Jordan Peterson

Your favorite books and links
User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:41 am

What would J.P. make of this ?:

Image

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/291 ... ngel-heart
CHRISTMAS IS A TIME OF MIRACLES...

It's been six months since Sir Rousel was killed in battle, leaving behind his betrothed, the heartsick Lady Branwyn, and his grieving shieldmate, Sir Owain, who was also his secret bedmate. For Branwyn and Owain, Christmas in Camelot means painful memories, shattered dreams, and a fateful decision at Chancery Leap.

Damian is a stag shifter, a forest prince who's just discovered he's the last of his kind. With a life of unimagined loneliness ahead of him, one of the fae of Avalon grants him a precious gift: If he can find a true mate before Twelfth Night, he can remain a man forever. Otherwise, he'll live as a stag--blessed without memories or sorrow, but also cursed without purpose or hope.

For the three of them to find salvation, it will take the ultimate in courage, forgiveness and trust. And to find it together? That will take a Christmas miracle.

jennypenny
Posts: 5823
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by jennypenny » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:40 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:41 am
What would J.P. make of this ?:
Me? I love a good Christmas miracle. Oh, you probably meant Peterson. ;)

Totally OT ... I think 'stag shifter' is my favorite term for a character out of all of the pseudo-beastiality romance characters.


If anyone missed it, Peterson was on Art of Manliness's podcast. He's certainly making the most of his 15 minutes. https://www.artofmanliness.com/2018/02/ ... interview/

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:04 pm

@jennypenny:

lol- I'm an old-fashioned girl, so the Werewolf would still be my favorite. I would note that it only took me about 2 minutes of searching to come up with the above example of the huge human capacity for mixing the conventional with the unconventional. Of course, there are some things that human beings don't come to naturally; digestion of steel ingots, snorting water for oxygen, bathing in tar pits.
ThisDinosaur wrote:No disrespect to snakes, but they were a big source of stress for our ancestors. Predators of tree-dwelling primates include Birds of Prey from the air, snakes from the ground, tree-climbing big cats, and water dwelling crocodiles. Put those all together and you get a Dragon. A flying, slithering, submerged/invisible, fire-breathing, cat-bird-snake-odile is the thing you wanna avoid.
True, but our species also still retains features of pre-mammalian life-forms from which we evolved. More than one reason Mama might say to avoid anything that resembles a snake if you want to avoid "painful toil."

OTOH, I think the fact that birds arrived at similar strategy for "care for young" and, therefore, "pair-bonding romance", through completely different pathway is rather telling.

pukingRainbows
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:56 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by pukingRainbows » Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:40 pm

ThisDinosaur wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:38 am
In one of the JBP bible lectures, he specifically talks about how he hates "Frozen." In contrast to "Sleeping Beauty," which fits a bunch of his archetypes. This seems like a critical flaw in his reasoning. Because both of those movies were commercially successful and emulated by young girls. His female archetype is not very fleshed out. A mother holding an infant, while stepping on a snake (protecting from predation) is a pretty strong image. But little girls playing with dolls don't pretend to fight dragons at the same time. Its usually either one or the other. The only example of a Heroic Mother I can think of in movies is Sarah Connor from Terminator. But in the first movie, her Savior child isn't even conceived yet, and in the second he's a heroic sub adult.
I recall that he disliked Frozen because the ideas and lessons were too obviously contrived to really function on an archetypal level. The difference being that an archetypal story tends to resonate with people over a long period of time, so the test would be to see how popular Frozen is in 50 years. Or Angel Heart, for that matter.

In regards to the feminine archetype, I remember him talking about Mary as embodying the archetype. It was essentially the sacrifice of motherhood where you take the thing you most care about and bring it into the world to suffer and ultimately die. And the archetypal bad mother being the witch in Hansel and Gretel, who spoils the children with candy and then eventually tries to devour them. I agree it's not particularly well fleshed out.

That being said, I don't think the masculine archetype is specifically for men. The same way that women can also have masculine characteristics, they could also embody the archetypal hero. I don't quite have a handle on this though but I think it relates to the feminine as chaos and the male as the consciousness which attempts to create order from it. (I'm reading the Origins and History of Consciousness by Erich Neumann and he talks about this idea at length.)

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by fiby41 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:21 am

jennypenny wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:40 pm
Totally OT ... I think 'stag shifter' is my favorite term for a character out of all of the pseudo-beastiality romance characters.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:04 pm
lol- I'm an old-fashioned girl, so the Werewolf would still be my favorite.
In a video he lists top fantasies of women about men:

Vampire, werewolf, surgeon, billionaire, pirate.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:17 am

pukingRainbows wrote:I recall that he disliked Frozen because the ideas and lessons were too obviously contrived to really function on an archetypal level. The difference being that an archetypal story tends to resonate with people over a long period of time, so the test would be to see how popular Frozen is in 50 years. Or Angel Heart, for that matter.
I think what is being missed in this analysis is the huge overlap between religious history and the history of the technologies of literacy, and the key role frugality or greed played in the success of Walt Disney.

For instance, in the Qur'an, Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians are referred to as "the people of the book" and the very first word and directive is "Read!" This represents a critical landmark of oral tradition passing over to print. However, the first translations of the Qur'an into English were published less than 150 years ago. There is huge amount of contingency involved in what is read because it is what is available to be read.

Walt Disney was a cheapskate capitalist, so he chose to make use of tales that were free of copyright for his movies, and then he brought forward a case in court that greatly extended the copyright granted to his own intellectual property. There are many versions of any known copyright-free tale published for children. For instance, I worked with one very good 1st grade teacher who read 3 different version of "The Gingerbread Boy" to her class, so they could learn the concept of "compare and contrast." Another reason why Disney movies resonate with young children is due to the manner in which music is integrated with simple lyrics, as in the more poetic style of any literature on the cusp of oral and written tradition. Most 4 year old children are not yet fluent readers, but they can recite reams of chanted rhyme or lyrics. I would give 100 to 1 odds that there will be little girls singing along to "Let It Go" with their grandmothers 50 years from now. The theme of this song seems to be about becoming empowered in "juvenile masculine" quadrant, overcoming anxious attachment to rules set by others, and seeking freedom in the possibilities inherent in the open plain of the future. The interesting thing about this movie is that it is obvious that Disney Inc. did not predict that the Elsa character would be hugely more popular with young girls than the Anna character.

In Roman society, the status of free male was associated with the dominant or penetrative role in sexuality, but the choice of partners was binary. Humans are very "embodied" in their use of language, so the concept of freedom is strongly associated with literal freedom to move your body. For obvious instance relevant to this forum, if you are not free to move your body away from your place of employment between the hours of 9-5, you might refer to your situation as being a "cubicle-slave." When you save up enough money to no longer have to be enslaved to your cubicle, that money is referred to as "fuck you" money, because this association between freedom and holding the penetrative role in sexuality is so strongly held by humans. Some of the earliest converts to Christianity were affluent Roman housewives. Religious movements are not unlike political movements in that they frequently first find support among the disenfranchised, but then adopt a power structure similar to the one against which they originally rallied or preached. The sexual structure of "Angel Heart" is likely based on the still very popular Arthurian legend which features the romance between a Knight who is submissive to a Queen, both characters being submissive to the King. The only difference being that the platonic relationships are sexualized for the modern audience. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there was a bawdy 18th century play written on similar theme. Unfortunately, the technology of the printing press experienced greatest improvement during a very Puritanical era of human existence, so most attics contain dreary, foxed copies of 19th century collections of sermons rather than any of the much more delightfully entertaining works of the previous century.
That being said, I don't think the masculine archetype is specifically for men. The same way that women can also have masculine characteristics, they could also embody the archetypal hero. I don't quite have a handle on this though but I think it relates to the feminine as chaos and the male as the consciousness which attempts to create order from it. (I'm reading the Origins and History of Consciousness by Erich Neumann and he talks about this idea at length.)
Right. I believe that sexual dichotomy theory is very useful in general, but kind of disturbing if pressed forward as rigid morality. I think gender trumps culture, but personality trumps gender, and experience can eventually trump all. Also, intelligent human beings are perfectly capable of self-aware transcendence toward complexity that incorporates gender dichotomy theory. For instance, I would suggest that there is nothing more like creating order out of chaos than the application of mathematics, but I have frequently been in the company of dominant men who have made use of my masculine skill-set which allows me to almost instantly calculate the tip on the dinner he is buying, or the amount of plywood needed for the shed he is building. -lol.

