in a manner that is harmful to hirself*.
> >
> > What this means in practice is that the child has only nominally become
> > an adult (age 21, out on one's own, earning one' living, etc). Full
> > adulthood is a "becoming" process, something that is never completely
> > attained (as with a mathematical curve that approaches a certain line
> > asymptotically). Unfortunately few people continue with the "becoming"
> > process, but rather remain as stunted children all their lives. Full
> > human life must necessarily involve mental growth and development,
> > which is why I often state that "Most people are dead by the time they
> > are 30".
>
> Is not "being an adult" the time after which a non-adult crosses a
> social boundary by claiming full responsibility for hir actions,
> therefore ceasing to be a child of other adult(s). This is a social
> expression, a way of reaching out to others who also claim self-
> responsibility, and, when two or more such individuals intentionally
> interface, a social contract is formed.

I think this is a great description of what might define an "adult" -
the social boundary one crosses that marks the time after which one is
expected to be fully responsible for hir actions. I find it
unfortunate that, while this "social boundary" is considered by many
to be after the attainment of age 18 or 21, the person achieving such
age is often not treated any differently. This was true in my
experience. For example, when one reaches the age of "adulthood", the
new "adult" should be treated as though they can make hir own
decisions - decisions which must be respected by others. I have
experienced that, after crossing both of these "adulthood thresholds",
many elders in in my family do not treat me as though I am capable of
making well-rationed decisions on my own. I wonder if this lack of
respect for the autonomy of a new adult has a negative impact on the
new adult's efficacy in dealing with reality. In other words, if mama
bird never lets the baby bird out of the nest, baby bird will never
fly on hir own. It may be difficult for mama bird to watch baby bird
fly away (and maybe run into a branch or fall), but mama bird has to
let baby bird make hir own decisions, learn, and grow into a bird that
can feed itself.

> Paul explains both the individual's self responsibility in Social
> Meta Needs and the individual's social responsibilities in the
> Natural Social Contract, and I'm confident we agree, both childhood
> and adulthood are defined, with the adults being the parties to the
> contract and fully responsible for the social interactions of their
> children.

I understand this to be true.

> The paragraph above by Paul can be misunderstood that adulthood is
> defined as unreachable, that all humans are children-becoming-adults
> that can be compared along a continuum from stunted to advanced
> children.
> Instead, I think it is important to define "adult" as the time period
> that a human claims to have freed hirself from parent(s) and is
> taking full responsibility for hir existence and activities.

Again, this is a good point to address. I admit that I have not read
all of the material regarding the NSC and selfsip documents (the issue
I discuss next may be discussed in parts of the material I have not
yet read). However, I think it is very important to determine when
"adult" status begins, especially because the new "adult" will be
expected to assume the accompanying responsibilities of being an
autonomous, self-sovereign individual. When a child understands that
there will come a time when s/he must be fully responsible for hir
actions, the child can better understand what is to be prepared for
prior to that time, what actions should be taken, which tasks s/he
should be capable of performing, etc.

OTOH (on the other hand), our discussion here is on an *age* at which
a child assumes *all* responsibilities of adulthood. Perhaps this
definition of adulthood is biased due to previous experiences or
"conventional wisdom". Perhaps there is an alternative. Perhaps a
child, throughout hir life, gradually assumes responsibility with
regard to an increasing number of issues related to hir existence.
Furthermore, the "schedule" upon which the child will assume these
responsibilities is decided by the parent. For example, a parent might
determine that age 6 hir children will assume the responsibility of
washing the dishes. At age 7 hir children must also be responsible for
cleaning hir room. At age 8, hir children become fully responsible for
cleaning the laundry the child uses. And so on. This is done by many
households currently, in the form of "chores". However, I think it may
go even further. Perhaps at age 16 the child might be required to
assume the responsibility to pay for hir own food, either by way of
work or through an employment contract with the parent(s). This
*gradual* assumption of increasingly important life responsibilities
would help the child to grow in a step-wise fashion, rather than
having *full* responsibility "dumped" on them at some predetermined
age. I think this gradual method may be especially useful because it
seems to me that very many young adults have had *very little*
responsibility up until age 18 and are *not* prepared to be fully
responsible for *everything* at that time. As an analogy, one is more
prepared to give a presentation when one spends a little bit of time
practicing it each day for a week prior, rather than spending 10 hours
preparing for it the night before.

> There could instead be two becoming processes, one describing the
> ascension from childhood to adulthood and another describing the
> continued improvement vis-à-vis the rate of happiness achieved by the
> adult. (was this a good use of vis-à-vis?)

I agree that it seems to be two separate processes at work: (1) the
process that a child increases hir responsibility for hirself,
eventually resulting in the child's assumption of full-responsibility
and (2) the constant improvement and development processes that take
place during one's life.

I am not familiar with the use of the phrase "vis-a-vis".

> Here's a terrifying thought (similar disappointment expressed by
> fictional character Cherryl Taggart, Atlas Shrugged: Part III, Ch 4.
> Anti-Life): there is clear evidence that many Americans and probably
> most of the world's 21+ (age group) individuals are de facto children
> to their respective governments and insurance programs, hugging
> tightly to the benefits handed to them through a convoluted maze (tax-
> funded services) which binds superior producers to their respective
> local governments of moochers, who in turn "milk the cow" and leave
> leftover crumbs to the stunted children.

That is a terrifying thought, more terrifying in that it accurately
illustrates many situations in reality. Just tonight I discussed with
family and acquaintances how it is counter-intuitive to have a higher
tax rate for those people who make the most money. Their argument (I
was the only one on "my" side) was that the wealthiest person has the
most money, and therefore would miss it the least. I implored them to
think of it from another perspective: those who make the most money
are those who create the most value for other people. So, by taking a
larger percentage of profits from the most profitable people, you are
actually *restricting the most productive members of society*, by way
of removing resources that might be used for productive purposes. I
also pointed out to them that taking money (in the form of taxes) from
*anyone* is exactly the same as stealing. I was a little surprised by
how violently I was disagreed with. They stated that, since someone as
wealthy as Bill Gates didn't need all the money he had, he should give
it to others. And I stated that their example of Bill Gates is the
exact same thing as a poor beggar coming into your house with a gun
stating: "you have more money than you need, give me $100 - I need it
more than you". It is surprising (and depressing) to see that so many
of my elders have not thought deeply about these important subjects
that affect every day of every person's life.

> > > Studying this
> > > book has brought to my attention that some behaviors in which I
> > > engage are not optimal for my long-term health and happiness.
> >
> > Actually that is and will always be true for everyone, me included.
> > It is only the number of areas in which this occurs, their extent nd
> > degree, which hopefully gets reduced over time. Furthermore, even though
> > one may do one's best possible to estimate those actions that will
> > optimally increase one's lifetime happiness, even an effectively
> > *perfect* job of such estimating, there is always the chance aspect
> > of reality (the factors required for full analysis are essentially
> > unbounded in number and inter-related complexity and one's estimation
> > time is necessarily limited) which can completely destroy or reverse
> > one's best possible estimation. Again having one's estimations actually
> > work out is something that one ought to be able to get better at with
> > experience and thought, but I, for one, find it very frustrating that
> > I don't get better at this much faster than I do.
>
> This last statement (in the context of this paragraph) is especially
> apropos most of the concepts I consider daily, and in particular:
> 1) what personal characteristics can I change?
> 2) how fast will I change? and
> 3) how do changes fit in with or adversely affect other related
> characteristics?
>
> Naturally then, I must ask by what methods will the changes occur
> most rapidly and completely, and how will I verify (measurement)?
> I appreciate that Paul related this, if only to be reminded of how
> important is improving one's estimations.
>
> > > The book relates the question-and-answer sessions of some of
> > > Branden's group therapy sessions (at the time of the book he was a
> > > practicing psychologist). This entire book is based off an epiphany
> > > Branden had during one of his group sessions. He asked the group a
> > > series of questions about how their parents treated them when they
> > > were children. He found that when he asked an appropriate question
> > > to a person to whom it applied, the person experienced a great deal
> > > of enlightenment regarding certain important frustrations or
> > > questions about hirself.
> >
> > This occurs to those who are really open and honest with themselves.
> > Many (most?) people have a hard time doing that, at least not for every
> > facet of their psyche. Many things remain hidden deeply, are never made
> > conscious and are certainly not spoken of, often these are the things
> > that are most important with respect to inhibiting/promoting their
> > psychological development/growth.
> >
> > > As is likely the purpose of the book, I, as
> > > the reader, experienced a significant number of enlightening moments
> > > with respect to questions about myself and my personality.
> >
> > That is an excellent sign that you have a healthy mind, still open and
> > capable of growth.
>
> I've found Branden's books to be useful in providing a large number
> of questions to ask myself, and from there, I've developed more
> appropriate questions to bring out underlying principles by which I
> govern my actions. I suggest doing the same, tailoring the questions
> to aim deeply.

I have also found this to be true of Branden's books. His books seem
to ask very important questions of myself. I often find that it will
take me an hour to read only a few pages, because frequently a
question is presented that strikes me as one that I should answer
immediately. So I take the time to consider the question and find the
answer.

> Most "dirt" that I find is related to emotions that are tied to
> particularly complex concepts, such as money, fairness, justice,
> happiness, leisure, trade, political thought, and economics.

I have had particular difficulty with happiness and leisure, as I had
spent a large proportion of my time in the past in leisure and
avoiding responsibility. In the process of correcting this issue I
have "swung too far the other way", and now I have a difficult time
enjoying leisure time, since I have so strongly enforced the values of
"productivity" and "industriousness" in myself. I'm currently trying
to find how to balance the two: leisure and productivity.

> > > These experiences are what I want to share and will do so here.
> > >
> > > Below I describe my thoughts and experiences while reading this book
> > > as it relates to a given category. The two categories of thoughts
> > > and experiences I will discuss are: emotional withdrawal and sexual
> > > roles.
> > >
> > > Emotional withdrawal
> > >
> > > I could really relate to the story of the first client, "Henry" (a
> > > fake name), 24 years old, and his responses to the first question.
> >
> > Regarding the use of a fake name, this appears to be part of what is
> > called patient confidentiality. If that patient wants it, while that is
> > still irrational, I can respect the need to adhere to that desire, or
> > even contractual obligation. However, what I have never understood is
> > the refusal to use the names of people who specifically do not want
> > confidentiality and even welcome their names being used and are fully
> > willing to sign any necessary release (such as myself).
> >
> > [It is also possible that "Henry" is a composite of a number of
> > Branden's clients rather than one single individual. A number of
> > writer's, whether in the health care fields or not, use this
> > technique for examples, rather than obtain permission to use that
> > of a specific individual. These writers like this method also to
> > combine the characteristics of several of their clients into one
> > pseudo-person with the problems or situations they wish to discuss. **Kitty]
> >
> > [However, I consider such a technique to be invalid because the
> > example is then not a *real* one in any fundamental sense, and, for
> > any number of unforeseen reasons, may not be able to even occur in
> > the reality of any single human. This is similar to using a unicorn
> > or a truth machine within a philosophy example - totally unacceptable
> > for discovering the truths of reality! --Paul]
> >
> > > The chapter is called "The Unknowable". The question posed
> > > to "Henry" in the book is as follows:
> > >
> > > "When you were a child, did your parents manner of behaving and
> > > dealing with you give you the impression that you were living in a
> > > world that was rational, predictable, intelligible? Or a world that
> > > was bewildering, contradictory, incomprehensible, unknowable?"
> > >
> > > In this chapter, Henry responded to the question by giving a story
> > > about how his parents behaved toward him when he was a child. Henry
> > > states that when he was a child he once used some matches to set a
> > > few leaves on fire in the back yard. His father discovered him and
> > > told him that the police were going to take him to Juvenile Hall.
> > > Then his mother came running up to Henry, hugging him, telling him it
> > > was "OK", and telling him that he was her "darling angel". Henry
> > > then remembers his father screaming at his mother and forgot all
> > > about Henry's careless burning of leaves. Henry then states that
> > > later that night, his father gave him a gift and seemed quite
> > > cheerful. Henry recalled that this experience was very bewildering
> > > to him and he didn't know what to think of it.
> > >
> > > Henry then describes how his parents were always shouting, his mother
> > > was often crying, holding Henry and saying that "everything will be
> > > okay when we're with Jesus". I agree with Henry: this is a confusing
> > > situation for a child to grow up in.
> >
> > I was certainly fortunate in that my parents, while often having
> > irrational ideas and actions that were negative for me and my
> > thinking/growth, nevertheless practiced those ideas and actions
> > reasonably consistently (even if such ideas and actions were not
> > self-consistent as a whole). Although my parents thought of themselves
> > as Christians, I also had none of this Jesus nonsense that is so
> > prevalent in the US.
> >
> > [I on the other hand was raised in a home where my mother was a
> > strongly adherent Catholic and my father was mostly so, keeping
> > disagreements he had on the subject to himself, something I concluded
> > when I was in my late 20s. When I voiced my very different ideas at
> > age 16, the reaction however was not anger but rather more of
> > confusion on their part. Also at that time, and even into my late 40s
> > when they both died (less than a year apart), my ability to present
> > my ideas in a cogent fashion was far less than it is now or was even
> > 7 years ago. **Kitty]
> >
> > > Branden explains to Henry, on page 23, that Henry withdrew and
> > > stopped trying to understand the world around him. This random,
> > > unintelligible environment constructed by his parents confused him as
> > > a child and as a result, Henry stopped trying to make sense of the
> > > world. Henry had given up the hope of understanding. When reading
> > > this book, I remember the next phrase in the book, something Branden
> > > says to Henry:
> > >
> > > "When you withdrew, you gave up hope of understanding. You stopped
> > > caring to understand. That's when you gave up your self-esteem".
> >
> > Exactly! One cannot have high self-esteem unless one is and sees oneself
> > as efficacious with respect to reality. And the first step to being
> > efficacious is to understand that upon which one needs to act. The
> > second is fully understanding the ultimate purpose and the immediate
> > goal of one's action. Without both one has no basis for making a
> > choice and certainly little chance that one's choice will be right
> > (particularly since "right" would be yet to be defined in such a case).
>
> This second step of understanding ultimate purpose has been my
> largest obstacle to navigate and traverse. I have trouble with
> motivation mostly, not necessarily to stay on track, but to enjoy
> what I'm doing.

I think I can identify with this David, as I described above.

> For example, I conclude an ultimate purpose is to become a scientist
> because this will best train my mind to systematically consider
> reality, identify problems, obtain resources and apply them to the
> problems, and most efficiently evaluate the outcomes.

This is similar to my own interest in becoming a scientist,
specifically of biochemistry (I state this because I understand that
you have similar interests and perhaps we share many scientific
interests and goals).

> However,
> during my first 25 years (not including playing basketball and
> volleyball) I routinely followed paths of least resistance.

I have also done this, as I described briefly above.

> In
> addition, I learned to react with joy to all of my experiences; IOW,
> I was and am today able to enjoy most situations as challenging,
> enlightening, aesthetically pleasing, etc., especially if somewhat
> unordinary (to me). Even though I have discovered problems with my
> surroundings, my "country", my peers, my parents, my self, and so on,
> I am not discouraged about maintaining a pleasurable relationship
> with the wacky world because I have always successfully made the best
> of situations.

I have found that, upon discovering some aspect of my surroundings
that I disagree with, I will avoid interacting with it whenever
possible (i.e. avoid interacting with family members that hold
philosophies that are highly-incompatible with mine). Since I have
adopted this practice of withdrawing from things I disagree with, I
have found myself feeling lonely more often (I did not always avoid
such situations, and began doing so when I found myself wasting an
excessive amount of time in the presence of others with no interesting
or useful qualities). One thing that I have thought about
considerably, recently, is whether it will make me happier to spend
time (perhaps "waste" time) with people I disagree with to avoid
loneliness. I don't much mind the loneliness, but ceasing to meet new
people in an effort to find others I agree with *would* be unhealthy,
from the standpoints of human interaction requirements and of total
possible future happiness.

> Further, as I perceive reality today, I still only
> possess a romantic interest in becoming a scientist, one like movie
> characters such as Tom Cruise's in Mission Impossible, who, it was
> implied, was well-practiced as a systematic and precise judge of
> reality as well a wise negotiator (of reality) to his benefit.
> AFAIK, learning and practicing the skill-set of a scientist will not
> be an action-packed lifestyle and may not offer enough subtle changes
> to keep my interest, but I am attempting to overcome these personal
> characteristics of mine by practicing despite the boredom, etc.

I find myself to be bored - not yet with the science - but with life
experiences. I think that, in my effort to be as frugal and efficient
as possible with my time and money, I put unnecessary restrictions on
the use of my time and money. That is, since I have encouraged very
frugal habits in myself, these habits have also caused me to have the
habit of not "exploring" and experiencing new things, since such
exploration also requires the use of ones funds and time. However, I
am realizing now that there is no point to accumulating wealth if it
is never to be used for my enjoyment. I am currently trying to find
new and interesting activities to experience, including meeting new
people, as I change my perspective on the use of my time and money.

> So, I struggle with enjoying this learning and practice in hopes that
> my interests in the material and methods will grow.

Participating in research seems to be a task that would be difficult
to "stick with" unless one really enjoys the everyday work. I think
this may be true because the greatest rewards from the work, in the
form of an interesting or useful discovery, may take years or even
decades of effort. I have not studied chemistry for very long (only
since July 2008), but I have a strategy to keep me motivated. Because
I am young, I have a lot of time to invest in high-risk, high-reward
activities, such as scientific research. I am very interested in the
"high-reward" of drastically-increased lifespan, which is my goal
while engaging in research. Simply put, I try to "work with the goal
in mind", knowing that the goal will never be reached unless someone
works at it.

I have also found that, as one knowledge grows, one find the
possession of that knowledge more useful and applicable in one's life.
I recall that during this past semester I have learned about quite a
few topics that I have found (or expect to find) useful to me, such as
pH, voltaic cells, spectrophotometry, spectroscopy, and others. For
example, I have applied many aspects of my recently-acquired chemistry
knowledge in my new hobby of hydroponic horticulture. I have to manage
pH, total dissolved solids (TDS) and nutrient levels, among other
things, to be successful at this. The application of this knowledge is
very enjoyable to me -- I wish my plant sprouts (kale, spinach, and
tomatoes) would grow faster! *big smiles*.

---
Steve Floyd

> I have decided that if I do enjoy being a scientist (in the purest
> sense possible), I would like my economic impact to lead to
> activities that improve my and my friends' chances of living
> indefinitely.
>
> Regarding the remainder of this message in response to Steve, Paul,
> and Kitty, I have nothing to add.
>
> David "Jack"emeyer
> Tempe, AZ
> BioTech Student, Arizona State U
> Methuseluh Foundation student/lab rat
> ---------------------------------------