Jordan Peterson on Moral Law

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, SOUL said:

moderates

What do you mean by moderates soul? 

[Emerald]

39 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Of course it;s difficult to do, otherwise it would have been done already but how does comparing someone to a disease make it any easier? It doesn't, although, it does make the moralizer feel better about themselves through the negative comparison, that's why they do it. That's the definition of 'self-righteous' and it isn't too effective in awakening people to their unconscious bias. If the goal is to awaken people to it and motivate them to change it then results should matter more than a self appeasing method.

I didn't compare anyone to a disease. I compared an impersonal social system to a disease (as an example of another impersonal system). So, I was using one system that's more familiar and tangible to explain a pattern in another system that is still intangible and hard to understand for most people.

And I use this metaphor to explain how a lot of problems work, as there is no more familiar example of 'problem/symptoms/root dynamic' that the vast majority of people can understand and relate to.

So, understand that I'm not moralizing or shaming people who are unconscious one bit by using this metaphor. It is literally just the most effective metaphor. I also sometimes use the "if tree=problem; then problem lies in the roots rather than the leaves or fruit on the tree." But even this metaphor is kind of a stretch because it requires people to envision a tree as a problem first.

But again, if you have a better analogy to explain this dynamic to get people focused toward root causes instead of symptoms and individual intent, be my guest. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Emerald

[SOUL]

Just now, Jack River said:

What do you mean by moderates soul? 

Not political, just moderate in general in relation to those who have extreme bias and behavior with regard to this particular topic.

[Jack River]

Just now, SOUL said:

Not political, just moderate in general in relation to those who have extreme bias and behavior with regard to this particular topic.

Gotcha..thanks  

[SOUL]

8 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I didn't compare anyone to a disease. I compared an impersonal social system to a disease (as an example of another impersonal system). So, I was using one system that's more familiar and tangible to explain a pattern in another system that is still intangible and hard to understand for most people.

And I use this metaphor to explain how a lot of problems work, as there is no more familiar example of 'problem/symptoms/root dynamic' that the vast majority of people can understand and relate to.

So, understand that I'm not moralizing or shaming people who are unconscious one bit by using this metaphor. It is literally just the most effective metaphor. I also sometimes use the "if tree=problem; then problem lies in the roots rather than the leaves or fruit on the tree." But even this metaphor is kind of a stretch because it requires people to envision a tree as a problem first.

But again, if you have a better analogy to explain this dynamic to get people focused toward root causes instead of symptoms and individual intent, be my guest. 

You may have the self awareness to realize that 'I am not my thoughts' but when you talk about the unconscious bias being a disease most people less self aware of this will take what you say as you calling them it. Although I'm tired of going around and around on this, go ahead and cling to your metaphor but you are contributing to the perpetuation of it even if you don't intend to when you use it.

Edited November 23, 2018 by SOUL

[Jack River]

I think for the most part we as a people already dissasociste from our thoughts. We jump to I am not my thoughts without seeing that we are our thoughts, as in self/ego(the past/thought). I’m not saying we ultimately are, but just saying that the self ‘assumes’ it is distinct from its thoughts. By doing that we are placing ‘ourselves’ outside of the field of responsibility. It seems we both identify and disidentify with our thoughts/emotions. It’s like a selective identification/dis-identifying process that takes place. Seems ultimately due to not understanding how we work internally.

 

Is it clear what I mean? 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Jack River

[Hellspeed]

When decisions and things are made without Heart the inevitability arises, every single time. 

[Jack River]

2 minutes ago, Hellspeed said:

When decisions and things are made without Heart the inevitability arises, every single time. 

Heart=wholeness? Fosho 

[Hellspeed]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

Heart=wholeness? Fosho 

Indeed. 

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, SOUL said:

You may have the self awareness to realize that 'I am not my thoughts' but when you talk about the unconscious bias being a disease most people less self aware of this will take what you say as you calling them it. Although I'm tired of going around and around on this, go ahead and cling to your metaphor but know you are contributing to the perpetuation of it even if you don't intend to when you use it.

Some people might make that connection. But to be honest, I was never going to get them anyway. If a person is going to get hung up on semantics and the 'lack of righteousness' of my semantics, then they're probably not going to be receptive to the central message I'm trying to get across anyway. They're already choosing to focus toward the way I'm saying things as opposed to what I'm saying.  And if your argument is that I'm just adding the tension that already exists by being frank and clear about this topic, then I have to tell you that it's impossible to not add to that tension other than literally closing your mouth and never speaking of these topics. Sometimes, you have to break some eggs to make an omelet. 

Plus, the coddling and sugarcoating is unnecessary when speaking frankly about a problem, as most people agree that racism is a problem. So, referring to a problem as being analogous to disease is an understandable analogy. And if people are easily triggered by my referring to systemic racism as being analogous to a disease, then they aren't the type of person who's going to be receptive to my perspective at all as they would be refusing to see racism as a problem in the first place.

