|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 9:33:02 GMT -5
Here I want to raise the issue of 'stories' again with vincent for Si. Vincent has some correlation of Si with linear stories due to the sequencing, the chronological skeleton of them. For instance you're more likely to find novelists in delta than in gamma and when you find them in gamma they're doing something else--like the way Ayn Rand is both polemicizing and mythologizing. But Vincent said here early on that Peterson doesn't tell personal linear stories about himself and others, that Si PolR people basically don't.
Well, i was certainly wrong when i said that Si polr people don't say those personal linear stories.
They certainly do.
And it was also wrong to say that Peterson doesn't tell those stories.
That's indeed what he does in this preface.
And yes, they are very very personal.
But the thing is, he doesn't tell them for the same reasons Si users usually tell them. Pretty much all the personal stories in this preface are about how he found that he wasn't who he thought he was. How his worldview and his perception of himself changed.
How he lost his socialist religion, for example.
They are stories of crisis. And this seems Ni over Si to me. He is looking at the points of collapses in his trajectory.
When Si users offer ancedotes there is usually a cumulative and constructive aspect to it. They tell us how their Tree came to have so many leaves, how their bark became so thick.
Here Peterson is doing pretty much the opposite. He tells us how he fell from the Tree and how he lost himself and was "granted the gift of a problem".
tbcd.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 9:45:20 GMT -5
He only starts telling us what he learned, as opposed to unlearned, at the end. After he "met" Jung and after the study of "comparative mythological material" made his nightmares dissapear. But then there is no anecdote anymore.
No specific story about how he came to these discoveries and understandings.
Only chapters and subchapters summaries.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 9:50:29 GMT -5
Nothing specific stories about how he came to these discoveries and understanding.
?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 9:55:56 GMT -5
Here I want to note the similarity with Te Sis we've discussed of having a confidence in their insights that verges on messianic, when they are neither old enough to have earned it nor young enough to have an excuse. I believe this comes from the jarring juxtaposition of the formulaic frame with "N". The for lack of a better word 'grid-like' frame is over-awed by the sequence of its own cognitive development.
There is indeed a lot of similarity. But with Peterson, the awe comes with a lot of dread too.
You can definitely see both sides of the N domain.
That's usually not the case with the TeSis.
The dreadful (Ni) side of N is usually lacking.(counter)phobically supressed.
Sure, some of them will go as far as to call themselves "Orpheus", but their Descensus ad Inferos is ridiculous, completely grotesque compared to Peterson's experience.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 10:05:34 GMT -5
Nothing specific stories about how he came to these discoveries and understanding.
?
Oops, "no specific stories".
After he tells us that the comparative study of mythology study "cured" him, he gets a lot less narratively autobiographical and a lot more aphoristic. He tells us, for example, that he "learned why people wage war".
And that "The world as forum for action is “composed,” essentially, of three constituent elements, which tend to manifest themselves in typical patterns of metaphoric representation. First is unexplored territory – the Great Mother, nature, creative and destructive, source and final resting place of all determinate things. Second is explored territory – the Great Father, culture, protective and tyrannical, cumulative ancestral wisdom."
But the "Source" of those discoveries is nothing less than the Collective Unconscious and the whole field of mythological studies.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 10:46:18 GMT -5
After he tells us that the comparative study of mythology study "cured" him, he gets a lot less narratively autobiographical and a lot more aphoristic.
He tells us, for example, that he "learned why people wage war".
And that "The world as forum for action is “composed,” essentially, of three constituent elements...
Yes, he grandstands. In swashbuckling Te frame fashion. But his sword and epaulets aren't piecemeal and/or cardboard cutout as with the TeSi gurus. They are both sweeping and have depth. No fur. He doesn't quite wear fur in his commander's cap. But yes, 'aphoristic'. 'Between logical and gnomic'--intentionally and affectedly so.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 13:31:43 GMT -5
After that he quotes Jung. There's no attribution
Speaking of attribution, i find it very interesting that one of the few names he actually "drops" in this preface is Orwell's.
"Orwell said, essentially, that socialists did not really like the poor. They merely hated the rich. His idea struck home instantly." From the footnotes, what Orwell actually (as opposed to "essentially") said was this :
“Sometimes I look at a Socialist – the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation – and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed.”
And the thing is... Orwell was a socialist... Who also said, for example, "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
It's pretty significant, imo, that Peterson's found his "cure from socialism" from a socialist, and doesn't quite acknowledge that paradox.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 13:40:40 GMT -5
The other name he drops, besides Jung's one as a pro is Freud's. vincent
And he gets rid of him in two sentences :
"I read Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams, and found it useful. Freud at least took the topic seriously – but I could not regard my nightmares as wish-fulfillments. Furthermore, they seemed more religious than sexual in nature."
Useful and serious. And that's it.
Well... i'm not sure Freud was completely wrong about nightmares as wish-fulfillments. And "more religious than sexual in nature" smells suspiciously like a false dichotomy to me...
The thing is, Freud was almost certainly SiTe. Which, interestingly enough makes him Peterson's supervisor.
And there might be a bit of reverse supervision here.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 13:53:18 GMT -5
And the thing is... Orwell was a socialist... Who also said, for example, "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
It's pretty significant, imo, that Peterson's found his "cure from socialism" from a socialist, and doesn't quite acknowledge that paradox.
" Orwell joined the staff of Tribune magazine [after WWII] as literary editor, and from then until his death, was a left-wing (though hardly orthodox) Labour-supporting democratic socialist.[249]"--wiki That's nuts. Doesn't quite acknowledge? wtf?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 14:00:25 GMT -5
Well Peterson's says
"In the famous essay concluding that book (written for – and much to the dismay of – the British Left Book Club)"
But yeah, it's still nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:03:49 GMT -5
Well Peterson's says
"In the famous essay concluding that book (written for – and much to the dismay of – the British Left Book Club)"
But yeah, it's still nuts.
"But yeah, it's still nuts" seems it would imply that either you previously said or implied it was nuts or that I supplied new information and made a case for its being nuts. Neither of those things happened.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:10:55 GMT -5
Oh, wait...I see what you mean.
You are suggesting that by mentioning the British Left Club he is acknowledging that Orwell was a socialist. But was he? How do we know he remained a socialist unless we know?
In fact Peterson went around bandying about "what Orwell essentially said" very loudly all over YouTube during his meteoric rise without once to my knowledge saying Orwell was a Socialist, let alone that he remained one to his dying day--conveying the impression that if he was one, at some point he stopped, which I, being an airhead, assumed, and never considering checking because of the way he delivered this. So I am not at all amused nor do I feel generous about being forgiving here.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:15:18 GMT -5
I am not an intellectual nor do I claim to be. I am an actress and theater director who wound up teaching languages and non-credit remedial essay writing at a public university. Then I got sick and fell into the Internet. And wound up doing this and here I am. I do the best I can with the holes in my Swiss cheese head. That is all I can do. The effect the Internet has had on me has often made it very hard for me to fact check and follow through. I do not appreciate this from Peterson at all.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:18:14 GMT -5
Of course I realized Orwell had been a Socialist of some sort, wrote Homage to Catalonia and all. But I just assumed he must have at some point moved further to the center. I realize that was very careless of me but I'm not talking about Orwell in front of millions of people. And I assure you Peterson brought this up often with no qualifiers.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:20:33 GMT -5
I am not an intellectual nor do I claim to be. I fully understand that I am far MORE of an intellectual than most people, including most people involved in typology, but that says something about them, not about me.
|
|