JohnnyRocket

Jordan Peterson

238 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, stevegan928 said:

@Feel Good Anyone else find this Feel Good guy a little illogical? He's just spewing ad hominem  attacks at the zen guy for no reason other than a sneaking suspicion that he might be "creepy". 

I found the zen guy to come off as really likable and "intensely in the moment". I got the sense from the video that a direct conversation with him would be awesome. Just my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta give it to your Leo (based on your recent blog post). JP is definitely orange with a scent of blue. Yeah, he's fighting against green's increasing influence in society. 

Chomsky is a good example of yellow, and Chomsky has a way more integral view of the world than JP. Just as someone like Alan Watts had a way more integral view of the world than Chomsky.

Whereas JP is orange with a scent of blue, Sam Harris is orange with a scent of green.

It's like JP is stuck halfway between blue and orange, whereas Sam Harris is stuck halfway between orange and green.

They are both fascinating human beings, very smart, but yeah, very limited in their ability to see their own perspective... I guess you have to master green and start sniffing into yellow to be able to see your own ground.


Can you bite your own teeth?  --  “What a caterpillar calls the end of the world we call a butterfly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WaveInTheOcean Yep. A centered, healthy green can easily spot orange, blue and fake green. JP is obviously orange / blue. 

IMO, Sam Harris is centered at a very high level orange. I hope he can transition through green and yellow. His orange foundation would be so strong - imagine him being at full-on yellow.

Share this post


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

What's a fake green look like? 

I would consider JP an example. To me, he sometimes tries to present himself as green - yet he is centered/motivated at Orange/Blue. It's most obvious when he gets triggered by a solid green. He is not comfortable operating within Green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Feel Good Perhaps the term "fake" is too strong. I just can't think of a better word offhand.

As an example: Watch how JP talks about "inclusion" in the below video. A healthy green sees inclusion in terms of wellness for all. A healthy green would want to bring a marginalized group into the mainstream and also be mindful of the wellness of other groups within the mainstream. Deep down a healthy green is motivated to include marginalized groups even if they are not a member of the marginalized group

A good example is with gender equality. One issue on University campuses is the use of pronouns for non-binary individuals. Some individuals that don't identify as either male or female don't like being addressed with male or female pronouns (e.g. he or she). A healthy green can see their point and can empathize with them. My gender identity is male and if someone kept calling me "she" it would irritate me. Although I am not a non-binary individual I can empathize with them and I support their inclusion. . . Non-binary students are asking for new pronouns that are neither male or female. On some University campuses, LGBT has called for many new pronouns (I think a couple dozen in some Universities). As well, some people are calling for new laws that mandate people use non-binary pronouns.

Let's consider the mindset for Green, Orange and Blue on these issues:

Healthy Green: the underlying motivation and worldview is about equality, inclusion and wellness for all. This is what it boils down to for Greens. So. . . Greens are aware that there is a marginalized group (non-binary gender individuals). The fundamental question for Greens is: how can our community include non-binary individuals while promoting wellness for everyone? This question is their lens as issues arise. . . One issue is that some community members will be upset about a law requiring them to use new non-binary pronouns. Some people will argue for their individual right of free speech (Orange). A Green will recognize that a law mandating the use of non-binary pronouns will raise an individual free speech issue for Orange WITHIN the larger, holistic context of creating an environment for the wellness of all (including upset Orange individuals). We go back to Green's fundamental question: How can we best include non-binary individuals with this individual speech issue present? A Green would ask: are there options other than a law mandate to reach the end goal of inclusion? A Green may propose that the University create an atmosphere of inclusion by stating that the new standard policy is the use of pronouns. They could require syllabi include non-binary pronouns. They could require student and faculty diversity training that highlights the importance of using non-binary pronouns. This may have much less backlash from Orange. . . . On the issue of the number of pronouns: imagine LGBT asks for 30 new non-binary pronouns to cover all non-binary identities. A Green can see this might not be practical - it could make communication really awkward and many Orange/Blue people will get annoyed. So, a green may propose to LGBT that they find a consensus among themselves to narrow the non-binary pronouns down to six pronouns. . . Again, for a Green it keeps coming back to inclusion of the marginalized group within holistic wellness for all. Greens keep asking "How can we resolve this issue so that non-binary individuals are no longer marginalized?". They keep brainstorming ideas of inclusion. They are willing to work with various groups for inclusion.

