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

Thursday, December 06, 2018

Confessions of a former fan

I really appreciate the seriousness with which even the most dubious skeptics are approaching Jordanetics, and the way in which they are honestly reassessing their previous assumptions and beliefs in light of the information it contains. This detailed review of the book explains the process of what goes through the mind of a Peterson fan when he first interprets what he hears Peterson saying versus when he subsequently encounters the verifiable reality of Peterson's teachings much better than I ever could.
- Vox

Confessions of a former, Jordan Peterson fan...
December 4, 2018

I've been a fan of Jordan Peterson (JP) for a couple years. I've watched many hours of JP video, including: classroom lectures, blog posts, event speeches, interviews, Bible story analysis, etc. I loved JP for denouncing Marxism, Leftism, SJW's and speech control as he adroitly argued against many of the standard leftist positions.

On our family road trips, I would force the family to listen to JP lectures or speeches, then proceed to tell them what JP was saying.

As a Christian and Bible student, I understood that JP's position on the Bible was flawed and that he was not a Christian himself, however, he was speaking against so many of the positions I was against that he inspired me to hope that he could stem the tide of those beliefs. I put some of my "faith" in JP...that was a mistake.

It is a strange experience to look back in time and see something I thought was so good, profound and impactful, that it moved me to tears, but now, realize JP did not really say anything I thought he said. I listened to the words he said, but I am the one that filled in the meaning...JP did not mean what I thought he meant.

As I was telling my family what he "meant", I was really telling them what I wanted him to mean. JP was my "reason", or excuse, for pontificating on various subjects and JP became a source of validation for my positions. I could state with confidence that my position was "right" and then point to JP and say, "See, he's saying the same thing...", thus making me feel good about this professor because he "backed me up".

Later, as I noticed inconsistencies, or position changes, with JP, I wrote them off as mistakes, or taken out of context, or simply ignored them. I was not willing to accept that I put my faith in someone who would actually be antithetical to my beliefs; that was something I was unwilling to consider.

About this time I learned about some of Vox Day's posts regarding JP's positions. Some of Vox's statements about JP were quite harsh. I thought, "Vox is not being fair to JP. JP is on "our side", so cut the guy some slack." However, one thing Vox said was the "key" that allowed me to reexamine my faith in JP. Vox said something like, "JP is repackaging Gnosticism and is not really saying what people think he's saying. JP is literally evil."

As a Christian, familiar with the problems of Gnosticism, I had to acknowledge that if Vox's point was true, it would be detectable if I reexamined JP's positions. My problem at that point was a pride, or ego issue. I did not want to admit that I could have been mislead, or duped, into following someone who was teaching something I knew to be evil. How could I possibly be fooled? I'm too smart to fall for that sort of thing, right? Not me.

So, I accepted some of Vox's challenges. One was to simply "read" what JP was saying, instead of "listening" to it. Wow, what a difference! Reading JP's words, I found they were devoid of the meanings I had been assigning to them. What he meant by good, evil, God, truth, etc. was not what I knew these words to mean.

When JP said to always tell the truth, I plugged my definition of truth into his statement. When JP said this or that position was "evil", I plugged my definition of evil into his statement. When JP talked about "consciousness" I "heard" my definition of consciousness, or "being" or whatever.

But after taking some time to go find how JP defined these words or ideas, and ignoring what I hoped he meant, I was shocked, to say the least.

One of my life axioms is, "Only the truth can withstand scrutiny." Therefore, never be afraid to scrutinize something; if it is true, then it will survive the scrutiny. It was time to scrutinize JP more fully.

After my own findings were eroding my faith in JP, I took the plunge and purchased "Jordanetics".

The first couple chapters did little to shed more light on JP, but did add more reasons to doubt my faith in him. However, once I reached chapter 3 and beyond, Vox's dissection of JP's positions began in earnest. Vox's approach is quite simple.
  1. Here is JP's Rule for Life #X
  2. Here is what JP says, which does not address said rule at all.
  3. What JP is saying means this, using JP's own words.
  4. Now that we are clear on what JP is saying, you have to decide what to do.
I decided. Instead of a thinking JP is a man that supports what I support, I've come to the sad realization that he is antithetical to most of my values and beliefs. Wow! That hurt my pride and ego, but truth doesn't care about those.

I'll summarize: If you believe any of the following, then JP is your man:
  • There is no such thing as Objective Truth.
  • Truth is whatever helps you survive.
  • Being or State of Being is contingent on your acceptance of truth (little "t") and rejection of "evil" (little 'e').
  • Evil is that which hinders you.
  • Jesus represents a state of being, but not a person, and definitely NOT the Son of God (God being the Creator).
  • Satan represents a state of being, but is not an actual fallen angel.
  • Social hierarchies exist, however, if you are too low or high, that's evil. The goal is the middle, that's where "good" is.
  • All ideas of God / gods are simply mankind's attempts to explain states of being.
  • Belonging to a "group" will negatively affect your being.
  • All concepts of "good", "evil", God, Being, heaven / hell can be unified and coalesced into one concept...the one JP supports.
I could keep going. However, if you find these concepts appealing, then JP is your man. If, like me, you find these ideas to be irrational, nonsensical, demonstrably wrong, the opposite of your beliefs, etc., and you've been influenced by JP, then read "Jordanetics" and see for yourself...

To those who wrote negative reviews; I read them. I was where you are...putting my meanings into what JP says. I feel pity for those who continue to base their support for JP because of "what they think he means", when what he actually means is there for everyone to find. However, like me, getting passed your ego and pride might be the toughest step for you to take. But take the challenge at take it...

In other words - Only the truth can withstand scrutiny.

Labels: ,

70 Comments:

Blogger Sillon Bono December 06, 2018 8:51 AM  

I loved JP for denouncing Marxism, Leftism, SJW's and speech control

I've mentioned this before, 100% of the people that I know who liked Peterson did so for this very reason, and somehow they all got blindsided to the other facets of Peterson's personality.

I don't have a problem admitting that Peterson seemed legit to me at the beginning precisely because of this, I started noticing the verbal diarrhea and took a few steps back, then once Vox's analysis of Peterson became public I've got more and more people telling me the same.

I think most of his fans come with the same experience.

