Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Post Reply 
The Jordan Peterson thread
Author Message
Belgrano Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,857
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 37
Post: #801
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-02-2018 08:29 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  But I'll never forget one thing: a few years back I met the former CEO of Lockheed Martin. He met his wife in college. His wife's words to him when they were dating (seriously) in college:
"The goods are odd, but the odds are good."

The guy is an engineer by training. And clearly from his wife's statement he had no game Laugh Laugh Laugh He eventually turned into a badass motherfucker though, running a huge fortune 500 company successfully.

It's probably one of the symptoms of the decline that things like that just don't happen anymore, at least not nearly as often. Instant gratification without compromise is what Western culture has been moving towards to. As time preference becomes shorter and shorter in general, so does women's time preference when it comes to dating in particular.

Your post reminded me of one of my best friends. He's a cream of the crop engineer, can't go a day without receiving a call by a headhunter, he has a unique combination of skills and corporations are fiercely fighting over him. This guy's life only moves in one direction, and it's upwards. He will rise all the way up to CEO level, I have zero doubt about it. Sometimes it's just that obvious.

In his late twenties now, he's making six figures (more unusual here in Europe) off his job, paid off his second condo and is negotiating to buy his third, with the first two apartments generating a nice cashflow via AirBnB. Might already be a millionaire in terms of overall net worth. Spends half the year on business trips in East Asia.

Now here's the thing, did he get laid in high school or college? No.
He is below average looking, unfortunately has zero game, is quite introverted, traditional values, super nice, too nice in fact. I often tried to help him, with less than stellar results. I just couldn't believe no girl from our extended social circles was interested in him, none of them cared about "the odds". And the odds were great, everyone with eyes could see it, the guy was going to make six figures straight out of college, would be absolutely loyal, take care of his woman and the family, basically a golden ticket to an easy life.
No takers.

Now he's living the high life, while said girls I mentioned are enjoying their careers working 60+ hours a week for 2000€ a month and complain about not having a life.

Half the year he spends in pussy paradise Asia these days, sometimes banging normal girls, more often splurging on escorts on top of that. I don't condone it, but I understand where he's coming from. His plan is to settle down and start a family with a nice Asian girl in her prime within the next 10 years, no hurry.

He's in a good place now, but I knew that he was profoundly unhappy in college. All it would have taken was just one girl capable of some long term thinking and willing to sacrifice the present for the future, and she would have been set for life. But that ship has sailed.


Alright, so what's the moral of the story?
Well, I should have studied engineering instead of game!
Laugh
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2018 09:22 AM by Belgrano.)
03-03-2018 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 26 users Like Belgrano's post:
dosequis, Aurini, Mr. D, MMX2010, TigerMandingo, gework, Syberpunk, Genghis Khan, Emancipator, 3extra, Nevsky, Enigma, Benoit, SamuelBRoberts, Tytalus, Krimson Killa, C-Note, Cr33pin, Paracelsus, Sumanguru, [email protected], Suits, Buck Wild, Huxley Badkin, Renzy, Chevalier De Seingalt
Kid Twist Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 2,982
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 34
Post: #802
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-03-2018 12:22 AM)nek Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 11:57 PM)dasher Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 11:19 PM)churros Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 11:13 PM)ChefAllDay Wrote:  That's the sad thing about JP's message. NOTHING is new, it's old and common sense. He just says the exact same thing my dad would have said 30 years ago. Grow the hell up. Not only accept responsibility but seek it. This is not new FFS.

Most people didn't listen to their dad, because from his mouth, these words were likely just second-hand adages. Peterson gives this content weight in mythology, psychoanalysis, history and philosophy. Not only does this give rational weight to these old truths, it makes them exciting again. That is no trivial feat.

He also makes the point that people say things, and they don't really know what they mean or why they're important.

The example he uses is when parents say to their kids "the most important thing isn't winning, it's that you play nice" (or fair, or whatever). You've probably heard something to that effect, and maybe you've also seen it challenged - The person saying it can't actually explain why it's important to conduct yourself in this way, and then the kid goes off thinking to himself "daddy says things but they're just things that he says that don't have meaning". That's bad.

So why is it more important to play nice than to win at any cost? Because the point of participating in a group activity (or 'a game' for a 6 year old) isn't to do the best in that single activity. The point is to get invited to future group activities. That's how you win. It's not about any single activity or game, it's about having the opportunity to participate across activities and games, in all of them.

This is the true art of parenting, not just explaining the "what" but the "why". And not simply the "why" pertaining to being a good person, but the "why" in how it benefits you as an individual, the more Machiavellian rationale to behavior.

This is also the reason why religion, and I'm talking in particular about Christianity, continues to fall by the wayside in the West. It's actually very profound in ways most can't even scratch the surface on, and there are many levels of explaining its profundity; some simple, some more complex, but most requiring the understanding of history, writings, services and what it is trying to be (about truth and the real meaning of "life") and what it is not (forensic or scientific in the modern sense). I'm making the following comment about others, not about myself: I know more than an overwhelming majority of people I've ever met about their "own" religion. Think about how weird or sad that is. Yet they still play this tribal charade a lot of times. I know I'm asking a lot but I'd say that what you think about the meaning of life, and entities like virtue, beauty, truth and God --- its pretty damn important, if not the most important thing in life. Yet people seemingly could give two shits. I guess it shows how strong the effect a full belly, lack of invaders, and available medical treatment are to the average human. That's why I say I'm asking a lot (and I think I should, as I also require a lot from myself, including not lying to myself), the way things work out even though I'm asking, it seems I shouldn't be expecting much given what I see en masse.

Get your passport ready!
03-03-2018 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 7 users Like Kid Twist's post:
dosequis, MMX2010, gework, Syberpunk, nek, 3extra, Tytalus
Aurini Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 1,904
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 90
Post: #803
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-02-2018 08:29 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  I remember watching a JBP video about relationships. He brought up how we're meant to form relationships so we can have kids (i.e. don't have relationships without the intent to get married and have kids). A lot of people seemed mind blown by that advice, when for me that was obvious since I was kid (picked up that model of relationships from my cousins). In college though, I remember asking people who were in relationships how many kids they wanted to have and when they were getting married etc. I also remember people laughing, not so much at me - I think they thought I was joking while I was being dead seriousness.

