Diebert wrote: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.