What if I told you there was a man who, more or less, spent his whole life studying the nature of human thought? Let's say he sought the teachings of the presumed wisest men in society, throughout the history of all human existence, and sought to understand them. What if, every time he was met with any idea, he fought with all his intellectual might to destroy that idea, in order to find out what aspects of that idea were inherently flawed? Perhaps he did that with such a multitude of ideas, that only the truest aspects of all the ideas remained of what he studied. Perhaps he did this for over 50 years. What if he then cast aside the Ideological Dross, and synthesized the remaining Purity of Truth into a coherent set of principles, the forging of which was in service of providing an explanation to our existence in order to better us and give us hope? Surely if you lack wisdom, and if you're attempting to seek as much truth as possible, if you're going to Mankind for that understanding, what better place to go than the writings of such a man?

What if I told you that man was Jordan Peterson?

Would you reject the possibility, given your preexisting perception of who that man is, or would you seek the requisite information to discover if that could possibly be true?

I have found the teachings of Man to be quite a potent and destructive thing. But never have I been supplied such a comprehensive view of existence than before Nico's dismissive comments of Peterson drove me to see what the man was all about, and whether or not he was credible. Many times have I been meet with the disparagement of someone whom I had not fully understood, but whose value and insight I wasn't quite willing to cast aside. It seems a common theme with me, that when this happens, I ravenously rush towards discovering the requisite information to see if the disparaging assessment held validity, or if, perhaps, there was something missing from the disparager's risk assessment that tainted their view. In the case of Peterson, I must conclude that he and his positions have been woefully maligned by all who have done so.

He may have a funny voice, he may speak in seemingly silly terms of Big Rats and Small Rats, of Lobsters and Primates. He may say things that make us uncomfortable or angry at times, and we may not yet agree with his understanding of the truth. I don't believe anyone has the ability to be perfect. But again, I've yet to see such a comprehensive view of existence, and the human cognition to boot, ever before in my short time on this earth. I'm glad he's been disparaged, for if he had not been, his insight would have been invisible to me for God knows how long. This manner of thinking is clearly religious. But are we not all religious?

Start with his lectures on Maps of Meaning, or on his comprehensive analyses of religion, or on his 12 Rules of Life. It matters not. What matters is this: if you do not know what he believes, you cannot know if he is or isn't worth listening to, because you haven't. Any who seek to discern truth must do this. And it is my hope that you do as well.

===

I want to start with an emphasis that I respect you and that this is an intellectual pursuit. If you want to tts this to help you read it, I kinda encourage that given my own ADHD. I just want to make sure there's no pressure on you to respond in short order because to demand that would be rude considering the length. Regard this as a letter to a friend displaying my perspective and not some sort of thesis to try to destroy your way of thinking. I wish to be a friend, not a tyrant, so no pressure.

Philosophy sounds exaggeratory to the uninitiated. I think his language bothers you because he uses the words in broad, abstract ways that don't fit into your understanding. In other words, the rules of his language are different than the rules of yours, and thus you may interpret his arguments differently because your definitions don't match. This is basically the definition of a miscommunication, which are intrinsically frustrating. If you understood the functions, you would realize it actually is barebones logic, and that's how philosophy works at the most basic level. If it sounds like a theory, that's because it IS. Every single interpretation of reality is a theory, because phiolosophically speaking, there is nothing that can truly ever be known. That's not to say each interpretation is equally valid, far from it. It's to say that your interpretation of reality, in the form of an argument or a case you're making, must assume premises to be true in order to be sound. Whether or not they're valid depends on if you agree to all the premises. Starting metaphysically is the most comprehensive way to make the case, and this is why the communication takes the form that it does.

The fantastic thing about that video is that it removes all the requisite context to comprehend what he's actually saying in the clips. It lacks all previous context to whichever statement was dishonestly plucked from its original home, then pauses before he continues to make the case in order to adequately shit on him for his wording, because the words he uses are again, metaphysical.

A neuroscientist is a medical scientist who studies the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and nerve cells. Peterson has done this, and uses it in his teachings constantly. He's always talking about the hippocampus, the prefrontal cortex, the hypothalamus, and beyond. An understanding of neuroscience is ESSENTIAL to an understanding of psychology, in the same way an understanding of computer hardware is ESSENTIAL to an understanding of the software that is designed to run on it. Just because he doesn't have a PHD in neuroscience, doesn't mean it wasn't a significant portion of his university studies, and it definitely doesn't mean that he hasn't studied it since then, given that science increases every minute that we labor to increase our understanding. If he didn't study and increase his knowledge to be as up-to-date and comprehensive as possible, he would be a pretty shitty professor indeed, and trust me, I know a shitty professor when I listen to one. So yes, he's a damn neuroscientist, and anybody who listens to him and knows the definition of a neuroscientist, knows it to be true. The same argument directly applies to his understanding of evoloutionary biology; he's studied it significantly due to its importance to his field, and integrates it into his teachings in an extremely cogent way. Unless your definition of a Neuroscientist or an Evolutionary Biologist is that you went to some university and got a fucking degree for that exact discipline, so in that case, to hell with anyone who claims to be a professional Musician or a Composer without having a doctorate from an Ivy league school. To hell with Jon Bellion, Kanye, Kendrick, and J Cole, who graduated magna cum laude in Communications so he clearly doesn't count either. This line of reasoning that the Experts™ can be trusted by virtue of them being Experts™ is so fucking religious it's insane. It's a dishonest, emotional tactic used to silence credited people when they say things that make tyrants upset.

Nobody has to be an expert in anything to comment on it of course, but simultaneously, the value of their interpretation and/or arguments should be based off of whether or not what they were saying stands to reason, is not self-contradictory (a sound argument) and if the premises are true (a valid argument). For example, I watched a Joe Rogan episode where him and Peterson spoke, and in that episode they spoke broadly on psychology and neuroscience for most of the episode. Later, Peterson spoke about how a carnivore diet of simply meats and greens, no carbs, had had a profound effect on his and his daughter's life. Before he began, he paused the dialogue to say, in no uncertain terms to the audience, that he was now exiting the realm of his expertise as a Psychologist, and entering the realm of an uninitiated citizen scientist. I also recall him making a similar remark in one of his lectures when he merely mentioned astrophysicists, he basically brought it up so he could be clear that he knew nothing about it. So that pretty clearly demonstrates an acknowledgement that he may be speaking in pseudoscientific, non-holistic terms on certain topics outside the realm of his expertise. Did Peterson say this before he spoke in the clip about climate change, climatology, and public policy? Well, who the hell knows? The dishonest host didn't give us that. How convenient that he doesn't have to present any contradictory evidence to his narrative. He couldn't poison the well so effectively that way. It's rich to say that Peterson was being obtuse in that clip with his usage of the word "everything," when the host himself is so damn obtuse that he thinks nobody who isn't credentialed gets to speak on a certain topic. Should he should shut the fuck up too, then? Or can we drop the dishonest charade and take people's arguments a priori? This is effectively a fancy way to do ad hominem. I don't have to prove his argument wrong, I can just point to the fact that he doesn't have a degree on that topic! Alright, so where's your degree? Yet I don't hear a single leftist or liberal object to when an astrophysicist like Neil Degrasse Tyson runs his mouth on climatology and public policy. Because they don't disagree with his judgements, they see no need to discredit him based on his mismatched credentials. Forget that he effectively agrees with Aristotle's Dictatorship of the Wise, and loves the idea of the creation of a State called Rationalia, potentially to be created on another planet; see the Cult of Rationality during the French Revolution and see how that went. All of the elite and political class do this; see Billie Eilish and Woody Harrelson pushing radical climate action as well. This is a cheap trick of a religious dogma, and moral people would do well to recognize it, and abandon it. The idea that some ill-defined group of Experts™ gets to decide all matters of public policy based off of their so-called expertise, and more importantly, that they get to be the arbiters of all truth, is a dogmatic, religious principle. Such principles based on a dogmatic, religious faith in mankind, are destined to lead to institutional oppression. Especially when the argument is "well the Experts™ have a lot of things to say on what we should do!" Yes, they certainly do, and they're shit ideas. Fuck the frackers, fuck the workers who labor for oil, fuck the peasants who would go bankrupt if they had to pay $10.50/gal for gas and can't afford a prius or tesla. Our Moral Betters™ and our Experts™ say it's time for climate action! We don't have to balance public policy with any other needs! Oh but I'm not a climatologist, am I? So I guess I shouldn't vote for people who disagree with them either, perhaps I shouldn't have the right to vote at all if I disagree with them. Do they believe this? Well, maybe if they took their arugments to their logical conclusion. They wouldn't argue this way if they actually had intellectual discourse with others, and they wouldn't need to be dishonest.

<!--Ultratrepidarianism... The left seems only to value the opinion of people who agree with them. They will only bring up credentials or expertise when it's convenient for them. They won't ever do it with every dumbass actor in hollywood [ricky gervais railing hollywood] mouthing off about every sociopolitical issue, because they AGREE with all those leftist elites. But even then, for some reason, the only "experts" they, and perhaps America at large, seem to care about, are so-called scientific experts. They don't care about religious experts, philosophical experts, humanities experts. https://www.youtube.com/live/Dk6j_M_bge8?si=mP8ZEm8Hr_bUYvDR&t=1515 It's the AMERICAN PEOPLE who are to be the experts on these things, not unelected beauraucrats that have their own interests and know nothing of the individual experiences of anybody but their own. I've never thought about it that way before... By any metrics, Peterson is an expert in the humanities. Philosophy, Anthropology, History, Biology, Psychoanalytics. He's absolutely an expert. The only reason you don't think he should have a say is because you don't like what he has to say. That's fucking it. Stop trying to hide the ball here. All you're trying to do here is discredit him, because you don't like him, because you disagree with him. Though I'm not certain you even know WHY you disagree.-->

So a Psychologist can't talk about "trans issues" either? Why not? There's no scientific inquiry to be made from his field of expertise on the subject? Or is this because people don't like what he has to say about the topic, given his field of expertise?

In essence, everyone should be able to speak on whatever topic they please. There's a responsibility in doing so, in that there are people who disagree who are going to voice their disagreement. If all they do is counter speech with dissentful speech, there's no problem. But the side for which you are arguing for wants to legislate to punish you, through force of law, which inevitably will be backed up with the government gun, for the language you use. Other than his psychological analysis, the only reason he's ever spoken on "trans issues" is because of such totalitarian law as Canada's Gender Identity Rights Bill C16. And for the same reason, he's famous; people were outraged, and that outrage drove a lot of people to hear what he was saying.

If you think he's sexist, I don't know what to tell you other than that you haven't listened to him. Is it sexist to say there are biological differences between men and women, intrinsic to our design, and that we therefore function in drastically different ways? Is it sexist to call online incels pathetic for their behavior? Is it sexist to say that a man who sees no responsibility in becoming a protector of those less fortunate, strong, or willing to release their inner monster, is weak? Is it sexist to make the case that women are a significant contributor towards the reason that primates evolved to be able to see as clearly as we do? Is it sexist to say that women are also the reason that our species has become as intelligent as we are? I don't think you've labored enough in order to claim that you understand his philosophy of life, if you still think he's somehow sexist.

The next argument you make is interesting, that even if he somehow held the key to the meaning of life, and that were true, that you still wouldn't care? This seems like a very bitter and incomplete thought. If the meaning to life exists anywhere, would discovering and obtaining it not the only thing that matters?! Isn't that what we're all searching for, is meaning?? Now, I don't think he's cracked the code, I think he's taken the best crack at it of anyone in my somewhat vast array of knowledge. I don't think there's anything to lose, taking a deep dive into such philosophy. If you come out and it's completely worthless, at least now you can say exactly why you're convinced as such. If you come out and it's got a preponderance of truth to it, then you've still profited! So how can you know it's false if you haven't absorbed more of it? My theory is that because you were younger when you considered yourself a fan of his, you didn't fully grasp it, and now you assume that the snippets you see of him back up the negativity bias you've developed. Isn't it worth another shot?

How can you simultaneously say that his reasoning is so profound that it becomes grandiose, exaggeratory, and frustrating, but also that his advice is too simple to be of any value? This seems to me to be a very flawed conception of his philosophy. You recall in previous voice memos I've spoken about the rich leper who was told by Jesus to wash in the river Jordan? Before we do great things, we must first do simple things; we have to start the first place we possibly can, otherwise we never start. So when he's simple he's too simple, but when he's complex he's too complex?

So in terms of getting back to dry land, you think that Tate would be a better shipmate than Peterson? Tate is a broken clock and has no self-awareness. He says correct things on accident and most the time he couldn't tell you why. He says straight up evil things on a daily basis, and beyond that, you and I know that there's no question that he's a sexist. That's not even in the same ballpark as Peterson even by your standard, yet you'd jump out the boat without a life preserver if it were captained by Peterson, but if it were captained by Tate you'd stay?

You say they "go in" on his character? It sounds like you're describing a character assassination. That's not a good thing. It's maligning and misrepresentation at its finest, intended to destroy him. It's anti-intellectual, non-holistic, psuedoscientific, religiously dogmatic, and frankly totalitarian. The only thing that differentiates someone who thinks like them, and a tyrant, is the willpower and competence with which to create an organizational structure behind their ideology.

So when you see someone you dislike, you go to other people who dislike them in order to figure out what the arguments against them are, so you can build for yourself a better explanation for why you dislike them? Healthy skepticism is a necessity of life, but I think you have to be careful with that; this tends to feed confirmation bias. I think you need to synthesize all the information you can, and make as cogent arguments as possible against whatever you're listening to. If something doesn't sound right to me, I tend to pause and think about it, a lot of the time, out loud. I'll do this whenever something seems non-holistic; I pause and ask myself, or others, why that's wrong. It's easy to look at a pre-edited, synthesized collection of clips in context and someone's commentaries on them. It's far more difficult to actually discern the truth for yourself, but it's damn worth it. You have to go to the source, if you want to know whether or not it is true, not a cherrypicking of the source. If it involves all of the source, or at least, enough to make sense of what's actually being said without commentary cutting in to obscure the original intent of the messaging, only then can you have a rational judgement of it. Otherwise, it's entirely subjective and intangible, which is the worst aspect of that video as far as I can see.

I want to emphasize that I knew what I was asking for when I sent you my position. I enjoy the process of rational discernment, I enjoy discourse, so the fact you disagree is not at all disatisfactory to me. If at all I am disatisfied, it's when I think the explanations for the conclusions are lacking, which is why I spent all the time typing this out. I believe, as you do, that we're both valuable, and we don't want either of us to be led astray by lies masquerading as truth. It's hard to tell the difference, thus the disagreement, thus the dialogue. We're both exploring to make sure our understanding is true, because neither of us can know what only the other has witnessed. This is why I sent my witness to you. It can be uncomfortable to disagree, but I don't hold your frustration against you when I'd be blind if I couldn't see it in myself. If we're frustrated, it's not with each other. We're frustrated that we're being confronted with a lack of common understanding, and that's human.

I think your system for role models is headed in the right direction; it's based on truth, not on people. When people say things you believe to be untrue, you reject those ideas. This is correct; you're not worshipping a person and believing everything they say, you're taking their statements at face value and discerning whether or not you think they are true given your understanding thus far. I think Peterson would fit into your system better than you know, and I believe you're sorely mistaken when you say he has nothing of value to offer you. Maybe he became senile since 2017, I don't know, that's just what I'm listening to right now. But I think there's much wisdom in his words and for whatever it's worth, I want to offer a secondary opinion in that I think he's worth giving another try, perhaps from the beginning, as I did. If you can separate the wheat from the chaff with Kanye, who is far more contradictory and convoluted, I have no doubt you could do it with Peterson. I have my poddies lined up with people I disagree with on the daily and I do the same thing with them as I do with anyone.

Again, I don't believe in role models in the sense that we should look up to the people for who they are, I think we should look up to the praiseworthy things people did while also being able to criticize what they didn't do well. Which I think we agree on, the issue is that the term 'Role Model' suffers from semantic overload, in that it means many things to many people, so we have to redefine the term to ensure we're both referring to the same thing. The term 'nitpick' also suffers from this. We both look up to Kanye for his creative endeavors, for his success, for his willpower and his charisma. We both are sane, so we're able to see that he's quite the antihero; quite a flawed man, to an extreme extent. We love him in spite of his flaws, we don't hate him in spite of his corruption.

I, of course, respect your rationale; there's much truth supporting it. I may do a poddy on the video just so I can know with a greater degree of certainty why I disagree as I discern and carve up a greater rationalization. Perhaps you could join me on it, though that could cause us to turn a 2 hour video into a 15 hour battle of intellect, and I wish to be as respectful of your time as I am protective of mine. Which surely begs the question as to whether or not the discussion was worth it for both of us? I suppose that remains to be seen.

https://youtu.be/5_yHwzoGILk?si=izBUqfR5ILSU9cSJ&t=5918

Attempting to clarify the meaning of words
https://youtu.be/MnUfXYGtT5Q?si=a30kL7wdGnBXrLK8&t=3995

the main themes 12 rules for life 2019-07-28 1:29:00 discussing the danger in people who feel the need to worship him and everything he says… humility
“if the court jester isn’t vicious, then you’re probably not too stupid… that the satire stays lighthearted because then i haven’t made any particularly egregious mistakes”
if i were in my 20s perhaps it would be going to my head, but being 55 gives me some humility
pretty sensible person surrounded by sensible people, I’m not gonna lose sight

Territory, Hierarchy, Security, and Fear 2019-11-08
53:00 we have term limits in place so we can depose hierarchies, 4-8 years with this pack of idiots, then replace them with a new pack of idiots. Nothing changes, but nothing changes for worse! and we tend away from tyrannies.
1:21:20 asked to say "this is kermit the frog reporting from sesame street" ... "go to hell"
"what advice would you give to newlyweds?" "fight."
"'we never fight' that's because you're cowardly."
"i didn't say debate, because I don't mean debate. I mean fight."

2019-09-01 the world is your oyster
~1:15:00 talking about his involvement with the climate change bibgas, he really speaks on more than retards give him credit for