The Orange stage prioritizes individual freedom and rational/logical thinking. An Orange person may say that they value inclusion and they don't discriminate, yet they will have a very different fundamental question than Greens. The Green fundamental question is "how can our community include binary individuals within holistic wellness for everyone?" In contrast the Orange fundamental question is "How will new policies affect individual rights and freedoms?" (with a focus on MY individual rights and freedoms). Deep down, an Orange will be motivated to protect individual rights and freedoms, not for inclusion of a marginalized group they don't belong to. Regarding a law mandating non-binary pronouns, an Orange will focus on individual free speech and 2nd Amendment rights. Rather than seeking other solutions for inclusion, an Orange will by hyper-focused on how they shouldn't be told what to say. Over and over, they will argue for their individual freedom of speech. Regarding 30 new non-binary pronouns, an Orange will complain that using 30 new pronouns is ridiculous.  "How will this affect ME?", "What an inconvenience for ME". They will be stuck on the individual. They will not be motivated to brainstorms new ideas for inclusion because they are individual-centered, not community-centered. They will likely argue against any new ideas that limit what they perceive is their individual freedom. They will use rationale and logic to defend their individual-first perspective.

The Blue stage uses "either / or" thinking. Rather than the "individual-first" mindset of Orange, Blues have a "group-first" mentality. Healthy greens have a more holistic view of "group-first" than blues - Greens seek equality and inclusion for all in one holistic multicultural community. Blue seeks to compartmentalize groups into "us and them". We are straight, they are gay. We are Christians, they are Muslims. An ideological blue sees their way of life as normal, for themselves and others. "Men should act masculine and women should act feminine". Not just for me, but for everyone. These Blues will see non-binary individuals as being weird and perhaps immoral. They will not want inclusion of non-binary individuals - yet for a different reason than Orange. Orange wants to exclude non-binary to protect what they see as a threat to individual freedom. Blue wants to exclude non-binary to protect their group (binary male or female). They can't even imagine a person being non-binary. "How can someone not identify as being a man or woman?" They lack the capacity to see outside of their Either man Or woman thinking. They will see non-binary inclusion as a threat to their group (man and woman).

To a solid, healthy Green, these dynamics are TOTALLY obvious. They can clearly see why Greens, Oranges and Blues are arguing they way they are. Yet Oranges and Blues cannot understand the Green perspective. They may use some Green lingo, yet deep down they are motivated by Orange or Blue urges.

Are you ready to see if you have advanced to a solid, healthy green? Ready to test your level of consciousness? The below video is an interview with JP and a non-binary individual, debating over the use of non-binary pronouns at the University of Toronto (where JP is a professor). Notice how JP has Orange and Blue motivations (as described above). He is clearly not motivated to work through issues together for the ultimate goal of inclusion and wellness for all. He is not brainstorming for new ideas for inclusion. He is clearly motivated by individual rights and personal freedom (Orange). He has no Green motivation to seek inclusion for non-binary individuals. He keeps coming back to second amendment individual free speech and the personal inconvenience of using 30 new nonbinary pronouns (Orange). Greens see individual rights as an issue WITHIN the larger context of inclusion. Orange sees individual rights as THE issue. Also notice how JP relies on rationale/logical thinking (Orange) and is unable to use a relative mode of thinking (Green). His Orange is completely obvious. His Blue is a bit more subtle, yet apparent to an observant Green. Notice how JP is focused on protecting individual rights for HIS group (men and women). Is he equally concerned about what the individual freedom for non-binary individuals might be? I'd say clearly not. Non-binary are the "other" group. His disdain for "them" is palatable. He is motivated by a combination of personal individual rights (Orange) and protecting his group (Blue). Notice how the moderator opens Green doors for JP. Every time, JP retreats back to an Orange mindset. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv

It's curious how we want to have certainty in our interpretation of what things mean, and of how to structure our identities.