In conclusion, I would strongly suggest that Jordan Peterson is not an Intellectual, but rather a talented Preacher, preaching on a frequently revived theme, with just a bit of a twist added to appeal to Millennial audience not previously exposed. Yawn.

User avatar
daylen
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by daylen » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:41 am

@7w5

I would say Jordan Peterson is both a preacher and an intellectual. This is just semantics, but he is clearly intelligent and scientifically minded.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 871
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ThisDinosaur » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:37 am

Frozen is obviously a product of its time. It started with the old fairy tale format, and infused some contemporary feminist ideas. (Particularly replacing romantic love with sibling love.) I think @pukingRainbow has the right idea with "we'll see how popular it is in 50 years."

There are any number of stories that we can enjoy. Just like there are any number of ways you can live your life. But NOT all of them will be embraced by populations that are stable for millennia.

Here's what I mean. Take for example, monogamy. It's obviously better for males, from a game theory perspective, to spread seed far and wide while accepting no responsibility for offspring. Most human males have this instinct, and it's the norm for most of the animal kingdom. But in species with very dependent young, this results in a resource strain for the female. In such a system, juveniles with two adults giving 100% effort have a material advantage. This doesn't even have to be true all the time, just most of the time and only slightly.

There is a concept of the selection coefficient in population genetics. Essentially, any trait or behavior only needs a miniscule fitness advantage to become fixed in a population. This could explain why non traditional stories have short lived popularity and societies without particular moralities are shorter lived and rarer than moral ones.

And yes, JBP is a missionary to the millenials.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:33 pm

ThisDinosaur wrote:Here's what I mean. Take for example, monogamy. It's obviously better for males, from a game theory perspective, to spread seed far and wide while accepting no responsibility for offspring. Most human males have this instinct, and it's the norm for most of the animal kingdom. But in species with very dependent young, this results in a resource strain for the female. In such a system, juveniles with two adults giving 100% effort have a material advantage. This doesn't even have to be true all the time, just most of the time and only slightly.
I agree. However, current reality is that humans in modern affluent societies have a very long life as adults and resources are limited. So, for most of us, throughout the majority of our lives, we will not be directly engaged in the care of our own young. As I have noted elsewhere, I think the natural path for human males as their personal resource base increases is something like irresponsible polygyny (sowing of wild oats), responsible monogamy, responsible polygyny (not always fully sexualized.) My personal choices at this point in my life are due to the fact that I mostly interact with men in the third phase. I do not want to discourage young men from moving from phase 1 into phase 2. At that level I agree with Peterson. I wouldn't discourage either of my children from monogamous marriage for the same reason I wouldn't discourage a 6 year old from declaring another 6 year old to be her best friend, even though I suspect that it is likely that she will be part of a more complex clique by the time she is 12.

pukingRainbows
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:56 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by pukingRainbows » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:16 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:17 am
In conclusion, I would strongly suggest that Jordan Peterson is not an Intellectual, but rather a talented Preacher, preaching on a frequently revived theme, with just a bit of a twist added to appeal to Millennial audience not previously exposed. Yawn.
I see him as a preacher, in that he espouses morality, but definitely also as an intellectual, as his ideas have a well thought out and cogent grounding in science, history and literature.

I'm curious to know what is the frequently revived theme that you see him rehashing? Also, who was expounding it previously? I'm interested because I would like to see how his ideas and conclusions compare to others schools of thought or individuals.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:03 pm

@pukingRainbows:

From the introduction to "Man of Steel and Velvet", Aubrey Andelin -1971
In addition to failing at home, men are failing to measure up in society. We are in a period of crisis where it is likely that the great inheritances we enjoy from the labor and sacrifices of generations past may be lost. Freedom is in jeopardy. It is a time of turmoil, strife, and numerous problems. Our only hope is for men to rise to their feet as real men. But where are the heroes of today? Where is the man who will proclaim Give me liberty of give me death!" Where are men willing to sacrifice time and energy to rescue a dwindling society?

The general lack of manliness is producing far-reaching social problems.The man who fails to stand up as the head of the family creates trouble in his home. There is a lack of order. The weak-kneed father also creates the dominant mother, for someone must add substance to the family, someone must determine policy and make decisions...

Such default in leadership causes great unhappiness and frustration to women...Her lack of a strong man to preside over her, something she has every right to expect, may cause severe emotional reactions. She becomes insecure and sometimes desperate...

A ridiculous term, unisex comes into usage, which in itself describes something that can't be...

In peril are our most sacred and cherished institutions-marriage, family life, freedom of country- the very foundations of organized society and religion.
From introduction to David Deida's "The Way of the Superior Man"-1997
If men and women are clinging to a politically correct sameness even in moments of intimacy, then sexual attraction disappears. I don't mean just the desire for intercourse, but the juice of the entire relationship begins to dry up. The love may still be strong, the friendship may still be strong, but the sexual polarity fades, unless in moments of intimacy one partner is willing to play the masculine pole and one partner is willing to play the feminine. You have to animate the masculine and feminine differences if you want to play in the field of sexual passion...

Your sexual essence is your sexual core. If you have a more masculine essence, you would, of course, enjoy staying home and playing with the kids, but deep down you are driven by a sense of mission. You may not know your mission, but unless you discover this deep purpose and live it fully, your life will feel empty at its core, even if your intimate relationship and family life are filled with love.
OTOH, from "prelude to "Masculine Domination", Pierre Bourdieu-2002 (I assume he is one of the post-modernists not directly referenced by Peterson.)
I have always been astonished by the paradox of doxa- the fact that the order of the world as we find it, with its one-way streets and its no-entry signs, whether literal or figurative, its obligations and its penalties, is broadly respected; that there are not more transgressions and subversions, contraventions and 'follies" (just think of the extraordinary concordance of thousands of dispositions- or wills-implied in five minutes' movement of traffic around the Place de la Bastille, or the Place de la Concorde...);or, still more surprisingly, that the established order, with its relations of domination, its rights and prerogatives, privileges and injustices, ultimately perpetuates itself so easily, apart from a few historical accidents, and that the most intolerable conditions of existence can so often be perceived as acceptable and even natural.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 871
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ThisDinosaur » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:32 pm

@7Wb5
One could argue that the modern masculinity crisis JBP is decrying is a direct result of Andelin's warning being correct. Millennial men were raised by the "weak kneed fathers" and "dominant mothers" of the 70s.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:30 am

@ThisDinosaur:

Well, the problem would have to be a bit more multi-generational than that. The companion book "Fascinating Womanhood" was written by Aubrey's wife Helen in the 1960s, and remained the most popular "trad wife" bible for decades. Helen Andelin's book was in good part based on her success going through a rough patch in her marriage by following the advice offered in a set of volumes published in 1922 entitled "Fascinating Womanhood, or, The Art of Attracting Men: a practical course of lessons in the underlying principles by which women attract men, leading to the proposal and culminating in marriage."
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100000949

From the publisher's introduction:
Thoughtful minded people have deplored the conditions which came as the aftermath of the Great War. In no respect were these conditions more deplorable than as they found expression in the "flapper," with her seeming disregard of all the social conventions that her elders had held sacred...Her flippancy and seeming immodesty is mostly pose-the result of wrong thinking or wrong teaching. Wrong thinking, arising from the cataclysmic overturning of conventions by experiences growing out of the Great War...

