I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that he was suggesting that. His argument is to not say the feminine is chaos and that chaos is bad, because dumb people will use it to justify that women are bad.
If you are going to suggest there is a way to know a better outcome from a less desirable one, can I please see your proof that it is better by showing me the inner standard or yard stick by which you are basing your analysis. Or is it possible that you simply have a faith in your capacity to do so that can't really be proven by evidence? If so, how are you different than someone with a religious faith? Why would you say their faith is in something that doesn't exist but your faith is sound. I hope my question is clear. I think I am asking something like this: How is a belief there is a good any different in a belief there is a God. I ask because my own thingi I could call a mystical realization or Ah Ha moment or any number of other things, happened because I rejected both. There is no God and there is no good and the fear of existential suffering is the cause that makes us believe. So if delusion is the cause of belief in the first two, the third would have to be a delusion too, and one that disappears the moment faith if the first to disappears finally. We suffer from the loss of what is not real and since we were born perfect and full of being joy we return there when our delusions evaporate.
OK, this is what you said and why I may have gotten confused:I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that he was suggesting that. His argument is to not say the feminine is chaos and that chaos is bad, because dumb people will use it to justify that women are bad.
OK, this is what you said and why I may have gotten confused:
What you (I am presuming 'you' here mean DixyCrat) are advocating for, is for promoting something that is false to get the right understanding.
That is the foundation of a church. Sure, god is not real, but, you are better off believing in something not real because it produces a better outcome.(So are these next two sentences additions to what you are saying DC is saying or are you saying them yourself as your opinion.) I ask because he is a Believer who believes God is real whereas you don't believe that so it sounds like something you would say and not him.)
OK. As to belief in God and how we differ, I would agree we may differ but that for me his idea of God and mine all both amount to calling God real, because for me calling God real is more accurate than the alternative.I try and break sections when changing topics. So yes, everything in that section was establishing what I thought his perspective was.
As for belief in god, I would bet he believes that not all gods are the same single god that you do.
The point was that denying facts and reality because it might be misleading to dumb people is a bad policy, even when done for good reasons.
OK. As to belief in God and how we differ, I would agree we may differ but that for me his idea of God and mine all both amount to calling God real, because for me calling God real is more accurate than the alternative.
My opinion on the matter, just to state it again, is that no matter how you couch your opinion and effectively try to present them, those who do not want to believe what you say will not hear it no matter what terms you put it in.
So if you want to fault Peterson for using feminine for chaos and claim it just gives the wrong impression or that it makes him actually anti-feminist, his argument that the radical left is dangerous would be opposed for some other reason if he avoided the chaos thingi altogether.
You will be opposed if you say something that violates somebody's sacred cows some how some way. And if you get tarred with that reputation you will pay hell shacking it.
Being gay used to be considered a treatable mental illness.Pretty much agreed with your sacred cows point. He is in a position where he is asked a great many questions that are not in his field of specialization and he gets some things wrong. His mistakes on those fronts are used against him to disprove everything he says.
Further, people don't like the reality that they are not in complete control of everything and they are pushing back.
Its weird, because I grew up being told that gay people were born that way. I would bet that the vast majority on this forum do not know that a great many college age and below believe that nobody is born gay, and that its a choice. Its weird.
Being gay used to be considered a treatable mental illness.
I don't know anything about it, nor do I understand it. More importantly, I don't care. Be gay, be straight, be something in between. I have my own problems to worry about.Do you think being gay is a choice, or, are people born that way? If you think its a choice, then you can get people to choose not to be gay. If you don't think its a choice, then its horrible to try and get people to not be that way as it causes suffering.
I don't know anything about it, nor do I understand it. More importantly, I don't care. Be gay, be straight, be something in between. I have my own problems to worry about.
Pretty much agreed with your sacred cows point. He is in a position where he is asked a great many questions that are not in his field of specialization and he gets some things wrong. His mistakes on those fronts are used against him to disprove everything he says.
Not buying this. His "errors" always seem to cut rightwards. For example, with climate change. There is no excuse for a learned man and a public intellectual to deny scientific findings on generic suspicion of "anti-capitalist bias." Peterson is full of crap.
And this should answer your question on the previous page about what dangerous people he is siding with. Ignoring climate change is dangerous, as in physically dangerous.
Being gay isn't a problem for me, though it appears to be for others as you mentioned. My only concern for gay's is that they're offered the same opportunity as everyone else. As for my "privileged" position, I started my adult life with nothing, and I still have most of it left. Any small success I've had is due entirely to very hard work and a reputation of integrity. My only advice for "non binary" people would simply be to not talk about it. I have a friend of several years that's apparently gay, I never knew, and still don't care.The counter to that is you sound like someone from a privileged position where others suffering does not impact you. There are marginalized people that have to deal with this, and your stance of not taking a stance only normalizes their marginalization. Further, I notice that you are talking about your problems, and make it seem as if being gay is a problem, also reinforcing violence and bigotry toward non-binary people.
