ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 07, 2018

Book Review: 12 RULES OF LIFE: An Antidote to Chaos

Jordan Peterson is the public intellectual du jour. Some have even declared that he is the most important public intellectual in the world. Primarily known for his videos and lectures, his second book, 12 Rules of Life: An Antidote to Chaos, is a practical distillation of his philosophy that has been an international bestseller and has also been widely and enthusiastically embraced as a useful guide to improving one's life.

To the extent that this is true, it is a tragic indictment of the extent to which parents have increasingly failed to raise their children properly. Peterson's rules are pedestrian and childish on their face, encouraging the reader to stand up straight, speak precisely, tell the truth, pet the neighborhood cat, and generally behave the way in which a 10-year-old boy from a good family was historically expected to behave for most of the 20th century in the West. This is all well and good, even if the fact that it is apparently necessary to explain these things to adult men and women tends to inspire one to weep for the state of modern Man.

However, the more sophisticated reader cannot help but notice that Peterson does not follow his own rules, particularly the three which relate to speaking precisely, telling the truth, and getting one's own house in order before trying to fix the world.

Peterson is an engaging and accessible writer when he is simply recounting events of the past or relating experiences from his own life. He is a sympathetic author, and he effectively communicates the way in which the tragedy and suffering he has experienced throughout his life have made a deep impression on his psyche. It is when he tries to wax profound and articulate his underlying philosophy that his writing invariably wades into a swamp of nonsensical name-dropping that is less Jungian than Joycean, a meandering waking stream of consciousness that not only fails to substantially support the nominal premise, but often bears no relationship to it whatsoever.

To call Peterson's writing imprecise really does not do it justice. His definitions of "life" and "evil", both predicated on "suffering", are so similar that the careless reader skimming over the text might well conclude that life is evil and the deepest truth requires one to inflict unnecessary suffering on others. His many references are seldom very pertinent to the subject at hand and are primarily displayed to dazzle and impress the unsophisticated reader, who little realizes that a reference to Neil deGrasse Tyson or Prince would have been just as relevant to the point being made as the scientific study cited or the Pareto Principle. One of the most entertaining aspects of the book is the way that Peterson never permits his failure to correctly grasp a concept to stand in the way of his brandishing it like a child flashing a fake F.B.I. badge.

Or, more ominously, like a woman's stalker flashing a fake police badge at her door. For there is a method to Peterson's textual madness. Every deeper concept is presented and discussed in the most nebulous, most vague, and most plausibly deniable manner. Peterson is slippery and evasive about his own beliefs throughout the book, and only the most well-informed, most careful reader who has a sufficient grasp of the various theologies and philosophies that Peterson references so freely can hope to discern what Peterson actually believes with any reasonable degree of confidence.

But the intellectual fog can be penetrated by an attentive reader. Jordan Peterson is not, in contrast to the incorrect assumptions of many of his readers and critics alike, a Christian or a man of the Right. Nor is he a courageous intellectual, to the contrary, he is a deeply terrified individual. More importantly, he is not a man dedicated to the truth, at least, not the truth in the conventional sense in which in the term is usually understood by the average English-speaking individual, which is why the 12 Rules of Life ultimately amounts to pseudo-intellectual sleight-of-hand meant to direct the reader down the false path of Peterson's post-Christian philosophy, which for lack of an existing term we might as well christen Jordanetics.

It is strange that the book's primary objective is so little recognized by its readers, considering that Peterson all but spells it out in both the title of the book as well as its coda. We are told that The 12 Rules are an antidote to chaos, but as Peterson fans are often quick to point out, they are not only practical rules for everyday living, but metaphors for larger concepts as well. And the metaphorical chaos to which Peterson refers in the title is not a messy room, but a messy world that terrifies him, and which he has come to save by creating order out of the chaos with his "newfound Pen of Light."

The best way to illustrate the never-ending stream of references that serve as Peterson's reasoning is to simply quote the book, in this case, a section of his chapter explaining the rule that you should treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. And if you find yourself wondering what in the world Anton Chekhov, snakes, Michaelangelo's Pietà, Oedipal nightmares, arboreal evolutionary adaptations, and the Garden of Eden actually have to do with the importance of taking your prescribed medications, the answer is absolutely nothing.

Text Sample:  There is simply no way to wall off some isolated portion of the greater surrounding reality and make everything permanently predictable and safe within it. Some of what has been no-matter-how-carefully excluded will always sneak back in. A serpent, metaphorically speaking, will inevitably appear. Even the most assiduous of parents cannot fully protect their children, even if they lock them in the basement, safely away from drugs, alcohol and internet porn. In that extreme case, the too-cautious, too-caring parent merely substitutes him or herself for the other terrible problems of life. This is the great Freudian Oedipal nightmare. It is far better to render Beings in your care competent than to protect them.

And even if it were possible to permanently banish everything threatening—everything dangerous (and, therefore, everything challenging and interesting), that would mean only that another danger would emerge: that of permanent human infantilism and absolute uselessness. How could the nature of man ever reach its full potential without challenge and danger? How dull and contemptible would we become if there was no longer reason to pay attention? Maybe God thought His new creation would be able to handle the serpent, and considered its presence the lesser of two evils.Question for parents: do you want to make your children safe, or strong?

In any case, there’s a serpent in the Garden, and he’s a “subtil” beast, according to the ancient story (difficult to see, vaporous, cunning, deceitful and treacherous). It therefore comes as no surprise when he decides to play a trick on Eve. Why Eve, instead of Adam? It could just be chance. It was fifty-fifty for Eve, statistically speaking, and those are pretty high odds. But I have learned that these old stories contain nothing superfluous. Anything accidental—anything that does not serve the plot—has long been forgotten in the telling. As the Russian playwright Anton Chekhov advised, “If there is a rifle hanging on the wall in act one, it must be fired in the next act. Otherwise it has no business being there.” Perhaps primordial Eve had more reason to attend to serpents than Adam. Maybe they were more likely, for example, to prey on her tree-dwelling infants. Perhaps it is for this reason that Eve’s daughters are more protective, self-conscious, fearful and nervous, to this day (even, and especially, in the most egalitarian of modern human societies). In any case, the serpent tells Eve that if she eats the forbidden fruit, she won’t die. Instead, her eyes will be opened. She will become like God, knowing good from evil. Of course, the serpent doesn’t let her know she will be like God in only that one way. But he is a serpent, after all. Being human, and wanting to know more, Eve decides to eat the fruit. Poof! She wakes up: she’s conscious, or perhaps self-conscious, for the first time.

Now, no clear-seeing, conscious woman is going to tolerate an unawakened man. So, Eve immediately shares the fruit with Adam. That makes him self-conscious. Little has changed. Women have been making men self-conscious since the beginning of time. They do this primarily by rejecting them—but they also do it by shaming them, if men do not take responsibility. Since women bear the primary burden of reproduction, it’s no wonder. It is very hard to see how it could be otherwise. But the capacity of women to shame men and render them self-conscious is still a primal force of nature.

Now, you may ask: what in the world have snakes got to do with vision? Well, first, it’s clearly of some importance to see them, because they might prey on you (particularly when you’re little and live in trees, like our arboreal ancestors). Dr. Lynn Isbell, professor of anthropology and animal behaviour at the University of California, has suggested that the stunningly acute vision almost uniquely possessed by human beings was an adaptation forced on us tens of millions of years ago by the necessity of detecting and avoiding the terrible danger of snakes, with whom our ancestors co-evolved. This is perhaps one of the reasons the snake features in the garden of Paradise as the creature who gave us the vision of God (in addition to serving as the primordial and eternal enemy of mankind). This is perhaps one of the reasons why Mary, the eternal, archetypal mother—Eve perfected—is so commonly shown in medieval and Renaissance iconography holding the Christ Child in the air, as far away as possible from a predatory reptile, which she has firmly pinned under her foot. And there’s more. It’s fruit that the snake offers, and fruit is also associated with a transformation of vision, in that our ability to see color is an adaptation that allows us to rapidly detect the ripe and therefore edible bounty of trees.

Our primordial parents hearkened to the snake. They ate the fruit. Their eyes opened. They both awoke. You might think, as Eve did initially, that this would be a good thing. Sometimes, however, half a gift is worse than none. Adam and Eve wake up, all right, but only enough to discover some terrible things. First, they notice that they’re naked.

Labels: ,

124 Comments:

Blogger Keyser Soze May 07, 2018 7:04 AM  

I was souring on JP before VD started his review, but the quoted passage shown is so perverted theologically and so intellectually shallow that JP is now dead to me. And objectively evil doesn’t exist per JP. But it does. Devils best trick was getting people to believe he doesn’t exist. If the devil doesn’t exist, well then neither does God, thereby eliminating all sins. Sad!

Blogger Don't Call Me Len May 07, 2018 7:22 AM  

Maybe they were more likely, for example, to prey on her tree-dwelling infants.

Wait, JP thinks early humans hung their children in trees, and snake hunted them? Or is he positing that our arboreal primate ancestors achieved self-consciousness millions of years before they were in any way human? And that is somehow the basis of Genesis?


Or am I just trying to make sense of nonsense?

Blogger MendoScot May 07, 2018 7:26 AM  

Sometimes, however, half a gift is worse than none

Tremble before by Solomonic wisdom!

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 07, 2018 7:34 AM  

I hate this “women bear the primary burden of reproduction” line. You see it all over but it’s bloody nonsense. Women bear the babies.

A baby is not a reproduction of its parents. That takes about 25 years and many women have completely checked out long before then.

But what I really despise is the automatic recitation of this received wisdom as if it is equivalent to stating that grass is green.

It’s not.

It’s just vagina worship in disguise.

Blogger Teleros May 07, 2018 7:44 AM  

Don't Call Me Len wrote:Maybe they were more likely, for example, to prey on her tree-dwelling infants.

Wait, JP thinks early humans hung their children in trees, and snake hunted them? Or is he positing that our arboreal primate ancestors achieved self-consciousness millions of years before they were in any way human? And that is somehow the basis of Genesis?

Or am I just trying to make sense of nonsense?


I think it's more that our tree-dwelling primate ancestors (particularly the females, which JBP is assuming did the lion's share of child-rearing) evolved very good pattern recognition when it came to snakes. Then when they evolved into modern humans, some of the snake recognition bits of the brain hung around and ended up playing a prominent role in our earliest stories as a result.

He says something similar about dragons - they're snake-cat-raptor-fire monsters, ie all things that hunted/killed/terrified our primate ancestors, and us humans sort of merged them into a single scaled, clawed, winged, fire-breathing monster.

Blogger Nate May 07, 2018 7:51 AM  

picking nits here... the fact that JP doesn't follow all of his rules does not invalidate the rules. There is no system or advice that stand up to that type of criticism.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 7:56 AM  

the fact that JP doesn't follow all of his rules does not invalidate the rules. There is no system or advice that stand up to that type of criticism.

Of course not. But the fact that he says speak the truth when he defines truth as not-truth does call the actual meaning of the rule into question, and therefore, its validity.

And the fact that he doesn't follow his rules is a strong suggestion that you need to pay close attention and see if his purposes are what they superficially appear to be. Everyone fails. Everyone falls short. That's no big deal.

But the nature of the failure matters.

Blogger dienw May 07, 2018 7:58 AM  

Stopped reading the example by third paragraph. There is only so much pastiche and superfluous writing I can take.

Blogger Goy Rogers May 07, 2018 8:10 AM  

"Come for the Eden lecture. Stay for the free apples." -- Crazy Christ

Blogger NO GOOGLES May 07, 2018 8:13 AM  

@2, it's just nonsense.

I mean good God, the man is trying to say that humans developed good eyesight (our eyesight isn't actually that good compared to many animals) because we were ON THE LOOKOUT FOR EBIL SNEKS.

I have to say, it would be pretty easy to meme a lot of this stupidity. This is literally "evolution is false because bananas fit in our hands" kind of idiocy. It's the kind of argument that even if you happen to hold the same position the argument itself makes you wince because it makes your position look remedial.

On the surface a lot of Peterson's "rules" are decent advice but you have it right when you say that's more an indictment of our society than any kind of real insight on Peterson's part.

It seems that what Peterson needs more than anything is an editor.

Blogger Welsh Woodsman May 07, 2018 8:16 AM  

His writings are like listening to the ramblings of a very mentally ill man...with a flair for the verbose and penchant for pseudo-intellectualism. In short - a literary dumpster fire.
He basically lays out the argument that Eve eating the fruit wasn't such a bad thing because it made them "self-conscious". Really?....Since this moment of "self consciousness" - humanity has been paying the price ever since. Sin unleashed has created hell on earth. Only God's mercy has arrested its full effect. With Christs death, we have the hope and salvation that cannot be found in this fallen world.
Any individual laying out the premise that defying God is not half bad...even good, is a person who has a hardened heart and a muddled mind.
"Woe to them that call evil good and good evil" Isaiah 5:20

Blogger Duh-ave May 07, 2018 8:16 AM  

Despite being strongly turned off by JP's actions against the alt right and our SDL's urgent warnings of the dangers of JP's teachings I still find myself mesmerized by him. He has crafted a well baited trap.

Blogger The Service May 07, 2018 8:19 AM  

Much less brutal than I expected.

Blogger BA 117 May 07, 2018 8:20 AM  

I never cared one bit for Jordan Peterson.

He rose to "fame" when a video of him going back and forth with some SJW students about gender pronouns went viral. I remember watching that video and his body language, facial expressions, tone and general demeanor made me dismiss him as a whiny coward.

I know this is not an argument but sometimes you immediately dislike someone for a reason. I put him out of my mind until Taleb slammed him as an intellectual fraud on twitter... And now Vox... I can't say I am surprised.

Blogger Jack Collinson May 07, 2018 8:20 AM  

I heard one young Peterson follower say that he benefitted from him because he not only provided him some "rules for life", but also some philosophical/cosmological justification for those rules which made them meaningful, whereas the rules his parents provided were backed up merely by their parental authority, with no higher justification than that.

So it's not the quality or usefulness of the "rules" themselves, inasmuch as they actually do provide some rules, some directions to live by (however incoherent).

This is not a symptom of failed parental upbringing, so much as a symptom of the disappearance of any meaningful philosophical / cosmological worldview in western life. You might say that it's the parent's job to provide their children with such a worldview, but the liberal understanding is that one shouldn't "force one's own views" on one's children, but allow them "to make up their own mind." A consequence of this is that when children come to the age of reason, of thought, of reflection - they often feel lost and directionless in the universe; especially if some misfortune befalls them which puts them outside the mainstream of societal conformity, e.g. inability to get a job. Then they are lost sheep without a shepherd, and in come the gurus to rescue them.

"But he answering them, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit."

Blogger Jack Collinson May 07, 2018 8:22 AM  

Peterson indeed is no follower of Christ, but some kind of sage-guru who merely borrows Christian themes and "archetypes" to expound his own doctrine. He is not following Christ, nor is he following reason; he's imitating Nietzsche and Jung in taking his own psyche as his spiritual master and guide, looking for the truth within himself. While Christ says that the "kingdom of heaven is within you", and while many of the saints in their writings speak about looking for God in one's own soul - the kingdom of hell is also within you, and you're just as likely to find Satan there as to find God. Many of the dream sequences and myths that Peterson is spinning do seem occultic/demonic in character, which isn't surprising when he's looking up to men like Nietzsche and Jung.

I don't know what his views of order and chaos are, but "Ordo ab Chao" - order out of chaos - is a masonic motto. There is something weird and I think perhaps dangerous about telling people that by cleaning their room they are participating in some cosmic ritual involving order and chaos. Your room is a space which you live in and which you are responsible for, so it's a matter of duty and a convenience to keep your own room tidy. But once you step out of your room with the knowledge that you are responsible for bringing order out of the universe's chaos, what are you going to end up doing? That does seem to me to be a recipe for totalitarian thinking and politics; I remember reading an article about Peterson's thought being similar to the 19th century romanticism (of men like Nietzsche) which did lead into Nazism. Peterson was uncharacteristically enraged about this article iirc, so it must have hit some nerve.

Blogger Welsh Woodsman May 07, 2018 8:23 AM  

"It’s just vagina worship in disguise."

Typical gamma behavior. When they're not hating women they're deifying them.

Blogger Uncle John's Band May 07, 2018 8:28 AM  

Oedipal nightmare doesn't work as a literary or psychoanalytic reference in that context.

That citation is a slog. One reason I appreciate the careful dissection is so I don't have to read this myself. The chain of references is bizarre. He cherry picks iconography without regard for the philosophical or historical substructure then spins it into whatever tale he wants. Erudition without discernment? Does it even qualify as erudition?

He also toggles between intellectual puffery and an almost folksy storytelling manner. 'Now that Eve, she couldn't have a shiftless man about' sort of stuff. It reminds me of how an evangelist shifts between scriptural language and homespun talk.

The stink of fear wafts from everything this man seems to write. Can anyone recall offhand a public "intellectual" pose more suffused with cowardice? That's not a rhetorical question; I'm legitimately curious. It explains that annoying frantic, wolves at the door, edge of panic timbre in his voice.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 8:29 AM  

Much less brutal than I expected.

The book only dips the reader's toe into the madness of Peterson's evil philosophy. To review more than is actually in the book itself would not be an accurate review of it.

Blogger Cedric May 07, 2018 8:31 AM  

Reading it is like attempting to read a piece of completely gobbledygook. When he makes this metaphor of children and parents, is he implying that the rest of man is the children, and he's the higher power, so to say? It's what I think he's implying, but it's slippery, he hops to the next subject that dawns his mind in what looks like an attempt to make the reader forget what was said just a paragraph ago. One paragraph afterwards and it's hard to even recall that was what led forward there.

Furthermore, what do snakes have to do with seeing color? Just because some random professor somewhere in the world suggested acute vision, which can be noted as perhaps not even the same thing? Most snakes share the same color pattern as the terrain they're in, it sounds like someone who has never tried to spot a rattlesnake in a pine forest. It's complete nonsense.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 8:32 AM  

Erudition without discernment? Does it even qualify as erudition?

No. It's like the novelists who throw everything from chain-smoking dwarves and F. Scott Fitzgerald impersonators to suicidal poet-lumberjacks and lipstick lesbian biker gangs into the mix in order to create a sense of depth and societal relevance to a common murder mystery.

Blogger Tank May 07, 2018 8:36 AM  

Seems very fair. I've enjoyed the few interviews and clips I've watched but , OMG, who would slog through a book of that nonsense? Seems to be two good things about JP: he fights against PC and he has some good rules/ideas for people who need them (most here would not).

Blogger Nate May 07, 2018 8:42 AM  

"Of course not. But the fact that he says speak the truth when he defines truth as not-truth does call the actual meaning of the rule into question, and therefore, its validity."

Maybe I'm just sympathetic to the guy because he is so broken. The tone of the last couple of posts tells me that you are also pulling your punches some based on the fact that the guy is in worse shape than you realized. If I'm wrong on that I have no doubts you will correct me, but I don't think I am.

The man is to broken to understand Truth. Truth may be tapping him on the shoulder and saying "this way... come on home." but so far he isn't listening. I mean that in both philosophical and religious ways.



Blogger Jack Collinson May 07, 2018 8:48 AM  

Looking into yourself and taking yourself as your own master is a very typically postmodern approach, so it's no wonder Peterson has an audience. What Jungian psychoanalysis does is attempt to derive cosmic-universal principles from one's own psychological data. The danger here is that it can need to a kind of immanentism/solipsism where one sees the universe as only existing (in some sense) within one's own mind, putting you as the God (and Christ, and Satan, and everything else) of your own universe. I don't think Peterson has reached this level of self-absorption and madness yet, but I think his writing is and sounds mad insofar as he is approaching this form of madness. You have rightly criticised Peterson for his definition of truth as what is life-affirming (an idea found in Nietzsche), but this definition does sort of make sense if you see the universe as not existing beyond the boundaries of one's own mind. The classical understanding of truth is that it is correspondence of the mind with the reality (which exists outside the mind), but if there is no reality outside the mind - or if it is unknowable - then you are left with the principle that you can't judge about anything beyond your mind, and so you could be forgiven for assuming that "truth" is that whatever tends to be of benefit to your existence. Rather than solipsism, just a general agnosticism about the world external to one's mind can lead one to the conclusion that "truth" is simply what is of benefit to oneself.
Another danger is that in trying to find the meaning of life and the root of all cosmology within one's own psyche, you are practicing a very rigorous form of introspection which for someone with a mental illness, such as depression, is likely to exacerbate the problem.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 8:53 AM  

Maybe I'm just sympathetic to the guy because he is so broken. The tone of the last couple of posts tells me that you are also pulling your punches some based on the fact that the guy is in worse shape than you realized. If I'm wrong on that I have no doubts you will correct me, but I don't think I am.

I suppose that may be true with regards to the previous posts, but not the review. I mean, I know what some of the things alluded to in the book mean, but I can't address them in the review because they are not actually in the book.

I don't think Peterson is consciously devoted to evil himself. The more I have read, the more he appears to be a broken, crazy tragic figure who dabbled in things he should not have and is now being used for evil purposes. I am under the impression that if he realizes how and why he has been used, and by whom, he will kill himself.

Think about how sensitive he is, and how obsessed he has been with the mass slaughters of the 20th century for decades. Now contemplate his potential reaction to learning that he has been serving the architects of those slaughters. I can't imagine that ending well.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2018 8:57 AM  

Damn, that quote is lethal. Two paragraphs of solid common sense at the beginning (but they're in the wrong chapter), and then it fires up the rocket boosters and shoots off so damn far into la-la woo-woo land, I have no words.

I hope I don't dream of rains of cannibalistic bullshit tonight.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) May 07, 2018 8:57 AM  

2. Don't Call Me Len May 07, 2018 7:22 AM
Or am I just trying to make sense of nonsense?



Jordan is an Old Earth Evolutionist.

when he talks about our ancestors being "in trees", he means we were monkeys.


10. NO GOOGLES May 07, 2018 8:13 AM
(our eyesight isn't actually that good compared to many animals)



birds of prey, as a fer instance.


11. Welsh Woodsman May 07, 2018 8:16 AM
He basically lays out the argument that Eve eating the fruit wasn't such a bad thing because it made them "self-conscious". Really?


that's pretty much the same position as espoused by Chabad Hasidics.

Blogger tz May 07, 2018 9:00 AM  

JP takes dictation from the Devil.

Or put differently, Peterson IS the snake.

Before the fall, Character and Virtue were all there was. The knowledge of good was like the knowledge of water by a fish or even the air you breathe. But if you know that evil is a poison, you know you don't want to know it.
Peterson's rules is a "subtil" creation of the very smoke, fog, and chaos he says he is railing against. Real Christian (and even Pagan) virtue, goodness, truth, etc. are hard because they are objective standards. By fuzzing things so a bunch of small and irrelevant (clean rooms) but easy things becomes the badge of pharasaic righteousness, while the grave evils which afflict us - sexual perversion, corruption and theft, violence - somehow have disappeared into the fog.
Jesus described the Pharisees as whitewashed tombs. Peterson's 12 rules are for doing the best job of whitewashing.

A comparison could be made with Islam which also has a lot of strong and clear rules, and works - it has been around since the 7th century. But it is evil and violent even with its rules of behavior.

But the reason men are afraid of chaos is because they know they will face God one day and will be judged. They know this even with all the conscious efforts to deny it. And if you know there will be an exam, you will study for it. Christendom has the Bibles and the Catechisms. JP has the 12 rules. It is like paying for a fake list of test questions.

Blogger Jail Cussox May 07, 2018 9:00 AM  

JP writes as one asked to explain his answer; and instead of answering it, he detours into thirty minutes of subject changes.

Blogger Welsh Woodsman May 07, 2018 9:01 AM  

Its a sad commentary, about the times in which we live, where this mental midget is regarded as some sort of sage.
Oh...to have HL Mencken weigh in at a time such as this.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) May 07, 2018 9:01 AM  

25. VD May 07, 2018 8:53 AM
I don't think Peterson is consciously devoted to evil himself.


i dunno.

one of yesterday's threads has a picture from inside Jordan's house that appears to be of Jordan and his wife.

dressed up "Eyes Wide Shut" style. although, i suppose it could be some sort of Steampunk cosplay.

if he's involved in that stuff ( EWS ), there's no practical limit to the depths of his involvement.

Blogger tz May 07, 2018 9:02 AM  

Our ancestors weren't hanging from the trees. That was reserved for the outlaws via nooses to clean the gene pool.

Blogger Jack Collinson May 07, 2018 9:03 AM  

Insofar as he's repeating Nietzschean and Jungian doctrine, his "masters" are demons. He doesn't need to realise that he's inadvertently serving malevolent politicians, but that he's inadvertently serving the demons who are also behind said politicians. We all are the servants of demons at some point in our lives (Christ pointed it out when Peter was parroting Satan) so it's no reason to kill yourself. And it shouldn't surprise you to discover that your the dupe of devils when you put your trust and intellectual formation in the hands of men like Nietzsche and Jung of all people. It was after reading Nietzsche for some time that I first began to notice the demonic in my own live (and I didn't even believe that demons existed at that point). Most academics will skate over the dangerous and occult side of Nietzsche's and Jung's writings, to render them more academically sterile. But Peterson seems like more of a true believer.
This man needs Jesus, that's all. But it's going to be increasingly hard for him as he establishes himself as a guru and keeps being told that he's saving people's lives.

Blogger Redpill Angel May 07, 2018 9:10 AM  

Haven't read the book yet but it's on my shelf. I'm not into hero worship, but had rather liked the fact that someone in academia was questioning the received wisdom. You have certainly exposed some cracks in the facade which I will take into account when I read the book. Your review is fair and kind, really. His real weakness, to me, is his Jungian psychobabble; it fascinated me for a time until I realized it was just a way for academics to discuss spiritual matters but avoid the reality of God. His flaw is his ambition and pride in his fine mind, and his fear of being ostracized from the academic community that validates him. The truth is, he signed a contract with the devil when he became a professor in a university.

Blogger Uncle John's Band May 07, 2018 9:14 AM  

So the "deep knowledge" is allusive squid ink in the form of a learned front. No wonder he'll never debate.

Fear more than evil does seem to be the driver.

Blogger buzzardist May 07, 2018 9:15 AM  

Peterson's writing is what I'd expect from a Jungian intellectual. Everything is connected to everything else. It's all part of the same tapestry. One thing is rooted in another, in another, in another. How clever a person is in such academic circles is a function of how many disparate references a person can pack into a paragraph. How do you know that you're clever, too? Because you catch all of the references? How do you know that you're truly brilliant? Because you see the forest through the trees and grasp the underlying philosophical framework that's holding it all together.

If you liked the movie Inception because you thought it was clever and deep, then Peterson's writing style is likely to appeal to you. But if you regard that kind of shell-within-a-shell-within-a-shell style, it's-all-one referential pastiche as a sign of pseudo-intellectual bullshittery, then your opinion of Peterson is probably not going to be terribly high.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora May 07, 2018 9:20 AM  

I have to give Peterson credit. He's gotten me curious as to the spiritual significance of the fear cats have of cucumbers.

Blogger Bilroy May 07, 2018 9:21 AM  

Though I was once a Peterson fan I'm done with him on account of his cowardice and his declared enmity to the right. But that excerpt you provided - to me, a secular agnostic looking for a reason to believe in anything other than nihilism, is the most compelling part of his theology. In that respect, if all you're going to do is shriek heresy (and as a Christian you'd be right to), then I'm sad to say there's something lacking in this critique

Blogger Nate May 07, 2018 9:22 AM  

"I can't imagine that ending well."

***nods***

and like Judas... he would not have the faith that Peter had to combat his despair.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) May 07, 2018 9:25 AM  

note also, that if Peterson is involved in EWS type activities, that's an answer to Vox's question of why Jordan gets so much attention.

because he is controlled by those who pull the strings.

Blogger darkdoc May 07, 2018 9:32 AM  

Where would Petersen be without the word "perhaps" to signal a flight of poorly imagined fancy, presented as an acceptable, logical and profound explanation, always with no alternatives presented. "Perhaps" is a word to excuse one of any responsibility of being an idiot.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira May 07, 2018 9:35 AM  

He should retire to the northern prairies.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 9:36 AM  

But that excerpt you provided - to me, a secular agnostic looking for a reason to believe in anything other than nihilism, is the most compelling part of his theology.

You won't find anything better than Peterson then. You're literally hopeless, which is why you are his primary target market. Peterson is the proposed answer to the failure of Dawkins and Harris.

In that respect, if all you're going to do is shriek heresy (and as a Christian you'd be right to), then I'm sad to say there's something lacking in this critique.

I'm not shrieking heresy. Peterson doesn't rise to the level of heretic. And there is nothing lacking in this critique because it is not a critique at all, it is just a review of a book.

By the way, I think it is far more likely that Peterson will convert to some form of Judaism than convert to any form of Christianity.

Blogger urbino May 07, 2018 9:39 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Chief Osage May 07, 2018 9:40 AM  

"Peterson's rules are pedestrian and childish on their face, encouraging the reader to stand up straight..."

This is my only quibble with your review. This is literally the same advise given by many in the game community as they help young men figure out how to attract women, among many similar pieces of advice.

Too many boomer and gen x parents were hapless with women and did little to teach such basics; even if they were otherwise exemplary parents.

Things like telling the truth may be basic and simple; but they also have profound implications in life and are little followed. I don't see this as a disadvantage when crafting rules.

Frankly, your criticism could be equally leveled against another famous rule, 'love one another'.

Blogger Bobiojimbo May 07, 2018 9:41 AM  

Epigenetics is a thing, and we know original sin has long term consequences. It appears Peterson here may have stumbled across a possible connection, but can't figure it out or whether it's a real connection. I don't know.

Blogger Uncle John's Band May 07, 2018 9:42 AM  

The rise to fame is curious. It's clear from the messianism that his presentation was always about more than trying to help people by sharing personal coping strategies. In hindsight, the pronoun stand seems more like a credibility-boosting virtue signal than a sign of a core a commitment to free expression. So the seeds were there from the start.

But the sudden appearance of Ben Shapiro in the mix does suggest something has changed.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 9:43 AM  

This is literally the same advise given by many in the game community as they help young men figure out how to attract women, among many similar pieces of advice.

That's ridiculous. Peterson takes an entire chapter to give out a fraction of the advice given on a single Game post on the same subject. Furthermore, the advice is childish, the fact that many young men are childish enough to need that advice doesn't change that fact.

Frankly, your criticism could be equally leveled against another famous rule, 'love one another'.

No, it can't be. No one tells children that. "Stop hitting each other" is about as far as it goes. You are clearly not a father. More parents tell their kids things like "don't lick your brother" than "love one another."

Blogger Rocklea Marina May 07, 2018 9:43 AM  

@23 Nate wrote:
Maybe I'm just sympathetic to the guy because he is so broken.

Me too. Pray for him. But don't underestimate the impact of Jordanetics. As he has said himself, he's riding a 100 foot wave. That's got to be a heady feeling and very insulating from legitimate criticism. If the support of his followers continues to sustain him, what then? Many influential people are talking about him, /pol/ included.

from an anon:
Ever tried to redpill a Peterson fan?

It's extremely difficult. They see you as the enemy the same way we see the Left as an enemy. They consider us "reprehensible collectivist tribalists", and it's difficult to sway them with evidence to the contrary because they hold Peterson up on a pedestal.

Do not underestimate the power of self-help advice being used to deliver an ideological payload. It is basic cult indoctrination.


Knock him off the pedestal.

Blogger Johnny May 07, 2018 9:51 AM  


"make everything permanently predictable and safe"

I don't know if there is a word for it, but an excessive fear of uncertainty is something that grips some people, and this guy's feel for it is so good that he must surely suffer from it, or at best be recovering from it with it still back there lurking.

His analysis of Adam and Eve is selling a preconceived doctrine, not arguing for it. That doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't prove anything either. For myself, I believe the great weight of evidence is that the story is a sexual allegory.

Now if you want confusion, try L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics. Could be wrong because I only read a few pages, but they were all over the place. Mixed metaphors that didn't fit together was what was most obvious to me. Either he was incapable of logical thought or he was creating the impression of profound thought by spouting confusion. You know, some of the readers that don't get it will take it as deep and a wisdom beyond their grasp.

Blogger Chief Osage May 07, 2018 9:53 AM  

Good choice on the book quote; it is at once damning of his philosophy and revealing about his perspective on women.

He makes it off almost as if the devil did them a favor and eating the fruit was a good thing. This is calling good evil and evil good. I say almost as if because he argues it, but in that snaky way that is deniable.

And the idea that tempting Eve was happenstance is absurd. Paul tells us exactly why, she was more easily deceived. This is why she was not in charge and why the fall was credited to Adam and not her. She was expected to be deceived, but he knew better.

So either Peterson is ill studied on scripture, and should not be opining on it, or he's a women worshiping feminist concocting rationalizations for Eve's (and the Devil's) poor behavior.

Which should come as no surprise in the context of his devilish prophetic dreams and autodictatic 'pen of light'.

Blogger Sam Spade May 07, 2018 9:55 AM  

I feel like Peterson is a walking example of why we humans need faith as well as reason to be complete and not falling appart.

He knows he needs God to completelly heal a broken person as himself, but he doesn't believe. And that's where all the insanity begins, trying to find a way to do it by himself.

Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't read his book but watched some extense interviews with Joe Rogan and Stefan.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums May 07, 2018 9:57 AM  

The co-evolution of snakes and humans is demonstrably false.

Co-evolution is when the evolution of one species affects the evolution of another species, in other words the two species have to be next to each other in order for one to bear any selective pressures on the other.

Cats and humans have co-evolved. Humans and crows have co-evolved. Same with dogs, cows, or any other domesticated animal. Same applies to parasites and hosts, or predator and prey.

Humans and snakes have not co-evolved because wherever there are humans there are no snakes, and wherever there are snakes there are no humans. A snakes is not a parasite to humans, a predator, a prey, a domesticated animal, or a moocher like crows.

Furthermore if we assume that at some point snakes were predatory to humans then the necessity of developing acute vision in order to detect these predators is superfluous when you realize the size a snake would have to take in order to be able to eat a human. Detecting movement would surely be far more advantageous to combat a giant snake that can eat a human and acute vision only serves as a distraction. Peterson even mentions how slit pupils are adaptations for detecting movement (I don't agree with this claim either) but snakes are the ones with slit pupils and humans with round pupils. Not to mention that it's the predator who requires the acute vision and not the prey.

Let me correct Peterson again, vertical slit pupils like snakes have are not an adaptation for movement they are an adaptation for rapid changes in light intensity which is essential when you're hunting small prey that can jump in and out of tiny dark places. Case and point, the smaller the prey the more slit the pupils of the predator. Cats have slit pupils because they hunt mice, lions have round pupils because they hunt huge zebras. Wolves have round pupils because they hunt large animals, foxes have slit pupils because they hunt tiny animals. An animal which is adapted to detecting movement will have horizontally slit pupils not vertical and humans have neither.

A cursory google search flies against Peterson's claim that the SERPENT in the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for snakes co-evolving with humans. And by the way, Jordan, humans as a species are 400 000 years old at most, not tens of millions.

Seems to me he picks and chooses based on what fits his presuppositions way too much.

By the way, check out the description of his source material of Dr. Lynne Isbell: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674061965
It's an interesting theory however it can fit other creatures just as well.

Blogger Nate May 07, 2018 10:01 AM  

" This is all well and good, even if the fact that it is apparently necessary to explain these things to adult men and women tends to inspire one to weep for the state of modern Man."

Honestly... you really have no idea how bad it is. I mean I know you see the clips of the snowflakes on youtube. And you know you want to think that these kids are the exception.. I was speaking to a guidance councilor the other day.. and he told me colleges are starting to ignore ACT and SAT scores because they are so incongruent with GPAs. Now... you and I would think it would be the opposite right? We wouldn't care about your 4.0 GPA much if you could only get a 12 on the ACT.

But its the other way around. These kids show up at university and literally can't ride a bike. They can't tie their own shoes. Because apparently its easier just to get shoes that don't have to be tied. they go out in pajamas because... it doesn't occur to them that they shouldn't. even basic hygiene has gone to complete crap. They are literally to lazy to shower.