I started off on the other side of the eight ball. My twenties were largely spent learning all of this stuff the hard way - how to act like a man, how to spot a scam, how to relate to women, and how to detect untrustworthy people.

It's frustrating to look back, and realize how much time I spent on false starts. I won't say wasted, because it was a learning experience - but it would have been real nice if I could have found this wisdom at a younger age, instead of being inducted into the modern cult of "Nice". I always knew the latter was bullshit - but knowing that something's wrong doesn't mean that you know what's right.

What I really enjoy about Peterson is that he says stuff that I figured out the hard way in a more elegant manner than I can. The "Bimodal distribution of the sexes", for instance, is an absolutely lovely bon mot. He's spent a lot of time boiling down these thoughts down to the best version of them, and it helps me clarify the things I've figured out.

Looking back, there was a dearth mentorship. Even when we received good advice, there wasn't any explanation to go along with it - and usually it was paired with the opposite. "Don't hit girls/treat women like equals." Well - which one? And why? Masculine culture - heck, civilizational culture had forgotten why it existed in the first place, and had devolved into nothing but a bunch of homilies.

We've been running on fumes for a long time, and guys like Peterson are finally putting some fuel back into the tank.

My website.
Now streaming on the DLive platform..
03-03-2018 11:14 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 18 users Like Aurini's post:
Thersites, Tigre, MMX2010, dosequis, gework, Matsufubu, Syberpunk, Isaac Jordan, 3extra, king bast, Genghis Khan, Nevsky, Enigma, dasher, Tytalus, CynicalContrarian, Richard Turpin, [email protected]
Constitution45 Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,183
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 29
Post: #804
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-03-2018 11:14 AM)Aurini Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 08:29 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  I remember watching a JBP video about relationships. He brought up how we're meant to form relationships so we can have kids (i.e. don't have relationships without the intent to get married and have kids). A lot of people seemed mind blown by that advice, when for me that was obvious since I was kid (picked up that model of relationships from my cousins). In college though, I remember asking people who were in relationships how many kids they wanted to have and when they were getting married etc. I also remember people laughing, not so much at me - I think they thought I was joking while I was being dead seriousness.

I started off on the other side of the eight ball. My twenties were largely spent learning all of this stuff the hard way - how to act like a man, how to spot a scam, how to relate to women, and how to detect untrustworthy people.

It's frustrating to look back, and realize how much time I spent on false starts. I won't say wasted, because it was a learning experience - but it would have been real nice if I could have found this wisdom at a younger age, instead of being inducted into the modern cult of "Nice". I always knew the latter was bullshit - but knowing that something's wrong doesn't mean that you know what's right.

What I really enjoy about Peterson is that he says stuff that I figured out the hard way in a more elegant manner than I can. The "Bimodal distribution of the sexes", for instance, is an absolutely lovely bon mot. He's spent a lot of time boiling down these thoughts down to the best version of them, and it helps me clarify the things I've figured out.

Looking back, there was a dearth mentorship. Even when we received good advice, there wasn't any explanation to go along with it - and usually it was paired with the opposite. "Don't hit girls/treat women like equals." Well - which one? And why? Masculine culture - heck, civilizational culture had forgotten why it existed in the first place, and had devolved into nothing but a bunch of homilies.

We've been running on fumes for a long time, and guys like Peterson are finally putting some fuel back into the tank.


^^ Couldn't have explained it better myself. I see this a lot with other young men who are not so young anymore, and it is sad to see. It's probably why I sound quite harsh and cruel in front of them, I needed to flush it all out, and I hate seeing lies now.
03-03-2018 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Constitution45's post:
Aurini, MMX2010, Genghis Khan
debeguiled Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,755
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 117
Post: #805
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
I actually usually like Jay Dyer. I like his esoteric analysis of movies, his talks on the globalists, his in depth analysis of globalist books like "Tragedy and Hope." Of all the conspiracy guys, he is the one I would most likely trust because he backs his stuff up with actual references, and also, he never freaks you out by suddenly talking about aliens or numerology.

I will give you that lately, he has been getting pretty head up the ass academic, and prickly, and impatient with his followers, and it feels like kind of a regression to smarty pants undergraduate debate style.

I don't think he is joyless though, I think he has a good sense of humor and I like his impressions.

I thought this bit about a genderless person from the future was really good.




“That sig BTW is a very asinine anti-family anti-parent quote. You live in a country where 40% of children grow up without a biological father, yet somehow “the greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents”? Sorry but this is fruity Boomer nonsense.”

911
03-03-2018 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like debeguiled's post:
911, Syberpunk, amity
Aurini Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 1,904
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 90
Post: #806
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
And to be fair, his comments on Peterson were 1) Requested by a viewer, and 2) Not outright condemning, so much as pointing out some blind/unexplored areas which he doesn't touch on.

My website.
Now streaming on the DLive platform..
03-03-2018 02:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Aurini's post:
911, debeguiled
911 Offline
Crow
*****

Posts: 5,190
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 59
Post: #807
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
Yeah, Dyer is alright. He's a bright, intellectually curious young autodidact from Tennessee with a relatively limited academic portfolio (some Cal State postgraduate work IIRC, vs Harvard prof JBP). Dyer is however way ahead of Peterson on subjects like geopolitics or the historical/cultural foundations of the establishment, whereas Peterson's philosophy is based on his substantial expertise in clinical and behavioral psychology.

Dyer and Peterson have converged on the same central topic of family and tradition under assault by the liberal establishment, but they've come to that space from completely different perspectives. People who are knocking Dyer here will be the more blue pilled normies who have no concept of who someone like Carroll Quigley is, or the nature of his work.

You need to understand what Dyer's perspective is in order to properly criticize it. Conversely, people criticize Peterson because he has a limited understanding, or is willfully downplaying the historical cultural drivers of this liberal establishment. I don't think Peterson has read any works from Mackinder or Quigley, or Brzezinski's Between Two Ages, where he predicted the current cultural environment nearly 50 years ago. As well Dyer has carved a nice niche in his expertise on film as a tool for social engineering.

λ ό γ ο ς
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2018 02:59 PM by 911.)
03-03-2018 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like 911's post:
debeguiled, Syberpunk, gework
debeguiled Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,755
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 117
Post: #808
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-03-2018 02:04 PM)Aurini Wrote:  And to be fair, his comments on Peterson were 1) Requested by a viewer, and 2) Not outright condemning, so much as pointing out some blind/unexplored areas which he doesn't touch on.

Dyer thinks anyone who is a liberal, conservative, theist, libertarian, anarchist, Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical, basically anyone who isn't a Eastern Orthodox Christian is someone with a philosophically incoherent world view, as referenced in his title of the posted video.

Well, Peterson is a Jungian, and Jungian psychology is pretty close to shamanism in some respects, relying a lot on occult concepts like the collective unconscious, archetypes, synchronicity.

If I recall correctly one of the reason Jung broke with Freud was that Freud demanded that Jung treat psychoanalysis as a bulwark against the occult and Jung refused.

It would not, nor is it meant to, hang together as a logical argument in the Western philosophical tradition, so when Dyer criticizes Peterson for classical liberal incoherence, he is just straw-manning.

Also, because Peterson is a clinical psychologist, he is in essentially a different world from rigid academic formalism. He wants to help his patients, and will do what works for them whether or not someone like Dyer would approve.

I think Peterson is a kind of transition figure between the academy and Christianity, and whether or not Christians like Dyer like it, the church has done a lot of damage, and there are many people who will not touch it with a ten foot pole.

Someone like Peterson can introduce people to Christian concepts in a way they can put into practice in their lives today without being bogged down by the baggage the church created for itself.

You could just as easily ask Dyer and his fellow Orthodox church members why, if their denomination is so great, they haven't yet converted much of the world?

A question like this would be about on the level of what Dyer is doing with Peterson.

He made a big deal about Peterson saying in his interview with Cathy Newman that he would call a trans person what they wanted to be called as if doing that was leading directly into incoherence. I commented saying:

Quote:D Beguiled
1 month ago
To be fair to Peterson, he was being bombarded by chaos by that woman, in a studio, on her turf, trying to be somewhat agreeable, and to maintain a perfectly coherent philosophical position under those circumstances would be like defending your dissertation while being pelted by dodge balls.

So there may be a few moments where he misspoke or got something wrong, or didn't exactly mirror what he had said in the past. In order to consistently and precisely counter all her mischaracterizations he would not only have to have all his research and past statements in his head, ready to retrieve instantly, but also would have to have perfect recall of the conversation he was in so he could correct her.

That is kind of a lot to ask from anyone.

On the issue of using trans pronouns, I would think that the issue you are leaving out is his training as a clinical psychologist. Ok, so we get he doesn't want to be compelled to say anything by the state, that is clear and he has said that over and over.

I think his statement that he would call a trans person whatever they want to be called is not a philosophical position but a counselor's move. If a trans person came in as a patient, and if Peterson, from the start, refused to use their pronouns, they would clam up and there would be zero rapport between counselor and patient. I know a psychologist who has told me that he might withhold his own opinion and let the patient talk, and accept their world view for months on end just to gain their trust, and only after they have a good relationship, will he start working them towards admitting they aren't a Honey Comb.

I interpreted his statement that he would use a trans person's preferred pronouns as coming more from a psychiatric point of view than a philosophical one, and assuming his student was respectful, and didn't get in his face demanding to be called Quisp or Quake, that he would call them what they wanted to be called.

I don't see this from the point of view of logical consistency as you do, but more as a pragmatic thing, that will create good will with a student, and allow him to carry on with class without getting bogged down in peripheral wranglings.

So, technically, you are right, he is contradicting himself. Practically though, as well as strategically, he is making a pretty good move. Practically, he is making the point that he cares about individuals and their wishes, and strategically, he is keeping the focus on the compelled speech aspect of the legislation, and not the respect issue that all trannies try to make it.

I recall at one point he even said that in practical usage, pronouns are just prosaic identifiers, and in no way confer respect or not, and making a big deal out of them was a trans-activist thing, and not actual male to female trans people or female to male trans people who wanted to be called him or her.

So I don't think he would mind referring to an individual student by some weird identifier.



Dyer responded:



Quote:Jay Dyer
1 month ago
D Beguiled dude is billing himself as a philosopher and biblical commentator now. Get out of here

This is pretty dismissive, so although I responded once to him, I figured he had his agenda and wasn't up to discuss it. (Part of that being that commenting on Peterson wouldn't hurt his page views."

Quote:D Beguiled
1 month ago (edited)
Not on his own website he isn't. He considers himself a psychology professor:

"Dr. Peterson is a professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist and the author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (Jan 2018, Penguin Books). His now-classic book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, offers a revolutionary take on the psychology of religion, and the hundred or more scientific papers he published with his colleagues and students have substantively advanced the modern understanding of creativity and personality."

Your reply was so hasty you forgot the period at the end of your sentence. And you are billing yourself as someone who speaks the English language. Get out of here.. (Second one was for you.)

If you aren't going to respond seriously to serious comments, might as well close comments.

(P.s. I'm not even disagreeing with you, Fruit Loop.)

So, the debate was about on that level, and I didn't pursue it.

“That sig BTW is a very asinine anti-family anti-parent quote. You live in a country where 40% of children grow up without a biological father, yet somehow “the greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents”? Sorry but this is fruity Boomer nonsense.”

911
03-03-2018 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 9 users Like debeguiled's post:
911, MMX2010, Huey, PapayaTapper, gework, ChefAllDay, TooFineAPoint, Benoit, Nevsky
nek Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,318
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 16
Post: #809
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-03-2018 09:30 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  
(03-03-2018 12:22 AM)nek Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 11:57 PM)dasher Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 11:19 PM)churros Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 11:13 PM)ChefAllDay Wrote:  That's the sad thing about JP's message. NOTHING is new, it's old and common sense. He just says the exact same thing my dad would have said 30 years ago. Grow the hell up. Not only accept responsibility but seek it. This is not new FFS.

Most people didn't listen to their dad, because from his mouth, these words were likely just second-hand adages. Peterson gives this content weight in mythology, psychoanalysis, history and philosophy. Not only does this give rational weight to these old truths, it makes them exciting again. That is no trivial feat.

He also makes the point that people say things, and they don't really know what they mean or why they're important.

The example he uses is when parents say to their kids "the most important thing isn't winning, it's that you play nice" (or fair, or whatever). You've probably heard something to that effect, and maybe you've also seen it challenged - The person saying it can't actually explain why it's important to conduct yourself in this way, and then the kid goes off thinking to himself "daddy says things but they're just things that he says that don't have meaning". That's bad.

So why is it more important to play nice than to win at any cost? Because the point of participating in a group activity (or 'a game' for a 6 year old) isn't to do the best in that single activity. The point is to get invited to future group activities. That's how you win. It's not about any single activity or game, it's about having the opportunity to participate across activities and games, in all of them.

This is the true art of parenting, not just explaining the "what" but the "why". And not simply the "why" pertaining to being a good person, but the "why" in how it benefits you as an individual, the more Machiavellian rationale to behavior.

This is also the reason why religion, and I'm talking in particular about Christianity, continues to fall by the wayside in the West. It's actually very profound in ways most can't even scratch the surface on, and there are many levels of explaining its profundity; some simple, some more complex, but most requiring the understanding of history, writings, services and what it is trying to be (about truth and the real meaning of "life") and what it is not (forensic or scientific in the modern sense). I'm making the following comment about others, not about myself: I know more than an overwhelming majority of people I've ever met about their "own" religion. Think about how weird or sad that is. Yet they still play this tribal charade a lot of times. I know I'm asking a lot but I'd say that what you think about the meaning of life, and entities like virtue, beauty, truth and God --- its pretty damn important, if not the most important thing in life. Yet people seemingly could give two shits. I guess it shows how strong the effect a full belly, lack of invaders, and available medical treatment are to the average human. That's why I say I'm asking a lot (and I think I should, as I also require a lot from myself, including not lying to myself), the way things work out even though I'm asking, it seems I shouldn't be expecting much given what I see en masse.

I'm not a particularly religious person, but I've definitely come to appreciate certain lessons taught in various religious texts. As a kid, you think these lessons are about merely serving the greater good, but taken a step further, adhering to many of them (i.e. not being a drunkard) is beneficial to you as an individual and getting what you want out of life.

Civilize the mind but make savage the body.
03-03-2018 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like nek's post:
debeguiled, MMX2010, [email protected]
churros Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,159
Joined: Dec 2015
Post: #810
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
Dyer is right that Peterson is closer to the liberals than he thinks, because individualism lies at the heart of identity politics. I've always said Peterson is weak on politics and history.

But I find Dyer's orthodox dogmatism distasteful and won't be listening to him again.
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2018 06:28 PM by churros.)
03-03-2018 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like churros's post:
debeguiled, PapayaTapper
gework Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,387
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 71
Post: #811
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-03-2018 09:30 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  It's actually very profound in ways most can't even scratch the surface on, and there are many levels of explaining its profundity.

I think it's also the case that Christianity had some accidental properties that have now been disposed of without people realising it and nothing has come into replace them. This is from a 1st century Greek geography describing a tribe in what is now Bulgaria:

Quote:For some of them think that the soles of them that die, shall return into their bodies again. And other sort think, that through the souls return not, yet they die not, but pass into a more blessed state. Others think they die, but that dying is better then to live. And therefore among some of them, childbearing is sorrowful and they mourn for them that be born; and counterwise, the burials are joyful, and solemised with singing and playing, as if they were the high holy days

This refers to vast cultural differences between people who lived in close proximity and otherwise shared much in common. And that's the norm for all primitive cultures.

On a linear evolution cultures seem to evolve like this:

1) disparate, but linked tribes with wildly differing religions/cultures
* tribal and religious disagreements cause conflicts *
2) a strong man smashes multiple tribal groups into one culture with a pantheon of gods taken from the various cultures
* sectarian disputes and preference for one god causes cause conflicts *
3) a strong man smashes multiple groups into a culture with one god
* disputes over religious interpretation cause conflicts *
4) a strong man breaks up/diminishes the religious component of rule to establish a secular order
* disputes over the secular order cause conflicts *
5) ???

To me I don't think it's possible to get to the point of modern technical and philosophical achievement without going through that process. If you look at any culture, they follow something like that trajectory, though the process can be interfered with by outside cultures.

I feel the main reason for that is that humans have not evolved to be voluntary or philosophical. They've evolved to get what they want and as circumstance changes people will change their strategies to get what they want. So in that sense it's been very difficult to establish societies that were contiguously progressive (not in the leftists sense) over multiple generations. As an example you have the Macedon Empire of Alexander the Great, which stretched as far as India. After his death it was split between leaders and quickly broke up as it was not possible for mere mortals to establish order over people with such diverse ideas. They might follow the order of a king while he is alive, but within a year of his death, all his ideas and laws can be disposed of.

Neuroscientists have located two areas of the brain that appear to be linked to religion. And the only way it seems it's been possible to create large societies with enough shared culture to be able to operate over centuries and millennia is to utilise those parts of the brain to get illiterate, unphilosophical people to adopt a shared culture because they think it's divine.

You'll see that in British colonies, all of the large ones of which have kicked out their mortal rulers, but none that were converted to Christianity have cast that out. Without the shared religious component the society will fall apart before it's able to produce anything meaningful.

In the vacuum of the shared religious culture, we're seeing an ever increasing number of groups with different interpretations of reality. In itself that's not necessarily an issue, but it is an issue when there are lots of groups seeking to impose their house of cards on everyone else.

The only option down this route, I feel, is everyone getting to a place where they agree to live in a libertarian-type fashion, but that's an illusion. Most people don't see value in that and can't understand any considerable philosophy.

Another probably accidental mechanism of Christianity is suppressing narcissism. If you surveyed psychoanalysts what is the biggest problem today, I think they'd say: narcissism. Christianity says there is something bigger than you. In the wake of God, material abundance and easy childhoods people haven't been getting enough suppression of their desire to pleasure themselves.

According to Freud we develop narcissism as an infant, which is a necessary part of development. During this stage the child develops a sense of self as god-like, because it appears the world revolves around them. One hundred+ years ago that would soon be broken down. God didn't work in a coal mine, shovel shit or go up chimneys. But the typical middle class kid today knows little more than the state and their parents doing everything for them without obligation, increasingly into their 20s and 30s. God would otherwise be the only fail-safe on this.

I think the most concise way to describe narcissism is the carrying over of infant mechanisms of getting things into adulthood, which consist of the individual getting something they want just because they are them.

A recent book delineated narcissism into seven categories:

1) Shamelessness – nothing they do can be seen as bad
2) Magical thinking – the idea they are perfect (using illusion) and the dumping of their suppressed imperfection onto others
3) Arrogance – deriving a sense of self from diminishing others
4) Envy – attack others who have what they want
5) Entitlement – expect favourable treatment
6) Exploitation – use others for their own interests
7) Bad boundaries – inability to properly recognise boundaries between themselves and others

Which can be remembered by the shorthand: SJW.
03-03-2018 09:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like gework's post:
ball dont lie, PapayaTapper, Tytalus
TooFineAPoint Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 17
Post: #812
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-03-2018 02:53 PM)911 Wrote:  People who are knocking Dyer here will be the more blue pilled normies who have no concept of who someone like Carroll Quigley is, or the nature of his work.

Familiar with Quigley... and also with St Chrysostom, so the nouveau Orthodoxy doesn't even impress me.

Dyer and movies are like oil and water.

JBP brings pure joy to his talks. And Elucidation.

To me, Dyer is like a guy in a local pub band who only plays covers of reggae songs. And in between each song, he harangues the audience with an 8 minute monologue about how reggae is actually coded messages from the reincarnated spirits of Egyptian gods telling us how to mate with demons.

Then he wants to debate Bob Dylan about writing song lyrics.

That is Dyer relative to JBP.
03-04-2018 02:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like TooFineAPoint's post:
Benoit, debeguiled, [email protected]
911 Offline
Crow
*****

Posts: 5,190
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 59
Post: #813
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-04-2018 02:30 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  
(03-03-2018 02:53 PM)911 Wrote:  People who are knocking Dyer here will be the more blue pilled normies who have no concept of who someone like Carroll Quigley is, or the nature of his work.

Familiar with Quigley... and also with St Chrysostom, so the nouveau Orthodoxy doesn't even impress me.

Dyer and movies are like oil and water.

JBP brings pure joy to his talks. And Elucidation.

To me, Dyer is like a guy in a local pub band who only plays covers of reggae songs. And in between each song, he harangues the audience with an 8 minute monologue about how reggae is actually coded messages from the reincarnated spirits of Egyptian gods telling us how to mate with demons.

Then he wants to debate Bob Dylan about writing song lyrics.

That is Dyer relative to JBP.

The irony here is that someone like Dyer would be much better equipped to break down someone like Bob Dylan than would Peterson.

λ ό γ ο ς
03-04-2018 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
PharaohRa Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 618
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 6
Post: #814
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
I do not trust Jordan Peterson because of his close affinity to (((them))) and his skepticism with respect to whites organizing for their own self-interest. I also do not trust him because of his past and even now, it seems that he is encouraging his followers to follow him like a cult figure.

Also, he is not a real intellectual (but he has that aura of one).
03-04-2018 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
debeguiled Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,755
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 117
Post: #815
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-04-2018 10:11 AM)911 Wrote:  
(03-04-2018 02:30 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  
(03-03-2018 02:53 PM)911 Wrote:  People who are knocking Dyer here will be the more blue pilled normies who have no concept of who someone like Carroll Quigley is, or the nature of his work.

Familiar with Quigley... and also with St Chrysostom, so the nouveau Orthodoxy doesn't even impress me.

Dyer and movies are like oil and water.

JBP brings pure joy to his talks. And Elucidation.

To me, Dyer is like a guy in a local pub band who only plays covers of reggae songs. And in between each song, he harangues the audience with an 8 minute monologue about how reggae is actually coded messages from the reincarnated spirits of Egyptian gods telling us how to mate with demons.

Then he wants to debate Bob Dylan about writing song lyrics.

That is Dyer relative to JBP.

The irony here is that someone like Dyer would be much better equipped to break down someone like Bob Dylan than would Peterson.

I like both of them in their relative areas of expertise. Dyer is a research beast, and has earned to right to get a little cocky.

He is the least wacky of the conspiracy guys, and if I ever wanted to really delve into understanding how the elites control us, I would start with him.

Agree with TFAP though. He was not talking about breaking down Dylan lyrics, but writing them.

“That sig BTW is a very asinine anti-family anti-parent quote. You live in a country where 40% of children grow up without a biological father, yet somehow “the greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents”? Sorry but this is fruity Boomer nonsense.”

911
03-04-2018 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Teedub Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 5,372
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 82
Post: #816
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-04-2018 11:00 AM)PharaohRa Wrote:  Also, he is not a real intellectual (but he has that aura of one).

Lolwtf

How is he not a 'real' intellectual? The man is an esteemed professor with decades in his field.

What would someone need to posses, in your opinion, in order to qualify?

The things you own end up owning you.
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2018 02:44 PM by Teedub.)
03-04-2018 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 7 users Like Teedub's post:
debeguiled, Benoit, MMX2010, Isaac Jordan, Cr33pin, [email protected], LeBeau
Enigma Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,519
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 87
Post: #817
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-03-2018 03:32 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  If I recall correctly one of the reason Jung broke with Freud was that Freud demanded that Jung treat psychoanalysis as a bulwark against the occult and Jung refused.

It wasn't the occult that Jung and Freud disagreed on, it was all religion. Jung believed the "religious function" was integral to man's psyche and Freud thought it a mental illness that needed to be destroyed.

In my opinion, the split between Jung and Freud is one of the most important events of the modern Western intellectual tradition, because Freud's ideas went on to influence nearly every movement that we consider most corrosive, from Marxism and cultural Marxism to consumerist and state propaganda to feminism and the sexual revolution.

Meanwhile, Jung was blackballed by the (((Viennese))) psychoanalysts and is rarely brought up in the mainstream today without "anti-Semitism" being mentioned. I have a long post on this Jung/Freud dynamic saved in my drafts that I'll eventually get around to publishing.

But as we see, the Jungian foundation that Peterson has built his ideology on resonates on an incredibly powerful level with Western men. The thing that many people miss about Peterson is that he's not popular because he tells people to clean their room or stand up straight, it's because of the framework that he has built that message on. The majority of his actual lectures deal very little with what would be considered "common sense".

By the way, one of the other criticisms Jung had of Freud is that he tried to apply a model based on Jewish psychology to European Christendom.

Jung Wrote:In my opinion it has been a grave error in medical psychology up till now to apply Jewish categories— which are not even binding on all Jews—indiscriminately to Germanic and Slavic Christendom. Because of this the most precious secret of the Germanic peoples—their creative and intuitive depth of soul—has been explained as a morass of banal infantilism, while my own warning voice has for decades been suspected of anti-Semitism. This suspicion emanated from Freud. He did not understand the Germanic psyche any more than did his Germanic followers.

Peterson's role in the modern "culture wars" becomes a lot more interesting when you put it into that context, considering the composition of much of today's (((media))). To be clear, that's unrelated to whatever Peterson's personal opinion on that might be.

Quote:It would not, nor is it meant to, hang together as a logical argument in the Western philosophical tradition, so when Dyer criticizes Peterson for classical liberal incoherence, he is just straw-manning.

Also, because Peterson is a clinical psychologist, he is in essentially a different world from rigid academic formalism. He wants to help his patients, and will do what works for them whether or not someone like Dyer would approve.

The underlying theme of Peterson's work and the thread that connects his major influences, from Jung to Nietzsche, William James, Dostoyevsky, and Kierkegaard is that post-Englightenment man had turned too far towards a rationalist, materialist perspective and had wrongfully disregarded an important part of his mind and existence.

Of course, this religious/spiritual energy just pops up in other places. For instance, both modern SJWs and blind worshippers of "Science!" share many similarities with religious fanatics.

That's one of the reasons for Jung's views on the religious function. Even if you "kill" God and burn the Bible, it will still find a way to express itself. When people lose faith in God, they simply place that faith somewhere else, like the state or science.

Based on some quick googling, it'd appear Dyer is aware of this concept as put forth specifically by the men above, so who knows what his real problem is, other than a lot of pettiness and bitterness.

Quote:I think Peterson is a kind of transition figure between the academy and Christianity, and whether or not Christians like Dyer like it, the church has done a lot of damage, and there are many people who will not touch it with a ten foot pole.

Someone like Peterson can introduce people to Christian concepts in a way they can put into practice in their lives today without being bogged down by the baggage the church created for itself.

Jung believed that the church's main mistake was to attempt to counter rationalism and empiricism by becoming more worldly and materialistic, losing its personal, spiritual connection with God in the process. Hence why the Bible warns not to do this like a million times. Render unto Caesar, and all that.

An example would be getting bogged down in interpreting the Bible from a materialist, scientific perspective, as well as the Catholic Church's nauseating supplication to "progressive" politics.

But using the pragmatic perspective that Peterson derives his metaphysics from, whether the Bible is based on "real" events (or politically correct) does not determine whether it's "true" or not. This is why both Jung and Peterson believe in interpreting the Bible metaphorically rather than trying to force it into a rationalistic framework and seeing its meaning reduced or destroyed.

(Note: To be clear, I am not making an argument about which events in the Bible actually took place; I'm simply pointing out both the pragamatic and Jungian stances, which is that it's less important than the benefit that Christian ideas have had on the West.)

Today, what you usually see is "scientists" dismissing religion as ridiculous while the very religious people do the same to science. Peterson manages to give both their due.

Again, there is nothing "common sense" about Peterson's ability to connect the hard sciences, psychology, philosophy, politics, and theology into a robust and coherent worldview. His critics tend to focus on individual ideas/areas while either ignoring or simply missing the rest. To be fair, I've been somewhat guilty of this myself in the past.
03-04-2018 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 22 users Like Enigma's post:
debeguiled, gework, Thomas Jackson, Poker, Isaac Jordan, Kid Twist, , MMX2010, TooFineAPoint, Thersites, Aurini, 3extra, PapayaTapper, Seth_Rose, Nevsky, Syberpunk, SvenTuga, Tytalus, [email protected], Emancipator, Huxley Badkin, Chevalier De Seingalt
debeguiled Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,755
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 117
Post: #818
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
@Enigma

Excellent post.

I found the quote I based my comment about occult on. In Jung's memory, it is the sexual theory Freud wants to protect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/books/...hives.html

Quote: In 1910, according to Jung's ''Memories, Dreams, Reflections,'' Freud made a request: 'Promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. . . . We must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.' Against what, asked Jung. 'Against the black tide of mud . . . of occultism.'

This expands on what you are saying. He is not just against religion, he is protecting his sexual theory.

“That sig BTW is a very asinine anti-family anti-parent quote. You live in a country where 40% of children grow up without a biological father, yet somehow “the greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents”? Sorry but this is fruity Boomer nonsense.”

911
03-04-2018 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 5 users Like debeguiled's post:
Enigma, TooFineAPoint, Thersites, 3extra, gework
Kid Twist Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 2,982
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 34
Post: #819
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-03-2018 09:58 PM)gework Wrote:  
(03-03-2018 09:30 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  It's actually very profound in ways most can't even scratch the surface on, and there are many levels of explaining its profundity.

I think it's also the case that Christianity had some accidental properties that have now been disposed of without people realising it and nothing has come into replace them. This is from a 1st century Greek geography describing a tribe in what is now Bulgaria:

Quote:For some of them think that the soles of them that die, shall return into their bodies again. And other sort think, that through the souls return not, yet they die not, but pass into a more blessed state. Others think they die, but that dying is better then to live. And therefore among some of them, childbearing is sorrowful and they mourn for them that be born; and counterwise, the burials are joyful, and solemised with singing and playing, as if they were the high holy days

This refers to vast cultural differences between people who lived in close proximity and otherwise shared much in common. And that's the norm for all primitive cultures.

On a linear evolution cultures seem to evolve like this:

1) disparate, but linked tribes with wildly differing religions/cultures
* tribal and religious disagreements cause conflicts *
2) a strong man smashes multiple tribal groups into one culture with a pantheon of gods taken from the various cultures
* sectarian disputes and preference for one god causes cause conflicts *
3) a strong man smashes multiple groups into a culture with one god
* disputes over religious interpretation cause conflicts *
4) a strong man breaks up/diminishes the religious component of rule to establish a secular order
* disputes over the secular order cause conflicts *
5) ???

To me I don't think it's possible to get to the point of modern technical and philosophical achievement without going through that process. If you look at any culture, they follow something like that trajectory, though the process can be interfered with by outside cultures.

I feel the main reason for that is that humans have not evolved to be voluntary or philosophical. They've evolved to get what they want and as circumstance changes people will change their strategies to get what they want. So in that sense it's been very difficult to establish societies that were contiguously progressive (not in the leftists sense) over multiple generations. As an example you have the Macedon Empire of Alexander the Great, which stretched as far as India. After his death it was split between leaders and quickly broke up as it was not possible for mere mortals to establish order over people with such diverse ideas. They might follow the order of a king while he is alive, but within a year of his death, all his ideas and laws can be disposed of.

Neuroscientists have located two areas of the brain that appear to be linked to religion. And the only way it seems it's been possible to create large societies with enough shared culture to be able to operate over centuries and millennia is to utilise those parts of the brain to get illiterate, unphilosophical people to adopt a shared culture because they think it's divine.

You'll see that in British colonies, all of the large ones of which have kicked out their mortal rulers, but none that were converted to Christianity have cast that out. Without the shared religious component the society will fall apart before it's able to produce anything meaningful.

In the vacuum of the shared religious culture, we're seeing an ever increasing number of groups with different interpretations of reality. In itself that's not necessarily an issue, but it is an issue when there are lots of groups seeking to impose their house of cards on everyone else.

The only option down this route, I feel, is everyone getting to a place where they agree to live in a libertarian-type fashion, but that's an illusion. Most people don't see value in that and can't understand any considerable philosophy.

Another probably accidental mechanism of Christianity is suppressing narcissism. If you surveyed psychoanalysts what is the biggest problem today, I think they'd say: narcissism. Christianity says there is something bigger than you. In the wake of God, material abundance and easy childhoods people haven't been getting enough suppression of their desire to pleasure themselves.

According to Freud we develop narcissism as an infant, which is a necessary part of development. During this stage the child develops a sense of self as god-like, because it appears the world revolves around them. One hundred+ years ago that would soon be broken down. God didn't work in a coal mine, shovel shit or go up chimneys. But the typical middle class kid today knows little more than the state and their parents doing everything for them without obligation, increasingly into their 20s and 30s. God would otherwise be the only fail-safe on this.

I think the most concise way to describe narcissism is the carrying over of infant mechanisms of getting things into adulthood, which consist of the individual getting something they want just because they are them.

A recent book delineated narcissism into seven categories:

1) Shamelessness – nothing they do can be seen as bad
2) Magical thinking – the idea they are perfect (using illusion) and the dumping of their suppressed imperfection onto others
3) Arrogance – deriving a sense of self from diminishing others
4) Envy – attack others who have what they want
5) Entitlement – expect favourable treatment
6) Exploitation – use others for their own interests
7) Bad boundaries – inability to properly recognise boundaries between themselves and others

Which can be remembered by the shorthand: SJW.

First off, very thoughtful, interesting post.

Regarding the modern day Bulgaria tribe quote from a 1st century Greek, it basically encapsulates all thoughts to most humans, which includes truths in all, saying nothing really about Christianity as much as it just shows us how humans tend to think.

Your linear evolution setup didn't explain a scenario of Jesus (strong man?) and why He was so important or has been so lasting.

I like the rest of your post very much. What I bolded there is in no way accidental regarding christianity, I would argue it's the very essence of it. Proper teaching about Christ shows him to be diametrically opposed to your great 7 of narcissism, and you even nail it when you encapsulate the sjw as an anti-christ.

Get your passport ready!
03-04-2018 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kid Twist's post:
gework
Kid Twist Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 2,982
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 34
Post: #820
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-04-2018 04:23 PM)Enigma Wrote:  In my opinion, the split between Jung and Freud is one of the most important events of the modern Western intellectual tradition, because Freud's ideas went on to influence nearly every movement that we consider most corrosive, from Marxism and cultural Marxism to consumerist and state propaganda to feminism and the sexual revolution.

Great post Enigma. This one in particular seems right on.

I admittedly don't know much of Dyer, but I am eastern orthodox, and your quotes and Jungian relation to christianity ring true to me, and make Peterson's inclination (he has one) towards orthodox christianity as no coincidence. Everything you post above about rationalism and leanings towards materialism/forensic rationalism/progressivism in the West is because of historically bad theology and ecclesiology of "western christianity". It's a large topic, but I'm content with describing it this way for now.

Get your passport ready!
03-04-2018 05:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Kid Twist's post:
debeguiled, Enigma, MMX2010, PapayaTapper
mensch Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 125
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 0
Post: #821
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-02-2018 02:24 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  A lot of salt out there from Youtubers who have been at it for a while and haven't had his success. They try to hide it by acting as if they are going solely after his ideas, but you can tell they are envious. Also, they say things like, 'this isn't me being jealous."

This one is a good example.




The problem with Dyer's criticism is that he is arguing purely on a philosophical-ontological level. That is not what Peterson's argument is - he is making an argument on a republican, political level when he is talking about what the state should legislate or not, and an argument about societal organisation. That is, Peterson is talking about how we should organise society, not simply what the ontological reality is like.

It is perfectly reasonable to be a classical liberal, modern, post-enlightenment person that believes that the individual is the ultimate unit of rights, and yet believe that there are biological, political and social (and religious, mythological) sphere above such individuals, and that those spheres relate to the individuals and are part of what makes up the individual.

If I understand Peterson's worldview correctly, I'd say that whilst ultimately, as a classical liberal one must accept the individual as the ultimate arbiter of his own reality, there is such a thing as the particular make-up of the human being as a biological and social animal. So Peterson accepts that one might have the right (and should have the right in a republic) to call themselves 'a woman' when they aren't one. That doesn't deny the reality of the fact that he isn't one, biologically. It also does not mean that we should build a society as if this person were actually a woman. Peterson isn't making a point about the ontological reality of the world, he is making a point about how we should organise our thoughts and our society.
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2018 06:30 PM by mensch.)
03-04-2018 06:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like mensch's post:
debeguiled, Buck Wild, gework, MMX2010
Thot Leader Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 11
Post: #822
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
"What tyranny looks like is everyone lying all of the time."
03-05-2018 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Thot Leader's post:
debeguiled, ball dont lie, MMX2010
gework Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,387
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 71
Post: #823
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-04-2018 05:48 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Your linear evolution setup didn't explain a scenario of Jesus (strong man?) and why He was so important or has been so lasting.

Like Quigley's cultural evolution of civilizations (which is somewhat related to the evolution of religions) it's a general pattern I have noted. It's not particularly fixed. The various stages of religious developments have some correlation to the level of civilsation: tribes, kingdoms, empire; i.e. we've seen large empires with monotheistic religions and with a pantheon of Gods, but not with a mess of vastly differing cultures in every town.

In the case of Christianity the strong-man was Constantine the great. You had the same with Buddhism. It didn't really go anywhere until about 250 years after Buddha's death, when it was taken up by an Indian emperor and spread as far as Greece.

I didn't go into any detail, planning on that for a future post; you can categorise people as follows, borrowing for ethology:

Alpha - the leader of a group, e.g. the king
Beta - those who support alpha's power, e.g. nobles
Gamma+ - the general population
Omega - the outlier

These can all be socially functional (more good than bad for society) or dysfunctional (inverse). If you consider Buddha, he shunned the materialistic world despite coming from a noble family; and Jesus was considered crazy by his friends. These were omega males who spent a great deal of time pondering on the world. They also lived in times when life was cheap and if you weren't physically strong or productively useful life could be very hard and end quickly. But if you look all throughout history you often find that alphas (kings) are flanked by omega males. Merlin from the Arthurian mythology being a good representation. The king may have been the one to bring the order, but much of the inherited scholastic and philosophical heritage has sprung from the minds of outliers. More recent examples being Jung, Newton and Tesla.

In the early religious tract, the omegas were wise men, who survived in society that had little need for apparent weakness, but manged to find a place for themselves as sources of wisdom, learning and keepers of history.

It is my take that civilization has developed, to a very considerable extent between the symbiosis of the alpha and the omega. The omega potentially has the acuity to come up with the foundations of a society that can maintain itself across centuries, but he does not have the dominance traits that allow him to establish his ideas in society, which actually take centuries and as already mentioned often happen posthumously in reference to the omega.

But each can also be very dysfunctional, e.g. Herod (alpha) and probably Rasputin (omega). An unbalanced alpha may take too much from society to the extent it collapses and the unbalanced omega may either become a Samaritan (early Christian blood bath) or turn their outlier status to resentment (SJWs).

When it's functional I think the Petersonian view on this would be that the king is going out into the world, killing a dragon and bringing back gold (safety, infrastructure, opportunity etc.); and the omega outlier goes deep into themselves and kills the dragon within themselves and brings back gold (insight, morality, reason etc.) The dysfunctional alpha will ignore the dragon in the world and turn that energy to squeezing his people; and the dysfunctional omega will ignore the dragon inside themselves and instead try and tear down everyone above them in society (literally everyone), e.g. SJWs.

This relates to what I was thinking of posting in this thread later. Right now we have an overplus of omegas. In harder times many of these will have died, been bent to the world etc. But now these young males sit at home with low social skills, few/no real friends and without political constituency. It's acceptable in society to denigrate and humiliate the straight (typically white) male who plays videos games all day in his mother's basement. Jimmy Fallon won't stand up for them until it get him laid to do so. They really are the lowest of the low and it's exactly the sort of people the left should have been looking to offer a path and representation. But instead they've gone after them. Yet these teens are now to a considerable extent driving culture from their mother's basements, with often religious and archetypal overtones. The omegas are meming the new chad culture into existence. This is the new symbiosis. There's an incredible amount of imagery popping out of their subconscious, from the debauched to the divine.

[Image: DB5w0K4UIAAdgCe.jpg]

Quote:I like the rest of your post very much. What I bolded there is in no way accidental regarding christianity, I would argue it's the very essence of it. Proper teaching about Christ shows him to be diametrically opposed to your great 7 of narcissism, and you even nail it when you encapsulate the sjw as an anti-christ.

Yes, then it wasn't accidental and that's an interesting take the SJWs as the anti-Christ. Be careful what you wish for.

[Image: The-serpent-with-_Eve.jpg]
03-06-2018 01:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 16 users Like gework's post:
Syberpunk, Lunostrelki, Genghis Khan, Tytalus, Thersites, 3extra, luckyfever, ball dont lie, Buck Wild, Renzy, MMX2010, captain_shane, Kid Twist, Jones, nomadbrah, Perspicacity
Lunostrelki Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 458
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 15
Post: #824
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
(03-06-2018 01:34 AM)gework Wrote:  There's an incredible amount of imagery popping out of their subconscious, from the debauched to the divine.
Indeed. What direction will this unprecedented mass of introspection and philosophy take us, that is the question.
03-06-2018 05:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
gework Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,387
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 71
Post: #825
RE: Jordan B Peterson: A Real Intellectual
An interesting take on that topic.



03-06-2018 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes gework's post:
Aurini
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Criticism of Jordan Peterson? nek 7 1,557 06-02-2019 05:45 PM
Last Post: Roosh
  The Jordan Peterson political thread xmlenigma 348 60,630 02-26-2019 11:48 PM
Last Post: NoMoreTO
  Jordan Owen Attacking Roosh Yet Again... RickyGP 101 48,388 10-31-2018 11:21 AM
Last Post: Off The Reservation

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication