On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 05:34:32PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 19:26:54 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
> > Notwithstanding Peterson's failings (he's a human, he certainly is
> > not perfect, but who is?), his message (if it can be so reduced),
> > evidenced by his popularity, is apparently (and I believe so)
> > relevant to the zeitgeist of today, 
>       of course it is, peterson is a christian right-wing fascist so
>       his fascist 'message' is no doubt at the 'foundation' of western
>       'civilization' 

There are many, many parts to Peterson's conversation.

You can say he's "making fascist Christianity great again", that he's
Christian, that he's an atheist, that's he's a right wing fascist, an
apologist for the Jews, and that he's a left wing socialist (he is
after all a professor groomed on the public purse).

And to some degree, all of these ad homs are correct - he IS human
after all, and we humans are riddled with failings.

Ipso failing humans.

However, there is much more to this particular conversation than just
the negatives.

Peterson is re-enlivening meaning - be it Buddhist Daoism, "Western"
(Christian) theology and even, truth be, existential "scientific"

Now THAT's a firetrucking feat!

Seriously, there's a gem in Peterson's talks for all, for example
most recently:

  Iceland - 12 Rules for Life Tour - Lecture 1

Perhaps listen to it not on double speed, and take a sheet of Vim (or
Emacs for the immediate-mode bigots), divide it in two and create two
columns - for the bullshit, and for the insights.

And if your insights column comes up empty, it might be time for you
to start giving your own lectures or writing up your own Bakunin or
Solzhenitsyn.  I for one will personally relish reading it if you put
even half the time Peterson put into either of his books (15 years
for the first, ~5 years for the second, reportedly rewriting each
sentence and each paragraph many, many times until he felt he would
only make each such unit worse be re-writing it yet again).

For those on the "Ayn Rand is nothing but a propagandist" persuasion,
this quote from Peterson's recent QnA (at the end of the above 'tube)
is right up our alley:

  “[this is] what makes Dostoyevsky different to Ayn Rand for
  example: 'cause Ayn Rand already knew [prior to writing her book]
  who the good guys and the bad guys were, and may be she was right
  and may be she wasn't, doesn't matter — what matters is that what
  she did wasn't literature, it was just sophisticated propaganda.
  You know, it taps into "literature" upon occasion, but ...”

Good luck,

Reply via email to