You like or love your friends because you get something out of them.

Friendship is Selfish

By Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. (April 3, 2001)

[CAPITALISMMAGAZINE.COM] Cicero wrote that, "There is nothing more fatal to friendship than the greed of gain." Although a popular sentiment, it's a deeply mistaken one.

Think about the friends you have. Try to make yourself aware of what you enjoy about those friends -- that is, how they make your life better than it would otherwise be without them. You’ll probably come up with something like this: "Jack makes me laugh; I love his sense of humor." Or: "Sue is really dedicated to her work, and well organized. I really admire that. It inspires me to do the same." Or: "Bill was really there for me when my mother died. I really like how supportive he can be."

You get the idea? You like or love your friends because you get something out of them. And there’s no sin in this fact! The notion of "getting something out" of friends has been given a bad name, for two reasons. One reason is that the phrase is commonly associated with material gain, as in business, rather than psychological gain.

It is true, of course, that the gain you obtain from a friendship is not the same as the gain you obtain from, say, getting a paycheck at your job; or selling your stock for a million dollars. If you engaged in the pretense that you enjoyed a "friend" for his personal qualities, when in fact you want to know him only for contacts or for money, then you would be guilty of a fraud. But it’s fraud and pretense which are wrong; not getting something out of a relationship which is wrong.

The other reason people don’t like to associate friendship with self-interest is the widely held, though false, belief that self-interest is inherently wrong. Yet it isn’t. The burden of proof should be on people who claim that self-interest is inherently wrong to prove their point; yet nobody can. It’s something which is just assumed. It’s taken as a self-evident truth, like "the sky is blue." Yet, unlike "the sky is blue" (for which there is overwhelming evidence), there is no evidence at all to support the notion that gaining something from a friendship is wrong. As I just illustrated, it’s a premise which is completely at odds with simple observation of everyday life.

Try to imagine being friends with someone whom you don’t like: someone who is humorless; someone who is lazy and inefficient, and a liar; someone who shrugs and walks away when you mention your mother just passed away. Should we tolerate such qualities in others in the name of selflessness? If you answered "yes," most would be ready to put you into a mental hospital for insanity; or, at a minimum, refer you to a psychotherapist for "self-esteem issues." Yet, in the abstract, many of us persist in claiming (along with Cicero) that "greed" and gain are completely at odds with friendship. In truth, we all gain from friendship. If we didn't, there would be no point in having friends in the first place.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001

Answers

Eve, I agree that for most people, friendship is selfish; but since it's selfish, it isn't really friendship.

Real friendship is, for example, being willing to never see a certain friend again if you knew it would be in his or her long-term best interests. Sacrificing one's own life to save another's life is also an example of real friendship.

What usually passes for friendship and love in society is in fact usually need -- a need to associate with those who can make us feel right about ourselves even when we're in the wrong. The author of "Friendship is Selfish" sounds like an admirer of Machiavelli...

Someone I admire and one of my best friends is someone who lived about 2000 years ago.

-- (Agape@is.best), April 28, 2001.

Agape,

Good questions! In fact, I think I got myself in trouble, because I don't have much time to write this weekend. In the meantine, I think the following essay will be illuminating...

Reflections on the Ethics of Selflessness

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.

This reminds me of a time many years ago when a friend of mine since 4th grade [and we're still friends to this day] stopped by for a visit. She caught me sitting on the kitchen floor scrubbing the white tile [Don't ask me why I laid white tile on a kitchen in a house with three kids.] Anyway, she'd just finished crocheting one of those "big loop" vests that many of us crocheted and wore in some era long past. She said, "Need, do you think this vest makes me look fat?" I said, "Um...yeah...it kindof does." She burst into tears and I wanted to crawl into a hole. After I apologized, she said that she'd had the same opinion, but I'd just confirmed it.

Which is worse? Lying, or hurting someone's feelings? Store clerks make money off their lies. They'll tell us that a dress flatters us, even if the thing looks two sizes too small or big. *I* don't expect that from a friend.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.

Agape,

"Sacrificing one's own life to save another's life is also an example of real friendship."

And that can very well be a selfish act! There's a scene from Atlas Shrugged where Galt, knoing he's about to be arrested, tells Dagny (paraphrasing)...

"If they get the slightest suspicion as to what we mean to each other, they'll have you on a torture rack -- I mean, physical torture, before my eyes, in less than a week. I'm not going to wait for that. At the first mention of a threat to you, I'll kill myself and stop them right there...and I don't have to tell you that if I do it, it won't be an act of self-sacrifice. I don't care to live on their terms. I don't care to obey them and I couldn't stand to see you enduring a drawn-out murder. There won't be any values for me to seek after that -- and I don't want to exist without values."

I mean, if a man loves a woman so much that he doesn't wish to survive her death -- if life itself can't have anything more to offer him at that price -- if it would be intolerable -- well, then dying to save her isn't a sacrifice.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.

