Jordan Peterson

[daylen]

Here is a new video where Jordan lays out some of his most fundamental axioms. He also talks about politics and postmodernism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZMIbo_DxJk

[jacob]

@7wb5- Hang on! It's almost always a relief to be deconstructed insofar it sends a signal that the deconstructor gets you and connects with you. Which is lovely! And furthermore, that they might offer something more, like reconstruction. Which is even better! It's the Wheaton levels of consciousness or intelligence ... or whatever mind area stuff. The Wheaton laws apply accordingly. I'll get back to that.

However ... if you're average, life is easy: Most people get you and thus you get deconstructed and reconstructed all the time and this is how the majority of people function (Kegan3). But if/as you get beyond average and maybe become older && wiser, this happens increasingly less frequently and thus it becomes a thing of note to appreciate. It's no longer taken for granted. It's positively sought out. Because it's rare.

Because of Wheaton, which of course is multi-dimensional because of personality, these experiences get rarer and rarer. You have 16 MBTI types and 5+ Kegan levels. What are the odds that you find what you seek if you push the perimeter? It gets harder and rarer. And more and more valued if there's a connection.

Now, Godwin's Law is nothing new. Godwin himself even has a comment on it: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html People have been invoking nazis in online discussions since the internet was invented. Godwin is one of the OGs of the internet. However, we're getting to a point in the timeline where many people don't know what they're invoking when they're throwing out nazi or fascist accusations or when they say something doesn't matter or when they defend themselves by claiming it's just a big joke, not realizing that some things are still or perhaps forever too soon. Many no longer know what those terms mean if they ever did. After all, it happened a long time ago on a continent far far away.

Observing this across multiple data points and discerning the historical patterns strengthens my belief in 4th turning theory.

It's one thing to look at it from an American in-war/post-war perspective of Vonnegut and Heller. But ... I think what JP is interested in is the pre-war perspective and in particular what kinds of pre-war perspectives lead to actual wars ... afterwhich Americans reluctantly step in after a couple of years of actual fighting and fix the problem ironically detached.

These are very different perspectives. One is war-fighters after the fact. The other is civilians who didn't see it coming but ultimately did it to themselves.

Based on on my interpretation of his living room decorations I think what JP is interested in is the mindset of the latter and preventing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svdrAHn_LGo from happening to contemporary fun-loving adults(*) by (as daylen noted) turning young kegan2 males into kegan3 adults. There seems to be MORE than the average level of those [kegan2 immature adult-kids] around currently... which all might very well be in accordance with the 4th turning.

(*) They had a swimming pool!

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

I think we are almost on the same page. An example of what I mean would be the series of thoughts I had when I encountered the phrase "Renaissance man" while reading ERE. I read the phrase with the perspective of somebody who prided herself on being self-employed/self-sufficient, self-described as post-feminist, and had recently immersed herself in non-Western (Islamic) cultural studies and lifestyle. So, I "heard" the feminist argument and deconstructed the "man", and I "heard" the non-Western post-colonialist argument and deconstructed the "Renaissance", and then I reconstructed it in the sense or spirit that I was able to assume you intended in your usage, which might be something like neo-Transcendentalist.

“It is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam, because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead, to never say anything or want anything ever again. Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like "Poo-tee-weet?”

“The nicest veterans...the kindest and funniest ones, the ones who hated war the most, were the ones who'd really fought.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five

I don't think it is fair or correct to describe the perspective of a man who survived the fire-bombing of Dresden as a POW as detached, even if it is ironic at times. I think it is fair and correct to assume that the actual experience of war is different than the experience of being an intelligent, neurotic person who was troubled by a bad dream about war.

The modern era, which came into being around the time the phrase "Renaissance man" was brought into usage, could be simplistically described as the era in which God was declared dead in favor of Progress. Post-modernism, which is inherent of the ability to criticize Progress, became vital perspective after the horrors of the early 20th century wars, because these horrors were not just the result of the possibility of evil long known to exist within the heart of every human (Cain and Abel), but also the ruthless mechanistic bureaucratic scientifically managed and engineered efficiencies of Modernity. Any one of us can read some account of a vicious bloody battle that took place on the plains of some distant land in some distant time between armies of men on foot carrying sword, and it will not strike the same chord as an account of civilians being stamped with numbers and killed with methodical efficiency, because we still live in this world where efficiency and bureaucracy are but two sides of the same snapping trap.

