Zizek vs Peterson - combatants ready to become allies?

[Alexander Bard]

Dear Friends

Here is Slavoj Zizek's highly vaulable and well formulated Marxist critique of Jordan Peterson.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html

And here is Zizek's possibly even more inspiring metacomment against his leftist critics.

http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics-concerning-an-engagement-with-jordan-peterson

Not only do I look forward to the debate between Zizek and Peterson, I also believe strongly that they will both come out as victors. Simply because they are the two leading and most popular thinkers and activists against Rousseuian identitarianism in contemporary society.

Zizek is basically kissing Peterson's boots at the end. Because Peterson succeeds in leadership, Zizek's weakness. While Peterson has not understood yet that Marxism is his long lost ally and not the enemy at all. Marxists detest identitarians of all sorts. Count me in, for example.

Many thanks to magnificent Hugi for providing the links.

Best intentions

Alexander

[Jose Santos]

Hir is also sargon of akkad's critic of Zizek vs Peterson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsLAbOze0kc

warm regards 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

I love Jordan Peterson as a Psychologist.  The only thing that really bothers me about him, is his misuse of the word Marxism.

Kenneth

--

"Life... The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence.  To die means having lived, but to not exist means being... NOTHING!  To live means to influence the cosmos!  One's actions.  One's presence, changes every being he meets!  The cosmos is everything!  To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality!  Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow." --Steve Englehart; Marvel Premier Featuring: Dr. Strange #12

[Brent Cooper]

​That's the ONLY thing Kenneth? Peterson is a genius psychologist, but he's got a head cold for all the wrong reasons. He misuses Marxism, postmodernism, leftism, feminism, veganism, socialism, social justice, and to some extent abstraction. He gets angry the moment he steps out his wheelhouse and bashes "the left," instead of having a considered approach. 

I think we need to be way more specific when we talk about Marxism. There are dozens of varieties. Which is why I wrote Meta-Marxism.

Two words Peterson does NOT use at all are Syntheism and Metamodernism (or even post-postmodernism). Time to learn. 

Alexander, that's something I'd love to see; you schooling him on Syntheism. You know its still possible to like Peterson without sanctifying him? Good you can admit Zizek's critique is good. This is what I've been trying to do. I think I am still the only person in the world who's written both a defense and a critique of Peterson, and you've avoided it like the plague. All other commentators are pretty divided, although some are neutral. With the continued exposure and hype around Peterson, I'm working on a third piece. 

I look forward to the Zizek-Peterson face off, but context is everything. We don't know this will be framed or moderated. A LOT of people will be rooting for Peterson to bash the shit out of Zizek, like Ben Shapiro vs. Cenk Uygur but we should (always) be rooting for consensus, conciliation, consilience. Yes, combatants should become allies. How ironic that the poster boy for your 'clean your room' will square off against a famous philosopher who sports a dirty t-shirt?

One thing every Peterson fan has to ask themselves - why does a great psychologist also have to be an anti-sociologist? Answer: He doesn't. The two fields are not mutually exclusive. 

Regards, 

Brent

[Alexander Bard]

Dear Brent

Thank you for all your efforts but I'm afraid I have not found your critique of Jordan Peterson even remotely as sophisticated as Slavoj Zizek's.

But you're young. There is plenty of time to learn and grow. No need to rush anything. And meanwhile Peterson is incredibly useful and, as far as the bigger picture is concerned, also correct. So please note I have no doubts about your talents, only about the polish of your current methods.

This is also Zizek's point: Instead of criticising Peterson, come up with something better. Syntheism is at least an attempt to avoid Peterson's "return to ironic Christianity turn". What metamodernism has to do with this though still beats me. But this is also Zizek's problem: What is his alternative to Peterson's main ideology? I see none. As I have already pointed out.

Pointing out what is needed is not the delivery of the solution. That's a far bigger challenge.

Syntheism is however a frist small step towards the solution. For example a functioning framework for my own mainly psychedelic experiences. And a label co-owned by us all.

Best intentions

Alexander

2018-02-24 18:11 GMT+01:00 Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com>:

​That's the ONLY thing Kenneth? Peterson is a genius psychologist, but he's got a head cold for all the wrong reasons. He misuses Marxism, postmodernism, leftism, feminism, veganism, socialism, social justice, and to some extent abstraction. He gets angry the moment he steps out his wheelhouse and bashes "the left," instead of having a considered approach. 

I think we need to be way more specific when we talk about Marxism. There are dozens of varieties. Which is why I wrote Meta-Marxism.

Two words Peterson does NOT use at all are Syntheism and Metamodernism (or even post-postmodernism). Time to learn. 

Alexander, that's something I'd love to see; you schooling him on Syntheism. You know its still possible to like Peterson without sanctifying him? Good you can admit Zizek's critique is good. This is what I've been trying to do. I think I am still the only person in the world who's written both a defense and a critique of Peterson, and you've avoided it like the plague. All other commentators are pretty divided, although some are neutral. With the continued exposure and hype around Peterson, I'm working on a third piece. 

I look forward to the Zizek-Peterson face off, but context is everything. We don't know this will be framed or moderated. A LOT of people will be rooting for Peterson to bash the shit out of Zizek, like Ben Shapiro vs. Cenk Uygur but we should (always) be rooting for consensus, conciliation, consilience. Yes, combatants should become allies. How ironic that the poster boy for your 'clean your room' will square off against a famous philosopher who sports a dirty t-shirt?

One thing every Peterson fan has to ask themselves - why does a great psychologist also have to be an anti-sociologist? Answer: He doesn't. The two fields are not mutually exclusive. 