Lol -- go figure... As soon as I say that I was too busy to write, a pocket of time opens up...:)

Anita,

That's an interesting issue. On principle, honesty is crucially important to me. But I think it can be ok to lie in certain rare situations -- in self defense (lying to a criminal); and in some cases, to protect your privacy, where silence in answer to a question would make the answer obvious.

The friendship thing -- well, I think you did the right thing, Anita. There was a little pain, but she saw you were honest, and it may have helped her to change some of her habits to get back in shape. Showed ya cared!

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.

I enjoyed those articles, Eve. It reminded me of an essay I had read in "OMNI" magazine many years ago which made quite an impression on me. It built a very strong case in favor of the argument that everything we do is done for strictly selfish reasons. From the smallest things (such as giving somebody a compliment) to the biggest things (up to and including the soldier who throws himself on the grenade to save his buddies). I wish I had saved a copy of it so I could post it here for those who would think that notion to be ridiculous. After reading the arguments and examples it offered, I'm sure the doubters would reconsider.

As I said, the essay left quite an impression on me. I've forgotten many of the details and therefore cannot offer much in way of supporting the essay's conclusions, but I would now submit that there are NO truly selfless acts and that EVERY action taken by humans is taken for reasons of self-interest.

It's my opinion that those actions which on the surface would appear to be clearly selfless acts are actually undertaken for ulterior motives. For example, take the guy who volunteers his time and money to help the homeless. An example of how this is actually a selfish act can be found in Eve's 2nd linked article:

Those who tend to associate spirituality with selfless service typically offer two answers to the question of why? The first is not really an answer. It consists of the assertion that at a certain level of spiritual evolution, one gains the mystical insight — as a self-evident fact, requiring no further explanation — that one should take the path of selfless service. It becomes as obvious as the sun hanging in the sky — one simply sees it. This is not an explanation likely to impress a thoughtful person.

The second, and by the far the more interesting explanation, is the statement that the value of such service lies not so much in the help given the beneficiaries as in liberation from ego on the part of the one who serves. A life of service, it is said, facilitates self- transcendence. In secular terms, this is dangerously close to an egoistic justification: I will serve others as a means to personal development.

In addition to those "selfish" motives, this person is gaining respect in the community. In the same way as any other biological creature he is therefore consiously, or even subconsciously, improving his odds for survival.

The article about friendship which started this thread also makes a good point in favor of our often hidden, but ever-present, selfish ulterior motives. "You like or love your friends because you get something out of them." Very true! The truth is, we "get something" out of every action we take, whether it looks like it or not. Sometimes the payoff is far from obvious. Take for instance the guy who agrees to spend Thanksgiving day with the in-laws he can't stand. He chooses to do this because the alternative (a fight with his wife) would be be worse. By visiting the in-laws, not only does he avoid conflict and maintain harmony in the "pack", he also gains respect and potentially an "obligation" from his mate for a future "payback".

I am convinced that if a person were truly honest with themself and dug deep enough they would find that they "get something" out of every action they take. I am convinced that, regardless of how it "looks", all of our actions are taken for purely "selfish" reasons. If the choices we make and the actions we take were not ultimately in our own self-interests, we as biological organisms would not choose to do them.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.

CD: I tend to agree with you. The last link Eve provided was interesting, but so VERY Rand. SO and I have played with the thought of joining the Peace Corps for a number of years now. The thought didn't come from some altruist part of us. It came from the sense of adventure we both share. We may actually even do that some day, but it won't be until both my mom and his dad meet their maker, which is ANOTHER selfish thing on our parts, as we enjoy our parents and want to see them live comfortably as long as possible.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.

Anita-

I'm glad to learn what I was trying to say in my above post made some sense to you. A number of people to whom I've tried to explain that concept have refused to even consider the idea that their actions might be based solely on selfishness. I can understand their feelings however. Not only does the very idea of it run contrary to what we have been raised by society to believe, but it would also negate the idea of altruism they WANT to believe exists in themselves and others. (Interestingly enough, the very act of closing one's mind to the idea that you might be motivated solely by selfishness is in itself an act based on self-interest/selfishness. For reference see ego, self-image, fear, etc.)

Peace Corps eh? Good for you. Definitely a worthwhile cause and definitely an adventure. (And, no doubt, definitely a "selfish" act on your part. LOL)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.

"Sincerity, honesty and integrity are the most important things in life ... If you can fake those, you got it made!"

-- Sign (of@the.times), April 29, 2001.

Anita one of my friends and his wife had joined the Reserves. They loved it. Gave each one time away from the children, at seperate times and still gave them some lil perks along the way.

Cool idea.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 29, 2001.

CD,

Thanks for a very interesting post. The root, and very tough issue is the question: "Isn't everyone selfish, then?"

To fully answer this would take lots of 'splainin' -- but I want to do it; for now, some food for thought:

To be selfish in the way the term should be used -- in the way I use it -- is to act in your self-interest; short and long term.

In this way, the selfishness or unselfishness of an action can't be determined by your emotions or feelings -- what you happen to desire at the time. We have to go deeper -- to discover WHY you want those things. Answering the WHY could uncover a morality of altruism, for example. Altruism is the morality of putting others' interests over our own.