So, that is why, within the frame of this context, even a braggart Barbarian can seem like a Savior to some folk.

[ThisDinosaur]

It doesn't surprise me that 7Wb5, a literature profiteer, has a soft spot for post modernist lit crit. I don't think Peterson is opposed to lit crit because he seems to me to engage in a whole lot of it. I think his objection is specifically to the tendency of post modernists to twist the ambiguity of words in such a way that propaganda becomes more effective.

Humans tend to model reality through words. But words are ambiguous, and the map is not the territory. Postmodernists ignore this (on purpose?) to twist the perceptions of others and get them to do real things in the real world that have real unintended consequences. That's where I see the objection.

[BRUTE]

isn't the point of post-modernism that there is no territory, only maps upon maps, and thus there is no right/wrong way of mapping?

[daylen]

That is one way to put it.

Another perspective is that perspective is limited, so judgment is incomplete and/or inconsistent.

Deconstructive postmodern followers often get lured into it by left-dominate departments in American and Canadian universities (particularly humanities and social science). The leaders basically believe interpretations are subject to a deconstruction on the basis of how the author's "group" has been oppressed in history. So, the postmodern conclusion is misunderstood for most.

[daylen]

One way to demonstrate postmodernism is to think about time. Beings are bounded by time and experience time asymmetrically. This means that attention and information are scarce, and that story and context are two data structures that align with our experience well. Story as a linear sequence of events encodes information about cause and effect. Context as a lateral display of perceptions is an abstraction of stories or existing abstractions.

Stable agents have a balance of both linear and lateral memories, because agents must anticipate obstacles while navigating existence, and direction without context is unstable. Note that this theory is idependent of whether the information is accurate or not.

Some mappings..

NP = Entrepreneur = many short stories, many small contextual lattices
NJ = Leader = many short stories, few large contextual lattices
SP = Worker = few long stories, many small contextual lattices
SJ = Operator = few long stories, few large contextual lattices

Entrepreneur's continuously adapt to new routines and/or contexts. Leader's have a stable direction but lack a routine. Worker's know what to do but not what to aim for. Operator's know where to go and how to get there but are rigid. Entrepreneur's start businesses, leaders progress businesses, workers select businesses, and operators run businesses.

Back to postmodernism. An individual's memory can be classified based on the distribution of stories and lattices, and this classification can be mapped to an ideology the individual is likely to be attracted to. The entrepreneur's experience aligns with postmodernism, the leader's experience aligns with modernism, the worker's experience aligns with pragmatism, and the operator's experience aligns with traditionalism.

This is all very general so take it with a grain of salt. Feel free to construct/decontruct.

[7Wannabe5]

It doesn't surprise me that 7Wb5, a literature profiteer, has a soft spot for post modernist lit crit.

Ha. Good attempt, but I can only wish I had ever been able to turn a profit on the sale of literature. I think my largest mark-up ever was made on a volume on the topic of golf course secrets (shipped expedited, of course, to some tower in Chicago.) I dealt almost exclusively in niche interest non-fiction. I'm also not a huge fan of lit crit. It just comes somewhat naturally to me after reading thousands of novels. I prefer to read literature with raw open mind.

I think his objection is specifically to the tendency of post modernists to twist the ambiguity of words in such a way that propaganda becomes more effective.

IOW, he doesn't like people who are more clever than him?

isn't the point of post-modernism that there is no territory, only maps upon maps, and thus there is no right/wrong way of mapping?

Another perspective is that perspective is limited, so judgment is incomplete and/or inconsistent.

Right. More maps. More better.

Right map/Wrong map. That's for folks who are addicted to decision-making. AKA control freaks.

However, that was then, this is now, and we can all come together in the 21st century and sing "Kumbaya" due to systems theory.

Deconstructive postmodern followers often get lured into it by left-dominate departments in American and Canadian universities (particularly humanities and social science). The leaders basically believe interpretations are subject to a deconstruction on the basis of how the author's "group" has been oppressed in history. So, the postmodern conclusion is misunderstood for most.

I don't disagree. In the 1990s, I felt personally oppressed by the Oprah Book Club. I would grumble "They should call it the SomethingBadHappensToAChildInThisBook Club" as I unpacked box after box, but nobody listened. IMHO, the purpose of great literature is to inspire or create empathy, not sympathy. I think that's where the truck went off the tracks in some, not all by a long shot, departments of Humanities. Deep empathy does not require political action. The best novel I can suggest in reference to state of mind/society just prior to Nazi regime would be "Beware of Pity" by Stefan Zweig.

However, I still maintain that Peterson's take, or rules, are tantamount to starting out with good intentions and some valid observations, but then confusing the baby with the bathwater.

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

Cross-post.

Co-sign. NJ=Leader=Control Freak Addicted to Decision Making
NP=Entrepreneur=Clever Harmless Person

[ThisDinosaur]

IMHO, the purpose of great literature is to inspire or create empathy, not sympathy.

Isn't the purpose of literature to entertain?
Partially off topic: my favorite scene from a great movie.

[prognastat]

IMHO, the purpose of great literature is to inspire or create empathy, not sympathy.

Isn't the purpose of literature to entertain?
Partially off topic: my favorite scene from a great movie.

I would say not necessarily.

Some literature is written to entertain.

Some to teach a lesson, some of which do it in an entertaining way.

Some literature makes you profoundly sad, yet use this to provide catharsis.

[daylen]

I would ask, "Why are we entertained?". The answer relates to evolution, and evoltuion selects for attending to the processes that preserve adaptation across context. So, being entertained probably co-evolved with exposure to context that inspires agents towards the future and/or empathy for negotiatng with others.

[7Wannabe5]

Isn't the purpose of literature to entertain?

Yes, but we are wired to feel pleasure when we gain insight into other people, and we are wired to feel empathy to such an extent that we can inhabit the experiences of another human through the means of literature.

lol @scene

[BRUTE]

such a good movie.

[Finn]

I think there probably should be another thread about postmodernism*), since this one is about JP. That's why I tried to mostly provide commentary that pertains to him and what he has demonstrably said and whether he provides adequate evidence for his arguments, not postmodernism in general.

My subjective overall impression of JP actually aligns pretty well with what daylen said: that he strikes me as fairly emotionally-driven (and also adept at using those emotions). There's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just hard for me to listen to someone who so blatantly uses Bernaysian PR tactics (connect Thing #1 with ABSOLUTELY EVIL Thing #2 to sell Thing #1 to your audience) in a supposedly intellectual/academic setting. He is welcome to reason with me, but not to manipulate me.

*)Although beware; we cannot discuss postmodernism online without bringing up the Stalin card! I shall call that Finn's Law

[ThisDinosaur]

@Finn
Given how often Peterson mentions postmodernists (excuse me, "damn postmodernists" ), I think its still on topic.

[BRUTE]

Although beware; we cannot discuss postmodernism online without bringing up the Stalin card! I shall call that Finn's Law

does Finn know who else liked to propose laws? Hitler.

[IlliniDave]

*)Although beware; we cannot discuss postmodernism online without bringing up the Stalin card! I shall call that Finn's Law

We did pretty well until you brought him up. Guess that's why it's Finn's law?

[Finn]

@TD, fair enough, I think you're right, I was merely explaining my own style of commentary (to discuss JP directly) to render it more comprehensible. I'm certainly not a mod.

@ BRUTE, that's funny as hell!

@iD, JP brought up Stalin/communist horrors in that video that I've been trying to discuss (unconvincingly, I can tell ) My point here is that these guys seem to always have that same pattern that goes "Marx -> commies -> Stalin/commie horrors -> postmodernists. But Finn's Law is arguably a silly name . Peterson's Law would be a much better name!

[IlliniDave]

Finn, yes, the discussion has progressed to: "I don't agree with how guys like Hicks/Jordan trace back the historic roots of the original/seminal postmodernists, so I don't want to talk about Jordan any more and let's make a new thread about postmodernism."

I don't have a lot of interest in postmodernism. Instead I am more interested in political/social/academy phenomena in my own country and the only other one I've ever considered living in (Canada). I'm afraid my provincial outlook and simpleton grasp of classics make wise to avoid philosophy debates.

I thought your mention of Stalin was in reference to the future thread you suggested since it was a footnote to that sentence.