One thing we forgetting.

"

ebeninami wrote:

Entertainment is blinding us-
..
Take 1 minute , close your Eyes and think about your Death.

It might change the way you live now.


This is such a deep thoughts, words cant describe it, you have to think about it yourself.

"

Morkonan wrote:

"

ebeninami wrote:

Entertainment is blinding us-
..
Take 1 minute , close your Eyes and think about your Death.

It might change the way you live now.


This is such a deep thoughts, words cant describe it, you have to think about it yourself.

Thinking about "life" and actually "living it" and "interacting with it" is much more beneficial than dwelling on the inevitability of death.

Would you rather be motivated by "I want to live, experience, and interact with "life"" or "Death is coming for me, so I better get busy?"

Death will come whether you're ready for it or not, but it's not here, right now. Life is always there, right in front of you, and it's ready for you to act.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

erdelyii wrote:

that we try to draw "meaning" from life while detatching our "Is" from existence itself is sad.

While I certainly would warn against premature detachment, each individual's fate is inexorable: our consciousnesses will be detached from existence itself. Sad but true.

As I said before, the "technical" philosophical meaning of idealism is not be conflated with the colloquial meaning of idealism. In the (truly) proper context, there is no contradiction in nihilistic idealism; indeed, nihilism is almost always idealistic.

"

erdelyii wrote:

I think we're relying on incomplete, subjective data from our senses x linguistic limitations x cultural norms to form opinions that have profound effects on the way we live, as separate, me-and my-first beings, and that that is the sad thing.

"

erdelyii wrote:

I don't think consciousness is separate from existence itself

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As such, I am inclined to agree with Jordan Peterson that the best way to understand what a person thinks is not to merely listen to what they say, but to observe what it is they do (of which speech is a subset of such behaviors). By interacting with me on this forum, by using your body to type or tap out the words you have, you are telling me what you believe in a manner that is arguably louder than the message of your words themselves.

"

According to the most recent data available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), "the average American spent $9,596 on healthcare" in 2012, which was "up significantly from $7,700 in 2007."

It was also more than twice the per capita average of other developed nations, but still, in 2015, experts predicted continued sharp increases: "Health care spending per person is expected to surpass $10,000 in 2016 and then march steadily higher to $14,944 in 2023."

"

The median wage in the US per person is $26,695. This tells us a lot since the median household income is at $50,500. Since the Census data looks at households, this data hones in on individual wage earners. 66 percent of Americans earn less than $41,212.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Thus, when you say

"

erdelyii wrote:

I don't think consciousness is separate from existence itself

I don't fully because you actually think that. You seem more than willing to utilize the instrumentality of your physical body to bring about the perception of your words into my consciousness, rather than trying to achieve the same ends through a purely mental effort. This implies the belief in an existence separate from your consciousness, such that you can cause a physical chain of events would unravel until the words physically appeared on a screen before my eyes. Am I to believe your words are but the product of pseudorandom accident, or driven by a volitional consciousness that accepts, by deed if not by word, that existence exists independent of your consciousness?

Knowledge of existence, in contrast, implies consciousness — to include the imperfect knowledge of mere guesswork. But knowing that a thing exists is quite thankfully not a prerequisite for its existence; indeed, the relationship is the other way around.

"

erdelyii wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As such, I am inclined to agree with Jordan Peterson that the best way to understand what a person thinks is not to merely listen to what they say, but to observe what it is they do (of which speech is a subset of such behaviors). By interacting with me on this forum, by using your body to type or tap out the words you have, you are telling me what you believe in a manner that is arguably louder than the message of your words themselves.

Not at all.

Clearly, I'm currently an entity that can interact with the world in a way that's making sense of it enough to generate effects and learn. Even choosing to lie in a dark room and stop I can't shut that off, so to my way of thinking I may as well make the best of the current situation that I can.

"

erdelyii wrote:

I'm by no means an SJW (TM) but actually, you could watch what I do in my life and say hey yeah this person's actions do speak loudly of their beliefs and they are absolutely social justice beliefs. I find it crazy that standard socialist ideas are painted as rabid lefty whining in a country where

"

According to the most recent data available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), "the average American spent $9,596 on healthcare" in 2012, which was "up significantly from $7,700 in 2007."

It was also more than twice the per capita average of other developed nations, but still, in 2015, experts predicted continued sharp increases: "Health care spending per person is expected to surpass $10,000 in 2016 and then march steadily higher to $14,944 in 2023."

and

"

The median wage in the US per person is $26,695. This tells us a lot since the median household income is at $50,500. Since the Census data looks at households, this data hones in on individual wage earners. 66 percent of Americans earn less than $41,212.

"

erdelyii wrote:

I suggest you take a buttload of psychedelics. If you say that you have done so, I throw my hands up and maybe will have to learn some formal philosophy to get in on this effable perspective.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Oh my fucking god, I laughed so hard.

Look, I have no qualms with people who use drugs recreationally, providing they're ethical regarding what types of people they're funding with their purchases. But someone thinking that their trips are real is to me like someone who thinks wizardry is real because they watched Harry Potter too many times. Slow down before you give yourself permanent brain damage.

"

Jordan Peterson Is Divisive Because of His Weaknesses, Not His Strengths
Jordan Peterson is merely the 2018 version of Robert Bly and the mythopoetic movement of the 1980s

Michael Barnard

Jordan Peterson is many things. He’s a former clinical psychologist and a former University of Toronto professor. He’s a best selling author of Twelve Rules for Life: An Antidote To Chaos and he’s a YouTube and Patreon star who makes a reported $100,000 a month. He’s become famous in large part for his refusal to address students by their preferred gender-neutral pronouns.

He’s been called the most influential public intellectual in the Western world and the intellectual we deserve. He’s also been called an intellectual huckster, the stupid man’s smart person, a secularized televangelist, and dangerous.

So why is he so divisive? Why are so many intelligent, educated people deeply leery of Peterson while so many others are deeply enamored of him and his ideas?

His Academic Merit
Peterson was a serious academic with rock-solid credentials and academic publications within his discipline. He has a PhD from McGill University, one of Canada’s best universities, taught and researched at Harvard University, and was a tenured Professor at the University of Toronto. However, the philosophical background for his book, 12 Rules for Life and his YouTube popularity over his gender pronouns debate arise not from his area of academic expertise, but from non-adjacent areas in which he has no academic expertise. Many of his supporters extend his academic expertise and bona fides to his popular writings, but many don’t; therein lies one divide.

His Social Ideas
Peterson is a social conservative of a particular type. He’s Christian. He thinks men are inherently different than women and that is a positive versus merely interesting thing. He has a theory of masculinity, which is patriarchal in nature. He has a strong belief — see his lobster metaphor — that humans are inherently and innately hierarchical and that men should be more dominant. He’s on record as espousing enforced monogamy. He refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns. Some social conservatives find his stance appealing; some social conservatives don’t. Therein lies another divide.

He Patronizes Extremists
His comments on enforced monogamy, especially, have made Peterson the patron saint of incels, MGTOW, and men’s rights activist-types. These are men who, because of their toxic misogyny, have significant problems having any type of beneficial relationship with women; men who are much more likely to be violent to women, often fatally. Peterson is giving them quasi-intellectual cover for their misogyny and has been for years, often in one-on-one Skype counseling sessions for which he charges $200.

He does not draw a clear line. Instead, he allows his better ideas to be expropriated and turned into vileness. His propensity for authoritarian demagoguery, as noted by his former mentor, means he says more of the things the masses like to hear. He echoes their echoes and makes a great deal of money from it.

For misogynists, this doesn’t seem problematic. For the rest of us, it’s an ugly and venal aspect of Peterson that makes us even less interested in what simplistic nuggets of guidance he’s actually right about.

Carl Jung
Within the mythopoetic men’s movement, Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung is a rock upon which entire philosophies of thought, belief and action can be built without qualm. For the rest of us, Jung is an interesting historical character, who had a few good insights but has been superseded by empirical reality. Peterson is all over Jung, as Robert Bly was in the early-1980s. Most of Peterson’s readers have vaguely heard of Jung and gain most of their knowledge of him through reading Peterson. People who have moved on from Jung shake their heads over his recurrence.

The Quality of His Advice
Some of his advice is good, but incredibly obvious; some of his advice is head-scratching; and some of his advice is pure farce. Here is the complete list of Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life:

Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
Make friends with people who want the best for you
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie
Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
Be precise in your speech
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
Be truthful, don’t be friends with people who are going to backstab you, make your bed. Sure. Okay. But that’s dime-store wisdom. Pet a cat? Shoulders back? Don’t let your children make you hate them? This is fatuous stuff, even by the standards of genre of self-help books.

As for “be precise,” as all of the critics point out, Peterson couldn’t be precise if his life depended on it. And the humility part is not his strong suit.

There is a strong division between people who think Peterson’s rules are amazingly wise and offer valuable guidance, and those who look at them and think that they are trite, obvious, or merely silly.

His “Inherent Genius”
His followers and advocates seem to think that Peterson is an unrivaled genius; most of the rest of us think he’s a bright guy who’s showing strong signs of being unhinged.

Peterson is merely the current front-man for the recurrent and always mythical crisis of masculinity. Last time around it was Robert Bly, Joseph Campbell, and Robert Johnson who were the foci. This crisis of masculinity occurs in relatively affluent younger, white males with too much time on their hands. The focal points for action are always older white father figures. The repetition is merely tiresome and predictable.

The excesses of the adherents to the crisis of masculinity movement are mostly harmless, except that we are in an era of self-radicalization on the internet; incels are turning into mass murderers and the single biggest predictor of mass violence is previous domestic violence against women. We are in an era when absurdly puffed up strongmen are leading countries.

Those of us who think Peterson is dangerous point to his worst and most dangerous adherents and ask why he isn’t actively talking them down instead of talking them up.

"

Xavderion wrote:

This beardy son of a gun will save us from Death.

"

...

The house is faded, to say the least. In a ramshackle kitchen an unwashed frying pan sits on an ancient-looking electric hob; empty beer bottles are clustered by the sink in which is stacked a heap of saucepans and utensils. Next door is one of several sitting rooms: a wall of windows facing the front drive and the thick-forested canyon beyond; a double mattress on a stained carpet; a bed sheet pinned up to block some of the morning light.

The space opens into the largest room in the house — a long cavernous hall with high vaulted ceilings — designed, my host says, by the architect of San Francisco’s Palace of Fine Arts. At one end is a huge open stone-and-brick fireplace; at the other a 4ft pile of rubbish — floorboards, pulled-up carpet, panelling and electrical wire. De Grey is gradually renovating the place, he says. He is at an early stage.

He wears a green hoodie over an olive shirt, jeans and worn black trainers. His long greying hair is tied in a ponytail and an expansive dark brown beard reaches almost to his stomach. He beckons me through to the “sun room”, his favourite spot — two wicker armchairs either side of a glass-top table on which sits his laptop and an open bottle of IPA beer. It is 11.30am on a crisp Saturday morning. As we start to talk, I can see my breath forming clouds in the air in front of me...

He has persuaded his Indian fiancée, a research biologist who is extricating herself from her current relationship and whom he asks not to be named, to move in with him. This would be progress: his ex-wife — the geneticist, Adelaide Carpenter, whom he met at Cambridge university — insisted on staying in the UK when he founded SENS, leaving him spending half the year in a rented flat in Mountain View.

When his fiancée arrives he hopes, in time, to “retreat into glorious obscurity” with her, pulling back from a busy speaking schedule that takes him around the world to publicise his work. Her first request might be for central heating.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Say what you will about Joseph Campbell, but without him, we wouldn't have Star Wars. Or the chance to make literary professors vaguely uncomfortable just by mentioning the word 'monomyth'.

Without Jordan Peterson we wouldn't have...uhm...yeah, I got nothing. At most we'd lose his carefully posed looks and that magnificent Jeremy Irons vibe, but we already have Jeremy Irons so what the fuck, the guy's basically useless in my eyes. As with most of this shitshow we're enduring, I can't wait to see what a more rational perspective will say about him and his devotees in hindsight.

I will say this though: he and his are just so easy to tune out with little to no fear of missing anything. It's like actual Kool-Aid. I've drunk it a few times over in the States, for God knows what reason. It never tasted anything but cheap and nasty, an imitation so stoic in its artificial formula it becomes some vile thing of nature in and of itself. But I imagine someone accustomed to it would find fresh fruit juice or even higher quality cordial lacking, maybe even unnatural. I've nothing against Kool-aid drinkers...but I sort of just glaze over when they try to tell me anything about their experience of it because I've had my own. Brief but sufficient.