The Art of Attracting Men points out, in no uncertain terms, how the superficial errors of the generation may be avoided. It tells how the real attractiveness of genuine womanhood may be cultivated and expressed.It is a work that any good mother would be glad to place in the hands of her daughter.
From the first chapter:
When comparisons were made, however, these principles, which business men imagined they were the first to discover, were found to have been known for thousands of years. Orators since the days of Cicero and Demosthenes, dramatists since the days of Aeschylus and Sophocles, and clever women since the days of Ruth and Rebecca, had resorted to them constantly. In every ancient book on rhetoric, oratory, or the drama, they were expounded and dilated upon. The orator had to win his hearers, the dramatist his audience, and the woman her suitors; IN EVERY CASE THE PROBLEM WAS A PROBLEM OF WINNING MEN, AND IN EVERY CASE THE PRINCIPLES BY WHICH IT WAS SOLVED WERE FOUND TO BE ALIKE...

Whether you are an orator seeking to win men to your cause, a dramatist seeking to win men to your entertainment, a sales manager seeking to win men to your market, or a young lady seeking to win men to yourself, makes no difference so far as the principles are concerned. They are not so much the principles of oratory, of drama, of salesmanship, or of courtship, as THEY ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE.
What I am trying to convey isn't that this school of advice is incorrect; I certainly have found it to be very effective to the extent I have made use of it myself. My point is that it is cyclical and can thus be viewed from a higher perspective of systems analysis. I respect Deida's take on this theory/practice more than Peterson's because he keeps his advice more in the realm of descriptive rather than prescriptive. For instance, Deida straightforwardly suggests that individuals who self-aware prefer a marriage based more on civilized companionship and low-key affection would likely not want to follow his advice for increasing the level of passion in their relationship by increasing sexual dichotomy.

Since Deida, unlike Andelin who retains mid-century Mormon perspective on such topics as homosexuality, recognizes that not every individual strongly identifies their physiological sexual designation with gender assignment, he suggests the following simple exercise to determine whether you are more core feminine or masculine. You imagine somebody with whom you are in love saying either "You are useless." or "You are ugly/stinky" (or converse might be "You are my hero." or "You are beautiful.")and if the first seems more hurtful, you are more core masculine, and if the second seems more hurtful then you are more core feminine.

My perspective is that gender is important in determining behavior, not unlike inherent temperament or personality. However, since hormonal levels and experience vary over the course of a lifetime, if you take this test again 10 years later, the results may somewhat change.

The important thing to note is that when you are imagining yourself being hurt by a criticism from a lover, that is really you talking to you. If you core believe that you are useful/purposeful and aesthetically/sensually pleasing then any comment will be like water on a duck's back, or simply clue to incompatibility. Let's split the difference between Preacher and Intellectual, and designate Peterson as a gifted Orator who is calling out to the multitudes who hold any level of self-doubt.

Anyways, I am core feminine, but also very drawn to my juvenile masculine quadrant, so there was a terrible event I experienced in couple's therapy a few years ago after I said "If I have to choose between being adored or being free, I choose being free!" and then both my '"ex"and the male therapist ganged up on me. Also, once again, because my masculine energy only rises to being about 12 years old, I am in danger of having my projects and life-energy taken over by more assertive men. I thought interacting with multiple dominants would sort of serve to scramble all of their instructions into white noise, but no such luck. Probably the only way I am ever going to complete my projects the way I want to complete them in alignment with MY purpose is to choose to be sexually and romantically celibate until at least Harvest 2022. So, anything I have to say in the realm of sexual dichotomy theory at this juncture should be taken with a grain of salt.

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:41 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:30 am
Since Deida, unlike Andelin who retains mid-century Mormon perspective on such topics as homosexuality, recognizes that not every individual strongly identifies their physiological sexual designation with gender assignment, he suggests the following simple exercise to determine whether you are more core feminine or masculine. You imagine somebody with whom you are in love saying either "You are useless." or "You are ugly/stinky" (or converse might be "You are my hero." or "You are beautiful.")and if the first seems more hurtful, you are more core masculine, and if the second seems more hurtful then you are more core feminine.
I wonder what the response breakdown of modern American (and Western, for that matter) society would be.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:20 am

@Kriegsspiel:

Response is one thing and reaction is another. Your core reacts, then if you are mature in your emotional development, you accept your reaction, but choose to respond in alignment with your self-aware self-interest. Since I have now sexually interacted with men from 4 different generations (Silent, Boomer, Gen-X, Millennial), I will feel free to offer the opinion that most differences are purely superficial mannerisms. Of course, that is not to say that some superficial mannerisms are more likely to attract desired reaction or response than others. IMHO, Millennial men actually superficially vibe more masculine than the younger range of Gen-X men, because Very Polite with a Beard somewhat trumps Angsty with an Earring, but MMV. My hipster ex was an early adopter of the Angst style, so kind of like the particular alcoholic beverage I almost Jimmy Hendrix-ed on as it came gushing back up.

User avatar
Lillailler
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:09 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Lillailler » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:07 am

I have tasted some of JP - in particular his lectures on Genesis. For me, there is a lot of wisdom behind what he says, some of it from wide reading but some from his work as a clinical psychologist. What bothers me relates to the wisdom bit. I have something of the scientist's attitude to knowledge - take nobody's word for it - and I don't care for 'Jung said', 'Nietzsche said','Freud said', 'he said', 'she said'. If it's true, it doesn't matter who said it. If there is no mathematical proof, or carefully-designed experiment, then I'm not interested. Well maybe someone who has made a lot of discoveries might point out areas where new discoveries could be made, like Hilbert's 13 problems, but no more that that. If we rely for our knowledge on quoting famous and well respected writers we are actually going back to the 1400s, studying Aristotle and Galen and Euclid, but not testing what they say by observation and experiment, and not striving to correct them and go beyond them.

pukingRainbows
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:56 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by pukingRainbows » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:44 am

@ThisDinosaur - I should give credit where it's due: I was reiterating JBP's test regarding whether or not Frozen will be popular in 50 years. That's not my idea.

@7wannabe5 - Interesting info! Thank you. I'm familiar with Deida and I've heard of Andelin but haven't read the book. The last guy I had no idea about but I think it's more relevant to my understanding of JBP's line of thinking, even though it appears to me, to be offering the opposite take on things.

In general, I find his stuff to be more about life in general, rather than specifically relationships or gender. I see his body of work as trying to analyze history and religions through a psychological and rational framework. Personally speaking, it has allowed me to reconnect to the greater narratives found across human history and have them become meaningful parts of my daily life.

This naturally influences my relationships and who I am in those relationships, but it seems more like the manifestation of the deeper ideas rather than the central message. And if those aspects resonate more with young men, I think it's because that's the audience where this message is currently lacking.

When I asked the question, I immediately thought you were going to say that he was essentially preaching old school moral virtues like those found in religion with the added twist of psychology to make it relevant to today's audience. And I think it's kinda true, and not particularly a bad thing either.

@Lillailler - I don't see his references to Jung et al as appeals to authority in order to validate his arguments, but rather providing the reference for the idea. I like it, because I can then go back and read (or try to, at least) those authors to see if I can come to the same conclusions. In a way, he is acknowledging, connecting and building on the ideas of previous people, similar to the world of science. I agree it would be nice to have some hard data from experiments but the actual scientific method is inherently limited when dealing with complex systems and ideas and large expanses of time.

If anything, humanity is the experiment and it's still running.

User avatar
daylen
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by daylen » Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:25 am

+1 pukingRainbows

I find his content interesting. This is probably because I lack a detailed education in human history.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:03 am

pukingRainbows wrote:And if those aspects resonate more with young men, I think it's because that's the audience where this message is currently lacking.

When I asked the question, I immediately thought you were going to say that he was essentially preaching old school moral virtues like those found in religion with the added twist of psychology to make it relevant to today's audience.
Yeah, I guess he just irks me because his intended audience of younger "irresponsible" men for his moralizing on the topic of monogamy, turns an older responsible woman who is practicing polygamy into a unicorn. IOW, I don't exist in his theoretically consistent philosophy.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by fiby41 » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:15 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:17 am
For instance, in the Qur'an, Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians are referred to as "the people of the book"
Yet to this date more than half of the survived & practicing Zoroastrians do so in India than in a converted Iran.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:17 am
In conclusion, I would strongly suggest that Jordan Peterson is not an Intellectual, but rather a talented Preacher, preaching on a frequently revived theme, with just a bit of a twist added to appeal to Millennial audience not previously exposed.
I have no qualms with the preacher part. The twisting is what concerns me.

In a lecture he kept insisting using his usual hyperbolic use of "well, obviously"s (which I sometimes find endearing, almost like a father figure) that beings are divine is 1 obvious 2 a Christian concept.

This is not what I was taught in sermons we were forced to attend. We were taught that we are born sinners, the Original Sin, how we need to ask JC/Father for forgiveness. Scriptures were quoted so the preacher must not be making that up.

Someone who doesn't even know me insisting I am a sinner (and what I should do about it) was really the tipping point for my turn off. JBP has stated that he has no problem with cultural appropriation. Here is the problem with saying beings are divine:

It is not sanctioned by the Bible scripture. Does his definition of "being" include humans or just believes? What about animals and plants, do they have souls?

It just seems something he appropriated conveniently when he found out telling students they are sinners doesn't go down as well as it used to.

Another example is the one where he speaks on the Buddha for 15 mins in a lecture. He follows Buddha's problem identification/symptom analysis of life correctly- death, disease, old age (and birth.) And then blurts out the Christian solution in intricate sentences in the last few minutes. There are several videos where he says "life is suffering" (Buddhist hypothesis) and gives the Christian solution. Fact is that "life is suffering" is not so obvious, so much so that in the Buddhist Tripitika-s the monks go to great length to establish this before proceeding to offer solutions which JBP does so "obviously". I haven't studied the Christian scripture enough to know what they have to say on "life is suffering".
IOW, I don't exist in his theoretically consistent philosophy.
Nor do I. Neither is it consistent, it is full of self-contradictions, especially when he dismisses something as self-explanatory. He is just a pop-psychologist whose target audience is those who are too lazy to read a damn book. Sly prosperer in a nutshell.

He was on the Joe Rogan podcast and he masterfully dodged questions on Hindu dharma thrice. The part at the beginning when he mentioned the eye of Horus and Providence while the eye of Shiva was staring him in the face from behind Joe was "so funny man." The reason for his erratic behaviour in above two examples is that he incidentally came too close to the poison-pills in Dharmik (Buddhist, Vedik) traditions. Poison-pill is something that cannot be digesting (cultural appropriation) without harming the predator.

The reason the Hare Krishna movement survived while other traditions were snapped up and swallowed whole by the church or the academia, as being always a part of some Abrahamic religion or just being discovered by science is: Krishna is kryptonite to Christians. They cannot co-opt to claim the philosophy in the Bhagvad-Gita as already present in some other religion without accepting/getting rid of Krishna first.

Moment of silence for the fallen Dharmik traditions which have been culturally appropriated by church/academia: Vedanta, yognidra, Christ the Yogi (lol), Patanjali's Yoga Sutras into Cristian Yoga and the like, vipassana has now been completely digested into mindfulness meditation TM, FFAL, Ayurveda: using turmeric for medicinal purpose was patented for Christ's sake!, Panini's linguistics, ..................

Post Reply