Joseph Maynor

I sense an anger in Jordan Peterson, it's a vibe

74 posts in this topic

Does this Jordan Peterson fellow promote seeking psychological security through ones outward accomplishments? 

And if so, is that not a sign of seeking psychological insecurity in time, and imply the contradiction of an illusion seeking security in an illusion?

 Couldn’t we say that any action taken that is influenced by such a divisive movement of thought, would only lead to further conflict and deepen this state of illusion? 

 

If ones goes deep enough into oneself they will see that as long as there is this perpetual seeking to become psychologically secure there will continue to be psychological insecurity. You can see this all over the place in society. 

Its absolutely necessary if one is fortunate enough to have a craft and and cultivate that craft..

That being said, to cultivate psychological security is futile. This is the root reason for all psychological problems. The root cause of all relationship problems, and the root of the invention of all fundamentalist religion. 

Being insecure we seek security in meaning (thought) which is in itself the cause of psychological insecurity. 

To continue to nourish this type of neurotic movement and action is to sustain and further perpetuate this neurosis in the human stream of conciousness. 

Do we see that? 

Are not each one of us responsible for this stream of thought and it’s influence on the stream of consciousness of man kind?

 

 

 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Are not each one of us responsible for this stream of thought and it’s influence on the stream of consciousness of man kind?

We are only responsible for the attachment of the stream. Can't stop the stream.


You're not human, you're the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

We are only responsible for the attachment of the stream. Can't stop the stream.

We are the stream. Yes our attatchment to the content of our conciouness is the very problem. 

If the attatchment ceases what does that imply? 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Faceless said:

We are the stream. Yes our attatchment to the content of our conciouness is the very problem. 

If the attatchment ceases what doesnthwt imply? 

No idea. Only one way to find out, and this is what it seems to me. But once we removed the attachment, there will no longer be the wanting of security, since security is a thought and attachment to that thought is causing it to be in motion.

Edited by B_Naz

You're not human, you're the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

No idea. Only one way to find out, and this is what it seems to me. But once we removed the attachment, there will no longer be the wanting of security.

Yes

Do you see that by we ourselves ending this attatchmment (the i) that that effects the the whole stream of consciousness itself? 

 

 

 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Faceless said:

Yes

Do you see that by we ourselves endig this attatchmment (the i) that thwtceffects the the whole stream of consciousness itself? 

That what it seems, but I cannot say for sure, since anything I try to understand can cause bias views. 


You're not human, you're the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B_Naz said:

That what it seems, but I cannot say for sure, since anything I try to understand can cause bias views. 

Do you understand yourself? 

Do you understand thought? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Faceless said:

Do you understand yourself? 

Do you understand thought? 

Seems that the self is the "i", which is the same as the thought. It's all in one thing.


You're not human, you're the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

Seems that the self is the "i", which is the same as the thought. It's all in one thing.

Yes, but have you gone into the implications of this self/thought in its entirety? 

 

In this one can understand ones own bias and prejudices, and corrupt irrational thinking. You will be able to think without the irrationality that attatchment causes. If we are bound by attatchment there can never be an understanding. 

Learning about the whole of thought makes for a much more orderly way of thinking. 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Faceless said:

In this one can understand ones own bias and prejudices corrupt rational thinking. You will be able to think without the irrationality that attatchment causes. If we are bound by attatchment there can never be an understanding. 

Learning about the whole of thought makes for a much more orderly way of thinking. 

This is not what I have found (yet perhaps?) but a very strong insight. Thank you


You're not human, you're the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, B_Naz said:

This is not what I have found (yet perhaps?) but a very strong insight. Thank you

Thank you. 

Most people don’t go into this. Thus there can not be a thinking without the corrupt movement of the i distorting that very thinking. 

Maybe I can point you in a direction or we can go over it. Once you get started you will be able to go into for yourself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Faceless said:

Thank you. 

Most people don’t go into this. Thus there can not be a thinking without the corrupt movement of the i distorting that very thinking. 

Maybe I can point you in a direction or we can go over it. Once you get started you will be able to go into for yourself. 

 

Directions is all I need since it's how I learn. You have already pointed to a direction for me and many other members have pointed as well, and I've been acting on it.  I don't always take on new theories unless I fully explore them. That was one flaw of mine, but it seems clearer now.

But yes, I'm always willing to accept direction.


You're not human, you're the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rilles said:

*awaits the start of another argument*?

lFRqB11.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

don't always take on new theories unless I fully explore them.

Very intelligent indeed. 

What I am talking about is not theory. Its somthing that you will always be able to see in your self. Not abstract form of learning. It’s to understand thought, not to conform to a theory, idea, or concept that thought has put together. Quite different indeed. No theory is needed. As that is to a form of imitation. Thought/the thinker likes to conform to patterns of thought. This is one thing you will understand right off that bat when exploring into the movement of thought/self. 

12 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

But yes, I'm always willing to accept direction.

And I would never promote acceptance of a way of thinking nor am I directing in the sense of guiding. Just want to share the importance of understanding thought with who is interested. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 We can talk all day about the nature of what is but the reaction and the cause lean on each other existentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Outer said:

That's not a free ebook. It's just a snippet from the ebook. Which I skimmed/read almost entirely already.

Maybe it's no longer free. Well, it is an important read.

This is quite a good additional snippet of Ken talking about some limitations of postmodernism.

 

Edited by Spacious

The logos is truth oriented to love, and love is the desire for being to flourish.

Jordan B Peterson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue has never been a denial of post-modernism's or stage Green's limitations. OF COURSE they are limited. Every stage is limited in its own way. The greater mistake is to react against the limitation in a closedminded and egoic way.

Post-modernism has it's limitations, but JP is overreacting to it, blowing it way out of proportion, which just polarizes people and creates a lack understanding.

You are not going to transcend Green by badmouthing Green. Most people who hate post-modernism are stuck in deep Blue/Orange, haven't bothered to actually read it, or think about its lessons. It's just an egoic judgmental reaction out of ignorance.

JP is ensuring that stage Blue and Orange people stay stuck there forever by feeding their demonization of Green.

Classic example of a red herring. Classic Spiral Dynamics trap: failure to fully integrate.

P.S. Soviet Communists/Marxists were not modern Green post-modernists. They were Blue ideologues closer to JP's audience than to SJWs.

Oh the irony...


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Outer You didnt answer my question. Lets pretend that the spiral is real then, where would you place yourself?


It's just a ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now