For example, if you do something for someone else so that you can be or feel "virtuous" (like devoting your life to care for an ailing relative) out of duty, you may have accepted altruism, which RENOUNCES self-interest.

Remember that emotions and desires are not causeless, irreducible primaries or principles. They're the product of principles or premises or values that you have accepted. And those principles may be antithetical to your self-interest. Whether you're aware of it or not.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 29, 2001.

CD,

I think I may have read the same article, or perhaps a similar one by the same author, for what I read also made an impact on me. And yes, I can certainly see the logic of that position. One argument made in the article I read made the point that Mother Theresa, a woman who was viewed by the world as totally selfless in helping others, received on some internal level self-reward for her acts, and thus even she acted selfishly. What gave her pleasure looked to most other people like an act of sacrifice.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 29, 2001.

Unk, now you've got me curious -- did Mother Theresa do these things because she really received genuine pleasure from it (that would be wonderful, btw!)? Or out of an altruistic sense of duty? Or to gain Heaven?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 29, 2001.

Unk-

Yes! I am almost positive Mother Theresa was discussed in the essay I had read. (It has been a very long time since I had read it but while formulating my original post, her name kept coming to mind.) Regardless, Mother Theresa is precisely the kind of example the essay would have used and the reasoning would have led to the exact conclusion which you described. I'm glad to know you too can see the logic behind this position.

Eve- "The root, and very tough issue is the question: "Isn't everyone selfish, then?"

Well put. Yes, that *is* the question and, if true, would be a very "tough" revelation for many people to have to face.

To be selfish in the way the term should be used -- in the way I use it -- is to act in your self-interest; short and long term.

Agreed. (A definition of "selfish" is clearly necessary for any discussion of this issue.)

In this way, the selfishness or unselfishness of an action can't be determined by your emotions or feelings -- what you happen to desire at the time. We have to go deeper -- to discover WHY you want those things.

Agreed. The "WHY" is the key.

Answering the WHY could uncover a morality of altruism, for example. Altruism is the morality of putting others' interests over our own. For example, if you do something for someone else so that you can be or feel "virtuous" (like devoting your life to care for an ailing relative) out of duty, you may have accepted altruism, which RENOUNCES self-interest.

This is where I would tend to disagree. It's my belief that, once the reason behind the "WHY" is uncovered, it will be revealed that the action was ultimately taken for reasons of self-interest. It may on the surface "look" like a purely altruistic action, but I believe any such action in some way benefits the individual or they would not otherwise take the action. (See Mother Theresa in Unk's post.) Perhaps the question should be; Does pure altruism truly exist?

Remember that emotions and desires are not causeless, irreducible primaries or principles. They're the product of principles or premises or values that you have accepted. And those principles may be antithetical to your self-interest. Whether you're aware of it or not.

Good point. I would agree with that for the most part but I need to give it further thought. My first instinct is to say that, even if true, it doesn't conflict with the conclusions drawn in the essay I had read. (Hmm... Could there be varying degrees of selfishness/self- interest?)

Interesting topic.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), April 29, 2001.

Eve,

My guess would be that it does not matter what the label is. If she gained genuine pleasure from it that is pretty straight forward. However, if she did it out of an altruistic sense of duty, she must have found an internal reward, or sense of pleasure, from fufilling that duty. Likewise, the knowledge that she was gaining heaven would also be a pleasureable reward.

Of course I am no expert, but it makes sense to me.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 29, 2001.

CD and Unk,

I had said,

[Answering the WHY could uncover a morality of altruism, for example. Altruism is the morality of putting others' interests over our own. For example, if you do something for someone else so that you can be or feel "virtuous" (like devoting your life to care for an ailing relative) out of duty, you may have accepted altruism, which RENOUNCES self-interest.]

CD, you responded,

“This is where I would tend to disagree. It's my belief that, once the reason behind the "WHY" is uncovered, it will be revealed that the action was ultimately taken for reasons of self-interest. It may on the surface "look" like a purely altruistic action, but I believe any such action in some way benefits the individual or they would not otherwise take the action. (See Mother Theresa in Unk's post.) Perhaps the question should be; Does pure altruism truly exist?”

The Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that no action was moral unless it was done purely out of duty. There could be absolutely no element of self-interest in it.

For example, an SS man who tortured for Hitler purely out of a sense of duty, yet could not stand the thought of torturing on his own, is probably a good example of conjuring up something close to what Kant said. He finds a way to evade and blanks out his mind when he does it. Do y’all insist that deep down, he found a sense of pleasure – fulfillment, maybe?

Well, maybe so. But that STILL doesn’t get to the root of the matter – WHY did the guy feel this (if he did)? He probably accepted the ethics of altruism, which is anti-self-interest. And don’t forget – his pleasure is not what we want to end up with. We have to go deeper – to his principles.

I see “duty” as a moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest. So I see it as antithetical to pleasure. Even so, I can see that some might get genuine pleasure out of doing one’s “duty”. But then, we need to look further and assess whether it’s in that person’s LONG-RANGE self- interest, regardless of the pleasure of the moment. If it is against it – well, then, it’s not “selfish” in the way I use the term. It's selfLESS.

Finally, keep in mind that pleasure is still an emotional feeling (bodily pleasures aside for the moment) – meaning it isn’t a primary – - it’s a derivative. And as an emotional feeling, it’s a pretty much automatic response mechanism – a reaction -- to the achievement of a value the person holds – whether that underlying value is conscious or subconscious.

Unk, sorry – I’d overlooked what you said about Mother Theresa. I guess I get fifty lashes. But do each eye evenly. That way, you'll still look relatively symmetrical. :)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 30, 2001.

Eve-

I'm finding this conversation quite interesting, but first a disclaimer: Please bear in mind that, although I have what I feel to be a very good understanding of the concept as put forth by the author of the essay I read, I in no way belive I could express those thoughts in a manner which could be nearly as enlightening as he had. The arguments he put forth were very rational and extremely pursuasive. I don't pretend to be by any means an authority on the subject and I realize I am probably getting in way over my head here . Never the less...

Based on your previous comments involving emotions, it would appear to me you might be straying from our agreed upon definition of "selfish"- "to act in your self-interest; short and long term." I would suggest that a person can act selfishly without necessarily gaining anything. (Particularly an emotion such as "pleasure" or "fulfillment.)

As an example, let's look at your SS soldier who carried out his duty even though he hated the thought of torturing his own. In my mind this is a great example of acting in one's own self-interest. Had he not acted in his own self interest by carrying out his duty he would have no doubt faced a firing squad. This is a case of being selfish without actually gaining anything. (Blanking out his mind as a way to evade is also a selfish act. It serves him well to avoid the thoughts of what he is doing.)

You wrote: I see “duty” as a moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.

I'll toss down a challenge to you, Eve. Think of an example of an act which you believe can be performed for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest. Keep in mind though, that selfishness doesn't necessarily have to result in a positive experience. As shown in the example of the SS soldier, avoidance of the negative can also be an end result of selfishness.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), April 30, 2001.

Think of an example of an act which you believe can be performed for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.

Jesus Christ dying for me. And for you.

-- (eros@philos.Agape), May 01, 2001.

CD,

If I just said “gaining”, I should have clarified my definition (lol – I’m too tired to scroll up to see what I said):). It should include “keeping” something – not just gaining something. So, here, the SS guy “kept” his life. By the way, the way I’d laid out my example, I hadn’t assumed a firing squad as a consequence. Can’t you imagine anyone doing this purely out of a duty to serve the Fuhrer, without a thought of a firing squad? I can.

And blanking out does NOT serve him well. To “blank” out is anti- life, because you’re practicing the abdicaton of reason –you’re evading reality. People survive by the use of their minds, and the practice of abdicating their minds (reason) is antithetical to their long-range self-interests. What’s the next thing he’ll evade? And the next?

And selfishness (in the sense I use it) entails recognition and respect for individual rights, which include the right to life. If he’s destroying lives, on what principle does he stand to preserve his own?

Further, it’s likely that at some point he will no longer be able to evade what he’s done, and face mental anguish, and maybe worse. As we all know, mental problems can disable you.

You asked for an example of a duty-bound person with no personal desires to be satisfied...Well, since so many profess to be able to do their "duty" with no personal desires to be satisfied, I’d think that some may actually be able to attain this, although I’m not able to concretize or imagine it 'cause my mind just won’t go in that direction. Maybe after I’ve had some more coffee (it’s about 5:30am):). But, you know, I think you may be missing the more important point here. The real crux of this is not whether a positive emotion is felt at the time of the act. It’s what’s in the person’s short AND long-range self-interest.

Eros,

According to Christianity, Jesus wasn’t obeying anyone. He was God, and God just does what he wants to do. He could want to “sacrifice” himself or not – at his whim. Anyway, since God is infinite, nothing can destroy him, so in a way there’s no “self-interest” for him to preserve, anyway. You can get into some interesting paradoxes when you bring God into the picture.

By the way, I would argue a few hours on a cross for an infinite being is no sacrifice at all. Besides, he could have eliminated the pain if he so chose -- and no one would know the difference.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 01, 2001.

Just my opinion here, Eve, but I think this debate could become very circular very quickly. I'll give a quick example. I think most of y'all know that I've been helping my mom financially for quite some time. I consider this a selfish act because few things please me more than seeing how happy she is. Lately, I applied for a job [never did get that one either] that would BARELY pay enough to keep my mom in that place she lives. #2 daughter said, "That really sucks, Mom. I mean here YOU need new underwear, etc., but all your money would go toward helping Grandma." The pleasure I receive from helping my mother aside, I said, to #2, "But look at THIS way. When she DOES eventually die, [and it happens to all of us], the money I'd be making will suddenly be all mine, and wouldn't THAT seem like a windfall."

Sometimes there's a perverse sortof logic in it all. There are some children who repeatedly hit their head on the wall. Although this seems painful to a casual observer, there's actually a sense of relief to the child in the act. If the child receives treatment for the disorder that resulted in the head-banging, there's an even GREATER sense of relief.

BTW, I received a call yesterday from a woman involved with a program that had turned down my mom last year at this time, asking if I was still interested. I was down to only one month left at mom's current assisted living facility. The woman said she'd mail out a list of places supported by the program so I could visit them and pick the one I wanted. I feel like I've been "Touched by an Angel", but I'm trying my damndest to not get my hopes up until everything is finalized.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 01, 2001.

Eve-

It would appear that, as I had feared, I am in over my head as far as trying to express/support the arguments put forth in the essay I had read. As I said earlier, I really wish I had saved that essay so you could have read it for yourself. You are clearly an intelligent and open-minded person and I have no doubt you would have enjoyed it (and possibly even been convinced of it's truth). I also wish I had been able to describe it more clearly for you. It really is an interesting and, in my mind, a very plausible concept.

I'll leave you with a few final thoughts...

In one of the first posts to this thread "Agape" wrote the following comment: "Sacrificing one's own life to save another's life is also an example of real friendship." Your response to that comment was; "And that can very well be a selfish act! There's a scene from Atlas Shrugged where... " I mention this because, for you to have made that observation required critical thinking skills. That critical thinking led you to a recognition that there was indeed an ulterior motive to his action and that something even as extreme as taking one's own life can be considered an act of self- interest.

It's a very small step from understanding that example of selfishness to understanding the selfishness behind everything else we do, down to and including something as simple as giving flowers to someone you want to impress. I really believe that if you think about it hard enough you will be able to find an underlying motive of self-interest behind every action we human animals take. After all, like any other animal in nature, if we didn't "get something out of it" we would conserve rather than expend the energy required to perform an act.

Finally... It's my opinion that the idea of acting in one's own self- interest and the word "selfish" has been given a bad rap. I would suggest that we have no choice in the matter. Survival and self- interest has been built into our genes since our first ancestors climbed out of the sea. The difference between those first mammals and us is that now we live in a civilized society where rules require us to "camouflage" those instincts. Without a doubt, we have become very adept at doing that.

OK, I've babbled on long enough. Think I'll grab a beer and go catch some rays. I'm sure I would selfishly enjoy your company so I am therefore officially inviting you to join me. To help pursuade you I will even compliment you once again on how intelligent I think you are. Not only is it true, but it's in my self-interest to tell you that. Selfish ain't I ;-)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 01, 2001.

Anita,

Interesting points -- especially the one regarding the little head- banger. My take is that even if he gets momentary pleasure out of it, he's acting against his long-renge interests by risking bodily damage.

CD,

Thank you so much for your kind words. I don't know -- I never really focused on how much intelligence I might have -- not consciously, anyway. I DO know I'm VERY inquisitive. In any case, you did very well -- you didn't make it easy on me at all.

I hope you find the OMNI essay. But for now -- if you can date it -- approximately -- or know the author -- I might be able to locate it at the University of Michigan, which is just down the road apiece from me. Maybe I could do a computer search and locate it anyway.

Meanwhile, I'm 'bout spent, too. I can only do so much philosophy at a time -- although when the situation was right, I've been known to pull all-nighters, and lovin' every minute of it.

But I think I'll take you up on that beer; sounds wonderful. I know beggars can't be choosers, but any Killian's Red perchance? It's a beautiful day out there -- just right for a stroll or sittin' under a tree with a cold brew...

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 01, 2001.

I hope you find the OMNI essay. But for now -- if you can date it - - approximately -- or know the author -- I might be able to locate it at the University of Michigan, which is just down the road apiece from me.

Eve- It would be GREAT if the University had a hardcopy of that edition and you were able to find it!

I wish I could be more specific but here's the best I can do...

OMNI magazine began publishing in October of 1978. I picked up the first edition and became a die-hard reader of the magazine until March of 1982. (It was on that date when I tossed my collection of OMNI magazines and moved to Arizona.) Therefore, there is a maximum of 40 editions in which the article might be found. It might sound daunting to think of having to search through that many issues but the following info should help speed things up.

The more I think about it, the more I believe the article was actually in the form of a featured interview rather than a seperate essay. Being that the magazine only offered one feature interview per issue, this should make it much easier to find. These feature interviews were always listed in the table of contents and/or possibly even on the front cover. Unfortunately, I do not know the author's name but a glance at the interview's brief introduction would tell if it was our target.

OMNI magazine is no longer in print but still exists online. (http://omnimag.com) I will be writing them to see if they can be of any assistance.

Don't go out of your way just for me, Eve. But if you do pursue this, good luck and be sure to let me know what you find out.

By the way... Sorry, I'm not a Killian's Red drinker. However, if I learn that you're going to join me someday to 'tip a few', I'll be sure to stock-up.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 01, 2001.

The Virtue of Selfishness.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 02, 2001.

People

People who need people

Are the luckiest people in the world.

True, friendship is selfish.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 02, 2001.

As I went back to read the posts, I recalled the thread started by FS (?) that postulated that all emotions boiled down to either love or fear (all negative emotions stemmed from fear). It seems most of this thread centers on motivation based on emotion. Can we be motivated by logic or facts, something other than emotion? (Outside of the male type unit - we all know what motivates them, joke!) :)

Just wondering.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 02, 2001.

Methinks Maria needs access to a primer on Objectivism. Emotion as the primary motivator? Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. :)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), May 02, 2001.

BTW CD, I've enjoyed reading the exchanges on this thread immensely. Nice job, boy. :)

I was a voracious reader of OMNI magazine. After I read through each issue a few times, I'd tear each page into little pieces and sprinkle them on my breakfast cereal. I wanted to achieve total absorption of its contents. (A little hyperbole never hurt anybody!)

Eve, is Yuengling Amber (brewed in PA) available in your neck of the woods? Very smooth and tasty yet has a fairly light texture, unlike Killian's, which if memory serves has a bit of a bite. Excellent with very spicy foods.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), May 02, 2001.

Maybe I'm being a bit presumptuous, but I'm sensing a desire on the part of CD to get to know you better, Eve. Spring IS in the air, ya know, and a young man's fancy turns to love in the Spring. I fall in love afresh every Spring myself. SO arrives tomorrow for the weekend. If he's lucky, he'll make it to the house before I jump on him.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 02, 2001.

Rich, as soon as I read your first sentence to me, I actually felt my face flush – I thought, omigod, he's found a plant I never heard of! LOL! Anyway, that probably answers your brew question. But, you've got me curious; I'm gonna check it out. If that OMNI article's on campus, the brew's gotta be there somewhere too. I don't think I'll find 'em too close together, though. You know, I think the grad library got rid of its beer cooler when the Friday night Delta House-type parties started to spread to the rare books section. Of course, I only know about that 'cause I.....um.....read about it in the paper. Yeah, that's right. I read about it.

Maria, emotions are really automatic, sometimes lightning-like psychological responses, which include mental as well as physiological aspects -- to our subconscious appraisal of what we see as the beneficial or harmful relationship of some aspect of reality to ourselves. This “appraisal” is actually an evaluation. Note the part of that word (evaluation) that refers to “value” – ‘cause our emotions are ultimately products of the values that we hold.

And assuming a main goal of ours is self-awareness and self- understanding, emotions play an absolutely crucial role. As I hinted above, emotions aren't literally, "tools of cognition," or some such, but they're often data of tremendous significance. What they do is let us directly experience what things mean to us. Without that experience, we're actually cut off from our own context. I mean, try to decide "rationally" who to ask out for a date (well, you do seem pretty assertive, Maria), or who to marry, or whether or not to have children, or what career to pursue, without the information provided by your feelings.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 02, 2001.

Anita, I hear ya. :)

CD, you do seem like a really nice and fascinating guy, but if your intentions are along the lines of what Anita suggests (and I hope I'm not being presumptuous here), what with my responsibilities to my dad and kids, I really don't have room for a "special someone" right nowm -- or really much time to even get away. For starters, my ill, elderly dad's got to be watched constantly, and I need to be ready if an aide doesn't show up.

But, if we do someday strike up a real life friendship, you.....um..... might want to change your "name" though. That is, unless you don't mind my (harking back to the ol' school air raid drill days, with the familiar signs) diving under a table for cover whenever my kid answers the phone, "Hey, mom -- it's CD!" :)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 02, 2001.

CD -- thank you for your sweet offer, though.:)

And I'm serious about the article. It sounds like it's important to you, and you've got me curious as well. So I intend to seek it out - - I'll get back to you (hopefully with the article) on a thread or we can do it through e-mail. In any case, feel free to e-mail me.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 02, 2001.

Eve, I agree that we behave based on our values and, at its very core, our emotions but I'm just wondering of the exceptions to this rule (if there are any). That Barbra song speaks to the possibility that there are some people in the world, who don't need people, that is, derive no emotional gratification from friendship. It's been said, that Albert Einstein didn't interact with family very much. He isolated himself in his work. I'm sure it gave him personal gratification to solve scientific mysteries but can we say that his interaction with people was for some non-emotional cause. (I'm not stating that in fact Albert was this way, I'm just hypothetically supposing.) Can this behavior reduce to an emotional level? Can a "stereotypical" scientist, who trains his behavior to avoid emotions, looks solely at facts, deduces theories based on rational thoughts, not emotions, separate any basic emotional need from his own behavior. Is a scientist's rationalization still on some emotional level?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 02, 2001.

BTW CD, I've enjoyed reading the exchanges on this thread immensely. Nice job, boy. :)

Thanks for the kind words, Rich. Much appreciated. Sprinkled OMNI on your cereal eh? LOL. And here all this time I thought *I* was the magazine's biggest fan.

Maybe I'm being a bit presumptuous, but I'm sensing a desire on the part of CD to get to know you better, Eve. Spring IS in the air, ya know, and a young man's fancy turns to love in the Spring.

LOL Anita. Living in Michigan, I'm sure Eve's a Detroit Lions fan and therefore I'm afraid any relationship between us could never work out. (Eve, please correct me if I'm wrong and you are actually a Vikings fan. If so, I can pack my bags, hit the road here in Pensacola and be in Ann Arbor by tomorrow afternoon.)

Eve- As much as I would enjoy meeting you in real life, I assure you my intentions were not along the lines of what Anita suggests. Be it known however, if we did someday strike up a real life friendship I would most definitely change my name. Wouldn't want you divin' under tables every time I phoned. (Hmm... Maybe I'd change it to "Killian". Has a nice ring to it. If you'd like, you could even call me "Red" for short.)

Update on my OMNI search efforts- After going to the OMNI website to find a contact address, I discovered the site is no longer being updated. OMNI has been discontinued in both print *and* on the web [R.I.P.]and therefore there is no active email addy to which I could write. I then sent an email to the site's webmaster and I received a return letter which gave me a phone# for any questions regarding OMNI. I called the number (it was apparently the offices of "Penthouse" magazine) and was told somebody will get in touch with me within 24hours. Here's hoping.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 02, 2001.

Maria, it’s more that we behave based both on our emotions AND our values. It’s just that our emotions are somewhat less reliable as a guide to action than our values, because our underlying value backing up a given emotion could be irrational. I could say more on this but first I need to make sure you realize that it’s our values that are at the core of our emotions; not the reverse. Our emotions are what we feel and experience at the surface, and down to a point. But our values run deeper and are the main underlying cause (along with external events and physiological factors) of our emotions. Regarding the scientist – I don’t agree that a scientist trains his behavior to avoid emotions. In fact, I don’t even see how this can be done. I don’t see anything wronng with allowing yourself to feel love and passion for your work – whatever it is. And to feel the excitement of discovery, etc. I believe a scientist can let him/herself feel all this and retain complete objectivity. I don’t see the two at all as mutually exclusive, or that you have to repress your emotional side to do science.

Re his need for people – I think we all need companionship; just on different levels and contexts. So, what you may perceive as a lack of need of companionship is just a reflection of a different level of need or desire. For all we know, perhaps the little time he spent with his family made the time he did spend with them all the richer.

CD,

OMNI and Penthouse are of the same company? Hmmm....I wonder which one they’d choose for a pictorial, “Girls of the Red Planet”?

By the way, I’ve got a love/hate relationship with the Lions...but my favorite football player of all time is Fran Tarkenton. Oh, no – NOW you probably don’t know WHAT to do.

(Eve starts to break out in a flirtatious smile, but quickly slaps it off... "Get a grip, girl.")

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 02, 2001.

Good Gravy! Y'all got Beltane Fever or something?!

{It's hard to keep up, but I'll try}. Lesse, CD has forgotten about Deb; Bingo has found a Love Connection with Goddess Venus {I think ya oughta see this one through, Rich - just so we can address you as 'Your Godliness'}; and eve is playing hard-to-get. If the trailer park nuptials are truly history, then what the heck am I gonna do with all this rice - wait for Y3k?

My opinion on the selfishness/selflessness of friendship is that is is a teeter-totter of each in a true friendship. My best friend & I have known each other since the first grade {though she claims I wouldn't be her best friend until the second grade}. She is closer to me than my kin, though for several periods, we had tremendous gulfs running between us. Now, I can't imagine traveling through this life without each other.

I used to envision my friends like cut stones who matched certain facets of my own 'self'. I've collected quite a crazy quilt of them over the years. From the final paragraph of Dr. Hurd's piece above, I 'spose I should be on the list for the looney bin because I probably have at least one friend who would react in such a way during such an occasion - if I picked the wrong one to share certain experiences with. What do we expect - 'perfection' in others when we know we aren't capable of it ourselves? *Sheesh* {If we met such an all-round 'perfect' person, we'd more likey want to annihilate them than be their buddy}.

"You get the idea? You like or love your friends because you get something out of them." - {This guy attended one too many EST seminars}.

-- flora (***@__._), May 02, 2001.

Love is in the air, posters are finding love connections....must be spring around here!

But then again just read the About statement at the top of Unk's place here, and it all becomes clearer.

-- (hee@hee.hee), May 02, 2001.

flora, somebody finally turned over the rock under which you were hiding, eh? Good to see you!

My thought on Iona is this: What guy wouldn't want to get with a chickie who has the Goddess Venus giving her tips AND Chuck Woolery's blessing? Call me crazy, but it's almost too good to be true. ;)

Thanks to Unk for adopting my suggestion he seed threads with subliminal messages. Appears to be working out quite nicely.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), May 02, 2001.

"Girls of the Red Planet". LOL

Hmm... Let's see... First Eve downplays her love affair with the Lions and then she sings the praises of the greatest Viking of all time. On top of that, she does all this with a flirtatious smile on her face. The way I see it, this could only mean one of two things. Either Eve is hitting on me, -or- somehow she's discovered that I own a Fran Tarkenton autographed mini-helmet sitting in a glass case on my den shelf and she is buttering me up in hopes of getting her hands on it.

{It's hard to keep up, but I'll try}. Lesse, CD has forgotten about Deb;

LOL Flora. Can't believe you still remember that. But, me "forget" about Deb!? Never!

Latest update on OMNI search: Received my call-back. A guy in New York who works for "General Media" took my information and will be searching their warehouse which contains thousands and thousands of back-issues from many various magazines. It may take a while but he said he'll let me know regardless of whether he finds it or not.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 02, 2001.

Bob Guccione was the publisher of Omni, BTW, hence the Penthouse link mentioned above. For some reason I thought it was common knowledge.

Fran Tarkenton's a real pig of a human being, if his business practices are any reflection of the man. But he was entertaining as hell to watch on the football field. He rang up some awesome numbers in his time.

I am continually amazed how threads evolve. You people are pretty cool.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), May 02, 2001.

flora, hi there, girl! Howyadoon? I missed ya!

I'm sure that Dr. Hurd, in his last paragraph, has to have been referring to people who carried those traits in general. I don't think anyone expects perfection. There's a big leap from "he lied" to "he's a liar."

Rich, I always saw Tarkenton as a very cool guy. I never knew about his business practices. And maybe I don’t WANT to know.....I just loved watching him “scramble,” twisting away at the last second with big guys flying and falling all around him -- one of the only players who actually got me laughing out loud.

CD -- let me know if you find the article; I still intend to try to locate it as soon as I can find some time to get away.

And CD, any “buttering up” you might have so interpreted was for real. But omigod, that helmet! Hmmm....how’s about we trade? The article for the helmet. And....and.....yeah! I’ll.....I’ll even throw in a dozen 50-lb bags of rice, to boot! And...and...a self-defense manual – I mean, ya never know -- yeah, it’s for females and includes how to strangle someone with your bra, but I’m sure you’ll get some good use out of it. Yeah, that’s a good deal, right? I mean, according to Paula Gordon, Y2K risk isn’t over yet. In fact, we could still have a level 7. :)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.

Eve: Must one remove the bra for the strangling, or is this something that could be done while it's in place? [My mind just went OFF with visions on that one.]

Flora, if I were to play cupid [an activity I definitely try to avoid], I'd suggest that Debra and CD [although perhaps suited to each other in many other areas] are a bit too estranged in their political philosophies for a lasting relationship. The honeymoon DOES end, ya know, and mates eventually engage in long talks. While two people never agree on EVERYTHING, it's oftentimes rewarding to receive what Flint in another thread described as that "nod of approval." Eve and CD aren't of the same political persuasion, but I see them far closer to agreement on some issues than CD and Debra.

Now, if I could just Rich to think beyond a wet nose and four furry legs! I HAVE read some stories of women who switched back and forth, but I think wolfbane and a full moon were required.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2001.

Anita, LOL!!! (and still laughing as I'm trying to type -- re the bra thing) Well, it was supposed to be where you were in a situation where you could get it off. And this was for real, btw! Although I don't recall reading the details, it would be pretty cool if it was where you could unhook it, do some gyrations for a few seconds, then whip it right through your sleeve and right around the guy's neck (maybe even find a way to cover his eyes with the cups at the same time, if for no reason other than the visual).

But, 'Nita, your way was fantastic! I mean right off I can think of ways to do this where for sure the guy would die with a smile on his face... :)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.

Sorry Eve. If you had been "hitting" on me rather than simply "buttering me up" you might have been able to swing a deal for the helmet. As it stands, your trade-bait only warrants a possible deal for my Joe Dimaggio autographed baseball.

For future reference... Despite the extremely strong likelihood of a level 7, 8 or even 9 on the Paula Gordon scale, I'm not really interested in the rice. However, the self-defense book definitely caught my attention. Afterall, a guy never knows when he might get into a bar fight or be mugged and have to use a bra to strangle his attacker. Being that my only experiences with bras has been limited to un-hooking 'em and tossing 'em to the foot of the bed, I'm sure your book could teach me a lot.

I'll definitely let you know if/when I get results on my Omni search.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 03, 2001.

Anita- I just now read your last post. LOL. I have but two comments...

1) For somebody who claims; playing cupid "is an activity I definitely try to avoid", you sure are spending a lot of time dancing around it. (Just admit it... All women *love* playing cupid.)

2) If you ever want to teach a lesson on how to strangle a person with your bra while you are still wearing it and you need a person to demonstrate on, I hereby volunteer.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 03, 2001.

"Anita.....If you ever want to teach a lesson on how to strangle a person with your bra while you are still wearing it and you need a person to demonstrate on, I hereby volunteer."

(sigh) It can be like a knife through the heart when you're passed over.....

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.

I'm still trying to figure out whether that offer was selfish, or selfless...

...& whether it was friendship, or fiendship...

-- flora (***@__._), May 03, 2001.