Jordan Peterson thinks it makes sense to compare humans with lobsters

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
Helicopter lands, you’re lying all burned and fucked and I pull out a short

You wheeze in agony ‘please, for the love of Mary and Joseph put me down Murphy’ before i whisper in your ear ‘where‘s your god now?’ and walk away

CofE is all masons too, say no more
 

suspended

Well-known member
Some guy: hurr durr, wimmin shouldn't drive because of their powerful baby hormones.

Gus/Biccies: people only dunk on him to virtue-signal to the in-group.
Do you know how to read

Or are you functionally illiterate and you've used voice to text software to post here the past decade

Thirdform may be a barrage of insults that intentionally ignore your points in favor of his own agenda, but at least he makes a nominal show of keeping up with the conversation
 

suspended

Well-known member
what are the top 7 best points he's ever made biscuits/gus? choose the top 7 so we don't have to wade through the chaff.
I'm gonna type up a solid response to this soon

FWIW I think his "gotcha" points and highly compressed aphorisms are much less interesting than his metaphorical language and frameworks

That's why I think he would be of interest to you. He thinks in the same highly symbolic highly literary way
 

suspended

Well-known member
somethings I remember from that Chaos & Order vid I linked above (which has like a good hour of content, then he falls into boring sermonizing):

- we should switch how we view pre-scientific ontologies, from being "wrong" to being good phenomenological portraits
- talks about pragmatic perception, the way human sensory field is tapped into the "formless potential of the world" of our environment, a potential we seize through knowledge/tools/culture
- "man created in God's image"/"divine spark" thing is partly a phenomenological commentary on man's world-making role as observer (sunsets are perspectival phenomena; they don't "exist" in any sense other than as an artifact of the perspective of an observer standing on a planet)
- but we are also "gods" in some sense we make our physical world too; our moral stances are "world-making", we can choose to convert formless potential into a stable habitable environment, choose to make hell on earth or heaven

- riffs on light/darkness, the associations between vision, consciousness, awareness, foresight... being able to predict future means being able to optimize and plan and be long-termist
- riffs on relation between habitability, stability, certainty—we can make and keep agreements vs reneg on them; we can make a heaven on earth or a heaven
- betrayal is the ultimate sin (Dante's inner circle): you pull a rug out from someone; if it was a serious relationship they have to reconfigure their entire sense of both they're past and future, ie sudden uncertainty—you're putting someone through hell

- Trinity is a metaphor for structure, logos, and formless potential (father, son, holy ghost respectively)
- Edenic fall is a fall into self-consciousness and suffering and with knowledge the choice between heaven and hell (bettering your life, making it habitable, vs wrecking your own/other people's lives)... hell seems to be a cycle of being betrayed and therefore deciding to betray others
- when you give things a name (logos) you're on the path of converting it from formless uninhabitable potential into structure i.e. knowability/understanding, knowledge gives you the ability to predict (certainty)
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Do you know how to read

Or are you functionally illiterate and you've used voice to text software to post here the past decade

Thirdform may be a barrage of insults that intentionally ignore your points in favor of his own agenda, but at least he makes a nominal show of keeping up with the conversation
Do you know how to recognise a cheap, half-drink diss
 

thirdform

Well-known member
I like his impassioned explanations of the value added by all the conservative stuff a progressive minority fancy dispensing with: Chesterton's Fence applied to eg marriage, God, duty. He uses his learning to expose a vast hinterland of meaning and practice that is being pushed out of view

One of the reasons they don't like him is because they think his emphasis of individual responsibility minimises the role of the system and has unrealistic expectations of what an individual can achieve... But he does repeatedly say that all of this self-making stuff is difficult, we're fundamentally flawed and we fail all the time, which is a lot more charitable than his opponents tend to be (one strike and you're out, as far as many of them are concerned)

so why don't you convert to salafi islam and be internally consistent?

Might it be that you are a liberal degenerate who can't conquer his own desires? Who is just a product of this progressivism you superficially claim to be against. You neither have the agrarian austerity nor the discipline engendered by your society remaining quasi-feudal.

Being in favour of gay marriage, legalising marijuana, yet pontificating about the loss of traditional family values. American and Canadian decadence in a nutshell. Face it, the 'camel herding uneducated bedouins' have beaten you at yer own game. They are well aware that they don't need to be in favour of anything modern, no extra heart ache and pain necessary to make cumbersome unworkable syntheses.

Just as hypocritical as the left you lambaste, biccies.

(one strike and you're out, as far as many of them are concerned)

Again, all the pitiful sloppy seconds of the classical conservative right can do is troll and culture war the left. This is hardly a ringing endorsement for the apex of western civilisation. Another goal to the bedouins.
 
Last edited:

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
so why don't you convert to salafi islam and be internally consistent?

Might it be that you are a liberal degenerate who can't conquer his own desires? Who is just a product of this progressivism you superficially claim to be against. You neither have the agrarian austerity nor the discipline engendered by your society remaining quasi-feudal.

Being in favour of gay marriage, legalising marijuana, yet pontificating about the loss of traditional family values. American and Canadian decadence in a nutshell. Face it, the 'camel herding uneducated bedouins' have beaten you at yer own game. They are well aware that they don't need to be in favour of anything modern, no extra heart ache and pain necessary to make cumbersome unworkable syntheses.

Just as hypocritical as the left you lambaste, biccies.



Again, all the pitiful sloppy seconds of the classical conservative right can do is troll and culture war the left. This is hardly a ringing endorsement for the apex of western civilisation. Another goal to the bedouins.
Who said I was in favor of legalising marijuana?

As for the way of the Bedouin, I'm with Zizek: it's almost impossible to put the liberal genie back in the bottle
 

thirdform

Well-known member
Who said I was in favor of legalising marijuana?

As for the way of the Bedouin, I'm with Zizek: it's almost impossible to put the liberal genie back in the bottle

Peterson is in favour of legalising marijuana.

As for Zizek, he is a liberal social democrat par excellence who has built his career off taking university students as far out as they can possibly. He, like Scruton, is absolutely horrified by impersonal revolutionary violence, even more so, as it will jeopardise his living. Scruton would have (when he was alive) been able to comprehend eruptions of violence, albeit resorting to the sad immediatist demand for a genius or hero to set wrongs to rights. Like Carlyle then, he would have to eventually hang himself, but again, the salafist will perform this harakiri much quicker and with a significantly greater deal of effectiveness.

In any case, philosophically speaking, The aristocrat is somewhat closer to Marxism than the demo-populist rightist, which is sadly a lesson you haven't been able to fully assimilate. Your whole outlook is based on the self-dissolution of the left, but you fail to make that final step and proclaim the left, so much as it exists, to be an empty signifier (detached of all content) propping up capitalism today. You permit for too much ressentiment to factor into your analyses.
 

suspended

Well-known member
I really don't think there's much intrinsic connection or conflict between marijuana/gay marriage and "family values"

We all know gay families and stoner dads that embody healthy cultures of mutual obligation and care.
 

suspended

Well-known member
If "family values" means anything it isn't about whether you like sticking your pee-pee in bums or muffs. Whether you get your buzz from drink or grass.

It's about building and maintaining habitability for those who aren't as strong. It's about finding better coordination equilibria and committing yourself to other people's well-being.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
I really don't think there's much intrinsic connection or conflict between marijuana/gay marriage and "family values"

We all know gay families and stoner dads that embody healthy cultures of mutual obligation and care.

Because you see traditionalism as a choice in the market of possibilities. It's entirely myopic and amerocentric.

Traditionalism, in the sense that the rest of the world understands it is cosmological and providential, not political. or more rather, the politics are sublimated to the cosmology and the religious providence.

Gay marriage is in conflict with family values not because gay couples are in conflict with concepts of mutual care (no religious traditionalist with a brain would argue this) but because they are a violation of the metaphysical necessity of the family as a unit for raising the ideal type of religious character.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
Because you see traditionalism as a choice in the market of possibilities. It's entirely myopic and amerocentric.

Traditionalism, in the sense that the rest of the world understands it is cosmological and providential, not political. or more rather, the politics are sublimated to the cosmology and the religious providence.

Gay marriage is in conflict with family values not because gay couples are in conflict with concepts of mutual care (no religious traditionalist with a brain would argue this) but because they are a violation of the metaphysical necessity of the family as a unit for raising the ideal type of religious character.
whats the ideal religous character?
 

thirdform

Well-known member
whats the ideal religous character?

Conservative, heteronormative, patriarchal, authoritarian and more than not hypocritical. But that last one is the quiet bit said out loud.

It's no surprise that anarchism is religiosity without religion, the same kind of feudal dominion for one to impose ones will upon. The anarchist, like the liberal, and the trad religious ideologue, fears the increasing centralisation of capitalist society. They fear, in other words, economic and social rationalisation of human needs.
 
Top