The guy "seemed" legit and people didn't bother to check him further.

Blogger tz December 06, 2018 8:58 AM  

Gnosticism reinvents itself about every 50 years.

We had Anne Besant and Mary Baker Eddy with "Christian Science".

We had "The New Age" movement with "Christ Conscienceness" a few decades ago.

Now we have Jordan P Christ.

(I think you can go back farther like the Albergentian heresy).

They all feature some kind of "Christ" who is NOT Jesus. Typically it is a state of mind, incarnation, or something similar they will say Jesus HAD, not Jesus WAS (uniquely). And a subjective morality. Sin is the feeling of guilt or other badthink.

Gnosticism is the oldest heresy: 1. You shall not (really) die. 2. You shall be as gods knowing (determining for yourselves) good and evil. 3. You just have to break with (the Real God's) old commandment.

New Age and earlier had reincarnation, or transmigration, or something similar. I don't know of Peterson is coherent enough to have said something about spirit or an afterlife.

But note even so how the debate has moved from spirit or soul to the body. We no longer debate if we are a ghost in a machine, we debate if the ghost thinks its female if it can mutilate the male machine it is stuck in.

Clean your room, not your soul. Stand up straight, don't stand for righteousness.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 06, 2018 8:59 AM  

These former cultists don't need to feel too ashamed, the old right wing naughty talk shtick is time worn and frankly very effective. Peterson timed it perfectly with his courageous stand against some of the usual leftist theater about pronouns, and he even made it sound like he was questioning the authority of the Left, which of course has not proven out.

Blogger tz December 06, 2018 9:00 AM  

Stalin denounced Hitler and became our ally for a while. How'd that work out? Evil can denounce evil, but then will proceed to denounce good.

Blogger JACIII December 06, 2018 9:03 AM  

JP should never have put pen to paper. He had a good (for him) thing going and let his pretensions to great intellect get the better of him.
You cannot hide your bullshit in the written word.

Blogger Sillon Bono December 06, 2018 9:11 AM  

@5

Most importantly, never, ever, lie to an audience on the Internet.

Blogger GrzyMcKneezy December 06, 2018 9:18 AM  

I was unable to place my review on amazon as Jordanetics is only the second purchase I have ever made on it and they require you to have spent fifty dollars within the last 6-12 months. This review echoes nearly every one of my sentiments and experiences.

So, I accepted some of Vox's challenges. One was to simply "read" what JP was saying, instead of "listening" to it. This is the crux of the matter. I had only ever listened to Peterson. Never read it as hey podcasts are free.

Blogger Daniel December 06, 2018 9:33 AM  

You have the order reversed, JACIII. Maps of Meaning published last century, well before Jordan's gabfest began.

After all, what is L. Ron Hubbard without Dianetics?

Blogger Alphaeus December 06, 2018 9:36 AM  

"As I was telling my family what he "meant", I was really telling them what I wanted him to mean."

This is called making lemonade with the lemons. The point is we should never impute more to people than is reasonable. Nobody is infallible in any case. Even people who have interesting insights need to have their points revised and adjusted to make them more accurate.

While I believe that JBP was created for the deliberate purpose of confusing and misleading people, the lesson should be to see that the main fault is with our selves in that we do not take it for granted that we are all individually responsible for what we believe and for what we hold to be "true."
JBP slung BS at us with bad intentions, but because of the nature of the subject matter he had to do it in such a way that could lead people to see past his intended conclusions, such as they are, and arrive at our own conclusions, which to us might appear to be a meaning that we wanted rather than the meaning that JBP wanted.

Blogger OGRE December 06, 2018 9:57 AM  

Jordan B. Peterson: continually disproving the ancient proverb that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Blogger SidVic December 06, 2018 10:02 AM  

Wow, that review should be very satisfying to VD. Very seldom does one get feedback that a persuasive logical argument has changed anyone's mind (180 degrees in this case).

Blogger Mark Cook December 06, 2018 10:14 AM  

Vox - after reading these Reviews and Testimonies of Ex-Jordan followers, it occurs to me these people are really hungry and searching. It also occurs to me that they have probably never met the Real Christ. Possibly they have grown up in Churchianity churches and have never really heard the Gospel. What an outreach. If nothing else, when we hear this, we need to gently point them to the Son of God. One of the best books on the Gospel I have ever read is Charles Spurgeon's All of Grace. Can get free on the internet. But it does the best job of giving the Gospel that any book I have ever read. My Pastor does videos (Youtube) and he has several good ones for presenting the Gospel and true repentance, but I won't shamelessly promote him here. Anyway, I am struck by the hunger for truth these people have.

Blogger otwelmr December 06, 2018 10:24 AM  

This sums up exactly the way I perceived jp and how I thought Vox was wrong about him, and then how I realized Vox was right(Trusting Vox after following the blog for 8 or 9 years helped) after only a few posts. It was truly frightening to realize how many blanks I was filling into jp’s statements based on my own knowledge and beliefs.

Blogger David Baker December 06, 2018 10:28 AM  

Last week on Rogan he said he was making hay while the sun shines. Vox is a cloud at least, maybe the night is closing in now.
I wonder if Rubin will stay loyal or begin to distance himself.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz December 06, 2018 10:37 AM  

Given that most of the mainstream criticism of Peterson was clearly dishonest and not in good faith, it is not at all surprising that so many people became defensive when Vox first started criticizing him.
I did not want to admit that I could have been mislead, or duped, into following someone who was teaching something I knew to be evil. How could I possibly be fooled? I'm too smart to fall for that sort of thing, right?

Most con-men, whether those selling snake oil or a new religion, are not targeting dumb people. They are usually appealing to hope or greed or hubris. The smarter you are, the better you will be at rationalizing what you want to believe.

Blogger Unknown December 06, 2018 10:39 AM  

You realize how much of a faggot you are?

Blogger Gregory the Great December 06, 2018 10:43 AM  

I have tried listened to Peterson/Rogan for a while, and I found that some of the "magic" that makes him sound profound lies in the speed he is talking and changing subjects at. It works something like this (my invention, I hope it sounds sufficiently deep): "The idea of gender fluidity, whilst not something that should be accepted at face value (at least not if you are coming from a Jungian perspective and regard it as the archetypal vision of the river Styx that the Greeks had), has its roots in the Christian notion of baptism, the river Jordan being the fluid medium that frees you from your sins, just like gender fluidity frees you from the problems you have with your masculinity. This is also a prime reason why my mother chose the name Jordan for me, although my grandmother occasionally mocked her about this calling it a Freudian slip, slip obviously being an essential part of a young boy's underwear.

