Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby dada » Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:48 am

The thing about finding a cosmic use for the endlessness of human stupidity is, it's kind of a joke, you know? A way of laughing in the face of tragedy.

I might go on about stupidity and intelligence, but I'd rather not keep interrupting Mac's thread. This is one of those cases where I was reading a thread because of who was posting in it, and was reminded of a joke. The topic, I have absolutely no interest in whatsoever.

And no, I won't start a new thread about stupidity. That sounds, well, stupid. That 'comment thread' which srp locked would have been useful at this moment. That thread had great potential, it's really too bad.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:47 pm

JackRiddler » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:53 am wrote:The lobster thing should be the end of discussions taking this guy seriously as a grand thinker,


I saw what you did there, Jack. You asserted dominance, took him down a peg or two, challenged his place in the pecking order, made him smaller (less grand and more petit). You bristled, your hackles were raised, you decided to lock horns with him. It was the anonymous Volksmund that came up with those spontaneous analogies over the course of countless centuries, and not any 20th- or 21st-century thinker, grand, petit, or medium-sized. All those generations of illiterate humans must have been noticing something, both about themselves and their human rivals, and about the dumb beasts that surrounded them

[Lorenz] at least deployed analogies to a species of vertebrates with brains and webbed toes, just like us. Since then the level of this discourse has apparently regressed to an arthropod state.


If by that you mean the discourse in the corporate media, I couldn't agree more. "LOL, Alt-Right Guru Peterson Sez Humans Are Just Like Lobsters!!"

This is the kind of arthropod discourse deployed, for example, by Cathy Newman of Channel 4, throughout their interview:

Newman: “Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?”

Peterson: "I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/550859/


If ruling classes like to rule, and they do, then it's not because ruling makes them feel worse. If the ruling class employs media drones and attack-dogs, and it does, then it's not because they're devoted selflessly to the disinterested pursuit of the truth. It's because they want to maintain their dominant position in the social hierarchy. Because the food's better there, for a start.

As for Those Laughable Lobsters: Eighty years ago, Wilhelm Reich noticed that single-celled creatures and human beings had some very important things in common, not least among them being the importance of free and unhindered expansion & contraction to the health & survival of the organism. Was he wrong? Let's ask the media of the day:

"LOL. Nutty Prof Sez Humans Are Amoebas!!!" It was ever thus.

Meanwhile, we can dream:

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the kid, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them.

Isaiah 11:6
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby Sounder » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:12 pm

I saw what you did there, Jack. You asserted dominance, took him down a peg or two, challenged his place in the pecking order, made him smaller (less grand and more petit). You bristled, your hackles were raised, you decided to lock horns with him.


Damn, shit makes me tired. I must be pretty low on the pecking order.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:14 pm

Tim Lott wrote an interesting, thoughtful, non-arthropod profile of Peterson in the Guardian:

... “God”, in Peterson’s formulation, stands in for “reality” or “the future” or “the logos” or “being” or “everything that isn’t you and that you don’t know”. And the principal discovery of early mankind is that “God” can be bargained with, through sacrifice – which is no more than saying if you sacrifice the pleasures of the present, reality is likely to reward you in the future. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s the best option you’ve got.

[...]

The last chapter of Peterson’s book, misleadingly titled “Rule 12: Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street”, goes into the personal struggles he went through when it was discovered that his daughter, Mikhaila, had a rare bone disease. For many years, Peterson, his wife and daughter fought the illness, which clearly caused Mikhaila terrible suffering. It is also on record that Peterson and his daughter have suffered clinical depression. It is impossible to be sure, but it seems clear that the agony of these experiences has had a major impact on him and how he comes to focus on the underlying darkness of life.

There is much more to be said about Jordan B Peterson. He is a strange mixture of theologian, psychologist, conservative, liberal, wit and lay preacher. He’s a powerful advocate of the scientific method who is not a materialist. He can go from cuddly to razor sharp in a beat. His primary concern, however, which underpins nearly everything about him, is the defence of the individual against groupthink, whether on the right or the left.

[...]

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018 ... -interview


I'd be fascinated to see a conversation between Peterson and Gabor Maté.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby Sounder » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:20 pm

I finally watched the Ian McGilchrist vid, very good observation that the right hemisphere watches for predators while the left looks for prey.

It would be nice if folk could forget their distaste enough to challenge or support ideas on their merits alone.

