Jordan Peterson

[Mister Imperceptible]

If you think back to what catapulted him into the public sphere, it was the Kathy Newman interview as the MeToo hysteria was beginning. Then people began to ask him about everything, including his diet. Of course people who want him to be cancelled will dig up every unsavory detail they can. That is what they are all about. If he died, they would tap dance on his grave. Some people here would tap dance on his grave.

[Alphaville]

If you think back to what catapulted him into the public sphere, it was the Kathy Newman interview as the MeToo hysteria was beginning. Then people began to ask him about everything, including his diet. Of course people who want him to be cancelled will dig up every unsavory detail they can. That is what they are all about. If he died, they would tap dance on his grave. Some people here would tap dance on his grave.

eh! that’s not me and i don’t swing that way. cancelling is stupid. making fun of terrible ideas is for sure more entertaining than having one’s opponents locked up. i’m for free speech, but against stupidity (including my own, which is the more vexing). why not?

anyway i’ve nothing more to say about peterson or the drama around him, as i need to devote my time to reading more taleb instead. now that’s a guy who enjoys mocking his opponents hahahahaaa. he even has a page dedicated to his enemies, see: https://fooledbyrandomness.com/smear.html lol dramas.

anyway, i said my piece, tired of the subject now. anyone looking for sane family structure advice please look for bradshaw. best to all.

[daylen]

The last few pages are how I imagine an opera performed by coked-up academics might be like. Not that I have ever been to an opera or done coke.

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

You have quite an active imagination. Everybody knows academics can’t afford coke.

[daylen]

@7w5

Only the ones that start an opera, marry an engineer, or otherwise live a vagrant lifestyle crashing on the couches of collaborators.

[Alphaville]

Everybody knows academics can’t afford coke.

truth. the new vending machines on campus no longer take coins!

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

True, but it’s not over until the lady who exceeds engineering specifications sings.

[Campitor]

@Campitor:

Agreed. Who am I to censor?

I wouldn't want you to censor anyone including yourself. The only way to arrive at the truth, as much as it's humanly possible, is to express the differing viewpoints with lucidity undergirded by facts while adhering to Jacob's forum guidelines.

Without facts then Hitchen's razor would apply: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Accusations without foundation do not aid in the discovery of the truth.

[7Wannabe5]

@Campitor:

What I should have typed instead of "Who am I to censor?" would be something like "I am extremely opposed to censorship. If examining the evidence offered by the sub-text, as well as the evidence offered directly by the text, is so likely to be, as the kids put it, butt-hurt-ful that it inhibits free expression by other, I will freely choose to cease and desist." Is it possible that I am mistaken in my reading of the subtext of Peterson? Of course, it is, because largely an intuitive process. Does that mean that I am able to inhibit myself from reading sub-text as well as text at this juncture in my cognitive development? No, I have read thousands of books and I now do it on auto-pilot. For instance, there are very few lines that speak directly to the topic in "ERE" the book, but my reading of the sub-text was "Conscientious-motivated by saving the planet."

Returning to text proper:

It is the primary duty of parents to make their children socially desirable. That will provide the child opportunity, self-regard, and security. It's more important even than fostering individual identity. That Holy Grail can only be pursued, in any case, after a high degree of social sophistication has been established.

It occurred to me that opposing argument could readily be constructed along the lines of:

It is a primary duty of parents to make their children socially desirable. That will provide the child opportunity, self-regard, and security. Only the task of fostering individual identity can be regarded as more important. As parents we function much like gardeners, preparing fine seed bed and watering as needed, but it is not within our power to direct a lima bean towards developing into a tomato.

My serious question would be which of these two arguments is most in alignment with a 21st century conservative or liberal viewpoint?

Another question I would put to those of you who have read more than 1of his books or watched more than a couple of Peterson's debates, would be what does he suggest is the process through which the child who must be socialized towards being likeable becomes the "competent" individual whom society should allow to be "difficult" or "politically incorrect?"

Another question would be how would you imagine the Peterson Parent dealing with the classic icon of American Boyhood in the character of Tom Sawyer? Are we gonna give him a good whuppin' after he tricks Ben Rogers into taking over his white-washing chore? Maybe after participating in some other risky scheme or dangerous adventure?

“Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do. Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.” — Mark Twain

[7Wannabe5]

Let's take the case of the "woman question" (to use this old, totally inappropriate designation): philosophically, it can be resolved neither through a new (post-patriarchal) symbolization of femininity nor through the elevation of woman into an entity which resists symbolization, into the "indivisible remainder" of the process of symbolization. This second path was taken by F.W.J. Schelling, who "knew that one cannot derive an expression like 'woman' from principles. What cannot be derived one should narrate." Schelling's break out of the logical structure of reality (which can be presented as a notional system) into the Real of primordial drives (where there is no deduction, one can only tell a story)-i.e., his move from logos to mythos- is thus also an assertion of the Feminine. Schelling extrapolated this line of thought to its extreme: his premise (or, rather, the premise that Peter Sloterdijk imputes to him) is that the female orgasm, this most ecstatic moment of sexual pleasure (as the ancient Greeks already knew), is the high point of human evolution. Sloterdijk even claims that its experience plays the role of providing the ontological proof of god: in it, we humans come into contact with the Absolute. Schelling tried to break out of the idealist closed circle, bringing in matter, organism, life, development, so he was attentive not only to the purely logical mind but also to what goes on in the bodily sphere, sexuality, with human evolution: bliss is not just the Aristotelian thought thinking itself, but also a body enjoying itself to the almost unbearable maximum.

