herondancer said:
He is definitely numbered among The Two Hundred, at least in my books. :)
Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
He is definitely numbered among The Two Hundred, at least in my books. :)
herondancer said:
Yeah, "second coming" seems over the top for me too; it's just such a loaded concept.
However, maybe what we are witnessing here is a real-time example of how it looks like when a new religion emerges? I've read somewhere that there are already "Peterson meet-ups", and the amount of admiration many people have for JP does border on deification I guess. While that really seems over the top and isn't healthy IMO if people start believing he will "save the world" (which is completely counter to his message anyway), there's no doubt that JP is one hell of a guy and a true role model for many people. (BTW, his book is now #1 on amazon...)
I mean, just imagine he would pass now (God forbid) - I can see how the "deification" process would begin immediately and then the mythologization process may start that I think Laura described in one of her books (can't remember which right now). Including of course the glorification and distortion of the man and his teaching, ponerization and so on.
I must admit, I'm kinda curious what the Cs would make of the whole JP craze
bianca etezete
Dagobah Resident
luc said:herondancer said:
Yeah, "second coming" seems over the top for me too; it's just such a loaded concept.
However, maybe what we are witnessing here is a real-time example of how it looks like when a new religion emerges? I've read somewhere that there are already "Peterson meet-ups", and the amount of admiration many people have for JP does border on deification I guess. While that really seems over the top and isn't healthy IMO if people start believing he will "save the world" (which is completely counter to his message anyway), there's no doubt that JP is one hell of a guy and a true role model for many people. (BTW, his book is now #1 on amazon...)
I mean, just imagine he would pass now (God forbid) - I can see how the "deification" process would begin immediately and then the mythologization process may start that I think Laura described in one of her books (can't remember which right now). Including of course the glorification and distortion of the man and his teaching, ponerization and so on.
I must admit, I'm kinda curious what the Cs would make of the whole JP craze
Yes, I guess you are right. And even in admitting that I obviously didn't think the whole concept through thoroughly enough, I do not feel ashamed to have brought it up here.
He is a human being with a lot of real knowledge about what it is like being a human being - and he lays out his thoughts in a very understandable and peaceful manner. When I was following his talks and interviews there was this thought lingering in my brain or heart or both. It began with the expression "Menschensohn", in English "Son of Man", which suddenly appeared lettered out for me to read somewhere above my forehead (don't laugh). That expression has fed my thinking for a long time now, since I was a child actually, and while studying the bible for now and then thoughout my life, this is the first time I kinda got a grip on it. Peterson for me removed the "godlike" or you could also say "saintly" aspect that accompanied this expression in my imagination, giving it the shape of a man of flesh and bones. Does that make sense to you?
I didn't and don't want to deify him, nor do I see a new religion coming, simply because although what he teaches is in part highly spiritual, it has no religious material in it. Because he strongly opposes Ideologies, and at one point he even says (can't remember the interview right now) that ideologies are "fragmented religion", and then lays out all the horrendous problems that come with that.
He has a lot to give to the world, to those who are capable of listening.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I actually had a similar thought I think this morning about JP, especially after seeing his book being #1. I wondered if he was the return of Christ. But then he has stated his flaws, and I agree that he would laugh at that notion. And also I thought that the return of Christ would be the return of Ceasar, and isn't Caesar still not incarnated according to the session a few years ago with him "chiming in".
Well, certainly, JP is having a big influence and is helping people who can hear what he is saying. I at least conceded to the strong likelihood that he is an STO candidate.
Well, certainly, JP is having a big influence and is helping people who can hear what he is saying. I at least conceded to the strong likelihood that he is an STO candidate.
herondancer said:
Not sure if this has been posted here somewhere, but this is Peterson's recounting of a spiritual experience he had after working on his book, maps of meaning, and making a sculpture, a drawing of which he uses for his YT channel and for his book 'maps of meaning'. The video link starts at the point where he explains it.
https://youtu.be/UyOAuiL_FE8?t=218
herondancer said:
I've been quite amazed lately just how many people are talking about Jordon Peterson, people I would never have thought would be at all interested in him or his message. And they all are saying very positive things. His message is so needed at this time and place in the world and it really does seem to be striking a chord with a lot of people.