And these are the same people that are screaming at actual functional human beings about very complex issues. so when JP says... "talk to me about global warming when you learn to manage your own personal hygiene.." he has a point.

one more anecdote... the rumor is that employers are pressuring the folks behind some tech certifications to include a lot more soft skills... because the people they are hiring don't wash their hair... can't communicate... and basically cannot interact with others.

it tells you just how badly parents... and the church... have failed.

Blogger Chief Osage May 07, 2018 10:05 AM  

"That's ridiculous. Peterson takes an entire chapter to give out a fraction of the advice given on a single Game post on the same subject. Furthermore, the advice is childish, the fact that many young men are childish enough to need that advice doesn't change that fact."

That he is long winded is fair criticism but that's not my objection; rather it is your characterization. You characterize it as childish; one would more fairly say it is simple and basic.

But simple, pithy rules is an advantage in exercises like this and it is still good advice. Rules like this have a lot of depth behind it, even if Peterson failed to reveal it.

Clearly it's to pedestrian for you, but for a mass appeal book, that is an advantage.

"No, it can't be. No one tells children that. "Stop hitting each other" is about as far as it goes."

Then they are clearly not Christian parents.

Blogger Joshua Hardy May 07, 2018 10:11 AM  

Many snakes are poisonous and while they cannot predate humans, they are a significant threat should someone be bitten. Cobras, water moccasins, and rattlers come to mind. It seems that humans don’t run into them much because we kill them. We crush them with our feet and they strike at our heels. Genesis goes so far as to say that there is enmity between snakes and humans. I agree that there are many more evolutionary pressures than snakes, but I don’t think snakes, with the primordial fear they sometimes elicit in humans, can be written off as unsubstantial evolutionary contributors.

While humans have only been around for about 400,000 years, our animal ancestory goes back further. Becoming categorical humans did not erase the previous evolutionary history. Most of our nature comes from our presumably ancestors.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 10:15 AM  

That he is long winded is fair criticism but that's not my objection; rather it is your characterization. You characterize it as childish; one would more fairly say it is simple and basic.

No. It is childish. It is literally what we teach our children who are five years old. I do not expect to have to tell a teenager those things, let alone an adult.

Then they are clearly not Christian parents.

You are absolutely wrong. Children don't need to be told that. If raised by loving parents, they are normally full of love.

Blogger buzzardist May 07, 2018 10:17 AM  

@38 So then what "theology" does Peterson offer? It's certainly not Christianity. About the best one can say is that it's a pseudo-theology of Jungian archetypes. Peterson strings together a bunch of things, waves his hand, and says, "Lo, the pieces all fit together into one perfect puzzle!"

This, however, does not constitute a belief system.

Really, agnosticism is the most hopeless, empty belief perspective one can take. An atheist at least makes a truth claim--there is no God. An agnostic is too cowardly to make any truth claim, at least on this most important question. Is there a God? An agnostic's reply is "Buggered if I know." This retreat into epistemological uncertainty means that the agnostic has no foundation on which to build anything philosophically, ethically, civilizationally, or otherwise. The best the agnostic can hope for is the kind of rhetorical self-deceit that Peterson conjures up. In essence, Peterson is saying, "Yes, I'm helpless and alone in this dark, nihilistic hole, but here are 12 rules. Stand up straight, tell the truth, pet the cat, etc., and maybe you'll feel O.K. about your hopeless condition." That's not theology. It's brainwashing oneself to avoid dealing with the dark realities of radical skepticism.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2018 10:22 AM  

By the way, I think it is far more likely that Peterson will convert to some form of Judaism than convert to any form of Christianity.

Definite connection. When I first started listening to JBP's Biblical lectures, I assumed from his familiarity with the stories and the non-literal, spiritualized interpretations that he came some kind of Jewish mysticism in his childhood.

JBP the guru philosopher is empty. He can't find the logical counter-argument to nihilism, so he redefines truth; nothing terribly new about that.

JBP the seeker of truth who is fascinated with the depths of truth in the Bible gives me some hope; he seems to perceive (rightly) the depth of wisdom, even if his exegesis and interpretations are incoherent. It is a big mistake to see him as Christian; at best, he is coming at pieces of the truth obliquely.

Whoever is not for you is against you.
Whoever is not against you is for you.

Both true, but much discernment in knowing which applies.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 07, 2018 10:22 AM  

Was Peterson writing this while watching Indiana Jones? He really hated snakes.

Blogger Joshua Hardy May 07, 2018 10:23 AM  

It’s implied in Genesis that the Knowledge of Good and Evil was itself divine. Before he kicks the two out of the garden God remarks, “Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. “What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”
I’m not a fan of that translation, but it’s all I have right now.

It’s implied in the story that the two most important aspects of godhood are: knowledge of good and evil and eternal life.

The quote also demonstrates why what the serpent told was not an outright lie, but a deception - a half truth. As God States, Adam and Eve DID become like gods, but not fully. They would have to eat from the tree of life in order to become fully gods.

Blogger Brick Hardslab May 07, 2018 10:29 AM  

Reading this puts something into context that's been nagging me. I can put my finger on it now but it still puzzles me. Most atheists I know are bitter, 'I don't want to follow the rules so I don't believe in God,' types. Peterson obviously believes in rules and in following them but he either doesn't believe in God or doesn't want to believe, (I'm not sure which).

That's why this bothers me so much. He desperately needs spiritual help but he either can't see what's right under his nose or is simply rejecting it. He wants to follow rules but instead of simply accepting the reason for the rules he has to invent a Rube Goldberg explanation that's hollow at the core.

He wants to make himself and other men into hollow men.

Blogger LibertyPortraits May 07, 2018 10:35 AM  

Love the review. I had heard of JP vaguely in the past and when I looked him up again I didnt even realize I was already subscribed to his YT. Before reading VDs posts on him I thought JP was helping young men and so I thought he was some kind of self help guru. I got 12 rules expecting self help but it reads like a philosoohy of religion or mythology monograph. Quite annoying and sleight-of-hand is absolutely spot on.

Blogger tkatchev May 07, 2018 10:39 AM  

like our arboreal ancestors

I think the Aquatic Ape Theory holds more water.

(I'm being serious here.)

Blogger Johnny May 07, 2018 10:41 AM  

What I believe to be the best argument for why human vision is the way it is goes back to monkeys in a tree. To leap to the next branch they don't need eagle like vision, but they need clear vision and the ability to judge distance. Thus they are visually oriented and both eyes are in the front of the head so as to accurately judge distance.

Ground dwelling animals that run away have the eyes at the side of their head for best all around seeing. Those who are apt to confront want both eyes in the front. Given the size and hazard of the great apes, it is not surprising that the eyes remain in the front.

Gorillas have an inordinate fear of snakes and will go into a panic upon seeing one, apparently hereditary. It appears to me that people carry some of that. Some think that a certain minority group has a greater fear of snakes than other groups. When in the army, me and this southern guy had a minority Sargent over us. I thought him mediocre and the southern guy actively disliked him. As a trick one day the other guy put a rubber snake in the glove box of a vehicle. Upon seeing it, the sarg jumped with such force that he slammed his head into the windshield. Fortunately he had a helmet on and cracked the windshield instead of his head.

Blogger Johnny May 07, 2018 10:49 AM  

Brick Hardslab wrote:Peterson obviously believes in rules and in following them but he either doesn't believe in God or doesn't want to believe,

If you want a theatrical portrayal of someone who fears uncertainty, the movie Rain Man presents a savant, an extreme case.

In Peterson's case I believe his rules are his security blanket. They help him deal with the uncertainty of life by giving him a sense of greater control. He needs the rules for emotional reasons.

Blogger Shamgar May 07, 2018 10:53 AM  

I used to think the rule "Set your house in perfect order before criticizing the world." was a good retort to the SJWs and young idealists like the Parkland activists. But the more I think about it, who has ever had their house in "perfect order"? it seems to me as if this is an escape route for JBP and fans. Any criticism and they/ he can just say, "How dare you? You don't even have your house in perfect order!" But of course the same could be said of his/ their own houses. Yep, I thought VD's "mind-reading" of JBP's mental state was a reach but this shows me VD may be more right than wrong.

Blogger jimmy_the_freak May 07, 2018 10:54 AM  

Rocklea Marina wrote:@23

As he has said himself, he's riding a 100 foot wave. That's got to be a heady feeling and very insulating from legitimate criticism. If the support of his followers continues to sustain him, what then? Many influential people are talking about him, /pol/ included.


I find that people like Peterson put up a brave front of how they are unconcerned of what critics are saying, but are eaten up by it internally. It's the combination of the sensitivity with the intellectual posturing and the constant maneuvering to avoid being pinned down that are the tells.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2018 10:58 AM  

VD wrote:It's like the novelists who throw everything from chain-smoking dwarves and F. Scott Fitzgerald impersonators to suicidal poet-lumberjacks and lipstick lesbian biker gangs into the mix in order to create a sense of depth and societal relevance to a common murder mystery.
You leave Ron Goulart out of this. His books are not ordinary.