Blogger GM December 06, 2018 10:56 AM  

Just a field report: the two guys I thought Peterson might help move towards Christianity are dodging by making use of beliefs Vox has demonstrated Peterson actually holds: the self-aggrandizing hidden knowledge and the warped definition of truth.

Blogger The Greay Man December 06, 2018 11:04 AM  

Who is #16 - "Unknown" and who is he referring to?

Blogger theartistformerlyknownasgeorge December 06, 2018 11:08 AM  

I could make some allowances for JP's mealy mouthed responses on occasion simply because it was refreshing compared to the cocksuredness of most people when it comes to rather difficult issues, but he turned out to be very selective about the use of what he was trying pass off as epistemological humility.

He apparently KNEW about all the evils of the alt-right, nationalism, ect. without study, but couldn't give anywhere near a straight, even if he is uncertain, answer on his thoughts about god's existence or the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Blogger Gregory the Great December 06, 2018 11:09 AM  

Very good quote from this review (and I take it from your analysis, Vox): "Social hierarchies exist, however, if you are too low or high, that's evil. The goal is the middle, that's where "good" is."
Meaning: You bow to those above you and trample upon those below. When under pressure, buckle, bucko!

Blogger Tars Tarkusz December 06, 2018 11:13 AM  

tz wrote:Stalin denounced Hitler and became our ally for a while. How'd that work out? Evil can denounce evil, but then will proceed to denounce good.
Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.

Rubin is just an opportunist sucking up to the centrists and moderate Republicans who just love to hear a gay Jew regurgitate GOP talking points. He knows who is paying the bills. He is a leftist at heart.

Rogan is the most over-rated podcast on the Internet. I have no idea what people see in him.

Blogger Good Will December 06, 2018 11:24 AM  

I believe Jordan Peterson -- despite his flaws, failings, misapprehensions, misrepresentations and contradictions -- to be a better friend of Truth and closer to Christ (even without knowing Him personally or being "saved" by Him) than many who now denounce JP and claim to be his moral and intellectual superiors by virtue of their having a "true" understanding of the "real" Christ, good, evil, etc.

Do you think Jesus denounces JP with the vehemence and vociferousness Vox does, making Himself JP's accuser? Or does He look upon JP as would a loving parent behold His own child, welcoming him and encouraging him as he comes closer to the Truth?

I, for one, think JP is doing the Lord's work, exposing the truth to those who have ears to hear, who are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I do not expect every word to drop from JP's lips to be the unsullied truth and word of God. That does not mean, however, that the truth is not in him. Many of JP's truths, while seemingly false on their face, are in fact true! (And some, perhaps, seemingly true, are no doubt false.)

But I am not looking for a messiah or a savior in Jordan Peterson. He is simply a man who, frequently, makes wise and insightful observations that, to the likes of Vox and many of the Ilk, may seem prosaic, false, and even evil.

But judging and dispensing with a man merely for his flaws alone would cause me to reject all humanity.

We cannot judge who is "saved" on the basis of what they say or even what they do. That call belongs to Christ. I can envision Jesus walking up to JP, putting His arm around his shoulder and saying "You have handled well the measure of light and truth I have given you. Now receive more at My hand."

I may be wrong, I believe JP is closer to the truth and to Christ than many who now claim to be saved by and know Jesus personally.

Blogger VD December 06, 2018 11:31 AM  

I believe Jordan Peterson -- despite his flaws, failings, misapprehensions, misrepresentations and contradictions -- to be a better friend of Truth and closer to Christ (even without knowing Him personally or being "saved" by Him) than many who now denounce JP and claim to be his moral and intellectual superiors by virtue of their having a "true" understanding of the "real" Christ, good, evil, etc.

You also believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet. You're an evil little creep, Will.

He is simply a man who, frequently, makes wise and insightful observations that, to the likes of Vox and many of the Ilk, may seem prosaic, false, and even evil.

Wise beyond comprehension. Just ask him.

Do you think Jesus denounces JP with the vehemence and vociferousness Vox does, making Himself JP's accuser? Or does He look upon JP as would a loving parent behold His own child, welcoming him and encouraging him as he comes closer to the Truth?

Jordan Peterson communes with demons and practices magick, Will. Jordan Peterson is a child of his father the Devil, so I'm confident that Jesus would denounce him every bit as vigorously as he denounced the Pharisees.

Blogger VD December 06, 2018 11:34 AM  

I believe JP is closer to the truth and to Christ than many who now claim to be saved by and know Jesus personally.

And I believe you are a wicked, forked-tongue Mormon speaking falsehoods and seeking to deceive people, just like you do every time you post here.

Blogger Long Live The West December 06, 2018 11:42 AM  

"Do you think Jesus denounces JP with the vehemence and vociferousness Vox does, making Himself JP's accuser? Or does He look upon JP as would a loving parent behold His own child, welcoming him and encouraging him as he comes closer to the Truth?"

You act like Jesus was all smiles and hugs. Read the Bible. He was pretty harsh on false teachers.

"I may be wrong, I believe JP is closer to the truth and to Christ than many who now claim to be saved by and know Jesus personally."

Does Peterson acknolege Jesus as the Son of God? Does he believe in God as defined in the Bible? He does not. Go look up what Peterson has said about it if you're so sure.

You are either ignorant or a liar.

Everyone is wrong sometimes, go look this up and you'll find the truth fairly quickly.

If you're not willing to do that, well... Guess we have to go with option #2.

Blogger Nate73 December 06, 2018 11:54 AM  

@Sillon Bono: It was Peterson's remarks on Mgtow's and then his fork-tongued non-apology which initially disillusioned me with him. What really struck me about it is that he acknowledged the facts that red-pillers such as Mra's and Mgtow's often point out, like about hypergamy and monogamy and the failed family court system. But then he refused to address it further or say anything other than you as an individual have to improve. Say what you will about Mra's or Mgtow's but at least they have solutions they present for these problems you can then agree or disagree with. Peterson did the intellectual equivalent of agreeing you have a bleeding wound, but saying you shouldn't get bandages or alcohol out to clean it up and stop the bleeding.

