by Ugo Bardi
I read Jordan Peterson's book "12 rules for life" a few months ago, and I must say that I was not very impressed. I found it nice, but I saw many things that Peterson says as non-controversial, so I wondered why someone should bother to write them in a book. It must be because I live in a relatively different cultural climate. I can understand that it is not the same everywhere in the world. Anyway, the work by Peterson seemed to me not especially original, but never banal.
Then, a few days ago, I stumbled into this interview by Cathy Newman on the TV station Channel 4 in the UK. Look, a 30 minutes clip usually is way beyond my capability to watch in full. But this one kept me glued to the screen the whole time. Try it yourself. It is an incredible drama playing. The interviewer, Newman, tries all the time to lead Peterson into a trap, to make him admit that he said something that he never said, to confess some unconfessable sin of his.
I have seen it happen. It has happened to me. We you are questioned so aggressively and continuously, it is all too easy to lose your balance and then the slightest mistake will haunt you forever. But Peterson, here, is truly fantastic. He never loses a step. He never gets angry. He never fails to make his point. I mean, absolutely great. Do spend half an hour listening to this interview because it encapsulates most of what's wrong with our world. And, in particular, how poisonous the dialog can become when it falls into the hands of propaganda professionals (aka journalists).
Here is an example of the conversation, at 24:35:
CN. Under Mao, millions of people died, but there's no comparison between Mao and a trans activist. Why not? Because trans activists aren't killing millions of people,JP. the philosophy that's guiding their utterances is the same philosophy, the consequences are yet...CN . You're saying that trans activists know it leads to the deaths of millions of people?JP. Well no. I'm saying that the philosophy that drives their utterances is the same philosophy that already has driven us to the deaths of millions.CN. Okay, tell us how that philosophy is in any way comparable.JP. Sure that's no problem. The first thing is that their philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount. That's the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Mao's China and it's the fundamental philosophy of the left-wing activists. It's identity politics doesn't matter who you are as an individual it matters who you are in terms of your group identity
You note the not-so-subtle techniques that Cathy Newman uses: "if you say that, then you mean this" -- with "this," for instance, condoning Mao Zedong's mass exterminations. It is usually done mentioning Hitler, but recently he seems to have slipped down the list of the bugaboos of history. In any case, it is a very easy trick, and it works almost all the time. Sometimes it spectacularly backfires, as in this case, but not everyone will understand the game being played.
Indeed it is so easy to get trapped in the totalitarian vision of the world. This interview took place before the Covid pandemic, but somehow it prefigures it. The aggressive, continuous, obsessive, categorization of all manifestations of non-standard thought as dangerous forms of misinformation was exactly what Peterson was speaking against. No wonder that he is now involved in a sort of witch trial that might lead him to undergo forced re-educational training.
In the end, I think the whole story is about holobionts. the holobiont philosophy is about recognizing diversity and valuing it. The totalitarian philosophy is to squash diversity and make it disappear. Ecosystems are not made of creatures that are all the same. Ecosystems thrive the more diversity they contain. They may compete, mostly they collaborate. If we lose our holobiont nature, we are doomed forever.
It's the agency/non-agency game. The woman is attempting to stay on the top level and generalize, but Peterson is arguing the dynamic. All things are revealed with knowledge structures -- because they must be. Chuck Pezeshki
ReplyDeleteThanks Ugo; Thanks Chuck.
DeleteWhat group-identity can lead to iis the non-identity of "other" groups, which is where the historical danger lies. When others are held to be sub-human, and to be the cause of the problems for good-people, then there is the holocaust, cultural revolution, killing fields, Rwandan genocide, and so on. The de-humanizing of the "others" is the critical step.
Rulers seek to do this in hard times of war and famine, to keep people killing somebody else, not the rulers.
What we have been having in recent years is the foreshadowing of harder times to come, as economy declines from declining fuel availability and increasing cost, even as economic complexity and cost keeps increasing.
We need to see this for what it is, for what has been tried, the dehumanizing of "the unvaccinated", or "Russians", or "Chinese". We should evaluate the world ourselves and not be easily led, especially to killing other people, when the managers of the systems remain in control.
It is our economic life support systems that need to reorganize, and we need to take those exploratory steps ourselves, so as to be well informed and not misused.