Got a response for that? That was roughly the response I got when I said I don't care what someone identifies as because I am not qualified to give an answer about an individual's identity.
Being gay isn't a problem for me, though it appears to be for others as you mentioned. My only concern for gay's is that they're offered the same opportunity as everyone else. As for my "privileged" position, I started my adult life with nothing, and I still have most of it left. Any small success I've had is due entirely to very hard work and a reputation of integrity. My only advice for "non binary" people would simply be to not talk about it. I have a friend of several years that's apparently gay, I never knew, and still don't care.
Can you link to that? I would like to see what he said, given how often people accuse him of things he did not say.
I could always be wrong here but I think I am up to date on the words he used from those links and in which I fail to see what you did. For example, I think he is perfectly willing to see climate change as a potential problem and would be even more so if he were convinced of it.Or you can catch up by reading my post 339 on page 14 of this thread and the two pages of discussion which ensued.
He's commented on climate change several times. I linked to one particular interview as an illustration.
He didn't say anything like that. He said what his advise would be if asked. Nobody is going to ask him. There will be those who announce their 'whatever' and those who will not. If it's a personal choice and some would do just as he would in their situation or says that is what he would recommend, does that mean that people who do just that are somehow evil?Wow, so you want non-binary people to just shut up and live in the shadows. So long as they don't show their identity, you think they are fine. Also, you are reinforcing white culture by thinking that people could gain as much as you did because you worked hard and became successful. Only white people can work hard and get equity.
This is never ending. You will be wrong for taking a position, or not taking a position. Your privilege is that you don't have to take a position on things.
I could always be wrong here but I think I am up to date on the words he used from those links and in which I fail to see what you did. For example, I think he is perfectly willing to see climate change as a potential problem and would be even more so if he were convinced of it.
I think he made it clear that he believes other issues that he sees and actually believes are very real and dangerous problems to be more to the point as problems than climate change. For some that would include what they will ear for dinner.
I think that includes the danger of a fanatical left convinced of climate change using force to silence deniers, some of whom seem to me to actually believe that climate change is not that big a deal.
I also pointed out how depending on the time and place and context of an argument what you focus on changes. I, for example, tried to say I have my own doubts about climate change while at the same time I go with the consensus. I am aware that science is a best guess based on data data and that new facts can cause opinions to change. I am aware there are those who see the matter as critical to their ideology. I am left to wonder about scientists that disagree. At one time there was only one of them who knew that E=mc2. I am also concerned that the intransigence and scientific ignorance on the right will lead to the an authoritarian left instead of a libertarian left that respects the right to differ rather than violence to silence the opposition.
He didn't say anything like that. He said what his advise would be if asked. Nobody is going to ask him. There will be those who announce their 'whatever' and those who will not. If it's a personal choice and some would do just as he would in their situation or says that is what he would recommend, does that mean that people who do just that are somehow evil?
Pretty simple really. I have faith that what I believe is unimportant and insignificant, that what I feel I know and what I think I believe are like tears in the rain. I am out for a Mr. Toad's wild ride, that I have no control. Everything that happens will happen is God's will because it will happen exactly as it must. Humanity is asleep living in a wrong world.JP wasn't talking about "silencing the opposition" or an "authoritarian left." He was questioning the science based on what he just presumes is an ideological bias on their part. Since he presents no evidence of such bias, and has no real basis to challenge the science, it's clear he is starting from a conclusion of doubt and working backwards to find reasons to justify it.
Thinking global warming is "no big deal" is just another form of denial. We're not warming. Ok, we're warming but it isn't caused by man. OK, man is warming the planet but it won't cause that much harm. All three are denying what the scientific community is telling us, and all three bottom out at exactly the same end conclusion: that inaction on climate change is preferable to action.
It reminds me of when I used to debate Holocaust deniers. This incriminating document is a forgery! Ok, it isn't a forgery, but the German word "ausrottung" doesn't always have to mean "extermination." OK, it does mean "extermination" but the writer was speaking figuratively rather than literally. Doesn't matter what argument is made or what reasoning process is employed, because it always bottoms out at the same conclusion in the end.
I'm not really sure why you're so concerned about "silencing" climate deniers. They are invited on almost every news segment about climate change. It's like inviting moon landing deniers to talk in every documentary or retrospective piece on the Apollo missions. The news media's desire to be perceived as balanced has given deniers way more air play than they deserve.
I might reply that not being part of the solution is the solution since part of the problems I see are the solutions themselves that people see. I believe the real answers are always some third way. Naturally, that creates a paradox from which I can't escape. What is a real solution and what is a solution that isn't just more of the problem. My answer to that, in general, is have a banana.Again, realize I am not giving my position here, but, pretending the be the opposition that I have come up against many times. He said his advice is to not talk about it. That will be seen as suggesting people should not express themselves to avoid the bigotry from others.
As for nobody asking him, well I just did right? Further, not having a discussion about this topic will be seen as reinforcing societies gender stereotypes. Not trying to be actively part of the solution is seen as tacit support of the power dynamics that is white/gender binary culture.
I think one issue is that "i don't care." Can mean different things. It may mean that one has no concern, not only about the problem or who suffers from it. It may also mean that one sees no problem and therefore doesn't have a reason to care. I think Greenman is clearly saying the latter. He isn't going to be worrying about whether you are attracted to the same or the opposite sex. He doesn't care which of those you are.The counter to that is you sound like someone from a privileged position where others suffering does not impact you. There are marginalized people that have to deal with this, and your stance of not taking a stance only normalizes their marginalization. Further, I notice that you are talking about your problems, and make it seem as if being gay is a problem, also reinforcing violence and bigotry toward non-binary people.
Got a response for that? That was roughly the response I got when I said I don't care what someone identifies as because I am not qualified to give an answer about an individual's identity.
Alright. If working hard and not talking about where I put my dick is privilege, then I'm privileged. Who am I to argue? I could wish that my privilege didn't require so much effort, and paid better.Wow, so you want non-binary people to just shut up and live in the shadows. So long as they don't show their identity, you think they are fine. Also, you are reinforcing white culture by thinking that people could gain as much as you did because you worked hard and became successful. Only white people can work hard and get equity.
This is never ending. You will be wrong for taking a position, or not taking a position. Your privilege is that you don't have to take a position on things.
JP associated chaos and opportunity with the feminine: he associates tyranny and creation with masculinity.
He accurately argued that this is how many western myths lay things out.
His anti-femininity, however, is much deeper than the simple negative stide of the feminine in creations myths.
His anti-femininity is in accepting the male-perspective of those founding myths. 1) he does not take a feminine perspective, as it should be closer that the unknown of opportunty and chaos is not a view from femininity; 2) he appreciates the ordering masculine while overlooking other social ordering logics that could contest the male-creator logic; 3) he fails to account for matriarchal, or non-binary systems of myth - for example Hume presents a non-causality view that takes “creation” as simply a story we are used to telling ourselves.
No. I don't think that if women had the right to tell the story they would tell it in a way that limited femininity to being the 'soil' in which a male plants a 'seed'M: This raises some questions for me:
When you say that he accepts the male perspective of founding myths is he accepting their male perspective or is it that the formulation of founding myths is inherently what will always seem to be masculine in nature?
OR it will be masculine because of these effects of gendered typical differences AND because describing society not as a fight to dominate chaos - but as an opportunity for individuals to grow a new way that works for people - is not something supportive of the violence needed to dominate the earth and become the "USA #1 #1 founding myth."It is the making of order out of chaos, the articulation of the amorphous, the felt, the intuited into coherency, in a graspable encapsulated form, a myth that by analogy replicates and lays bare what is archetypal in human nature. And it will be identified as male perhaps because it is a function of thinking and thinking about thinking which is a left brained lateral specialization and left brain lateral specialization may be characteristic of male more than female brains owing to the fact that female brains are wired with a thicker corpus callosum indicitive of the possibility that the two hemispheres of women are wired for more extensive communication with the further implication they may also be more intuitive and connected to their feelings.
Take, for example, the social ordering logic of nursing. Nursing is about the whole person and helping bring them to full health. This is as opposed to typical doctoring, which is about finding and eliminating disease.Can you give me an example of something that would contest whatever social ordering logics might be, perhaps also explaining what those are in the process?
The great mother who gives birth to the earth and nurtures man kind; as opposed to the great father who dominates the extant-earth and creates a world to live in.What is a matriarchal system of myth. What do you mean by binary and non-binary as it applies to myth, like maybe an example of each.
I'm working on this; but I think founding myths are built into how we make meaning out of our sensations. Our social ordering logics (like professions) are built into how we form our intentions and notice our sensations. Our personal narratives (like i'm bob the builder) are how we make sense out of our sensations.How do creation myths become habituated as stories we tell ourselves.
Yes; and masculine dualism is needed to dominate. I can't be better than you if I am you.I think it is because they tell us how to explain the origin of the universe but the nature of our conception of it, how the paradise of unity was lost to the suffering caused by dualistic thinking.