Integrity

[NonEntity]

I mentioned recently that I was very impressed by the fact that Marc did not copyright his book. As I said, this was a HUGE marker for me of his integrity. Lots of people talk about things and don't really follow up when it is their wallet (or whatever) that is on the line. Marc did.

This brings me to Stefan Molyneux, as an example. A year or three ago Stefan burst upon the scene, creating podcasts from his car on the way to work. He preached an unflinching honesty and a total unwillingness to have anything to do with anyone who was not as completely honest and libertarian as he. He said that all families were evil and that all children should reject their parents and other family members. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating on the order of 1 to 4 percent, but not more. His devotion to complete integrity in one's behavior is one of the things that impressed me. Kinda like Marc's unwillingness to use the state to protect his profits, Stefan was unwilling to suffer ANY deviation from the straight and narrow of personal integrity.

So I started to follow him on his board and get into various philosophical debates. What followed was quite interesting. Stefan is a total fraud. He speaks of complete integrity but is totally dishonest when an idea of his or some behavior of his is challenged and found wanting. Does he admit possible error? Heck no, he simply bans the offending philosopher from his board. Problem solved.

What is interesting to me is that he sounds really good. I like a lot, perhaps MOST, of what he has to say. But then I know that he is a liar, a fraud, and completely without integrity. (GO HERE for some analysis --- And HERE, too...) So what am I to make of those things he says that I agree with? It's kinda like Obama, or Bush, or any one of those liars called politicians... you can't believe a word that comes from their mouths. I long ago figured out that it is not possible to climb the political ladder without sacrificing one's honesty and integrity in the climb, and that therefore the fact that one is a successful politician is proof positive that one is scum.

It is said that actions speak louder than words. This seems to be a truism. What with very skillful sociopaths all around us who have finely honed the art of deception, what is a person to do until one has developed a sufficient history of interaction with another? I had a "friend" who is a sociopath. It took me about 15 years and much study of the subject of sociopathy before I understood why so often I could not understand many of his actions. That's a LONG time. A lot of interactions.

I guess what triggered me to make this post is that one of my other (aside from Marc) favorite people, Larken Rose, just posted high praise for a talk that Stefan had made. It was almost as if he'd praised Obama for killing that "American citizen" on his own personal whim a few days back.

I don't know what any of this means, but I was spurred to put it down "on paper," so here it is.

Talk amongst yourselves, or cut me a new one.

- NonE

[Jonathanr]

Stefan banning people? I thought you were talking about Karl Denninger.

[zonsb]

If it were my forum, I'd ban NonEntity just on principle. Not really. Just kidding. Though I could elaborate on...
When given lemons, make lemonade.

Anyhow, regards Stefan, I feel comfortable and think it appropriate since I have told him as much in an email.

On more than one occasion Stefan has proclaimed parapsychology (PSI) isn't valid. With one instance he said if remote viewing were valid someone would have won James Randi's million-dollar challenge.

I've done over 3,400 remote viewing trials. So I have personal experience that remote viewing does in fact work. So do many people.

That no one has won Randi's challenge is that he has designed the process from application to end result to not be winnable. It's his schtick so he can't allow it to be won.

I made a mental note of how easily or readily Stefan used an appeal to authority. Especially when there's a large body of evidence that has validated remote viewing and parapsychology in general.

There's several remote viewing protocols. I learned associative remote viewing with the intent of predicting the outcome of future events. It's easy to learn. The student need only learn the first part to validate it for themselves. It can be learned and perform a first trial in an afternoon. I got up to doing two sessions a day of nine trials each.

Remote viewing isn't a "gift" that a few people have. It's a species-wide ability. Conventional science shuns it (or at least it did the last time I checked) mainly because it hasn't been resolved how it can occur outside known cause and effect relationships. It buggers them that they don't know how it works.

To do the free course go to: http://www.remote-viewing.com/

[Dionysus]

Stefan is a philosophical materialist, which is basically the belief that the sticks-and-stones world that you experience with your senses is all there is. He filters everything through this lens and superimposes this map onto the territory of reality. He rejects the notion that there's a deeper, more vivid, more substantial reality standing behind and above the physical and manifesting it (which there most definitely is). So, like the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland, he believes impossible things and is constantly in damage control mode when the unattractive truth rears its head, which it does at times. It's really a shame that he has such a huge blind spot. But I still consider him one of the main "go-to" guys when it comes to the philosophy of freedom (luckily philosophical materialism isn't all that relevant there). However, even taking that into consideration, there are many things that I think he's simply wrong about (his rejection of 9/11 being a false flag done by a criminal network, for one). So I don't consider him to be a major influence on me, and pretty much dismiss most of what he says that's not related to freedom. Again, what a shame.

Marc is much better, needless to say. He resonates with me much, much more.

NonE: I recommend that you simply "keep" what you like about Stef and throw out the rest.

[NonEntity]

(10-05-2011 08:01 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  But I still consider him one of the main "go-to" guys when it comes to the philosophy of freedom (luckily philosophical materialism isn't all that relevant there). However, even taking that into consideration, there are many things that I think he's simply wrong about (his rejection of 9/11 being a false flag done by a criminal network, for one). So I don't consider him to be a major influence on me, and pretty much dismiss most of what he says that's not related to freedom. Again, what a shame.

Marc is much better, needless to say. He resonates with me much, much more.

My issues with Stefan are not that he's wrong. Hell, we're all wrong much of the time. Only doG is perfect, afterall, and omniscient and all that. What bothers me is that he is dishonest, a bully and generally a scumbag of a person. And to use him as an exemplar of the principled voluntaryist ideal causes my stomach to attempt an exit through my oral aperture.

- NonE

[Dionysus]

Wow, he must have really done you wrong. I haven't really had any personal dealings with him and haven't seen anything that would indicate he's a scumbag, although I find most atheists to be hypocrites of the highest order in that they're just as devoutly religious in their beliefs as the religious zealots they chastise. I think I'm living proof that you can be non-religious and not be an atheist. Anyway, if that's how you feel about him, then that's how you feel. Just try to be mindful that such strong, negative feelings can be detrimental. Also, I noticed that Stef hasn't been on Marc's show in a long time, and I can't help but wonder if they had some sort of falling out. As for him being an ambassador of voluntaryism, he won't be around in that capacity very long if he's as bad as you claim.

ETA: Board member and blogger FSK has some valid criticisms of Stefan:

Stefan Molyneux is a Murderer!

Criticisms of Stefan Molyneux

[NonEntity]

Steve Jobs is dead.

In an interesting post on the subject at NaturalNews.com, Mike Adams had this to say (I thought it fit in with the subject of this thread):

Quote:Importantly, you don't take money with you when you die, so collecting dollars or cars or even gold is little more than a short-term distraction set in the physical world. What you do take is a karmic record of your actions; a "universal log file" of your principles and ethics, if you will.

- NonE

[Dionysus]

Another thing that frosts my ass about Stefan is how he loves to browbeat people for what he calls self-contradicting or self-detonating statements, yet being a philosophical materialist, he’s the king of them. If the universe is nothing but a bunch of atoms/energy bouncing around like he believes, and the human experience of “truth” is nothing but a trick of the brain, then there can be no universal standard of truth, since it would have to transcend the physical world. But people like him go around trying to convince others of the universal truth of philosophical materialism. What a joke. The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get. I think I’ll stop watching his videos altogether (as it is now I only watch 1 or 2 a week, and usually abort those after a few minutes). So thanks for giving me a little more free time, NonE!

[notavoter]

I do not discount anything disparaging any one has said about Stefan in here but I have never met Stefan in person. No one is perfect even if they claim to be. Stefan puts himself out there a lot and he has been successful at it.

The question I have is Stefan truly one of those, like me, who wants to be left alone, or is he one of those who wants to be into my business? For me that is the integrity yardstick.

I think it is possible that Stefan's ambition is not what he says it is and he is a closet statist. All I know is I am not or will I ever be a statist ever again and Stefan was the one who pushed me over the edge. Then I found Marc and it was all over.

Peace

[NonEntity]

(10-06-2011 09:12 AM)Dionysus Wrote:  Another thing that frosts my ass about Stefan is how he loves to browbeat people for what he calls self-contradicting or self-detonating statements, yet being a philosophical materialist, he’s the king of them. If the universe is nothing but a bunch of atoms/energy bouncing around like he believes, and the human experience of “truth” is nothing but a trick of the brain, then there can be no universal standard of truth, since it would have to transcend the physical world. But people like him go around trying to convince others of the universal truth of philosophical materialism. What a joke. The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get. I think I’ll stop watching his videos altogether (as it is now I only watch 1 or 2 a week, and usually abort those after a few minutes). So thanks for giving me a little more free time, NonE!

Well, just to piss you off some more (more free time! you can write me off, too ), I am pretty much in agreement with the part of your post that I bolded above. But I differ in what I think your conclusion is. As I think I've said before, morality is a choice. One can choose to rise above shear mechanistic reality and grant to others what one would like for one's self - another way of stating "the golden rule." And I would agree that this is universal. Universal not that all will make that choice, but that all CAN make that choice and it is a one-way street. I.e. there is either amorality or morality. The only way there can be immorality is when one who grasps the nature of morality then chooses to act in offense of that knowledge. But nature alone is amoral; a bold of lightning hitting a school building filled with students is not something to which the label "moral" or "immoral" is at all relevant.


One of these days maybe I'll have this idea sufficiently coherent for it to make sense. Or not.

Okay, now that I look over what I've written I see some errors.

Where I say "all CAN make that choice" I'm clearly in error as one can only make such a choice if one has the capability of grasping the universality of the desire for life, i.e. one is capable of empathy. Unless one can grasp that another's life is as valuable to that other as one's own life (and love and joy and on and on) is to one's self.

So now I'm faced with the recurring theme (to me - hounding me day in and day out) of how does a moral person - one who has chosen to behave in a moral fashion and treat others with the consideration one would desire for one's self - deal with those others who are incapable of grasping the concept of morality? (I need to read that post i2 linked to, to see if it may help.)

Well, I can see I've once again talked myself in a circle. I'll leave you alone now before I make a bigger fool of myself, and come back again later with some other stupid thing to say to keep you amused.

- NonE

---

(10-06-2011 09:54 AM)notavoter Wrote:  All I know is I am not or will I ever be a statist ever again and Stefan was the one who pushed me over the edge. Then I found Marc and it was all over.

Peace

Nicely stated.

[Dionysus]

(10-06-2011 10:08 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Well, I can see I've once again talked myself in a circle. I'll leave you alone now before I make a bigger fool of myself, and come back again later with some other stupid thing to say to keep you amused.

I'm counting on it.

I really have nothing more to add about Stefan. I've spent too much time on him already. I learned some good things from him, but I think I’ve “outgrown” him and have moved on. I don’t wish him any real ill will though, and hope he’s able to continually evolve and open himself up to new ideas (pretty ironic, no?). Read those links to FSKs blog to have a better understanding of what I mean. Anyway, on to bigger and better things.

[Jace: Johanson]

This is interesting to me. I quite like Stef's work for what I can understand of it, and I have my own little annoyances about him or his views on certain things. I visited those links and also some of the links contained in their articles, and I'd admit that I'm ignorant of the stuff that happened on his forums. Mostly because I got burned out with forums by early 2009 and i was never that blog-happy to begin with. For me, it's always come back to assessing how much truth or leastways validity is contained in what is said. Consider the source, absolutely, and I'm toubled to hear about some of this. But, even if the only benefit is that stretching of the mind from taking in some new idea, I'm grateful for what I hear from Stef, or Rob Menard, or Adam Kokesh, or whomever, even if in the end I've completely left Rob behind anymore and think Adam has a few apparent gaps in his re-training he has yet to notice since leaving statism behind. Different maps, different areas and degrees of clarity.

Quote:If the universe is nothing but a bunch of atoms/energy bouncing around like he believes, and the human experience of “truth” is nothing but a trick of the brain, then there can be no universal standard of truth, since it would have to transcend the physical world.

But I'll be honest, guys, you sorta lost me on this point. It's ansilary to what my two bits are about, but I thought I'd mention it. I think the glitch I'm catching is hinged around that trick of the brain part. I don't recall that being said or catching it as an implied premise. All credit to my own capacity for fallibility.

I liked that FSK guys posts as well. He read as pretty fair and objective.

Was that you, zonsb, who called in about remote viewing? I remember somebody bringing it up to him and yeah, he pretty well shot them down. However, I'll play umpire for a sec and say that there are only so many things one can commit themselves to learn about and really dig into to prove or disprove. I don't fault Stef for how he perceives that stuff beyond an acceptable allowance of human limits and fallability. He may be dead wrong, and how should I know either? I haven't looked into it either, for the same reasons of limited time and capability as I suggested could play a part for him.

