Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[T.C.]

Despite the call to reason being expressed, I do find myself quite emotionally engaged, proud that this element of humanity exists.

I don't know if that's a problem, but there it is.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I find myself in solidarity with him too. He's basically helping people learn how to navigate and think for their selves. And his idea of "open dialogue" is basically networking. I liked the last part where he was talking about relying on your conscience. It sounded like he was saying you have to make sure your reading instrument is calibrated by not lying to yourself.

Careful not to project here. If he was walking the Fourth Way, he'd be walking the Fourth Way.

To clarify better what his stance is on what we would call 'calibrating the reading instrument', he gives more info on it here. His main point is that by not being true to oneself, lying, not making truth your highest value, you pathologise the soul that is supposed to be the thing that guides your actions - the thing you're supposed to listen to. It ties in with psychic hygiene too:

https://youtu.be/mdA1vO2wYkE?ecver=2

Me too, I'm a little uncomfortable with his notion to "always speak the truth" - it flies in the face of strategic enclosure and external considering. And it ignores the fact that there are dangerous people out there.

Again; different path.

His ideas brush the edges of lots of things involved with the Work. I think he's so close with this one, but is missing the vital piece - that the first step in beginning the Work is to stop lying to the self, rather than just simply trying to always speak the truth.

 

[Corvus]

Like getting your life in order will change anything on a political stage, simplistic solution for simplistic minds, all that destruction, bloodbath, suffering for centuries will go away and we can all live happily after as if nothing happened with no repercussions.

 

[Altair]

His ideas brush the edges of lots of things involved with the Work. I think he's so close with this one, but is missing the vital piece - that the first step in beginning the Work is to stop lying to the self, rather than just simply trying to always speak the truth.

Actually he published a paper on self-deception: SELF-DECEPTION EXPLAINED

And here is one of his videos on this topic:

https://youtu.be/pxJzWcwcRd0

 

[bjorb]

Like getting your life in order will change anything on a political stage, simplistic solution for simplistic minds, all that destruction, bloodbath, suffering for centuries will go away and we can all live happily after as if nothing happened with no repercussions.

Hi Corvinus

That's also what I thought for a long time and I think that you are partly right. But getting our life in order is part of learning how to take responsibility, fixing our psychic hygiene and willingness to work on ourselves. I understand how we should always keep an eye out on the grand scheme of things and how our actions can positively affect that.

But there are a lot of lessons in the 'smallest' of situations. And we also have to embrace those to learn and understand our machine better. Simply taking responsibility for also the 'smallest' things in our life assists us how to help out better in the grand scheme of things. All are lessons.

Although I want to empathize that simply getting our life in order for the sake of appearances doesn't chance anything real. But of course there is this saying: ''fake it till you make it''

OSIT. :)

 

[Azur]

Careful not to project here. If he was walking the Fourth Way, he'd be walking the Fourth Way.

To clarify better what his stance is on what we would call 'calibrating the reading instrument', he gives more info on it here. His main point is that by not being true to oneself, lying, not making truth your highest value, you pathologise the soul that is supposed to be the thing that guides your actions - the thing you're supposed to listen to. It ties in with psychic hygiene too:

https://youtu.be/mdA1vO2wYkE?ecver=2

His ideas brush the edges of lots of things involved with the Work. I think he's so close with this one, but is missing the vital piece - that the first step in beginning the Work is to stop lying to the self, rather than just simply trying to always speak the truth.

Having watched a few of Peterson's videos, this last one is the third time he takes a swipe at Joseph Campbell in passing.

I'm not sure why he has a problem with that since he seems to be following (maybe unconsciously) the "hero's path".

:P

 

[obyvatel]

That is where scientific thinking becomes a lifeline as it anchors the person and keeps him from being swept away into madness.

Good point.

Peterson is using archetypal material very selectively to exalt Judeo-Christian tradition.

I am not sure this is quite the case. The exaltation may or may not be there but I have heard Peterson on several occasions mention that the ideas and archetypes that underpin the Judeo-Christian tradition are far far older than the bible or the aforementioned tradition. He is, I think, suggesting that Western traditions are far older than is generally acknowledged. (and seems to be implying that there is a lot more to learn in this area and that our present "learning" is faulty/incomplete/misunderstood.) He is also gently breaking the "bad news" to the religious dogmatists by doing so.

Along the same lines, I don't think Peterson is championing any particular religion. He acknowledges them but seems to be trying to point at something much older, and much more deeply buried that lies beneath "religion". I think he is championing the ideals beneath Christianity, not the modern religious version of it.

Yes, Peterson starts from Sumerian civilization, goes through Egyptian civilization before coming to the Judeo-Christian tradition. He did that in the conversation with Harris as well as several other podcasts /videos that I have heard/watched.

The other factor is Peterson's insistence that totalitarian regimes and human evil be attributed to people not speaking the truth. It is part of the picture and it is important to encourage people to speak the truth. But to me it seems like an oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.

Is telling the truth simple.....ever?

Anyway, judging Peterson's stance on religious and spiritual ideals based only on the Harris vids kind of gives an incomplete picture, IMO. There are about 8-12 vids, or more, where Peterson references Christianity or Christ or God or religion. I have watched almost all of them. Actually I am kind of disappointed in the Harris vids. Peterson let Harris prattle on with one unsupported and unexamined assumption after another and did not really take Harris to task. I think they were both treading lightly and largely doing some intellectual shadow-boxing and refraining from taking off the gloves and really getting down to it.
[/quote]

Maybe. Harris asked him a specific question : the kind of stories which Peterson was interpreting symbolically were present in other religious traditions as well. What about that?
Peterson's response was he was more comfortable talking about the tradition he was most familiar with -perfectly fair. But then came the statement that in his opinion, putting truth as the most important value found its highest expression in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Sure, he is entitled to his opinion. But is that scientific? Probably not because he has not done the requisite studies on other cultures. Then, since he himself acknowledges that he is treading the path of the culture hero, appreciates the "eye of Horus" - what does such a statement imply in the immediate political and cultural climate with right wing ascendancy and the legitimate questioning about the historical validity of many cornerstones of the Judeo-Christian tradition? If his archetypal/mythological work is used to reinforce the foundations of the tradition, then is that a step forward in terms of overall human evolution or more like a side step?

Like I mentioned earlier, I have heard Peterson's other videos where he is after all "lecturing". In the Harris conversation he was not fully lecturing. He was put on the spot a few times regarding his claims on "scientific validity of religious ideas". Like he himself acknowledged, having such conversations is important. Otherwise he could as well be an advisor to Church groups and essentially work on reinterpreting Judeo-Christian stories making them more appealing for people who have grown disillusioned with their religion. Maybe that is where his path leads - I guess we shall see.

 

[mkrnhr]

Otherwise he could as well be an advisor to Church groups and essentially work on reinterpreting Judeo-Christian stories making them more appealing for people who have grown disillusioned with their religion. Maybe that is where his path leads - I guess we shall see.

He seems to be going in that direction. There is already the video about the "The Resurrection of Logos" and he intends to give public lectures on "Biblical story" in May.

 

[whitecoast]

Otherwise he could as well be an advisor to Church groups and essentially work on reinterpreting Judeo-Christian stories making them more appealing for people who have grown disillusioned with their religion. Maybe that is where his path leads - I guess we shall see.

He seems to be going in that direction. There is already the video about the "The Resurrection of Logos" and he intends to give public lectures on "Biblical story" in May.

I agree. He mentions in a lecture that cultures must renew themselves by digging into their own traditions and philosophical roots. Since he obviously feels the west has lost its way, manifesting in this new war on free speech, he probably sees the remedy in reviving the spirit of traditional religions and the open society they preach in their most sophisticated forms. So his project is markedly different from that of Jung, who studied symbolism and archetype from a more generalist and theoretical standpoint. From that perspective Peterson is adapting Jung for a practical application to remedy a perceived flaw in our civil institutions.

According to Peterson free speech isn't a merely a human right, but a precondition for the functioning of our society as a whole. I think that's where his mandate of "always tell the truth" comes from. It almost seems like the opposite of what Lobaczewsky called "Austrian Talk", which is speech everyone assumes to be full of lies and insincerity.

I know that "always tell the truth" is not a Fourth Way concept. I see some people pointing this out, which I think kind of misses the point and assumes that western culture's philosophical roots are Fourth Way in essence. I'm sure there is overlap, but western culture is just that: a culture that needs to sustain itself over millenia. Fourth Way by definition arises in civilization at a critical juncture in time to do particular social/cosmic work, and then--when the task is completed--dissolves (or at least returns in some latent form to one of the First, Second, or Third Way schools). IOW, I know that forgoing strategic enclosure can be "stupid sincerity" to someone practicing the Fourth Way, and counterproductive to a person and his or her Fourth Way school. But to the laypeople in a civilization, with all their mixed lessons and complexities, simply telling the truth en masse and letting the chips fall where they may may produce a society capable of incorporating all this sincerity and difference in opinion... whatever the personal frictions and conditions for personal striving it creates short term. Long term it may be the path away from authoritarian societies and toward the more liberal and democratic societies. Just some thoughts of mine.

 

[mkrnhr]

I don't have a problem per se with the "tell the truth" concept because it is so oversimplified it could mean virtually anything. You can be true to yourself within a self-knowledge frame of reference and yet if some agent of the inquisition questions you about something you said or did, you may lie to it because that's part of being true to your mission so to say. The problem I see is that as a psychologist, Peterson should know better than anyone that people hear what they want to hear, and that oversimplification is a two edged sword. And he knows that because he talks about it in his lectures (I watched his Maps of Meaning lectures from 2013 and try to catch up with the Personality lectures from this year whenever it's possible).

The issue of Western Civilization or the reinterpretation of Judaeo-Christian narrative are a mined field and if he gets associated with the wrong people his credibility would be severely undermined. The other thing is that no matter how elaborated, sophisticated, or well documented your arguments are, you just cannot argue with stupid, and ideological extremist people, they just don't get it. You can argue with one specimen to show the foolishness of their thinking but no more. If you keep repeating the exercise you just waste your time and energy. There must be a more strategic way to do it.

OSIT

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Perhaps reinvigorating a tradition from within is the only way to be truly effective, on a mass level. Completely cutting ties with the past proves disastrous in practice, or simply not possible. And living in the past, with its out-of-date interpretations, leads to stagnation. One is too much chaos, the other is too much order.

When you consider the place people currently are in, asking them to just completely give up on their traditions is a pipe dream. But to reinterpret, and reinvigorate a tradition (getting rid of as much of the outdated stuff as possible) is not only possible, it might actually be of benefit on the whole. (Keeping in mind that nothing is perfect, and will never be so when looking at developments that apply to millions of people.)

It's a matter of meeting people were they are, and pulling them up to a slightly higher level. You can do that by agreeing with their core beliefs (or what they think are their core beliefs), then explaining what those core beliefs really are or really mean. So instead of throwing out the Bible, you say, "Well, that's not what it really means. Yes, those people didn't exist, and it didn't really happen like that, but here's what it's really saying, and why it's important." Catch more flies with honey, and all that.

It won't satisfy the tiny minority who already know all that, and don't need it, but it can lift a lot of people out of the Stone Age in terms of what they believe, IMO.

 

[mkrnhr]

That would be ideal, especially if the variance in the capacity (and willingness) for understanding was smaller than it actually is. For some people unfortunately, the capacity for a more abstract conceptualization (X is not really X, it represents Y) is simply not there, and the discourse has to be tailored for each subset of the population. Also, there are forces out there that would not be happy for even if a tiny fraction of the population becomes more independent. It undermines the essence of domination. A subtle thesis can easily be distorted by intermediary interpreters (and popularizers) and a ill-tuned receiveship capacity does not help. That is why it has to be navigated carefully in order to avoid any traps and potential recuperation.

 

[Voyageur]

That would be ideal, especially if the variance in the capacity (and willingness) for understanding was smaller than it actually is. For some people unfortunately, the capacity for a more abstract conceptualization (X is not really X, it represents Y) is simply not there, and the discourse has to be tailored for each subset of the population. Also, there are forces out there that would not be happy for even if a tiny fraction of the population becomes more independent. It undermines the essence of domination. A subtle thesis can easily be distorted by intermediary interpreters (and popularizers) and a ill-tuned receiveship capacity does not help. That is why it has to be navigated carefully in order to avoid any traps and potential recuperation.

That's probably an important point, and its a slow process when a society has been ponerized to the extent that can be seen; although as AI said above, people can be lifted up in terms of their beliefs.

With Peterson, I would not want to presuppose what he knows and his ability to enclose. A glimpse can be seen from his "must read' section of authors, yet he has studied for a long time. I remembered (on his website) one comment from a reader suggestion other books to him, including poerology, so would not want to assume he has not read it or would not read it - IMO it is a missing link to so much. As for the religious/myth side, again, he would benefit (if he has not already) in delving deeper into older history and its revisionists that might add roots to his ideas.

Peterson is in a difficult public position and most always on the defensive, yet he does a pretty good job considering, and he has growing support to help him, yet what you said on the subject of distortions and receivership needs to be kept in mind. Will have to see how it goes.

 

[luc]

It's a matter of meeting people were they are, and pulling them up to a slightly higher level. You can do that by agreeing with their core beliefs (or what they think are their core beliefs), then explaining what those core beliefs really are or really mean. So instead of throwing out the Bible, you say, "Well, that's not what it really means. Yes, those people didn't exist, and it didn't really happen like that, but here's what it's really saying, and why it's important." Catch more flies with honey, and all that.

I agree. Of course we can speculate and come up with scenarios where people don't get it and are sent off the rails. But let's face it: people are in such a mess, they are so confused and programmed to self-destruct on a soul level, that Peterson's message has the potential of doing a LOT of good imo.

It's what I meant with the marketing analogy: you need to catch people where they are and then sneak in thoughts that are challenging and lead to action and positive change. From there on, in the context of Peterson's work, they are kind of on their own and there is a danger that they misjudge and twist the information etc. Yet, it's a place to start, it may set things in motion and then it's up to them to learn from their experiences. I mean, Gurdjieff also talked a lot about Christianity. It's what people are familiar with. It's a good starting point, and I think Peterson shows people out there that you can think deeply about such things without falling into vulgar atheism and religion bashing à la Dawkins or blind belief.

Also, I like how Peterson navigates the political landscape. Yes, he has a few major blind spots. But what I like is that he doesn't fall into either side of the political rift - he heavily criticizes the left and their simplified 'save the world' attitude, yet he himself is more of a liberal type and doesn't dismiss the left entirely. He criticizes the alt-right, yet also sees that they have a point and understands their motivation to a certain extent. That alone is very valuable in today's crazy black and white climate.

His basic message is "you are screwed. If you don't change and set yourself straight, if you don't look at your dark side, you gonna end up as a Nazi concentration camp guard." That's quite a powerful message.

Will he make the right decisions as to where to focus? Will he get off-track at some point? Will his ego get in the way? I think there is a great danger for that, especially since he doesn't have a robust network (although he seems to have a well-functioning family and some friends who provide honest feedback), which could be problematic. I guess we'll see.

 

[Joe]

To clarify better what his stance is on what we would call 'calibrating the reading instrument', he gives more info on it here. His main point is that by not being true to oneself, lying, not making truth your highest value, you pathologise the soul that is supposed to be the thing that guides your actions - the thing you're supposed to listen to. It ties in with psychic hygiene too:

That short video is an example of why I like Peterson; he can pack a lot of accurate information into very few words, which I think is the hallmark of a great thinker and someone with the ability to really See.

What he says about truth here is the take home message. It has nothing to do with telling the truth all the time, but rather that it should be done as a general rule and for a very important reason, as he says: to ensure that you don't pathologize your thinking or your 'reading instrument' so that you don't condition it to lies, leading it to give you increasingly faulty reports that will then cause you increasing problems and suffering in your life (and for others too no doubt).

It's interesting to consider what he says here in terms of the ponerogenic process and pathocracy and where we are today. The 'elite' seem to have conditioned themselves so well, and over such a long time, to lies - both to themselves and others - that their 'reading instruments' now function as mere 'echo chambers' largely divorced from the objective reality experienced by most of the planet's population. In fact, as the statement attributed to Karl Rove under the 1st Bush admin makes clear, these 'elite' have taken self-deception a step further and have concluded that they can actually make self-deception an effective life strategy because they have the 'power' to back it up and make it a 'reality' (Rove's 'reality based community' comments to journalist Ron Suskind around 2004).

[Rove] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

I was thinking about that quote recently and apart from its pathology, Rove was basically pointing out that major political events don't simply happen 'coincidentally' or as the result of random chance, as most people seem to believe, i.e. we can't just watch one event occur and then wonder what is going to happen next as if it were undetermined, because we'll be wrong every time. His point, in essence, was that such events ARE pre-determined, that they occur as a result of conspiracy to make them occur in a specific way. So while I don't think it is usually seen as such, that quote is actually a pretty clear admission by a Bush govt. official that government conspiracy is the rule rather than the exception.

If only more people would wake up to that rather self-evident, and at this stage unremarkable, truth.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

That would be ideal, especially if the variance in the capacity (and willingness) for understanding was smaller than it actually is. For some people unfortunately, the capacity for a more abstract conceptualization (X is not really X, it represents Y) is simply not there, and the discourse has to be tailored for each subset of the population.

Not sure I agree with this. Sure, it might not apply to everyone, or even the great majority, but it certainly has resonance. Just look at how popular Peterson has become. That popularity was in large part due to a particular, only slightly related issue, the gender pronouns thing. But read the comments on his videos, Twitter, etc. And notice how many people have been "converted", for want of a better word. A lot of atheists who now say, "Wow, when you explain religion, it makes sense!" That's because they had rejected an idea of religion that is stagnant and meaningless for them in their lives. Peterson makes it personal and real: "religion is about how you should act! So sort yourself out!"

And the "agnostic" crowd who can now feel like their traditions actually do have some meaning. And those meanings are GOOD meanings.

Sidebar: Also note what Peterson doesn't say. He never talks about Jesus necessarily being a real person who really died on the cross. All the times I've heard him talk about it, it's in archetypal terms. Same with the Bible. When you adopt that approach, the Bible becomes literature, not history. And that lessens the sting of seeing it as fiction. Because the meaning is the meaning, not the fact that this or that may never have happened.

A subtle thesis can easily be distorted by intermediary interpreters (and popularizers) and a ill-tuned receiveship capacity does not help. That is why it has to be navigated carefully in order to avoid any traps and potential recuperation.

Unfortunately that goes for subtle theses AND blunt theses. Again, I don't think JBP's approach is perfect. But when has there ever been a perfect approach? Never, or we wouldn't be in this mess. When I look out at the world, I'm happy enough seeing someone "out there" do something that moves people even a smidgeon in a better direction. Sure, it will be corrupted. It always is. But, IMO, at least a guy like JBP is out there doing SOMETHING, and actually making a difference in people's lives as a result.