PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies u

PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM

Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies upon a postmodern (utilitarian) definition of truth – as if the purpose of truth was choice of good or preference when we are cooperating, rather than decidability in matters of conflict when cooperation fails.

The more complex the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, the greater requirement for decidability.

Peterson (I assume) preserves this postmodernism, in order to preserve his fondness for literature, idealism, and supernaturalism, and especially conflationary idealism and supernaturalism (Fictionalism).

I can understand why he needs this ‘crutch’ because the monomyth, the list of plots, the archetypes, and the virtues provide our best historical (empirically devolved) and most enduring analysis of psychology, and method of pedagogy.

However, there is a very great difference between the teaching of meaning so that we may discover and seize opportunities in reality, and the teaching of law so that we may decide conflicts without provoking retaliation cycles.

So while Peterson COULD say “truth is truth” and “wisdom is wisdom”, and while we can CHOOSE with wisdom, we can only DECIDE with Truth.

Otherwise, Peterson is on the way to restoring our ancient literary ‘Religion’, but he seems bent on preserving the ‘fictionalism’ (lies) of Abrahamism.

My question is, why preserve the lies of Abrahamism, if is is the use of the techniques of Abrahamism – fictionalism as a means of deception by suggestion – that the marxists (pseudo-science) and postmodernists (pseudo-rationalism) used to defeat the west in both the ancient (Forcible christianization) and modern (forcible marxism and postmodernism) eras.

Once Peterson resolves this one question I think he’s not just telling the conservatives what they want to hear. Until then, that’s all he is doing.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

===RESPONSE TO CRITICISM===

—“You seem to equate fictionalism, i.e. system that deals in fictitious, imaginary semi-abstract universe and the lies….”—

No. FIction vs Fictionalism. Fictionalism is a technical term. It means misrepresenting a fiction as existential or true.

a) Historicize: deflate myth into history and literature for the purpose of decidability in matters of dispute.

b) Fictionalize: convert into monomyth, plot, archetype, virtues for the purpose of meaning for the self.

c) Fictionalism: conflate myth, history, literature, law, science, real and ideal for the purpose of deception for political ends.

Compare 1) Science(measurements that remove error,bias,deceit), Common Law: empirical evidence of disputes. Economics: empirical record of demonstrated preferences. History (narrative of cause and effect), Literature(Fiction), Myth (hyperbole), under anthropomorphic gods, demigods, heroes all subject to the laws of the universe, who represent portfolios of virtues and sins for personal ends with 2) idealism supernaturalism, and conflation: supernatural authoritarianism, for the purpose of communicating POLITICAL ends, in which history, myth, laws, archetypes, ideals, utopias, and false promises of paradise in the present or after death are conflated. The most common examples are monotheistic religion (pseudo-myth) and mathematical platonism, marxist pseudoscience, and postmodern pseudo-rationalism.

There is a difference between use of deflation by monomyth, plot, archetype and virtue, and use of conflation in matters of wisdom of the self, and the use of deceit in politics. Virtues assist us in maximizing opportunities while limiting negative consequences to ourselves and the polity. The individual can enact his own compromises and exchanges, but politics is not but a proxy for violence and is not a matter of wisdom but DECIDABILITY. If not, then it is not a matter for politics which can only be decidable if it is empirical.

THis is how the left works: to circumvent the compromises of exchange necessary for the political to consist of moral actions (non parasitism).

—“The fairy tale – is it a lie to be exterminated? It seems to be an idea so grotesque, that only the complete anti-humanist would dwell on it.”—

A fairy tale consists of fiction (myth) not fictionalism (virgin birth of a savior).

—“Well, it does. Because decidability in real world situation has nothing to do in general with verifiable truth in Popperian sense nor with falsifiability of the hypothetical proposition.”–

Personal decidability does not, But POLITICAL decidability DOES. Because personal choice requires non-imposition, and political decidability requires imposition..

There is a very good reason why the west, using common law, deflationary truth, deflated institutions, maintained the separation of religion(wisdom) and state(law). And that reason is largely responsible for western rates of development versus their nearest competitor the chinese who also avoided conflation.

—“Now, I totally open to the idea that the scientific truth one day may tell me a good answer to that dilemma, but I am dealing with not a fictional proposal of a complete ULTIMATE science, but with a real and extremely limited science that does not know much about how an individual functions, nor how the society functions in a sense relevant to a question at hand.”—

The fact that you cannot imagine that it is possible to create tests of dimensions in natural language the same way we create tests of dimensions in mathematical language is simply due to the very recent solutions to questions of language in philosophy, the development of algorithmic language in computer science, and the scientific method’s inversion of justificationism (intent) with criticism (darwinian survival of ideas in the market for application), and the very recent confirmation of stoic acquisitionism, which I’ve expressed as propertarianism. In other words, locke was close to the stoics: we can in fact reduce not only all moral action to statements of property, but all of psychology and sociology as statements of property – thus, providing the social sciences with the final unit of commensurability: property.

So the fact that you don’t know those things is simply because it’s taken us from 300AD to the present to vacate enough of Abrahamic Fictionalism to restore our thought to it’s deflationary state 1700 years ago.

Now if that loss of 1700 years, and the rather obvious fact that by Archimedes greece had started the industrial revolution, is not enough of a criticism of immigration of non-european underclasses, and the cancer of abrahamic fictionalism, I don’t know what is.

We lost four great civilizations to Abrahamism in the form of judaism, christianity, and islam, and we are currently in the process of being forced into another migratory dark age by the fact that Abrahamic deceptions are so appealing to women and the underclasses.

Is there a greater moral crime in all of history than Abrahamic Fictionalism? I don’t think anything comes close. Abrahamic fictionalism has no equivalent. It destroyed the ancient world, and it is in the process of destroying the modern.

1) Zoroastrianism > Judaism > Christianity > Islamism defeated Greek and Roman Reason and destroyed north african, levantine, persian, byzantine and roman civilizations, and brought about the dark age through continuous raiding of the west.

2) German Rationalism > Jewish Marxism > French Postmodernism > Puritan Feminism are defeating the anglo germanic enlightenment. The same process is being repeated. The only people to resist the abrahamic deceits were the north sea peoples who ‘saved themselves’ from Christianity, and the Chinese who built a wall to keep out the barbarians and preserved their kinship purity even at economic cost to them.

So there is a very great difference between decidable literature of history, law, and science, and wisdom literature in the form of fiction, and fictionalism, in the form of abrahamic conflation and deception by suggestion.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine