Jordan Peterson definition of God

[Davis]

I agree that “straight white males” are often portrayed as bad guys, especially by the Left, for whom it’s a term of abuse.

 

Really. Often? By often what do you mean? Like one out of every four men portrayed on TV, the media, literature are bad guys? 1 in 4 heterosexual men are shown in a bad light in novels, TV and news? Are even 1 in 10 men throughout the scope of public portrayal dipicted as either a racist, rapist, homophobe or scummy person? Is this the case? Or is it just snowflaking? Taking the publishing of a news story about rape as a personal attack on your own gender? And no, crazy extremist lefties saying stupid postmodern shit doesn’t count as “frequently”. How often do you actually hear a person say “you are a straight white man and therefore bad”? As opposed to someone talking about a straight white man and talking about, just about anything else? I’d say I’ve full out heard that about 20 times in my life. Rape stories and stories about racism etc are very very much in the minority. Straight white men are normally portrayed as amicable people or just people living their lives perhaps with their own flaws. Jordan Peterson is the ultimate bloody snowflake…and a pretty big denier of many things.

 

[Simon Paynton]

especially by the Left, for whom it’s a term of abuse.

I hear or read this a lot.

[Simon Paynton]

An explanation that requires an explanation is not informative.

It’s just a different language from what you’re used to.  I get it perfectly well, and I think JP has put it in a good way.  It requires, not so much an explanation, as unpacking and discussing.  Any of this kind of stuff does, including morality, which is related.

[Davis]

@Simon,

It’s difficult to take your claim of your support for what Jordan Peterson has said…with the kind of things you’ve said in the past. The only comment that gives you an emotional response is the one about women not being opressed throughout history. You stand by the rest of Jordan Peterson’s astonishing grossness.

Okay. So you agree with him that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Really? I’m surprised by that. You think his climate change denial and his extreme offense over being labelled a “denialist” as though he is a hollocaust denier is reasonable? You think it’s reasonable to consider the female character in the Disney film Frozen as propaganda? I’m really surprised by that. You seem to be okay with the idea that consent is over rated and is some wishy washy vague concept because, it can get complicated sometimes? Is that how you see consent? One of the worst though that you seem to stand by, is insulting trans-people at a presentation. I don’t mean being offensive or rude. I mean vicious pointless humiliating insulting. You stand by that? I wouldn’t have guessed you are against modern sexual education in school. I’m surprised by that one. I’m pretty puzzled why you’d stand by a comment that basically says men and women cannot have a conversation about their problems until the girls stop being so hysterical and speak like adults. Geeze. You think you know a person. And do you really stand by his frequent negative attacks on atheism?

[Davis]

There is a kind of language of spirituality, and if you’re not used to the ideas, it tends to go straight over people’s heads.

Simon is it acceptable to use poetic, vague, evasive language with terms used in a way few people ever do and phrases that are impossible to properly conceptualise like “Faith is that which consistently recreates” without extensive idiosyncratic explanations?

[Davis]

God it that which eternally dies … (and so on) basically reminds me of BOTH the ideacles that come from Chopra’s writing as well as the randomly generated ones that are virtually indistinguishable:

http://wisdomofchopra.com/

The unexplainable requires subtle choices

God is how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence of an action of consciousness across time

Imagination co creates an expression of the explainable choices we have to make.

The future is a reflection of those choices God has already inspired by example.

I mean…which of these makes sense without a 30 page essay that bends the terms used here to idiosyncratic extremes?

[PopeBeanie]

_Robert_ wrote:

We really need to encourage our daughters to enter disgusting trades like sewage system maintenance and chemical tank clean-out and dangerous trades like high power line work

Not encouraging our sons to do those things would be sufficient, imo. Actually, my goal was to encourage my kids’ best and favorite interests. I don’t care what other family’s kids do, but hope they’re allowed to make the best choices, and have the most opportunities. Maybe design and build robots to do the most disgusting things.

 

[PopeBeanie]

I like metaphor and ambiguity at times, and how they allow for liberal, personal interpretation, especially when the speaker is transparent about it. It’s more thought provoking than the strict, dogmatic clarity we see from fundamentalist doctrines and strict dogmas.

But yeah, he churns emotions and waxes nefarious when characterizing infidels. (I’ve mostly avoided his talks and interviews, so these are just my first impressions.)

[Belle Rose]

@Reg

An explanation that requires an explanation is not informative.

That makes absolutely no sense. An explanation is an explanation…

I think you’ll find that just about everything in the universe has a death and rebirth in some form or another. It’s called the cycle of life.

Not everything in this world can be explained or defined objectively.

You can’t define God objectively

[Belle Rose]

Did you listen to the last 10 or 20 seconds of the video? Or did you stop at the word transcendent? LOL

[Simon Paynton]

Davis wrote:

extensive idiosyncratic explanations

They’re only idiosyncratic if you don’t understand them.

[Davis]

We really need to encourage our daughters to enter disgusting trades like sewage system maintenance and chemical tank clean-out and dangerous trades like high power line work

Yeah and these companies and HR departments need to be encouraged to actually take their applications seriously, actually HIRE the women who do apply and make sure they aren’t toxically and RELENTLESSLY badgered and hounded (if not sexually harassed) by a minority of very loud gross toxic agressive assholes  who cannot handle a pair of tits in the workplace…and whom most others do nothing about to stop. Goes both ways.

And in any case, these are jobs we should be encouraging robots to do…or people who really love this work for whatever reason.

[Davis]

Simon you don’t seem to understand what idiosyncratic means. Let’s take an example of idiosyncratic:

 

In group language and highly specialised language, using terms in a way highly outside the norm or in a way not common in the larger discourse on a topic IS idiosyncratic. Especially when a long explanation is given for a strangely worded “term” when a short one everyone already uses is acceptable…especially when if worded simply…there doesn’t seem much profound about it to begin with.

Post-modernists do this kind of shit all the time. Especially the mid 20th century French ones, Baudrillard, Derrida and their followers. Take a term like “difference” and then morph it into something 100 times larger, saturated with meaning which radically changes in each new chapter/book and context…make it very difficult to  fit into any rationally phrased argument that can be critiqued through critical thinking means. Then when someone comes along, reduces it all to the small trivial obvious claim the whole thing really is…and then accuse that person of “not understanding it” or not being “properly versed” in it. We aren’t talking here of technical explanations. Or inventing totally new terms for new ideas. I mean taking old words everyone uses one way, using it in another way (usually packed with tons of meaning not always easy to pin down) requiring long explanations that make critique of it pretty difficult. Post-modernists are utter experts at this.

Interestingly so is Peterson. And it is ironic that he is a huge critic of post-modernism. You’d expect him to be a champion of clear, reasonable straightforward arguments which are accessible to clarity, clarification and proper rational critique. When he ventures into religion, for example…he is just a right wing version of a post-modernist. A top notch practicer of idiosyncratic word babble.

[Davis]

 Not everything in this world can be explained or defined objectively.

If you cannot define something objectively, then you have to say so, admit that you are playing in the land of totally speculative ideas, be extremely open to critique and challenge, constsantly trying to redifine your terms and understand them better, not create a totally new language that warps terms we already use in a confusing way and quite quite importantly…try very hard not to make real world conclusions based on that which is so vague you can barely define it.

I don’t want politicians dictating moral laws based on a vague concept they can barely define. I don’t want Petersons doing things like encouraging the enforcement of religious laws, in some supposedly rational academic authority…when he is unable to actually coherently and logically explain what he is talking about.

There is a difference between having to elaborate on something and creating a whole new irrational or incoherent system to explain something and then trying to then impose that back in a rational or logical way in common discourse…without re translating it back.

If you are sticking to the world of poetry, etherial ideas, casual intellectual conversation, speculation about the after life, art, fun, new age media, cocktail parties, evening chats okay, vague ideas are the fuel of such arts and this isn’t a bad thing. Peterson doesn’t do this. He takes vague ideas, tries to rationalise them by reinventing terms with totally new jam packed and vague meaning in a way that requires explanations that require explanations that require explanations that reference other works which eventually become impossible to discuss rationally. He rationalises things in a way that makes rational discourse very difficult. Perhaps not in psychology. Most certainly in Religion and other social commentaries.

[Simon Paynton]

I think there are many examples within our psychology of things dying and being reborn.

One is being “stripped of all belief” – certainty giving way to uncertainty, giving way to the possibility of new knowledge.

[Author]

Posts