Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The Truth About Jordan Peterson: Act 1 & 2 (Patreon)

Published:
2024-03-23 03:45:21
Edited:
2024-03-25 00:12:15
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Content

Hey all. I started this video in February 2023. It's been agh. A long year and it's been difficult and also insanely enriching.

This is me acquiescing to my own imposed deadline, because it is Useful to do so. I have never done any sort of pre-release before and it's out of character to do so, but my Patreon community is precisely what has enabled me to go this deep into myself and into the universe, so I think you deserve an update. Trust goes both ways and I've been cashing in a while.

This year was filled with highs and lows and I have wondered at both peaks if this particular project is worth the labour and devotion it has costed me. But I've felt this challenge to follow my internal aesthetic impulse to try to do this absolutely perfectly without resorting to any easy way out and I feel like a stronger person for it. Whether you fuck with the final particular product is not as important to me as the sense I have tuned myself as an instrument to be more valuable ongoing into the future into all projects I commit to.

Anyways, this portion is old news at this point. I'm resolutely thrilled everyday cascading to the conclusion. It's become intrinsically rewarding.

Please treat this link kindly. It is not Final and The Piece is not complete without all 5 acts.

Each act invites a break, but the first two work nicely together so I'm happy to deliver them as a singular piece.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

goodnight

x

Files

The Truth About Jordan Peterson: Act 1 & 2

Act 1 & 2. Patreon exclusive. The final piece contains 5 acts. Thank you for your patience and patronage. -------- 0:00 Act I 1:09:42 Act II POSTMODERNISM BRAIN CURE: Postmodern Neo-Marxism: Jordan Peterson's Shadow - @TheLivingPhilosophy https://youtu.be/3kDpEKM7ZBI?si=WCWwnvaOfZtdGpN2 Postmodernism is not identity politics - @jonasceikaCCK https://youtu.be/26fIBA7O5Ag?si=IxJzxfvuSzJrF6ES Peterson Misses The Point of Postmodernism - @WisecrackEDU https://youtu.be/bu5oaF3dx4E?si=ETnYmK69Ze19O2aa

Comments

Sammy Langit

you made a thing worthy of all the work you did to make it

margaret (formerly Samson)

