Does exactly what it says on the tin. Some of the nonsense contained herein may be very loosely related to The Sisters of Mercy, but I wouldn't bet your PayPal account on it. In keeping with the internet's general theme nothing written here should be taken as Gospel: over three quarters of it is utter gibberish, and most of the forum's denizens haven't spoken to another human being face-to-face for decades. Don't worry your pretty little heads about it. Above all else, remember this: You don't have to stay forever. I will understand.
XidiouX wrote: ↑12 Dec 2022, 22:55
To be fair, he does have some interesting insights into the Old Testament. But he's clueless when it comes to Jung, at least when it comes to personae and the practical application of the concept, e.g. on Twitter, and here. And his interview with Benjamin Netanyahu was an exercise in sycophancy toward a corrupt, evil bastard and war criminal.
Agree. That was a painful interview. As someone who is quite split on the Arab/Israeli conflict I was expecting some kind of enlightenment but it was just a political party broadcast/ book plug for Netanyahu.
(The interview with Richard Dawkins was worse though - JP lost to his ego)
Jordan Peterson? Ben Shapiro? These are allegedly the mental colossi of the intellectual dork web (did I spell that right?) and neither of them has enough brains to come in out of the rain.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
markfiend wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 10:59
Jordan Peterson? Ben Shapiro? These are allegedly the mental colossi of the intellectual dork web (did I spell that right?) and neither of them has enough brains to come in out of the rain.
Wasn't Peterson pretty well-respected in his field prior to the pronouns flap in Canada? I don't really know his work beyond the "clean your room" stuff and, like I said, I've always heard his stuff on the OT is interesting. I tried listening to a talk he gave on Nietzsche a few years back, but gave up, because whatever he was going on about didn't seem to me to be particularly well-grounded in Nietzsche's actual writings (this is a criticism I would make of most Nietzsche scholarship done in English, actually; I can count on my elbows the good Nietzsche scholars who are native speakers of English).
I will say that every time I see him I kind of get the impression that he is just on the verge of an explosion - as though behind that image of Canadian politeness is a seething cauldron of white-hot rage that he is just barely controlling.
No idea who the other person is.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
iesus wrote: ↑12 Dec 2022, 17:54
Fraudci should be already in jail and wating to be executed publicly in guillotine.
Ofc, i am open to hear anyone that has proves that he is not guilty for the deaths for thousands upon thousands of people around the globe. If you know something that i don't know please step up and change my mind.
"Innocent until proven guilty." I don't know what you think Fauci has done but from where I'm sitting, the main thing he did wrong in the pandemic was not coming out in favour of mask-wearing early enough.
I imagine you're referring to one of the conspiracy theories centred on Fauci; if so, there's an important thing called "evidence" that you would need to produce.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
sultan2075 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 13:18
I tried listening to a talk he gave on Nietzsche a few years back, but gave up, because whatever he was going on about didn't seem to me to be particularly well-grounded in Nietzsche's actual writings
I think this is a common refrain. "I know about ${field}. When Peterson talks about ${field} I think he's talking complete nonsense, but what he says outside my area of expertise sounds intriguing."
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
markfiend wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 15:06
Re: Peterson:
sultan2075 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 13:18
I tried listening to a talk he gave on Nietzsche a few years back, but gave up, because whatever he was going on about didn't seem to me to be particularly well-grounded in Nietzsche's actual writings
I think this is a common refrain. "I know about ${field}. When Peterson talks about ${field} I think he's talking complete nonsense, but what he says outside my area of expertise sounds intriguing."
He was couching a lot of it in Jung, etc., and I honestly don't know *anything* about that stuff (Jung, not Nietzsche; I wrote my diss. on Nietzsche). But in my niche niche very very niche subfield we have an almost obsessive regard for the text and grounding our claims in the text, which is not something I see much of in the academy more widely, so to be fair, my criticism applies to... well, most people with letters after their names (have I mentioned how much contempt I have for the academic-industrial complex?)
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
sultan2075 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 15:18
He was couching a lot of it in Jung, etc., and I honestly don't know *anything* about that stuff (Jung, not Nietzsche...
Funnily enough, upthread...
XidiouX wrote: ↑12 Dec 2022, 22:55
...But he's clueless when it comes to Jung...
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
markfiend wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 15:06
Re: Peterson:
sultan2075 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 13:18
I tried listening to a talk he gave on Nietzsche a few years back, but gave up, because whatever he was going on about didn't seem to me to be particularly well-grounded in Nietzsche's actual writings
I think this is a common refrain. "I know about ${field}. When Peterson talks about ${field} I think he's talking complete nonsense, but what he says outside my area of expertise sounds intriguing."
