constant escape
winter withered, warm
Well I can't say I would subscribe to Peterson, but I can still see that point. It may be impossible to organize/optimize your own ontology/machinery as if it were independent, but you can start to, no? It seems to be programatic without being dogmatic, presenting a manner of solution rather than a specific solution - but then again I haven't read his stuff nor inquired deeply into his personal theories.
I mean, the "clean up your house" sensibility seems to boil down to "sharpen your tools before you go hacking away" or, alternatively and less violently, "refine your plan before you execute it". I don't want to conflate this with his opinions, or otherwise put words in his mouth, but I can imagine some effective and valid interpretations of the "clean up your house" imperative/program.
Inasfar as that two step program involves separating an inside and an outside, it can be dubious. It risks reifying ones identity by tightening incidental components to it.
For a spiritual take on individualism, might the problem be our fixation on our identity? What we lump together when we conceive of ourselves? How much of that lump is incidental junk?
Is there a line between one and one's preferences/beliefs? One and one's material/corporal manifestation? Could we argue that one is a point, a singularity, and the content of one's identity is all superstructural, scaffolding?
In considering one's identity, it is as if one is arbitrating the territory of where they end and where their world begins. How much of this territory is the cortex, and how much is the core? The core, as I argue above, is a point, and the cortex, the bulk, is junk.
I mean, the "clean up your house" sensibility seems to boil down to "sharpen your tools before you go hacking away" or, alternatively and less violently, "refine your plan before you execute it". I don't want to conflate this with his opinions, or otherwise put words in his mouth, but I can imagine some effective and valid interpretations of the "clean up your house" imperative/program.
Inasfar as that two step program involves separating an inside and an outside, it can be dubious. It risks reifying ones identity by tightening incidental components to it.
For a spiritual take on individualism, might the problem be our fixation on our identity? What we lump together when we conceive of ourselves? How much of that lump is incidental junk?
Is there a line between one and one's preferences/beliefs? One and one's material/corporal manifestation? Could we argue that one is a point, a singularity, and the content of one's identity is all superstructural, scaffolding?
In considering one's identity, it is as if one is arbitrating the territory of where they end and where their world begins. How much of this territory is the cortex, and how much is the core? The core, as I argue above, is a point, and the cortex, the bulk, is junk.