Ok 1) obviously i love it so far, i’m already feeling movement in my soul. 2) I cant help but wonder what it is about the next 3 acts that has been such a stumbling block. As I've listened (twice now), I've been thinking about the position that Pragmatism (or i guess, reality) puts us in, specifically with considering What Works. At the end of the day, we humans still need to act, we have to make judgment calls about what is Useful, what is Beautiful, what is Real. Pragmatism seems to be a very helpful lens through which we can make that judgment. But Judgment is such a difficult thing to do well. I've been thinking about the Fall of Man story this month (due to my toddler asking me to read that story over and over while she processes what the fuck it is saying (good luck kid)), and specifically mulling over the whole knowing Good vs Evil thing. If we pretend for a moment that Adam and Eve were Objectively Literally Truthfully there as documented in the story (which i don’t particularly believe but mybe idk), God starts us off saying: “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the animals that scurry on the ground.” (Gen 1:28, NLT). When told again in the next chapter, God puts us in the garden of Eden (Delight) to “tend and watch over it. But the Lord God warned him, “you may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden–except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.” (Gen 2:15b-17, NLT). What were Adam and Eve doing? What does it mean to govern, or to tend a garden? Even taking it literally and saying that humanity was a couple of nudist gardeners, they were doing something. There are lots of ways to garden, but usually it involves trying to encourage certain outcomes (fruits) and discourage other outcomes. There are various tools and strategies which might be better or worse for different circumstances. There are endless artistic ways to design a garden. (Kinda sounds like a game. Need to read Games: Agency as Art stll tho.) And I just don’t get the vibe that God sent the humans out to be like roombas, robotically following directions and orders that God had given them. I haven’t ever heard a respected theologian suggest that God was a fascistic OverGardener, deciding which plants need to go where and which strategies to use, or that humans were just behaving like some sort of instinctual rodent that is just following the whims of their deterministic lizard brains. That doesn’t sound like humanity, it doesn’t seem to be how humans do work, and its certainly not something that we delight to do. We wouldn’t recognize ourselves if that was the case. (this is the problem we seem to have with AI in our conversations on YANAG). I think the Humans were making decisions and having agency, even in a pre-knowledge state. But if they didn’t know what Good and Evil were, how in the FUCK would they be able to make those decisions without fucking up the garden? If you have no conception of what is Better or Worse, how can you know whether to encourage a particular plant vs discourage it? How can you prioritize one good plant over another? To me, Poincare and Pirsig pointing to Quality is parallel to the answer here, which i think was why ZAMM made my soul leap. Adam and Eve had access to God’s judgment of what was good. God was with them, that’s part of the story, God would walk among them, they knew what Quality looked like because they could SEE (and use other senses on) Quality and Beauty Itself. Whatever it means to have Eaten the Fruit of the Tree Of Knowledge of Good and Evil, something that humans now do in our approach to judging things as Good is not in line with (or limited to) God’s Example of Good as accessed via whatever means we already contain. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t still have the ability to sense God!!! God is still here, just not face to face, so we need to wait and listen and pay very close attention!!! It is the thing we are striving for and the thing that guides us in our striving!!! “And in the end if there is an answer, it will be incredibly obvious. It will have been here the whole time.” - Savannah Brown, is the world getting worse, 20:13 Figurative or literal, if the Eden narrative is a valid representation of our souls striving to tend the garden of our lives, then the story tells us something about our general (and specific) lack of willingness to defer to God. Like, I have no doubt that Netflix wanted to make something high in Quality with its Avatar the Last Airbender remake. But they stopped deferring to the creators’ source definition of that Quality and made definitions on their own, and the fruit shows the outcome. They chose to aim at a different Telos, deciding that its quality was higher. Pragmatism doesn’t seem to resolve the fact that we still need something to aim towards, a Quality towards which things are either useful or not, a Reality within which certain strategies will help or hurt. We still need a judgment of that Telos, and now this work is in the unfortunate position of trying to sense that Most Beautiful Quality End Goal of Value and Holiness, articulate it, and then compare Peterson’s work against it. And who is to say that God will reveal themselves on our timeline? CJ, I'm so glad you didn't drop the rest of it yet. I trust your instincts in your pursuit of Truth and Quality. If you don't feel that the rest is finished, then it's not, and i don’t want to see it until it is. I love it, and i am so grateful for what is already here, and i can’t wait for the rest.

Lou Corben

Holding back thoughts until I've seen the full thing. You must be relieved to have at least a portion of it completed! Looking forward to the rest x

thunder

i have a lot of thoughts on this but i don't usually comment so i'll just say i absolutely love how thorough the first two acts are. it tickles my brain to see all the different angles and philosophies you go over even when i don't completely understand them. due to the fact that representing peterson's philosophies, influences and conflicts as comprehensively and as in good faith as possible was a stated goal of yours, and due to the amount of time you've spent working on this video (and will undoubtedly continue to spend finishing it), i figured that was the most important thing to share.

fae

what a delectable and delightful treat!!!! thank you 🥺💓

Katie

also a victim of the canadian housing market

Alex Dian

When you’re describing how philosophy can also be self-help, I definitely thought of how much C Thi’s book on Games felt very helpful and informative about choosing agency (playing the game of life and choosing an agency). I hope that in the book club we read The Courage to be Disliked.

Daniel Shaul

Absolute delight to watch as a therapist-in-training (EDIT: I am NOT an authority on any therapeutic matters, but my training makes me really interested and curious about ideas surrounding the treatment and understanding of mental health! take all I say with a grain of salt). --------------------- The distinction of etiology and teleology is meaningful in the psychological sense because emergent psychotherapeutic models concern themselves less and less with any materialistic sense of causation, and more distinctly concern themselves with what can be done NOW. Adlerian psychotherapy falls under a strange in-between realm of psychoanalytic "insight into the unconscious" treatment and post-modernistic models more recently adopted by the field (Narrative Therapy, Collaborative Therapy). As a therapist, one of the central questions of psychotherapy is generally: what is the problem, and how can we HELP? "Problem" and "Help" being the contextually adaptive and dependent term. Is the "problem" an attachment wound? a cognitive distortion? a failure to differentiate? Within the framework of pragmatism, as described at least, the causation and mode of treatment follows the logic of what is Useful to the client: what is it that HELPs? (Psychotherapy takes liberties with causation and trajectory on purpose. It doesn't matter what's actually going on for a person, as long as how we frame what's going on works to help the person with their problem. There is little scientific evidence to back up a majority of the "Useful" mechanisms in psychotherapy, only the general effectiveness of the overall treatment, and that means we know less of what specifically causes therapy to work and more of what just happens to work). Post-Modern psychotherapy is centrally concerned with imbuing a person with a sense of AGENCY in the world, that they are capable and empowered with the ability to create meaning in the world on their own terms, that they are competent and able to enact things. I find it interesting how Peterson (as described in part 2), fits the bill of a Motivational Interviewing Therapist, with an addition of behavioral emphasis (I.e. DBT, CBT, BT etc). In his pragmatistic framework, his means of HELPing, being to push the person into agency, without focusing on the "useless" truths like the emotional impact or meanings that restrict the client, is interesting to me. In Narrative Therapy, there is a central issue entitled the "problem-saturated story" in which a client is weaving examples and sentiment of what is wrong with them, and the whole narrative therapy process involves challenging that story with contradictory examples and ways of making the problem seem outside the person. In the sense of Usefulness, this can be slow and annoying, but gets to the question of whether it is good to go straight to the Useful (i.e. DBT with interpersonal effectiveness/mindfulness/distress tolerance techniques to use) or work your way to it (i.e. talking through the trauma until the person is ready to utilize the techniques). Similar to the way CJ emphasized his desire to be heard a bit by his therapist, I think the question of "why do we debate about Useless topics" is to me the same as why people might process things in therapy. Does it matter what happened in your childhood if it can no longer be changed, while the present can be address? Depends on the therapist! Sometimes you gotta talk it it out before you are ready to do something about it, or to know nothing is to be done. Like for trauma, while yes, in the end someone likely has to learn to live after the trauma, to leave it unprocessed is in itself a dangerous prospect, making previously seemingly Useless processes now extremely useful. In therapy, we cannot "ignore trauma" in the sense suggested, but that doesn't mean we stay in it either. To me, there is this gap between "Useless" drug addled forever debates of how two people might perceive the world differently (or in the therapy sense: the many ways two people might interpret events in their lives and how it impacted them) and the "Useful" act of sorting out what can be done. You can talk about it, but eventually, you will do something about it too. Just find all of the relevance of Part 2 tied to psychotherapy so interesting. So very excited to chew on more.

pleeb fishis

Almost cried had to click off will try again later

Isaiah G

Hello, fellows who find their brain worms teleologically useful!! What's your favorite application of anything from these two acts?? I've been flirting with Deleuze as I try to understand (accept?) the irreversible condition of Black people like me in the world and somehow turn that into making more friends, and it was a delight to connect that in however thin a strand to broader philosophy and a current cultural conversation

D.S Films

Just finished the video. It includes a few concepts I learned in College; Humes Is, Ought, and is the Pious good because it is loved by the God's, or is it loved by the God's because it is good question. However, it demonstrates these concepts in a much more in depth and useful manner than was ever taught to me, and you are fitting all these ideas in from everybody to craft the ultimate philosophy. I'm so excited for the full release, the world doesn't know what it has coming. Also, that song that plays during the emotional segment with you staring out the window reminds of the music that plays at the end of the Bo Burnam Vs Jeff Bezos video and it's such a beautiful connection to me. It's all one thing.

Nnobody

i really like what you did in the video so far! no stress! (but: can't wait for the missing three hours (;

Persephone - Trans Lord of the Underworld

I just want to note that I have both literally climbed Mount Olympus and made art that I put out into the world, and the art was not well received. It was received quite marginally. Climbing Mount Olympus is pretty bad ass though, and I highly recommend it to anyone that has the opportunity.

Katharine Furlong

As a scientist I would say the pragmatic maxim is actually very scientific, you have to structure your work in a goal orientated way; I want to find out is x interacts with y therefore I must do z experiment Probably we switch between rationality and pragmatism from the review article to the primary paper. Assume there's an objective truth when taking stock of the published research, but look for the subjective truth when planning your experiments

Elen Lebet

What a rollercoaster! I find myself unable to buy the underlying premise of useful=true. A teleological approach makes a lot of sense when dealing with language or describing something, as someone mentioned earlier, calling sweetgrass "what we wrap baby in" works beautifully and is also true. Or, useful=true works very well when talking about moral truths. Avoiding lying works and thus is true - yes, I agree. But there are many other kinds of truths where the pragmatist maxim of useful=true seems like a convoluted way of answering simple questions. Asking what I want to do with the jelly beans when I want to know how many there are, kinda feels like the soup/cereal loop, just tell me that its 624. Which leads me to question the usefulness of bringing the concept of truth in this discussion at all. Why not leave it at useful=valuable or useful=good, or even good=good, why the notion of truth? What good does it bring? Does it bring extra validity to the good? Does the good need extra validity? It was also fascinating to watch pragmatism unfold in JBP's (and I suspect in CJ's too) legitimizing of religious ideas. Religion "works", it is useful, thus it is true. I'm an atheist and a materialist and I find it quite hard to wrap my head around this. What "works" in religion "works" just as well without it. You can find gratitude, grace, kindness, community, meaning, connection and ways of impacting the world in positive ways through secular means, why the overlay of religion or spirituality? Does JBP claim that religion works BETTER than than the nonreligious version and thus is MORE true? I guess religion is untrue for me because it doesn't work for me. Anyhow, great video, great community, love both despite disagreeing with Stuff.

lucy

I’m so curious to see how these revelations about Peterson’s pragmatism impact his transphobia (which I assume you might get into later)! His transphobia and sexism have made it really hard to engage with his ideas for me, so I was really interested to see when it might be addressed and how it interacts with his philosophy. Having not interacted much with Peterson outside of his fans/critics, I had assumed that he had a Sam Harris kind of view of gender/sex, that sex is a fact and that viewing sex as nondeterminative of gender or imagining one’s gender outside of the bounds of biological sex would be somehow ignoring or undermining this “fact.” But it seems like, ironically, Peterson and the “woke pronouns” types view gender more similarly than I would have expected — that gender has a pragmatic function, a purpose, rather than being some kind of immutable truth. It seems that where they differ is in the “ought” rather than the “is” — Peterson seems to think that humans ought to align their gender with their assigned sex at birth. He’s obviously not the only one who thinks this, but I’m curious about why he feels this way, what function gender serves for him or what value it promotes, and like why he cares so much about this given that gender seems kind of tangential to his philosophical project writ large as you’ve presented it so far

Maja R

god is like a tinkerbell & spot from across the spiderverse 1h video when

John Johnson

I'm personally going to avoid watching this for now until the full thing is out. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with watching it now, but I'd like to wait for the full, finished piece. It seems like a lot of people here have shared their thoughts and idea on this so far, so I'll be reserving my own to experience the whole thing at once.

emma

best cliffhanger ending of all time

John Hawkins

Chickens are my favorite animal, so I was happy seeing their important work being highlighted.

Display name

I'm already enjoying this very much. I am still going to have is cereal soup debates tho but only because I find them really fun and it drives my sibling crazy

dez savini

petitioning for a detailed recommended reading list that includes every book ever mentioned in a cj vid please and thank you 🙏

pleeb fishis

Im already trying to unravel my life with the teleology bit. it just infected me instantly. Insane video

Jack McConnell

Whether I fuck with this is not important, but I do indeed fuck with this. Another work (well 2/5ths of one) that follows a pattern of you, as seen from out here on the exterior, feeling more defined as an artist and thinker. Hoping your interior feeling matches that. Act 1 was incredibly engaging, Act 2 was fascinating, though it did drop a little pacing around the myth building, but ended with absolutely yanking at my tear ducts when it came to deny trauma; specifically your phrasing as trauma being a type of relationship you have with a memory. You are indeed a helper of selves. Look forward to seeing the entire work, its shaping up to be the truest words ever spoken on JP.

Etcetera

Cuz then we invented language and flew into original sin HYPERDRIVE

Matthew

I still consider myself to be primarily focused on etiology, but I was surprised by how much of yours and Peterson's practical advice I agree with and by how thoughtfully you delivered it. The question I really want answered (and maybe this is asking for too clean of a conclusion on a complicated subject) is, does Jordan Peterson give us anything some other philosopher/writer does not? Can we forget his name and rely on others for the same insights, or is he so influential that we should keep citing him with a big asterisk and a footnote about his off-the-deep-end conspiracy-fueled bullshit? #Don'tDieFuckEatPrayLiveLaughLoveYOLO Can't wait to see the rest of it!

Conzeit

Quite a lot here for me to chew on, I'm glad this is the first vid I found upon becoming a patreon

Myre Luke

Finishing my first passive listen and then will incubate before listening again next weekend and registering any thoughts

Myre Luke

Okay I take it back. My initial thoughts… a much needed explanation and defense of some among the most important Fundamental Assumptions of Humanity. I think I have my social no para pitch if you are still doing those

Taylor Andrews

Im happy this exists. Feels like Ive been in a postmodern limbo state lately and its a breath of fresh air to have a practical structure to navigate the world through. Fabulous.

Rohanna Hadlow

Crying at how tender and fragile looking baby Jordan Peterson is

Lauren Woodring

I cant stop thinking about this video. It's got my brain all fired up. Teleology is employed a lot when we don't know or care about the causality, but in a corrupted way. When all we see is the outcome, we invent a cause. When we're aware of the cause, the process, we're not always great at determining if the outcome is even desirable.

Phoebe Joan

thank you for making this video

Myre Luke

Okay back as promised. My thoughts: 1. My main problem with JP is that his philosophy/faith as you discuss it has so much room for nuance and even disagreement, but because of the conscious conspiracy he literally chooses not to apply his definition of truth to others’ perspectives. Like his definition of truth would lead him to empathize with these trans people he hates so much if he hadn’t just decided that those people aren’t actual humans and therefore the maxim cannot be applied. I’m not sure if that is where you’re going with this series, but I’m glad that someone is talking about this and about the way he uses this framework. 2. As a teacher who is constantly (I feel like) combatting the effects of adult minds on young children via the internet, this video has added a lot to my framework for how to explain humanity and it’s fundamental assumptions, so thank you. 3. Speaking of fundamental assumptions of humanity, I think there is a lot of room for morality to enter the conversation when it comes to the effect of a professor/theological figure weaponizing reasoning so completely blindly to usurp those fundamental assumptions (who IS human is the same question in this case as who GETS to have truth). What do such actions do to the human organism? What are the morals for how we treat not just ourselves but our SELF as a whole? How is JP a good case study of the nuances in that question? 4. As stated before I think I have my social no para pitch but please forgive my tiny overwhelmed adhd teacher brain as I will probably not get around to it for another month. Something something… our race has been prepping for cyborgism/5D existence for a minute longer than we realize and the question of who is human and how is humanity actually currently up for tangible debate because of the experiential nature of truth, which will be both what completely undoes society as we know it and also the main capability we will maintain and recognize in each other once we are done updating the OS.

Caitlestial

im happy to have these first two parts to revisit and digest. i watched this with the girl i had a toxic codependent relationship with in highschool and now she wants to read dewey with me

Seoyoung Park

Couldn't focus too well because of ~the era of my life~ i'm in, so i watched it over the course of 3 weeks, watching it when I had the time and the bandwidth i consistently love the advice you peddle, the "just do it"ness of it all i applied to college as a philosophy major and dropped out of philosophy IMMEDIATELY because my first class was in epistemology and my professor made us read about the existence of god for weeks and weeks. i personally didn't give a fuck about god because it wouldn't change my material conditions. Pragmatism so true bestie on a more metalevel, i really love the way that you edit like u have internet brain rot, and it always surprises me the way that u have cultural references?? i am always infinitely curious how clever people are also capable of existing online because I am not one such person. if i am not online then i can read; if i am online the only book i can read is percy jackson and the olympians feel like other people have already said such valuable and rich things, and i honestly am still digesting, but wanted to comment so that you get some sort of positive reinforcement!!

Mikca

I’m so excited for this video to come out, I can’t wait, but I will wait bc it is gonna be so worth it

naaro

Im not getting the link to work, am I dumb?

zooey

why has the video been privated?

Sarah Sarah

Aw dip, the video is gone.

Mr. Lobob

RAGH GREAT VIDEO IS GONE

Cuadaph

sad this got killed but i imagine there was good reason

Ellen Woods

what happened to the video

zooey

I never got to watch the whole 2 parts :(

Parth Mishra

fuccc I needed to reference a specific part of the video only to find its been privated!! nooo!!!!!!! I am not entitled to anything and I will wait patiently for it to come in its full super saiyan 5 part form, but damn

Jack Davies

I'm sure that if this information exists then it's somewhere else out there, but I don't know where to find it efficiently--have they said when they expect this to come out in full, or have any update?

Fred

Why would you private the video? I just paid to watch it

zooey

does anyone have like, an archive of this? i startedit but never got to watch the whole thing