I definitely feel this need. To create a coherent story and map of what exactly Jordan Peterson is and means for society and myself. It's something like, feeling as if The Answer is in more personal integration and coherence. If only I could have deeper understanding, rid myself of ignorance and create a more accurate and beautiful map...

And yet, spiral dynamics is a map, a powerful meta map, but a map none the less. There are plenty of other meta maps, including much more comprehensive ones. For example Ken Wilber's AQAL meta meta map, which includes spiral dynamics as one component.

So there is a (necessary?) illusion in saying "Ah ha! I know how Jordan Peterson (or any person/topic/paradigm) fits into the bigger picture. Here is my beautiful map. The coherent and non contradictory map, or at least a transitional map on the way to the eventual coherent and non contradictory map!"

I don't think that coherent destination can ever be reached, eventually, at some point in people's growth, the whole project might be appropriately given up. Safe in the knowledge (new illusion?) that collectively, all our maps will balance each other out and cover the blind spots and flaws in any one individual map. It's all just an illusion, but a necessary illusion, because if we didn't have it, why would we even invest in creating detailed maps in the first place?

 

With Jordan Peterson, if we just use spiral dynamics and attempt to conceptualize reality through that, you seem to suggest that he is blue/orange. That the green professor and host are attempting to pull him up to green, but Jordan Peterson is resisting the green professor's greater depth.

That is one framing of a set of facts. (I honestly don't know to what degree that framing is accurate or useful, maybe much more than I believe, maybe much less than I believe. I do have a position on that framing, but (on a good day at least), I am learning to hold that position lightly, as a stance I'm taking, rather than be believing my stance is actually representing reality.)

I'd like to offer a different framing for contrast, as an experiment to try on.

The framing of Jordan Peterson being yellow, and it is the green professor that is resisting what he is saying. That Jordan's "Free speech" isn't about "individuals expressing themselves", but rather about "different paradigms interacting". In a way, yellow makes "free speech" space in ones mind for all the voices, at a depth at which green doesn't. (green makes room for the love and the compassion and kindness, but green can't yet afford to allow lower and less developed voices, the anger and greed and darkness, those are marginalized and excluded and often pushed into shadow. green has to marginalize those voices until it is strong enough to allow them to speak in a functional way).

In this framing, yellow Jordan is consciously acting orange and blue, rather than him being only orange and blue.

In this framing, Jordan is actually more inclusive than the green professor, because he realizes the futility in green's project of "including everyone". We have to try very hard, but no matter what, some people will be left out. Some people will suffer. Green just claims they have the compassionate high ground and says "you need to be more inclusive like us", while blaming ALL of humanity's inequality and exclusion on those selfish uncaring people and systems who don't know any better, rather than a degree of deep inequality and suffering and injustice always remaining, and rather than self reflecting that as green they are some of the most privileged people on the planet. That inequality is so deep in the structure of existence that society must eventually move on to bigger things even though inequality and including all marginalized groups is not solved, because past a certain point it is not technically solvable. That the deeper answer lays in creating a functional society whose primary purpose is to create functional pathways for growth. Which then more effectively tackle green's goals of reducing inequality and exclusion, orange's goals of reducing irrationality, blue's goals of reducing immorality, red's goals of reducing powerlessness, purple's goals of reducing lack of safety.

So yellow Jordan is saying to the green professor, "You are not the 'good guy', neither am I. We are tasked with the horrible project of using our immense and unearned privilege in a way that serves the greater good of all, knowing that no matter what we do, some people will always fall through the cracks terribly, then looking those poor souls in the directly eye and saying "I'm sorry, you can't be saved, trying to save literally everyone will just result in more suffering, there is no other way, I am sorry" while tears stream down your face."

While Jordan simultaneously reprimands the green professor for using his privilege to be self congratulatory about how kind and compassionate he is, and reprimands his illusion of how inequality and exclusion could be ended if only everyone enacted his great kindness and vision.

So yellow Jordan isn't saying "Let's go back to blue Christianity", rather he is saying "We need to examine the entire way society is run, not just changing the paradigm, instead changing the context in which paradigms evolve. Flawed and broken Christianity is a pathway which has such a strong philosophical foundation that we can tweak and modify it for use as a conveyor belt to get people from beige at birth, all the way up to yellow as adults (and perhaps one day to realizing God), rather than the current experiments with even more flawed and broken neomarxist frameworks which seems to cause people to get stuck at green."

In this framing, it is yellow Jordan who is reaching out a hand and saying "Shall we transition to a higher level of being?" while the green professor is currently unable to take it and believes the (necessary?) illusion that Jordan's views are beneath him, rather than above.

Again, I'm not making the claim that this is Jordan's position/intention/effect. I'm just offering it as an alternative framing of what his position/intention/effect MIGHT be.

Edited by Kosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kosmos The more I listen to JP's nonsense, more I see he's nowhere near deserving of a Yellow designation. He's not an integral Tier 2 thinker. He only might appear to you that way because you yourself have too little experience with true Tier 2 integral thinking and have a soft-spot for JP's ideology.

Only a hack would create videos for PragerU, a conservative propaganda arm equivalent to Fox News:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/inside-right-wing-youtube-turning-millennials-conservative-prageru-video-dennis-prager/

JP is not reaching out a hand to anyone. He's building a personal empire off fear-mongering and culture wars. Most of his audience is not nearly sophisticated enough to see it. What JP is doing is playing identity politics, and his fanbase gobbbles it up because they have narrow, weak identities.

JP is just an academic version of Fox News.

He shows no awareness of any stage beyond Green. And even Green he views as a mistake.

This is not a serious intellectual. Why waste your time on this when there are such better teachers to learn from??


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kosmos said:

@Serotoninluv

It's curious how we want to have certainty in our interpretation of what things mean, and of how to structure our identities.

I definitely feel this need. To create a coherent story and map of what exactly Jordan Peterson is and means for society and myself. It's something like, feeling as if The Answer is in more personal integration and coherence. If only I could have deeper understanding, rid myself of ignorance and create a more accurate and beautiful map...

And yet, spiral dynamics is a map, a powerful meta map, but a map none the less. There are plenty of other meta maps, including much more comprehensive ones. For example Ken Wilber's AQAL meta meta map, which includes spiral dynamics as one component.

So there is a (necessary?) illusion in saying "Ah ha! I know how Jordan Peterson (or any person/topic/paradigm) fits into the bigger picture. Here is my beautiful map. The coherent and non contradictory map, or at least a transitional map on the way to the eventual coherent and non contradictory map!"

I don't think that coherent destination can ever be reached, eventually, at some point in people's growth, the whole project might be appropriately given up. Safe in the knowledge (new illusion?) that collectively, all our maps will balance each other out and cover the blind spots and flaws in any one individual map. It's all just an illusion, but a necessary illusion, because if we didn't have it, why would we even invest in creating detailed maps in the first place?

With Jordan Peterson, if we just use spiral dynamics and attempt to conceptualize reality through that, you seem to suggest that he is blue/orange. That the green professor and host are attempting to pull him up to green, but Jordan Peterson is resisting the green professor's greater depth.

That is one framing of a set of facts. (I honestly don't know to what degree that framing is accurate or useful, maybe much more than I believe, maybe much less than I believe. I do have a position on that framing, but (on a good day at least), I am learning to hold that position lightly, as a stance I'm taking, rather than be believing my stance is actually representing reality.)

I'd like to offer a different framing for contrast, as an experiment to try on.

The framing of Jordan Peterson being yellow, and it is the green professor that is resisting what he is saying. That Jordan's "Free speech" isn't about "individuals expressing themselves", but rather about "different paradigms interacting". In a way, yellow makes "free speech" space in ones mind for all the voices, at a depth at which green doesn't. (green makes room for the love and the compassion and kindness, but green can't yet afford to allow lower and less developed voices, the anger and greed and darkness, those are marginalized and excluded and often pushed into shadow. green has to marginalize those voices until it is strong enough to allow them to speak in a functional way).

In this framing, yellow Jordan is consciously acting orange and blue, rather than him being only orange and blue.

In this framing, Jordan is actually more inclusive than the green professor, because he realizes the futility in green's project of "including everyone". We have to try very hard, but no matter what, some people will be left out. Some people will suffer. Green just claims they have the compassionate high ground and says "you need to be more inclusive like us", while blaming ALL of humanity's inequality and exclusion on those selfish uncaring people and systems who don't know any better, rather than a degree of deep inequality and suffering and injustice always remaining, and rather than self reflecting that as green they are some of the most privileged people on the planet. That inequality is so deep in the structure of existence that society must eventually move on to bigger things even though inequality and including all marginalized groups is not solved, because past a certain point it is not technically solvable. That the deeper answer lays in creating a functional society whose primary purpose is to create functional pathways for growth. Which then more effectively tackle green's goals of reducing inequality and exclusion, orange's goals of reducing irrationality, blue's goals of reducing immorality, red's goals of reducing powerlessness, purple's goals of reducing lack of safety.

So yellow Jordan is saying to the green professor, "You are not the 'good guy', neither am I. We are tasked with the horrible project of using our immense and unearned privilege in a way that serves the greater good of all, knowing that no matter what we do, some people will always fall through the cracks terribly, then looking those poor souls in the directly eye and saying "I'm sorry, you can't be saved, trying to save literally everyone will just result in more suffering, there is no other way, I am sorry" while tears stream down your face."

While Jordan simultaneously reprimands the green professor for using his privilege to be self congratulatory about how kind and compassionate he is, and reprimands his illusion of how inequality and exclusion could be ended if only everyone enacted his great kindness and vision.

So yellow Jordan isn't saying "Let's go back to blue Christianity", rather he is saying "We need to examine the entire way society is run, not just changing the paradigm, instead changing the context in which paradigms evolve. Flawed and broken Christianity is a pathway which has such a strong philosophical foundation that we can tweak and modify it for use as a conveyor belt to get people from beige at birth, all the way up to yellow as adults (and perhaps one day to realizing God), rather than the current experiments with even more flawed and broken neomarxist frameworks which seems to cause people to get stuck at green."

In this framing, it is yellow Jordan who is reaching out a hand and saying "Shall we transition to a higher level of being?" while the green professor is currently unable to take it and believes the (necessary?) illusion that Jordan's views are beneath him, rather than above.

Again, I'm not making the claim that this is Jordan's position/intention/effect. I'm just offering it as an alternative framing of what his position/intention/effect MIGHT be.


well. I thought earlier that JP was yellow. 

Btw I'm probably myself green beginning to transition into you yellow myself, so yeah I'm not at a level where I'm able to spot yellow people so easily yet.

Exactly because I'm green and generally find intellectual people interesting (cos JP is smart, he is intellectual, he has a lot of knowledge, but being smart/high IQ/intellectual/knowing a lot is independent of which stage you are at the spiral, mostly), so naturally I thought that JP was yellow, especially because I'm starting to see the limits of green, my own stage, so the critique he was giving of green was intriguing to me,  and I thought it was coming from someone above, me, i.e. yellow.

However, the more videos I watch with him now, the more I see that he's actually below green. He's pretty clearly orange-blue. I mean a yellow would not be so ideological about that law in Canada, whereas JP is just going to war against it, which is a typical way of doing things in the lower stages, i.e. blue orange. 

If you want to see someone who's yellow, check out Noam Chomsky, lot's of videos with him on the internet.

By the way, it's clear to me that the law in Canada is made by green. From a yellow standpoint the law is not smart, but not a catastrophe either. From a blueish/orangish standpoit, the law is indeed a catastrophe, which is why you see JP acting the way he does right now.

Edited by WaveInTheOcean

Can you bite your own teeth?  --  “What a caterpillar calls the end of the world we call a butterfly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video...:ph34r:

I had a hard time not bursting into laugher at some of his discourse.

"University are full of dangerous teachers who are ideologues. They are no educators. They have a simple way at looking at the world, they reduce it to a few principles... and they are on a ideological campaign."   

Says the university professor, touring TV shows to spread his conservative agenda... 

What an irony.

 

Edited by Etherial Cat

Association with the wise is the root cause for obliterating all misery. -  Tripura Rahasya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats with JP using the word dangerous all the time, seems he has a shadow he needs to deal with.


It's just a ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting this video again for anyone who's interested in hearing a well-built critic on Peterson. 


Association with the wise is the root cause for obliterating all misery. -  Tripura Rahasya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Leo Gura @Etherial Cat @WaveInTheOcean I don't think that is necessarily true. He criticizes far left ideology a lot, yes. And far left ideology often has NOTHING to do with compassion or empathy. There are literally people shouting out to "Kill all white men", which is often socially acceptable to say in certain circles. This is obviously just as bad as the far rights "Kill all muslims". Both are dangerous ideology's, the difference is that the far left ones are much more socially acceptable.  This is a very extreme example, but I can see, especially in my surroundings as an university student how unhealthy those things can manifest themselves, which just as much bigotry and hatred as seen in the far right, but with the smokescreen of "green" values, which are not green at all.

 

54 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

"University are full of dangerous teachers who are ideologues. They are no educators. They have a simple way at looking at the world, they reduce it to a few principles... and they are on a ideological campaign."   

I couldn't help but laugh at this discourse, he's basically thinking he's over it when he's himself that one university ideologue he despises. 

Did you go near a university in the last few years? Have you seen the attitudes and beliefs a majority of students and faculty members hold there? If so, I don't think you would just so casually dismiss that statement. 

There are literally courses which teach youngsters how evil "white men" are and how every minority is extremely oppressed. In one class, a guy wanted to say something and he had to start his sentence with "As a white male my opinions is..." Of course, white males were the only group which had to preface their sentences, and the answer to his argument was along the lines of "Your views do not count, as you are the oppressor of society".

This is an educational course funded by the state. Its ridiculous, and in my opinion opposing that is not "fear-mongering".

So much for the political stuff, which is of course, debatable. I watch and read JP for the personal development stuff, which I find very helpful at the place where I am at.

 

Peterson advocates the development of the individual, stressing (self)-responsibility a lot. For someone like me, who had quite a lot of problems in that regard, it really helps. He can broadcast an air of appreciation and acknowledgment of our individual struggles, which I rarely feel from other people/teachers. For example, Leo's attitude in his videos is often a "suck it up and meditate 10 hours" which is something people sometimes are just not able to do. People might call that quite orange and not green at all. 

Especially for people struggling in the nihilistic-party-life, where a lot of the youth currently is, Peterson can be a ton of help. I cannot talk about enlightenment related topics, as I have not yet gotten a direct experience of Truth, but for the more "basic" development (which isn't so basic at all) he is a source I found much more helpful than other orange thinkers.

After all, you didn't start you journey pursuing enlightenment did you, Leo? There were other areas that you had to get handled, before you even had the possibility of pursuing that. 

When I hear people say that Peterson is not a compassionate individual I always think about this video.

I think nobody can watch this and really think "This guy wants people to suffer." If you read "12 Rules for Life" there is A LOT of compassion dripping of these pages, in the audiobook there are numerous times where you can hear Peterson close to tears.

Of course, his views might have problems, as everyone's have. Nobody is perfect. But labeling him as this:

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

JP is not reaching out a hand to anyone. He's building a personal empire off fear-mongering and culture wars. Most of his audience is not nearly sophisticated enough to see it. What JP is doing is playing identity politics, and his fanbase gobbbles it up because they have narrow, weak identities.

JP is just an academic version of Fox News.

is, in my opinion flat out wrong and VERY surface level.

 

Edited by Shroomdoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shroomdoctor Lol, nobody wants anyone to suffer. That's such a naive worldview! Nazi's don't want Jews to suffer. They just want them eliminated. White Southerners don't want black slaves to suffer, they just want them to pick cotton for free.

All evil is done in the name of good. Because "evil" is merely that which is threatening to the ego! But JP is so moralistic he cannot see this.

What JP is doing is the classic battle of good vs evil, order vs chaos, without acknowledging that those terms are always defined relative to the ego doing the defining.

What JP is doing is acting out his ego-mind's survival agenda. Nothing more. And he shows no awareness of it.

His entire philosophy is thoroughly dualistic and fear-based: down with the evil ones before they destroy the world.

Here's a good vid on JP's dualism.

For a professor of symbolism, Peterson does not know what a symbol is, or what the yin-yang actually means. For a guy who wrote a book called "Maps of Meaning", he is conscious neither of what a map is, nor what meaning is.

This whole discussion is utter absurdity. The only reason we are talking about JP is because he's done a great job marketing himself by exploiting the culture wars. There is no spiritual depth to his understanding of reality. It is orthodox dualistic religion 2.0 dressed in psychological academic language.

All of this bullshit is just a clever trick of the devil to distract from nondual realization. It's just that simple. This is devilry 101. The devil cloaks himself in the garb of Christian values, "order", "good", "meaning", "objectivity", and "God".


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

All evil is done in the name of good.

What JP is doing is the classic battle of good vs evil, order vs chaos, without acknowledging that those terms are always defined relative to the ego doing the defining.

All JP is doing is acting out his ego-mind's survival agenda. Nothing more. And he shows no awareness of it.

His entire philosophy is thoroughly dualistic and fear-based: down with the evil ones before they destroy the world.

I think the same happens to larger degrees for the far right and the far left.

If the far right had more power at this moment, jordan peterson might criticize them instead.

I think jordan peterson is worrying about any radical ideology on the throne at the moment.

Edited by CreamCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

I think the same happens to larger degrees for the far right and the far left.

If the far right had more power at this moment, jordan peterson might criticize them instead.

I think jordan peterson is worrying about any radical ideology in the power at the moment.

He ain't worried about his fan army of alt-right trolls and incels. The most virulent ideology of our time.

He ain't worried about how rampant capitalism kills tens of thousands of people every year. At least 100,000 deaths in the US every year from capitalism.

He ain't worried about wars started by the military industrial complex.

He ain't worried about Big Pharma selling opioids.

He ain't worried about environmental destruction and cancer.

He ain't worried about drone strikes killing thousands of innocent civilians every year.

None of that makes his list of gripes. Nope. It's the fucking post-modernist professors and college kids who are gonna destroy the world.

What he's worried about is defending the status quo. That's what conservatism is about. Fear of change. Fear of "chaos". Fear of "other".

The rest is just egoic rationalizations to deny this obvious impulse.

Ego, ego, ego! That's it. Just various clever manifestations of ego.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He ain't worried about his fan army of alt-right trolls and incels. The most virulent ideology of our time.

I heard alt-right and incel are new phenomena. I heard they compensate for numerical disadvantages with craziness and virulence. I don't know much about them, yet. I heard alt-right wants revival of nazi-style fascism. I'm not sure if incel is an ideology. It looks like immature tantrum of sexless men to me. I don't quite understand them because I accepted my sexless life a long time ago.

I suspect JP will be worried about them as they grow in size, or JP will not critisize them because they are his fan base. I will see which is the case.

Edited by CreamCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura

Maybe I will understand better after I had a glimpse myself...^_^ For now, I can't really put "Truth" or "Non-Duality" into my worldview, as I have not experienced it and I would find it wrong to work entirely from a perspective that I have no grasp of. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is very seductive - I had a period of time when I was jumping on every new video he posted. But... that was when he was posting his lectures, talking about creativity, art etc. He is very intelligent, well read and knowledgable. He is also charismatic, he mastered the art of conversation and not too many people are able to stand up to his level. I even took his personality test - and in fact I learnt more from it about him than about myself. He is not yellow. He cannot put himself outside of his own paradigm (judging by the way the questions were created and analysed). He is digging deep, he needs to understand but he is very intellectual.

Anyway his view on women has something fishy regardless to what he says and I always feel there is something about him I do not trust (might be this shadow he keeps talking about). But that of course is difficult to discuss since it's very subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura I hate military industrial complex, too. It screwed up other countries. It screwed up my country a few decades before I was born. But, I forgot about them for a while because jordan peterson was quite hot. I think we should focus more on military industrial complex and other things you wrote about than on far left ideologies.

It's weird that people don't focus much on military industrial complex. That's probably because US army and its drones are not screwing around in the US soil.

I think the focus on far left ideologies is favorable to far left ideologues, too. Otherwise, people would be angry about drones and military industrial complex and workplace deaths. Far left wants attention, and jordan peterson gives it to them. I call it adversarial cooperation.

Edited by CreamCat

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