The system of racism is almost literally a disease that has debilitating effects on society at large. It produces dysfunctional symptoms that keep society from thriving. But if we can cure that disease, society will thrive in ways that it was unable to before. I think that most people agree with this analogy, unless they are the type of person who sees racism as a non-issue or even a virtue.

But you still haven't told me how will I communicate the shift in thinking that is necessary to focus from the symptoms of a problem to the root cause of the problem.

It's not like I can skip over that information because it's one of the most important things to understand. If people don't understand this point, they won't get how the system works at all. And they'll be unable shift their perspective in a way that has more efficacy in dealing with the issues that society faces.

So, how should  I communicate this idea in an equally effective way that also coddles the easily offended? 

[lmfao]

@Emerald I think you might be on to something when you say that Jordan Peterson's monologues are an excellent way for people to connect the dots.

I think @Outerand @Matt8800are correct in saying that Jordan Peterson is right in his criticisms of his political opponents.

After reading a lot of this thread I can't help but feel that too much of this discussion is comes from a spiral dynamics level of analysis. Not every human tendancy, belief, interest, hatred is best explored by referencing spiral dynamics over and over again. Spiral dynamics can be useful because you can point towards a specific stage when descring something, and the good thing is is that these stages have already have a lot of theory behind them so when you point to a stage you are backing up your point with lots of theory. My problem is that I think people on this forum treat spiral dynamics as more tangible and concrete than it actually it is. 

 

[lmfao]

@Serotoninluv I can't remember which exact post it was, but I remember you were wondering about the appeal of Jordan Peterson. I find him appealing now, just less so then I did before. I really liked @Joseph Maynor 's post on liking half of what he says and not the other half. 

For one thing, Jordan Peterson is an intellectual. Logic is very appealing and fun to listen to for many types of people, including myself.

And here's another thing to consider. Irregardless of spiral dynamics (well SD can be linked to his message around the point I'm mentioning in this sentence but I'll discuss it later), Jordan Peterson just asks people to take responsibility for their lives and get their shit together. And this is very appealing for young men, particularly young men who've found themselves in my situation. I understand his demagraphic because I feel I can relate to them. Introverted, nerdy, intellectual, semi-autistic teenagers who feel lonely, depressed and miserable. Jordan Peterson gives what appears to be a solution. Whilst the origin of the philisophy and much of the philisophy itself behind his advice is regressive, there are indeed some very positive aspects of his advice. 

Alright, so imagine the demagraphic as I have described it in the above paragraph. Jordan Peterson realises this problem in the current youth, but on top of just asking people to find their life purpose and passion in life he adds on ideological baggage. He thinks that passion and life purpose cannot be found in the absence of objective meaning. But if I just replace every instance for which Peterson refers to "objective meaning" with the concept "subjective meaning" I find myself liking Peterson a lot. Because people in the demagraphic whom Peterson is targeting do indeed need to get their shit together and pursue what they find subjectively "meaningful". You can take good pieces advice from his 12 rules for life book. 

One thing that you might find interesting is that the demagraphic I described for Jordan Peterson already have huge blockages to green. Men in general tend to have blockages to green, and so it is that among a certain subset of men you'll find the homosapiens who have the hugest blockages to green. 

 

[lmfao]

@VioletFlame I wonder as well what demons Jordan Peterson has. One thing which might be revelant is that he had severe depression in the past which makes me feel bad for him. 

Random thought, but Jordan Peterson reminds me a lot of my dad. My dad was raised and born in Pakistan, but was very well educated and moved abroad. Even though he's intelligent and has become much more open minded since he first moved to the west, at the core of his psychology is unshakeable blue which can't be gotten rid of. And I think this story of having unremovable blue in your psyche is a story true for millions and millions of people on this planet. 

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, SOUL said:

Of course it's difficult to do, otherwise it would have been done already but how does comparing someone to a disease make it any easier? 

I had a different interpretation of the analogy. The idea of comparing a person to a disease never even crossed my mind until I read your post. For me, it was about relating one phenomena to another phenomena. Looking back on it, my impression is that this context was understood among participants. Yet, I can see how a mind could interpret the analogy at a personal level and how that would be problematic within a discussion. 

There are only so many perpectives a mind can hold. Each time I make an analogy, I can shape it the best I can to how it might be received by several different perspectives, yet my mind is unable to scan through the infinite number of recipient perspectives to craft the ideal analogy. My mind can’t read other minds. Sometimes a mind needs cues from the receiving mind as feedback. This is particularly challenging on text forums. 90% of meaning is nonverbal (tone of voice, body language, facial expression etc). Those cues are absent here, which makes crafting efficient communication more daunting.