Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Prof. Daniel Burston is merely using Peterson as a jumping board for shallow sel

    Prof. Daniel Burston is merely using Peterson as a jumping board for shallow self promotion and creating a typical postmodern straw man by claiming inconsistency via nietzsche where peterson doesn’t make it. In other words, he’s stating that Peterson is using an appeal to authority and claims of general authoritative truth rather than an innovator that had both correct and incorrect insights – as do all thinkers.

    PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE MONOMYTH, AND THE MYTHS

    Peterson does a number of less than perfect things. But (a) he is restoring stoicism (self authoring), (b) he is restoring myth as wisdom literature using the universal Monomyth>Archetypes>Plots>Virtues system, (c) he is illustrating that this set of teaching virtues by myth maps to personality traits, and how those traits map to brain chemistry and structures.

    WHAT DOES “GETTING IT RIGHT” MEAN TO PETERSON? CORRESPONDENCE AND COHERENCE.

    Peterson uses the term “got it right” when picking insights from different thinkers, and he lauds those with deep insight and literary talent in expression of them. But when he says “got it right” he is referring to an insight that mirrors both the findings cognitive science and the expression of that cognitive science in the

    Furthermore the authority on the subject is Hicks. And It’s flawless. Which I’m happy to argue with anyone. From a purely technical standpoint, the argumentative structure originates in France as moral literature. Is reformed by Kant into rationalism and then the German Continental line. Is reformed by Marx (boaz, freud, cantor, lenin, trotsky, mises, rothbard, strauss) into pseudoscience. And was reformed by the french again into moral literature(Derrida,Foucault), then into pseudo-rationalism (philosophy without truth, Rorty etc.). But the technique has been the same whether in judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, feminism, postmodernism: Literary, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational.

    But never deflationary truth: What we call “Science”.

    While we did develop Darwin, Menger, Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, Poincare, Hilbert, Maxwell, Einstein, Spencer, and Nietzsche, and Hayek. Despite mises, brouwer in math and bridgman in physics, and various thinkers in Law, the Operational(Intuitionistic) revolution failed except in the physical sciences. We failed to continue the enlightenment into the social sciences and prevent the counter-enlightenemnts of the abrahamists (fundamentalists, marxists, feminists, postmodernists).

    We were not able to solve social science without cognitive science, genetics, the failures of the postwar attempt at spreading democracy, the failure of communism, socialism, and the great society programs. And the failure of social democracy in those civilizations without accumulated genetic (higher Iq) and cultural (high trust) assets.

    TESTING PETERSON AND HICKS

    My analytic technique requires that we examine the method of argument – whether it is stated via deflation, conflation, or fictionalism, whether it’s scientifically true or not, and then I determine the changes that occur in the state of all existentially possible forms of capital, and whether those changes were voluntary or not.

    So I circumvent ‘meaning’ entirely. In other words, I perform an accounting audit of the arguments. And his arguments hold. Sorry. Rock solid.

    PETERSON’S ONE TROUBLING TOLERANCE

    I would like to correct Peterson on simply one point: that our deception by marxism and postmodernism it is precisely abrahamic use of supernatural literature as in Judaism, christianity, and islam) to deceive and manufacture impediments to knowledge by method of conflation, overloading, suggestion, and ‘fictionalism’ (confusing the real and the ideal and the supernatural). And providing a means of producing an addiction response through ritual and prayer. All off which appear to cause catastrophic harm to all civilizations that adopt abrahamic deception by suggestion and addiction.

    So, by tolerating abrahamic myths – any myths reliant upon fictionalism (conflation of supernatural, ideal, real; myth and history, wisdom and law) – Peterson is leaving open the door for abrahamic art of lying without which judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, and postmodernism cannot survive.

    So, while I have a technical criticism of his work, as far as I know he’s largely on the right track, and his criticisms are correct.

    CLOSING: THE HARSH REALITY OF WESTERN SUCCESS: TRUTH, MARKETS(Meritocracy) AND EUGENICS/

    As far as I know, Peterson is reliant upon a combination of cognitive science and literary science, to use parables to inform for success and diagnose for unhappiness. And this is the traditional role of pagan myth. THe fact that parables make use of ‘external observer’ effect and convey every dimension of reality as do all stories, is something that should be of obviously anyone with experience in therapeutic psychology, knowledge of the function of therapeutic hallucinogens, the art of suggestion, or artificial intelligence.

    Why? We are suggestible in when fire gazing and listening to stories because of the effect of the suspension of disbelief. By visualization via narrative analogy we can experience in the first, second or third person, that which we might feel pain in analyzing within ourselves.

    It was only with abrahamism that the method of teaching and curing was weaponized against the underclasses in order to rally them against the aristocracy. It had a not insignificant role in the destruction of ancient civilization, and it is having a current highly significant role in destroying the modern civilization.

    Why? Man was not oppressed. Man was and remains a beast that was first self domesticated ingroup, then forcibly domesticated by more domesticated outgroups by the combination of agrarian discipline, harsh winters, upward redistribution of reproduction, constraint on reproduction, delayed reproduction, aggressive exposing, sacrificing, hanging, burning,plague , illness, starvation, and war.

    And the distribution of prosperity today is determined by the success or failure at that reduction of the scale of the underclass that has not yet been sufficiently domesticated for autonomous, responsible, participation in modernity.

    Western man’s failing is the promotion of abrahamic underclass values via democracy and equality, rather than the origins and success of western civilization in truth, rule of law (non-discretionary rule. rule without rulers), Markets in everything – the consequence of which is incremental eugenics through upward redistribution of reproduction.

    And that is the difference between the honesty of the ancient world, and the ongoing deception of the modern.

    We are unequal. And our inequality is manageable, as long as we continue to shrink the size of the undomesticated lower classes until they are gone. After that we may find that our definition of lower classes may incrementally evolve. But at present it appears that there is a maximum human capacity around an average of 115-120, which means that we were close to optimum in the west before the industrial revolution. And that we have lost as much as a full standard deviation in average intelligence in less than 150 years.

    And if rates of immigration and reproduction continue, we will have reduced humanity to barbarism once again before the end of the century.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 09:25:00 UTC

  • It’s funny reading your earlier writings. So lyrical! It’s as though you were a

    It’s funny reading your earlier writings. So lyrical!

    It’s as though you were a real human once and have now been all but swallowed up from the inside out by your *the autistic monster*… 😆

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 11:28:00 UTC

  • PART 3 – THE DEFEAT OF JARED HOWE, AND BY EXTENSION THE ENTIRETY OF ‘AUSTRIAN’ E

    PART 3 – THE DEFEAT OF JARED HOWE, AND BY EXTENSION THE ENTIRETY OF ‘AUSTRIAN’ ECONOMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE.

    Jared Howe,

    I think you’re just a disingenuous at this point, and using the very method of mandated ignorance I accuse mises and rothbard of, of kant of by claiming special pleading for general rules of behavior.

    You see, while you can identify possible truth propositions with justificationary reasoning, you cannot prevent false propositions with justificationary reasoning – that requires competition. Or what we call ’empiricism’: the competition between the ideal and the real.

    —“You’re still contradicting yourself by rejecting the validity of a priorism via a priori truth statements”—

    But what did I say actually?

    I said apriorism in economics is demonstrably insufficient for the identification of *all* economic phenomenon (including both general rules, variations from those general rules.)

    I said economics was indifferent from the others sciences in that it required survival from a competition between the analytic(thought), logical(words), existential(actions).

    And that all economic phenomenon have proven to be resistant to deduction even if they are not resistant to operational (praxeologica) explanation through sympathetic reconstruction of a series of actions taken in response to available incentives.

    I claimed that empirically, unavoidably, we have observed, that all truth claims about reality are contingent, including in economics. That even the a prior of ‘length’, ‘space’ and ‘time’ were false.

    For example, “all other things being equal, increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment” is not true in general, and is not true in all cases. In other words, it is a synthetic, contingent, a priori proposition. Which is a pseudoscientific posturing – a way of saying ‘a general rule’.

    I am not claiming that spectrum of categories which kant referred to as a priori, are false so much as that they reflect dimensions of reality, that the scientific method is superior in describing and testing.

    A Priori: “independent of observation.”

    There are three dimensions to claims of a priori truth claim:

    i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

    ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and

    iii) Necessity vs Contingency

    Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

    (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.

    (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.

    (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.

    (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

    This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

    (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

    (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

    (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

    (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

    Both Mises and Rothbard confess to this later in life. Sorry. It is what it is. They realized they had failed. Economics is like any other science “a mix of the empirical and operational”. And the praxeological movement and all that was related to it crumbled as nothing more than a pseudoscientific resistance movement against the continuing progress of science.

    Competition between the rational and the real. Markets in knowledge just like markets in everything else. There is no justificationary reasoning available to man for real world phenomenon.

    WELCOME TO THE REAL.

    You are currently in the heavy-resistance phase, as the entire cosmopolitan program comes crashing down, including the marxist-postmodern, libertine-libertarian, and neo-conservative, as well as the social democratic and classical liberal. That is because all the enlightenment views of man and all the enlightenment counter-reactions against the progress of the scientific method (criticism) by various methods of justification(justificationism) have been demonstrated to be false.

    Man was not oppressed by aristocracy. He was a beast that a small minority of gifted martial aristocrats domesticated from animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to citizen resulting in the diminution of the lower and increase in the middle and upper middle classes through reproductive suppression, war, starvation, and aggressive hanging.

    Man is a rational actor for whom cooperation is possible and generally superior choice. But at all times he chooses moral or immoral action by little more than either habit or accounting of consequences.

    And as such we invented the natural common law of reciprocity since no matter how complex our social orders, all conflicts over demonstrated investments are decidable by tests of reciprocity.

    There is but one epistemological method and that is the the market for competition for consistency between the dimensions, and the market for competition for consistent application in reality.

    And because of that competition, both truth and lie can survive. If only because it is cheaper to produce deception than truth.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 21:18:00 UTC

  • Sorry guys but all austrian economics is practiced empirically today and the mis

    Sorry guys but all austrian economics is practiced empirically today and the misesian program was abandoned as an ideological failure. Just how it is.

    1) I can identify economic phenomenon empirically.

    2) I cannot identify all economic phenomenon deductively.

    3) I must be able to explain all economic phenomenon operationally or it is false.

    4) I cannot claim to know the limits of an apriori general rule without empirical analysis. If I cannot know the limits of a general rule I cannot use it for the purpose of argument and deduction of consequent states. Even if I *can* use it for the purpose of explanation of the current state.

    YOU CAN THROW AWAY EVERYTHING MISES INSTITUTE SAYS ABOUT ECONOMICS

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 17:01:00 UTC

  • My accusation is this: – one can speak descriptively of the existential; one can

    My accusation is this:

    – one can speak descriptively of the existential; one can speak of a general rule as an ideal to obscure ignorance of causality, one can claim authority over the ideal by supernatural.

    – Man can speak testimonial by math, science, witness; man can speak honestly by memory or history; man can speak allegorically with literature, and illustratively (hyperbolically) through myth(supernormal but not supernatural). Man can also speak falsely by ideal (rationalism), by supernaturalism, by pseudoscience – the name for this is called ‘fictionalism’.

    – That man must have an incentive to speak by other than descriptively and demonstrable. What incentive is there to do so?

    The answer is to justify immoral, unethical, and anti-social argument, action, and strategy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 14:28:00 UTC

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: EASTERN MORAL CRITICISM VS ANGLO INTELLECTUAL CRITICISM

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: EASTERN MORAL CRITICISM VS ANGLO INTELLECTUAL CRITICISM

    (act in harmony with nature: eastern and western versions)

    I’m going to “anglicize” his statements because the buddhism is hard for me to wade through.

    (a) the movement is unnatural because they didn’t account for costs. if the algorithm accounted for a maximum watts of output in the human form: 400 for short periods, 100 for maybe an hour, and 60-75 for an 8 hour work day. or roughly 1200-1500 watts per day before exhaustion (or death). starting from a standing position, an algorithm ‘should’ eventually develop walking by trial and error, and hemispheric mirroring of successes. THe general problem with mathematical analysis, logical analysis, philosophical analysis, and all models that derive from them, is an insufficient allocation of costs which nature does not and cannot tolerate without immediate failure.

    So where Hayao Miyazaki speaks in eastern ethics of shame, an anglo like myself speaks in anglo ethics of stupidity.

    This in itself is an interesting observation of our cultural differences.

    Not that one or the other is better.

    Ours just provides more actionable results.

    Both of us are saying the same thing: “ACT IN HARMONY WITH NATURE” in different ways.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 14:20:00 UTC

  • RAND As a literary philosopher she brought the moral code of middle class judais

    RAND

    As a literary philosopher she brought the moral code of middle class judaism to middle class americans resisting bolshevism in a form that the audience could digest.

    As an analytic philosopher, or a social scientist she was lacking in a full accounting, just as all three jewish class philosophies (marxism/libertarianism/neo-conservatism), lacked a full accounting. The jews had evolved to live off the commons of others rather than produce them themselves. They took the female strategy to the male strategy of the land holding peoples.

    And while western man’s traditions did not lack this full accounting, he developed it by competition in war, rule, polities, markets, and marriage, by tradition and habit and trial and error, not by articulated reason and deliberative law as did the jews.

    So while western man could defeat with physical science the supernatural fictionalism of the jews, he could not resist marxism, libertarianism, and neo-conservatism of the jews. And Rand supplied that articulation.

    Thankfully we westerners no longer have that problem: because marxism-postmodernism, libertarianism, and neoconservatism have all been proven false by the evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 12:51:00 UTC

  • THERE WAS NOTHING GOOD IN CHRISTIANITY THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE IT. —“Peterso

    THERE WAS NOTHING GOOD IN CHRISTIANITY THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE IT.

    —“Peterson’s point in theism, using Christianity as his usual example, is that we didn’t develop somehow without it and if we cut it off we shouldn’t assume we’ll retain the good we got from it as a society. This has happened and it never goes that way. In fact it goes.the other way. If your Utopia is with God than your on the right track. Are you criticizing having ideals in general as well? Also, what is the basis for people having ideals?”— Billy Duke

    (a) that does not survive scrutiny, because everything good in christianity was demonstrably there beforehand in the pagan versions and everything bad in christianity was not there but added to politicize those pagan versions against aristocracy and reason.

    (b) It is very hard to make the argument that abrahamic religions, including the licensing of christianity and the forcible imposition of christianity, were concocted as other than a rebellion against the commercial market meritocracy, military meritocracy, legislative meritocracy, political meritocracy, religious meritocracy, and use of reason by the aristocracy both persian and greco-roman. Judaism, christianity, and islam were just the separatist fundamentalism(judaism), socialism(christianity), and militant communism(islam) of the ancient world. And visa-versa.

    The eastern empire was able to ally the underclasses against the weakened aristocracy and take power over (defeat) the western empire, in the same way the Marxists/Postmodernists/Feminists have allied against the aristocracy weakened by the french revolution and the world wars.

    There are only two existentially possible group evolutionary strategies to man: the aristocratic meritocratic (k-selection, eugenic, or “packs”), and the communist equalitarian (r-selection, dysgenic, or “herds”). Any order not explicitly meritocratic and eugenic will evolve into unmeritocratic and dysgenic. Just as all human organizations eventually calcify. It’s not consistency that makes us strong but constant ‘testing’ (competition).

    The most important competition however, is that between masculine eugenic(“pack”), and feminine dysgenic(“herd”). And we achieve the optimum possible nash equilibrium through markets for association, reproduction(marriage), commercial markets, intellectual markets, markets for commons (govt), and political markets (nations), when polities are small and homogenous, and can produce commons necessary for them without coming at the expense of others. But the consequence of those markets is suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses. And that is a good thing. Because the condition of each individual in a polity is determined more by the reduction of the underclass than by any other action we can take.

    (c) The central difference between, the aristocratic method and the underclass method is in cost vs demographics. It is one thing to use expensive high investment education in the development of meritocracy, truth, and reason, among the middle and upper classes, and much cheaper to develop low investment education in the development of resistance, fictionalism, and obedience in the lower classes. And this is still what we see in religiosity today. While morality remains constant, religiosity vs rational action is merely one of intelligence. The central problem being a full standard deviation in median IQ between the lower, middle, and upper classes. (90, 105, 120, 135). Hence the vehement militant religiosity of muslims (87), the tepid ratio-religiosity of christians 100, and the legalism of the educated (115), the and the virtue-signaling atheism of the intergenerational commercial, financial, and intellectual classes (130).

    (d) The church exemplifies the adage that he who writes history authors it. The church has a long history of ‘appropriation’ and almost no history of innovation. A long history of taking credit rather than giving it. A long history of advocating faith(submission) rather than reason(autonomy). A long history of attribution to the divine intention rather than natural consequence. A long history of claiming education, but failing to use the high time devotion to the church to literacy. A long history of claiming charity, but forcible accumulation of private property(largest land holder in europe). A long history of criticizing the aristocracy, but the major collector of land rents. A long history of claiming good, but persistent evidence of doing evil – most notably the templars, indoctrination, persecution, and ‘indulgences’.

    (e) there is but one utopia, and that is that man should make an eden of this world and every other. And he cannot do so with lies. If there are any gods, they have written their language in the structure of the universe, and it is through uncomfortable truth reason knowledge and calculation that we transcend the animal through comfortable falsehood, faith, ignorance, and storytelling.

    (f) As far as I know, the philosophy of the west has been that of the truth of martial aristocracy and the philosophy the failed peoples has been the lies of priestly communism. And while the chinese succeeded at building a wall to keep the ‘people of lies’ out, they were not able to develop the trust of the aristocratic west, any more than the aristocratic west was able to complete the roman project of building a wall to protect the west from the people of desert, steppe, and tundra. And it is this failing – to learn isolation from the chinese – that has been our downfall. Just as much as it is their failing – to learn trust from europeans – that was theirs. The difference is, that they have learned from us now, but we have not yet learned from them.

    (g) “Christendom without Christianity.”

    1) Extend familial love to brothers in arms, first above all.

    2) Extend kinship love to the polity

    3) Extirpate hatred from the human heart.

    4) Show tolerance of honest error, intolerance of all else; and respect for those who earn it, and disrespect for those who don’t. Kneel to none.

    5) Speak the truth without exception.

    6) Master an art, a science, a craft, and a trade.

    7) Bear and raise children to be husbands and warriors and wives and mothers.

    8) Preserve, Maintain and Beautify the commons

    9) Safeguard the young, weak, and elderly.

    10) Take nothing not paid for, seek nothing not earned.

    11) Place no burden of notice, attention or impediment upon others.

    12) Perform and enforce restitution for all wrongs.

    13) Punish or kill the criminal, wicked, and lazy.

    14) Defeat and exterminate all enemies completely

    15) Leave life having transcended yourself, your line, your polity, man, and this land, closer to omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, and beauty.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 10:42:00 UTC

  • “Have the Jordan Peterson followers realized their tribalism is turning into/has

    —“Have the Jordan Peterson followers realized their tribalism is turning into/has turned into a cult yet?”—

    I am pretty sure that Peterson has restated Stoicism(self authoring), using cognitive science, and combined it with literary analysis as allegory to cognitive science, and produced a contender for a secular synthesis and restatement of the religions of our pagan, christian, and secular ages.

    So it is possible that he’s founding a Reformation – and possibly the reformation people arguably want. And a reformation we need very much, because Marxism-Postmodernism was a false and pseudoscientific religion. And to some degree I see him as attempting to provide a scientific religion in opposition to the pseudoscientific religion of marxism-postmodernism.

    I’m about the same age, and I work on the inverse of Peterson’s work – epistemology, testimony, law, politics, and group evolutionary strategy. So where he tries to provide tools of meaning to teach, I try to find tools of decidability to judge.

    But I’ve come to very similar conclusions. And it is fairly hard to possess a general knowledge of the state of cognitive science, the history of evolutionary biology and psychology, the history of cooperation(economics), the history of conflict (law), and to come to very different conclusions.

    So you can frame his work as education. And maybe a cult. But if you want to frame peterson’s work as a self-help cult, well, you wouldn’t be the first person to say such a thing. But then, that is the purpose of literature, myth, and religion.

    I agree with him deeply on most subjects, but the difference is that in the choice between teaching mental discipline and teaching mental coping mechanisms, I place greater emphasis on the former and he the latter. Which is what you would expect from a Paternally biased Judge (me), and Maternally biased Teacher (him).

    Given that we can teach by science(theoretical first causes), history(evidence of our behavior), literature(temporal analogy), myth(eternal analogy) and never claim more than analogy, my frustration is that I don’t agree that the Abrahamic cults (judaism, christianity, islam, marxism-postmodernism) that move beyond analogy to the utopian, the ideal and the supernatural, are necessary or beneficial.

    I find the abrahamic religions as among the worst evils in human history, and that life prior to them, and that history tells us that life in their absence both in the far east, and in our ancient world, and in our modern world leave us little choice but to deeply question why the utopian, ideal, and supernatural produce anything except the psychological equivalent of drug addiction and addiction behavior.

    So that is the ‘debate’ I think we should have. Not whether Peterson is stumbling upon a restoration, or a reformation, but whether he will improve the modern version of abrahamic cults (marxism-postmodernism), or whether he will simply perpetuate it, such that it returns in an even more virulent form.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 02:22:00 UTC

  • “Have the Jordan Peterson followers realized their tribalism is turning into/has

    —“Have the Jordan Peterson followers realized their tribalism is turning into/has turned into a cult yet?”—

    I am pretty sure that Peterson has restated Stoicism(self authoring), using cognitive science, and combined it with literary analysis as allegory to cognitive science, and produced a contender for a secular synthesis and restatement of the religions of our pagan, christian, and secular ages.

    So it is possible that he’s founding a Reformation – and possibly the reformation people arguably want. And a reformation we need very much, because Marxism-Postmodernism was a false and pseudoscientific religion. And to some degree I see him as attempting to provide a scientific religion in opposition to the pseudoscientific religion of marxism-postmodernism.

    I’m about the same age, and I work on the inverse of Peterson’s work – epistemology, testimony, law, politics, and group evolutionary strategy. So where he tries to provide tools of meaning to teach, I try to find tools of decidability to judge.

    But I’ve come to very similar conclusions. And it is fairly hard to possess a general knowledge of the state of cognitive science, the history of evolutionary biology and psychology, the history of cooperation(economics), the history of conflict (law), and to come to very different conclusions.

    So you can frame his work as education. And maybe a cult. But if you want to frame peterson’s work as a self-help cult, well, you wouldn’t be the first person to say such a thing. But then, that is the purpose of literature, myth, and religion.

    I agree with him deeply on most subjects, but the difference is that in the choice between teaching mental discipline and teaching mental coping mechanisms, I place greater emphasis on the former and he the latter. Which is what you would expect from a Paternally biased Judge (me), and Maternally biased Teacher (him).

    Given that we can teach by science(theoretical first causes), history(evidence of our behavior), literature(temporal analogy), myth(eternal analogy) and never claim more than analogy, my frustration is that I don’t agree that the Abrahamic cults (judaism, christianity, islam, marxism-postmodernism) that move beyond analogy to the utopian, the ideal and the supernatural, are necessary or beneficial.

    I find the abrahamic religions as among the worst evils in human history, and that life prior to them, and that history tells us that life in their absence both in the far east, and in our ancient world, and in our modern world leave us little choice but to deeply question why the utopian, ideal, and supernatural produce anything except the psychological equivalent of drug addiction and addiction behavior.

    So that is the ‘debate’ I think we should have. Not whether Peterson is stumbling upon a restoration, or a reformation, but whether he will improve the modern version of abrahamic cults (marxism-postmodernism), or whether he will simply perpetuate it, such that it returns in an even more virulent form.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 02:21:00 UTC