Jordan Peterson

[Ok08Y567gA]

Yes of course - that’s quite right. It’s just that I haven’t replied yet to your comments on my last post, but I don’t want to push the thread further away from it’s theme. I think you made a good clarification there - I’ll pick it up in PM, but I’m tied up at the moment so it will probably be tomorrow.

Understood, thank you for taking the time to respond to me and I look forward to your posts.

 

[Anemoia]

Now, if what you're asking is an example for my argument about the western cultural psychology? I think the rise of the Nazis and Fascism are great examples given these events took place more recently within the modern period. Please be more specific in what kind of argument you're looking for or in what direction you want me to take this next.

Well I was most interested in this idea of 'depth' that you establish with the terms 'social-ego, cultural-shadow, historical unconscious, and collective unconscious', so I was expecting something along the lines of 'Christianity doesn't address the European "shadow" in the way that paganism does, for example...'.

Of course, nothing in this kind of discussion is falsifiable to any serious degree, so no-one can really 'prove' or 'disprove' anything here, but I was curious as to what kind of things you had in mind in any case. It did seem to me that your understanding of Christian discourses was a bit thin, so I expected to be able to counter your assertions, but even in that case it would have been instructive in the context of the categories of 'cultural depth' that you suggest, especially in this idea of the 'cultural shadow'. For example, Christianity might indeed address violent impulses, let's say, but only by way of normative rejection (and I suppose that's why it's the 'shadow'), whereas violence was more fully integrated into a 'pagan' ethic (in the glory of battle, for instance, and eternal reward for valour in Valhalla or what have you).

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

Well I was most interested in this idea of 'depth' that you establish with the terms 'social-ego, cultural-shadow, historical unconscious, and collective unconscious', so I was expecting something along the lines of 'Christianity doesn't address the European "shadow" in the way that paganism does, for example...'.

Of course, nothing in this kind of discussion is falsifiable to any serious degree, so no-one can really 'prove' or 'disprove' anything here, but I was curious as to what kind of things you had in mind in any case. It did seem to me that your understanding of Christian discourses was a bit thin, so I expected to be able to counter your assertions, but even in that case it would have been instructive in the context of the categories of 'cultural depth' that you suggest, especially in this idea of the 'cultural shadow'. For example, Christianity might indeed address violent impulses, let's say, but only by way of normative rejection (and I suppose that's why it's the 'shadow'), whereas violence was more fully integrated into a 'pagan' ethic (in the glory of battle, for instance, and eternal reward for valour in Valhalla or what have you).

Well, I don't care if this concept is falsifiable at present, whatever about it that can will become falsifiable when it's sufficiently developed, evolved, and understood as an idea. The vision, insight, or revelation is more important at this stage.

I see, the idea is a bit more sophisticated, for example, in America the (social-persona is liberal and the social conscious is Christian, Republic, and Democratic)-this is the social ego this is basically what is most evidenced on the face of American society, the cultural shadow is the negative faces of what is most prominent in the social conscious and within the cultural shadow are the recesses or emerging elements of the historical conscious that are associated with repressed drives, longings and desires of the culture which will be tied to our Pagan historical nature but by in no means contains all of it-here it's still pretty mix, being an inversion of what is conscious and aspects of our pagan nature, but the deeper you go the more Pagan it gets where in the historical conscious it's all Pagan, then the collective unconscious is about what is pagan giving way to what is true about all human cultures across evolutionary history.

Well, it doesn't matter what the religion of the social ego is you're always going to have a cultural unconscious. My thinking is that what is unconscious will become conscious in some way. Now this would be true even if Paganism were the shared religion of the social ego. I think Christianity however is more so too antagonistic to the Pagan nature of the European and so is being shed for a new religious conscious this however might not result in a resurgence of Paganism. That is Paganism as practiced by the Vikings and Germanic tribes may never fully remerge as it is mostly lost due to Christian tampering, erasing, and a lack of writing, but it will populate our imagination and drives or desires, impulsive actions, fantasies, and longings being most evidenced in our media production from literature to film, new religious forms, and celebrations. To my mind Christianity has to integrate the Pagan to survive as a religious culture, I think this is why Mormonism is growing in greater popularity than mainstream Christianity in America, because it has integrated the unconscious Pagan into its religious conscious. I think the same is true of Tolkien and the Lord of The Rings.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

Well I was most interested in this idea of 'depth' that you establish with the terms 'social-ego, cultural-shadow, historical unconscious, and collective unconscious', so I was expecting something along the lines of 'Christianity doesn't address the European "shadow" in the way that paganism does, for example...'.

Of course, nothing in this kind of discussion is falsifiable to any serious degree, so no-one can really 'prove' or 'disprove' anything here, but I was curious as to what kind of things you had in mind in any case. It did seem to me that your understanding of Christian discourses was a bit thin, so I expected to be able to counter your assertions, but even in that case it would have been instructive in the context of the categories of 'cultural depth' that you suggest, especially in this idea of the 'cultural shadow'. For example, Christianity might indeed address violent impulses, let's say, but only by way of normative rejection (and I suppose that's why it's the 'shadow'), whereas violence was more fully integrated into a 'pagan' ethic (in the glory of battle, for instance, and eternal reward for valour in Valhalla or what have you).

Also, I've read the Bible cover to cover 3 times in my life. My understanding of Christianity is far from thin. You could say I've been exposed to too much Christianity over my lifetime.

 

[John K]

Do you guys think he's an INFJ?

I don't think Jordan Peterson is an INFJ. There's just too much Fi dominating the way he presents himself in public - it has a very strong undercurrent of ought-ness about it. It's curious, but although I agree with a quite a lot of what he says, and although I admire his mental agility and quality of articulation in responding to debate, I find him too manic in the way he presents himself and that puts me off what he is saying. It's as though emotionally he protests too much - it's like a knife screeching on glass!

 

[aeon]

I don't think Jordan Peterson is an INFJ. There's just too much Fi dominating the way he presents himself in public - it has a very strong undercurrent of ought-ness about it. It's curious, but although I agree with a quite a lot of what he says, and although I admire his mental agility and quality of articulation in responding to debate, I find him too manic in the way he presents himself and that puts me off what he is saying. It's as though emotionally he protests too much - it's like a knife screeching on glass!

Wow, based on my experience of him, this is really on-point. Especially the “ought-ness.”

I value some of what he says, but there’s a good amount of things I do not. Listening to/watching his stuff isn’t the best use of my time, all told.

I do understand why he has become known, given his messages within the current cultural climate.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

It's as though emotionally he protests too much - it's like a knife screeching on glass!

I find this to be the case of most hoomans

 

[Wyote]

I do understand why he has become known, given his messages within the current cultural climate.

Jordan Peterson, like many people who rise up from obscurity, is a result, not an equation

 

[aeon]

I find this to be the case of most hoomans

Yeah, but that’s because you rub your thumb on the edge of the glass and make it resonantly sing like an OG boss.

And not because you’re showing off. That’s just who you are. So of course the rest of hoomanity is screeching inanity.

You must really wonder sometimes.

Best,
Ian

 

[aeon]

Jordan Peterson, like many people who rise up from obscurity, is a result, not an equation

Perhaps he is both, because culture is like a feed-forward and feed-back resonant circuit. He may not oscillate, but he is certainly a waveshaper.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

Yeah, but that’s because you rub your thumb on the edge of the glass and make it resonantly sing like an OG boss.

You are too kind my friend

Spoiler

You must really wonder sometimes.

Spoiler: always

 

[Wyote]

Perhaps he is both, because culture is like a feed-forward and feed-back resonant circuit. He may not oscillate, but he is certainly a waveshaper.

Cheers,
Ian

Touché

 

[John K]

I find this to be the case of most hoomans

In my employment days I wasn't a great fan of HR-dom, but there were some useful things that came out of it for me. One was a competency called Concern for Impact, one out of a pantheon of competencies that we had to get our heads around. This one does touch a bit of gold though - it says no matter how clever and learned you are, or no matter how skilled you are, if you cannot express it to others in ways they can relate to, and if you are not open to their responses and react to them in an appropriate way, then you will have real problems being effective. JP seems to touch well the people who are already on board with what he says, but pushes others further away from him.

 

[Wyote]

Concern for Impact

Probably one of my personal major ideologies, in fact

JP seems to touch well the people who are already on board with what he says, but pushes others further away from him.

Some would argue that this is a desired result of living right/authentically

 

[John K]

Some would argue that this is a desired result of living right/authentically

Ah yes! But maybe only if that's what you intend, and your intention is authentic and ethical. What I worry about with JP is that the way he sometimes comes across, he loses folks who would otherwise be natural supporters. But this sounds very black and white - it's really quite nuanced and for me it's more a distinct flavour rather than something completely dominating his presence.

 

[Wyote]

Ah yes! But maybe only if that's what you intend, and your intention is authentic and ethical. What I worry about with JP is that the way he sometimes comes across, he loses folks who would otherwise be natural supporters. But this sounds very black and white - it's really quite nuanced and for me it's more a distinct flavour rather than something completely dominating his presence.

For sure, I wasn't disagreeing but just offering a perspective which he may or may not hold himself.
He seems to at least attempt to live authentically which is more effort than many put in.
Trying to live authentically while bringing others on board with that journey isn't an easy thing at all and is a lifelong process like many things.

 

[John K]

For sure, I wasn't disagreeing but just offering a perspective which he may or may not hold himself.
He seems to at least attempt to live authentically which is more effort than many put in.
Trying to live authentically while bringing others on board with that journey isn't an easy thing at all and is a lifelong process like many things.

Very much so. I didn't see you as disagreeing, but as you say, looking at some of the different angles. It's really good to hear someone like JP express the views he holds so very well, often against a highly politicised opposition that tries to demonise him. I have found myself falling into the voyeuristic trap though of enjoying his wins for the sake of the game rather than because of the validity of the case . That may not actually be down to him in many cases, but the way his protagonists champion him on video.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

I don't think Jordan Peterson is an INFJ. There's just too much Fi dominating the way he presents himself in public - it has a very strong undercurrent of ought-ness about it. It's curious, but although I agree with a quite a lot of what he says, and although I admire his mental agility and quality of articulation in responding to debate, I find him too manic in the way he presents himself and that puts me off what he is saying. It's as though emotionally he protests too much - it's like a knife screeching on glass!

Well put and I couldn't agree more.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

Trying to live authentically while bringing others on board with that journey isn't an easy thing at all and is a lifelong process like many things.

While at the same time not completely possible. Jordan Peterson to my mind isn't wrong in trying to live authentically, but authenticity will always create polarity because values within the self are like an oligarchy not a democracy and we are not all the same, so as Peterson lives authentically as it is for us all he is inevitably going individuate in presentation pursuing what he values most as a person and frankly this is going to put people with differing value structures than him off.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

I have found myself falling into the voyeuristic trap though of enjoying his wins for the sake of the game rather than because of the validity of the case .

Yes, I don't think you're alone. I think Peterson's media presence is a breath of fresh air for people who value the boarder social values his actions express in presentation being to me intellectual curiosity, good faith interlocuter ethics, and open discourse. In a climate of ever-increasing forms of censorship, it's understandable why people like Jordan Peterson, because in some sense for they he is a beacon or a symbol of hope and freedom. Also, it can't be understated in a media that openly promotes ideas like toxic masculinity, incompetent and weak men in popular media that Jordan Peterson's message that has its roots in existentialism, Jungian psychology, and virtue ethics is appealing to a growing demographic of men in particular young men who are turning away from contemporary culture and mainstream media.