Kudos on your commentary on JP. Beware the younger set, especially the "Proud Boy" sort genuflect before JP as their new godling. I've never been impressed with gurus, and Jordan Petersen confirms my bias. This modest but competent professor rocketed to rock star status simply because he picked a fight with feminists on campus resulting in many anti-feminists, manly men and boyish incels worshiping JP. They think they have discovered depth when much of his spiel is simply good old fashioned common sense. He writes such advice as "stand up straight", "don't lie" and "pet cats". I can endorse such teachings but I will not fork over $ 30 for a book based on the sort of things that Grandpa will tell you for free. Good work !
Colavito frequently asserts that if another writer doesn’t mention all opposing ideas they are “completely unaware” of them. He also complains that if other writers don’t mention what all other cultures think that they are biased. This is amateurish and biased nonsense.
He also mentions Nazis out of the sudden in a simply pathethic try to throw random shit at Peterson, maybe some of it will stick in a mind of brainless reader.
You are way too critical, Jason. The pair are simply laying out a very systematic plan for the future development of humanity. The replacement of haphazard cultural and evolutionary influences for a planned, masculine approach. I look forward to a future biography of either of the pair, perhaps entitled 'My Struggle', as well as a feature length film documentary on their theories, called 'Triumph of the Will'. I can hardly wait to see the results of their experiments in the New Science. Adoration of the Magi 2.0.
He dissected nothing. His post is pure propaganda piece full of misunderstandings, pathetic attempts at drawing comparisons to Nazis, complete nonsense (unhierarchical societies), reasoning fallacies (sb. doesn't mention X, he is unaware of X), ignorance.
"I had never really listened to Peterson speak, and I had expected a dynamic presence to justify the hype. However, Peterson is not a particularly strong speaker, neither eloquent nor passionate, and I wonder what his followers see in him."
It's hard to argue against the criticism of black males for impregnating and fathering children without PAYING for it. Except all the ones who get 'borted of course. As Lyndon Johnson said back in 1965, "We'll have those niggras [he said that] voting Democrat for 200 years!"
You're commiting one huge straw man fallacy, probably because you don't have a clue what Peterson is talking about. He understands hierarchies as something more broad and deeper than simple redistribution of goods, for crying out loud. It's obvious to anybody who is willing to listen to the man without some ridiculous preconceptions about him.
It's also, a proper understanding of hierarchies. Anybody with a brain immediately laughts at the idea of unhierarchical society. How such a society would agree on something, for example? Using some magical soul sharing techniques? By rolling a dice? Yeah, right, such a society faces bright future, for sure. By democratic voting? It's a hierarchy! Ideas shared by the majority are above all others. What so hard for you to understand?
You can't even free yourself from ridiculous notions you once have read about somewhere and now you're repeating them with thinking process of a parrot!
I should have made it clearer that I was talking about societal hierarchies in the last comment, which means systems which differentiate individual powers in a society. What I've stated is exactly what such hierarchies are. Objectified planning based on some assumptions (concerning hierarchy of values for example). Other than that hierarchies are everywhere as I've stated, even the reasoning itself is by it's very nature expression of hierarchies -- Of course they can become corrupt, counter-productive, or even actively violent. It doesn't mean we should or can get rid of them. It's impossible unless you're believing that some kind of amorphous mass can constitute a society! It's how stupid such ideas are. They are by definition self-destructive.
So why are they needed? It's very simple. A hierarchy i simply a programmed (imposed) calculation done on interpersonal (societal) level. It's just objectified planning.
And why hunters gatherers could form relatively (!) unhierarchical societes? Have you ever ponder such a question? No? It's not surprising. It requires something more than mindless parroting. Maybe because they were very small societies, sometimes comprised of just one family unit. Does it matter? Yes, I suposse it does! Don't you? Maybe because activities required to uphold their societal group were rudimentary, undifferentiated, and most of them (gathering for example) could be done by almost any member in the group (including children in case of gathering). Does it matter? Yes, I suppose it does. Don't you?
It's mindblowingly mindless to take such special, long-gone circumstance and superimpose it on current situation. It's a sign you don't have a first clue why hierarchies arise and why are they needed
You're convinced that killing people without reason is a bad thing? It's a hierarchy! You're putting human life above other values, for example above a right to satisfaction (some people can draw from killing others)! You're demending that the society should uphold your position on this point. It's a hierarchy! You're litelarry stating that you're right and some others are not, and your point of view should prevail.
See? You must be brain dead to think that society can function without hierarchies because even thinking (reasoning) in and of itself is hierarchical by it's very nature, every single disagreement which have to be settled includes hierarchies, every value system includes hierarchies, every life choice is based on hierarchies!
While the Babylonians certainly had multiple creaton myths, the one you cite from your website is not a creation myth at all, but an 1888 mistranslation.
The more correct title for the Cuthean Legend is "Naram-Sin vs the enemy hordes". Its a pseudo historical epic about a king who loses divine favour when the country is over-run by barbarians (monsters in some versions, human invaders in others). It is about order and chaos and one of two texts to mention Tiamat but uses those themes completely differently to the Babylonian Creation myth. So it does show the shallowness of Peterson's over-reliance on the Enuma Elish but not in the way your use of a massively out of date public domain source would imply.
"(It is not)" Argument by assertion. Fail. The idea that one or two of one's parents were "academics" makes one's upbringing somehow privileged is just silly. Fail. "As a gay man I can't relate to proven known-good strategies for success" because everything is seen through the lens of sexuality. Fail. Anderson Cooper, Michael Tilson-Thomas, the three known gay Washington Redskins, the transsexual Navy SEAL, most average gay guys... the road goes ever onward.
It's not that his parents were academics per se that made his upbringing privileged, but the fact that they were middle class and privileged in the original socio-economic sense of that word, meaning rich, or at least relatively affluent compared to the bulk of the population. Growing up comfortable, and yes, raised by two well-educated parents certainly does give one a leg-up on life.
And what does it matter if they were priviledged? Are you jelous? Is your whole thinking process driven by some barely veiled resentment covered by cheap virtue signalling (like Calavito's)? Or maybe you're just another believer in unhierarchical society nonsense?
"He was the eldest of three children born to Walter and Beverley Peterson. Beverley was a librarian at the Fairview campus of Grande Prairie Regional College, and Walter was a school teacher" "School teacher" is a polite way of saying "NOT a college professor".
So we've got ZERO academics.
Yeah, he had a super "leg-up"! I blame that damn GI Bill! Yes, I know Canada, blah blah. But the Baby Boom was a real thing and if you were too busy trying to use your junk as a lense....
Kudos on your commentary on JP. Beware the younger set, especially the "Proud Boy" sort genuflect before JP as their new godling. I've never been impressed with gurus, and Jordan Petersen confirms my bias. This modest but competent professor rocketed to rock star status simply because he picked a fight with feminists on campus resulting in many anti-feminists, manly men and boyish incels worshiping JP. They think they have discovered depth when much of his spiel is simply good old fashioned common sense. He writes such advice as "stand up straight", "don't lie" and "pet cats". I can endorse such teachings but I will not fork over $ 30 for a book based on the sort of things that Grandpa will tell you for free. Good work !
Colavito frequently asserts that if another writer doesn’t mention all opposing ideas they are “completely unaware” of them. He also complains that if other writers don’t mention what all other cultures think that they are biased. This is amateurish and biased nonsense.
He also mentions Nazis out of the sudden in a simply pathethic try to throw random shit at Peterson, maybe some of it will stick in a mind of brainless reader.
If the woman's status did not matter, political marriages among nobility would not exist
Very insightful and fair critical comments. Thanks again, Jason!
You are way too critical, Jason. The pair are simply laying out a very systematic plan for the future development of humanity. The replacement of haphazard cultural and evolutionary influences for a planned, masculine approach. I look forward to a future biography of either of the pair, perhaps entitled 'My Struggle', as well as a feature length film documentary on their theories, called 'Triumph of the Will'. I can hardly wait to see the results of their experiments in the New Science. Adoration of the Magi 2.0.
https://www.deviantart.com/gottfriedhelnwein/art/Epiphany-I-Adoration-of-the-Magi-304105083
This is irony, again, for those irony disabled readers. But seriously Jason, there are better targets to dissect so laboriously.
He dissected nothing. His post is pure propaganda piece full of misunderstandings, pathetic attempts at drawing comparisons to Nazis, complete nonsense (unhierarchical societies), reasoning fallacies (sb. doesn't mention X, he is unaware of X), ignorance.
"I had never really listened to Peterson speak, and I had expected a dynamic presence to justify the hype. However, Peterson is not a particularly strong speaker, neither eloquent nor passionate, and I wonder what his followers see in him."
Go to this YouTube video to hear an example of zero passion and eloquence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQMvC1eUY4E
"I recall another rigorously hierarchical society that emphasized eliminating “useless eaters.”"
I recall another rigorously hierarchical society that place a premium on "particularly strong speakers."
Do you hear yourself? Maybe they like his ideas.
Why are they even discussing anything concerning the Black family?
It's hard to argue against the criticism of black males for impregnating and fathering children without PAYING for it. Except all the ones who get 'borted of course. As Lyndon Johnson said back in 1965, "We'll have those niggras [he said that] voting Democrat for 200 years!"
You're commiting one huge straw man fallacy, probably because you don't have a clue what Peterson is talking about. He understands hierarchies as something more broad and deeper than simple redistribution of goods, for crying out loud. It's obvious to anybody who is willing to listen to the man without some ridiculous preconceptions about him.
It's also, a proper understanding of hierarchies. Anybody with a brain immediately laughts at the idea of unhierarchical society. How such a society would agree on something, for example? Using some magical soul sharing techniques? By rolling a dice? Yeah, right, such a society faces bright future, for sure. By democratic voting? It's a hierarchy! Ideas shared by the majority are above all others. What so hard for you to understand?
You can't even free yourself from ridiculous notions you once have read about somewhere and now you're repeating them with thinking process of a parrot!
I should have made it clearer that I was talking about societal hierarchies in the last comment, which means systems which differentiate individual powers in a society. What I've stated is exactly what such hierarchies are. Objectified planning based on some assumptions (concerning hierarchy of values for example). Other than that hierarchies are everywhere as I've stated, even the reasoning itself is by it's very nature expression of hierarchies -- Of course they can become corrupt, counter-productive, or even actively violent. It doesn't mean we should or can get rid of them. It's impossible unless you're believing that some kind of amorphous mass can constitute a society! It's how stupid such ideas are. They are by definition self-destructive.
So why are they needed? It's very simple. A hierarchy i simply a programmed (imposed) calculation done on interpersonal (societal) level. It's just objectified planning.
And why hunters gatherers could form relatively (!) unhierarchical societes? Have you ever ponder such a question? No? It's not surprising. It requires something more than mindless parroting. Maybe because they were very small societies, sometimes comprised of just one family unit. Does it matter? Yes, I suposse it does! Don't you? Maybe because activities required to uphold their societal group were rudimentary, undifferentiated, and most of them (gathering for example) could be done by almost any member in the group (including children in case of gathering). Does it matter? Yes, I suppose it does. Don't you?
It's mindblowingly mindless to take such special, long-gone circumstance and superimpose it on current situation. It's a sign you don't have a first clue why hierarchies arise and why are they needed
You're convinced that killing people without reason is a bad thing? It's a hierarchy! You're putting human life above other values, for example above a right to satisfaction (some people can draw from killing others)! You're demending that the society should uphold your position on this point. It's a hierarchy! You're litelarry stating that you're right and some others are not, and your point of view should prevail.
See? You must be brain dead to think that society can function without hierarchies because even thinking (reasoning) in and of itself is hierarchical by it's very nature, every single disagreement which have to be settled includes hierarchies, every value system includes hierarchies, every life choice is based on hierarchies!
Black pepper. Your comments are complete nonsense. You sound like a sociopath!
While the Babylonians certainly had multiple creaton myths, the one you cite from your website is not a creation myth at all, but an 1888 mistranslation.
The more correct title for the Cuthean Legend is "Naram-Sin vs the enemy hordes". Its a pseudo historical epic about a king who loses divine favour when the country is over-run by barbarians (monsters in some versions, human invaders in others). It is about order and chaos and one of two texts to mention Tiamat but uses those themes completely differently to the Babylonian Creation myth. So it does show the shallowness of Peterson's over-reliance on the Enuma Elish but not in the way your use of a massively out of date public domain source would imply.
You do realize, of course, that Peterson uses myths only as useful metaphores to convey something?
"(It is not)" Argument by assertion. Fail. The idea that one or two of one's parents were "academics" makes one's upbringing somehow privileged is just silly. Fail. "As a gay man I can't relate to proven known-good strategies for success" because everything is seen through the lens of sexuality. Fail. Anderson Cooper, Michael Tilson-Thomas, the three known gay Washington Redskins, the transsexual Navy SEAL, most average gay guys... the road goes ever onward.
It's not that his parents were academics per se that made his upbringing privileged, but the fact that they were middle class and privileged in the original socio-economic sense of that word, meaning rich, or at least relatively affluent compared to the bulk of the population. Growing up comfortable, and yes, raised by two well-educated parents certainly does give one a leg-up on life.
And what does it matter if they were priviledged? Are you jelous? Is your whole thinking process driven by some barely veiled resentment covered by cheap virtue signalling (like Calavito's)? Or maybe you're just another believer in unhierarchical society nonsense?
"He was the eldest of three children born to Walter and Beverley Peterson. Beverley was a librarian at the Fairview campus of Grande Prairie Regional College, and Walter was a school teacher" "School teacher" is a polite way of saying "NOT a college professor".
So we've got ZERO academics.
Yeah, he had a super "leg-up"! I blame that damn GI Bill! Yes, I know Canada, blah blah. But the Baby Boom was a real thing and if you were too busy trying to use your junk as a lense....
This is a very polemic depiction of Jordan B. Peterson's ideas. No Like.