Nav_image
Nav_image NEWS TOUR BIOGRAPHIES DISCOGRAPHY VIDEOGRAPHY GALLERY INTERVIEWS Nav_image
Nav_image JOURNAL ESSAYS TIMELINE FORUM THEATRE SITE INFO Nav_image
Nav_image
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Jordan Peterson

  1. #1

    Join Date: 12.25.09
    Posts: 140
    Rank: Brilliant Slut

    Default Jordan Peterson

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjqXXengN1s

    What do you think about this mind and what it's trying to communicate?

  2. #2
    Enname's Avatar
    Join Date: 06.04.16
    Location: Dis.
    Posts: 931
    Rank: Crimson Soil

    Default

    I am fascinated by the spectacle of 'academic superstar' and what that means for both his career and popularity. Rare is the day a scholar breaks out of the ivory tower in such a way, because by and large no one particularly wants to hear overly dense jargon (quite rightly), arguments that only complicate things and have no answer. Notables are Slavoj Zizek, Chomsky and that other Canadian, Marshall McLuhan. Maybe Umberto Eco, but mostly his literary works not his semiotics. Notably all male, all white, all philosophers of either culture, language or the image. Most of whom are talking about existentialism, the hidden, the esoteric. Good at pitching what they research in ways that are engaging (few read Kittler or Benjamin instead of McLuhan!) and tapping into the 'mysteries' of their research. Peterson does the same in an almost identical way.

    Academically I whole heartedly disagree on many, many points not least his understanding of Western culture historically (and non Western), religion and its place in historical psychology (or history in general), the whole program of archetypes from Jung et al, and his Christian existentialism. Then again I also find Kierkegaard philosophically repulsive (although I love his writing) and that is pretty much the philosophy that Peterson espouses - he definitely quotes him a lot. Optimistic theological nihilism - precisely what Nietzsche was reacting against. Once more unto the dull land of replicating big name 19th-20th century philosophers and their endless debates, the very same debates that frame the fucking violence he so abhors.

    Don't get me wrong, it is certainly valuable to think about origins of societies' pathological violence (this is after all part of my own research area, but in History), and it is interesting to have a version that tries to give an answer, as well as draw the individual/community together. But having read his main book many years ago back when it was released in 1999 (before his current popularity - a lot of his videos are based on its research) my main issue was its failure to convince regarding the way individuals connect to religion vs groups. Now it is also the fact that it is out of step with current neuroscience, which in itself has no answers. I mostly remember being slightly saddened that he went 'large scale' big problem/answer rather than working towards something more finessed and subtle, one that actually deals with teleology and the issues of historical change and its spot within political discourse and violence, let alone religion. These problems after all were some of the actual reasons for the rise of post modernism (see Gramsci) and failing to address them or other visions of history, leaves only hand waving that they are bad (as is apparently all communism). How then can you supply an answer to a problem that has been inadequately defined? And how can that answer be 'look towards existing psychological archetypes', which have supposedly always been around ... alongside extraordinary violence, genocide and extremism? Chicken and egg scenario here. Do they cause the violence, or solve it? What is that relationship?

    Oh wait, isn't this part of what is studied by History as a discipline? Now using heinous post modern things like literary studies, anthropology, sociology, gender studies, and psychology etc. To which the answer is 'we have no fucking idea it is complex, so be careful what you claim.' Which leads me to .... his political stance. People can be conservative and not agree with me, that is fine (especially on the topic of gender). However, I am disturbed by how he is himself managing to perpetuate precisely what he is critiquing in his work, rather than creating the unity he seems to want. Talk about a living example of how political discourse picks up ideas and bends them to their own use, on either side. Seems he may have also realised it as of November.
    Last edited by Enname; 01-17-2018 at 04:40 PM.
    Quid ignorantia sit multi ignorant.

  3. #3
    Athene noctua Xenia's Avatar
    Join Date: 02.24.16
    Location: Somewhere in Time
    Posts: 53
    Rank: Brilliant Slut

    Default

    I find the overall message of this documentary to be significantly important in today’s society. One related to the fundamental survival of the species. Several concepts jumped out at me, however.

    One, I found the beginning of the topic interesting due to the ideology underlying what he was saying about the integration of the past and history, in that the plight to overcome mayhem and destruction, or fatal consequences, we must as a species, and individually, get back to taking responsibility along with the rights we so thoroughly believe we deserve.

    The concept he mentions regarding the rebirth of the Logos, in that words, the language we use has power most overlook. Biblically speaking, the second coming of Christ is what he is referring to. At least that was my interpretation. And the perception of that espousal is as open to interpretation, coming from any perspective of a religious, mystical or ethical framework. That “hidden story” of transformation and transcendence he referred to, which was the basis for living “properly”. The Hero’s journey, so to speak, one of taking on the responsibility of the world and endure hardship and suffering, to overcome “the sins of the flesh”, temptation in a corrupt material world, and the allure of “predatory power”.

    Secondly, I found interesting that he focused for the most part on how these politically correct gender terms were related to a loss of masculinity. And in the same sense, how he nearly completely overlooked any mention of femininity whatsoever, except in the part that he was speaking directly about the integration of masculinity and femininity, using the example of sexual integration and had just let the words escape his lips regarding this being bigger than a “rape culture”.

    One might espouse the idea that he didn’t consider the suppression, repression and oppression of the divine feminine since it SIGNIFICANTLY predates any “loss of masculinity” in modern times, and has existed, according to historical records, since the beginning of TIME… it is a part of history and our past. And yet, he is espousing this concept of ignoring history and the past as the reason as to why we are doomed. Nor did he investigate the implications of impact that has had on the state of masculinity in modern day.

    Third, I found it interesting that he mentions that 85-90% of people attending his talks were men and he seems surprised by that….seems pretty simple to me. To internalize and be able to assimilate a lot of what he is professing comes through experience in life. He can in no way fully understand the whole scenario.

    I am woman…Hear me Roar.


    "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12, KJV

  4. #4
    Absolution's Avatar
    Join Date: 07.07.12
    Location: Scandinavia
    Posts: 359
    Rank: Glass Jaw

    Default

    I found him by chance when I was trying to get into Jung and I didn't know where to start. Watched his Maps of Meaning lectures and enjoyed it, some time later I realised that he was the guy who was blowing up for that trans thing and I feel like I earn some hipster cred for discovering him outside of that lmao. I found that he's a great introduction to Jung and Nietzsche, and philosophical, spiritual, and religious ideas as a whole for someone very uninitiated like myself at the time. Now that I'm more well read I feel that his takes on J & N leaves a lot to be desired but I still keep up with him and even as an atheist I find his series on the bible fascinating. Even if shallow, his practical distillation of all these different ideas into a philosophy for how to live is very inspiring.

    This latest controversy is something else:

  5. #5
    SEGLASS NI TONDAY Hazekiah's Avatar
    Join Date: 06.20.09
    Posts: 2,603
    Rank: 15 Gauge

    Default

    He keeps popping up in my recommended viewing for YouTube and I'm vaguely annoyed because I can't waste my data/internet-time on frivolous curiosity-clicks to find out if I even give a damn about him in the first place.

    That's about where we're at so far.


  6. #6
    Enname's Avatar
    Join Date: 06.04.16
    Location: Dis.
    Posts: 931
    Rank: Crimson Soil

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenia View Post

    Third, I found it interesting that he mentions that 85-90% of people attending his talks were men and he seems surprised by that….seems pretty simple to me. To internalize and be able to assimilate a lot of what he is professing comes through experience in life. He can in no way fully understand the whole scenario.

    I am woman…Hear me Roar.
    I find it funny that he is shocked not many women aren't into what he is preaching. Not like excluding femininity from the debate to make you feel unwelcome in any discourse around morals, violence and faith except for as a tool of it. Oh wait, doesn't that describe all of female experience from time immemorial?

    His characterisation of masculinity is also sadly ... masculine. In a inflexible, narrow sense. Guess it is because he doesn't like those pesky theorists like Judith Butler and their annoying wish to break down boundaries.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hazekiah View Post
    He keeps popping up in my recommended viewing for YouTube and I'm vaguely annoyed because I can't waste my data/internet-time on frivolous curiosity-clicks to find out if I even give a damn about him in the first place.

    That's about where we're at so far.
    If you really want I can loan you my copy of his book, scathing remarks included for free. Then give you some more recent work that adds nuance to the discussion. Being interesting to see what you think of the Christian existenialism embedded in it.
    Quid ignorantia sit multi ignorant.

  7. #7
    Absolution's Avatar
    Join Date: 07.07.12
    Location: Scandinavia
    Posts: 359
    Rank: Glass Jaw

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enname View Post
    I find it funny that he is shocked not many women aren't into what he is preaching. Not like excluding femininity from the debate to make you feel unwelcome in any discourse around morals, violence and faith except for as a tool of it. Oh wait, doesn't that describe all of female experience from time immemorial?

    His characterisation of masculinity is also sadly ... masculine. In a inflexible, narrow sense. Guess it is because he doesn't like those pesky theorists like Judith Butler and their annoying wish to break down boundaries.
    I don't get your points about his supposed stance on femininity and masculinity. From my POV his main message of "how you should act in the world and why" and the material he uses to back that message up is fairly genderless. How is his view of masculinity inflexible and in any way negative?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

NEWS | TOUR | BIOGRAPHIES | DISCOGRAPHY | VIDEOGRAPHY | GALLERY | MEDIA & INTERVIEWS
MANSON'S JOURNAL | ESSAYS & ANALYSIS | TIMELINE | FORUM | THEATRE | INFORMATION & LINKS