Blogger Good Will December 06, 2018 11:58 AM  

VD, Jordan Peterson communes with demons and practices magic? (I confess my ignorance. I have not read your book. Surely support for the above accusations is included there.)

I do not know Jordan Peterson's mind and heart as well as you do, Vox, apparently. I have not studied his words as carefully as you have.


When asked if he is ever dishonest, I heard JP say "All men lie." I know what a challenge it is to ALWAYS tell the truth. Even when we try our hardest to do so, we sometimes fail.

That's why I'm willing to cut him some slack, (Not to excuse any dishonesty. Again, I confess my ignorance. I barely know (of) the man.)

As for Joseph Smith being a true prophet (since you brought it up), I don't condemn you for being mistaken on that count. Jesus said true prophets are seldom received and almost always condemned by those to whom they are sent. Joseph Smith was no exception.

Blogger VD December 06, 2018 12:03 PM  

VD, Jordan Peterson communes with demons and practices magic? (I confess my ignorance. I have not read your book. Surely support for the above accusations is included there.

Yes, you stupid little creep. You obviously haven't read either my book or Peterson's books. There is support for the above accusations in both bestsellers. Of course, you're such a jackass that you never let ignorance get in the way of trying to talk about your evil heresy.

I don't condemn you for being mistaken on that count.

I don't blame you for wearing Holy Underoos, I simply observe that you are deceitful and that you follow a false prophet. And now, you're done commenting on this thread before you pull your usual trick of trying to sell anyone else on doing so.

Blogger Wild Man December 06, 2018 12:08 PM  

"There is no such thing as Objective Truth."

Yes, the tedious exchange JBP had with Sam Harris with regards to 'truth' as best defined in relativistic terms (JBP's claim), vs. 'truth' as best defined in universal terms (Sam Harris's claim), though tedious, is a good starting point with respect to understanding the overall JBP worldview.

You must understand JBP's stance on this issue, or one will very likely completely misunderstand most everything else about his discourse. JBP abhors the postmodernists (mainly because they refuse to apply their analytical methodologies to their own perspective), yet gives them credit for outlining 'truth' in terms of perspective.

I find Sam Harris to be exceedingly dull because he fails to grasp the straightforward argument for 'truth as relative to perspective'.

Look - everything is connected to everything else, either directly or indirectly. And the indirect connections between loci (i.e. - via direct connections with intermediary loci) is often very difficult to uncover, and as such mystery abounds. That is our primary condition.

Furthermore, 'reality', may well be unbounded (infinite). There has been no evidence to the contrary. The best theologians of all the world's religions stress this point (God as infinite in every way, omnipotent and omniscient, an infinity of infinities and as such beyond the power of human conception).

These two concepts taken together (i.e. - 'reality' as universally unbounded but also granualized by way of directly and indirectly interconnected bounded loci) gives rise to the inevitability of metaphysical truth as always conditioned by the perspective of locus plus the hyper-perspective of interacting loci.

As such, this realm we find ourselves in, is akin to 'a finite precipitate of the infinite', (a contradiction in terms to be sure, ..... said contradiction giving rise to concepts such as divinity) but, nevertheless, obvious.

Another way to grasp this obviousness is to ask yourself - 'why is there something rather than nothing'?. There is no metaphysical, ontological, epistemological or spiritual answer to this question as far as I can tell.

Blogger Good Will December 06, 2018 12:28 PM  

By the way, VD, I'm NOT a Mormon (any longer).

I was excommunicated from the Mormon church for "apostasy" when I publicly affirmed that Jesus Christ is our PERSONAL Savior; that we are saved by Him, and ONLY Him, by intimate association with and knowledge of Him, by virtue of His grace, power, forgiveness, and blood, not by any action of "good works" on our part, by possession of any (supposed) Mormon "priesthood", the performance of any LDS ordinances (for the living or dead), or any "keys" or "authority" Mormons (or anyone else) might have, etc.

I told them "If you do not know Jesus personally and if He has not saved you personally, then you are not saved!"

They didn't like that. They called that "false doctrine".

Modern Mormons think they are saved vicariously, by virtue of accepting the efficacy of Christ's atonement on their behalf and their faithful performance of sacred ordinances, including the (nebulous) "fulfillment" of ridgid commandments -- a Latter-Day "law of Moses", as it were, like the Pharisees of old -- regardless of whether they know Jesus personally or have any interaction with Him.

They are wrong.

By and large, they give only lip service to the Book of Mormon, which they profess to believe and teach.

The Book of Mormon, however, translated by the gift and power of God through Joseph Smith, teaches the TRUE doctrine of Jesus Christ (to which I have alluded above), NOT the doctrines which Mormons presently espouse.

Blogger CJ December 06, 2018 12:50 PM  

Just had a quick read of the latest content at the Daily Stormer. The criticism of Jordan Peterson on this site is actually rather mild compared to what he gets over there :^)

Blogger The CronoLink December 06, 2018 12:57 PM  

The Book of Mormon, however, translated by the gift and power of God through Joseph Smith, teaches the TRUE doctrine of Jesus Christ

No, dude, it doesn't. You are too naive and stupid.

Blogger Good Will December 06, 2018 1:00 PM  

I am quite confident that JP does not acknowledge Jesus Christ to be his Lord and Savior. In his own ignorance, he may, in fact, deny the dvinity and reality of the living Christ. (I'm pretty sure that's his position, though I've never heard him speak on the subject.)

I don't know, however, how much truth to which JP has been exposed. (God is merciful to the unwillfully ignorant.) All men are deceived, to some extent, by falsehoods spread abroad by the father of lies. Our challenge is to discern the truth from error and to choose the good.

I cannot tell if JP's path will lead him fully to Christ, or take him elsewhere. His apprehension of the truth, for the time being, does not embrace the reality and divinity of Christ. So be it.

I would rather sit down to dinner and converse with him, however, than with any number of current "Christian" ministers, pastors, priests or prophets. (I would also greatly enjoy dining with Vox!)

As for JP, I would rather attack his false ideas, if necessary, rather than the man personally (like Vox attacks me). I hope JP would appreciate our efforts in that regard, even if he (currently) disagrees with us.

Blogger Gregory the Great December 06, 2018 1:02 PM  

I have a problem with people who think they automatically become Saints by joining a church or sharing a belief system. By this I mean the Latter Day Saints, of course.

Blogger Good Will December 06, 2018 1:29 PM  

Me, too.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 06, 2018 1:36 PM  

Truth isn't truth because it helps you survive. It's the other way around. Truth helps you survive because it's truth.

Blogger Wild Man December 06, 2018 1:49 PM  

@38 - if 'truth' is local as per the claim that truth is relative to perspective (or quasi-local with regards to the hyper-perspective of interacting loci), ..... then it's both.

Blogger Rhys December 06, 2018 3:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rhys December 06, 2018 3:27 PM  

Good Will wrote:I am quite confident that JP does not acknowledge Jesus Christ to be his Lord and Savior. In his own ignorance, he may, in fact, deny the dvinity and reality of the living Christ. (I'm pretty sure that's his position, though I've never heard him speak on the subject.)

I can't be bothered to do the digging, but he absolutely does all of the above in his "Biblical Series III" lecture. Peterson calls virtue "multidimensional competence", and basically interprets everything related to virtuous living in the bible to be about climbing hierarchies.

The logic seems to be:
Virtue comes from God -> God is at the top of all possible hierarchies -> Virtue is about being at the top of as many hierarchies as possible

Of course he completely misses any of the humility aspects of the bible, since I'm sure he's only really paid attention to the parts he can use for himself, and thus he doesn't understand the concept of humbling once before God rather than trying to be God.

Not surprising his definition of truth is what it is once you consider all of that. Peterson doesn't believe there's any meaningful connection between humans and a universal arbiter of truth so you can apparently just make shit up as you go along.

Blogger R Webfoot December 06, 2018 3:39 PM  

@18 GM
"Just a field report: the two guys I thought Peterson might help move towards Christianity are dodging by making use of beliefs Vox has demonstrated Peterson actually holds: the self-aggrandizing hidden knowledge and the warped definition of truth. "

He's playing the "Hello Fellow Christians" game. "Christianity is so great! And what I mean by Christianity is..."

His Bible lectures were where I started to see through the game. He talks up the Bible pretty hard... but, then, his conception of following God is to develop your own capacity to pay attention, because you are evolutionarily selected for the pursuit of meaning, and your subjective perception that you are engaged and paying attention is how you tell that you are doing so. And this evolved with the help of psychedelic mushrooms.

Jordan Peterson is not talking up the Bible to lead people to Christianity. Jordan Peterson is talking up the Bible so he can play his sleight-of-hand and convince them that the Bible is really about looking inside yourself and worshipping your own desires.

Any sufficiently grounded Christian will see right through it - if they merely understand that the Bible teaches that you are corrupted on the inside, and the corruption goes all the way through, even to the parts of you that wish to be better, therefore you must submit to a Power outside and above yourself.

Blogger R Webfoot December 06, 2018 4:30 PM  

@40 Rhys
'I can't be bothered to do the digging, but he absolutely does all of the above in his "Biblical Series III" lecture.'

https://jordanbpeterson.com/transcripts/biblical-series-iii/

"That's on the back of the American dollar bill. I like that a lot. That’s like the eye of Horus, from the Egyptians. The idea is something like, at the top of the hierarchy is something that is no longer part of the hierarchy, right? If you move up the hierarchy enough, what happens is that you develop the ability—as a consequence of moving up that hierarchy—to be detached enough from the hierarchy so you're no longer really part of it. You can move in all sorts of hierarchies. The thing you're really developing is the capacity to pay attention. From a mythological perspective, the one thing that seems to compete with the idea of the spoken word as the source of the extraction of habitable order from chaos is the eye and the capacity to pay attention."

See also: "Saint George is the patron saint of England. This actually sheds light on the human proclivity for warfare. That's a Muslim soldier. It’s really easy to transform the enemy into the dragon, because the enemy is often predatory. We do that instantaneously, without a second thought. Then we can go to war morally, because why not take out the snakes? Well, the problem is, where are the snakes? Maybe they’re outside, and maybe they're not. Maybe they're in this room. Even worse, maybe they’re in you. That’s wisdom, when you know that they’re in you."

And, apparently, Moses on the mountain - which is a pyramid, right? Mountain, pyramid! - "received" the Ten Commandments by figuring out the principles that the society had already been living by the whole time.

Blogger FutureNoir84 December 06, 2018 4:44 PM  

"Social hierarchies exist, however, if you are too low or high, that's evil. The goal is the middle, that's where "good" is."

No wonder JP gained popularity during the current upsurge of populism. (Trump, Putin, Abe, Modi, Salvini, Orban, etc.,)

Populism posits a 'middle' culture-bearing statum of members in a nation who face two threats:

'Below' is a debasing element today made up of illegal immigrants depressing wages, breaking unions, and threating dographic replacement.

'Above' exists a hostile elite composed of globalist bankers (basically Jews) working tirelesly to distort the culture of the host nation.

"However, if you find these concepts appealing, then JP is your man."

Boiling it down what I see emerging from JP is taking a Kantian & Jungian interpretation of the Bible and mixing it with evolutionary psychology and socio-biology.

I think this an interesting endeavour worthy of contemplation.

If others want to stick with the old school Reformation historical-gramitical (aka literal) or Catholic four-senses of Scripture methods then so be it.

Blogger Rhys December 06, 2018 4:53 PM  

yea web, that's the part I'm talking about. It says a lot, psychologically, that the moment Peterson sees the concept of "the top of the hierarchy is not part of the hierarchy", he thinks about trying to get to that position. It's not part of the hierarchy, what kind of a mad man thinks you can climb the hierarchy to get there? The only thing Peterson seems to believe in unquestionably is his own vision and desire.

Blogger Off The Wall December 06, 2018 5:20 PM  

Perhaps time to again bring forward this article by Bernard Schiff - professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html


One brief quote:
... Jordan presents a confusing picture, and it’s often hard to know what he is up to. In one of his YouTube videos, Jordan said that if you are not sure of what or why someone is doing what they are doing, look at the consequences. They could be revealing.


Blogger tz December 06, 2018 9:56 PM  

@30 so all the bafflegarb trys to redefine objective as subjective so you don't have to redefine truth?

Blogger tz December 06, 2018 9:57 PM  

Jordan Peterson is just another vampire squid, spilling ink to obfuscate, blind, and confuse.

Blogger Wild Man December 06, 2018 11:45 PM  

@46 - to my mind the objective perspective is derived from the subjective perspective. Probably goes like this. Newborn: It's all subjective perspective (the world as extension of self). Then the growing infant begins to notice that it does not possess omnipotence. Anxiety ensues. By way of trial and error, the growing infant reconciles the anxiety by way of gradually intuiting the objective perspective (that the world is populated by subjects categorically similar to oneself and said subjects interact within an objective realm).

As such, like I said above, 'truth' will therefore always be local or quasi-local (i.e - relative), , if 'reality' is infinite, and given that we are finite beings.

Blogger Blume December 07, 2018 12:15 AM  

@wild man. You're wrong. Our understanding would be local but the truth would still be infinite.

Blogger R Webfoot December 07, 2018 1:01 AM  

@46 tz
"so all the bafflegarb trys to redefine objective as subjective so you don't have to redefine truth?"

I think they exclude the objective as a rationalization for lying, both to others and themselves.

The charlatan relies on their sleight-of-hand tricks being accepted by the target's subjective perception. If the target can be convinced that one's subjective perspective is as good as reality, they may be less likely to test it and find the deception.

The self-deluded narcissist, similarly, would very much like to pretend to a narrative that soothes their emotional pain. There is a powerful incentive, therefore, to persuade themselves that a consistent subjective narrative is 100% real, and then deliberately adjust their internal narrative until the pain goes away.

That is the secret of the subjective - it can be screwed with, on purpose, and this is the essence of deceit.

If Picard had simply unfocused his eyes to make eight lights, and then moved his finger in from the side to block out three of them... well, he WOULD be seeing five lights, wouldn't he?

Blogger Wild Man December 07, 2018 1:31 AM  

@49 - 'infinite truth' - interesting conjecture. By this you mean true from all possible perspectives within an infinity of perspectives - yes? I think there is only one truth statement for which said 'infinite truth' as so defined could apply - and that is: "It is true that there is something instead of nothing." All other truth statements (differentiating that which is from that which is not) would be contingent on locus (or perspective), if reality is unbounded, and given we are finite beings.

I already alluded to the untruth of the universal null set in the last paragraph of comment #30 above, but, if I am understanding you correctly, I agree that due to this consideration, the last paragraph of comment #48 above is not quite good enough, and should be amended as follows:

"As such, like I said above, 'truth' will therefore always be local or quasi-local (i.e - relative), , if 'reality' is infinite, and given that we are finite beings, excepting truth statements about the universal null set."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 07, 2018 3:01 AM  

Wild Man, saying that truth is local or quasi local is functionally identical to saying that it is subjective to locality, or more simply that truth is subjective.

As far as your last paragraph of 30, that you claim you can't find one does not either imply or necessitate that one or more do not exist.

The answer to "why is there something rather than nothing" is not "because I perceive it". "Something" is itself superset to your ability to perceive, never, ever subset.

Your point of view is effectively solipsistic except for the possibility that "maybe" there are other people or other perspectives.

"All other truth statements (differentiating that which is from that which is not) would be contingent on locus (or perspective), if reality is unbounded, and given we are finite beings."

Plainly and obviously untrue. In order for there to be any perception at all, there must not only be an objective truth that "there is something rather than nothing", but also:
-The something is not for all intents and purposes singular.
-You are not all of the somethings.
-You possess agency at some level (ability to perceive).

If you have the ability to perceive more than a single, solitary, binary-potential, you must add:
-An upper and lower perceptual threshold or multi-valued variations exist for each mode of perception.
-Perceptual degrees exist between the upper and lower thresholds or variations.

In order for you to communicate in any way with anything outside yourself you also must add:
-Other perceptive entities exist.
-Some of those entities are objectively subject to influence by you.

In order for anything to communicate with you the reverse must also be true, that you are subject to influence by other entities.

So, you either believe at least nine different objective universal truths, or you would not be on this forum, or you are insane. Which is it?

Remember, truth is not contingent on perception. Rather, perception is contingent on truth, else you have not meaningfully perceived anything.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 07, 2018 3:04 AM  

If localities are subset of the universe, anything contained by the localities is also subset of the universe, and thus is objectively, universally true in its existence. Perception does not define reality. Reality defines perception.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 07, 2018 8:38 AM  

FW(little)IW now, note that manipulators are skilled at exploiting the weaknesses all people harbor.

The single easiest path is to flatter the ego. The most skilled of all manipulators do so without the target realizing their ego just got petted. What does it feel like? The manipulator makes you feel smarter...or helps you reveal how smart you were all along.

If you're not vulnerable to this, you're highly unusual.

Blogger VD December 07, 2018 10:00 AM  

to my mind the objective perspective is derived from the subjective perspective

That's because you're stupid and you don't understand the difference between "objective" and "subjective".

No wonder you like Peterson. 2+2 could be 4. Or it could be purple. It just depends what you want it to be.

I have nothing but contempt for you sophists. It astonishes me that you think you're fooling anyone, but I suppose that given your subjective objectivity, you assume everyone else is as stupid as you are.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 07, 2018 10:51 AM  

Sophistry seems to assort with the (perception of) triviality of life.

I suspect there are no sophists when it's time to man the lifeboats.

Will hardship cull or cure the sophists? My guess is cull, because sophists have much in common with Jim Jones' Peoples Temple stalwarts.

Blogger Ugh December 07, 2018 2:04 PM  

Wow, why the hatred? Peterson is interesting to listen to and definitely has something to teach. He is NOT the last word on anything. Take what helps and discard the rest, no one is forcing you to watch his videos or buy his book. I'd say the same thing about God Day, err I mean Vox Day.

