|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 14:22:33 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?
No, he isn't acknowledging that Orwell was a socialist.
But he is almost acknowledging some kind of paradox here (written for – and much to the dismay of).
Except this paradox doesn't bother him at all. It's the problem of the socialists, not his own anymore.
That doesn't make him more innocent, or less nuts.
It makes it worse.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:25:23 GMT -5
I argued long and hard on perc with that woman that Peterson's not a huckster. He made ME into a huckster and I let it happen. He purposely underplayed this big time. But again, it's NUTS. It's very easy to find out and sooner or later people do. Which is what's happening now.
wtfingf
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:26:06 GMT -5
He's as bad as David.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:28:09 GMT -5
It's okay, I'll get my second wind. I just have to digest this.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 14:30:04 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.
I don't doubt that he did.
And this goes beyond Si polr.
It's a massive Ne 6th move.
Using the authority of a socialist against the authority of socialism and against socialists.
In french we would say "faire des enfants dans le dos de quelqu'un".
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:44:22 GMT -5
Okay, vincent, I understand now, when you said "that's pretty significant" and 'doesn't quite acknowledge", you meant "that's nuts".
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 14:45:31 GMT -5
You just didn't understand the full weight of it yet because you didn't know he used this "Orwell essentially says" as one of his main talking points on yt years later.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 14:53:09 GMT -5
The thing is... there is another "attribution" issue in this preface. I think.
When i first read those lines: "Something we cannot see protects us from something we do not understand. The thing we cannot see is culture, in its intrapsychic or internal manifestation. The thing we do not understand is the chaos that gave rise to culture. If the structure is distrupted, unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything--anything--to defend ourselves against that return."
My first thought was "this could be a decent summary of Hobbes' philosophy".
That's basically how Hobbes came to justify conservatism and absolutism. Man is a wolf for Man. The state of Nature is a state of chaos. Culture and civilization is a thin veneer, built to avoid the return of chaos, and that should be preserved at all cost.
And i thought about Hobbes again when Peterson tells us about his realization that violence and evil are all too easy.
This, in itself, is nothing new. It's the core idea of conservatism.
Edmund Burke, for example, would have heartfully agreed.
I'm not saying he is just plagiarizing Hobbes.
But Hobbes was SiTe, another of Peterson's supervisors. And we saw what he did to the one he mentioned.
And we just saw what he did to one of the main authority figure of the Left.
And in that context, the looming shadow of the Ancestors of the Right becomes very significant.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 15:06:11 GMT -5
In a way.But the thing is David has deep brilliant insights too.The most important thing here is but what about me?And on a more prosaic note: I wonder if Peterson's 3 is second. That could explain why that dingbat at Enneagrammer typed him as an sx 1. He would have sx 1 zeal. He is a zealot.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 15:08:13 GMT -5
You just didn't understand the full weight of it yet because you didn't know he used this "Orwell essentially says" as one of his main talking points on yt years later.
Yes, i wasn't aware of that indeed. And i'm just beginning to realize the depth and magnitude of the nutsery here.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 15:12:32 GMT -5
The thing is... there is another "attribution" issue in this preface. I think.
When i first read those lines: "Something we cannot see protects us from something we do not understand. The thing we cannot see is culture, in its intrapsychic or internal manifestation. The thing we do not understand is the chaos that gave rise to culture. If the structure is distrupted, unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything--anything--to defend ourselves against that return."
My first thought was "this could be a decent summary of Hobbes philosophy".
That's basically how Hobbes came to justify conservatism and absolutism. Man is a wolf for Man. The state of Nature is a state of chaos. Culture and civilization is a thin veneer, built to avoid the return of chaos, and that should be preserved at all cost.
And i thought about Hobbes again when Peterson tells us about his realization that violence and evil are all too easy.
This, in itself, is nothing new. It's the core idea of conservatism.
Edmund Burke, for example, would have heartfully agreed.
I'm not saying he is just plagiarizing Hobbes.
But Hobbes was SiTe, another of Peterson's supervisor. And we saw what he did to the one he mentioned.
And we just saw what he did to one of the main authority figure of the Left.
And in that context, the looming shadow of the Ancestors of the Right becomes very significant.
So, with Si PolR, whacked Si... well, hey, Sam Vaknin was going around claiming he invented the term 'narcissistic supply', which goes all the way back to Freud's circle... but Vaknin is super super careful about attribution now, almost like an Si dom. And I'm not UNconvinced it's UNrelated to my calling it out so conspicuously on quora. I don't KNOW because I haven't gone back to figure out WHEN he started attributing so carefully. It probably had to happen when he started teaching in colleges. Vaknin said recently that he did everything he could NOT to become a psychology professor but it happened. If he had not he'd probably still be plagiarizing galore. Well, good for him. But Peterson...I mean he is (or at least was) a tenured professor for years and he debated Zizek with this arsenal of tomfoolery ffs.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 15:18:32 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.
With no qualifiers but with lots of Ne 6th authority and confidence.
And as we already observed more than once, we (Ni dom i mean) tend to get "drunk" on Ne.
I mean, the literature describes polr as the "vulnerable function", but there seem to be some kind of vulnerability with our 5th too, that the literature doesn't talk about.
Your carelessness might have something to do with that imo.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 15:21:26 GMT -5
Maybe that's why Peterson got so sick. To get himself to shut up for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 15:25:33 GMT -5
Your carelessness might have something to do with that imo.
Maybe, but my carelessness has to do with I'm not in my lane. I'm very different from you. I hate research, for starters.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 15:26:40 GMT -5
But if I'm going to keep prattling on'the Internet I'll have to do better.
|
|