J. P. & Stefan Molyneux
When listening to the October 21 Call-in-Show, where Stef talks with respectively James, Rodzilla and Greg I was mesmerized and shocked by what exactly Stef was doing here, what he was doing with them, and ultimately
to them.
Below I will try to analyze his conversation with James.(I hope to do the same thing for his conversations with Rodzilla and Greg as well, as they are equally mesmerizing) For me, this is one of the most important things I have thought and written about FDR and Stef. I think I have gotten closer to what exactly Stef and FDR
are in relation to the FDR members, and I actually started to feel
a lot of sympathy for both James, Rodzilla and Greg during these conversations.
I very much hope to hear what you think, what your impressions and ideas about the talks are and I would recommend listening to the podcast if you can. The podcasts starts with Stef talking about
LiberatingMinds for about 20 minutes (we have already discussed this part here
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/fdr-podcast-888-t225.htm ) and then the conversation with James starts.
James refers to a board interaction he had with Stef about the responses to Stef's UPB book. James initially posted 'Looks good' in response to reading the book, which sort of frustrated Stef because he had worked so hard (for 25 years he says) on the book and thinks it is the most important philosophical insight in the history of the world, and in response he only got 'Looks good'. He says he didn’t want blind praise either, but at least some sensible commentary and remarks about the book and what people liked and didn’t like. I think this frustration is understandable for somebody who just wrote a book or finished a project (even when you dont think it is in fact so monumental) and James agrees with that.
Stef then says that either James doesn't think the book is that great in which case Stef thinks James can help Stef out of the illusion that the book is great
or James
does think it was that great but he just didn’t feel like writing a lengthy post about his thoughts on the book.
Since James does
say that he thinks the book is great Stef asks
what it would cost James to be truly enthusiastic about the book. James responds by saying that he initially had trouble understanding what is so revolutionary and shocking about the book, but then he realized that of course
for him, a long time FDR listener, there is nothing new in it, so he has
internalized the revolutionary message already and perhaps that's what made him less enthusiastic. Which seems understandable.
Stef then says that obviously James did know some stuff about UPB but that the
proof for UPB in the book
is new and that that must be hella exciting for James. He then also talks about his stuff on the 'null zone' in the book and how good and new that is, and James responds by saying 'That, you know what, I'm sorry to interrupt you, yes eh, you know what? That was definitely, that was, I was definitely appreciated that. that was actually, I don't know why, that was what was sort of on my mind. I really appreciated that. That was brilliant, I should say. ehm, so there you go. That was definitely brilliant.' Notice how he doesnt say anything about the
content of that stuff, just empty praise. Also notice how James apparently (and understandably) had not realized that the proof
was wholly new. As I will explain near the end I think this is because Stef's book just leaves people confused.
Then Stef of course accepts the empty praise but says that for him it sort of felt like James was thinking 'Okay, so you pulled off the biggest feat in human hisrioty, you proved ethics without Gods or governments, but eh, I kind of thought there would be more' which obviously would be an odd and somewhat absurd thought to have. If your dream woman who is gorgeous, loves FDR and philosophy and whose family is great wants to be with you then you'd be a fool to say: 'Ah, but she has a little mole behind her ear and there is a small hair growing out of it'. I mean, where huge enthusiasm is appropriate, instead you find a silly reason
not to be enthusiastic.
---
now notice something really important: James did not seem to be too enthusiastic about the book on the board and he also did not seem to understand that there supposedly was something
new in the book, namely the proof for UPB. A natural question to ask James at that point is 'what did you think about the book? what parts did you like, what parts not so much? Were there parts you did not understand? can you paraphrase my proof for UPB so that we can see if we understand what we are talking about? was my proof for UPB convincing? and so on.
if you ask these questions, you will find out whether James understood what Stef thinks there is to be understood from the book, what he liked about it, and so on. If he comes away from this showing that he understood Stef's arguments well but simply did not
feel the enthusiasm for the book, then two possiblities open up: 1. James did not find Stef's arguments for the theory or the theory itself very clear or convincing or revolutionary. or 2) James has problems expressing and experiencing enthousiasm.
now notice how Stef does not ask James any of the above questions and hence does not arrive at the two possiblities just mentioned. Instead he simply
assumes that the book is brilliant, unprecedented and the most important work in the history of philosophy
and that James understood the book and its impact, but that James simply has problems expressing and feeling enthusiasm.
So Stef brilliantly manages to circumvent an actual
intellectual discussion about the book (both in this talk as well as elsewhere on the board) and its possible weaknesses and instead manages to frame the discussion in the
psychological terms of James' alleged lack of capability to express and feel genuine enthusiasm. Only that becomes the topic of discussion.
listen from 35:00 and witness the brilliant emotional manipulation Stef uses to bring James from a state of mild confusion and uncertainty about his reaction to the book and what this means either for himself or for the book into a state offeeling exalted. Stef is here like a passionate priest bringing churchgoers from doubt into bliss and certainty and faith, with all his rethoric, persuasion & grandeur 'And now, Brother, Do you
believe?' and the churchgoer almost despite himself,
hears himself say: Yes...' and at that moment faith washes over him in an awesome wave and he goes: 'YES, I Believe!'. and that initial and hesitant ‘yes’ is not so much a
description (or affirmation of a description) of his state of mind, it instead is more like a
performative statement:
through saying that statement in this context he
begins to believe, and can then
shout it with full conviction!'
This is very much like what happens with James and his doubts from 35:00 onwards. Stef says: ‘If, if I pulled it off, if I pulled off this proof of ethics and you are one of the first people on the planet in history to read it... like, isn't that pretty cool? [...] isn't that amazing?' And James then responds: 'yes… (said in a
performative way […] I actually
feel it.' (also listen to James from 40:20)
So Stef gets James exactly where he wants to have him: James now, without any arguments having been exchanged, has been brought into a situation of
belief or faithf in Stef's book and its importance and his own privileged role in its birth. And since he thus believes in the book and its monumental importance, his previous lack of enthuisiasm
must have causes other than possible flaws or weaknesses or confusion in Stef's book, namely causes in himself.
And the rest of the conversation then is about exploring James' (and Stef's) childhood experiences that have caused him to feel anxious and blocked in expressing and experiencing enthusiasm. And James comes away from this conversation confused but Happy and with the idea that he has learned something Very Important about himself.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think there is something hugely important to what Stef has to say about children's natural enthusiasm being killed by people in society and through culture, and it is hella interesting and important to explore what events and what people in your own life may have killed your capacity for enthusiasm. I think such explorations are the things that make FDR and Stef so incredibly powerful and wonderful and important.
But in this and other cases, Stef
uses these explorations in order to skip over the possiblity that people may not be enthusiastic about the book because it may be confused, flawed, limited or whatever. He uses the agreement that people may have about the findings in such explorations to create the illusion of agreement about
that being the cause of their lack of enthusiasm for the book. in the most simplistic form this is an argument of the type 'But doesn't one plus one equal two?' Yes, of course it does, but that is completely irrelevant top the topic under discussion.
I wrote before that I am 100% convinced that not one FDR'er (nor Stef himself) can paraphrase or summarize the meaning of UPB and the proof for it. The book is one long obfuscation mechanism. ( I have no idea whether Stef is aware or unaware of this) There is no clear argument in it that you can lay out, summarize and analyze. And people, including especially the FDR'ers close to Stef
must feel fundamentally
confused about the book: they are told by a source they trust more than anyone else (Stef) that it is the most important philosophical insight in the history of mankind, but when reading through it and reaching the end of it, they 'don't get it', they don't have a clear sense of what Stef is talking about, they fail to see its significance and proof. It truly is akin to the people watching the emperor parading in his new clothes. So there is some serious cognitive dissonance going on for them that they have a hard time coming out of.
Stef brings them out of that cognitive dissonance not by openly talking about their experiences and feelings and thoughts about the book, but by
framing the issue in the form of psychological explorations and then noverwhelming them by emotional manipulation.
This is the technique not of a
philosopher or even of a competent therapist, but of a charismatic priest or, dare I say it, cult leader. I dont mean these terms as simple ad hominems. I simply have no other words for it and think I have done my best in presenting my case for these terms and I would be very interested to hear other views on it.
Subject: J. P. and Stefan Molyneux 
Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:08 pm
)