Blogger The CronoLink December 07, 2018 2:28 PM  

Kinda off-topic, but I believe Vox et al will find it amusing. A tad nsfw but it's not graphic or anything

Rubin and JP do porn

Blogger R Webfoot December 07, 2018 3:40 PM  

@58
That one was good, but Jordan Peterson criticizing himself can't be beat.

"What makes you think you don't just hate the successful? It's envy!"

Blogger Wild Man December 07, 2018 11:33 PM  

@52 - Azure Amaranthine, addressing your points one by one:

1) Your first sentence - yes - in simplest terms my thesis is that truth is subjective (and therefore relative), but it is not quite that simple because there are degrees of subjectivity, with the meaning of the term the 'objective perspective', as the term is used by everyone (whether they are willing to admit it or not), always contingent upon attempts to consolidate a field of subjective perspectives (i.e. - 'consolidation of a field of subjective perspectives' is akin to 'hyper-perspective of interacting loci'). As such, these 'objective perspectives' are really just about attempts at tempering the subjective perspective, as such .... the objective perspective is really just a more nebulous but therefore more abstract species of subjectivity. By nebulous I mean akin to a loss of some focus (i.e. - objectivity as 'here and there' or 'you and me', instead of just 'there' or 'me', that occurs by way of the 'purely subjective perspective' or 'the perspective of locus'). Now don't get me wrong here, - though I am maintaining that the objective perspective is a variety of subjectivity, it is still a qualitative difference, by way of the tempering (which I maintain mainly occurs in very early life as outlined in comment #48 above).

2) I said: "Another way to grasp this obviousness is to ask yourself - '(universally), why is there something rather than nothing'?. There is no metaphysical, ontological, epistemological or spiritual answer to this question as far as I can tell."

Granted, there may exist a non-trivial answer to that question, but I suspect that that cannot be available in this human realm, conditioned as it is by finiteness.

3) Azure you said - "The answer to "why is there something rather than nothing" is not "because I perceive it".

Agreed. That answer (i.e. - 'because I perceive it') becomes trivial once the objective perspective is derived from the subjective perspective, as per the developmental model I provided above in comment #48.

4) Azure - you said: "Your point of view is effectively solipsistic except for the possibility that "maybe" there are other people or other perspectives."

I am saying that everyone's perspective is essentially solipsistic (self-based), but as tempered by the developmental model outlined in comment #48. And I agree you can never be 100% certain that the intuition described in comment #48 is correct. But the alternative? ('I'm in a life-long dream surrounded by dream phantoms which I don't understand for which I have very little control over'). That's not very compelling - eh? So it's not that my viewpoint is "effectively solipsistic" ..... instead I am describing a viewpoint that outlines solipsism as an essential element of human existence.

Blogger Wild Man December 07, 2018 11:34 PM  

5) Azure - you said: "Plainly and obviously untrue. In order for there to be any perception at all, there must not only be an objective truth that "there is something rather than nothing", but also:
(a) The something is not for all intents and purposes singular. (b) You are not all of the somethings. c) You possess agency at some level (ability to perceive). (d) If you have the ability to perceive more than a single, solitary, binary-potential, you must add: An upper and lower perceptual threshold or multi-valued variations exist for each mode of perception; & Perceptual degrees exist between the upper and lower thresholds or variations. (e) In order for you to communicate in any way with anything outside yourself you also must add: Other perceptive entities exist & Some of those entities are objectively subject to influence by you. (f) In order for anything to communicate with you the reverse must also be true, that you are subject to influence by other entities."

Your 8 additional conditions are correct (at the local level). For (a) - yes, sort of I would say, as long as you are not omnipotent. The infant figures that out (the lack of omnipotence) by way of trial and error, to resolve anxiety, as I said. For (b) - ditto. For (c) thru (f) - agreed.

6) Azure - you said: "So, you either believe at least nine different objective universal truths"

I have no idea as to whether these eight additional 'truths' are universal and I maintain that neither do you or anybody else, for the simple reason that I don't have access to all the perspectives (probably infinite in number) of the universe (which is probably unbounded) and neither do you or anyone else, and furthermore it is highly probable that our lack of knowledge of other perspectives is so massive that our 'objective perspective', (as a species of the subjective, as I described above) approaches an infinitesimal, comparatively.

7) Azure - you said: "Remember, truth is not contingent on perception. Rather, perception is contingent on truth, else you have not meaningfully perceived anything."

In this humans realm (highly quasi-local) it seems that perception and truth are interdependent as I have described, unlike you claim. But supposing it works uni-directionally as you maintain (which is wrong in any event), - so what? What's your point? You think your claim is about universals when it cannot be (you don't know and cannot know with any certainty about universals, given that we are infinitesimally finite beings, comparatively, and furthermore, if reality is in fact unbounded, you can never know).

Azure - thanks for the comments and the exchange. But before I end my comment here, I would like to point out some implications of my thesis:

1) We still must try to understand and to continue to improve our understanding. To give up on that is death. I think that is what JBP probably means by defining truth in terms of survivability.

2) This human understanding is gonna be hyper-quasi-local (comparatively speaking) but that's all we got, nevertheless, what we got (our perspective) is still amazingly good. It is so amazingly good that the intuition should be that we, humanity, are blessed. Blessed by Divinity.

3) Much religious doctrine is about humility. That is good counsel. But if one does not understand just how inevitably local our condition is, then one does not truly understand just what degree of humility is required. The humility to accept the doubt that is inherent in our condition. Giving into a wish for more certainty than that is arrogant, and that is sinful and most probably blasphemous.

- Cheers

Blogger Wild Man December 07, 2018 11:37 PM  

@55 - VD - "subjective objectivity". Spot on. That's what it is.

Blogger VD December 08, 2018 7:36 AM  

VD - "subjective objectivity". Spot on. That's what it is.

Fucking gnostics. Every single time.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 08, 2018 7:53 AM  

"In this humans realm (highly quasi-local) it seems that perception and truth are interdependent as I have described, unlike you claim. But supposing it works uni-directionally as you maintain (which is wrong in any event), - so what? What's your point? You think your claim is about universals when it cannot be (you don't know and cannot know with any certainty about universals, given that we are infinitesimally finite beings, comparatively, and furthermore, if reality is in fact unbounded, you can never know)."

