The Battle For The Centre.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: The Battle For The Centre.

Post by C_D » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:25 pm

JP:
If you live in the post-modernist world, you don't believe in truth anyway; there's just victory and power games
The twisting by The Guardian and other msm into a victimisation story is pure System tactic, but completely predictable. Any utterance can viewed in a diametrically opposed way if desired. Appeals to belief is a powerful tool.

The people who run the show will do anything to stay dominant. They have been in power for at least the last couple of millenia. This interview was an epiphany for Peterson - he has stared into the face of the beast and seen it's fangs bared - and the hidden in plain sight realisation has shocked him. I find Petersons belief in the possibility of further interviews or dialogues somewhat naive - he can only embarrass or offend them further and they will not allow this. I wonder if he might retreat from the limelight soon, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he begins receiving sinister phonecalls in the middle of the night that will scare him into silence - they'll threaten his family or friends.
However, the groundswell behind him will not stay silent in the long run.
Things are going to get very interesting, very fast. The System will act soon because it has to - and in a draconian way. I suspect a forced binary choice that will seperate brother from sister, father from son, friend from friend, race from race and even, in some cases, male from female.
Then the battlelines will have been drawn and we shall see what we shall see.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: The Battle For The Centre.

Post by jakell » Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:32 pm

He's had plenty of intimidation so far and he's ridden it out. The poster campaign in his neighbourhood (antifa types and hysterical trans-activists) was probably the one that hit home most of all and he still refused to be cowed even though he admitted to being quite disturbed by it.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: The Battle For The Centre.

Post by C_D » Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:22 pm

I just watched this again:



Peterson has such clarity of mind. His ability to self-reflect, especially with regards to the mistake he made in that interview - the 'Gotcha!' moment - and let's be honest, he is only human and the interviewer had been baiting him mercilessly, always holding the upper hand as the voice of The System (and the dominion that grants as 'correctness') - marks Peterson as a true Seer in my opinion.

there are those that see
those that see when shown
and there are those that do not see.
Da Vinci

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: The Battle For The Centre.

Post by jakell » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:13 pm

I reckon, more importantly than being a 'seer' he's a great communicator of this, which is why lots on the regressive Left see him as a threat and not just another academic (it also strikes them where it hurts as they consider academia to be one of their powerbases).

I've listened to a great deal of his stuff by now, including his biblical lectures, and he seems to have the common touch too, when he is speaking of complex concepts he rarely seems to be 'talking-down' (except when he is roasting those who try to strongarm him). To achieve this I think he does compromise his message somewhat (his 'broadly speaking' meme), and some Lefty academics have remarked on this, saying that he does not understand the depth of what he says.

I'm particularly thinking of when he speaks of postmodernism. Occasionally I have thought that his take on this is on the simplistic side but then I remind myself that, above all else, he is trying to communicate, and realise that he is making necessary simplifications. Ironically, the necessity of these simplifications provide an additional critique of postmodernism; that it inherently over-complexifies whatever it touches to the point of producing thick fog (or useful fog if one has sophistry in mind). These thoughts occurred to me whilst reading an article dumped by the paste-bot at the Old Place. Overall, I don't find the article to be too unkind to Peterson (relative to the standard fare), especially if my musings here are borne in mind.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: The Battle For The Centre.

Post by C_D » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:58 pm

I take slight issue with your vaguely-insinuated denunciation of the word 'sophistry'.

The word 'sophistry' has been hijacked by extremists and put to use as a supposedly-withering putdown, to be used against an individual or collective that puts forward an argument for which the extremists have no rational counter. Rather than acute embarassment at their lack of actual counterpoints, the extremist cry of - sophistry! - somehow, in the extremist mind, converts the opposing rational argument which is irreconcilable with the extremist mindset into some kind of trickery being played upon them by a deluded monster.

This is highly disturbing to an impartial observer that considers the dumbing down of everything to be a cause for concern.

Jack Riddler is very fond of bandying the word 'sophistry' at others, whose intellectual opinions do not match his own.

Thank God for Irony.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: The Battle For The Centre.

Post by jakell » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:27 pm

I'm sure ther's a better word that can be used, I'm just being lazy. Sophistry can have a positive dimension, but I'm using in the simplistic sense of 'he blinded me with science' (or in this case.. ' he blinded me with 'postmodernism').

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: The Battle For The Centre.

Post by C_D » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:44 am

Sophistry can have a positive dimension...
Sorry, but again, I have to take issue with this. Crikey, I sound like a strict schoolteacher asshole.

sophistry - def: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Crying 'sophistry' at anything one disagrees with and doesn't want to have to deal with, internally is a very different thing to actually detecting subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation and recognising it as sophistry.

Sophistry - in it's true form - is deception, which is obviously poor form. Crying 'sophistry' at all and sunder is equally so.

Sorry mate, just had to get that straight.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: The Battle For The Centre.

Post by C_D » Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:35 am

(or in this case.. ' he blinded me with 'postmodernism')
:lol:

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: The Battle For The Centre.

Post by jakell » Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:45 am

C_D wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:44 am
Sophistry can have a positive dimension...
Sorry, but again, I have to take issue with this. Crikey, I sound like a strict schoolteacher asshole.

sophistry - def: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Crying 'sophistry' at anything one disagrees with and doesn't want to have to deal with, internally is a very different thing to actually detecting subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation and recognising it as sophistry.

Sophistry - in it's true form - is deception, which is obviously poor form. Crying 'sophistry' at all and sunder is equally so.

Sorry mate, just had to get that straight.
Actually you're right, "sopshistry" (after looking around), is like 'SJW', ie it is purely negative in the vernacular. I was assuming that it could be used to denote something coming from the Sophists.

It turns out then that my usage of the word was correct after all, Getting back to the original post, what was your objection to its usage here?
jakell wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:13 pm
I reckon, more importantly than being a 'seer' he's a great communicator of this, which is why lots on the regressive Left see him as a threat and not just another academic (it also strikes them where it hurts as they consider academia to be one of their powerbases).

I've listened to a great deal of his stuff by now, including his biblical lectures, and he seems to have the common touch too, when he is speaking of complex concepts he rarely seems to be 'talking-down' (except when he is roasting those who try to strongarm him). To achieve this I think he does compromise his message somewhat (his 'broadly speaking' meme), and some Lefty academics have remarked on this, saying that he does not understand the depth of what he says.

I'm particularly thinking of when he speaks of postmodernism. Occasionally I have thought that his take on this is on the simplistic side but then I remind myself that, above all else, he is trying to communicate, and realise that he is making necessary simplifications. Ironically, the necessity of these simplifications provide an additional critique of postmodernism; that it inherently over-complexifies whatever it touches to the point of producing thick fog (or useful fog if one has sophistry in mind). These thoughts occurred to me whilst reading an article dumped by the paste-bot at the Old Place. Overall, I don't find the article to be too unkind to Peterson (relative to the standard fare), especially if my musings here are borne in mind.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: C_D and 2 guests