Anand at Oxford

Degenerate Reviews Post-JordanPetersonism

 I think we all just need to shut up and dance. 

This is hilarious. And good. One more thing I wish to add: why are most white, straight, western men I’ve ever met in my entire life without exception only capable of understanding things as *metaphors*? I don’t know why this is. Jordan Peterson for instance. He claims that the Bible is nothing but a series of “metaphors”. Correct me if I’m wrong. But I would beg to differ. 

My personal, direct experiences with the Bible and the events of the Bible might steer you another way if you knew what I knew. 

(Of course for most people, if they experienced what I have, they might think they were having a bad trip from accidentally drinking some old blotter acid that someone threw in a punch bowl at a party and now it’s been six days and you’re still seeing things crawling out of the walls and subsequently hiding under the bed thinking that if you use a melon baller to scoop your eyes out, maybe the endless procession of Blue Meanies sticking their schnozzes in your face will go away, but maybe that’s just a projection.)

  And bear in mind,  what I “know” could fill a thimble. 

  But I’m willing to suspect with my own entirely subjective, fully patented Supernatural Experiences (tm) 🙄,  that maybe, just maybe, Peterson might be wrong about that. I also think he’s great – – until he is terrifying. He kind of follows perfectly reasonable and agreeable arguments and then he jumps off the deep end pretty rapidly with some leaps of logic that don’t quite make any sense / seem almost purposely vague and could even be considered dangerous. ( Not the stand up straight and clean your room part, that’s of course totally agreeable.  You’re probably not standing up straight enough. Your posture could use some work. Just saying.)

He asks people to have children even if they don’t want them because you’re not a real man or woman unless you have one which seems completely asinine and downright abusive-  to the child and the parent alike,  which seems like one of the most irresponsible things a person could do , but maybe that’s just me. 

 And this guy is considered a moderate! Anyway...  I don’t pretend to be nearly as well read as this person making the video and I could never go toe to toe with them in a debate,  I just think this is a really fun time happy funny video and people need to chill out because they’re taking this way too seriously and it’s just causing more polarization. 

I also agree that Derrida-  what is the point of Derrida? Or Lacan, for that matter? They are completely indecipherable,  and no they don’t translate well. Something about female and male pronouns which works fine in a language like  French but completely falls apart with the English language because in English we don’t use nearly anything coming close to the sheer volume of feminine and masculine assignments to inanimate objects that Romance languages like French do?

 So... your point being? 

The point of life being?  

The older I get , the less I can take people or ideas seriously. 

 Especially someone like Peterson, who tells you that life is suffering and you will never get over that 

fact that life is suffering, but even if you don’t want them you should have children.

 So you can give them suffering. 

Let the fun begin! 

Slavoj Žižek: The Hegelian Wound

This is also really great as well. Funny timing (maybe it was in the ether)- this lecture at NYU given about five miles from where I live was conducted about two weeks after I posted this post but I didn't find it until today:

http://anyaisachannel.blogspot.com/2014/09/clams-casino-illest-alive_10.html

that for some reason out of the blue that I am not quite clear on why I posted it but had something to do with psychic awakening/how to be psychic. Yes, really. 

I am of course advocating the end of the Hegelian dialectic, that it's a construct no longer suited to modernity, that it never really existed at all, which is funny because Zizek as a Lacanian is always reevaluating things as constructs and ideas that require a middle man like language or libido or metaphor to create or facilitate something as the catalyst, and uses Hegel to use trauma as a way to come out of it so you can understand it. I am positing something slightly different- it was never there to begin with. I'm not saying the trauma didn't exist, but that for the purposes of my perspective, the path to third eye awakening is to understand that if you are to open the third eye, you have to view it all in the spectrum like you are viewing the earth from space.

 You can't take it too personally or attach identifiers to traumatic events as something that defines you. (Of course I am not perfect and I have plenty of things that have happened to me that it has indeed been a struggle to come out from under and not let it define me, and I still struggle with it daily.) But I think Zizek's viewpoint is worth viewing and definitely worth consideration for another perspective on Hegel, and I think a vital one. 

 I didn't know Zizek was a Hegelian (if he is at all?), but he is making me reevaluate his "godless" atheistic tendencies, there seems to be a very spiritual metaphysician of a sort laying in wait here that I like a lot. 

(Especially his take on the link between Christianity, metaphysics and sex!)

Slavoj Žižek: Political Correctness is a More Dangerous Form of Totalita...

This is all kinds of gorgeous ;-) 

Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion