Sharon Presley on authority

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

QuestEon,

If I have learned anything in life, I have learned that when people put a huge negative focus on something and claim that the world needs to be rid of it, they have that very thing in their hearts. I'm not talking about normal value judgments where you condemn bad stuff, which is good to do. I'm talking about excessive focus--obsession. Nurturing hatred qua hatred (regardless of how you fancy it up with words).

Reading the excerpt you just posted gave me the creeps. I don't recall ever reading such an obsession with raw power in that context before. I believe that Molyneux is a power-monger in his heart. His acts seem to bear this out.

If he ever got his hands on real power where he could deploy law enforcement or secret police, etc., I predict he would turn into a total monster after mulling over a crisis of conscience where "just this once" he felt he had to start eliminating people for a higher good.

I've known people like him before, although with different focuses on bashing (and seeking) power.

Here's an extreme example of what I am talking about. While Jim Jones was alive, did anyone in their wildest imaginations ever imagine that he would do what he did? But look at his focus on power and how he bashed it in others before he led all those people to their deaths. I see a parallel here. I am not claiming Molyneux is on Jones's level of kooky, but if he ever got total power in a jungle setting cut off from the rest of civilization the way Jones did, I would not give good odds on his virtue.

Power already tends to corrupt a person's integrity. When a person actively seeks it, and from what I have seen Molyneux actively seeks it (with a rhetorical smokescreen to make it look like something else), he isn't too worried about integrity in his hierarchy of values.

Here's a question for Molyneux's flock if any ever read this. He claims that parents cannot love their children, but seek to be worshiped instead.

Well, what makes you think that he loves you? Look around. Look at how he handles dissent. Is your agreement with him always a precondition for his caring about you? If so, doesn't it look more like he's the one who wants to be worshiped?

Michael

[slpresley]

whYNOT:

If you found my comments useful, I'm very glad. Thanks for saying so.

Part of the problem in trying to discuss such matters are definitions. When developmental psychologists talk about empathy, they are not talking about social/political agendas, let alone using empathy to assert moral superiority. All they are saying is that if children are to be morally competent, they need to understand how bad actions affect others. This helps them grow in moral sophistication. Children who are taught empathy are more likely to be at more sophisticated levels of moral judgement (ala Kohlberg's stages) that allow them to have more encompassing notions of right and wrong. Not merely what's in it for me (Stage 2), maybe not just Stage 3 (what do my friends and family think is right), maybe even Stage 4 (what do the institutions I value say is right). Some may even make it to Stages 5 (the laws may be wrong) and 6 (accepting the idea of universal human rights that apply to all).

Kohlberg's approach to moral judgment is a very cognitive one, similar in some respects to Piaget's theory of cognitive development in children. So when you say "Genuine caring evolves from thought, and value - not unfocused, arbitrary feelings," you are not talking about the kind of moral judgment that Kohlberg is. The moral judgments he talks about, especially at the higher states, are based on cognitive assessment. Perhaps not very sophisticated cognitive assessments but values nonetheless.

I think that the ideas of empathy and altruism have gotten a bum rap among libertarians and objectivists because they accept Rand's definitions and assume that other people use the same definitions. This isn't the case. For example, when psychologists use the term "altruism" they simply mean helping another person without expectation of external reward. They DO NOT mean totally sacrificing one's self-interest to help another. Thus from a psychologist's perspective, altruism is not inherently incompatible with philosophical individualism. The whole discussion gets muddled when people talk at cross purposes bu using different definitions. I think that libertarians and objectivists who want to communciate with people of different views than theirs need to understand this or they will continue talking at cross purposes.

[slpresley]

To all of you who have commented on Molyneux:

I knew it was only a matter of time before one of his fanboys started attacking me and trying to smear me. Below is a link to the opening salvo by Victor Pross. I've only looked at the first video so far. Pretty laughable and tedious. He spends the first 5 minutes basically talking about himself rather than the topic (which he has also done in unrelated videos--very annoying and egotistical). About all he does in this one is complain that I misrepresented Molyneux by--misrepresenting what *I* said! How clever is that? He implied that I said SM's position is that you should drop your friends like a "bag of shit." Well, of course, I said nothing of the kind nor would I ever.

I don't have a YouTube account yet but please feel free to express your opinions at this link if you do have an account:

I will find the others and post them too.

[Selene]

whYNOT:

The whole discussion gets muddled when people talk at cross purposes bu using different definitions. I think that libertarians and objectivists who want to communicate with people of different views than theirs need to understand this or they will continue talking at cross purposes.

Precisely, Sharon.

One of the major foundational purposes of rhetoric, argumentation and debate is the formal definition of terms.

When someone, or some "group," refuses to engage in a basic formal exposition of exactly what terms they are using and what they mean, you have the resultant dissipation of intellectual discourse and critical thinking.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sharon,

Oh God.

A while back, Pross made a gigantic mess here on OL during months. I had to end up banning him.

He went through a phase of trying to get back on, including new sign-ups under false names and some other monkey-shines. It all finally died down.

Out of respect for you, if you really feel you have to, go ahead and post his videos here to defend yourself. But I see nothing good coming of it. I'm almost sure he will consider this as a form of sneaking back onto OL against my will and I'm likewise sure that he will get off on it.

For what my opinion is worth, all I see to be gained in going after Pross--yes, even to defend yourself--is a big waste of time for you and everyone involved, with him ending up making a hell of a lot of irritating and meaningless noise.

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of it.

And then some more.

If that starts and weird stuff starts happening on OL again (including strange people showing up to antagonize the folks here while singing his praises), I will shut it down again like I did the last time. And if that happens, when it's all over, everyone will breathe a sigh of relief (just like the last time) and wonder what the mess was ultimately all about.

That will be the entire value of the show. Not vindication. Not justice. Not understanding. Not growth. Not nothing. I speak from bad experience.

I don't wish Pross ill. But with people like him, I have learned in life that distance is by far the best course

He's like Heath Ledger's Joker in the Batman movie, The Dark Knight. He's destructive, highly motivated by his inner demons, he can't change and I don't think he sleeps.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

I've never dabbled in Molyneux, and I've only heard criticism. That said, QuestEon's site does certainly make serious effort at being balanced and evidence-based.

On one hand though, I think that there's a possibility Molyneux's hatred of parental authority has some genuine benefits. I'd love to see more people start questioning and rebelling against authority.

My parents were pretty laissez-faire with me but there are plenty I know of that were, to put it mildly, deficient. Control freaks and image-conscious types and social climbers and living-through-their-children types and child-beating brutes.. these are all real problems! Should children think that their parents are necessarily right or virtuous? I think not!

I've seen, and experienced, plenty of manipulation and subjugation by authority during my youth. I've only read snippets, but what I've read seems to show that Molyneux can produce some very insightful analyses of these phenomena... ones which accord with my own experience.

A more anti-authoritarian, "anarchic" culture generally creates more innovation and liberation from invasive laws and customs... after all, the New Deal wasn't created by rebellious punk rockers but rather by authoritarian progressives. And for all the 60's and 70's countercultures claimed to be part of the left, they were just as heavily influenced by and influential on libertarianism (Timothy Leary for instance was a libertarian rather than a leftist).

Even if the very worst were true re. Molyneux, is it at least somewhat arguable that his position provides a useful corrective to blind authority-worship, undeserved adulation of family-as-an-ideal, etc?

After all, not everyone's lives have been enriched by family-ness (in the biological-family sense).

[Philosophical disclaimer: I'd probably find Molyneux's philosophy to be excessively rationalistic, anti-empirical and intrinsicist etc. etc. given the few snippets I've read and his love of 'first principles,' and this rationalist bent does seem very pronounced amongst many Rothbardian free-market anarchists.]

[caroljane]

I've never dabbled in Molyneux, and I've only heard criticism. That said, QuestEon's site does certainly make serious effort at being balanced and evidence-based.

Like you I had never dabbled in Molyneux I heard the criicisism.

Believe it

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, I just watched the video--and I went to the YouTube channel to see what's going on there. Pross has a butt-load of videos (all close-ups from looking at the last 20 thumbnails or so, and all with very low view counts so far).

Whew!

Judging from the number of videos (120 as of this posting) I think he finally found a medium that he likes--one that suits him. So maybe that's where he'll want to stay.

Not totally comforting, but one can hope...

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Like you I had never dabbled in Molyneux I heard the criicisism.

Believe it

Well, I'm currently reading one of his free books, here: http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_1_PDF_On_Truth_The_Tyranny_of_Illusion.pdf

And whilst I've certainly read a lot of commentary about Freedomain Radio's destructive side, he makes an important point; when parents talk about "good" or "bad" they are claiming some sort of higher moral knowledge but are (in many instances) not really using moral criterion. They basically say "a good child is one that does what I say" which thus reduces morality down to obeying authority.

This strikes me as very true, possibly because I've made this argument myself on several occasions before ever reading Molyneux. I think Nathaniel Branden made a similar argument too... the first concept of "good" we're introduced to is "the good is obedience to authority."

And whatever reservations one can have about Freedomain Radio (and what I've heard DOES give me significant reservations), Molyneux is making a point I agree with here... the equation of "the good" with "in accordance with the will of a higher power" IS a dangerous and destructive meme complex.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

The only thing you should be careful with in your analysis of the meme complex is divorcing the context and reducing biology to political power.

In normal healthy family relationships, children are loved and parents want to keep them safe far more than they want to exercise power.

And outside of that love, in every animal species I can think of, the offspring, until it has matured enough to go off on its own, must obey the parents on pain of being pecked or swatted or even bit. I think it's a mistake to divorce human beings from the animal kingdom and treat family relations--especially parent and child interactions--as a mere form of political power.

That's leaving out a lot.

btw - I'm not comfortable with characterizing the learning of obedience to authority as the good as a "meme complex," either. For one example, I can't think of a single teenager who believes that obeying parents is "the good."

Obedience to authority is far more complex than appears on the surface. As Milgram proved in his electric shock experiment, many of the people obeyed a previously unknown authority figure even though his demands went totally against what they believed was "the good." Authority is not a learned moral meme. It cuts a lot deeper in the human psyche. At the deepest level, it is prewired in our brains. If you want to resist it on that level in any kind of systematic way, you actually have to inject morality where there was none.

In other words, instead of obedience to authority being a Pavlovian result of morality instilled by parents, obedience qua obedience has pre-moral causes and it dilutes once morality enters the picture. Or people become very selective about which authorities they obey once they have identified with a tribe. I could probably come up with more stuff like that if I think about it some more. But I think this is enough to make the point.

Michael

[caroljane]

Well, I just watched the video--and I went to the YouTube channel to see what's going on there. Pross has a butt-load of videos (all close-ups from looking at the last 20 thumbnails or so, and all with very low view counts so far).

Whew!

Judging from the number of videos (120 as of this posting) I think he finally found a medium that he likes--one that suits him. So maybe that's where he'll want to stay.

Not totally comforting, but one can hope...

Michael

Where did Pross come from here? In my garbage pile excavations, I heard of him for the first time. I was affronted that he claimed to be a "celebrity in Toronto" where he wasn't one, and I had heard that Ghs was impressed by him, and that he "lit out for the territories" and lived off women later on, but the Molyneux connection is out of left field. I know this sounds disrespectful but what I know of him does not incline me to respect him

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

The only thing you should be careful with in your analysis of the meme complex is divorcing the context and reducing biology to political power.

In normal healthy family relationships, children are loved and parents want to keep them safe far more than they want to exercise power.

And outside of that love, in every animal species I can think of, the offspring, until it has matured enough to go off on its own, must obey the parents on pain of being pecked or swatted or even bit. I think it's a mistake to divorce human beings from the animal kingdom and treat family relations--especially parent and child interactions--as a mere form of political power.

That's leaving out a lot.

I'm not denying that we have to look at context. Clearly we do. However, humans do have reason and free will, unlike other animals. Not only that but there's the whole matter of "we need to learn to think for ourselves to survive and independent thought requires ability to stick to one's conclusions against authority's demands should they be contrary," and there's the phenomenon of teenage rebellion (which may be biologically-influenced to some degree).

In short, I think that if we look at the context, there's just as much contextual justification in favor of rebellion as there is in favor of obedience (I know you aren't arguing for obedience per se, here, so I'm not trying to accuse you of anything odious).

btw - I'm not comfortable with characterizing the learning of obedience to authority as the good as a "meme complex," either. For one example, I can't think of a single teenager who believes that obeying parents is "the good."

I probably phrased things inaccurately. What I meant was not that teenagers believe obeying authority is 'the good' but rather that this belief, at least implicitly, is the basis of the first moral concepts thrown at kids. When they realize this, they tend to become much more rebellious... and I think that for all Molyneux's faults, his project essentially boils down to showing the underlying stupidity, irrationality and hypocrisy that most forms of authority use to justify themselves.

Obedience to authority is far more complex than appears on the surface. As Milgram proved in his electric shock experiment, many of the people obeyed a previously unknown authority figure even though his demands went totally against what they believed was "the good." Authority is not a learned moral meme. It cuts a lot deeper in the human psyche. At the deepest level, it is prewired in our brains. If you want to resist it on that level in any kind of systematic way, you actually have to inject morality where there was none.

I agree there; there seem to be those left-over pack-animal instincts wired into the human psyche, and rational moral beliefs are required to resist it.

That said, I'm still reading Molyneux's book. He makes a lot of good points that I agree with (and I believe Rand would too). However, 1) most of the points are basically recycled Rand, 2) he tends to apply them in a remarkably rationalistic fashion with very little room for context or individual situations, thus making his methodology dangerously absolutist (i.e. acontextually absolute), with no consideration for matters of degree.

In short, I think he's methodologically in the same camp as the Orthodox Objectivists. He makes good points and he's a good rhetoritician, but you need to have some grains of salt on hand, IMO.

[9thdoctor]

Judging from the number of videos (120 as of this posting) I think he finally found a medium that he likes--one that suits him.

Indeed. To uncover plagiary in written form, one needs only cut and paste the suspect text into google. When spoken, one must transcribe it first…who’s going to put in that kind of effort?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

You are doing something I respect enormously.

You saw controversy, became interested and curious, wanted to be fair, so you are looking at this guy Molyneux and his work with your own eyes.

That's the habit of a first-hand mind.

Michael

[Xray]

whYNOT:

If you found my comments useful, I'm very glad. Thanks for saying so.

Part of the problem in trying to discuss such matters are definitions. When developmental psychologists talk about empathy, they are not talking about social/political agendas, let alone using empathy to assert moral superiority. All they are saying is that if children are to be morally competent, they need to understand how bad actions affect others. This helps them grow in moral sophistication. Children who are taught empathy are more likely to be at more sophisticated levels of moral judgement (ala Kohlberg's stages) that allow them to have more encompassing notions of right and wrong. Not merely what's in it for me (Stage 2), maybe not just Stage 3 (what do my friends and family think is right), maybe even Stage 4 (what do the institutions I value say is right). Some may even make it to Stages 5 (the laws may be wrong) and 6 (accepting the idea of universal human rights that apply to all).

And in order for stage 6 to be accepted by all, there would have to be a consensus by all. Even if that consensus by all does not yet exist, one can still work at making the case for universal human rights. Imo the empathy principle combined with the Golden Rule go a long way toward making that case.

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

You are doing something I respect enormously.

You saw controversy, became interested and curious, wanted to be fair, so you are looking at this guy Molyneux and his work with your own eyes.

That's the habit of a first-hand mind.

Michael

Michael,

My thanks.

Molyneux does clearly seem to have a case of the 'guru complex' you discuss... the libertarian world being clustered around the feifdoms of certain "big thinkers" so to speak... then again, I'm sure every kind of politics has the same phenomenon. But that said, even if I think he's got some severe methodological problems and a troubling desire to "always blame the parents" (yes, parents generally deserve a hell of a lot more criticism than they currently get but Molyneux seems to believe that even 'tolerable' parents are about as common as Piekoff believes intellectually honest non-Objectivists are), Molyneux is a very good speaker who can make some very legitimate points.

That said, I'm wary given all the critical material I have read. But thankfully I am not 16 any more, so I'm probably not as susceptible to his appeal... and even if I were, the "blame pie" is mostly allocated to my school rather than my parents.

Molyneux reminds me far too much of the NBI days and the cultish behavior there (plus, he's managed to monetize his following very successfully). So whilst I will acknowledge when I think he makes an insightful point that concurs with my experience, I don't think I'll be joining his league of fans.

Plus, OL is cheaper over the long run lol

[9thdoctor]

Here's a new Molyneux takedown video from the veteran YouTuber Thunderf00t. He's mainly an atheism activist who doesn't talk political philosophy, but he somehow crossed swords with SM recently and here's the result. See if you can get through it without at least once thinking "yes Stefan, I want you shot".

[Francisco Ferrer]

I've been referencing the Milgram experiments since the late 1960's as a way to explain how tyranny's manacles are "mind-forged" as well as physical. However, a year ago I encountered an article that casts some doubt on Milgram's methodology:

The Shocking Truth of the Notorious Milgram Obedience Experiments By Gina Perry

[Selene]

I've been referencing the Milgram experiments since the late 1960's as a way to explain how tyranny's manacles are "mind-forged" as well as physical. However, a year ago I encountered an article that casts some doubt on Milgram's methodology:

The Shocking Truth of the Notorious Milgram Obedience Experiments By Gina Perry

Excellent article, assuming, of course, that it is true.

I learned my lesson about trusting "studies" and "theories" with Rachel "I smoked two packs of cigarettes a day" Carson and Silent Spring.

The Spring part was accurate.

The silent part was a prevarication.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 7/25/2011 at 12:30 AM, slpresley said:

Thanks, George. If you try to veer off-topic, just remember what George said before--I might smack you around

This is the best place I can think of for the following sad news.
 

Sharon Presley has passed away.

Now, with George gone, too, there are two bright luminaries in the libertarian and O-Land world that shine no more except through their works.

 

Chris Sciabarra gave her a lovely tribute.

Sharon Presley (1943-2022), RIP

Quote

My dear friend, Ellen Young, announced today that Sharon Presley, lifelong libertarian feminist writer and activist, died on Monday, October 31, 2022, at the age of 79. Her partner Art—who has had his own share of health challenges—was by her side.

Sharon had been suffering from serious illnesses for quite a while. In the wake of eviction from her apartment and the loss of her cats, she was in and out of hospitals and nursing homes for over a year.

Sharon received her B.A. in psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, her M.A. in psychology from San Francisco State, and her Ph.D. in social psychology from the City University of New York. She taught on the psychology of women and other gender-related courses at California State University, Iowa State University, the College of Wooster, and Weber State College. Her published research included historical papers on women resisters, a study of Mormon feminists, an edited collection of essays on nineteenth-century individualist feminist Voltairine de Cleyre and the 2010 volume, Standing Up to Experts and Authorities: How to Avoid Being Intimidated, Manipulated, and Abused. Sharon was also a national coordinator for the Association of Libertarian Feminists and Executive Director of Resources for Independent Thinking.

Her frail state over these many months was quite a contrast to the rambunctious fireband whom I met way back in 1978, when I was an undergraduate student at New York University. She and John Muller had helped to launch Laissez-Faire Books, which offered a treasure-trove of classical liberal, libertarian, and anarchist literature in the heart of Greenwich Village. As a cofounder of the NYU chapter of Students for a Libertarian Society, I spent a lot of time at that bookstore, especially in 1980, when it became a virtual warehouse of antidraft placards and pamphlets that we distributed in Washington Square Park, joining with other student groups to protest Jimmy Carter’s reinstatement of Selective Service Registration.

From the very beginning of our friendship, Sharon and I had our differences, but it never interfered with her willingnesss to step up and speak out in an uncompromising, principled way on many controversial topics. She gladly accepted our invitation to speak at an NYU-SLS-sponsored event, delivering a fiery lecture in support of reproductive freedom. Given that Ayn Rand’s work played such a key role in initially sparking Sharon’s political radicalization, I was delighted, many years later, when she accepted an invitation to be among the diverse group of contributors to Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand (1999), which I coedited with Mimi Reisel Gladstein, for the Penn State University Press series, “Re-reading the Canon.” That volume, prominently featured among anthologies on thirty-five major figures in the Western philosophical tradition, brought Rand’s work into critical engagement with various feminist perspectives. Sharon’s essay, “Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Individualism: A Feminist Psychologist’s Perspective”, was one of its gems.

My very deepest condolences to all those who knew her. I will miss her.

Sharon Presley (1943-2022)

 

 

I only interacted with Sharon for a short time, both here on OL and off, but we still continued to be cordial after we parted ways on current politics.

Man, was she grumpy at times.  

But I loved her spirit. I would not have changed a single thing about her.

I am going to miss her. 

Michael