And one more Go Jordon!
luc said:
It's an interesting idea, that's for sure. We know from Laura's study of history, that Jesus Christ as an individual recounted in the Bible, was fictitious and likely the amalgamation of several real historical persons operating in the area around that time, including Julius Caesar. The point worth considering, I think, is that those real people probably didn't start out with the intention of being some sort of messiah or great religious figure, but became immortalized much later on account of the actions of their followers.
Like Julius Caesar, JP appears to be fairly impeccable in his personal life (walking the talk so to speak), he honestly seems to care about making the world a better place for others, and is not afraid to stand up against the prevailing orthodoxy of the day by those who hold positions of power (post-modern ideologues).
Even though no one has the whole banana in regards to the truth, and JP might be the first person to laugh at the idea of being "The Second Coming" of anything, understanding how religions are formed, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that if he were martyred in some way (and this doesn't necessarily mean dying but marginalized or incarcerated as a result of the actions of his supporters), that the sheer enormity of his popularity and influence could morph into some kind of religious following over time.
Joe said:
Thanks for the link. I'd heard that clip before but, forgotten about it.
Perhaps it was a offer of 'annointing' or 'christing' that he felt he wouldn't be able to handle if he fully accepted it. He still embodies a lot of it anyway. Instead of money changers, he attempting to drive the modern Pharisees out of the education systems and by extension, society.
Timótheos said:
On Wednesday a bunch of us peeps were watching a JBP interview. During a break, one of us asked where we thought this would all go. I joked, "Peterson will be crucified. He will rise again, to be seated at the right hand of glory." Tongue in cheek, I swear! But really, I think the idea of a "christ" is a good one, but that "incarnating Christ within" is probably seen with too much of a traditional "saintly" gloss. Christ is an archetype, and the archetype is perfect. Humans who embody the archetype aren't necessarily perfect. They do the best they can, and perhaps on the whole are better than they are worse. And people seem to need a real-life model on which to base their own behavior. That leads to putting that person on a pedestal, even if they're flawed. E.g., JFK, MLK.
bianca etezete
Dagobah Resident
3D Student said:
It seems that we are not the only people who have this thought. I am just watching Part 5 of his biblical series, and - I was litterally almost falling from my chair - at the beginning he reads a message he got from someone and he reads it out aloud to his audience and at around 2:10 into the read the person who wrote it describes an ayahuasca vision in which the person asks the spirit who Jordan Peterson is, and gets the answer: " He is here to invoke and initiate the divine masculin principle on earth at this time." I just take this as another hint that there is at least something to him.
For those who want to check:
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44f3mxcsI50
The last couple of week I also have been thinking how JP is walking in the Christ-like archetype. With the Pharisees and Sadducees of our time attacking him, while he just keeps telling the truth and masses of people are following him (electronically mostly) and receiving needed meaning in their lives. “help is on the way” comes to mind too.
Possibility of Being said:
I also wanted to say thanks for the link, Possibility of Being. Indeed it was an amazing interview. Maybe Peterson isn't the second coming of Christ, but he sure is a "godsend"
. Hopefully he will able to navigate through the difficulties thrown at him. Just some thoughts about the interview..
I didn't realize that his daughter has had such difficulties, juvenile arthritis caused by diet. Thankfully she found out about the cause in the end, and was able to help her parents too.
When Peterson spoke about the rules for life, e.g. play fair and speak the truth (or at least don't lie), I was reminded of "The Odyssey", parts of which I recently re-read. It also told of the importance of acting justly, being hospitable to people and strangers, and speaking truthly. Quite fascinating!
Peterson said that he had been wondering about the meaning of the biblical saying "the meek shall inherit the earth", as it didn't ring true to him. He discovered that the source word of "meek" originally meant "those who have swords and know how to use them, but choose not to use them". Then it made sense, as he has found that a person should pull in the (Jungian) shadow part of oneself, incorporate it and acknowledge the "monster" side of oneself. Everyone can do horrible things, but should choose not to do them.
I read that Ursula Le Guin died earlier this week (she was my one of my favorite novelists). There was an apt quote from her book in the twitterverse: "Those who deny the existence of dragons often are eaten by dragons. From within".
Balance
The Force is Strong With This One
hiker said:
While I was reading the bolded part, The Godfather movie suddenly came to my mind. This integration of shadow and being fully aware of what you can become if situations are synchronized in the way to provoke worst in you, if you don't know yourself, reminds me of Michael Corleone and what he became. He never wanted to acknowledge that he CAN become like his family. But one punch in the head by police officer and failed assassination on his father made him willing to pull the trigger in the bar. When he pulled that trigger and killed police captain and Sollozo, there was no turning back.
So, in the end, he turned from non-criminal to criminal member of the family.
But the whole point is: he never wanted to acknowledge that he CAN become criminal, denied it and said that 'he was not one of them', but when met with difficult situations he succumbed to revenge, pride, ego, threats...'family business'.
("Archetype of Michael Corleone" ;) )
This is the 'I'm a decent human being' thinking error among ordinary men, which needs to be annihilated by 'integrating the shadow business' aka. knowing that situational factors can really badly influence our thinking processes thus behavior, and if these situational factors continue to provoke same bad response in us, we strengthen the wrong neural pathways and get accustomed to wrong response aka. wrong thinking processes-behavior which actually define us (as seen in 101 Reserve Battalion - Nazi Germany, Stanford prison experiment etc., real life etc.).
At the end of the process we become our shadow. Congratulations!
P.S. Response on situational factors can range from revenge, vanity, power, anger to indifference, passivity, 'just listening the orders' and transferring the responsibility of actions on someone else.
One of the reasons I think Peterson appeals to mostly men (and is 'instinctively' disliked in some way by some women) is his 'man up' approach to life and particularly suffering. His message speaks to men in particular who have been weakened and left without a sense of purpose and therefore meaning in life by decades of attempted 'feminization' of men through the media, education and popular culture. This shows that the biological underpinnings of gender are still foundational to both men and women's experience of life and their attitudes towards it and how they should act within it.
Women's tendency to want everyone to 'get along' or 'play nice', while noble and ideal, has been pushed too far to the extent that today it is being leveraged by radical feminist ideology to facilitate the acceptance of a 4 year old child's 'right' to choose their own gender, an outpouring of 'empathy' for the 'oppressed minorities' and those subject to 'institutional racism', and to attack 'white privilege' or 'the patriarchy' as the cause of all of the oppression.
This is done in the name 'empathy' but it is clearly anything but. There can be no real 'empathy' without true responsibility and true responsibility is not possible without first gaining adequate knowledge about the thing for which you would take responsibility. Being less influenced by the strong emotionality of women, men, who tend to have a more "suck it up" approach to suffering and 'oppression' in life are calling BS on the whole thing, and calling out women for allowing themselves to be emotionally manipulated into aiding and abetting those that would cause serious harm to the structures of society.
At the same time, the most effective tool that can be used to get men to fall in line is men's instinctive desire to please women and give them what they want. But when what women want is the subject of manipulation by some 'forces' or some kind of collective madness, then men are required to call it out.
Obviously, both men and women need to get their thinking caps on here and not allow themselves to emotionally manipulated to the detriment of society at large.
Women's tendency to want everyone to 'get along' or 'play nice', while noble and ideal, has been pushed too far to the extent that today it is being leveraged by radical feminist ideology to facilitate the acceptance of a 4 year old child's 'right' to choose their own gender, an outpouring of 'empathy' for the 'oppressed minorities' and those subject to 'institutional racism', and to attack 'white privilege' or 'the patriarchy' as the cause of all of the oppression.
This is done in the name 'empathy' but it is clearly anything but. There can be no real 'empathy' without true responsibility and true responsibility is not possible without first gaining adequate knowledge about the thing for which you would take responsibility. Being less influenced by the strong emotionality of women, men, who tend to have a more "suck it up" approach to suffering and 'oppression' in life are calling BS on the whole thing, and calling out women for allowing themselves to be emotionally manipulated into aiding and abetting those that would cause serious harm to the structures of society.
At the same time, the most effective tool that can be used to get men to fall in line is men's instinctive desire to please women and give them what they want. But when what women want is the subject of manipulation by some 'forces' or some kind of collective madness, then men are required to call it out.
Obviously, both men and women need to get their thinking caps on here and not allow themselves to emotionally manipulated to the detriment of society at large.
Joe said:
Well, I just came across this vid on YT. I guess they thought I would like it since I watch lots of JP stuff:
In addition to being a rather in-your-face social commentary, it kind of relates to many things I've been pondering lately, much along the lines of what Joe wrote above.
I think JP is so popular simply because men need him in the current climate. While he tries to tailor his message for everyone, the simple fact is that it is predominantly men who are coming up to him and thanking him for basically saving their lives. So, his message really is for men, mostly.
As for the video above, I suppose one could have various responses to it, probably the most common being a denial of female sexuality (publicly, at least). I don't think it's a coincidence that 50 Shades of Grey is still the #1 most-sold book on Amazon.
And here I don't mean what women REALLY want, which is a loving relationship. But then, that's exactly what most men want out of life. The proof of this is quite obvious: How many men do you know who are running around fondling and bedding supermodels on a yacht or in some Hollywood mansion, vs how many men do you know who got married and made babies and started a family?
Clearly, the majority of both men and women want real relationships, or at least a close approximation thereof.
So when I refer to "sexuality" as it relates to the above video, I'm talking about the "raw" aspect: Men want to dominate, women want to be dominated + provided for (along with children) so they can raise the little ones. That's biologically programmed, and there's nothing wrong with it as far as I can see. It makes the human race "go".
The trouble is that the male side of "dominating" is blown way out of proportion compared to the female side. The proof of this is also easy to see: just look at what's going on with all this "social justice" stuff, #MeToo, etc.
Smarter people than me have noted that while men objectify women physically as a first step to motivate them to attempt to "hook up", women do the same towards men - albeit in a different way. First of all, women are sexually attracted to men. Duh. Second, women tend to choose up the social ladder, which means essentially they decide to "hook up" with a guy initially because he looks like a good provider, is of higher social status - generally speaking. After that, both sides are looking for real love, however they define that.
But we don't hear much about the female side of things. It's like no one wants to talk about it, and I think that's part of the problem. It NEEDS to be talked about.
From the men's side, if I had a dollar for every time I was told that I'm basically evil for objectifying women because I thought some woman was sexually attractive, I'd be richer than Trump. Or how about locker room talk? Yes, it happens. Contrary to what some are saying, there is a sort of multitasking going on there - at least for those who aren't psychos. Basically, as a guy, I can simultaneously think, "hubba hubba" while at the same time thinking about every other characteristic that I know about some female of the species. I was privy to many conversations growing up that were more or less like this:
"Oh yeah, she's superhot... But ya know, I don't think that would work. She's too this for me, or I'm too that for her, or I can't imagine that it would last," etc.
Normal guys actually think this way fairly often. Shocking, I know. Or, at least if they don't think this way initially, historically they get there eventually because most of them end up married and NOT beating their wives.
Plus, as JP said in a recent video, men's objectification of women via things like porn is more damaging for the men. I've been saying that for years. Sure, it's also bad for women, but a small number of them. If a large number of men are watching that porn, they are basically saying to themselves that they don't deserve love, so something empty and meaningless will have to do. If men who watched porn are more likely to commit violence against women, then frankly there wouldn't be any women left on Planet Earth in the present day.
So yeah, I think that's why JP is so popular: Because modern men are practically dying for someone to help them out of this mess, and JP is doing it.
Anyway, my real question is: Where is the "Jordina Pederson" for women? Maybe that's at least part of the reason why some women tend not to like him?
I suppose one could argue that women are afraid JP will "take their men away from them" or something, but that's highly unlikely given his message. I would say just the opposite will occur! In that sense, maybe it's more like, "We need one of those..." At the same time, there's the make nice thing and hoping it will all go away.
Women also have a "base sexuality", and naturally it is the source of problems just as it is for men. Given the current state of affairs, women also need someone to speak up for and defend them - just not in the way that the crazy feminists are doing!
Lately, I've been thinking that things are shifting. People I know are posting #MeToo-type stuff, and whereas before they were getting cheered on, now they're asking, "Hey, why so few likes?" Even the articles these folks are sharing are what I would call "toned down" compared to what they were a few months ago.
At the moment, my concern is that the tide is turning, and this may lead to a backlash against women. Perhaps that is when "Jordina" will appear? Or, perhaps JP will shift gears and talk more sense to people about women?
Well, those are just my thoughts of late. I dunno what's going to happen. But I do think that these are important issues, and they do require both careful navigation as well as input from both men and women.
One way or the other, we'll get there!
