quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Third time the charm, I guess.

That article was posted a few days ago, as I reminded above.

Ha. sorry. Sigforum moves faster than I do these days!

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
/snip

I think Peterson is called a "Zen Master" in a loose definition of "someone who can create insights and deflect conflicts with great skill and wisdom", rather than as someone who is actually a practitioner of Zen Buddhism.

That is how I look at JP.

I think yall are reading too much into this zen master title. Its all about his ability to not just start throwing punches and drop kicking libtards when people get in his face and nothing to do with actual meditation.

quote:

Originally posted by Deqlyn:
I think yall are reading too much into this zen master title. Its all about his ability to not just start throwing punches and drop kicking libtards when people get in his face and nothing to do with actual meditation.

Ha, I thought they were kidding...but then it somehow turned into a discussion on mediation and Buddhism.

Well, all one has to do is take a look at the first post in this thread to see that I was referring to Peterson's calm in the midst of insanity and the complete absence of reason at McMaster.

I enjoy the Peterson videos, those I have seen. There are a lot of them, and many are very lengthy, hour and a half, two hours or more, and oftenciver the same ground.

There is an article on The Federalist today, “9 Jordan Peterson Clips That Will Take You Deeper Than SJW Gotcha Moments” that seems to be a Peterson Reader, or The Best of..

This might be useful.

Link

Fox News just announced thst Jordan Peterson will be on the program Sunday night 9 pm Eastern, The Next Revolution.

Link

Fear and Loathing of Jordan Peterson

Townhall.com
Suzanne Fields

Ah, men! This is the ultimate exclamation of women, frustrated, puzzled and baffled by the other half of the human race, forever a riddle wrapped in ambiguity, ambivalence, anticipation -- and admiration and affection. The exclamation has never been static. That frustration and bafflement is once more examined and re-examined, stretched and shrunk, applauded and animated with vigor and vitriol.

The latest provocateur is a Canadian psychologist and "public intellectual" who writes with fresh insight into the nature of the male animal. Dr. Jordan Peterson is a true phenomenon, a professor at the University of Toronto whose books and lectures are sold out, and whose multiple videos are played and replayed on social media. Depending on who you ask, he's the archetypal victim or brainy hero of these polarized times when an innocent conversation between a man and a woman can explode with awesome effect and considerable collateral damage. One profiler calls him "perhaps the single most loathed person by journalistic and intellectual classes in Canada and the United States," with the exception of President Trump

As a Canadian who can't vote in an American election, he fantasizes in one interview, saying that had he voted, he might have entered the voting booth intending to vote for Hillary Clinton only to change his mind at the last moment and vote for Trump. He thinks the president might have won because in a classic choosing of the lesser evil, Americans preferred the "unscripted, impulsive lies of Trump better than the conniving, scripted lies of Clinton."

Some women voted for Clinton because she was a woman, and some men for Trump because he was a man running against her. But in this scenario, sexual differences weren't as crucial as how those differences were embraced by the angry campaign rhetoric mixed with left-wing identity politics and right-wing resentment over being called "deplorables." This continues to tear apart attempts at intellectual dialogue on the actual differences between men and women.


In Peterson's best-selling book "12 Rules for Life," he tells men to "stand up straight with your shoulders back" and "accept the terrible responsibility of life, with eyes wide open." He warns against getting stuck in the "unconscious paradise of childhood," and as the stern moralist tells them, to learn from Old Testament stories, beginning with Moses and those famous original 10 rules.

Peterson is not a fan of either contender of 2016. It's the identity politics, which Clinton defends, that he loathes. He thinks identity politics corrupts the culture at a time when men, both white and not, need a strong moral doctrine to guide them through their lives and their relationships with women.

Political correctness perpetuates everything fraudulent about sexual nature, he teaches. The shoddy thinking of confirmation bias, which reinforces trendy ideas without proof or evidence, ruins everything it touches. He has particular scorn for mandated use of gender-neutral pronouns and refuses to use them despite academic pressure and legal pressure to do so.

Professor Peterson is tarred for his ideas with inflammatory distortion. He is accused of sexism, racism and fascism, and it's clear from the slurs that the left fears those ideas, beginning with an acknowledgement of the crucial and obvious biological differences between men and women, his respect for scientific evidence, the free speech that enables debate and his appreciation for the great books, ranging from Socrates and Solzhenitsyn to the Bible.

In The Atlantic magazine, Caitlin Flanagan argues that the left is trying to "unperson" him because he is influencing young people with intellectual "kryptonite" against identity politics and his emphasis on how to think rather than what to think.

The young men on campus contemptuous of safe spaces with cookies and coloring books to soothe anxiety, who despair of "trigger warnings" that prevent insight into the human condition, who despise rabble-rousers shouting down visiting lecturers with a different point of view, and who are weary of the LGBTQ domination of discussions of morality find the professor and others of the "intellectual dark web" of ideas refreshing. Theirs is "a parallel curriculum" to what they're fed on campus and in the mainstream media.

Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan, among others, are bound together not through their politics, which are extremely varied, but through their collective iconoclasm and dedication to the free flow of ideas often giving voice to what many feel in their gut but haven't found the language to express. They communicate through radio shows, podcasts, YouTube, videos, speeches and interviews with a vast audience online and in sold-out lecture halls. They talk mostly to men, but women are beginning to listen to Peterson's common sense, too.

The left hates him and is often irrational in its opposition because it has "entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable," writes Flanagan. People who respond to Jordan Peterson aren't looking for ideology but ideas. Amen to that.

Link

quote:

Fear and Loathing of Jordan Peterson

Townhall.com
Suzanne Fields

I wonder if she bothered to read his book 12 Rules for Living, because my audiobook copy sure doesn't sound like he is talking only to males. The ideas he exposes are applicable to all humans, females and males and every option biologically, culturally, genetically, and politically. True many anecdotes of his are from or about a male standpoint, because he is male and the experiences were his.

This is awesome.

You're Oppressed.

Another contentious interview where JP schools a feminist hack, yet again.




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s

I thought the young man in the last video was a garden variety eloquent-idiot. He reminded me of the GQ UK interviewer in another video posted on the forum. He's the punch line in the joke, something like, "a liberal is an idiot; an intellectual is an eloquent liberal" (I've forgotten exactly how it goes, but you get the gist).

He's concerned about contributing logos? He had an opportunity and he blew it. His question was all pathos, and no logos. Curious that he appears to advocate curtailing speech so those that disagree can present their logos, and he uses none to make the point. That's the trouble with communication these days. Those that want to curtail speech are all pathos and very little logos. Perhaps if people could support their ideas better with out resorting to pure emotion, they wouldn't feel, appropriately, disadvantaged in the debate.

Flawless response by Peterson, though. A logical response to a pathetic question.

Good to see Peterson is making the tour to the major podcasts outlets.

quote:

Originally posted by JD83:

Back to meditation and Peterson. IMO, if Peterson started a regular meditation practice in a few years or so he(and most everyone else who seriously practices) would begin to experience a loosening of the strong identification with the self, which we all have to various degrees and keeps us, say, in a Zen sense, ignorant, asleep(the Buddha means "the Awaken One")and on the suffering treadmill.

I am sorry, but I actually do follow a Buddhist/Daoist lineage, and I find Sam Harris' interpretation very shallow. When Petterson and Harris are "arguing", it always just comes down to Harris saying:
"Look at this stupid thing a religion did";
and Peterson countering with: "Yeah, but it goes a lot deeper than that in the human psyche";
to which Harris responds:"Yeah, but here's another stupid thing that a religion did".

I think Harris has a lot of ego involvement in telling us all about how we need to loosen our identification with the self.
But that is all a big, separate topic.

^^^^ Peterson goes into detail on this exact topic with Rogan as it pertains to the Scandinavians. They really have a hard time understanding what the resistance is to the gender equality policies they've enacted, truly in a bubble.

Would be interesting to hear Peterson's position to the above topic with how Scandinavian's culturally adhere to Law of Jante.

And the title of that youtube video is misleading. He didn't "trigger" anything or anyone. That woman said next to nothing. For most of that clip, she just sat there with that stupid fucking befuddle look on her face. She had no real response, because she doesn't have the first clue about the evidence and concepts he was putting forth. Typical mindless leftist robot.

I'm not a student of body language but I'm pretty sure that look in his eyes when she is babbling on says.. "Dear God, what in the fuck are you talking about"

It's as if she took a bunch of random "smart" words and spit them out without knowing what they meant or how it pertained to the topic.

Nevermind the Glass Ceiling reference.

When the camera first cuts to the women, the look on her face reminds me of someone smelling sour milk.

That's another great Jordan Peterson video, thanks Para. Here is an extended version of the same interview if (like me) you want to hear more of what he has to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iudkPi4_sY

The first comment had me laughing.

"I don't really understand what you just said, but I disagree with it" - The look on that woman's face.

The guy is bulletproof. The breadth of his knowledge and ability to apply it, consistently blows my mind. His field of study and experience created the perfect storm of what I regard as the single most Christ-like person I've ever seen. He's the exact weapon that is needed to combat the ridiculous insanity coming from the radical left. It's so refreshing.

My life is better from his teaching. I've read the Gulag Archipelago and re read Man's Search for Meaning. At a time in my life I could get the message too.

Do the right thing
Aim for the highest good
Etc

Those are the most important things you can do? It really makes you wanna suit up and get after it. It's behavior you know you can kill it at, and it feeds your soul. At least I think so.