Last paragraph of the guardian article. This is why the top down people throw shit at Jordan
“Your group identity is not your cardinal feature. That’s the great discovery of the west. That’s why the west is right. And I mean that unconditionally. The west is the only place in the world that has ever figured out that the individual is sovereign. And that’s an impossible thing to figure out. It’s amazing that we managed it. And it’s the key to everything that we’ve ever done right.”
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:36 pm

Alrighty then, I have been Newmaned, although I never saw that and have actually watched Peterson talking about his lobsters, which was an embarrassment. My serotonin levels have dropped off the cliff, I submit and depart, enjoy the discussion.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby Project Willow » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:43 pm

I've said elsewhere about Peterson that I quite enjoyed having my ideology interrogated. Also, as others have noted, he cannot be contended with reductionist, inflammatory dismissals. At the same time, I think there is a blindness and darkness to Peterson that will out itself more clearly eventually. Here is one of his tweets from January:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/950398806054481921
God. Could this be true? The repressed/recovered memory industry is an ethical morass....
8:08 AM - 8 Jan 2018


Here's a response I wrote to Peterson's claims about the sexes self sorting into careers in the Scandinavian countries, and about the existence of patriarchy in general:

Less than 40 years is far too early to discount the effects of social conditioning and to pivot to biologically based differences, but there is more than a bit of "having a hammer makes everything look like a nail" on both sides of the argument.

This circle that has come to prominence of late, Peterson et al shall we say, talk so much about a “male hierarchy”, but consideration of female strategies rarely appear beyond brief mention, do we have our own hierarchy, how do females relate to the male hierarchy? I have yet to see recognition of the fact that a significant portion of human behavior currently labeled “feminine” is essentially submissive posturing. Girls are trained in these appeasement behaviors to maintain their safety while negotiating life among larger and far more dangerous human males. This argues that male hierarchy is not separate but extends over and includes females. Yet higher rates of depression, and "Big Five" traits like neuroticism and agreeableness are attributed to the female reproductive role rather than negotiating life among larger and more dangerous males. Likewise, there is a lot of talk about female choice in the process of mate selection, but little recognition of how patriarchal cultural systems severely limit female choice. Rape, child sexual abuse, prostitution, FGM, arranged and child marriage, these are all evidence that there is a hierarchy between the sexes and males are dominant.


Here is a philosophical critique of Maps of Meaning by Maxine Sheets-Johnstone. It outlines Peterson's lack of consideration for females, something I noticed from the very beginning. How could any man who has a daughter advocate for a guiding mythology where she can see no major, positive reflection of herself? Would that not cause her psychological pain? It caused me pain when I was a youth. After reading Genesis, I threw the bible across the floor and never picked it up again. The war between the sexes is real.

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?meaning-belief.2

14. Peterson's Maps of Meaning is on the one hand fascinating because of what it illuminates with respect to the patriarchal system it analyzes; it is on the other hand myopic because of what it fails to account for or even consider with respect to what is suppressed within the patriarchal system (cf. Sheets-Johnstone 1994b). In keeping with themes in mythology, religion, and Jungian psychiatry, the known and the unknown are personified by The Great Father and the Great and Terrible Mother, respectively, and the terrain between the two is mediated by the Hero. It is notable that in this historical/Jungian account, and equally, in Peterson's undistanced, uncritical rendition of it, daughters never enter the scene; there are only sons or the son. It is notable too that there are only heros. Heroines never enter the scene either--although a princess makes a brief appearance on p. 248 as she "waits for the kiss of the hero to wake." It is as if The Great and Terrible Mother never gives birth to females.

15. Females in fact rarely make an appearance within the analysis Peterson offers, or, if they do, it is with marginal attention, as when he writes that "rapid maturation and the naturally dramatic onset of menstruation" explain why "[initiatory] rituals tend to be more complex and far-reaching for males than for females" (p. 222); or when he writes that, following male initiatory rites, "The new environment is the society of men, where women are sexual partners and equals instead of sources of dependent comfort" (p. 224). How females come to be sexual partners in "the society of men" is not perplexing, but how they come to be "equal" in "the society of men" remains perplexing--and a challenge to this day. The question of an easy equality aside, how females make the transition from being "sexual partners and equals" to being "sources of dependent comfort" (i.e., mothers), or vice versa, or encompass the two modes--partner/equal and mother--not transitionally but simultaneously in "the society of men," is nowhere considered. Peterson's oversight is odd given the fact that having a child, for example--at the very least, a first child--is "unexplored territory," not only in the experiences of pregnancy and of giving birth, but in day to day discoveries of new meanings and potentially daily creative engagements with another being. Females are so shortly and breezily accounted for in Peterson's book that they appear to be no more than necessary but ready-made paste-ons in "the society of men"--which, perhaps, is what they are in such a society.

