Polarization and Objectivism (Fountainhead)

[Lauxa]

I was just doing some more thinking about polarization (as I'm sure many people here are) and reading this thread and wanted to share some thoughts. This is mainly just to get some stuff off my chest but I'd be glad to hear what anyone else thinks. The original thread is pretty long and cluttered, but basically it's asking how lightworker/darkworker could not be interpreted as good/evil.

First, a couple of points that struck me:

Originally Posted by renie408

I don't have a problem with the basic motivators for most behaviors being based in either love or fear (except I think that 'ego' works better than 'fear').

Originally Posted by Baltar

Greed, lust and power are just words. Greed and lust do generally have negative associations in our society. Power is a fairly neutral word though on its own, but for the sake of this discussion it can be a negative thing. Consider however that to someone else, "greed, lust and power" may instead look like "desire, passion and strength". These words are certainly not negative, right? Yet they're really the same thing. It just depends what lens you use to look at it.

So, I was considering the polarity of the different characters in Fountainhead, and came up with the following (I'm going to go back to inflow/outflow polarities since they are less charged):

Howard Roark

• inflow polarized
• driven by selfish need to express his creativity
• not interested in greater good

Gail Wynand

• inflow polarized
• creates newspaper empire for personal power
• empire crumbles when he tries to switch to love to help Roark

Elsworth Toohey

• outflow polarized
• not interested in creating an empire but on impacting the world
• an evil character in the novel

Maybe Rand's whole point was that the inflow polarity isn't necessarily evil and outflow isn't necessarily good and her books provide a kind of model for "darkworkers" to realize their full potential.

The thing I don't like about the dark side is how once you get rooted there you can't seem to express love for others without seriously compromising your position. It seems like too big a sacrifice to make.

[shant121]

Toohey was interested in impacting the world ONLY to forward his own interests. and so that he could have more control over governments and people (if i remember correctly, slightly confused betwn characters of that and Atlas Shrugged).

Roark was not interested in power, money or fame. Remember, he lived in the most spartan apt, using only the things needed for basic necessities. all he wanted to do was to express his creativity so the the world could experience the joy of viewing and living in well-designed buildings.

similarly Gail Wynand 's empire did not crumble, it was taken away forcefully by others who "perceived" her to be more powerful. her objective was not power, just intelligent and truthful reporting.

I think Ayn Rand's work strongly suggested that you should be polarized. The novels were written around World War 2 period. also Ayn Rand hails from a communist country where freedom, which is a basic necessity of humans, was heavily curtailed. she grew up in a country controlled by Darkworkers.

hence her writings, I feel, if look deep down, express the exact opposite. of being very polarized lightworkers. like Steve mentions, you dont have to be lovey-dovey to be a lightworker.

there are some excellent posts in the Steve Pavlina blog section of the forums that'll help you understand polarization's applications.

[Lauxa]

shant - thanks for biting!

I think you are right about Toohey. He wanted to place people in power who would feel beholden to him in order to elevate his own position. So that would make him a darkworker and evil, which is easy to reconcile.

I'm going to stick with darkworker on Wyand. He did not care about "quality reporting"; he would print anything people would read and was motivated by purely by the desire for power and money. It was not until he started trying to defend Roark that the popularity of his paper plummeted and he lost his empire.

I guess you are right about Roark also. His goal was to create, and that is usually the sign of a lightworker. Rand always kept saying that his creation was for purely "selfish" motives, but yet he does have a soft side where he enjoys sharing the beauty of his creations with those who are intelligent enough to see it. Also, I am now remembering passages where he reworks buildings for Peter so they will be better than they would have been before. He is just unwilling to compromise his standards for the pleasure of others, which I suppose is congruent with a lightworker mentality.

Thanks for helping me get this straight in my own head!

[shant121]

Ok i may be confused about who Wynand is. you see after reading Atlas Shrugged, its difficult to remember Fountainhead which i'd read long ago. have u read atlas shrugged? its awesome...you can see that Ayn Rand had progressed and her writing and elaboration of ideas is much better too

i was better able to appreciate atlas shrugged since i'd read fountainhead first. and it doesn't disappoint. a frnd who liked fountainhead but did not think it was that great was all thumbs up for atlas shrugged.

P.S. I wonder why this thread did not get more replies. Thought that there would be more people, esp on a forum like this, that've read Ayn Rand. hmmm guess focussing on PD doesnt stop people from being lazy about reading :P just kiddin

[shant121]

Correction

hence her writings, I feel, if look deep down, express the exact opposite. of being very polarized lightworkers. like Steve mentions, you dont have to be lovey-dovey to be a lightworker.

Ok I thought of going back to correct what was said above. Ayn Rand did suggest polarizing and being highly conscious. But as a darkworker.

the actions of polarized darkworkers and lightworkers, when they are highly conscious and polarized (think these two words are interchangeable and mean the same core value)
are almost the same, i.e. whats good for a cell is good for the body and vice versa, as Steve described in his last post on polarity.

Hence looking at actions, it may be difficult to determine whether the person is a light/dark worker.

e.g. Bill Gates.
From Ayn Rand's writings we do know, however, that the characters chose to do what they loved the most, for their own happiness. But their actions helped humanity: In Fountainhead, it was the very well designed buildings by Roark, in Atlas Shrugged, it was railroads that connected the country or metal plants that provided metal for the country's needs or building machines for helping others.

[Sam988]

Yes you are right, lightworkers and darkworkers that are highly aware end up having the same actions.


The mind of a low-aware darkworker goes like this "I dont care if i benefit others or if i dont benefit them, as long as it ends up benefiting me, its alright"
but then after much trial and error they become more aware and realize that in order to benefit themselves they will have to benefit others in many situations.

Same goes for lightworkers but the other way around, they realize that to benefit the whole they have to benefit themselves also.

Thats why both end up developing the same actions. After you understand this concept, it becomes easy to understand all the dinamycs behind Dworkers and Lworkers and why theres no difference in both's actions when they have achieved a high awareness state.