Thanks, guys. I'm sure I'll be around sporadically, though life is pretty crazy these days with my thesis due in two weeks.

Regarding the situation with Stefan, I can't be too upset with the guy; I think he handled things pretty decently given the way he says he felt, and that's really all you can ask from someone. I would obviously have preferred a different kind of discussion, and wish things had turned out differently, but at the end of the day it's all water under the bridge. I mean, just like I'm a young whippersnapper who doesn't give him any reason for concern, he won't be on the admissions board of any of the graduate schools I apply to in the fall.

Excellent parting post Danny!

edit:

questEon wrote:

I don't know if that was a result of strategy or character, but in any event you are a class act all the way.

Nicely put Q and I whole heartedly agree!

I just want to reiterate a point that Danny illuminated very well in his interactions with Stef, as well as in his "parting shot," which is that Stef is very unclear about just what UPB actually IS. I believe this is intentional. As with many, many things Mr. Molynuex says (especially about the family) it is whatever he needs it to be at the time.

So, sometimes UPB is a methodology, and sometimes it's a complete ethical system, and still other times it becomes a tool for evaluating moral claims made by others. I think that his book was intentionally obsfucatory, and it's important to note that he always places the blame on others for not "getting it," often with sarcasm and eye-rolling and a wink and nudge at his fan club.

They joke of course is, they don't "get it" either, but they pretend they do, and the best example of that is good ol' Rodzilla, who's bizarre behavior in the beginning of that thread was a pretty transparent impersonation of Stef. The upshot, (for me anyway, because I'm not so interested in the actual philosophy, but rather the fascinating group dynamic at play, and how Stef acts out his own drama through his followers at FDR), is how much like a manipulative parent/child relationship it is, or like a priest and layman situation.

The Emperor has no clothes, but when you point it out, you're criticized for not being able to see what isn't there. If you take him at his word and act accordingly (in this case, seeking truth and the refinement of UPB, where Stef says, "correct me if I'm wrong, or "I'm willing to be educated on this matter," or whatever pro forma concession he makes to dialogue), you are banished. It's a "do as I say, not as I do," or a "because I said so!" kind of situation. He is the authority on UPB, and by maintaining very vague and shifting boundaries for the "theory," he retains ownership and control, and more importantly, what I think is his ultimate desire here, the dependence of others on him for his authority.

If UPB were sufficient,complete and able to stand on it's own, then Stef himself would no longer be necessary to the conversation. People could take it and run with it, they'd go out in the world to apply it and share it with others, living exemplary lives and achieving success as paragons of virtue and happiness, imbuing their communities with all the positive effects of living your values and engaging in RTR to resolve disputes. But that's not the kind of liberation Stef is working to achieve. This is, to be charitable, a business, and his livelihood at that, so it requires a certain level of repeat business. If I were being less charitable, I'd say it's an exercise in self-aggrandizement, which requires a constant stream of ego strokes and the reinforcement of the notion that Stef is THE indispensable component of the community he's created, the money being the manifestation of his worth to them, and evidence of the continuing value he provides.

So, there. I think Stef doesn't really want anyone to "get" UPB. He doesn't want to lay it out in a clear and easy to grasp fashion, because if he did, you wouldn't need him anymore. And he NEEDS to be needed, he wants to be the center of all these kids' worlds, the one they look up to and venerate and who's every word they hang on.

Dyl, I agree with you about the ineffable nature of of UPB, but I don't think it's intentional. Or, rather, I don't think Stefan is conscious of it. He may be manipulative, and he is certainly self-interested, but I think he genuinely believes that what he's preaching is revolutionary and correct.

In the few conversations I had with him in the past, via IM, he expressed to me that, although he had struggled with philosophy in the past, now he has finally gotten it right. He really believes this stuff. I think someone else said this first, but if you look at the way he behaves on his message boards, and in his podcasts, it's obvious that Stefan thinks that he is literally the greatest living philosopher in the world. Think about it. He isn't willing to read any contemporary philosophers, he thinks that academic philosophy is basically a waste of time, and he refers to the ideas of no-one other than Ayn Rand and occasionally some long-dead Greeks. He will regularly compliment the intelligence and participation of his board members, but only insofar as they agree with him.

We're all, to some extent, blind to our own ignorances. I think that Stefan legitimately believes that he has solved all of the major ethical issues that philosophers have struggled with for thousands of years. But he doesn't see the problems in his theories, because they have not been subjected to any sort of light. Imagine what the process was for authoring UPB: I'm sure he didn't even bother to look for an agent or a publisher. I'm equally certain that he edited it himself, with help from Christina and Greg probably. No-one outside of FDR was asked to review and vet the contents beforehand. It was all just Stefan and the people who are uncritical of him. And, of course, that's no accident. From experience, I'm sure he knows that his ideas are not received well by people outside of his personal circle. So I'd guess that he rationalizes the insularity by reasoning that such outsiders are corrupted by their adherence to statism, religion, relativism, or whatever. It's not that he intentionally made his book obscure; it's that he didn't have anyone available who could tell him, "This doesn't make any sense," or "What is this book supposed to be about, exactly?" His only editors were people who he knew would say, "This is f-ing awesome, Stef! You blew it out of the water, dude!"

Stefan would probably concede that there are flaws in his book. I think he understands that, and he probably even expected it. But on the whole, he absolutely believes that he has slain the beast. The problem is that, given everything he wrote, he still can't articulate exactly what the beast is, or what was entailed in actually slaying it.

I would say that he accomplished exactly nothing with UPB. The things that he included which are of actual value are almost accidental. As a thinker, Stefan has things to offer, but solving the problems of ethics, whatever that means, isn't even close to being one of them. I kept notes in my PDF, as I was slowly pushing through the book, and the number of inconsistencies, equivocations, unevidenced assertions, and simple logical errors was astounding. Most of them were pretty small. They were things that, if you cut them out or reworked them a bit, the book as a whole might have be no worse off. But a few of them, such as the one I posted about on FDR, were the sorts of errors that you put a book down because of. They are the sorts of errors that disassemble one's theories, the sorts of errors that you simply cannot make in a philosophical book. And if, as Stefan asserted, UPB really did solve the biggest ethical dilemmas in history, it would have to be nearly perfect. The kind of mind which can best the greatest philosophers of all time is also the kind of mind which does not miss several dozen conceptual missteps, and certainly not the kind of mind that misses a number of large logical holes.

I mentioned a few days ago that I was working on something about the nature of rights; if anyone's still interested in looking at it, here's the link (keep in mind it's definitely a work in progress!):

http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/04/rights-and-entitlements.html

Danny,
To me it sounds like you are writing about compassion. Understanding both others and what they need and also what I need.
Also stated as I will do what I can to let you do what you will. If you do the same things this will work out as best as can be hoped.
Stated negatively, you do what you want and I will to. We will negate each other. There are no rights or obligations but accepting them will help us both.
This seems the moral equivelent of the Nash equilibrium. Seems reasonable to me.

Why am I surprised?

Ho Hum, I guess I expected Danny to be ignored rather than booted. But really, this has gotten ridiculous.

If I were the supreme administrator at FDR, I would be firing Stef, or putting him in the penalty box for a few weeks: "Dude, as a leader here you cannot invite someone to debate, then bait and flame them, then abuse your power and boot them! WTF, yo? Take a vacation and reapply for the job of "Talky Dude At Large" when you return. And by the way, Danny has to approve your return, you arrogant sot.

Cant you see Im easily bothered by persistence
One step from lashing out at you...
You want in to get under my skin
And call yourself a friend
Ive got more friends like you
What do I do?

Pantera Walk, I was listening to it while reading the last post

The creepy thing is, to some degree this reminds me of everyone... but yeah, it is similar to a certain someone.