16. It is notable, furthermore, that while there is a Great and Terrible Mother, there is only a Great Father, even though this Great Father is tyrannical in the extreme as well as orderly, i.e., even though he, like Great Mother, has a powerful negative as well as powerful positive side. Why his negative side is not so designated in his label is peculiar--Terrible Father appears only once (p. 379). The lack of balance is particularly striking--and troubling--in light of the fact that men make war, men make concentration camps, men make prison camps, men dismember men, men rape women, and so on, and so on. Although Peterson chronicles the horrors of concentration and prison camps at length, recounting experiences described by Frankl at Auschwitz and by Solzhenitsyn at the Gulag Archipelago; although he specifically states that "Man can torture his brother and dance on his grave," that "Man exults in agony, delights in pain, worships destruction and pathology,... and constantly works to lay waste, to undermine, to destroy, to torment, to abuse and devour," that "Man chooses evil, for the sake of the evil," and that Man tortures and exults and chooses as he does out of "slavish adherence to the forces of socialization" (p. 347); although Peterson chronicles all these horrors and designates "Man" as their author, he does not seem to realize that it is specifically, universally, and virtually only males in "the society of men" who make war, who "torture," "massacre," butcher," "rape," "devour," and so on (p. 347). In short, that Peterson draws our attention to the horrors of "Man," all the while not questioning the patriarchal system itself in which Man's brutalities take place is an astonishing and puzzling omission, all the more so in light of his desire to discover the "human motivation for evil" (p. 460) and the way in which we humans might recognize "our infinite capacity for good" (p. 456); all the more so too in light of the absolute and central binary opposition he draws between male and female throughout.

17. One can legitimately wonder not only what kind of culture(s) would evolve--what kind of myths and religions would be spawned, what kind of stories would be told--but most significantly in terms of Peterson's central concern, to what degree evil would continue to "turn the world into hell" (p. 456), if females were the humans who spoke for society--for humanity--if they created myths of origin and structured cultures; or, if females and males in truth recognized each other as equals, treated each other as equals, and were thereby capable of creating culture together. In other words, if the "patriarchal kingdom of culture" were not patriarchal, and not a kingdom, and if connectedness rather than combative binary oppositions structured culture(s), then commonalities rather than differences might fundamentally motivate and define human action, and in ways that would move us in the direction Peterson tries to move us, i.e., toward "our infinite capacity for good." Taking just such a critical perspective on the "patriarchal system," Peterson might be willing to examine the structure of "the society of men" and determine how it eventuates in the morality it does. After all, if "morality, at its most fundamental level, is an emergent property of social interaction, embodied in individual behavior, implicit in the value attributed to objects and situations, grounded (unconsciously) in procedural knowledge" (p. 391-92), then whatever morality we have is a morality of the society in which we live, and an unfailingly scrupulous examination and critique of "the society of men" in which we live is mandatory. It may be that the kind of order a patriarchal system or patriarchal kingdom of culture produces is not the kind of order conducive to the morality Peterson envisions. The order the Great Father sets up, for example, is in opposition to Nature--in all Her forms, objective and well as culturally elaborated in myth, religion, and a host of other kinds of "narratives." It engenders a "dominant male" morality--and mentality--one which has evolutionary roots (Sheets-Johnstone 1994b), but one that is also unenlightened by insights into the positive moral capacities of humans that Peterson elucidates and personifies in the Hero. The question Peterson might ask himself is whether there is a connection between the opposition and the morality.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4793
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby SonicG » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:33 am

Hmmm...I first started hearing about Peterson from a 50ish old school British hard-left friend who has joined the Progressive PC-has-gone-overboard crowd...I avoid confrontation on FB, mais oui, but checked out Peterson a little bit...
I think there is an underlying validity to the argument of the loss of the sacred being responsible for things seeming to spin out of control (which Peterson argues for, correct?), but I have based that greatly on Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade (which McKenna turned me onto)...I see she has barely been mentioned on this board so maybe another thread is in order...

The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler is an international bestseller first published in 1987 and now in 26 foreign editions, including most European languages as well as Chinese, Japanese, Urdu, Korean, Arabic, Hebrew, and Turkish. The book introduces a new conceptual framework for studying social systems that pays particular attention to how a society constructs the roles and relations between the female and male halves of humanity. It proposes that underlying the long span of human cultural evolution is the tension between what Eisler calls the dominator or domination model and the partnership model. The book traces this tension in Western culture from prehistory to the present, and closes with two contrasting scenarios for the future. It challenges conventional views about cultural evolution.


Perhaps I am being over hopeful, where some see a gross overcompensation for "Dominator" crimes against the feminine, I see a temporary blip on our way to a true partnership society...What should we be a-scared of? is the real question we should ask. It means that men do not have to give up any actual power but rather would see their true power escalated along with the rest of humanity...pipe dream I know, but maybe that is the scary shit the Nephilim are going to force on us when the saucers land: treat each other and the planet with true compassion....
"a poiminint tidal wave in a notion of dynamite"
User avatar
SonicG
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby Sounder » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:51 am

Thanks Willow, it does seem like Jordan has a few holes in his head in regard to women.

And thanks SonicG for the well timed posting of this Riane Eisler reminder.

I loved that book from back in the day of my compulsive reading.

It was curious that in the McGilcrist vid they talked about the differently functioning brain hemispheres with several useful observations, but where was any reflection on the matter as it relates to gender?

How is the lion going to lay down with the lamb if he is still so hungry?

It would be good to know what, or if Riane Eisler has to say about Jordan or McGilcrist.

Theoretically, the discussion they might have would be interesting.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:21 am

Since today is 50 years to the day after the My Lai massacre, here's JP on the movement against the American War in Indochina, the Civil Rights Movement, students and youth in general, imaginary universities, and presumably feminists:

This happened in the 60s, as far as I can tell, that we got this misbegotten idea that the way to conduct yourself as a responsible human being was to hold placards up to protest to change the viewpoints of other people and thereby usher in the utopia. I think that’s all appalling, I think it’s appalling. And I think it’s absolutely absurd that students are taught that that’s the way to conduct themselves in the world. First of all, if you’re nineteen or twenty or twenty one, you don’t bloody well know anything. You haven’t done anything. You don’t know anything about history, you haven’t read anything, you haven’t supported yourself for any length of time. You’ve been entirely dependent on your state and on your family for the brief few years of your existence. And the idea that you have any wisdom to determine how society should be reconstructed when you’re sitting in the absolute lap of luxury protected by processes you don’t understand… let’s call that a bad idea… The idea that what you should do to change the world is to find people you disagree with and shake paper on sticks at them, it’s just...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqi0jHn_7-I

What did this guy know?

Image

Thompson told the American troops that, if they opened fire on the Vietnamese civilians in the bunker, he and his crew would open fire on them.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby Blue » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:52 am

"...forget their distaste" say the white men who go on and on about how identity politics aren't important. When half the Earth's people are female and most are not white it's not a matter of distaste they have for your dismissal of their experiences. Especially their experiences of predator and prey which are extremely different than yours.

It would be nice if there was someplace on the internet where men did not always insist that their POV speaks for all of humanity.

PW says it much better than I can in her post above.

Sounder » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:20 pm wrote:I finally watched the Ian McGilchrist vid, very good observation that the right hemisphere watches for predators while the left looks for prey.

It would be nice if folk could forget their distaste enough to challenge or support ideas on their merits alone.

Last paragraph of the guardian article. This is why the top down people throw shit at Jordan
“Your group identity is not your cardinal feature. That’s the great discovery of the west. That’s why the west is right. And I mean that unconditionally. The west is the only place in the world that has ever figured out that the individual is sovereign. And that’s an impossible thing to figure out. It’s amazing that we managed it. And it’s the key to everything that we’ve ever done right.”
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby Jerky » Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:10 pm

Jordan Peterson’s popularity is the sign of a deeply impoverished political and intellectual landscape…

by NATHAN J. ROBINSON
If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.)

Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.

Continued...
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/ ... we-deserve
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby SonicG » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:07 am

JackRiddler » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:21 pm wrote:Since today is 50 years to the day after the My Lai massacre, here's JP on the movement against the American War in Indochina, the Civil Rights Movement, students and youth in general, imaginary universities, and presumably feminists:

This happened in the 60s, as far as I can tell, that we got this misbegotten idea that the way to conduct yourself as a responsible human being was to hold placards up to protest to change the viewpoints of other people and thereby usher in the utopia. I think that’s all appalling, I think it’s appalling. And I think it’s absolutely absurd that students are taught that that’s the way to conduct themselves in the world. First of all, if you’re nineteen or twenty or twenty one, you don’t bloody well know anything. You haven’t done anything. You don’t know anything about history, you haven’t read anything, you haven’t supported yourself for any length of time. You’ve been entirely dependent on your state and on your family for the brief few years of your existence. And the idea that you have any wisdom to determine how society should be reconstructed when you’re sitting in the absolute lap of luxury protected by processes you don’t understand… let’s call that a bad idea… The idea that what you should do to change the world is to find people you disagree with and shake paper on sticks at them, it’s just...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqi0jHn_7-I

What did this guy know?