Regards, 

Brent

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Brent,

I use to have the same criticisms you had about Jordan Peterson, and him arguing what feminism is not, rather than what it is.  Then I looked further into him, and found that he is more radically feminist than most feminists, in the sense that he is advocating that a woman should not have to sacrifice her femininity to get into positions of power.  This has been a criticism that Scandinavians have had towards American feminists for years.

I also find Jordan Peterson misuses the word appropriation.  Truth is most leftests today misuse that word.  The word came about in response to Native American mascots, things that were undeniably disrespectful, like naming a football team the Washington Red Skins, which is as derogatory as calling a football team the Washington Niggers.   It had nothing to do with white people playing Jazz, or eating Sushi.

I find with Jordan Peterson, he is such an in-depth thinker, that you really have to look at the full picture of what he says.  He does not limit himself to a standard narrative which is refreshing.  Both the left and the right have fallen into the trap of narratives.  And yes Brent, there are many things I disagree with from him, but he does also have many valid points. 

Kenneth

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Brent

Thank you for all your efforts but I'm afraid I have not found your critique of Jordan Peterson even remotely as sophisticated as Slavoj Zizek's.

But you're young. There is plenty of time to learn and grow. No need to rush anything. And meanwhile Peterson is incredibly useful and, as far as the bigger picture is concerned, also correct. So please note I have no doubts about your talents, only about the polish of your current methods.

This is also Zizek's point: Instead of criticising Peterson, come up with something better. Syntheism is at least an attempt to avoid Peterson's "return to ironic Christianity turn". What metamodernism has to do with this though still beats me. But this is also Zizek's problem: What is his alternative to Peterson's main ideology? I see none. As I have already pointed out.

Pointing out what is needed is not the delivery of the solution. That's a far bigger challenge.

Syntheism is however a frist small step towards the solution. For example a functioning framework for my own mainly psychedelic experiences. And a label co-owned by us all.

Best intentions

Alexander

2018-02-24 18:11 GMT+01:00 Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com>:

​That's the ONLY thing Kenneth? Peterson is a genius psychologist, but he's got a head cold for all the wrong reasons. He misuses Marxism, postmodernism, leftism, feminism, veganism, socialism, social justice, and to some extent abstraction. He gets angry the moment he steps out his wheelhouse and bashes "the left," instead of having a considered approach. 

I think we need to be way more specific when we talk about Marxism. There are dozens of varieties. Which is why I wrote Meta-Marxism.

Two words Peterson does NOT use at all are Syntheism and Metamodernism (or even post-postmodernism). Time to learn. 

Alexander, that's something I'd love to see; you schooling him on Syntheism. You know its still possible to like Peterson without sanctifying him? Good you can admit Zizek's critique is good. This is what I've been trying to do. I think I am still the only person in the world who's written both a defense and a critique of Peterson, and you've avoided it like the plague. All other commentators are pretty divided, although some are neutral. With the continued exposure and hype around Peterson, I'm working on a third piece. 

I look forward to the Zizek-Peterson face off, but context is everything. We don't know this will be framed or moderated. A LOT of people will be rooting for Peterson to bash the shit out of Zizek, like Ben Shapiro vs. Cenk Uygur but we should (always) be rooting for consensus, conciliation, consilience. Yes, combatants should become allies. How ironic that the poster boy for your 'clean your room' will square off against a famous philosopher who sports a dirty t-shirt?

One thing every Peterson fan has to ask themselves - why does a great psychologist also have to be an anti-sociologist? Answer: He doesn't. The two fields are not mutually exclusive. 

Regards, 

Brent

[Brent Cooper]

Some fair points from both of you, but Alexander you say that without ever going into any details about my critique, which is really a meta-critique, including the critiques of others.. And regardless about what people think about veganism, that silly documentary where Peterson is coldly reading from cue cards is downright farcical. I'm surprised it doesn't attract more flak. 

I'm pretty sure I wrote more or less the same things as Zizek six months ago, and now finally Zizek writes a 500-word op-ed, it's a little redundant, but at least its happening finally. 

I can't say it enough, but when Peterson goes too far out of bounds of psychology, he is fervently anti-sociological, to the point of showing ignorance of Sociology 101 basics. This is the core of what makes me so sad about all the hype. Peterson's ideology about sociology is an anti-ideology, and he is casting a shadow over actual sociologists doing good work.. It is a major crisis. Hence the need for Public Sociology.

Peterson's self-help system is dangerous because republican congressman or senator could follow Peterson's 12 Rules and still be a complete psychopath. Peterson's "system" has no epistemology, except what I tried to highlight in his 'abstraction' so its a missed opportunity. No way for self-sorters to know truth from false, good from bad. Marco Rubio's comments of late are case-in-point. There's a guy who's room is probably very tidy, but his ignorance and actions are certain to result in more innocent bloodbaths. I would love to see Peterson critique his contemporaries (other baby-boomers) instead of going after millennial activists all the time. 

I am trying to 'come up with something better' and perhaps I have already, TBA.

Regards, 

Brent

[Alexander Bard]

But why this incessant need to piant Peterson in either black or white?

I don't see that happening with any other thinker slash activist, so why Jordan Peterson?

That question fascinates me. What is it about Jordan Peterson that makes even his opponents talk about nothing but Jordan Peterson?

I can easily differentiate between the ideas I share with Jordan and my differences with him.

However my main argument and support for Jordan Peterson has actually nothing to do with neither ideology nor detail. It has to do with the simple fact that his work works.

He is apparently badly needed in America and Europe at the moment. That is all.

Best

Alexander

2018-02-25 1:03 GMT+01:00 Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com>:

Some fair points from both of you, but Alexander you say that without ever going into any details about my critique, which is really a meta-critique, including the critiques of others.. And regardless about what people think about veganism, that silly documentary where Peterson is coldly reading from cue cards is downright farcical. I'm surprised it doesn't attract more flak. 

I'm pretty sure I wrote more or less the same things as Zizek six months ago, and now finally Zizek writes a 500-word op-ed, it's a little redundant, but at least its happening finally. 

I can't say it enough, but when Peterson goes too far out of bounds of psychology, he is fervently anti-sociological, to the point of showing ignorance of Sociology 101 basics. This is the core of what makes me so sad about all the hype. Peterson's ideology about sociology is an anti-ideology, and he is casting a shadow over actual sociologists doing good work.. It is a major crisis. Hence the need for Public Sociology.

Peterson's self-help system is dangerous because republican congressman or senator could follow Peterson's 12 Rules and still be a complete psychopath. Peterson's "system" has no epistemology, except what I tried to highlight in his 'abstraction' so its a missed opportunity. No way for self-sorters to know truth from false, good from bad. Marco Rubio's comments of late are case-in-point. There's a guy who's room is probably very tidy, but his ignorance and actions are certain to result in more innocent bloodbaths. I would love to see Peterson critique his contemporaries (other baby-boomers) instead of going after millennial activists all the time. 

I am trying to 'come up with something better' and perhaps I have already, TBA.

Regards, 

Brent

[joakim...@blixtmail.se]

Isn't it pointing towards the problem of philosophy? The lack of grand narratives.

The french post modernist was against doing it, from what I've gathered. They where to strict "scientific" and worked out new theories about methods, but not really so much normative questions; like "What view do I adopt, what are my personal moral?". Know Alexander says we should go back to Hegel. But really shouldn't we go forward to new creations?

When I hear the general ruckus about post modernism I generally agree with the critics of the movement that claims post modern adherence. Not so much because they are right against the actual authors, Baudrillard, Foucault, Derrida and similar, but because the general movements are making normative claims from these methodological claims. The methodology being; relativism, deconstructionism, inter-sectionalism etc. Those are very demanding methods, and where invented mostly for the scholars. Not to be broadly applied in the press and chat forums to win cheap points.

And that is actually the most important thing to do for any movement claiming adherence, ownership or interpretation of a tradition; to school and make critique (in the Kantian sense) of what it actually mean. If it want to become popular that is. And not become degenerative by becoming the latest flair used for social positioning.

The methods used correctly can lead to very potent revelations about the structures in society, and thus form the basis on which to build a grand narrative, a normative claim, of where to take us. But both personal, and what I see others end up in, is incessant bickering within the groups of "post-modernism". And that is what eating up the "left".

In the large it is down right stupendous how totality the left ideology dominate the western world view. Even the "alt-rights" and "far-right" are caught in "liberal" narrative. So the reigns has been in the "lefts" hands, but they haven't managed to steer the carriage.

Look at what room these debates have created. We can now talk about Jungian archetypes, we can go back to discussing history in a greater than in a long time perspective like western connection to roman civics, on towards egyptian influences, persian invasions etc. Who ever thought the terms of occidence and orient would resurface?

If one cares these are great times to expand any ideology, be it left or right, socialism or liberalism, even fascism if so inclined. Instead of jumping on some kind of reactionary defense of single positions. We might finally get post the trauma caused by the hegemonies created by cold war rethorics of stark oppositions of "west" and "east".

But it needs philosophy in the sense that what is said need to be motivated in and by itself, not by claims of being "the right position", or "the right view". Or to try to defend "sociology" in and of itself. Then we really go back to modernism. And fail to carry the post modern revelations that forward history.

Ps. Did it pass you all by that Zizek murmured about being ousted from most medial outlets? Isn't that interesting since he was kind of a poster boy not long ago? Ds

From the cold expanses of icy clear considerations

/Joakim ;)

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

[Brent Cooper]

Alexander, I could not pin point it anymore than I have by saying "abstraction" first and foremost is why Peterson is important. As I consider abstraction a big part of my "expertise", and the major theme of his book Maps of Meaning, that is the first. The problem is there is a major disjoint between how he uses it in Maps, and the rest of his concepts and counter-activism.. and second, my articles of how it applies differently in dozens of other contexts should interest anyone who relies on abstraction so much. I have no need to paint him in black or white, but as grey. I don't want to dwell on Peterson, I only ever wanted to help him and his movement. But his popularity actually seems to foil and overshadow the work I'm doing. The sheer numbers of his success are not a measurement of progress. 

If you're asking/fascinated by why Peterson is so divisive, that would be the topic of my third article; a meta-synthesis of the defences and critiques of Peterson.

Joakim, good points, but I still see this sort of 'myth fetishism at the expense of social justice' as a dangerous way to go about it. I love myth as much as anyone, Again, how can we honestly say the "left" "dominates" anything when the right holds all the power in the US. It is pure absurdity, and WRONG, to use Peterson's favourite word. The discourse that dominates the mainstream media is watered-down liberalism, co-opted long ago, and that is in part the kind of pseudo-intellectualism that's trickled down into conservatives, making them think they're "woke" when they're still zombie AF. It's simply not fair to say what we should just call multiculturalism of the West "dominates" anything.

Most of the attempts at progress by Obama were foiled by the same conservatives that are now bitching louder than ever that Liberals are oppressing them. War (whether overt or invisible) dominates. Let's look at the purveyors of war. Sociology is still technically the 'youngest' social science, after psychology. The 20th century was the "century of self" according to Adam Curtis. The 21st should be the century of society. Peterson's role should be to help manage the transition, not repopularize psychology (the self). Hopefully he finds balance with Zizek, not conflict. 

Regards, 

Brent

Regards,

Brent

[Daniel A. Samani]

Not so much sher number of his success as the sher number of radical shifts for others. :)

There are conceptual disagreement to be had, although in the end what work, works. And pragmatic arguments are usually highly convincing for me.

Best,

Daniel

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

[joakim...@blixtmail.se]

Brent I think you miss out that I for example are not talking out of a american context, and I do not know about the rest, but I think the issues are broader, at least we should talk about what has been called "the west". The world is simply very much larger than the US. The west as a culture are under attack, and it has seeped inside of its structure. That is what is appealing about JP, he says it plainly, even if sometimes clumsily.

You might not notice it in the US since you drop the bombs and leave the problems for others to rectify. In Europe people feel invaded. And rightly so I would say.

Statistics prove it.

But anyhow I think it sad that this turns into just another political bickering mail-list. So for the broader discussion let me ask if anyone is interested in different topics? Or if its time to bid you adieu?

Now if I might I would like to ask you some questions in regards to syntheisms and its views. If syntheism is a spiritual view of the world what do it consider about the history of interpreting influences of the gods as foreshadowing weather? The desert gods lead to dry climate, or do dry climate lead to desert gods? Are climate changes connected to psycho-social changes? We do worship different gods around the globe.

The Avesta, the zoroastian texts, narrate the grand development of the world of man as something expanding because of Ahura Mazda making it so. How do that relate to the global warming and uncovering of new lands in the north?

Are the archetypes set or can we as humans change them? Man become god etc. What does the Jordan Petersson view of combining developmental biology with archetypal psychology (monsters are the genetic memories of threats of nature) mean for transhumanist alterations of nervous system, perceptional faculties etc.

Is that too spiritual and therefore non issues, or can we give credit to even the considerations of such questions?

I ask this in part because frankly I do not find the questions discussed in this group very fruitful, and I was only accepting it because I hoped to find some other discussions. I could go to any political group to find the subjects focused on here. And there is lack of groups talking about the spiritual questions of ideology but an abundance of platform for the political analyses.

Any takers? :D

February 25, 2018 6:08 PM, "Brent Cooper" <brent...@gmail.com> wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

[Alexander Bard]

Dear Joakim & Co

Postmodernism, as built on Frankfurt School critical theory, argued that utopias were dangerous in themselves. Understandably so if colonalism, Hitler and Stalin were the utopias known say in the 1950s and forward.

Going back to Hegel means going forward by thinking like Hegel (Slavoj Zizek's and Bard & Söderqvist's shared conviction).

This means killing postmodernism by killing antiutopianism, finishing postmodernism off. Not arguing with the dragon, but properly slaying it.

Syntheism is that very project.

Our next book "Digitral Libidio" then digs deeper into the topic by differentiating between libidinal authentic phalluses and mortidinal fake phalluses, as the guides to utopias. The one project postmodernism did not imagine but should have.

Where the authentic phallus, the Zoroastrian saoshyant or Judeo-Christian messiah, leads towards utopia (promised land etc). Empowering the tribe.

Whereas te fake phallus leads towards dystopia (Hitler and Stalin as clear-cut cases). The former through fetish (love-object unifier), the latter through abject (hate-object unifier).

This is then the completion of syntheology and a strong opposition to Jordan Peterson's return to Christianity as a properly thought through way forward to process theology syntopia (possibly even a return to Zoroastriianism).

What was needed for our grand narractive construct was just a radical deepening of Peterson's mytology discourse. From the linguistic into the sexualised.

So when Peterson says "logos" we say outright "phallus". And so on and so forth, as dear Slavoj would add.

And don't worry about matrix or mamilla not being in the picture. We plan to put a vomb as mausoleum on our cover for "Digital Libido".

So yes, I believe we are more Hegelian than Zizek, even than Hegel himself. It is a wonderful way to think and philosophise. And the secret extra spice? Taoism, tons of Taoism!

Dearest Brent, you'rwe absolutely right about abstraction (Hegel invented it) but you need to also apply it and draw conclusions. Then you're in with the big ones. Patience patience!

Best intentions

Alexander

[Brent Cooper]

I don't think we're bickering, Peterson was the topic of this thread, so its fair game. 

Joakim, the West is not "under attack," you said it yourself, the US is dropping bombs everywhere (I'm in Canada btw). So it seems like "The Rest", not the West, is "under attack." The West is under critique and scrutiny, as it should be. I'm not saying the West doesn't get attacked, but its not proportional the the damage inflicted on the rest of the world. 

There is lots to talk about with Syntheism, but the main thing I like about it is how demystified it is. The questions answer themselves. God is a metaphor in everything. We are gods. It's almost like, 'what is there to talk about after that?' Maybe the Syntheism movement needs a documentary (call me).

Alexander its good to see you showing some opposition to Peterson on some levels. I'd love to see you two chat/debate. And I get the "new Hegelianism", we are on the same page there.. I've seen the calls for it from Zizek and others, and it inspired my thesis of 'systemic-conspiracy' somewhat. I posted another 'application'/case study on abstraction a couple days ago. It's niche, but hey, this is the work: The Abstraction of Water. More to think about when we think of abstraction. 

Regards, 

Brent

[Alexander Bard]

Excellent work, Brent, keep it up! You have brilliant philosophical talent.

As for Slavoj Zizek, we would not have written "Syntheism" the way we did without a massive inspiration from Zizek's "Less Than Nothing", the other big re-read of Hegel for the internet age.

He is a great philosopher and works his way towards a new utopianism, just like us. Therefore united with Peterson in "The Overcoming of the Postmodernist Deadlock".

When it comes to writing theology, one can only create a framework for spiritual experience. The experience itself is internal and not literal.

Personally Syntheism is one such container. It argues that metaphysics works wonderfully without traditional monotheistic faith. I can place my own spiritual experiences within it (and thereby share them better communally).

That is all one can argue in a book, unless one writes just a list of suggested rituals. But that is not philosophy, that is at best rather a work of art.

Best intentions

Alexander

[joakim...@blixtmail.se]

Well it was hardly the physical or material I was talking about was it. The ideological foundation is under attack. Nationalism in the west is "uncool" whereas it is legit if it comes from "the others". Movies and music has to adopt itself into a multicultural approach and traditional music is many times ridiculed, at the same time as people moving to "the west" need to get state funds for their cultural projects. Bollywood or the new rising African movie scenes are not to be held at the same standards. It is a asymmetrical approach that is presented.

The metamodern project book could also exemplify it. "The nordic" region, as they coined it, was to be held as an example of progress, but not due to its history (Vikings where used negatively 2 or 3 times whereas Jihad was used positively 2 times).

Those are just little markers that shows how language brings forth attitudes internalized. Or it could be a rhetorical usage, but I do not want to take that conspiratorial approach. The point here is that it is a psychological void that has inserted itself, and if I were to used Alexanders terms I would say that this shows how there is mortidinal fake phalluses at work. There is only destruction and nothing that empowers and bring society together.

That little pointer about Zizek claiming he lost his foras of publication because of some ideas he presented about immigration or what not seem to have gotten lost here.

"Furthermore, a year or so ago, when I questioned Political Correctness and some aspects of LGBT+ movement (and some other things problematic for today’s “radical Left,” like the predominant stance towards refugees), I was not only submitted to a long series of extremely brutal attacks, but I was also gradually excluded from the public media. So, now my only access to media in English are three digital outlets: The Independent, Russia Today, and a channel of the Los Angeles Review of Books (which was kind enough to publish this reply" - S. Zizek

Sry about the mistake on you being US centric Brent Cooper. Best of luck to you. I'm off to other things.

/Joakim

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

[Alexander Bard]

The battle between Zizek and The Social Justice Warriors was unavoidable.

Riobert Pfaller (who is probably a member of this forum), myself, Brendan O'Neill are just further examples od Maxists who fight the Social Justice Warriors.

I basically refer to them as "fake left" since they have never even read Marx and even less understood him.

Their concerns are just their own egos, not the well-being of the masses, which is what Marxism deals with.

So yes, you will be surprised how much Peterson and Zizek would agree in a debate, and probably end up within the same alliance.

And that alliance has a name - Freud!

Best intentions

Alexander

[Martin Munthe]

So Zizek and Peterson both agree that the left doesn't have it's house in order. I'm not left so I can't be of much help here but it seems to me inventing new brand names and offsprings of Marxism that needs to be sorted into new sub-categories on the gigantic tree that is Marxism maybe is not the solution to the house cleaning issue.

Petersons critique of Marxism is that it is a futile attempt to describe injustice that is not social but in fact natural. He claims it is a natural pattern and that we can see it in other aspects of the natural world. The way cities gets populated and depopulated is one of his examples. = Once things start to go south - they go south exponentially and vice versa and it does not seem to be a social thing but a pattern in nature. And Petersons stance on this matter is that Marxism is not a cure for nature.

Once Zizek understands Marx was on to something but missed the target he will be on the same page as Peterson. 

[Alexander Bard]

Well, not exactly.

Even Peterson would agree that what makes a man a man (or a woman a woman) is the fact that he/she can interact with nature and even alter its patterns. This is called culture. Culture acting upon nature is even Peterson's primary ethical call. He is anything but defeatist.

Marxism in itself is nothing but a recognition of actual power relations where one category (class) beats all others, making all others redundant. A wealthy black woman is for example is still better off than a poor white man in a capitalist society. And likely to be even more so with time. Sub-categories like blackness and a female gender are nothing but sub-categories of little or no interest to a Marxist. As a matter of fact, to a Marxist there is no such thing as an "Identity Left", it is not even a left, it is just a series of sloppily organised self-interests that defy class. I use the term "fake left" myself for Identitarian politics. Zizek (who is actually a Hegelian rather than a Marxist) would agree.

This is why Marxists and Identitarians do not get along and why Zizek is being persecuted by Identitarians wherever he goes these days (being banned from former employer The Guardian etc). Furthermore, when Peterson uses the term "neo-Marxism" I have actually no idea what he is talking about. To me, Marxism died in academia when people stopped reading Marx in the 1970s. Even Althusser and other Marxists were banned from academia. And students then lost the understanding of for example the Frankfurt School philoshopers (who are are my roots) who mixed Marx with both Freud and Nietzsche in the 1930s and forward.

I argue that class does exist and we have often been able to adjust society for class. As we should. Especiallyu if a new strong class rises that deserves power for the good of all. Proletarians in th 19th century, netocrats today. I even argue against high taxes in Sweden from a Marxist position. Because they degenerate the population and kill aduklt responsibility, thereby weakening the class of the receptors.

We should therefore be both better and deeper activists by reading and understanding both Peterson and Zizek. Both Nietzsche and Hegel (Marx). Perhaps they have already discovered this themselves.

Best intentions

Alexander Bard

[Tom Knox]

I think I can answer what Peterson is talking about when he says neo-Marxism. He's mostly been debating students at his own university. That's where he shaped his ideological identity. University students are in a period in their lives when they're experimenting with identity and put on various ideologies like us grown ups try on new pants. It's pretty clear to me that it's these kinds of neo-Marxists that he's talking about. It's not only students. There's quite a few university lecturers/professors who themselves belong to the same school of whacky lefitism. He's just letting those get to represent all of Marxism and all of the left.It's a straw man. I doubt he's done much engaging with people who actually knows what they're talking about... like Zizek. Zizek will tear Jordan Petersen to shreds. 

The alt-right as a whole is also making the same mistake when it uses these leftist student political extremists as representatives of the left as a whole. And since Jordan Petersen (like it or not) is identified as alt-right, he will share their language.  

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, when Petersen discusses psychology, he is brilliant. When he talks about anything else, he's not. He should just STFU about stuff he doesn't understand. 

The Partially Examined Life did a brilliant defence of POMO directed at Jordan Petersen. The irony is of course that Jordan Petersen is a Postmodernist. He's using a Marxist model to describe how power and ideology warps our beliefs. He's basically saying that the left is powerful now, which means they're using raw power and social pressure to terrorise the weaker into silence. That's pure Marxist theory. He's internalised Focault to the point where he parrots Foucault's core message while at the same time attacking Foucault. He's a very confused man. .   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuEccEYvaE&t=2644s

Jordan Petersen is a psychologist. Not a philosopher. That's why he keeps saying dumb shit when he tries philosophy. It was the same deal with Richard Dawkins. Great biologist. Useless philosopher. 

I think the world would be a better place if every laptop came with the text "Know thyself" printed just above the screen. So you had to read it every time you opened that thing up. 

/Tom Knox 




 

Tom Knox

Tom Knox IT

Tel: +46 70 1800 999

[Alexander Bard]

That is a cool response to Peterson in defense of postmodernism with many good points.

But it is missing the same thing that Zizek misses, namely that Peterson's rhetoric and argumentation pragmatically puts people on the move, whereas the criticist is stuck in a mode of castration. Even a defeatist one.

It simply refuses to see the Nietzscheanism in Peterson's work and activism. It lacks a truly network-dynamical understanding of what Peterson thinks, says and does. And the lack of the same in the own reactive position.

Check Peterson's own response (he is wrong on some counts but right on others) and then think a dialectic between the two and you arrive in a superior position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuEccEYvaE&t=2644s

And one correction, network dynamics is NOT a postmodernist idea. It is a Hegelian-Nietzschean idea.

Best

Alexander

[Tom Knox]

I would like to add, anybody writing philosophy has a duty to be understood. Otherwise the pursuit is a waste of time. I am aware of the unfortunate obscurantist intellectual tradition of France (which Lacan, Foucault and Derrida is a part of). The fact that so many misunderstand them is partly their own fault. They should have aimed more for clarity (above trying to prove how impressively clever they are). They didn't. I think that this is at the core to why so many on the left attribute so much nonsense to their heroes. They're trying to quote heroes that even the experts have trouble deciphering. Petersen just doesn't get it. Which is regrettably understandable. 

When I tried reading Lacan it felt like my brain was bleeding, and I eventually had to give up. The only way I managed to understand anything was by reading Bruce Fink's excellent summary. It annoys me that Fink needed to write that summary at all. If Lacan would have been a better communicator we would have needed that. I still can't make sense of Lacan's original texts even though I now know in advance what it's supposed to mean! Likewise, with Foucault, I actually have no idea what of Foucault's ideas I've absorbed from reading him, and what of his ideas came to me from reading interpretations of him. Foucault only started to make sense to me after reading him like I listen to an opera. Ie, knowing the story and words before-hand. I'm, sorry but that's just not good enough. Derrida's original works are much easier to understand... but not as easy as they could have been. 

But that's not what Peterson is arguing against. He's attacking ideas that he's already admitted he doesn't understand. That's not good enough. Just like me he's admitted giving up reading these works because they were too impenetrable. Then why is he arguing against them? He's not. He's arguing against their erroneous university interpreters.If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is? He's making the claim that because he cannot understand the philosophers therefore they are wrong. That's argument from ignorance. 

I'd have more respect for Petersen if he rephrased his dismissal of "postmodernism", as a dismissal of SJW and identitarians. Which is what he is actually doing,. And which would be honest. Right now I think he's being disingenuous.I don't care how great he is at impacting people. He's not being honest (about this). 

I still think Peterson is an incredibly important thinker and is one of the finest minds the right/conservatism has produced. They desperately need them. We ALL desperately need them. Ideas uttered without resistance won't be sharpened and refined. Nothing destroys knowledge and true understanding as constantly having one's one beliefs continually reflected back at oneself. The left has been smelling their own farts for far too long. That's why we have in today's public debate been reduced to a mirror of idiot conservatism. The time when the left was a dependable shining example of intellectual excellence is past it's sell-by-date.  So, go go Jordan Petersen 

/Tom 

  

Tom Knox

Tom Knox IT

Tel: +46 70 1800 999

[Martin Munthe]

Good points, Alexander and Tom.

Although I would argue that culture doesn't act upon nature but is a result of nature. And I suspect Peterson would argue that too. I know this doesn't fit with the notion that we can all be just about anything we want to be and yet we live in a society - when we are pressured - our inner nature takes over and "culture" takes a back seat. Completely in line with Jung and the shadow. Who's on top and who's being treaded upon is not a result of social construct and class and how we construct culture to act Upon nature - but a result of deeply rooted and wild genetics. And we chose to ignore that and let ourselves and others be the victim of the primal beast inside us or we choose to manifest it and take charge. And when we take charge we can construct a fair society - but we are still in the hands of a prime dark evil ready to build concentration camps at any given point. And this is when the master/slave mentality comes in. The masters have a clue about the shit they can afflict others and does something about it - while the slaves just goes with the flow as the beast takes over. None of those two options a defeatist.

I do think we are talking about the same thing but with a few differences in the fundamentals. We don't quite agree on the cause of oppression. You say class. I say beast.

One of the great things about Peterson is that he doesn't claim to be and isn't a philosopher. He studies the manifestation of ideology from the perspective of psychology. It's very, very hard not to comment on the death and destruction in the foot prints of all these not really Marxist movements in history way predating the 70's. Being a clinical psychologist he can provide people with actual tools where someone like Nietzsche could only inspire and predict. Peterson has a much stronger connection with religious tradition in that sense. He connects people and offer them help and healing. Nietzsche never did that. He was just dynamite (nothing wrong with that).

When he talks about neo-Marxism it's basically Third Wave Feminism and gender politics. Sure, it may not be true Marxism like all the others but it does follow an ideological traditions who think they are. Peterson have more than once praised Marx as a phenomenal thinker. And who cares what kind of thinker you are - philosopher or not - if your thoughts have the power to change the world? 

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

I agree with Alexander,

I was fortunate enough to have studied in Anthropology department who's main emphasis was Marxist Anthropology.  To be a Marxist does not necessarily mean to be a communist.  I can be, but it is not necessarily mean that.   To be a Marxist is to observe material history and culture.  Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass freeing the slaves is Marxism.  Upton Sinclair's the Jungle is Marxism.  

And yes it is possible to be a believer in free enterprise as Alexander noted and be a Marxist.  Social Democracy which has Marxist origins is a form of free enterprise.  If one is a true Marxist, than one would see there is a time for raising taxes and a time when taxes should be cut.  It often depends on the time and situation, in terms of what is necessary.

Also Marx use to praise the United States repeatedly in his letters.

I think the identity politics on campuses is a way to distract economically privileged students from facing their class privilege.  I saw in 2013 much Marxism being taken out of the studies, and the school I went to trained some of the finest Marxist Anthropologists.

Kenneth

[Tom Knox]

If he argues against philosophies on philosophic grounds he's doing philosophy. If he interprets philosophers works (badly) he's doing philosophy. If he equates the Soviet union with, the identitarians at his school, as well as with POMO philosophers, he's doing philosophy. If he does this and claims he's not doing philosophy, he's just lying. I just read his book 12 rules. The anti-soviet claptrap just went on and on and on. Did he ever explain why it was relevant to the topics he was discussing? Nope. He just pretended as if it was self evident. That's like saying that Jordan Peterson supports genocide of Jews because Hitler also was a Christian. All of that was non sequitur. He was trying to shame people for holding beliefs that they didn't hold. It was a frustrating read. 

I agree that "He studies the manifestation of ideology from the perspective of psychology". But that's not what he says that he does. He pretends like the outcome of USSR was an inevitable  result of leftist ideology. As if only conservatives supported free speech and free expression. Last time I checked history censorship has historically been primarily associated with conservative forces. It's super nice that American conservatives recently started to love free speech. But pretending as if it isn't an anomaly in history is disingenuous. 

The left is the way it is because of it's context, and what it evolved out of. Peterson ignores that completely. 

Him praising Marx is just a rhetorical trick. If you want to argue against something and change someone's beliefs about it you've got to start by winning them over. So he starts by praising what he can of Marx. To give the impression that he can see things from both ways. I agree that it's a powerful rhetorical trick. But it's just a trick. I'm sure it's deeply dishonest. 

There's just so many times he's been caught out making claims, attributing actions and beliefs to other people that aren't true. He routinely makes too strong claims about his opponents.  He's a total drama queen. 

Again... brilliant when it comes to psychology and his advice for people. But beyond that... not impressed. 

/Tom 

Regards,

Brent

Regards,

Brent

Regards,

Brent

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Kenneth Morningstar99 <kchristensen11235813@gmail.com> wrote:

Brent,

I use to have the same criticisms you had about Jordan Peterson, and him arguing what feminism is not, rather than what it is. Then I looked further into him, and found that he is more radically feminist than most feminists, in the sense that he is advocating that a woman should not have to sacrifice her femininity to get into positions of power. This has been a criticism that Scandinavians have had towards American feminists for years.

I also find Jordan Peterson misuses the word appropriation. Truth is most leftests today misuse that word. The word came about in response to Native American mascots, things that were undeniably disrespectful, like naming a football team the Washington Red Skins, which is as derogatory as calling a football team the Washington Niggers. It had nothing to do with white people playing Jazz, or eating Sushi.

I find with Jordan Peterson, he is such an in-depth thinker, that you really have to look at the full picture of what he says. He does not limit himself to a standard narrative which is refreshing. Both the left and the right have fallen into the trap of narratives. And yes Brent, there are many things I disagree with from him, but he does also have many valid points.

Kenneth

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Brent

Thank you for all your efforts but I'm afraid I have not found your critique of Jordan Peterson even remotely as sophisticated as Slavoj Zizek's.

But you're young. There is plenty of time to learn and grow. No need to rush anything. And meanwhile Peterson is incredibly useful and, as far as the bigger picture is concerned, also correct. So please note I have no doubts about your talents, only about the polish of your current methods.

This is also Zizek's point: Instead of criticising Peterson, come up with something better. Syntheism is at least an attempt to avoid Peterson's "return to ironic Christianity turn". What metamodernism has to do with this though still beats me. But this is also Zizek's problem: What is his alternative to Peterson's main ideology? I see none. As I have already pointed out.

Pointing out what is needed is not the delivery of the solution. That's a far bigger challenge.

Syntheism is however a frist small step towards the solution. For example a functioning framework for my own mainly psychedelic experiences. And a label co-owned by us all.

Best intentions

Alexander

2018-02-24 18:11 GMT+01:00 Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com>:

​That's the ONLY thing Kenneth? Peterson is a genius psychologist, but he's got a head cold for all the wrong reasons. He misuses Marxism, postmodernism, leftism, feminism, veganism, socialism, social justice, and to some extent abstraction. He gets angry the moment he steps out his wheelhouse and bashes "the left," instead of having a considered approach.

I think we need to be way more specific when we talk about Marxism. There are dozens of varieties. Which is why I wrote Meta-Marxism.

Two words Peterson does NOT use at all are Syntheism and Metamodernism (or even post-postmodernism). Time to learn.

Alexander, that's something I'd love to see; you schooling him on Syntheism. You know its still possible to like Peterson without sanctifying him? Good you can admit Zizek's critique is good. This is what I've been trying to do. I think I am still the only person in the world who's written both a defense and a critique of Peterson, and you've avoided it like the plague. All other commentators are pretty divided, although some are neutral. With the continued exposure and hype around Peterson, I'm working on a third piece.

I look forward to the Zizek-Peterson face off, but context is everything. We don't know this will be framed or moderated. A LOT of people will be rooting for Peterson to bash the shit out of Zizek, like Ben Shapiro vs. Cenk Uygur but we should (always) be rooting for consensus, conciliation, consilience. Yes, combatants should become allies. How ironic that the poster boy for your 'clean your room' will square off against a famous philosopher who sports a dirty t-shirt?

One thing every Peterson fan has to ask themselves - why does a great psychologist also have to be an anti-sociologist? Answer: He doesn't. The two fields are not mutually exclusive.

Regards,

Brent

[Daniel A. Samani]

Dear all,

The way I see it, Zizek is Lacan-Hegalian, and Jorden Peterson is Jung-Nietzschean. Zizek has claimed how he has difficulty to understand Nietzsche and when he calls himself a Marxist he just means new Utopianism. After all, he was a Marxist dissident sort of, and he attacks more or less all contemporary Marxists. Of course, as Noam Chomsky points out, Marxism changed it's meaning. So maybe calling himself a Marxist is in alignment with the theory of fidelity to the Event. After all, in a dialectical process meaning of terms are changed. And Jordan Peterson was part of the socialist party in Canada, after deciding to leave Christianity behind for making little sense. And when he talks about neo-Marxism, he relies upon Stephen Hicks book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault.

I guess efter reading Jung he made sense of Christianity on evolutionary terms? The same way that Nassim Taleb made sense of Christianity in terms of actions and risk. And of course, Zizek argues for Atheism within Christian discourse. The Hegelian move when not only the particular subject but God himself (the universal) is an Atheist. His example of God answer to Job, and Jesus question "father, why have you forsaken me?", signalling, the radical death of God. With the rebirth being only the holy spirit.

When they speak, they are really talking about: (1) articulated meaning grounded in evolution; (2) rationality of actions in terms of and risk; (3) hegelian dialectics, so why not just say so? It's contingent that they apply these ways of thinking upon Christianity is it not? It's like when Zizek gives examples from Hollywood movies. I think this style developes if you are high on trait intellect, that is intressted in complex ideas and then also talk to alot of people about your ideas, and just trying to make yourself understood. It's human. :)

Best intentions

Daniel

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

[Alexander Bard]

You've got many many good points here, Tom, and some of the most valid and creative criticisms of the Jordan Peterson phenomenon.

But you are unfortunately wrong about any duty to be understood that philosophers must follow. There is no such meta-philosophy applicable for philosophy as discipline. Neither does philosophy have to be the slighest bit useful, only guys like Stalin would come up with such requirements. So throwing the term "obscurantism" after things you do not not understand (at first read) is rather ridiculous and no better than the naivist Peterson you next criticise (since this is indeed his problem too).

Philosophers have only one obligation and that is to think and formulate new thought. Because it is an art form and art requires one thing and one thing only: originality. Preferrably quality originality, I should add.

If then not a single damned lazy and stupid reader out there understands one single thing you have written, is not your fault and does not diminish the value of your work one bit. It could just be that your work is so damned genial that nobody but yourself gets it. You just have to do with the fact that you may become your own only reader. Or wait for future readers to be so advanced they get your ideas.

So never ever mix philosophy with pedagody. That's like demanding from a jazz musician that he must play pop just because the audience is too stupid to follow and understand jazz. Commercially that may be the case. but never artistically. Performing under your capacity is not desireable, it is frankly just soulkilling.

So never mistake philosophy for a discipline striving for mediocrity. It must instead uncompromisingly seek brilliance.

Other than that, keep being brilliant yourself on this forum. You truly are. The attack on philosophy was unnecessary. And only (temporarily) put you in the same category as the guy you rightfully criticised.

As for me and Jordan Peterson? He is a pop activist. I hopefully supply the depth and quality myseflf in my own work. Pedagogically? Only as much as possible without compromising on the quality. Prepåare yourself for another tough read ("Digital Lidibdo" in August).

Cheers

Alexander