|
Post by vincent on May 19, 2021 17:18:11 GMT -5
Because he would use DIFFERENT ones vincent dear.
Right ! I see what you mean, and i agree.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 19, 2021 22:10:05 GMT -5
Actually they are both true.
On the one hand it is the self-narcosis which renders the messianic profferings so mesmerizing.
On the other it renders them clumsy and careless and more open to being discovered.
This question comes up continually: how aware are people we of their our deceit? I realized this some time ago from studying E: The first deceit is self-deceit.
What Eli called "The Nine in us all".
All roads lead to 9.
All roads stem from 9.
I pondered this at great length during the phase when I studied all those serial killers (and the occasional single one).
Especially the Threes.
* * *
Peterson has two lines to 9 and a 9 wing on the 1, there is no getting around it.
Only going around it.
Around and around 9.
Around It.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2021 6:16:34 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.
Plagiarism or not, I think that ideas stick far better than do specific trademarks or copyrights or the whole delineation about the origin of something. Naming every single "thought-step" another person committed is impossible and redundant, and direct citation removes much of the communication efficiency and playfulness one can have with ideas, as "the magician's trick is up". It's easy to do so when the episteme is relatively scarce and vacuous of good content in general and so very, very few make actual quality contributions, such as is the case of ct, but even there several persons independently arrive at the same conclusions. It's highly plausible there is some significant link between Hobbes and Peterson, perhaps passing through books, teachers, and discussions, however are the diseases(used in a playful manner; not as a negative) called ideas transmitted, but perhaps even if Peterson had a perfect memory, he wouldn't be able to trace it back to Hobbes without some deliberate investigation. (sort of went on a rant here, but I'm just meaning to address "the ownership of ideas")
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 20, 2021 8:16:56 GMT -5
There is something to do this and I was going to say it here @ash . And especially, heavy Ni without enough factors to balance it out (health level, slot of Si and Ti, physiological factors that affect memory, etc.) is swimming in a sea of 'information' that is all related, so the mechanisms to distinguish will usually be weaker than the ones to synthesize and fuse. But: Peterson minored in political science. He never fully stopped entertaining the thought of going into politics (which eventually he effectively did). He was also already interested in conservativism by college. He had years to work on that book and consider and discuss attribution. He placed that Hobbesian quote at the very beginning, first paragraph, right after a messianic epigraph from the Bible about uttering foundational truth never heard before. And then went on to pull that Orwell maneuver, which he years later would use to proclaim repeatedly with a megaphone how he (Peterson) stopped being a socialist without saying Orwell ever was let alone remained one. (Which is the context here you ignore). There is more. There is tons more and it's what's always made Peterson so hard to defend FROM the left TO the left. Try being me trying to defend his being so instrumental in popularizing the term cultural Marxism because he obviously means well and is a philo-Semite doncha know? Which he IS but try explaining to people like Doug Lain who know the Frankfurt School were Marxists who emphasized the role of culture in economics as well as they know their own name why Peterson should be taken seriously and favorably both.Oh, and who also know Orwell died a Socialist to the bone. And try getting a full-fledged Neo-Nazi late bloomer like TPAS to stop using Cultural Marxism as a fully accepted term in political discourse. Sorry, but I'm afraid Jordie will have to go under the mill now.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 20, 2021 9:17:01 GMT -5
"Going under the mill" was a practice we children occasionally implemented in the 60s, at least in the playground in Park City, in Rego Park, Queens (a borough of New York City), wherein one who had offended had to crawl on all fours through a tunnel of standing spread legs, two legs at a time in a straight line. and get their fanny spanked. Because it doesn't come up in a search I am explaining it.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 23, 2021 10:31:02 GMT -5
vincent is visiting his family in Bordeaux for a few days but I'll be adding on here and he may be posting a bit too. Atm I wanted to say that we have other ENTJs, and they're not quantum physicists, psychologists (btw Vaknin's PhD is in physics) or makers of meaning maps from myth--at least not that they realize: labor organizer Adolph Reed, pro-Palestinian activists Norman Finkelstein and Abby Martin, and conservative pro-West polemicist Douglas Murray, who I can't find here (that said, search isn't working well) but I know we at least discussed offsite. Murray's position is diametrically opposed to Finkelstein's and Martin's, could not be more so, and surely getting to Se power from Te (pyro)TEchnics via the telescoping of Ni is how they all manage to stick so eloquently and abrasively to their vision. There's a lot of on camera footage on yt with/from Murray, but this is the best I know--for those who are aware of some nuances in the discussion on "Islamophobia", or want to be--to suss out what is best and worst about him, and how he, like Peterson, telescopes the field for his lens to maximally mesmerize via intellectual gymnastics. It has something to do with depth of field too. Murray is really, really good at it. EDIT: And here's an understandably hostile take on how Murray argues.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 23, 2021 10:41:14 GMT -5
getting to Se power from Te (pyro)TEchnics via the telescoping of Ni is how they all manage TE lEScop IN g as it were....ah these mirrors of mine...
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 23, 2021 10:48:39 GMT -5
Also, and more to the point of this thread, Murray was one of the first people Peterson went on YouTube with when he came back after convalescing. But the 2015 panel discussion with Murray on Islamophobia connects a lot of other dots from the board in general. I do think Murray and Peterson seem like identicals, and it's virtually impossible for me not to see Murray as ENTJ (though counterarguments are of course always welcome).
|
|
anthony
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 1,537
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by anthony on May 23, 2021 11:24:16 GMT -5
vincent , Peterson is very clear that when he discovered the maps of meaning he felt overwhelmed and overawed. He spoke frequently on yt about (and includes in that book) the letter he wrote his father, dear dad, I think I discovered something no one else ever knew, aw shucks. This is clearly and precisely what indicated to me that Peterson does not value Ti. It seems like he 'happened upon' Ti, the maps, and was suddenly aware enough of its implications that he couldn't ignore it, like he discovered territory which had once been completely foreign to him. Then, from that newly discovered vantage point, he speaks of how to 'properly' forge your way through the world given its external laws, procedures, and hierarchical systems(Te), often with a frequent, suddenly emerging awareness of how our current behaviors and actions causally effect the future(which strikes me as incisive Ni tool). Compare with Bertrand Russell's inclination to logical atomism: plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/#:~:text=Metaphysically%2C%20logical%20atomism%20is%20the,simpler%20entities%20making%20it%20up.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 23, 2021 14:56:56 GMT -5
vincent is visiting his family in Bordeaux for a few days but I'll be adding on here and he may be posting a bit too. I'll be back home tomorrow (pretty late in the evening though).
There are indeed a few more things i want to post here.
I'll try to to do that soon.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 29, 2021 3:50:45 GMT -5
So... another thing that struck me in this preface is the way he narrates his "defection" from the Church.
It struck me first because my own experience with this was similar and opposite to his at the same time. Replace "conservatice Protestant" with "Catholic" and everything he wrote in the first paragraph would be true for me too. But then, everything he wrote in the second paragraph would be false for me. I liked pretty much everything he disliked. He was looking for an "excuse to leave", i was looking for an "excuse to stay".
My priest had no issue reconciling darwinism and Genesis, and neither did i.
This difference, i suspect, has something to do with the difference between Ni frame and Ni auxiliary.
It also struck me because of the irony of it. I mean, he tells us he was a darwinian scientist by 12, left the Church for good, embraced the "Modern World", and went straight to socialism.
He makes it sounds like he gave up layers upon layers of traditions, lost faith after faith, beliefs after beliefs, until he found his maps of meaning.
Yet the book starts with a Gospel and ends with another one...
This line in particular :
makes me wonder how much he was actually upset by it all along. And how much of it he is able to perceive even now.
tbcd.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 29, 2021 8:09:39 GMT -5
This line in particular :
makes me wonder how much he was actually upset by it all along. And how much of it he is able to perceive even now.
tbcd.
Well, he implies that he was upset by it a lot all along in a way he was unable to perceive until later, no?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 29, 2021 8:50:59 GMT -5
Well, he implies that he was upset by it a lot all along in a way he was unable to perceive until later, no?
Yes, he does.
But he does it in a way that sounds suspiciously dialectical and "hegelian" to me.
Conservative Christianity -> Dogmatic socialism -> Maps of Meaning.
Thesis, Anthesis, Synthesis.
I suspect that it was never that conservative, that his socialism was never that dogmatic either, that his evolution was more gradual and ambiguous than he seems to suggest it was.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 30, 2021 14:19:38 GMT -5
I suspect that it was never that conservative
Does he really say it was though?
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 30, 2021 14:37:44 GMT -5
that his socialism was never that dogmatic either
"...I started working as a volunteer for a mildly socialist political party, and adopted the party line. Economic injustice was at the root of all evil, as far as I was concerned. Such injustice could be rectified, as a consequence of the rearrangement of social organizations". Then he goes to college and "I involved myself there in university politics--which were more or less left wing at the time--and was elected to the college board of governors". And he right away finds himself gravitating toward what I'll call the bourgeois university trustees. vincent, I think you may be misunderstanding him. He's not saying his socialism was that dogmatic; he's just revealing how Manichaean he is in some fundamental way. He knows (because he's a Gnower of Knosis) what all that stuff really is. But he was like a UK Labor or McGovern Democrat college student...not...a Trotskyite.
|
|