No. They cannot be interdependent at any given present time. Perception must derive of things which are objectively existent, and therefore objectively true in its existence. To claim that truth is in any way whatsoever dependent on perception is to claim that even the wildest delusion is in some way true.

The closest you could come to a reasonable argument that truth is any way whatsoever dependent on perception is to say that perception shapes the actions of the perceiver, which when performed are truths (objective actions) that have been "caused" by prior perception.

The above is not correct, because the perception is itself based on truth (even delusion, which is based on something true, even if it is something other than what is thought to be perceived). Thus it is not truth dependent upon perception, but truth dependent upon other truth. In addition, the efficacy of a person's actions is directly proportional to his perception of the relevant truths to those actions. Delusion (perception contrary to truth) destroys the ability of the perceiver to influence future truths as desired.

It's simple and hierarchical. Truth is higher in authority than perception. Objective things inviolably rule over subjective things.

I'll repeat again. If localities are part of the set "universe", then anything contained by any set "locality" is also contained by set "universe", thus whatever is truly contained by a locality is truly contained by the universe, and is thus universally objective (the inability of the contents of locality X to perceive something contained by locality Y does not mean that nothing exists in locality Y).

"1) We still must try to understand and to continue to improve our understanding. To give up on that is death. I think that is what JBP probably means by defining truth in terms of survivability."

Understanding can only be improved if there is something above or beyond current perception or understanding to be improved to. The very concept of improvement of understanding assumes that objective truths exist.

"But if one does not understand just how inevitably local our condition is, then one does not truly understand just what degree of humility is required."

Inevitably local? Absolutely not. Our actions, even the very influence of our existence echo, and eventually must propagate across infinity. That this propagation has not filled infinity is only due to now not being the "end" of eternity. A single drop raises the ocean.

My final conjecture as to what your mistake is is that possibly you are suffering a natural inability to compare the infinite with the finite. The finite is not ever insignificant compared to the infinite, though it be infinitely difficult for finite beings to make the comparison. What is true here and now is subset of infinity. It cannot be subset if infinity does not objectively contain it.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 08, 2018 7:55 AM  

""subjective objectivity". Spot on. That's what it is."

That's called an oxymoron.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 08, 2018 8:00 AM  

You can't have subjective objectivity. By definition it's either one or the other. That you could even think there could be such a thing is necessarily entirely due to your refusal to allow for objective things outside of your own subjectivity.

You are blind because you do not want to see.

Blogger Greg December 09, 2018 4:03 PM  

I think a huge part of Trump's initial popularity was having the right enemies, and that nothing makes his supporters more uneasy than to see pictures of him smiling with the Clintons, or to read his tweets eulogizing George H. W. Bush.

Blogger Wild Man December 10, 2018 3:15 AM  

"Fucking gnostics. Every single time."

I think you mean 'agnostic'.

Blogger Wild Man December 10, 2018 3:50 AM  

Azure @64

"I'll repeat again. If localities are part of the set "universe", then anything contained by any set "locality" is also contained by set "universe", thus whatever is truly contained by a locality is truly contained by the universe, and is thus universally objective (the inability of the contents of locality X to perceive something contained by locality Y does not mean that nothing exists in locality Y)."

Universally objective? Sure. But so what? You cannot have access to the universally objective.

"Understanding can only be improved if there is something above or beyond current perception or understanding to be improved to. The very concept of improvement of understanding assumes that objective truths exist."

I never said objective truth does to exist. I said that you cannot access more than a shadowy insinuation of it.

"Inevitably local? Absolutely not. Our actions, even the very influence of our existence echo, and eventually must propagate across infinity. That this propagation has not filled infinity is only due to now not being the "end" of eternity. A single drop raises the ocean."

Yes - I am glad you agree the everything is interconnected. But you are finite and thus your experience is inevitably local.

"My final conjecture as to what your mistake is is that possibly you are suffering a natural inability to compare the infinite with the finite."

Yes - there is a natural human inability to compare the infinite with the finite. That's part of my thesis. This inability applies to 100% of humans, ..... granted, within said inability are gradations of misunderstanding. Some people don't seem to know what they don't know.

"The finite is not ever insignificant compared to the infinite, though it be infinitely difficult for finite beings to make the comparison."

Sure it is. Look to the infinite series of the rational numbers, and compare that to the infinite uncountables known as the real numbers (the continuum) to see how vanishingly infinitesimal the rational numbers are as compared to the real numbers, despite both satisfying the principle of infinity. And that's even before considering a comparison of the finite to the infinite.

"What is true here and now is subset of infinity. It cannot be subset if infinity does not objectively contain it."

Yes - so?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 11, 2018 9:50 PM  

"I think you mean 'agnostic'."

No, gnostic is correct. The concept is that your knowledge or understanding somehow has control over the most fundamental attributes of the universe, or over God. You certainly fit.

"Universally objective? Sure. But so what? You cannot have access to the universally objective."

Yes you can. That your access to it may not be perfect does not mean it does not exist. Stop spouting bullshit.

"I never said objective truth does to exist. I said that you cannot access more than a shadowy insinuation of it."

You said that the only part of it that you could access was that something exists. No. I'm not letting you move the goalposts.

"Yes - I am glad you agree the everything is interconnected. But you are finite and thus your experience is inevitably local."

No. Your experience of absolutely everything is varying degrees of nonlocal as well as local. This nonlocal perception and thus experience is necessary to all five senses perceiving anything whatsoever. Far parts of you body are nonlocal to your brain, and everything outside your skin is nonlocal to your body.

"Sure it is. Look to the infinite series of the rational numbers, and compare that to the infinite uncountables known as the real numbers (the continuum) to see how vanishingly infinitesimal the rational numbers are as compared to the real numbers, despite both satisfying the principle of infinity. And that's even before considering a comparison of the finite to the infinite."

Wrong. That's your own personal inability to compare. Infinitesimal does not equal insignificant. I literally said that this is what you were doing before you gave this example.

Consider, infinite capacity also includes infinite capacity for perceptive precision. With infinite perceptive precision one compared to infinity is not insignificant.

"Yes - so?"

So what is locally objective is thus part of what is universally objective and part of what is universally objective is what is locally objective, regardless your capacity to perceive or understand that. These truths extend far, far beyond simple "something exists".

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts