Jordan Peterson

[Matt Gregory]

Sorry for my absence, I'm still on board. I've just been trying to reply to Alex.

Here is an interview with JP and Joe Rogan where they talk about the enforced monogamy:

https://youtu.be/9Xc7DN-noAc?t=1h31m35s

I just wanted to bookmark that, I guess.

[jupiviv]

Sorry for my absence, I'm still on board. I've just been trying to reply to Alex.

But what about *me* Matt? When will you try to reply to ME?!!!1?1

Here is an interview with JP and Joe Rogan where they talk about the enforced monogamy:

https://youtu.be/9Xc7DN-noAc?t=1h31m35s

The only valid argument I heard in the ~20 mins I listened was "think of the chillun." Anyone who doesn't see why that is ludicrous should experience more of life before commenting on these issues. Fallacies and baseless assumptions abound, but two points come to mind (aside from the obvious ones pointed out by Rogan himself, and not resolved by Peterson):

a> Enforced marriage achieves nothing desolatum. In order for it to work, the social or economic pressures that made actual traditional marriage feasible have to be reproduced. And if they were, enforced marriage itself would be unnecessary because people will marry, and stay married, without duress or provocation. It would be the *natural* choice for survival as it has been in most pre-20th c. civilisations; no other viable alternatives, you see. Thus, the argument defeats itself on simple logical grounds. If the solution to a problem can only succeed if the problem itself doesn't exist to begin with, it isn't a solution; it's bullshit!

b> Peterson's version of chillun-thinking-about is just another rephrasing of anodyne voodoo profession rhetoric to make it sound novel and insightful. But that isn't my criticism. If we're going to think about the chillun in earnest, sexual relations can't serve as a first principle. They are one factor amongst many, many others contributing to family dysfunction. Poverty, inadequate education and neighbourhood are all correlated with and predictors of single motherhood. As in the first point, one of many facets of an issue is arbitrarily granted supreme importance, and the proposed solution assumes that the other facets are either non-existent or trifling. Problem - bitches be triflin; solution - nuclear family.

Addressing the troubles of "traditionalist" 20-somethings, perennially crusading against the Islam-SJW Axis, eyes filled with tears of unrequited love, hands scarred with self-buggery and holding rosy little balls throbbing in anticipation of a chiffon handbag's pungent recess, is irrelevant. The sexual promiscuity of females and SJW alpha males (i.e. the bad kind) in early adulthood is irrelevant. What is relevant is that both parents get to have an equal share of responsibility and authority in the rearing of their children, and possess the means to do so, irregardless of sexual behaviour or marital status. For that to happen, we need enforced *equality* across the board. The mother's interests aren't synonymous with the child's, and the father is neither a dehumanised and aloof atm nor a crash dummy for feminist experimentation.

[Pam Seeback]

What struck me about the conversation between Peterson and Rogan is the shared delusion of an existent self, most pointedly expressed with their shared agreement that 'we are metaphysically equal but in all other dimensions, we are unequal.'. Interesting to consider the turn the conversation might have taken if the truth of no-inherent self had been introduced.

[Santiago Odo]

Good observation, Pam. What happens when your pet view is adopted is, quite simply, the end of all dialectic and thus of conversation. Once you, or anyone, begins to establish definitions within the zone of the non-existent, and when a conversation on such a theme is proposed or desired, immediately one enters absurd territory. You will have undermined any notion of meaning as defined by a self, one who views. Once one takes control of discourse through use of such a term as ‘delusion’, it means essentially that any posited idea or value has been rendered delusional since these come from existent selves, and not non-selves.

This is why this mode of *thought* can lead only to variations on nihilism.

But I repeat myself . . .

(Oh and in refernce to Rabbit Holes and intricate webs: where has Our Darling Moderator gotten off to?)

[Pam Seeback]

Alex dialectic is the appearance of the self, they are one and the same 'gestalt'. My point was that the self is not a thing-in-and-of-itself which is why there can be no equality of selves. Those unequal dimensions mentioned by Rogan and Peterson are the dimensions of the dependently originated 'I' and 'me' - what they seem not to realize is that the 'I' cannot be separated from idea. In other words, the 'I' appears WITH the concept 'equal' but the I cannot BE equal. And before you go wrongly stating that this is just my pet view, please do the right thing and show me your I that exists independent of conversation.

[Santiago Odo]

I unnerstan

[Santiago Odo]

Sorry for my absence, I'm still on board. I've just been trying to reply to Alex.

And I have to apologize for my presence!

Take your time, take your time. Eternity constantly opens for us all.

[Pam Seeback]

I unnerstan

Lol, the self called 'Alex' aborted by the evil thought 'nihilism'!

Alex to Matt: Take your time, take your time. Eternity constantly opens for us all.

Are you the external subject to the perceived object 'eternity' so that you see and/or know that there is a 'constantly opening (therefore a constant closing)?' No bowing down to the Great Oz of Alex shall be done by the spirit of life!

[Santiago Odo]

Sorry for my absence, I'm still on board. I've just been trying to reply to Alex.

Good Heavens! It is going to be something earth-shaking!

Take your time, take your time. The earth must be shaken only after careful planning and deep consideration!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But... I don't think Alex can ever be replied to. One is not supposed to. Matt probably just realized that by now!

As for Peterson, can he be replied to? Right now his act seems very much rock-star like, touring all those large venues around the globe with Sam Harris etc. In a way it's where philosophy cannot help ending up these days as it cannot show up elsewhere but! On stage, in deforming limelight, with no replies.....

[jupiviv]

As for Peterson, can he be replied to? Right now his act seems very much rock-star like, touring all those large venues around the globe with Sam Harris etc. In a way it's where philosophy cannot help ending up these days as it cannot show up elsewhere but! On stage, in deforming limelight, with no replies.....

Philosophy was always like that (in general). Take "edgy" spiritualists/gurus like UG Krishnamurti or the exoteric reformer-types like Plato, Luther or Vivekananda. Peterson and Harris (with different political "flavours") are trying to be gurus of an agnostic spirituality based on the worship of the "West" via scientific, technological and political wonders.

Rationality is the deus ex machina. Not real rationality, but the kind women enact when nagging men - pointing out how everything they want/say makes complete sense within a context wholly isolated from the one where the man wants/says anything, then making him feel guilty for his callousness/insensitivity. "Think of the chillun" re enforced monogamy is a good example from Peterson.

Oh, and before I forget and never mention it in the void of this forum ever again - I'd like to extend an apology to Dan Rowden for my perfunctory dismissal of his recommendation of Chris Hedges' work. On further analysis since then I have found Chris Hedges an interesting, probably well-meaning and occasionally quite insightful commentator.

[Eric Schiedler]

Compulsive lecturers like Peterson demonstrate that the necessity of thinking, and its accompanying anxieties that are taboo in the mass psychology of this age, must first be molded into an elaborate excercise to demonstrate that the tension can be only resolved after everything else.

Only if you have a career as a so-called intellectual should you pursue serious thought. After all, your thinking must first lead to something useful - thus it comes after all has been decided. For that very reason it is self-justified to outsource your thought to a specialist who will sell it to you as a product to consume, synthesized through a mechanical process of career gateways and certified as to its usefullness.

There's no need to suffer for God and Truth when at any time you can acquire access to them on the shelf for a miniscule fee.

Then there is the issue of the marketing, which in this case is a massively insecure, posturing, and bullying persona. How exciting for the young men not getting enough attention from the co-eds entertained by the Feminist parade!! Like lost boys in Peterson's favorite story, Pinnochio, the dissaffected men are to follow the pied piper and all join the gang on the carnival island to slay dragons (get careers) and save our fathers from the belly of the whale (gain status) and overcome chaos through "transformation", aka Lamarkian Evolution (get married).

If you disagree with the content, you risk being cast out and branded a "nihilist." And everyone knows nihilists have no fun at all.

Eric Schiedler

[jupiviv]

Like lost boys in Peterson's favorite story, Pinnochio

Seriously? I remember the disney cartoon and from the lens of age it appears as some sort of pedo treatise, e.g the white milf fairy makes his "nose" grow/shorten based on ethical judgments. Clearly a metaphor for the feminine conditioning of natural male guilt to fit the shape of "civilised monster".

[Eric Schiedler]

Like lost boys in Peterson's favorite story, Pinnochio

Seriously? I remember the disney cartoon and from the lens of age it appears as some sort of pedo treatise, e.g the white milf fairy makes his "nose" grow/shorten based on ethical judgments. Clearly a metaphor for the feminine conditioning of natural male guilt to fit the shape of "civilised monster".

I, for one, won't deny anything about that interpretation.

Had you not seen people repost Peterson's stories on Pinnocchio?

Jordan Peterson's Magnum Opus is his interpretation of the meta-myth around Just So Stories like Pinnochio. From the Great Man himself, he says it's the greatest story and finds all kinds of "meaning" in it, he covers the entire Disney film here:

Maps of Meaning 2 Marionettes and Individuals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN2lyN7rM4E

This is what passes for "Wisdom" to some.

Edit: I forgot to add that I don't recommend watching the entire lecture which is quite long and also spills over into part 3 but to jump around to listen to him talk about the movie. The link is provided for evidence that he rates the story of Pinnochio very highly, cruicial, and even indinspensable, he might say.

[jupiviv]

Jordan Peterson's Magnum Opus is his interpretation of the meta-myth around Just So Stories like Pinnochio. From the Great Man himself, he says it's the greatest story and finds all kinds of "meaning" in it, he covers the entire Disney film here:

Maps of Meaning 2 Marionettes and Individuals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN2lyN7rM4E

So he calls the Disney film itself the greatest story, not the *original* story which being a very intelligent human encyclopedia I happen to already know about in great detail? From Wikipedia:

a tempestuous northerly wind began to blow and roar angrily, and it beat the poor puppet from side to side, making him swing violently, like the clatter of a bell ringing for a wedding. And the swinging gave him atrocious spasms...His breath failed him and he could say no more. He shut his eyes, opened his mouth, stretched his legs, gave a long shudder, and hung stiff and insensible.

Really inspiring stuff. Also thanks for the link, but I'm not watching a 2.5 hr Peterson video. Can you specify where he talks about Pinocchio?

But for comparison, here is Weininger on the meaning of Peer Gynt:

In Peer Gynt, love, and the possibility of redemption through it, consists precisely in this: that the man projects onto the woman his better self, all that he wants to love and cannot love in himself because there it is contaminated – and through this division, he attains more easily a willing, striving relationship with the idea of the beautiful, and the good and the true. That is the deep psychological ground for that act of masculine egoism which puts a much higher moral demand on the woman than on the man – moral, naturally, only in external appearance, as satisfaction of the need for illusion – the deep root of the postulate of purity, of virginity, for the woman. A projection phenomenon similar to the one for love, applies to hatred; the devil is the inspired objectification of a thought that has given relief to millions of people in their struggle with the evil in their own breasts. They set the devil outside themselves, and thereby both distinguish themselves and separate themselves from him. A metaphysical act of projection is accordingly the general root of all the dualism in the world: God wants to find himself in the human being. Dualism must obtain, or else monism, and the striving after it, is senseless, an empty word.

And Hakuin on the meaning of the Heart Sutra:

Heart

For untold ages it didn’t have a name. Then they blundered and gave it one. When it flies into your eyes, even gold dust will blind you. A Mani Gem is just another blemish on the Dharma. What is it! Most people only think they have the real thing, like the man who confused a saddle remnant for his father’s jawbone. The reason those who search for the Way remain unaware of its reality is simply because from the first they accept all their discriminations as true. Those have been the very source of birth and death since the beginning of time, yet fools call them “the original man.”

Clearly it’s ungettable within the Three Worlds.
An empty sky swept clean away. Not a particle left.
On the zazen seat, in the dead of night, cold as steel.
Moonlight through a window, bright with shadows of the plum!

Ultimately it's just words/images that we must give meaning, so a sage like Peterson would presumably have no problem enlightening mostly female students through his interpretation of a Disney movie.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As for Peterson, can he be replied to? Right now his act seems very much rock-star like, touring all those large venues around the globe with Sam Harris etc. In a way it's where philosophy cannot help ending up these days as it cannot show up elsewhere but! On stage, in deforming limelight, with no replies.....

Philosophy was always like that (in general). Take "edgy" spiritualists/gurus like UG Krishnamurti or the exoteric reformer-types like Plato, Luther or Vivekananda.

But then again, human mirroring self-existence implies some stage, an actor, a drama or tragedy. All the world's a stage and such. When seen this way also our philosophy will always take that form. Ranging from the passion of Christ, the rhetorical diatribe(s) of the Greek, the long elaborate trial of a Socrates and his voluntary punishment by death, through the mythical towards the allegorical, self-published lampooning and ironic analysis, with each author pining for a larger, growing audience. Even all the rather truncated, fragmented publications and mixed bag forum on theabsolute.net are, in that way, a stage, telling you a lot, not just about the authors or the audience but also their era.

Now, okay, this is almost a text book postmodern approach with the form communicating essence, the spirit hunting all surfaces.

The development of style is interesting, when looking pure at scale, all the "pyrotechnics" and overall intensity. One could end up asking: can philosophy function on any larger scale? Doesn't it get abstracted away from the simple truths? How can someone with all the deeper truths at his disposal still imply that modern culture, before it went "postal" I suppose, would be “natural" and making his life's work to help young men to be better fathers, better husbands, better community members, and so on? I'd think it's about getting a guaranteed, wanting audience and to respond to his own upbringing perhaps, to correct the wrongs he perceives looking back? A little drama performing on his own stage there. And yet some good stuff can fall off the cart.

[Eric Schiedler]

Really inspiring stuff. Also thanks for the link, but I'm not watching a 2.5 hr Peterson video. Can you specify where he talks about Pinocchio?

Of course I don't think anyone needs to watch all of discussion about the movie. He goes on at considerable length and detail.

In the long lecture, he starts at: 1:39:00 more or less. But, let's say you skip the whole lecture.

Here is a short emotional moment about the movie, a few minutes and no more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6LL4JAP0mM

Here is one clip where someone else condensed a different speech directly about parts of the movie so you can watch for a couple minutes and get some of the gist of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YhVruKGkjs

[Eric Schiedler]

Ultimately it's just words/images that we must give meaning, so a sage like Peterson would presumably have no problem enlightening mostly female students through his interpretation of a Disney movie.

The records show that Zen Master Yun-Men said of the words of the ancient Masters:

"Take these teachings and meditate on them, again and again; someday you will find your entrance. But no one can do it for you. Every one of you should work towards self-realization. The Master can only bear testimony. If you have gained something within; he can't hide it from you; if you haven't gained anything, he can't find it for you.

As long as you aren't your own Master., you may think you have gained something from what you hear, but it is secondhand merchandise, and not yours."

Words and images don't exist, in the sense that they can be found objectively with their meaning. By an act of memory they are resolved by the subject in the subject and when the resolution is complete the subject and the meaning are one and the same. And thus meaning is the full responsibility of the individual.

The idea that categories of thoughts, words and images can be systematized and further refined into sub-categories and then correctly conveyed into others is itself a concept that is merely partially resolved.

On one end of this spectrum, people who understand nothing and come across a bizarre experience, such as hearing an unknown foreign language or atonal music, will literally not see or hear anything at all but vaguely experience static. An example of the outcome of the strain to resolve this tension can be seen in cargo cults among the Polynesians. In others, as this process becomes slightly more refined, they may see or hear objects as sounds and things apart from themselves and feel compelled to obey them as the commands of the gods acting upon them as a lump of clay. In persons with a bit of training and education and will, they say they begin to see and hear things within the words and images that were hidden to them before, though they still avow these are felt to be apart from themselves. In the genius, who has fully understood that they now know something, and as Yun-Men said, it is their own, they know they are one and the same with the meaning.

Some who are told the ancient teachings of the wise will hear the words of demi-gods to be worshipped. Others will say they have learned a bit more and will see the wise as brothers. The truly wise will know the ancient ones are themselves and that meaning is thus free from context or culture or even time.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Following article is not strictly about Jordan but about his daughter and her ... dieting.

It's a f̶a̶s̶c̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ bizarre read altogether. Not sure what to think of it. Anyone?

The Jordan Peterson All-Meat Diet

What the Petersons are selling is rather a sense of order and control. Science is about questions, and self-help is about answers. A recurring idea in Jordan Peterson’s book is that humans need rules—its subtitle is “an antidote to chaos”—even if only for the sake of rules. Peterson discovered this through his own suffering, as when he was searching the world for the best surgeon to give his young daughter a new hip. In explaining how he dealt with Mikhaila’s illness, he writes that “existence and limitation are inextricably linked.”

The allure of a strict code for eating—a way to divide the world into good foods and bad foods, angels and demons—may be especially strong at a time when order feels in short supply. Indeed there is at least some benefit to be had from any and all dietary advice, or rules for life, so long as a person believes in them, and so long as they provide a code that allows a person to feel good for having stuck with it and a cohort of like-minded adherents. The challenge is to find a code that accords as best as possible with scientific evidence about what is good and bad, and with what is best for the world.

[Eric Schiedler]

Perhaps a sensible rule should be to not listen to Jordan Peterson (or his family) about rules for science or "life."

I am reminded of these words from Kevin Solway:

"Poison for the Heart" - Religion and Ego-Cycles.

"Some parents may be proficient and experienced freethinkers, and may never personally experience the terrible consequences of this egotism of theirs. However, children cannot always echo their parents. Rather than be poor copies of their parents, children will often try the only alternative. Thus, if the parents are freethinkers, the children may well abandon thought altogether and become fundamentalists.

Confused, the parents will plea, "We didn't bring our children up to be that way." Then I ask, who did? The children are egotists just like the parents."

Eric Schiedler

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Perhaps a sensible rule should be to not listen to Jordan Peterson (or his family) about rules for science or "life."

Fair enough but wouldn't that amount to not listen to Peterson at all? It seems to me the crux of his narrative is the ruler of rules, law, goal-orientation and general firmness to straighten up out of shape and fragmented young lives? Partly along psycho-analytical lines (which was once intended as psychology-as-science) combined with a lot of firm appearing references to rather ambiguous "factual research" on social and gender topics, all laced with classic mythology and the Dao.

There's this running theme of the powerful "sense of order and control" which would fuel the will to a new diet as much as a personal philosophy. Out of such observation questions arise on causality: are we all running out of order & control? Or just realizing that there was less than we once thought, at least at the level we believe we are operating? Hence the fig leaves.

[Pam Seeback]

Perhaps a sensible rule should be to not listen to Jordan Peterson (or his family) about rules for science or "life."

Fair enough but wouldn't that amount to not listen to Peterson at all? It seems to me the crux of his narrative is the ruler of rules, law, goal-orientation and general firmness to straighten up out of shape and fragmented young lives? Partly along psycho-analytical lines (which was once intended as psychology-as-science) combined with a lot of firm appearing references to rather ambiguous "factual research" on social and gender topics, all laced with classic mythology and the Dao.

There's this running theme of the powerful "sense of order and control" which would fuel the will to a new diet as much as a personal philosophy. Out of such observation questions arise on causality: are we all running out of order & control? Or just realizing that there was less than we once thought, at least at the level we believe we are operating? Hence the fig leaves.

Sitting over morning coffee with hubby talking about this very thing. Not Jordan Peterson specifically, but about the struggle of conscious existence to try and control, using reasoning of good and evil, the unseen and ultimately unknown forces or energies of Existence Itself.

Tearing away the fig leaf of the power of good and evil reasoning to control existence is an unpleasant experience for those heavily invested in reasoning's virtue - men such as Jordan Peterson, who, at least on the surface, have not yet peeled away the infamous leaf. Perhaps he has peeled away the corners but can't, as of yet, go further. I believe this is the case for most humans, if not all - the taking off of the fig leaf must be a gradual process in order to be processed at all.

So it is not that we are running out of order and control, it is that we are finally waking up to the truth of the only control we have is self-control, that is, to cease allowing the Fuel of Existence to be dispersed into dual, warring camps of reasoned self-righteousness. Perhaps this is why we are currently living in times of extremes of self reasoning - the alt-right versus the alt-left - battling it out until both fall down exhausted and spent, left only with one path to take.

[Natural Order]

The schizophrenic core of "Petersonism" comes across like wanting to inspire culture as well as counter-culture. It wants to praise rebellion within the psyche and yet at the same time promote the good old Empire like some kind of proper ancient order.

I think this 'schizophrenic core of Petersonism' you refer to is commonplace. Everyone expresses a desire a desire for both Order and Chaos. What separates the wheat form the chaff here is if there is any coherency in how the individual expresses them. It is here that Peterson falls flat and earns the schizo title you gave him.

Together with Nietzsche he desires to boldly move forward and burn a lot of the old but yet at the same time, almost sounding panicked, rebuild the same old stability and give away free museum passes. So is one for the core ideas of Nietzsche or against them? It's confusing at least to me. So perhaps Peterson is just an interesting gateway drug. It's strange, I found myself encouraged by his existence as a popular speaker and yet also disappointed by his attempt to put some ordinary conservative, religious sounding wrappings around it all.

Kermit the Frog, oops I mean Jordan Peterson, is an obvious believer in the Post WWII Liberal Order, although he is not entirely comfortable with the Logical Conclusions of Liberalism that are currently unfolding, e.g. anti white and anti masculine hostility. The thing that put him on the map was when he refused to refer to a trannie by their preferred pronoun. If he had done this just five years ago nobody would have batted an eye. Now he's considered a heretic and has earned the ire of the establishment. This proves just how quickly the Social Marxist disease has spread.

Generally I do think his intellectual understanding of Marxism, biology, gender science and postmodernism remain extremely shoddy.

I agree, Peterson is a normie's normie. However his instincts are healthy enough to know that this kind of stuff (Liberalism and Marxism) is poisonous in every way.

[Santiago Odo]

The schizophrenic core of "Petersonism" comes across like wanting to inspire culture as well as counter-culture. It wants to praise rebellion within the psyche and yet at the same time promote the good old Empire like some kind of proper ancient order.

The question I would ask is of the viewer here, the one who views and has made this comment. He appears to make a claim -- from some sort of tower or height -- of understanding this contrast or conflict between *culture* and then *counter-culture*.

But what does this mean? The critical comment about *good old Empire* and *proper ancient order* implies, in itself, a stance within a counter-proposition to both; that is, to a counter-cultural position. Yet what is that position? Is it that Peterson should be more bold? More cutting edge? But the cutting edge of what, and toward what?

To have noticed *schizophrenia* implies that the viewer views from a position outside of it, like a psychiatrist perhaps. It also implies seeing from a whole or normal state. But what state is that? How did the viewer spin his way, as it were, to that centered and *proper* psychological position? And if such exists, what is it or, put another way, what are its *products*? He who sees must see correctly and thus be able to reveal how he got there and how others may get there too. How does this viewer build in his world? Or, does he merely supervise or observe decadence?

If there is, shall I say, *proper* rebellion within the psyche, against what is the psyche rebelling? Does not rebellion imply a structured alternative stance? If I am not mistaken that would be something akin to *counter-culture*. The larger question is What is the proper sort of rebellion of the soul that is posited here as *good*?

Together with Nietzsche he desires to boldly move forward and burn a lot of the old but yet at the same time, almost sounding panicked, rebuild the same old stability and give away free museum passes. So is one for the core ideas of Nietzsche or against them? It's confusing at least to me. So perhaps Peterson is just an interesting gateway drug. It's strange, I found myself encouraged by his existence as a popular speaker and yet also disappointed by his attempt to put some ordinary conservative, religious sounding wrappings around it all.

I am not sure if you have ever heard of, or read, Baudrillard but if not you will find him very interesting. There are electronic copies circulating and, I have been told, one that you can download directly into your mind!

The implication -- is it an unmistakable one? -- is that the viewer here, again, has a grasp of things that can be communicated to others, and which guiding ideas will help the hearer to order his understanding. Nietzsche desired to 'burn the old'? In what sense would a proper *Nietzschean* act then in his world? I mean, to properly live as an authentic Nietzschean? Would he not, following the logic of the burning metaphor, then become a 'terrorist' (a reference to Baudrillard who you may or may not be familiar with ...)

Burning down is generally pretty easy, isn't it? A child and a moron could ignite things as could a *genius*. But you imply there is an intelligent pyrotechnology. What is it?

And if burning is required -- it is implied that it is -- what does this really mean? I mean, outside of the typical pose well known to be taken by those who read, and internalize (superficially?) Nietzsche?

It would appear to this viewer that Peterson is not going far enough. But going far enough toward what exactly? This has to be stated, doesn't it, for the general assertions here to make sense. Or, to put another way, to be something other than hollow intellectual pose.

If Peterson is therefor an 'interesting gateway drug', I need more clear intellectual information about what he is a gateway to.

Heaven forbid it is Cafe Buddhism ...

I found myself encouraged by his existence as a popular speaker and yet also disappointed by his attempt to put some ordinary conservative, religious sounding wrappings around it all.

When you were *encouraged*, what were you encouraged about? What did you want that Peterson did not offer? Or could not go far enough in offering? If you do not accept 'ordinary conservative, religious sounding wrapping', when will you fill out in clear terms what the proper substance should be under any given *wrappings*?

So many questions! Please spin me a response ASAP.
___________________

In the meantime some *easy-listening political analysis* on New-Left Marxism by Jonathan Bowden.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

More importantly: welcome to the forum Natural Order!

Santiago, please try to discuss Peterson in this thread and not my motivation or imagined philosophical positions all over again. There are a few things I could expand on from that earlier post for sure. But lets just start to flesh out your own thoughts on the man or for example the all meat diet and the control factor. And we could go from there.