Female orgasm as a new version of the ontological proof of god... instead of dismissing this as a version of the obscurantist New Age speculation (which it is!), we should undermine it from within: the description of intense sexual act as the experience of the highest and most intense unity of Being is simply wrong, it obfuscates the dimension of failure, mediation, gap, antagonism even, which is constitutive of human sexuality. This minimal reflexivity that cuts from within every immediate orgasmic One is the topic of the present book.

- from Introduction to "Sex and the Failed Absolute- Slavoj Zizek


@Alphaville:

You're right. He is hilarious.

[Alphaville]

hahaha stop making me come back to this thread!

but yeah.

[Campitor]

My serious question would be which of these two arguments is most in alignment with a 21st century conservative or liberal viewpoint?

It's hard to answer this question because if you put a thousand liberals in one room and a thousand conservatives in another room and asked them to codify their belief systems, you would get a thousand different responses and lots of argument regarding what is liberal and what is conservative. Just posing your question would likely result in liberals and conservatives agreeing with both statements depending on the scenario they are imagining in their heads. Both groups have shown they favor the individual over the collective and visa versa depending on the topic being discussed.

I favor enlightened self interest. I don't want my things stolen so I will not steal. I don't want my speech suppressed so I will not suppress the speech of others. I don't like loud music disrupting my concentration ergo I will not play loud music while others are working on focused tasks, etc. This doesn't mean that I'm only motivated by self interest.

And while I highly prize my individuality, I understand that I work within a societal framework and there has to be certain mutually agreeable values if we want to establish a functioning social contract. Parents need to educate their children about this social contract so they can astutely navigate it. They can rebel when they are young adults and are aware of the consequences of their rebellion.

Another question I would put to those of you who have read more than 1of his books or watched more than a couple of Peterson's debates, would be what does he suggest is the process through which the child who must be socialized towards being likeable becomes the "competent" individual whom society should allow to be "difficult" or "politically incorrect?"

When they reach adulthood and can grasp how their actions and decisions, using all the lessons and education they amassed along the way, will impact their existence within the local community.

Another question would be how would you imagine the Peterson Parent dealing with the classic icon of American Boyhood in the character of Tom Sawyer? Are we gonna give him a good whuppin' after he tricks Ben Rogers into taking over his white-washing chore? Maybe after participating in some other risky scheme or dangerous adventure?

I read Tom Sawyer in middle school. I thought he was a jerk for tricking the other boys into painting the fence. I imagine if Jordan Peterson existed in the antebellum era, and held the same values and education as he does in the 21st century, he would probably tell Tom Sawyer that it isn't nice to manipulate people with trickery. Per his philosophy, I don't think a whuppin we have been his 1st course of action.

[7Wannabe5]

Ha! Tom Sawyer is the classic ENTP.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Even more hyperventilation:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/25/hy ... -new-book/

[7Wannabe5]

Of course, he should be published. He should also be freely criticized. Then in 100 years, his very popular books will be like the very popular books by 19th century preachers on the topic of evolution

[Mister Imperceptible]

The best preachers are ancient because luxuries afforded by fossil fuel bubbles impart no timeless wisdom.

[7Wannabe5]

Right. Jordan Peterson grew up in a rural affluent oil producing area. Only the affluent can afford a good deal of inefficient nostalgia. Me too. Except I have a strong preference for neo-Enlightenment over neo-Victorian.

[jacob]

Even more hyperventilation:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/25/hy ... -new-book/

This stuff drives me up the wall. I can see how it happens, but not how to effectively prevent it. Methinks Peterson has been declared "guilty by association" (this is simplistic, but it is what it is, and it's something I worry about here on the forum too) with his followers. Many of his followers come from the libertarian and far-right demographic (typically young men or those who retain the attitude of young men; I myself am getting old). Many in this demographic, in turn, has made great sport of trying to stir the online pot in the name of "free speech" by being deliberately offensive and generally annoying to, well, almost everybody else. Saying something dumb and then claiming "it was just a joke" is typical juvenile delinquent operating procedure---being insufficiently grown-up to take responsibility for the fall-out annoys the adults in the room. Conversely, employers at publishing houses very likely come from the liberal art/humanities that Peterson is criticizing and his followers are "jokingly" antagonizing w/o considering the bigger picture and how their idol gets associated with their brand of behavior.

If this conflict was carried out in the style normal high-brow academic critique, I doubt there would be a problem. A publisher could issue yet another edition of Mein Kampf and I doubt there would be protests, because publishing books is what publishers do. Regardless of the content, if it sells or is of "academic interest", they're there to serve.

However, this conflict is happening on youtube, facebook, ... social media. In this case, the "social justice warriors" among the publishing employees have a harder time separating the two because the probably spent the morning commute insulting or being insulted by "free speech warriors" on facebook on their iphones while on the subway. Being part of publishing "the bible of their online enemies" is a big ask---especially from someone (the younger generation) who sees their work as something they are, belong to, or believe in and not just something they do for a living.

It's just another example of how dumb online behavior spills over into the real world. It used to be that delinquent behavior was isolated to school yards and the likes ... but now that it's online everybody sees it. I'm kinda hoping that some of Peterson's new rules will include some advice on that.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I should have withheld from posting until after the holiday weekend, as I have withheld from replying in many other threads. Or I could have posted without a throwaway comment regarding hyperventilation. Sorry.

Please have a good day Dr. Fisker.

[7Wannabe5]

During the enlightenment, people used to stage extremely ribald plays directly poking fun at their political opponents. I guess Saturday Night Live still kind of does that. It’s entirely possible to be overtly joking yet dead serious at the same time or something almost the opposite, like The Journal of Unsubstantiated Results.

People who take themselves entirely seriously are the scariest. That’s why I didn’t vote for Hilary AND I don’t like Peterson. IMO, MMV.