Image

Thompson told the American troops that, if they opened fire on the Vietnamese civilians in the bunker, he and his crew would open fire on them.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html


I really do live in Vietnam (HCMC) so I will be sure to let everyone here know that the US anti-war movement was just a bunch of dumb spoiled brats who knew nothing about, well, war crimes...
"a poiminint tidal wave in a notion of dynamite"
User avatar
SonicG
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby 82_28 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:05 am

How could anyone be so voluntarily obtuse? How old were the spoiled brats who were forcibly stirred to kill by "the adults" who had enough experience under their belts to not be able to recognize their very own crimes against humanity? Peterson certainly could not be that big of an idiot that the truth of what happened to innocent humans were simply a little too early to be graced by his superior chops as he would only emerge.

As my sig attests, I must be into Propagandhi. As I was reading some of those passages in Jerky's link by Peterson, I was like Jesus this guy is actually saying nothing at all. He's an utter sophist. Since he's also Canadian these lyrics by said Canadian band leaped to mind.



Fedallah’s Hearse

As so many practiced diplomats, so too your vaunted laureates, whose access to the higher rungs of the cultural priesthood is hinged upon their flair for sophistry. Well, I vote you the best-equipped to shrink from speech that might suggest any thoughts your key target-market might not have already signed-off on and ratified. And I vote you most likely to clutter your language with so much deadwood that no amount of pruning will reveal your intensive, protracted campaign of saying nothing at all. Your daydreams of black tie affairs at Rideau Hall. Your acceptance speech. Your dramatic pause. Don’t forget to thank those bitter ex-musician cum embedded rock-journalists frantically applauding the latest artist-formerly-known-as iconoclast, giddy from the fumes of a fresh defection, moping to the maudlin beat of a hat rack rhythm section, a tacit understanding of mutual non-aggression enjoyed by every nauseating do-nothing functionary. Really, it’s not so much the incessant ruse of assigning profound meaning to the meaningless curios you decorate your sets with in your extraordinarily mundane fictions. It’s the (colossal) arrogance of the subtext: the province of human affairs is a field best left to dilettantes with an extraordinary gift for the feigning of paralysis. For saying nothing at all. For daydreams of black tie affairs at Rideau Hall. An acceptance speech. Sustained applause.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jordan Peterson with Russell Brand & Ian McGilchrist

Postby Sounder » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:33 am

Blue wrote...
"...forget their distaste" say the white men who go on and on about how identity politics aren't important. When half the Earth's people are female and most are not white it's not a matter of distaste they have for your dismissal of their experiences. Especially their experiences of predator and prey which are extremely different than yours.

It would be nice if there was someplace on the internet where men did not always insist that their POV speaks for all of humanity.

PW says it much better than I can in her post above.

The suggestion that I am dismissing any ones experiences is uncalled for.

One thing I found most helpful from back in my reading days was to have an attitude of receptivity upon opening any book. The objective was to approach that person’s mindset to try to get in inkling of motivations and background so as separate or distill useful elements from mere reflections of social conditioning.

I would not suggest that you ‘forget your distaste’, as I have and largely share that distaste. Only ‘enough’ to consider some of the ideas presented. So for instance, my dream is to see humanity adopt an approach to reality (nature) whereby the goal is for order and liberty to be in balance. We now live in a left brain world where our intellectual constructs encourage hard boundary conditions thereby turn everything into objects, Things are to be manipulated, this is patriarchy. The Roman Empire never ended.

But, and Ian McGilcrist pointed out in the discussion and to which Jordan had nothing to say, is that there are no things. As when time is considered, all is process. Sadly many people have adopted tactics that IMO reinforce patriarchal control in the name of breaking it down. For instance, groups are easier to control than are individuals.

We as civilization have not yet learned to tap the potentials of the pleroma.
It would be nice if there was someplace on the internet where men did not always insist that their POV speaks for all of humanity.


If we had a POV that integrated the two half's of our brain we would have a POV that does speaks for all of humanity. Win win.
I will re-read Raine Eisler’s book to see how she reflects on these matters.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests