On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 06:21:10PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 19:11:48 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
> > However, there is much more to this particular conversation than just
> > the negatives.
> 
>       false. Virtually everythign that scumbag says is right wing
>       garbage. 
> 
>       And notice how if he followed his own advice such as "DONT LIE"
>       he should shut up forever since everything he says is a lie. 
> 
> 
> > Peterson is re-enlivening meaning - be it Buddhist Daoism, "Western"
> > (Christian) theology and even, truth be, existential "scientific"
> > atheism.
> > 
> > Now THAT's a firetrucking feat!
> 
>       OK, too bad but you've been re-evaluated. I thought you were able
>       to think for yourself - but you are clearly an echo chamber for
>       peterson. Pathetic. And evil.

Peterson frustrates the atheists because he discusses and dissects
Christian theology.

Then he alienates the "committed Christians" by analysing the
scientific literature suggesting (biologically) emergent ethics - in
e.g. rats and lobsters.

Further, he does a fine job of highlighting how the very concept of
hierarchy is inevitable the moment you or I choose to act in the
world, and then suggests that perhaps our mythology was a best
attempt (at the time each myth was first spoken) to explain to
subsequent generations (without paper and writing of course) the
insights of their forefathers about the collective human reality
itself.

And to top it off, these "emergent" mythologies are surprisingly
similar (in their foundations) across religions and cultures.


Just one quick example of many:

In Christianity, there is the idea of "the king of kings", and some
historical figure, in this case a man named Buddha, sorry I mean
Jesus, is held up as that ideal of the king of kings.

"Ain't no firetruckin man be a king of me" I hear you (rightly) say.

But the concept "king" in this context can be taken as "someone who
displays the most admirable qualities within a particular hierarchy"
- and Peterson gives the classic example of poor vs good
sportsmanship - the real king of the game is he who displays those
qualities most admired, but across all games in a season, or all
games that he ever plays in, and not just the winner of one game -
this is the concept of sportsmanship.

And the concept "sportsmanship" or "sportsman" (I emphasize man for
the trigger-prone here) is just another noun for which "king" in
"king of kings" plays a similar role.

So those qualities worthy of striving for (of which sportsmanship
rather than winning is merely one of many of course) make someone the
king of that game - in the case of Michael Jackson, he was named the
king of pop music.

So, each hierarchy has an abstract king - someone who, theoretically,
displays all the finest qualities that can be achieved by someone
aiming to develop in the best "sportsman like" way across all games,
performances, etc within his field (hierarchy).

And the king of kings is then that abstract representation of someone
who lives all those admirable qualities across all possible
hierarchies or endeavours.


It seems useful to teach ones children "good sportsmanship" ("It's
not about winning, it's about how you play").

Likewise it seems useful, or at least this is what humans have done
across time and across cultures, to abstract "the best possible
qualities a human can strive for, across time and across all possible
pursuits".

Today, "king of kings" sounds a little quaint and old fashioned, but
this does not make the concept -- however one chooses to name this
concept -- any less instrinsicly useful (of course).


Now this might be hard to believe, but some folks are so caught up in
winning the particuylar game(s) they play, that they demonstrate poor
sportsmanship, and further, hard as it may be to believe, some folks
have not even been taught what it means to be a good sport.

So in the West we tend to agree that the concept "good sportsmanship"
is worth teaching to our children.

To teach any concept at all, one must first be able to cognize and
identify it, second name it and speak about it in ways which make
sense to others.


Jordan Peterson is doing a fine job of naming a bunch of things,
identifying where, how and presumably why they arise in our
mythology, and delivering this in talks, discussions and interviews
which are evidently compelling to millions of people.


Please feel free to do better - there is evidently a real market for
those who can communicate complex concepts in compelling ways, so if
get good at doing so, you may well get a massive following.

Reply via email to