Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
eight bits

Peterson and Harris (June 2018)

36 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Davros of Skaro
7 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Incredible post Paul, well said.

You defined Zen too, life sucks at times it just does, and then there are the times it doesn't, it is actually fun and tolerable, maybe even happy.  

Many many likes for your post. 

I've been meaning to give this to you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3879457/

As for this thread:

I watched the first 45 minutes several weeks ago, but never got back to it.

Kinda boring just like my fat backlog of "Waking Up With Sam Harris" podcasts I haven't listened to yet, or probably never will. I like Sam, but he's kinda dry.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
danydandan
14 minutes ago, Hello Davros Kitty said:

, but he's kinda dry.

kinda dry?????????

Understatement of the year, actually decade, screw that century.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

kinda dry?????????

Understatement of the year, actually decade, screw that century.

Still though... I would much rather listen to Sam than Peter. Unless I want to get smashed in a drinking game. Every time Peter says "Hierarchy", or "Archetype" you drink.

Edited by Hello Davros Kitty
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, Hello Davros Kitty said:

Still though... I would much rather listen to Sam then Peter. Unless I want to get smashed in a drinking game. Every time Peter says "Hierarchy", or "Archetype" you drink.

There isn't enough drink to be able to complete thar challenge.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
12 hours ago, eight bits said:

Saudi : Women's rights  :: Canada : Free speech ? Not in this reality, I don't think.

Agreed.  The point is, of what relevance is the particularity of a specific nation's laws to the principles and definition of free speech or freedom of religion?  I'm sure the relevance is not just pointing out that Peterson is ignorant of how laws regarding free speech differ between Canada and the US, I would hope he is aware of that.

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

The United States draws the line in one place (especially unsympathetically for public figures like Peterson), and Canada draws the line somewhere else.

Sure, as does Saudi Arabia, but again we'd have trouble saying a Saudi who agrees with their nations laws as finding supreme value in women's rights.  It seems to me that the country one lives in, whether it's Canada or SA, is pretty much irrelevant to the question of what would someone who finds free speech to be of supreme value believe.

13 hours ago, eight bits said:

You (almost) can't libel somebody in the USA, especially not a public figure, by stating your opinion about them, for example by stating what cannot be mistaken by a reasonable person as anything but an opinion (Peterson is a misogynist), or by overt opinion tagging (I believe that Peterson <whatever>).

Exactly, and thus I think it is very difficult to make an argument that someone who is committed to free inquiry and the supreme value of free speech is being remotely consistent when they disagree with the expression of certain opinions.  Throw on top of that his attempt to use the powers of the state to punish and suppress free expression of clear opinions (there is no objective answer to, 'is Peterson sexist/misogynist', as any 'intellectual' should know; libel/slander, and possibly defamation, rightly require something to be false) and his commitment to free speech seems to be pretty laughable, or at least is better expressed as, 'I get to say anything I want, but not thee'. 

Canadian or American or North Korean free speech laws don't factor into this evaluation for me, although we could also refute how 'supreme' he finds free speech by noting that the US's laws regarding to free speech, afaik, treat free speech as 'more supreme' than Canada; I'm not aware of Canada allowing free-er speech on any angle compared to the US.  It's narrow and somewhat pedantic and semantic, but since 'supreme' is as far as you can go, Peterson obviously doesn't get there since he apparently disagrees with how the US defines those limits.

13 hours ago, eight bits said:

Also, I'm still working on how speech by an American to an American news site that apparently occurred in the United States is actionable in a Canadian courtroom.

Yea, I didn't understand that at all.

On 9/29/2018 at 3:39 PM, eight bits said:

As SW's article points out, the version of stoicism that reaches us today is the relatively late and refined classical Roman variety, with champions like Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Stoic roots run much deeper, back to the common Indo-European font of ideas, from which Buddhism also arises and from that, more recently, the Zen inflection of Buddhism which flourishes in Japan.

Interesting, I didn't realize that stoicism went through a refinement.  I've reached for Epictetus' 'The Way of Living' (which I think is a compilation of his essays) a few times when things were rough, it's been a while but the main piece of wisdom I recall from that parallels the 'Serenity Prayer': don't worry about things you have no control over.  Pretty solid and logical advice, and one I think people can derive comfort from.  Somewhere in my mountain of unread books I've got Aurelius' Meditations, gotta dig that out, I recall being in a book store long ago and randomly flipping to pages in that book and was pretty impressed, some good stuff in there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Habitat

OK, quasi is the opposite of truly. I still don't see who died and left you or me in charge of deciding which is which.

 

@Liquid Gardens

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Agreed.  The point is, of what relevance is the particularity of a specific nation's laws to the principles and definition of free speech or freedom of religion?

American Sam Harris and Canadian Jordan Peterson agree on the importance of free speech, but probably have somewhat different understandings of the term, probably influenced by what is protected and what isn't where each of them lives. And yes, freedom of religion, too. In both cases, the American notion is more protective of the speaker or worshipper than the Canadian counterpart.

As to Saudi, we do have English qualifying expressions like for a _____ (Prince Ali is a real feminist, for a Saudi politician). I think the USA and Canada are close enough on basic freedoms that Sam and Jordan's agreement on the importance of free inquiry and expression is meaningful at face value. Agreement between either one and a Saudi prince on the importance of women's rights would probably benefit from some checking to make sure that both sides were talking about more-or-less the same things.

Quote

 

Exactly, and thus I think it is very difficult to make an argument that someone who is committed to free inquiry and the supreme value of free speech is being remotely consistent when they disagree with the expression of certain opinions.

 

As you know, I'm an American, so no surprise that I think Peterson is doing something downright unamerican! But he's Canadian, and he's doing it in Canada. I also know  that legal structures have cultural consequences. Even in the USA, if you could sue somebody, or take other legal action against them, but you don't, then sometimes that restraint is interpreted as an admission that the other party is right*. The university disciplinary committee case (arguably) goes to Peterson's livelihood, professional reputation and possibly even his qualifications to teach. If "he let's that go," then maybe that's something that comes back to haunt him in a culture that expects not letting that kind of thing go, and expects that because the laws there offer a clear alternative to letting it go.

This other business with the Cornell professor? Even if I could figure out the jurisdictional thing, give me a break. Go to your room, Jordan, and clean it.

And stoics? Sometimes I have fun imagining what the world would be like if they had prevailed within the Empire, rather than the Christians. It's a tough discipline, though, and that's a hard sell compared with somebody else has already done all the hard work for you. Meh.

-------------------------

* And the "principle" is much in the USA news lately.

X "If Dr Ford really was battered, then she could have gone to the police back in 1982. She never did. Therefore, her charges are false."

Say what? Some people do think this way; and some of them become opinion leaders, President even.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
7 hours ago, eight bits said:

OK, quasi is the opposite of truly.

I don't know if that is truly correct ! In fact it isn't. But there is no hope of what I called the "quasis", both religious and non-religious, ever reaching agreement in any debate, because they are really arguing against themselves, there is no science in dismissing something (religion) as baseless, because it eludes scientific proof, by being unproveable by the standard methods of science, and there is certainly no religion in dismissing the realities made plainly obvious by science, because true religiosity is utterly demanding of realism, both in the way we see the external, and looking internally at ourselves, and our own motives. That is if you accept that true religiosity, is contingent on maximal psychological growth, where acceptance of truth, is non-negotiable.

The "quasis" have more in common with football fans, whose affiliation to one side or another, is more an accident of fate, than anything else, their allegiances not really objective, their locked-in biases appearing absurd to the person that appreciates the game and the skills, but knows there is no "right" side. Both sides are required, to have a complete game. Life is a game where it is possible to be with both sides, and ideally, we ought to be. But really, there aren't any opposing sides, what we take as sides are just different foci of attention, on the seemingly external with science, and the seemingly internal, our own psyche, with internalised religion, though the line of demarcation, is still largely an arbitrary one. When we focus our eyes on the far distant, we can perceive little of the near, and vice versa, but it is a fact we can have clarity of both, but not at the same time.

Edited by Habitat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Habitat

If we move off of generalities, though, and focus on the specific pair of discussants highlighted in this thread, Peterson and Harris, we find both of them are open to unusual experiences like meditation-related insight (Harris) and outrightly visionary episodes (Peterson, in a line going back to Jung). Friends @danydandan and @Hello Davros Kitty may find Sam Harris dry, but as neurophysiologists go, he's a happening dude.

An aspect of science that is rarely discussed directly and fully on the internet, whether by friends or foes, is that it is, in a technical sense indecisive. There is no final conclusion about anything except maybe mathematics (and even then, Godel's ghost presides over some other skeletons in that closet) There are issues in science where the already considered evidence is lop-sided (evolution by natural selection) so that it is not seriously possible (logically possible, but too remote to spend scarce time pondering) that a basic proposition will be overturned, but if that kind of evidence did arrive (Hume's revenge!), then kiss the proposition good-bye.

This openness to correction is how science keeps moving towards ever-better approximations and ever-more reliable models of what is actually true and useful. While @Liquid Gardensand I can go back and forth about different definitions of free expression, for practical purposes, expression is free enough if I can tell anybody who I think to be wrong about anything, "I think you're wrong about that, and here's why." And wrongness could be about questions of fact or value, or mash-ups of the two ("Hitler wasn't all bad; his dog liked him and vice versa. QED).

Of course, if you allow that kind of free expression, then you must put up with a lot. Some free people will say mean, hurtful and useless things. Canada seems to draw a line at the emotionally charged and "not seriously possible," thus Holocaust denial can land you in court for hate speech. Not so the United States, where almost the only remedy for stupid speech is more and smarter speech. Personally, I like the system I grew up in, but I am not so naive as not to realize that if I'd grown up a few hundred kilometers farther north, I could well lean the other way.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

I strive to be dry with my language ... but fragrant, always fragrant ...

~

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I strive to be dry with my language ... but fragrant, always fragrant ...

~

Nobody can smell you BO through a computer. Hehe.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
On 10/5/2018 at 7:28 AM, danydandan said:

Nobody can smell you BO through a computer. Hehe.

Hi Dany

You can always download the DEA's sniffer app from google.:rolleyes:

jmccr8 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.