Blogger Gianna May 07, 2018 11:05 AM  

"That's why this bothers me so much. He desperately needs spiritual help but he either can't see what's right under his nose or is simply rejecting it. He wants to follow rules but instead of simply accepting the reason for the rules he has to invent a Rube Goldberg explanation that's hollow at the core."

JBP will not bite the hand that feeds him, his son, and his wife, probably his daughter too . There is no way he could continue if he became a Christian, no prestigious university in Canada or America would tolerate that. He knows this. This is why he always peppers his lectures with Darwin.

Blogger Nate May 07, 2018 11:11 AM  

"
No. It is childish. It is literally what we teach our children who are five years old. I do not expect to have to tell a teenager those things, let alone an adult."

Then you're not around enough young adults... much less teenagers. What you're seeing where you are... and what we see where we are... are the same.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 11:12 AM  

Then you're not around enough young adults... much less teenagers. What you're seeing where you are... and what we see where we are... are the same.

Irrelevant. Those things remain childish, just as an inability to feed oneself or control one's bowels is correctly described as infantile, regardless of the age of the individual exhibiting the behavior.

Blogger Nate May 07, 2018 11:13 AM  

"and what we see where we are... are the same."

dammit. are NOT the same... I normally don't correct these things but in this case it was a matter of clarity.

Blogger Jack Ward May 07, 2018 11:15 AM  

JP: 'It is far better to render Beings in your care competent than to protect them.'
I see a caring parent as one that will protect the child as said child matures and learns to become more competent. As an example take cautioning a child about crossing the street. You tell the child to look both ways. You caution about approaching vehicles coming from either direction. You do this over and over. Gradually the little ones learn this. You don't let the child attempt crossing streets with no prior instruction. You cross with them holding their hand. That's how you teach about dangerous things in life without killing the child as it learns competence. Regardless the idea that what does not kill you makes you stronger. You have to actually survive lessons to become stronger [and, smarter]

Blogger Nate May 07, 2018 11:17 AM  

' Those things remain childish, just as an inability to feed oneself or control one's bowels is correctly described as infantile, regardless of the age of the individual exhibiting the behavior.'

correct. entirely correct. But the fact that they are childish and infantile does not make them less necessary.

The truth is things have degraded to the point that they are necessary. So talking about them doesn't make someone childish. I mean I have to talk about basic hygiene. I taught a 15 year old to tie his shoes a couple weeks ago. So yeah... I felt pretty uncomfortable doing it... but someone has to.

Perhaps the issue then is pointing out that talking about these childish things does not make someone brilliant or intellectual.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia May 07, 2018 11:21 AM  

VD, given that you have, up to this point, written about JP with a rhetorical tone somewhere between righteous fury and obsessive compulsive anger, I have nothing but compliments on the evenhanded rhetoric in this review. The tone is positively mainstream!

As I mentioned in my other comments on JP, I have thought of him as “useful.” Haven’t read the book, (and don’t intend to), and haven’t subscribed to his Patreon account (don’t intend to do that, either).

However, I have watched some youtube videos, and the two that were the most “useful,” I think, were his testimony on pronouns in front of the Canadian parliamentary committee, and the interview with Cathy Newman. The first exposed the totalitarian inclinations of the language police, and the second the warped worldview of third-wave feminism.

Fish in a barrel on both occasions, but again, useful, and both examples saw JP present a more focused set of arguments. (Meanwhile, if you want to blame anybody for JP’s meteoric rise to fame, lay it at the feet of Cathy Newman). I may still watch some of videos on male-female relationships, just to see if he somewhat red-pilled, or merely a gamma pedestalizer.

Finally, your insight about JP being “terrified” really hit home. In my unstructured dabbling into JPs speeches and interviews, there was an instance where he said that at some point he will say something or do something that will lead to a massive negative reaction and fall from prominence. He said it in this weird way that conveyed its inevitability and with a facial expression that showed he was terrified at the prospect.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2018 11:22 AM  

I dunno. I still like JP. I'd much rather hang out with him than my idiot SJW brother.

I can listen to a guy who's passionate about pyramids and ancient myths. I can't listen to endless anti-Trump rants.

And let's face it. I believe alot of crazy whacked out stuff too. So does everybody.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 11:34 AM  

Fish in a barrel on both occasions, but again, useful, and both examples saw JP present a more focused set of arguments.

Here is my point: who gives a flying fuck? Did you learn NOTHING from anointing the neocons the gatekeepers of the Republican Party?

It's like deciding you can follow a piece of plastic because it actually has an N on it somewhere. To permit the man ANY influence at all, to welcome him as an ally, let alone as a philosophical leader, is a catastrophic error.

He is not useful. It is that very facade of usefulness that makes him more of a problem than Harris and Dawkins combined.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 11:36 AM  

I can listen to a guy who's passionate about pyramids and ancient myths. I can't listen to endless anti-Trump rants.

You have it exactly backwards. The anti-Trump rants are harmless. The other guy is leading you to New Babel.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 11:37 AM  

So talking about them doesn't make someone childish.

True, but I have never said that Peterson is childish. I said the rules are childish. They are. They are rules for children and adults who never learned them as children.

Blogger dienw May 07, 2018 11:38 AM  

@44
His Eros is passive like a child's; he hopes to be caught, sucked in, enveloped, and devoured. He seeks, as it were, the protecting, nourishing, charmed circle of the mother, the condition of the infant released from every care

Very interesting statement: it presupposes a child enveloped by the mother whom the father has enabled to do so; the father is aloof or withdrawn allowing the mother to dominate the son; for it is the father who must teach the son to be independent of the mother; but, the Christian has a way out once he realizes what happened: that is to take seriously, as early in the Christian life as possible, the claim by God that He is the Christian's Father and pray to Him that the Oedipal chains be broken and that he be healed of the iniquity.

Observe that feminism is determined to remove access to the father in the immediate and to the Father in the long range; perhaps we accurately can declare the primary though hidden purpose of feminism is to create generations of Oedipal males.







Blogger Nate May 07, 2018 11:43 AM  

" I said the rules are childish. They are. They are rules for children and adults who never learned them as children."

correct.

i suppose then the issue is from my own mistake of applying the negative connotations that tag along with the word "childish". Calling the rules childish was misread by mean to suggest that Jordan was employing a childish outlook or that the rules were written from a child-like perspective. That's not really what you said. They are childish rules in the sense that they are rules that should be learned as children. of course they do not come from a childish point of view. They are there to disrupt that childish point of view.

Honestly the worst thing about this is what the reception of the book says about Jordan's audience... and their parents.

Blogger Chief Osage May 07, 2018 11:44 AM  

VD wrote:He is not useful. It is that very facade of usefulness that makes him more of a problem than Harris and Dawkins combined.

This is where you are talking past his fans. He is objectively useful: countless people have improved their lives by listening to him.

It's not that he isn't useful, its that he is dangerous. Devilish lies are hidden in that usefulness.

It's not all black and white; you don't need to deny the good he has done to point out the problems with his philosophy.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 07, 2018 11:57 AM  

“he fights against PC”

He explicitly says that he “ALWAYS” respects the wishes of the 72 gender pronouns jihadis in his classroom.

He only objected to the Canadian government compelling their use because he equates that with totalitarian nation socialism.

So tell me how he fights PC, again?

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 11:58 AM  

It's not all black and white; you don't need to deny the good he has done to point out the problems with his philosophy.

I didn't deny the good he has done. What part of "This is all well and good" did you find hard to understand?

The good that he has done is absolutely trivial. And he is actively attempting to dam the cleansing tide that is rising.

Blogger DJ | AMDG May 07, 2018 11:58 AM  

“I mean, I know what some of the things alluded to in the book mean, but I can't address them in the review because they are not actually in the book.“

This, for sure. I read the book right before you picked up on him a week or two ago. Your response to him was irritating to say the least, however, I knew you were right in many ways.

I could find the value in his writing, even though it wasn’t explicitly there. I could also quite easily toss out that which I found problematic. Something JP fails to realize (or does and uses it to his advantage), is that the vast majority of an evangelist’s audience is never as intelligent, well read, clever, or experienced as the evangelist himself. That creates tremendous problems in communication and more importantly meaning unless the evangelist is highly aware of his audience and can properly (without the message becoming syncretic) contextualize the message.

Speaking of the problem of “meaning,” I believe that is exactly what Peterson is trying to solve ... for the New Atheists. He rightfully criticized that group for their inability to address human meaning/purpose and the related “problem of evil/definitions of good.” His answer was not to point people to GOD, however, but to use the Christian narrative as a metaphor for an atheist supporting form of moral evolutionary natural selection.

It really took me until the last 1/3rd of the book to realize this, as I was somewhat conned by the Internet “alt” branding he had received. It’s more likely an attempt at a coup of the red-pilled man by the atheist left than it is an insightful and modern look at Christian morality and purpose.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2018 12:02 PM  

You have it exactly backwards. The anti-Trump rants are harmless. The other guy is leading you to New Babel.

I misspoke. I should have said 'I can engage with a guy who's passionate about pyramids, I can't engage with my idiot SJW brother."

My sense is that JP is opinionated but has an open, inquisitive mind. This is why I find him engaging, even if tragically wrong.

Will he lead many to New Babel? Maybe. Narrow is the way after all. But in a Golem-like way I feel that there may still be some role for him to play in the kingdom.