So, I agree with Dionysus on keeping what's beneficial and leaving what's not. Bruce Lee said, in essence, the same thing talking about having no style. And for me, as a martial artist, his is an analogy I can identify with.

But, being much younger than Marc or Stef, a lot of times I have to re-word some referrencial analogy to fit into my own head. And in some of those posts against Stef, I have to wonder if the ones writing the article aren't simply unnable to translate an analogy due to an unbridged gap of experiencial knowledge. Same goes for Stef in his perspectives on things.

I'm very careful nowadays not to simply brand or accept a brand of scumbag on anyone. Alex Jones gets under my skin all the time for still being a devout minarchist and regularly failing to hold himself back interjecting in a caller's comments. Listening to him unusually leaves me more stressed afterwards, and mostly because he himself is so high-strung. And I've seen all sorts of things written about him, too, claiming he's really a disinfo agent or whatever.

Juxtaposed to that, listening to Stef and Marc speak usually leaves me feeling pretty calm about things, even though the topics may be no less shitty than what Alex reports on. Of the three of them, I sure do resonate best with Marc, but I take him at his own advice as well. He cautions people never to assume he's not a liar, either by intent or blind error. That gels with how I already looked at him, so when his stuff started checking out, more kudos to him for being forthright.

Stef's not perfect, but I think, None, you're right about talking into a circle, at least in some degree; and good on ya for catching it yourself. If ya'll can have such tolerance for disagreements with RealSkinny on a regular basis, which I think is fair and admirable, don't f-up now denying Stef the same window for error.

Be cool, everybody.

[Dionysus]

Jace:

Thanks for the well-thought-out response. You gave me some things to ponder. Don't be a stranger, as they say.

[zonsb]

(10-06-2011 08:34 PM)Jace: Johanson Wrote:  Was that you, zonsb, who called in about remote viewing? I remember somebody bringing it up to him and yeah, he pretty well shot them down.

That wasn't me who called. As I said above, I sent him an email. That was maybe three or four years ago and it included links to articles that showed how Randi's million-dollar challenge is bogus and, links to research-lab results validating remote viewing and, a link to an easy-to-learn remote viewing course he could do to amaze himself. You know, stretch the mind. Everyone makes errors. Stefan's appeal to authority was where he lost credibility in my eyes.

Quote:However, I'll play umpire for a sec and say that there are only so many things one can commit themselves to learn about and really dig into to prove or disprove.

Apparently Stefan hadn't gotten around to learning that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I would think learning about that would be right up his alley, so to speak.

Quote:I don't fault Stef for how he perceives that stuff beyond an acceptable allowance of human limits and fallability. He may be dead wrong, and how should I know either? I haven't looked into it either, for the same reasons of limited time and capability as I suggested could play a part for him.

I understand that. To make strenuous comment for or against something when one is short on validation is bad enough. But for a philosopher to use a logical fallacy to compensate for his ignorance is shooting oneself in the foot.

[Jace: Johanson]

Thanks for the kudos, Dionysis. I'm happy you assessed it to be well thought-out. I only seem to think clearly in the stream of conciousness, but I worry no one else could follow my train. ;P

Zonsb, I'd like to hear where Stef made those appeals to authority. Don't take that to mean I feel it incumbant upon you to provide them for me or that I'm saying that rhetorically or sarcastically. By my own terrier-like nature I'm going to be in a somewhat heightened state of digging and worrying the bone to 'consider the source.' It strikes me as so out of character for him, and that would make it so much the more troublesome if I came to the same conclusions with the same evidence from the horse's own mouth. I could only brouse NonE's articles and their internal links for a while before I found the point that was nagging at me most immediately. Now I've got it out of the way, I am going to have to give the articles and critiques of his books more complete scrutiny and look into the Freedomain forum.

"Time is a gift, given to you.
Given to give you time you need; the time you need
to have the time of your life."

I have no idea why The Phantom Tollbooth popped into my head at the end of all that, but I think it has something to do with my mention of a finite allocation of time. Sure, we'll go with that. Course, that makes me think of the character in there called "The Census (Senses) Taker." If you haven't seen it (God forbid) here's the clip of the Senses Taker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgnUjG3PYtA

Roll on.