He's an anti-Jungian, isn't he? Again, i don't know what that means, really - I honestly don't have the right to an opinion on Jung. I was joking around with one of my students recently and commented that I don't read anything written after about 1900 unless it's a commentary about something written before 1900. That's only mostly a joke.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
sultan2075 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 15:53
He's an anti-Jungian, isn't he? Again, i don't know what that means, really - I honestly don't have the right to an opinion on Jung. I was joking around with one of my students recently and commented that I don't read anything written after about 1900 unless it's a commentary about something written before 1900. That's only mostly a joke.
No he is very pro-Jung. Everybody is an archetype and thats why they act in such a (mostly misguided) way.... thats how he disqualifies counter arguments.
I think he uses four main pillars of thought: Nietzsche, Jung, Solzhenitsyn and Dostoyevsky. To be honest its not a bad bunch is it.
sultan2075 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 15:53
He's an anti-Jungian, isn't he? Again, i don't know what that means, really - I honestly don't have the right to an opinion on Jung. I was joking around with one of my students recently and commented that I don't read anything written after about 1900 unless it's a commentary about something written before 1900. That's only mostly a joke.
No he is very pro-Jung. Everybody is an archetype and thats why they act in such a (mostly misguided) way.... thats how he disqualifies counter arguments.
I think he uses four main pillars of thought: Nietzsche, Jung, Solzhenitsyn and Dostoyevsky. To be honest its not a bad bunch is it.
Shows what I know
I've read a little bit of Solzhenitsyn, but not enough, and took a course on Dostoyevsky in grad school. I've been wanting to find time to re-read The Brothers Karamazov. All I really remember about it was thinking that Ivan's critique of Alyosha's eschatology was also a critique of the Hegelian view of history (which I think Ivan had studied at university, though it's not presented in quite those terms, right?),
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
GC wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 16:45
Everybody is an archetype and thats why they act in such a (mostly misguided) way.... thats how he disqualifies counter arguments.
Ah yes I'm familiar with this line of "reasoning". I think the technical term is "poisoning the well".
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
GC wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 16:45
Everybody is an archetype and thats why they act in such a (mostly misguided) way.... thats how he disqualifies counter arguments.
Ah yes I'm familiar with this line of "reasoning". I think the technical term is "poisoning the well".
Again, no *actual* knowledge of Jung here, but the archetype thing has always bugged me (just not enough to investigate). Is it cultural conditioning? Some sort of emergent property grounded in physiology? What’s the metaphysics of it all? How does it work? What grounds the plausibility of the claim?
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
Always glad to read you @markfiend
Yes indeed it is true that everyone is innocent untilo proves comes out. But there is a lot of smoke coming out of the woods in the next mountain, (this is a reference to a popular wisdom saying in here) and where is a lot of smoke there must be a fire around ^^. Ofc you can't believe everything it is written about "Fraudci" ( i am using it cause it was trendy and laughed hard with it) but time will tell which of those is true or false. We all have the experience though that there are truths that will never come up and lies that will take their place. Imho there is a 75-25 chance that he is not so innocent, if this was to a calc for bet question. Btw a 75-25 chances is 1 to 3 or is calculated otherwise for bets?
'Are we the Baddies?'...
"Someday! Someday, everything you need, is just gonna fall out of the sky..." -A.E. Reading 1991
"Don't forget that most of the judges in witches trials had harvard degrees."
I'm sure that everyone has seen that Musk was booed (for ten minutes!) at some Dave Chapelle show the other day? But you won't have seen it on Twitter; anyone posting the video there is getting banned.
Such free speech.
Many First Amendments.
Wow.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
markfiend wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 12:26
I'm sure that everyone has seen that Musk was booed (for ten minutes!) at some Dave Chapelle show the other day? But you won't have seen it on Twitter; anyone posting the video there is getting banned.
Such free speech.
Many First Amendments.
Wow.
Actually i saw it on twit-thing. And from pure curiosity i searched it and it's up there
There was also a post underneath from twit-thing that says.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The source tweet for this video has over 11,000 likes and has not been deleted.
twitter.com/MikeSington/st…
Do you find this helpful?
'Are we the Baddies?'...
"Someday! Someday, everything you need, is just gonna fall out of the sky..." -A.E. Reading 1991
"Don't forget that most of the judges in witches trials had harvard degrees."
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
That makes me appreciate him a little more. Psilocibin is apparantly the drug that is going to save humanity. Bring us closer to "God" and cure us of our meaning making deficiency.
Well, shrooms is one, but some rumors says that he tweeks his mind with Peter Murphy's fav drug. But, no other source than gossips of people knowing people.
Unless they will do the same with all the Oligarchs in the west, i see no meaning to do that to only one of them. It's like some of them are pissed with one of their kind and try to pass it to other people by force.
'Are we the Baddies?'...
"Someday! Someday, everything you need, is just gonna fall out of the sky..." -A.E. Reading 1991
"Don't forget that most of the judges in witches trials had harvard degrees."