Blogger Dirk Manly May 07, 2018 12:28 PM  

@38 Bilroy

"Though I was once a Peterson fan I'm done with him on account of his cowardice and his declared enmity to the right. But that excerpt you provided - to me, a secular agnostic looking for a reason to believe in anything other than nihilism, is the most compelling part of his theology. "

You do realize, that with a theo, Peterson doesn't have a theology, he has an atheology.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2018 12:38 PM  

urbino wrote:People may object to Jung's version of Christianity, or even call it heresy, but he was no Satanist and Peterson is no Jungian. There's a great deal of useful analytical info in Jung, including projection theory.

Jung was not a Satanist, but Jungianism is Satanic.
Jung's "Christianity" was nothing of the kind. He was never able to directly refute his pastor father's arguments in favor of religion, so he endeavored to neutralize them by redefining words into meaninglessness.
Jung's entire work, as your example illustrates, was dominated by the fact that his mother essentially abandoned him at a very young age, to deal with her own psychological issues. His theology was dominated by his father's relatively strict Reform Christianity.
Jung's entire body of work was trying to find universal explanations for his own dysfunction and the sources of his own unhappiness. In that sense, Peterson is definitely a Jungian.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 07, 2018 12:39 PM  

“But in a Golem-like way I feel that there may still be some role for him to play in the kingdom.”

I hope that was deliberate but it’s hella funny either way.

(It’s Gollum. A Golem is (((something else))).

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 07, 2018 12:40 PM  

)

Blogger Dirk Manly May 07, 2018 12:50 PM  

@53

"eterson even mentions how slit pupils are adaptations for detecting movement (I don't agree with this claim either)"

You are correct -- Iris shape doesn't matter.

As for movement detection, it's done within the retina, BEFORE the visual signals go to the brain.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2018 12:51 PM  

@90 Whoops! Must have been a (((Freudian))) slip!

Blogger Joey May 07, 2018 12:51 PM  

I know you've probably addressed this before but are you willing to debate JP (assuming he'd also agree to this)?

I propose a debate between you two and have somebody like Stefan Molyneux moderate the debate.

It would be the debate of the year IMO if we can make it happen.

Blogger Dirk Manly May 07, 2018 1:00 PM  

@53

"
By the way, check out the description of his source material of Dr. Lynne Isbell: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674061965
It's an interesting theory however it can fit other creatures just as well."

It's not testable, therefore, it can be no more than a hypothesis.

We use the word "theory" far too much, including random crack-pot blatherings.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 1:01 PM  

I know you've probably addressed this before but are you willing to debate JP

Of course. Set it up. I'll show. Either written or online is fine with me.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia May 07, 2018 1:07 PM  

@VD
"Here is my point: who gives a flying fuck? Did you learn NOTHING from anointing the neocons the gatekeepers of the Republican Party?

It's like deciding you can follow a piece of plastic because it actually has an N on it somewhere. To permit the man ANY influence at all, to welcome him as an ally, let alone as a philosophical leader, is a catastrophic error.

He is not useful. It is that very facade of usefulness that makes him more of a problem than Harris and Dawkins combined."


One, I don't recall "anointing" any neocons. Maybe you were thinking of someone else.

Two, flogging the Peterson horse is all well and good. I could care less if you are successful or unsuccessful in destroying him, mostly because you aren't essential to his destruction.

He's going to destroy himself without your help.

But he's done a service exposing the idiocy of Cathy Newman.

Blogger VD May 07, 2018 1:13 PM  

I don't recall "anointing" any neocons. Maybe you were thinking of someone else.

You're missing the point. You can learn from the mistakes of others. You can avoid repeating the mistakes of others.

But he's done a service exposing the idiocy of Cathy Newman.

Ah yes, the highly influential Cathy Newman. A noble and significant service indeed.

Your bar is exceedingly low.

Blogger Peter Gent May 07, 2018 1:24 PM  

Joshua Hardy wrote:It’s implied in Genesis that the Knowledge of Good and Evil was itself divine. Before he kicks the two out of the garden God remarks, “Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. “What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”

I’m not a fan of that translation, but it’s all I have right now.

It’s implied in the story that the two most important aspects of godhood are: knowledge of good and evil and eternal life.

The quote also demonstrates why what the serpent told was not an outright lie, but a deception - a half truth. As God States, Adam and Eve DID become like gods, but not fully. They would have to eat from the tree of life in order to become fully gods.[emphasis added]


Joshua, I must strongly disagree. Let me explain.
1. Just because the divine has a certain attribute, that doesn't make that attribute divine. Adam and Eve were not restricted from knowing good and evil because that knowledge was divine, admittedly God did know good and evil but so did the angels and they are not divine. They were ill-equipped to handle it. Note that God said if they did eat they would die, that is not divine. Their innocence would die and they would be separated from the divine, not become part of it. Like does not mean equivalence but an approximate, similar but not the same. It would be a false equivalency.

When we are resurrected into eternity, we will not be divine, yet we will always know good and evil but we have chosen the good.

2. Where do you get that knowledge of good and evil and eternal life are the two most important aspects of godhood? That is not at all biblical. The apostle John would disagree, as he defines agape (love) as one the most important aspects of God, who by His nature defines its essential meaning. Paul agrees that love (agape) is the most important thing we can possess. Everything pales by comparison.

3. Eating from the tree of life would not make them gods, but only seal them forever in their sin, just like the angels who rebelled with Satan. They cannot be redeemed. The ability to die (not eaten of the tree of life) allows us to be redeemed, to die only the first physical death to match the spiritual death we inherited, but because of that to have the possibility of new life in Christ and not die the second death.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2018 1:26 PM  

I fear this ends in suicide, honestly.
The man is a huge bundle of neuroses, barely held together with medication and bafflegab. When he loses his audience, as he has already predicted he will, what then?

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums May 07, 2018 1:38 PM  

@56

Going back tens of millions of years before the human species even existed is such a long time that the "ancestor" cannot be said to be a "human ancestor" or another way to put it that ancestor is as ancestral to us as it is to orangutans or any other primate. It's such a long time that we cannot even call that ancestor a primate. Same goes for snakes.

It's a meaningless statement to say humans evolved X because of Y evolutionary pressure TENS OF MILLION OF YEARS ago because you can say the same thing for every other animal ever. I mean FFS, dinosaurs were still a thing as early as 70 million years ago. You might as well blame human evolution on falling celestial bodies and you'd be just as accurate.

I also never wrote off snakes as unsubstantial to human evolution. I wrote them off as substantial as scorpions, wasps, bees, malaria, centipedes, cholera, fire ants, piranha, etc.

Just replace the word "snake" with "spider" and you'll see how the whole premise of that book STILL rings true.

Again, the time-frame is so large you can basically link any human trait (or any trait of any animal) to whatever other animal you wish and find just as much "evidence" as you can with snakes.

Blogger Brad Matthews May 07, 2018 2:12 PM  

Vox becomes the dark Lord for Peterson fans as well.

Blogger peppermint May 07, 2018 2:26 PM  

Chekov is wrong. Maybe the gun is there because Americans put guns on their walls. Maybe it's never fired because Americans can be browbeaten across generations by professors and teachers into giving up everything including their country and guns are just another part of their way of life to be surrendered.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 07, 2018 2:44 PM  

Come on Joshua and Peter!

To know in the biblical sense means to have deeply intimate experience. As in, "Adam knew Eve, and she bear a son"

Adam and Eve were warned personally by their creator about evil but that was information not experience.

God, being God, knows everything in its utmost detail so there's nothing he can learn from having the experience that he didn't already know. He didn't need to have Lucifer rebel in order to know that evil kills.

Blogger Paul M May 07, 2018 2:48 PM  

@18 "He cherry picks iconography without regard for the philosophical or historical substructure then spins it into whatever tale he wants. He also toggles between intellectual puffery and an almost folksy storytelling manner. … It reminds me of how an evangelist shifts between scriptural language and homespun talk."

The cherry-picking is very, very standard for evangelists. The pestilential habit of thinking in terms of individual verses in the bible, translated into english, or even worse using some butchered "original meaning of the greek/hebrew" word.

They are just free-associating, which is why what they say is so revealing. That absud business about vision and snakes, it's not meant to be true, it's meant to make you stoke your chin and go "hmm".

Blogger Dirk Manly May 07, 2018 2:59 PM  

"Reading this puts something into context that's been nagging me. I can put my finger on it now but it still puzzles me. Most atheists I know are bitter, 'I don't want to follow the rules so I don't believe in God,' types. Peterson obviously believes in rules and in following them but he either doesn't believe in God or doesn't want to believe, (I'm not sure which)."

The other thing that is clear in atheists is that they were abused as children. I've never met or come across one who didn't exhibit signs of childhood abuse, or I knew the person's history including b eing abused as a child.

Perhaps it's something of a reaction -- "If there is a God, how could he let this happen to me? Conclusion: no God."

Blogger Dirk Manly May 07, 2018 3:00 PM  

"I think the Aquatic Ape Theory holds more water."

That is ALSO just an untestable hypothesis, not a theory.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2018 3:05 PM  

@VD - " I said the rules are childish. They are. They are rules for children and adults who never learned them as children."

They are rules for his patients. A psychologist sees a very, very biased sample of humanity. Anything they say about humanity in general is not going to be accurate.

Blogger Dirk Manly May 07, 2018 3:06 PM  

Look people, lots of good ideas, even TRUE ideas are only hypotheses,
because we cannot test them.

And a lot of really bad ideas are theories... FAILED theories,
but theories none the lest, because they are testable.
The fact that they've been found wanting once tested (such as the phlogiston theory, and the universal ether theory) and been demonstrated as false doesn't change their status as theories.

Just because someone has an idea, and maybe promotes it, does not make it a theory. Quit abusing our English language.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2018 3:10 PM  

@99 "Just because the divine has a certain attribute, that doesn't make that attribute divine. Adam and Eve were not restricted from knowing good and evil because that knowledge was divine, admittedly God did know good and evil but so did the angels and they are not divine. "

The gods being jealous of their prerogatives is a pretty common trope in mythology. The story of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil has an echo in the story of the tower of babel. In both cases, the gods brought mankind low because they attempted to rise up equal with them.

The story of Prometheus being punished for giving fire to mankind is a similar sort of thing.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants May 07, 2018 3:21 PM  

Jordan Peterson, substitute father figure and his pedestrian rules for the Millinneals who didn't have a dad around to tell them to regularly wash their balls and take out the trash, plus some freaky readings of what goes on in his brain.
Up your Xanax dose at night, Dr. Jordy. It will prevent those "dreams," you have.

Blogger ThirdMonkey May 07, 2018 4:17 PM  

Things that are more of an "antidote to chaos" than Jordanetics:

"An Exposition on the Sermon on the Mount" by AW Pink
Any VD post with more than 100 comments. If Vox don't set you right, the Dread Ilk will.
Any five random Heartiste posts.
Any book by Louis L'Amour or Elmer Kelton.

Blogger tublecane May 07, 2018 5:40 PM  

Peterson confirmed for not understanding Chekhov's Gun.

This is what comes of being partially educated and disordered in thought. You scribble down what pops into your head as you write, and it never makes as much sense as it should.

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len May 07, 2018 5:41 PM  

"All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."

Given MPAI, the best "antidote to chaos" we may be able to hope for is extensive distraction, like string for kittens. People willing to shock themselves rather than just sit quietly for a while are unlikely to undertake the rigorous, painful slog of changing the trajectory of their lives.

Blogger tublecane May 07, 2018 5:49 PM  

That exegesis of a Bible story is no better than any random "deconstruction" I've read. Just random associations occurring to Peterson as he thinks about women and snakes.

Now do apples.

"Perhaps the Apple represents the fruit of the tree of knowledge because our remote forebears lived in apple trees, as posited culturo-arborital-anthro-biologist Dr. Ahmed Hammersmythe of North Unction College, U.K. The roundness of the apple mirrors the roundness of Eve's butt cheeks."

Blogger tublecane May 07, 2018 6:06 PM  

@16- "19th century romanticism (of men like Nietzsche) which did lead into Nazism"

That's a ridiculous oversimplification. And anyway, even if you can say Nietzsche led into Nazism, Nietzsche led into lots of stuff. Most of not good, but almost none of it resulting in gas chambers.

Peterson is dangerous, but not dangerous like that. People see totalitarianism in Ayn Rand, too, and she's distinctly Nietzschean. But the main result is the people that take to Nietzsche and Rand become a bit less socially sufferable and spend too much time gazing at their navels.

If Peterson has a similar effect, it will raise Western neuroticism a bit higher.

Blogger tublecane May 07, 2018 7:00 PM  

@36- The way Peterson puts it, one thing is "nested" in another, like Russian nesting dolls. Facts about the physical world, for instance, may be true on a micro level, but such facts are "nested" in moral truth.

It's a convenient way to look at the world if you're a B.S.-artist.

Blogger tublecane May 07, 2018 7:11 PM  

@55- Are you seriously arguing "stand up straight" isn't advice fit for a child?

I can hear my grandma saying it to me on my head

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2018 7:11 PM  

Jordan Peterson is a neocon Zionist: Gave a keynote speech at a Zionist Balfour centennial celebration last year with Ezra Levant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ITkUiyPVA

Jordan Peterson lies about the Marxist intent to replace White Europeans with third world immigration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7JkEd3mdgs

Blogger Bobiojimbo May 07, 2018 8:46 PM  

@Sam Spade

"He knows he needs God to completelly heal a broken person as himself, but he doesn't believe."

I think you may be right. It's like he's come so close, but won't go closer. It's like God is answer to everything he's grasping at.

Anonymous Anonymous May 08, 2018 12:20 AM  

Peterson admitting he's not a real Christian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIB05YeMiW8

Peterson: There are truths other than the literal that perhaps are more truthful than even literal truths. You know, there are many kinds of truth, and I don't mean that in a postmodern way, actually, but the truths that govern behavior and the truths that emerge from facts are not the same truths.

Interveiewer: Do you believe that Jesus rose again from the dead?"

Peterson: I cannot answer that question. And the reason is because... okay... let me think about that for a minute... see if I can come up with a reasonable answer for that. Well, the first answer would be: It depends on what you mean by Jesus.

Interviewer: I historical human being that existed...

Peterson: In a body...

Interviewer: In a body.

Peterson: In a body, and a physical body that was on Earth.

Interviewer: It was on Earth, and that was literally, that literally came back to life after death.

Peterson: I would say that at the moment I'm agnostic about that issue, which is a lot different than saying I don't believe that it happened.

Interviewer: That's very interesting.

Peterson: I have to explain why. When I get to the New Testament in my biblical lectures I'll spend like 6 hours trying to explain what I think about that, but one of the things I have come to learn over the past 15 years particularly is that the world is a very strange place, it's far stranger than we think, and what we don't understand about consciousness and its relationship with the body would fill many books, and you could say the same thing about our relationship with time, and corporeality, and death for that matter.

So, I don't understand the structure of being well enough to make my way through the complexities of the resurrection story, I would say it's the most mysterious element of the biblical stories to me, and perhaps I'm not alone in that, it's the central drama in the Christian corpus let's say.

Cont.

Anonymous Anonymous May 08, 2018 12:22 AM  

Continued from @121

Peterson: But I don't believe that it's reasonable to boil it down to something like "do you believe that or do you not believe it", you know, it's not... I don't know what the limits... I don't know the limits of human possibility.

...

I could say the death and resurrection of Christ symbolizes the necessity of the psyche to undergo a sequence of deaths and rebirths in its attainment of the ideal.

Thats is true. It's a phoenix story.

The thing is is that just because that's true doesn't mean that that's all that's true about it... because I also don't know... here, for example... in order to stay alive it's necessary to get the balance between death and life right in your psycho and your physiology, because death keeps you alive, your cells die and regenerate all the time. If you die too much then you die, if you don't die enough then you also die, you end up with cancer or something like that.

You have to get the balance between death and life right, in order to survive. I don't know what would happen if you got the balance between death and life exactly right. And I don't know what the upper limits are to human possibility, and neither does anyone else, and human consciousness and human being are capable of, well we don't know what we're capable of I suppose is the final answer.

And so I'm unwilling, for a variety of reasons, which I can't explain, they're tangled up with experiences that I can neither understand nor explain, but I'm unwilling rule out the existence of heaven, I'm unwilling to rule out the existence of life after death, I'm unwilling to rule out the idea of universal redemption and the defeat of evil.

I know perfectly well that all of those things can be well conceptualized metaphorically, i know the metaphorical conceptualizations, but I'm not willing to make the claim that those ideas exhaust themselves in the metaphor.

I'm not in a position as of yet to articulate why I think that, in a manner that would be anything other than a jumble of lateral thoughts. I have the thoughts but they're not organized. Part of the reason I'm doing the biblical lecture series is to organize those thoughts.

Blogger Thomas Howard May 08, 2018 11:35 AM  

Frankly, your criticism could be equally leveled against another famous rule, 'love one another'.

No, it can't be. No one tells children that. "Stop hitting each other" is about as far as it goes. You are clearly not a father. More parents tell their kids things like "don't lick your brother" than "love one another."

Then they are clearly not Christian parents.

You are absolutely wrong. Children don't need to be told that. If raised by loving parents, they are normally full of love.

Chief Osage is referring to what is not just a teaching but a commandment. Refer to John 13:34. Everyone needs to be told this, not just children.

Furthermore, I don't understand the derision towards simplicity.

Blogger Thomas Howard May 08, 2018 8:38 PM  

Chief Osage:
Frankly, your criticism could be equally leveled against another famous rule, 'love one another'.


Vox Day:
No, it can't be. No one tells children that. "Stop hitting each other" is about as far as it goes. You are clearly not a father. More parents tell their kids things like "don't lick your brother" than "love one another."

Chief Osage:
Then they are clearly not Christian parents.

Vox Day:
You are absolutely wrong. Children don't need to be told that. If raised by loving parents, they are normally full of love.



Chief Osage is referring to what is not just a teaching but a commandment. Refer to John 13:34. Everyone needs to be told this, not just children.

Furthermore, I don't understand the derision towards simplicity. A great teacher can distill the complex into its simplest essence.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts