Thanks Paul. I’m glad you’re here to help make sense of all this from the Christian perspective and thanks for doing it with such warmth, intelligence and . . . regularity.
Fascinating stuff. I really appreciate you going into depth here. Just a little story from my past that shows how this filtering works and how fundamental things are present, but unknown to so many people. Back in the dim, distant past, when I was an undergrad, I was in an art museum in Italy and overheard a small group of other American undergrads looking at a painting of Christ showing his wounds to Thomas, and one of the young men in the group said, 'Oh, doubting Thomas, I didn't know that came from the Bible.' So many people who are well educated in society just don't know the actual foundation of the culture is many layers down from where they imagine it to be.
I quite enjoyed that Ben and Mary Harrington video. She made some interesting points. That zinger she dropped was valid 😆. She left me wanting to know her thoughts on single gender spaces.
9:52 oh man, I've seen tons of criticism of Peterson like that. It's mind-blowing how people don't understand a word and then criticize him for speaking "word salads".
“Christians are so insecure” this is so true but why? Should be stronger with the culture belittling the faith? We’re not in Junior High anymore! Truth! 🔥
I disagree that "Chiristians are so insecure" those identified are the masses of nominal lukewarm (c)hristians. I came back to Christianity so am secure. If ppl know the history of Christianity then "insecurity" is the norm, because we are in the world but not of it! Most Christians are insecure because they dare not have their faith Tested, when in fact, the test of faith marks a true Christian who finally picks up his cross having found security in Faith as opposed to "feelings".
What is the definition of "insecure"? Because a man of faith Thrives in times of insecurity. Remember the what Jesus said to those who wish to follow him, sell all you things; don't look back at you plowshare; let the dead bury the dead; the world will hate you; pick up your Cross... the reason nominal (c)hristians are insecure is because they want to both gain the world AND save their Soul.
Well, if you consider the fact that Christians are the most persecuted faith in the world these days, the phrase is technically true. From the subtle insecurities of not being able to keep your job in some parts of America if you let on you're Christian, to the blatant physical attacks in Muslim and Atheist countries, "security" among the nations can be hard to come by.
Brutally honest opinion about pastoral coverage of JP. I avoid them most of the time too...its like u already know what they are going to say. It's too bad
@@PaulVanderKlay everything I've heard from him implies his ego is wedded to liberalism. That said sometimes people find a way through. In the end I bet it comes down to Legitimacy. He has status either way but rejecting liberalism means abandoning the current basis of his status and arch liberals know who is friend and who is enemy. No more institutional cooperation for him if he flips.
I find it fascinating that a man that are so smart still are so... human. It is so obvious from outside what his fixations are which blocks his way. His bogeyman is marxism and that fixation structures all his thoughts in a subtle way. I wonder what fixation I have - besides my hate for the left. It is so much harder to notice the same thing in oneself.
@@culturalsingularity8231 it's not so hard to see when you consider that it isn't individual and instead is the truth regime established in 1945 by the global American empire. That's why inquiries all point back to founding moments such as the Nuremberg trials.
Bruh the depth of field in the beginning was 👌 Edit after watching: wow, Paul's description of how insecure Christians react to any scrap of external validation with declaring that they're talking about me really made me reflect uncomfortably about this tendency in myself. I mean, I was laughing uncontrollably but it was just like, fuck. He's talking about me! It's coded! 😂
Another very helpful analysis. Thanks Paul. Listening to this just reinforces my need to listen to more! Good education. Now, being primarily a preacher, my job is to figure out how to shape my homilies to pass on this insight to the people SO THAT they will embrace the wisdom of timeless truths and not the "empty calories" of the current chaos.
@@PaulVanderKlay that would be hilarious. Doug needs to actually talk to the people he comments on. Rather than just about them. It’s too easy to talk to avatars, not people that way. I went OFF on the Doug Wilson commentary to the Voxer group of Little Corner friends, btw. He’s still a rationalist.
@@WhiteStoneName If you aren't a Douglas Wilson fan I can't imagine you are much of a fan of John Piper or R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur then either. Neither am I but I can't for the life of me see what the basis of your criticism might be. I heard a sermon by John MacArthur about the existence of evil and the end of the world and the whole thing was an exercise in reducing human reason to absolute gibberish. One thing with MacArthur is he DOES seem to follow his Calvinism to it's logical conclusion: utter surreality. A surrealism that TO HIM somehow makes total sense. MADNESS.
@@andyvinstra I’m a fan of douglas Wilson. But I have criticisms. I really like his son, ND. I’ve followed Wilson for a lot of years. Read books of his and watched him for quite a while.
It's not necessarily the Christian media personalities themselves either, I listen to one who as far as I can tell speaks about Peterson partly because he gets pestered by many listeners and partly because his name also starts 'Dr Jordan B'
39:00 In the Bible, "Meaning, perhaps for the first time in narrative literature, was conceived as a process, requiring continual revision-both in the ordinary sense and in the etymological sense of seeing-again-continual suspension of judgment, weighing of multiple possibilities, brooding over gaps in the information provided." [Robert Alter]
An observation from a long-lurking Anglican on this channel. Two recent examples I came across in reading the lectionary of how the semi-literal translation of the King James Version of the Bible seems to have coded language that five centuries later might interface well with estuary-type discussions. (38:01 in the video) Thank you, Pastor Paul for raising this phenomenon. “The Matrix” Exodus 13:15: “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.” “Make thy bed!” Acts 9:34 “And Peter said into him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately.”
Peter sons comment about rage and gestures is important on the postmodern language conversation. As beneath the references are bodily metaphors, music, gesture, emotion and the basic constraints of reality and human connection. This is expressed in the root of many words epistemologically you can trace back many metaphors that make sense bodily and interactionally between people. This means that communication makes sense metaphorically and bodily first and then referentially secondarily. Of course the referential is so powerful and soaks everything, and this is referential is the culture and Bible and then after that it’s this post modern language game that evolves rapidly.
Here is a question Christian might be able to answer: Do Jesus mean that you shouldn't plan or prepare, but instead trust god to take care of you? Somewhere in the bible: 25 “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 Which of you by worrying can add one [j]cubit to his [k]stature? 28 “So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29 and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not [l]arrayed like one of these. 30 Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
@Phlebas I read it more like "if you trust in god you don't have to worry about anything." So not so much about who is control but rather about the result of faith/trust. Something in line with daoism and wuwei.
@Phlebas "Should you plan or trust? BOTH!" The question implies that we have the capacity to make sin-less/ mistake-less decisions. Let's let go of our judgements, of our ego, of us being the best leader to lead our life. The more we give up our "primacy", the more these things will flow as they optimally would of their own accord; if we let ourselves trust in this lesson that we are being taught.
Well, part of "the kingdom of God and His righteousness" is productively working for a living. As long as you do that faithfully, being in a worried state of mind is likely to do more harm than good.
Taking the Bible literally is not the proper way to think about it. I think this passage is talking about not falling into fear or the materialism of the world but to put your attention on God and that those things that you need will come to you. And what exactly does it mean to pay attention to God? Do the right thing, be a good person, tell the truth, follow through with your duties and responsibilities. When you do all those things, your material needs will obviously be covered but one must always make sure to focus one’s attention to staying on that path not for material gain but for the spiritual gains one gets by being close to God and walking His path.
22:43 this is exactly Victor David Hanson‘s observations as well, the influx of so many aliens into our culture is creating disorder because there’s not enough commonality to carry on a cohesive culture. As a result the world becomes more confused to the individual. This also explains why people are replaying back to tribalism because that is home, that is a familiarity and more predictable . This place in to so much. Very good video today !
Utter nonsense. There are around 11 million undocumented persons in our country, most of whom have been here years/decades. They participate and belong in our communities. Legal immigrants, same. Neither group has anything close to a net negative effect on the country. Do you think you're better than them because an ancestor of yours got here before them?
58:00 “To identify psychoanalysis with psychology or psychiatry would be as great a mistake as to identify dialectic materialism with sociology. Both Freudanism and Marxism are single approaches to sciences, rather than the sciences themselves.”[Viktor E Frankl]
/indeed. too bad so many on the right have a mighty terror of marxism, falsely attributing so many characteristics to an economic system they're too scared to be curious and learn about. marxism won't steal your child's teddy bear, it won't put you in jail, it won't make your friends reject you. it's a theory, not an omnipotent agent of darkness.
@@lisaharris452 However it is a theory that has and will help some limited politician think that he knows how, and can run things more effectively and efficiently than anyone else who has previously tried to, because no one else before him has understood the theory correctly.
@@patrickwagner2978 I get your point; lots of people blame failure on communism, especially, as a result of those dumb guys doing it wrong. Socialism is a different matter, though, as we have several outstanding examples of the theory in practice in Scandinavia -- some of the happiest, most peaceful places on the planet. The US operates successful collectives, too, through our system of taxation and (hypothetical? These days one wonders) representation. The military, social security, public education -- the list goes on.
9:10 re: clergy being pumped about JBP confirming their ideas about the world. #1 Correct #2 Gross - rooted in rationalism and conversionism & mimetic rivalry (end which is violence) Nate, Chad and I just recorded a chat which touches on this. It’s about Vervaeke’s thinking of Neoplatonism and Christianity and how embodiment, incarnation, and incorporation work. And we get into perennialism vs conversionism (“say my words”). And angels and egregores.
Luke "say my words" Thompson! :) Right next to Mark "I've got a UA-cam Channel" Lefebvre and Grizwald "I've got a Patreon" Grim and Esther "I've got a Substack" O'Reilly. :)
38:27 - “King James Bible coded the language, as did Shakespeare.” The way our language is embedded & indebted? Honoring our forbearers is taught by a classical philologist & later rejected. Perhaps it’s another way to recognize that the hermeneutics of beauty proceeds the hermeneutics of suspicion. In the same way that Vervaeke explains how our suspicion of the real depends on apprehension of the real - while both remain essential to hermeneutics.
We always need a basis or a standard that society relies on. Sure the west started with the Bible then moved onto the constitution. But we have lost both and now we see the chaos that’s unfolding as society falls apart because we no longer have a backbone of societal agreement. Without a basis of agreement we’ll all split into tribes and goto war with each other.
A trilogy of listening all by accident in the last few days: 1) JR and JBP talking about Good Faith and Truth. 2) French Friday SJ and DF talking about speaking the truth and being dishonest. 3) Billy Joel - “Honesty is such a lonely word. Everyone is so untrue. Honesty is hardly ever heard. And mostly what I need from you”
I laughed more than I should have at Joe and JBP on the shelf! Haha …Props to you, Paul! Haha. Mary Harrington is fascinating. Thanks for the pastors for or against JBP, based on a most cursory analysis, missing as they are the meat of the conversation. I think that's where pastors are being 'cucked by the internet', if I may steal from Mary. Haha Have you come across Alex Kaschuta or Erika Bachiochi, Paul? Two other ladies offering great insights and critiques of modern feminism, et cetera, from an eclectic Eastern European and American traditional Catholic perspective respectively.
Thinking about the claim that perhaps the liberal values are fine-tuned for a print culture, and that the electronic culture moves too fast for them to work well. If that was true, then it seems likely that a better set of values would give people a way to filter through the noise to find worthwhile data; that necessarily would imply a willful (and perhaps necessary) ignorance (and probably a set of gatekeepers for knowledge, who do the hard work of filtering). That certainly *would* require a different set of values! Not sure if it would be a good change! But it reminds me of atomic motion vs. classical mechanics. The *true* world is chaotic - but we were rationality ignore the details and focus on the large-scale average motion of the object. It's conceivable that we might need to do the same with information.
It's true, liberals are literate, and many of them are capable of closer reading. That's a deficit I often see among right wingers -- whether they've only read the headline or just didn't comprehend the full text, they will often take away one or two simple, binary points. Nuance and gray areas seem to make them uncomfortable. It seems they also struggle with the idea that all people contain multitudes; a person is not defined by one action, their religion, where they went to school, the affair they powerfully regret -- yet so often a rightwing response is some variation on, "Oh you mean Mr. X, the guy who lied to Congress?" or "Surely you don't mean that socialist [insert very long list of people the speaker, who doesn't have a solid notion of socialism, or authoritarianism, or democratic republic] doesn't like. It's like their flypaper isn't sticky all over so only the big stuff sticks. And that's often distorted because comprehension is crowded out of their minds by confirmation bias. The big picture has its place, for sure, but without detail one isn't very earthbound.
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 Perhaps. My experience with rightwingers is admittedly limited so I'm going by experience with friends and observing rightwing comments online. Generally speaking, they often don't respond to the meat of an article, or supporting details. They are more likely to react to a clickbait headline, and often quite emotionally. When asked for details on some of their ideas (i.e., vaccines are part of a conspiracy, George Soros is personally funding and operating the New World Order, government is full of waste and private business is run without bias, waste, nepotism, or lazy employees), IME they don't give factual examples and reject factual evidence on the other side. Some rightwingers can participate in a debate but not many. For evidence I'd compare comments from the NYTimes to those on Fox and see which are based on belief and which are based on observable, documented evidence.
McGilchrist new book talks about keeping categories implicit and not explicit. When a Orthodox Christian complains about change they are really complaining about explicit change. A human is not the same stuff in relation to reality that they were at 3 that they are at 57 but they would still say there is something about me that persist and holds together that is me. The explicit closes down on a set of features, creates a new category, and in effect, burns books and creates propaganda to support a new creation out of nothing. Acting as if it is disconnected from a flow of life before and around it. A lot like America.
Kermit is a powerful being. The minute he started manipulating your hands like that, the words of Mr Peterson went out the window, and I had eyes only for Kermit. He's speaking to my lizard brain, obviously.
the most entertaining part about this peterson clips that go viral is how quick people who didn't understand them are to call them simplistic and irrelevant. Its like ''well I don't understand this lines and numbers here but since you said it is a house I assume its the same as the house I drew in 4th grade"
-53:40 (why is yt doing negative number time stamps now?) I’m kinda uncomfortable with how often JBP brings up Camille Paglia as someone worth listening to considering her views on NAMBLA, age of consent, p-philia, cp etc. I wonder if he’s aware or not.
Minute 20. Yes Pastor Paul. No institutional guardrails for the internet. It outstripped our ability to integrate, and where necessary, legislate. No social norms/customs like your learn from your mom/dad/community etc.
10:19 Paul being the awesome internet pastor he is imo, differentiating himself from NPC pastors that appear to be in participation mystique, so that although he is one and belongs to the same profession, there is a part of his consciousness outside of that, a living spirit, observing the coding and unfolding of proceedings. That aspect is central to the Jungian individuation process and what is individual about the person grows as that does, rather than from individualism, which could be considered more illusory as one seems to be trying to become unique from choosing items within a defined arena and acting out archetypal categories. ie. until you realize you are acting out patterns of behaviour (in this case the archetype of the pastor), you are a fish that doesn't know it lives in water.
43:30 Except that what we see through (with?) is more like our eyes and minds and bodies (and all the relationships that make those connect and work) than a pair of glasses. Changing how you see, i.e. changing what you see is not simple or fast (What you see and hear, depends a lot upon where you're standing. It also depends on the kind of person you are." It's rooted in embodiment and ritual. Where and how and when and how often you walk a certain path, literally and figuratively, will shape--and largely DETERMINE--what you see. Literally. I think that this is a very Polanyi-ian overlooked reality by the truth-first, epistemology-first, modernist thinkers. This is why when people begin inquiring about Orthodoxy, the most frequent answer is not to give them books to read. "Go to the services. Attend a vespers." As you saturate yourself in the practices, you will begin to see, and understand in a way that might be impossible otherwise. And that's not just about Orthodoxy, it's about anything. You can't see (where are you standing) from outside. In the Last Battle, they had to enter the shack or hut to see, further up, further in.
I wasn't even aware of the significance of Jordan's hand gestures until Paul mentioned them here. now I won't be able to un-see them. Talking of significance, it seems an extra special video when Paul's cellphone stand put in an appearance (it's the big win in PVK bingo). When he wields it I now think of the elevation of the gourd in Life Of Brian
PVK: “And he’s right. He’s exactly right. That’s the Bible. It’s not just the Bible. It’s the Bible and all of the mechanisms, all of the culture that has brought the Bible out into the world and have facilitated the Bible’s coding of our world.” Paul, it’s called natural law. I don't think I have mentioned this before.... 🙂 That culture is found in and through many that have influenced and shaped the West and have been the sources through which we have been able to understand the natural law ethic that has its foundational requirements found in Scripture. These influences would include (in addition to Biblical authors) Aristotle (the Apostle Paul understood that the Greeks were in search of God when he spoke at the Areopagus) and Aquinas, among others.
If the bible is in a sense a filter of our reality. Then when our interpretation of the bible has shifted the filter has also shifted. We have all these text about a dead god, through which we interpret the world. I don't know what that would imply. Maybe a pattern for the fall of our culture. A sort of disenchantment. "The hole where god used to be" as I think PVK said some time.
"If the bible is in a sense a filter of our reality. Then when our interpretation of the bible has shifted the filter has also shifted." --> Nail on the head. The most important thing Eastern wisdom showed me is the value of wisdom being best preserved in an embodied form, by transferring it from one human consciousness to another, through a form of mentorship. There is potential for a great loss of wisdom successfully transferred between generations, when our primary modus of wisdom transfer becomes a literary/ written-down form. The written-down form has its huge benefits, but also its huge drawbacks.
When I saw the short clip of peterson making the foundation quote, I immediately thought of Shaeffers main point in He is there and He is not Silent. It was as if Peterson arrived at almost the same conclusion, but from ver different angle.
-12:13 OK now you’re starting to piss me off, stop castigating Joe he’s an intelligent person, very intelligent he’s understanding what the hell is being said maybe he just disagrees with it.
The reason Joe didn't understand right away was that Jordan didn't initially recognize Joe isn't Jordan "preaching to the (usual) choir", the choir which lives in the linguistic space this corner of the internet lives in. Jordan actually needed to expand on his concepts, for most people (on Joe Rogan show & beyond), to understand Jordan's highly-condensed wording (the same expanding Jordan did with his Bible series). Joe's WHOLE JOB is to ask the questions audience will be asking, in the name of said audience.
20:00 We don't need a stable objective world for liberalism, we just need to agree we're not going to impose our views on each other. It's that simple. She's pulling this argument out of her ass with nothing to back it up.
Yes... The Jordan Peterson Bible is the basis of the individual free choice of western culture. However, the JP Bible is still mostly an oral tradition and has not yet been written down and thoroughly vetted by the high priests of sociotheology. The JP Bible includes Genesis and Exodus as well as the suffering, death , and resurrection of the Great Hero... and the Koran, Dao, Confucius, Buddha, and Vedas. Gilgamesh, Osiris, Isis, Set, and Horus all are at play as well as Plato and Homer, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Jung, and Solzhenitsyn. There is really not a meaning crisis per se, rather, there is a confusion of a large number of meanings and not really a lack of meaning at all. The traditional Churches have been silos of limited meanings while the JP Church has been a beacon of meaning from all the Grand Narratives and not just one or another of the various versions of the Bible. What you and I are part of is a discovery of meaning in the face of the confusion of multiple meanings of the Grand Narratives. Which transcendental truths are really true?
Wokism will fall out of fashion. Whether it will do so by our afflicted cultures realizing its inherent nihilism and rejecting it, or it will do so by our culture being overwhelmed by a culture that watches us fail and therefore rejects Wokism, is what we're fighting for now.
I would love for you to elaborate on this point. Wokism seems to represent something fearsome to rightwing people, and I am so confused about why. First, definitions. "Wokism" as I understand it is raising our consciousness about the unfairness of the American project thus far, and trying to instill the respect and equity that were missing for a very long time. Calling grown men "boy." Not allowing women to vote, get a credit card in their own name, speak privately and make decisions with her physician regarding her fertility. Making it illegal for Blacks to purchase homes in desirable areas. Pairing images of Black people with crime statistics. All of it has resulted in systems of prejudice and oppression. Being "woke" is recognizing the damage and maintaining hope that, by carefully documenting and understanding what has taken place, and by changing ignorant beliefs and behaviors (Black men are supernaturally strong; Black women are oversexed; a woman who has sex is a slut or a whore; women aren't good at science; Blacks, Jews, and women are not allowed, or at the least discouraged, from existing in certain spaces (e.g., private country clubs). How do you define it? Second, my head is kind of spinning at your use of nihilism. How does treating everyone as a person equal a belief that life has no meaning, and morality has no place in it? I'd argue the morality of treating everyone with dignity is greater than insisting on the fiction that white Christian men are the Platonic ideal of homo sapiens. It's frankly immoral to deprive everyone else of the chance to compete, get an education, have a shot at the C-suite, insist that women are strictly maternal and men are only paternal, deprive people of different sexual orientations the same chance as anyone else to set up a household as they choose, and keep their job regardless of whatever consenting adult sleeps with them, you get the idea. Lastly, I'm curious about the details of what you're fighting now. Is it using preferred pronouns that causes cultural failure? Fewer people attending church regularly? The plurality of religions in America? I realize I'm asking a lot! I would really appreciate you (and others) taking the time to help me understand how you perceive being woke, and why it provokes such strong negative reactions. Many thanks!
@@lisaharris452 There seems to be a good bit of common ground between us in what you presented above, so that's a good thing. Mostly where we differ seems to be in our approach to righting these wrongs, and except on a couple of points, we want to end up in a very similar (if not identical) place. I think that the risks of your approaches outweigh the benefits, and a more gradual approach that conscientiously preserves what is good in our systems would see us arriving at a better (if not utopian) result. Question for you -- how does "equity" (equality of outcome) practically differ from redistributionist communism? Are you aware of how this has been implemented / enforced, everywhere and every time it has ever been tried?
@@jimluebke3869 Glad to know you think we're not so far apart! Any step towards one another brings us that tiny bit back from the brink 🙂 "Equality of outcome" is a deliberate distortion of the liberal goal of getting us closer to giving everyone an equal *start.* No one I'm aware of stumps for everyone living in the same house, earning the same income, marrying the opposite gender, having 2.5 children . . . where liberals probably differ from the right is the expectation that everyone in the country have adequate food and shelter. Not the same as a ranch in the suburbs with a big yard, but a secure place to store their stuff and sleep. UMich defines equity in the DEI mode as "Equity: We commit to working actively to challenge and respond to bias, harassment, and discrimination. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status." Sorry, had to get that one out of the way. As an overweight person, I know there are certain opportunities closed to me, and fairly so. Classical ballet, for one. There are certain physical lines that have to be evident for the choreography to show its full potential. But should I be allowed to work as a receptionist? Or any job? There's a lot of discrimination based on appearance, which I've benefited from because I'm pretty, but which I think we can more conscious about when it comes to hiring and raises. How about if I'm a lesbian? The GOP recently rallied to remove job protections for LGBT persons. What good does that do? For anyone? Again using Scandinavia as an example of successful *socialism* (I'm no proponent of communism), in a country of 10+ million (Sweden), 4,500 people were homeless as we Americans conceptualize it, i.e., living rough on the streets or in and out of shelters. Don't forget, Swedes are affluent individuals, they're not going broke helping people hang on to housing. They're not indebted at the national level like we are either, at 35% of GDP. Meanwhile we're at 130% of GDP. Their priorities and spending are different, and I think outcomes there are in some ways superior. The mindset is that paying taxes is patriotic because they are what provide the high standard of living all Swedes can enjoy, including not stepping over gravely trashed humans on the way to the train. I'm not sure what you mean by my "approach." I have no interest in deconstructing the positives in our existing systems! What would be the purpose of delaying extending the basic courtesies and perks we white folks have long enjoyed to everyone? I don't feel like that costs me anything; rather it enriches my world to break down weird hierarchical separations so I can get to know new people (music, cuisine, life philosophy, literature) without the awkwardness of being part of an oppressive group. To me it's all upside. Can you say more about why we need to take it slow? Thanks for the convo, very enjoyable!
@@lisaharris452 Well, the thing is, everyone in this country does have adequate food available. Food kitchens are overflowing, and obesity is a problem among the indigent. The reason people don't have a place indoors to sleep, is a matter of choice -- for the health and safety of their inhabitants, homeless shelters do not allow drugs, pets, etc. This is too much of an imposition for the "homeless", and they turn down what's available. People have proposed renaming "homeless encampments" to the more accurate "outdoor drug scenes". Hopefully calling things what they are, is a first step to fixing the problem. Happily, there are laws about discrimination on the books already. There have been for fifty years. Unfortunately, we've also had well-meaning but ultimately harmful laws on the books -- especially the ones discriminating against married couples when it comes to doling out public money. This has had (predictably) horrible effects on the children of these couples, destroying their opportunities for generations now. Abandoning the norm of the mother and father of a child being married before that child is born and staying married thereafter, has been the single most destructive social change in centuries. I don't think anyone can be serious about improving the situation of American society, without being serious about reinstating that norm, at a level of 95% or higher. To get there, we're absolutely going to have to eliminate legal disincentives, re-introduce a serious level of social disapproval, and also somewhat revise family law. Other solutions have been absolutely futile, as we've seen for decades now. The problem is only getting worse. Bringing the conversation back to Wokism, particularly re: its nihilism, the Critical Theory insistence on the abolition of categories (the subject of this video) is why I don't think it can last. Traditional categories are reinforced by correlation to objective facts, and the new categories aren't. Fortunately history has shown us that this kind of turn for the better has happened before. In England's Regency Era, social mores were extremely similar to what they are now (including a trans fashion). There were two children - Victoria and Albert, by name - whose early lives were blighted by infidelity and divorce on their parents' part, and they happened to rise to the most influential position in the world. We've been living on their example for most of two centuries. We're due for the cycle to turn again. =)
@@jimluebke3869 Wow, you've covered a lot of ground here! I believe you're correct, research shows two-parent homes are superior for children. It doesn't matter whether they're same- or opposite sex. I'm confused -- you're saying it's "woke" to abolish categories, and that "new categories" aren't as good as old ones. (I'm picking up a traditionalist-conservative vibe overall, am I right about that? If it ain't broke, don't fix it?) Anyway about the categories, you've lost me. Examples of old and new categories, please? Also just a nitpick about food -- surely you saw the massive lines at community pantries as people lost their jobs in 2020? The truth is, we waste about 35% of our food supply here, but the excess doesn't magically make its way to the hungry. Food insecurity is a real thing in the US. North Dakota does best on this measure, with around 7% of its population experiencing hunger for some part of the year. Mississippi brings up the bottom, on this measure as on so many others, with 22% hungry at various times. You're absolutely correct about obesity, which might be the other side of the hunger coin. So many people eating so many non-nutritive calories, and then the hungry, when they do have adequate food, probably not being able to afford a quality diet. This is like the argument that no one in America goes without healthcare. That's untrue and shameful. There's no ER for chemo or dialysis or allergy shots or acne. For those who are able to see a medical professional, a nontrivial percentage can't afford the prescribed meds. I'll just leave you with one factoid I thought I was interesting -- homelessness is highly predictable. A group of statisticians figured out a few factors that contribute and gave it away to Los Angeles county. Amazingly predictive, something like an 85% accuracy rate. Yes, there are *sometimes* addiction and mental health problems, but the chief problem is money. There's practically a straight oblique line on a graph showing cost of housing on one axis, and number of homeless on the other. As the kids say, "The rent's too high!" Okay one more point ;-) -- I do IQ testing as part of my job. It's interesting. Obviously there are a lot of boneheads with high IQs, but generally speaking, you really do need pretty close to 100 points to be self-sufficient. Obviously half of us don't have that many IQ points, and obviously we don't live in a country where half are classified as disabled. But I don't think we should overlook the number of adults who were born without their fair share, and don't have great family support -- parents are likely impaired to some degree themselves. They rely on govt programs to get by, but that involves appts and paperwork and bus routes and . . . some of them just can't put all of that together. My point is homeless persons aren't recreational drug users out there having the time of their lives. Their personal deficits, intellectual or otherwise, combined with natural consequences for poor decisions and, often, practically unsurmountable barriers (poor credit = no job, no job = no housing) will just take a percentage of people down. I think our attitude towards them should include a little mercy, a little "there but for god go I" humility. That's it for now!
Paul, again I am late to the party, but I have to congratulate you on your insight. You always surprise me on how intelligently you criticize the more superficial expressions of even your own co-religionists. I do not accept that Christianity expresses Spirit in its most conceptual form, but it very well could be the form in which Spirit can most accessibly manifest itself among the populace. Future events will reveal either yea or nay. If yea, then your ministry will have promoted the project. Liberalism as Peterson and Murray understand it is not a "slide;" it is the foundation of the political support for individual autonomy. You will, I hope, agree with Madison that none can compel "proper" belief, the which can follow only from individual assent. People can imbibe all sorts of technological distractions, but none of these obviates the basic liberal tenants of pluralism and individual moral autonomy. If a dullard should shallow uncritically a compilation of trends on UA-cam, the lack is in no small instance his, even if the malice should have been let loose by the imps. I urge you to recall that before the Enlightenment, wars of religion wrecked havoc over Europe. My point is not that traditional religious belief should be suppressed or even uncharitably belittled, but that it should take its place in a whole community of spiritual aspiration. I suggest that there is much more to liberalism as Locke and Madison understood it than those who prophesize its demise would whisper in your ear.
This puts Elon Musk's fear of AI completely in perspective: And the idea that humans are a preloader to AI. And that humans limitation is bandwidth. AI dystopia is when the machines take over. The new system takes over. The system can't be taken over without the internet because human bandwidth is too slow. But people like Elon see it as: We have already crossed over the threshold, because the encoding process has taken over. Culture changes so fast and humans are not in control anymore, the systems are. If we are all online now, we are at the mercy of digital discourse. Therefore we are the output of the system no longer the input.
The fixed categories are beyond scriptural, they are anthropological. They are the political, economic, and religious, which are all formed, always, within a given culture, or which is to say, ethnography, and the diverse ancestral remembrances of each. Today, and times before, the economic has taken central focus over, and thus, defining the political and religious, when, at first, it is the religious and political that restrained and defined the limits and parameters of the economic. The glorification of the “free market” today, ignores the moral restraints that were once placed upon it precisely by religion, considering the welfare of the whole in its truly Sacred bases, as well as by the king who had the power to restrain the rich in consideration of the poor. Moreover, craft guilds and merchant guilds allowed the direct control of production by labor itself, in the first instance, and regulated prices, in the second instance, so that the competition forced upon all by capitalism and the free market could be avoided, along with its domination by things in their monetary circulation. This is where Peterson’s appreciation of Marx, as with his understanding oftentimes of scripture, is shallow. In looking at Cain and Abel psychologically, for example, he robs it of its greater historical and cultural significance connected to the rise of capitalism upon a class “struggle in the field”, created through the enclosure of once common lands by the nobilities to raise sheep for a growing wool market, and thus forcing laborers away from villages and into the growing cities functioning on wage labor and the rising factory system replacing the previous domestic manufacture, and setting the stage for industrialization, and so that Cain built a city from such certain agricultural bases originally that were also connected to the marketplace and private acquisition. This implies, as The Communist Manifesto asserts, that all history hitherto has been a history of “class struggle”. And if that were not still the case today, there would be places for the poor and common to assemble in public hearing and petition; and I heartily wish someone would show me such a place in our society that nonetheless claims a freedom of speech and liberty and justice for all. Freud’s focus on the sexual, likewise, was not a mere eccentricity. He grasped its psycho-physiological centrality in the “organization of the instincts” upon the body and its functional as well as holistic integration as much unconsciously as consciously of its parts, where the genitalia inevitably became a central focus to the child in the mystery of procreation, obviously connected to both genders, just as the mystery of God is connected to the divine and prophesied birth of Christ, and so that the two tiered system of categories guiding religion are the identity of birth and death, that the latter, in certain rites like taking up one’s cross, is the birth into immortality of the former. The psychological breakdown of that organization of the instincts is what is symbolized by Tom Hanks in Savin Private Ryan, when his hand begins to shake uncontrollably - any sense to things, any imagined possibility beyond potentially being blown to bits in the next instance, was breaking down, and the body losing its psychic integration in stable meanings.
Thanks Paul. I’m glad you’re here to help make sense of all this from the Christian perspective and thanks for doing it with such warmth, intelligence and . . . regularity.
PVK eats prunes for us all.
Amen to that!
Hahaha Joe and Jordan hanging out on your bookshelf. 💕
Congratz, this video was just endorsed by JP on twitter. A recognition your content deserved.
Fascinating stuff. I really appreciate you going into depth here. Just a little story from my past that shows how this filtering works and how fundamental things are present, but unknown to so many people. Back in the dim, distant past, when I was an undergrad, I was in an art museum in Italy and overheard a small group of other American undergrads looking at a painting of Christ showing his wounds to Thomas, and one of the young men in the group said, 'Oh, doubting Thomas, I didn't know that came from the Bible.' So many people who are well educated in society just don't know the actual foundation of the culture is many layers down from where they imagine it to be.
This is one of my favourite PVK videos. So well done sir!
I am roman Catholic and I really enjoy your content and commentaries. Thank you so much for the good work
Seeing you play with Kermit while Jordon Peterson is talking restores my faith in the future of the church. Never change Paul!
First time watching your videos. I came in very skeptical but I'm appreciating what I'm hearing so far. Thank you.
I quite enjoyed that Ben and Mary Harrington video. She made some interesting points. That zinger she dropped was valid 😆. She left me wanting to know her thoughts on single gender spaces.
9:52 oh man, I've seen tons of criticism of Peterson like that. It's mind-blowing how people don't understand a word and then criticize him for speaking "word salads".
It's so so hard to find good criticism of JP and I desperately look all over for it because it is wrong too agree to much with any one person lol
Thank you for introducing me to Mary Harrington. Wow, she is just fantastic!
“Christians are so insecure” this is so true but why? Should be stronger with the culture belittling the faith? We’re not in Junior High anymore! Truth! 🔥
I disagree that "Chiristians are so insecure" those identified are the masses of nominal lukewarm (c)hristians. I came back to Christianity so am secure. If ppl know the history of Christianity then "insecurity" is the norm, because we are in the world but not of it! Most Christians are insecure because they dare not have their faith Tested, when in fact, the test of faith marks a true Christian who finally picks up his cross having found security in Faith as opposed to "feelings".
What is the definition of "insecure"? Because a man of faith Thrives in times of insecurity. Remember the what Jesus said to those who wish to follow him, sell all you things; don't look back at you plowshare; let the dead bury the dead; the world will hate you; pick up your Cross... the reason nominal (c)hristians are insecure is because they want to both gain the world AND save their Soul.
Well, if you consider the fact that Christians are the most persecuted faith in the world these days, the phrase is technically true.
From the subtle insecurities of not being able to keep your job in some parts of America if you let on you're Christian, to the blatant physical attacks in Muslim and Atheist countries, "security" among the nations can be hard to come by.
He's right about Jim Keller being the world's greatest chip designer. That's not a controversial statement in technology.
I had no idea. Thank you! And he's JBP's brother-in-law. The universe is NOT random. :)
If it’s really that is there a stock I can invest in for this chip before it blow up? Thanks in advance
Brutally honest opinion about pastoral coverage of JP. I avoid them most of the time too...its like u already know what they are going to say. It's too bad
Paul is having fun in this one, I love it! xD
You do do what you do and you do it good, on the two two of the two oh two two.
So looking forward to some PKV commentary on this and Douglas Wilson getting included. You've got my interest.
This is why peterson isn't relevant to me anymore. He is fully committed to liberalism and it's just fruitless.
You're certainly not alone in this. JBP tries to straddle two distancing land masses. Is he going to jump?
@@PaulVanderKlay everything I've heard from him implies his ego is wedded to liberalism. That said sometimes people find a way through. In the end I bet it comes down to Legitimacy. He has status either way but rejecting liberalism means abandoning the current basis of his status and arch liberals know who is friend and who is enemy. No more institutional cooperation for him if he flips.
Ego may also be giving a failing mark on an unsolicited purity test?
I find it fascinating that a man that are so smart still are so... human. It is so obvious from outside what his fixations are which blocks his way. His bogeyman is marxism and that fixation structures all his thoughts in a subtle way.
I wonder what fixation I have - besides my hate for the left. It is so much harder to notice the same thing in oneself.
@@culturalsingularity8231 it's not so hard to see when you consider that it isn't individual and instead is the truth regime established in 1945 by the global American empire.
That's why inquiries all point back to founding moments such as the Nuremberg trials.
1 show cellphone stand on lots of your videos
2 put picture of cellphone stand on a T-shirt
3 open merch store
4 sell T-shirt on merch store
5 profit
00:33:00 JBP animated - I started chuckling, and almost spilled my coffee. 😹
39:20 'We're not in junior high anymore'...ouch, nice seraph :P
I have enjoyed watching you process this conversation more than I enjoyed the original conversation. Thank you for this, Pastor.
Hi Paul, I like it here because it feels like we're "recoding the world on the fly", but with a far more useful and wholesome set of fundamentals.
Bruh the depth of field in the beginning was 👌
Edit after watching: wow, Paul's description of how insecure Christians react to any scrap of external validation with declaring that they're talking about me really made me reflect uncomfortably about this tendency in myself. I mean, I was laughing uncontrollably but it was just like, fuck. He's talking about me! It's coded! 😂
Another very helpful analysis. Thanks Paul. Listening to this just reinforces my need to listen to more! Good education. Now, being primarily a preacher, my job is to figure out how to shape my homilies to pass on this insight to the people SO THAT they will embrace the wisdom of timeless truths and not the "empty calories" of the current chaos.
By random chance found your channel. Very good explanations. And it complements well with the symbolic world of Jonathan Pageau.
Welcome to the party!
Thanks Paul!
Blessings from Montreal Canada🌅⛟⛟⛟⛟⛟🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Please do a commentary on Doug Wilson
I very well might.
@@PaulVanderKlay that would be hilarious. Doug needs to actually talk to the people he comments on. Rather than just about them. It’s too easy to talk to avatars, not people that way.
I went OFF on the Doug Wilson commentary to the Voxer group of Little Corner friends, btw. He’s still a rationalist.
Ugh. Doug Wilson. That’s a name I wish I hadn’t heard on your channel.
@@WhiteStoneName If you aren't a Douglas Wilson fan I can't imagine you are much of a fan of John Piper or R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur then either. Neither am I but I can't for the life of me see what the basis of your criticism might be. I heard a sermon by John MacArthur about the existence of evil and the end of the world and the whole thing was an exercise in reducing human reason to absolute gibberish. One thing with MacArthur is he DOES seem to follow his Calvinism to it's logical conclusion: utter surreality. A surrealism that TO HIM somehow makes total sense. MADNESS.
@@andyvinstra I’m a fan of douglas Wilson. But I have criticisms. I really like his son, ND.
I’ve followed Wilson for a lot of years. Read books of his and watched him for quite a while.
"Christian pastor acts entire Jordan Peterson podcast with Kermit the Frog hands."
You're spot on with the insecurity of Christian's driving their response to JBP - both positive and negatively in my view.
It's not necessarily the Christian media personalities themselves either, I listen to one who as far as I can tell speaks about Peterson partly because he gets pestered by many listeners and partly because his name also starts 'Dr Jordan B'
39:00 In the Bible, "Meaning, perhaps for the first time in narrative literature, was conceived
as a process, requiring continual revision-both in the ordinary sense and in the etymological sense of seeing-again-continual suspension of judgment, weighing of multiple possibilities, brooding over gaps in the information provided." [Robert Alter]
I liked the Doug Wilson vids on Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Subbed.
An observation from a long-lurking Anglican on this channel. Two recent examples I came across in reading the lectionary of how the semi-literal translation of the King James Version of the Bible seems to have coded language that five centuries later might interface well with estuary-type discussions. (38:01 in the video) Thank you, Pastor Paul for raising this phenomenon.
“The Matrix”
Exodus 13:15: “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.”
“Make thy bed!”
Acts 9:34 “And Peter said into him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately.”
How come Doug Wilson's video wasn't blocked by UA-cam, he used clips of the Spotify Rogan/Peterson video?
Ha! Suspected you had Grand Rapids roots..be blessed and so grateful for your generative content...Rockford, MI🙂
Peter sons comment about rage and gestures is important on the postmodern language conversation. As beneath the references are bodily metaphors, music, gesture, emotion and the basic constraints of reality and human connection. This is expressed in the root of many words epistemologically you can trace back many metaphors that make sense bodily and interactionally between people. This means that communication makes sense metaphorically and bodily first and then referentially secondarily. Of course the referential is so powerful and soaks everything, and this is referential is the culture and Bible and then after that it’s this post modern language game that evolves rapidly.
1:54-2:03 A man after my own heart
Here is a question Christian might be able to answer: Do Jesus mean that you shouldn't plan or prepare, but instead trust god to take care of you?
Somewhere in the bible:
25 “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 Which of you by worrying can add one [j]cubit to his [k]stature?
28 “So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29 and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not [l]arrayed like one of these. 30 Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31 “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
@Phlebas I read it more like "if you trust in god you don't have to worry about anything." So not so much about who is control but rather about the result of faith/trust. Something in line with daoism and wuwei.
@Phlebas "Should you plan or trust? BOTH!"
The question implies that we have the capacity to make sin-less/ mistake-less decisions. Let's let go of our judgements, of our ego, of us being the best leader to lead our life. The more we give up our "primacy", the more these things will flow as they optimally would of their own accord; if we let ourselves trust in this lesson that we are being taught.
Well, part of "the kingdom of God and His righteousness" is productively working for a living.
As long as you do that faithfully, being in a worried state of mind is likely to do more harm than good.
Taking the Bible literally is not the proper way to think about it. I think this passage is talking about not falling into fear or the materialism of the world but to put your attention on God and that those things that you need will come to you.
And what exactly does it mean to pay attention to God? Do the right thing, be a good person, tell the truth, follow through with your duties and responsibilities. When you do all those things, your material needs will obviously be covered but one must always make sure to focus one’s attention to staying on that path not for material gain but for the spiritual gains one gets by being close to God and walking His path.
@@jimluebke3869 "Well, part of "the kingdom of God and His righteousness" is productively working for a living."
Why do you think that?
22:43 this is exactly Victor David Hanson‘s observations as well, the influx of so many aliens into our culture is creating disorder because there’s not enough commonality to carry on a cohesive culture. As a result the world becomes more confused to the individual. This also explains why people are replaying back to tribalism because that is home, that is a familiarity and more predictable . This place in to so much. Very good video today !
Utter nonsense. There are around 11 million undocumented persons in our country, most of whom have been here years/decades. They participate and belong in our communities. Legal immigrants, same. Neither group has anything close to a net negative effect on the country. Do you think you're better than them because an ancestor of yours got here before them?
Lord of Spirits recent podcast on the priesthood is awesome.
I would love to hear you treat some of Doug Wilson's videos.
The Cell Phone Stand bit should have been my highlight. However the puppetry takes the prize.
Listening to boomers explain why "Joe is an honest man" is the highlight of my week. Who woulda thought. Keep up the good work Paul.
Love it!
Your examples of meaningful dishonesty are . . . ?
I would consider Jim Keller the world's greatest chip designer. He's kind of a legend in his industry.
What is the original Joe Rogan piece this was taken from? I would like to watch the original in its entirety. Someone please advise. Thank you.
it was his last JBP interview on Spotify.
42:24 Dante's describing God as a ball as a mental filter
13:15 "Basically, religion codes the categories of the culture."
58:00 “To identify psychoanalysis with psychology or psychiatry would be as great a mistake as to identify dialectic materialism with sociology. Both Freudanism and Marxism are single approaches to sciences, rather than the sciences themselves.”[Viktor E Frankl]
/indeed. too bad so many on the right have a mighty terror of marxism, falsely attributing so many characteristics to an economic system they're too scared to be curious and learn about. marxism won't steal your child's teddy bear, it won't put you in jail, it won't make your friends reject you. it's a theory, not an omnipotent agent of darkness.
@@lisaharris452 However it is a theory that has and will help some limited politician think that he knows how, and can run things more effectively and efficiently than anyone else who has previously tried to, because no one else before him has understood the theory correctly.
@@patrickwagner2978 I get your point; lots of people blame failure on communism, especially, as a result of those dumb guys doing it wrong. Socialism is a different matter, though, as we have several outstanding examples of the theory in practice in Scandinavia -- some of the happiest, most peaceful places on the planet. The US operates successful collectives, too, through our system of taxation and (hypothetical? These days one wonders) representation. The military, social security, public education -- the list goes on.
50:00 The dialogue Socrates spoke of; "sacrifice a rooster to Asklepios"...what matters is the Process and it's continuation
9:10 re: clergy being pumped about JBP confirming their ideas about the world.
#1 Correct
#2 Gross - rooted in rationalism and conversionism & mimetic rivalry (end which is violence)
Nate, Chad and I just recorded a chat which touches on this. It’s about Vervaeke’s thinking of Neoplatonism and Christianity and how embodiment, incarnation, and incorporation work. And we get into perennialism vs conversionism (“say my words”). And angels and egregores.
Luke "say my words" Thompson! :) Right next to Mark "I've got a UA-cam Channel" Lefebvre and Grizwald "I've got a Patreon" Grim and Esther "I've got a Substack" O'Reilly. :)
Do a commentary on the other pastors video on JP! We need your differentiated take!
Not only do you have Kermit but you look a little like Jim Henson. \
38:27 - “King James Bible coded the language, as did Shakespeare.”
The way our language is embedded & indebted? Honoring our forbearers is taught by a classical philologist & later rejected. Perhaps it’s another way to recognize that the hermeneutics of beauty proceeds the hermeneutics of suspicion. In the same way that Vervaeke explains how our suspicion of the real depends on apprehension of the real - while both remain essential to hermeneutics.
Where did you get your frog amd Monkey? I want memorabilia of these guys. Lol. It's cute.
I would like more please
We always need a basis or a standard that society relies on. Sure the west started with the Bible then moved onto the constitution. But we have lost both and now we see the chaos that’s unfolding as society falls apart because we no longer have a backbone of societal agreement. Without a basis of agreement we’ll all split into tribes and goto war with each other.
A trilogy of listening all by accident in the last few days:
1) JR and JBP talking about Good Faith and Truth.
2) French Friday SJ and DF talking about speaking the truth and being dishonest.
3) Billy Joel - “Honesty is such a lonely word. Everyone is so untrue. Honesty is hardly ever heard. And mostly what I need from you”
Love me some Billy Joel.
@@PaulVanderKlay had the greatest hits on today. He’s ace ♠️
There's dogma all over my back yard, and it's messing up what would normally be white with snow.
don't stand on dogma!
I laughed more than I should have at Joe and JBP on the shelf! Haha …Props to you, Paul! Haha. Mary Harrington is fascinating.
Thanks for the pastors for or against JBP, based on a most cursory analysis, missing as they are the meat of the conversation. I think that's where pastors are being 'cucked by the internet', if I may steal from Mary. Haha
Have you come across Alex Kaschuta or Erika Bachiochi, Paul? Two other ladies offering great insights and critiques of modern feminism, et cetera, from an eclectic Eastern European and American traditional Catholic perspective respectively.
"A text without a context is a pretext" (Hahn) - the same is true of very short video clips ! (39:23)
This element of the Peterson/Rogan discussion is where Peterson scratches the surface of what Northrop Frye excavated. Very harmonious
Love this video Paul. I know you're a busy man, but I wanna talk to you one on one, I think you'll like my story a lot.
I'd like to hear it.
Sony by far has the best autofocus :D
Thinking about the claim that perhaps the liberal values are fine-tuned for a print culture, and that the electronic culture moves too fast for them to work well.
If that was true, then it seems likely that a better set of values would give people a way to filter through the noise to find worthwhile data; that necessarily would imply a willful (and perhaps necessary) ignorance (and probably a set of gatekeepers for knowledge, who do the hard work of filtering). That certainly *would* require a different set of values! Not sure if it would be a good change!
But it reminds me of atomic motion vs. classical mechanics. The *true* world is chaotic - but we were rationality ignore the details and focus on the large-scale average motion of the object. It's conceivable that we might need to do the same with information.
It's true, liberals are literate, and many of them are capable of closer reading. That's a deficit I often see among right wingers -- whether they've only read the headline or just didn't comprehend the full text, they will often take away one or two simple, binary points. Nuance and gray areas seem to make them uncomfortable.
It seems they also struggle with the idea that all people contain multitudes; a person is not defined by one action, their religion, where they went to school, the affair they powerfully regret -- yet so often a rightwing response is some variation on, "Oh you mean Mr. X, the guy who lied to Congress?" or "Surely you don't mean that socialist [insert very long list of people the speaker, who doesn't have a solid notion of socialism, or authoritarianism, or democratic republic] doesn't like. It's like their flypaper isn't sticky all over so only the big stuff sticks. And that's often distorted because comprehension is crowded out of their minds by confirmation bias.
The big picture has its place, for sure, but without detail one isn't very earthbound.
You seem to view right wingers in the way you believe they view the world.
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 Perhaps. My experience with rightwingers is admittedly limited so I'm going by experience with friends and observing rightwing comments online. Generally speaking, they often don't respond to the meat of an article, or supporting details. They are more likely to react to a clickbait headline, and often quite emotionally.
When asked for details on some of their ideas (i.e., vaccines are part of a conspiracy, George Soros is personally funding and operating the New World Order, government is full of waste and private business is run without bias, waste, nepotism, or lazy employees), IME they don't give factual examples and reject factual evidence on the other side.
Some rightwingers can participate in a debate but not many. For evidence I'd compare comments from the NYTimes to those on Fox and see which are based on belief and which are based on observable, documented evidence.
McGilchrist new book talks about keeping categories implicit and not explicit.
When a Orthodox Christian complains about change they are really complaining about explicit change.
A human is not the same stuff in relation to reality that they were at 3 that they are at 57 but they would still say there is something about me that persist and holds together that is me.
The explicit closes down on a set of features, creates a new category, and in effect, burns books and creates propaganda to support a new creation out of nothing. Acting as if it is disconnected from a flow of life before and around it.
A lot like America.
Kermit is a powerful being. The minute he started manipulating your hands like that, the words of Mr Peterson went out the window, and I had eyes only for Kermit. He's speaking to my lizard brain, obviously.
2:42 I'd welcome that.
A "hi, this is Paul" without a lip-smack is like a fish _with_ a bicycle.
57:00 Nietzsche said something similar.... all philosophy is really a psychological autobiography of the philosopher who's writing it.
the most entertaining part about this peterson clips that go viral is how quick people who didn't understand them are to call them simplistic and irrelevant. Its like ''well I don't understand this lines and numbers here but since you said it is a house I assume its the same as the house I drew in 4th grade"
Great name, a tribute to one of more interesting and forward-looking of the Medievals.
“We’re not in jr high anymore”
😆
Who are the designers who are initiating the woke "fashions"?
Fallen principalities.
-53:40 (why is yt doing negative number time stamps now?)
I’m kinda uncomfortable with how often JBP brings up Camille Paglia as someone worth listening to considering her views on NAMBLA, age of consent, p-philia, cp etc. I wonder if he’s aware or not.
4:42 and on a bit is some real good stuff. i like her haha
49:15 lol
Minute 20. Yes Pastor Paul. No institutional guardrails for the internet. It outstripped our ability to integrate, and where necessary, legislate. No social norms/customs like your learn from your mom/dad/community etc.
So you are meaning to say that the resolution to the meaning crisis is taking up your cross and following Jesus?
Hello Firestarter!!
@@vixendixon6943 Hey Vixen how are you :)
@@universalflamethrower6342 Still holding onto my Crown 👑 , hands free!!
@@vixendixon6943 some are the elect some are not :)
10:19 Paul being the awesome internet pastor he is imo, differentiating himself from NPC pastors that appear to be in participation mystique, so that although he is one and belongs to the same profession, there is a part of his consciousness outside of that, a living spirit, observing the coding and unfolding of proceedings. That aspect is central to the Jungian individuation process and what is individual about the person grows as that does, rather than from individualism, which could be considered more illusory as one seems to be trying to become unique from choosing items within a defined arena and acting out archetypal categories. ie. until you realize you are acting out patterns of behaviour (in this case the archetype of the pastor), you are a fish that doesn't know it lives in water.
You should audition for Byrne’s puppet shows…
43:30 Except that what we see through (with?) is more like our eyes and minds and bodies (and all the relationships that make those connect and work) than a pair of glasses.
Changing how you see, i.e. changing what you see is not simple or fast (What you see and hear, depends a lot upon where you're standing. It also depends on the kind of person you are."
It's rooted in embodiment and ritual. Where and how and when and how often you walk a certain path, literally and figuratively, will shape--and largely DETERMINE--what you see. Literally.
I think that this is a very Polanyi-ian overlooked reality by the truth-first, epistemology-first, modernist thinkers.
This is why when people begin inquiring about Orthodoxy, the most frequent answer is not to give them books to read. "Go to the services. Attend a vespers." As you saturate yourself in the practices, you will begin to see, and understand in a way that might be impossible otherwise.
And that's not just about Orthodoxy, it's about anything. You can't see (where are you standing) from outside. In the Last Battle, they had to enter the shack or hut to see, further up, further in.
I wasn't even aware of the significance of Jordan's hand gestures until Paul mentioned them here. now I won't be able to un-see them.
Talking of significance, it seems an extra special video when Paul's cellphone stand put in an appearance (it's the big win in PVK bingo). When he wields it I now think of the elevation of the gourd in Life Of Brian
There is a theory floating around that the KJV and Shakespeare author are one-in-the-same.
that wouldn't be your namesake, would it?
PVK: “And he’s right. He’s exactly right. That’s the Bible. It’s not just the Bible. It’s the Bible and all of the mechanisms, all of the culture that has brought the Bible out into the world and have facilitated the Bible’s coding of our world.”
Paul, it’s called natural law. I don't think I have mentioned this before.... 🙂
That culture is found in and through many that have influenced and shaped the West and have been the sources through which we have been able to understand the natural law ethic that has its foundational requirements found in Scripture. These influences would include (in addition to Biblical authors) Aristotle (the Apostle Paul understood that the Greeks were in search of God when he spoke at the Areopagus) and Aquinas, among others.
If the bible is in a sense a filter of our reality. Then when our interpretation of the bible has shifted the filter has also shifted. We have all these text about a dead god, through which we interpret the world. I don't know what that would imply. Maybe a pattern for the fall of our culture. A sort of disenchantment. "The hole where god used to be" as I think PVK said some time.
"If the bible is in a sense a filter of our reality. Then when our interpretation of the bible has shifted the filter has also shifted." --> Nail on the head.
The most important thing Eastern wisdom showed me is the value of wisdom being best preserved in an embodied form, by transferring it from one human consciousness to another, through a form of mentorship.
There is potential for a great loss of wisdom successfully transferred between generations, when our primary modus of wisdom transfer becomes a literary/ written-down form. The written-down form has its huge benefits, but also its huge drawbacks.
He went presuppositional.
When I saw the short clip of peterson making the foundation quote, I immediately thought of Shaeffers main point in He is there and He is not Silent. It was as if Peterson arrived at almost the same conclusion, but from ver different angle.
@@1981jsoldier yes, Shaeffer took a good bit from presuppositionalism
Liberalism is a Sin is a great book to read.
-12:13 OK now you’re starting to piss me off, stop castigating Joe he’s an intelligent person, very intelligent he’s understanding what the hell is being said maybe he just disagrees with it.
The reason Joe didn't understand right away was that Jordan didn't initially recognize Joe isn't Jordan "preaching to the (usual) choir", the choir which lives in the linguistic space this corner of the internet lives in.
Jordan actually needed to expand on his concepts, for most people (on Joe Rogan show & beyond), to understand Jordan's highly-condensed wording (the same expanding Jordan did with his Bible series). Joe's WHOLE JOB is to ask the questions audience will be asking, in the name of said audience.
Wanted: 1 Reactionary feminist
20:00 We don't need a stable objective world for liberalism, we just need to agree we're not going to impose our views on each other. It's that simple.
She's pulling this argument out of her ass with nothing to back it up.
🤔. . . Regarding this, see: Yves Congar / Tradition & traditions (27:42)
PVK please do a Doug Wilson commentary
Yes... The Jordan Peterson Bible is the basis of the individual free choice of western culture. However, the JP Bible is still mostly an oral tradition and has not yet been written down and thoroughly vetted by the high priests of sociotheology. The JP Bible includes Genesis and Exodus as well as the suffering, death , and resurrection of the Great Hero... and the Koran, Dao, Confucius, Buddha, and Vedas. Gilgamesh, Osiris, Isis, Set, and Horus all are at play as well as Plato and Homer, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Jung, and Solzhenitsyn.
There is really not a meaning crisis per se, rather, there is a confusion of a large number of meanings and not really a lack of meaning at all. The traditional Churches have been silos of limited meanings while the JP Church has been a beacon of meaning from all the Grand Narratives and not just one or another of the various versions of the Bible. What you and I are part of is a discovery of meaning in the face of the confusion of multiple meanings of the Grand Narratives. Which transcendental truths are really true?
Wokism will fall out of fashion.
Whether it will do so by our afflicted cultures realizing its inherent nihilism and rejecting it, or it will do so by our culture being overwhelmed by a culture that watches us fail and therefore rejects Wokism, is what we're fighting for now.
I would love for you to elaborate on this point. Wokism seems to represent something fearsome to rightwing people, and I am so confused about why.
First, definitions. "Wokism" as I understand it is raising our consciousness about the unfairness of the American project thus far, and trying to instill the respect and equity that were missing for a very long time. Calling grown men "boy." Not allowing women to vote, get a credit card in their own name, speak privately and make decisions with her physician regarding her fertility. Making it illegal for Blacks to purchase homes in desirable areas. Pairing images of Black people with crime statistics. All of it has resulted in systems of prejudice and oppression. Being "woke" is recognizing the damage and maintaining hope that, by carefully documenting and understanding what has taken place, and by changing ignorant beliefs and behaviors (Black men are supernaturally strong; Black women are oversexed; a woman who has sex is a slut or a whore; women aren't good at science; Blacks, Jews, and women are not allowed, or at the least discouraged, from existing in certain spaces (e.g., private country clubs). How do you define it?
Second, my head is kind of spinning at your use of nihilism. How does treating everyone as a person equal a belief that life has no meaning, and morality has no place in it? I'd argue the morality of treating everyone with dignity is greater than insisting on the fiction that white Christian men are the Platonic ideal of homo sapiens. It's frankly immoral to deprive everyone else of the chance to compete, get an education, have a shot at the C-suite, insist that women are strictly maternal and men are only paternal, deprive people of different sexual orientations the same chance as anyone else to set up a household as they choose, and keep their job regardless of whatever consenting adult sleeps with them, you get the idea.
Lastly, I'm curious about the details of what you're fighting now. Is it using preferred pronouns that causes cultural failure? Fewer people attending church regularly? The plurality of religions in America?
I realize I'm asking a lot! I would really appreciate you (and others) taking the time to help me understand how you perceive being woke, and why it provokes such strong negative reactions. Many thanks!
@@lisaharris452 There seems to be a good bit of common ground between us in what you presented above, so that's a good thing. Mostly where we differ seems to be in our approach to righting these wrongs, and except on a couple of points, we want to end up in a very similar (if not identical) place.
I think that the risks of your approaches outweigh the benefits, and a more gradual approach that conscientiously preserves what is good in our systems would see us arriving at a better (if not utopian) result.
Question for you -- how does "equity" (equality of outcome) practically differ from redistributionist communism? Are you aware of how this has been implemented / enforced, everywhere and every time it has ever been tried?
@@jimluebke3869 Glad to know you think we're not so far apart! Any step towards one another brings us that tiny bit back from the brink 🙂
"Equality of outcome" is a deliberate distortion of the liberal goal of getting us closer to giving everyone an equal *start.* No one I'm aware of stumps for everyone living in the same house, earning the same income, marrying the opposite gender, having 2.5 children . . . where liberals probably differ from the right is the expectation that everyone in the country have adequate food and shelter. Not the same as a ranch in the suburbs with a big yard, but a secure place to store their stuff and sleep.
UMich defines equity in the DEI mode as "Equity: We commit to working actively to challenge and respond to bias, harassment, and discrimination. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status."
Sorry, had to get that one out of the way.
As an overweight person, I know there are certain opportunities closed to me, and fairly so. Classical ballet, for one. There are certain physical lines that have to be evident for the choreography to show its full potential. But should I be allowed to work as a receptionist? Or any job? There's a lot of discrimination based on appearance, which I've benefited from because I'm pretty, but which I think we can more conscious about when it comes to hiring and raises. How about if I'm a lesbian? The GOP recently rallied to remove job protections for LGBT persons. What good does that do? For anyone?
Again using Scandinavia as an example of successful *socialism* (I'm no proponent of communism), in a country of 10+ million (Sweden), 4,500 people were homeless as we Americans conceptualize it, i.e., living rough on the streets or in and out of shelters. Don't forget, Swedes are affluent individuals, they're not going broke helping people hang on to housing. They're not indebted at the national level like we are either, at 35% of GDP. Meanwhile we're at 130% of GDP. Their priorities and spending are different, and I think outcomes there are in some ways superior. The mindset is that paying taxes is patriotic because they are what provide the high standard of living all Swedes can enjoy, including not stepping over gravely trashed humans on the way to the train.
I'm not sure what you mean by my "approach." I have no interest in deconstructing the positives in our existing systems! What would be the purpose of delaying extending the basic courtesies and perks we white folks have long enjoyed to everyone? I don't feel like that costs me anything; rather it enriches my world to break down weird hierarchical separations so I can get to know new people (music, cuisine, life philosophy, literature) without the awkwardness of being part of an oppressive group. To me it's all upside. Can you say more about why we need to take it slow?
Thanks for the convo, very enjoyable!
@@lisaharris452 Well, the thing is, everyone in this country does have adequate food available. Food kitchens are overflowing, and obesity is a problem among the indigent. The reason people don't have a place indoors to sleep, is a matter of choice -- for the health and safety of their inhabitants, homeless shelters do not allow drugs, pets, etc. This is too much of an imposition for the "homeless", and they turn down what's available. People have proposed renaming "homeless encampments" to the more accurate "outdoor drug scenes". Hopefully calling things what they are, is a first step to fixing the problem.
Happily, there are laws about discrimination on the books already. There have been for fifty years.
Unfortunately, we've also had well-meaning but ultimately harmful laws on the books -- especially the ones discriminating against married couples when it comes to doling out public money. This has had (predictably) horrible effects on the children of these couples, destroying their opportunities for generations now. Abandoning the norm of the mother and father of a child being married before that child is born and staying married thereafter, has been the single most destructive social change in centuries.
I don't think anyone can be serious about improving the situation of American society, without being serious about reinstating that norm, at a level of 95% or higher. To get there, we're absolutely going to have to eliminate legal disincentives, re-introduce a serious level of social disapproval, and also somewhat revise family law. Other solutions have been absolutely futile, as we've seen for decades now. The problem is only getting worse.
Bringing the conversation back to Wokism, particularly re: its nihilism, the Critical Theory insistence on the abolition of categories (the subject of this video) is why I don't think it can last. Traditional categories are reinforced by correlation to objective facts, and the new categories aren't.
Fortunately history has shown us that this kind of turn for the better has happened before. In England's Regency Era, social mores were extremely similar to what they are now (including a trans fashion). There were two children - Victoria and Albert, by name - whose early lives were blighted by infidelity and divorce on their parents' part, and they happened to rise to the most influential position in the world. We've been living on their example for most of two centuries.
We're due for the cycle to turn again. =)
@@jimluebke3869 Wow, you've covered a lot of ground here! I believe you're correct, research shows two-parent homes are superior for children. It doesn't matter whether they're same- or opposite sex.
I'm confused -- you're saying it's "woke" to abolish categories, and that "new categories" aren't as good as old ones. (I'm picking up a traditionalist-conservative vibe overall, am I right about that? If it ain't broke, don't fix it?) Anyway about the categories, you've lost me. Examples of old and new categories, please?
Also just a nitpick about food -- surely you saw the massive lines at community pantries as people lost their jobs in 2020? The truth is, we waste about 35% of our food supply here, but the excess doesn't magically make its way to the hungry. Food insecurity is a real thing in the US. North Dakota does best on this measure, with around 7% of its population experiencing hunger for some part of the year. Mississippi brings up the bottom, on this measure as on so many others, with 22% hungry at various times. You're absolutely correct about obesity, which might be the other side of the hunger coin. So many people eating so many non-nutritive calories, and then the hungry, when they do have adequate food, probably not being able to afford a quality diet.
This is like the argument that no one in America goes without healthcare. That's untrue and shameful. There's no ER for chemo or dialysis or allergy shots or acne. For those who are able to see a medical professional, a nontrivial percentage can't afford the prescribed meds.
I'll just leave you with one factoid I thought I was interesting -- homelessness is highly predictable. A group of statisticians figured out a few factors that contribute and gave it away to Los Angeles county. Amazingly predictive, something like an 85% accuracy rate. Yes, there are *sometimes* addiction and mental health problems, but the chief problem is money. There's practically a straight oblique line on a graph showing cost of housing on one axis, and number of homeless on the other. As the kids say, "The rent's too high!"
Okay one more point ;-) -- I do IQ testing as part of my job. It's interesting. Obviously there are a lot of boneheads with high IQs, but generally speaking, you really do need pretty close to 100 points to be self-sufficient. Obviously half of us don't have that many IQ points, and obviously we don't live in a country where half are classified as disabled. But I don't think we should overlook the number of adults who were born without their fair share, and don't have great family support -- parents are likely impaired to some degree themselves. They rely on govt programs to get by, but that involves appts and paperwork and bus routes and . . . some of them just can't put all of that together. My point is homeless persons aren't recreational drug users out there having the time of their lives. Their personal deficits, intellectual or otherwise, combined with natural consequences for poor decisions and, often, practically unsurmountable barriers (poor credit = no job, no job = no housing) will just take a percentage of people down. I think our attitude towards them should include a little mercy, a little "there but for god go I" humility. That's it for now!
PVK deserves more subs.
The Bible is part of Western culture but it's sure not the basis of Western culture. The basis goes back to Ancient Greece and Rome.
Paul, again I am late to the party, but I have to congratulate you on your insight. You always surprise me on how intelligently you criticize the more superficial expressions of even your own co-religionists. I do not accept that Christianity expresses Spirit in its most conceptual form, but it very well could be the form in which Spirit can most accessibly manifest itself among the populace. Future events will reveal either yea or nay. If yea, then your ministry will have promoted the project.
Liberalism as Peterson and Murray understand it is not a "slide;" it is the foundation of the political support for individual autonomy. You will, I hope, agree with Madison that none can compel "proper" belief, the which can follow only from individual assent. People can imbibe all sorts of technological distractions, but none of these obviates the basic liberal tenants of pluralism and individual moral autonomy. If a dullard should shallow uncritically a compilation of trends on UA-cam, the lack is in no small instance his, even if the malice should have been let loose by the imps. I urge you to recall that before the Enlightenment, wars of religion wrecked havoc over Europe. My point is not that traditional religious belief should be suppressed or even uncharitably belittled, but that it should take its place in a whole community of spiritual aspiration. I suggest that there is much more to liberalism as Locke and Madison understood it than those who prophesize its demise would whisper in your ear.
This puts Elon Musk's fear of AI completely in perspective:
And the idea that humans are a preloader to AI. And that humans limitation is bandwidth.
AI dystopia is when the machines take over. The new system takes over. The system can't be taken over without the internet because human bandwidth is too slow.
But people like Elon see it as: We have already crossed over the threshold, because the encoding process has taken over. Culture changes so fast and humans are not in control anymore, the systems are.
If we are all online now, we are at the mercy of digital discourse. Therefore we are the output of the system no longer the input.
aw man, totally fell for the clickbait title. 1:0 for Paul
The fixed categories are beyond scriptural, they are anthropological. They are the political, economic, and religious, which are all formed, always, within a given culture, or which is to say, ethnography, and the diverse ancestral remembrances of each.
Today, and times before, the economic has taken central focus over, and thus, defining the political and religious, when, at first, it is the religious and political that restrained and defined the limits and parameters of the economic.
The glorification of the “free market” today, ignores the moral restraints that were once placed upon it precisely by religion, considering the welfare of the whole in its truly Sacred bases, as well as by the king who had the power to restrain the rich in consideration of the poor.
Moreover, craft guilds and merchant guilds allowed the direct control of production by labor itself, in the first instance, and regulated prices, in the second instance, so that the competition forced upon all by capitalism and the free market could be avoided, along with its domination by things in their monetary circulation.
This is where Peterson’s appreciation of Marx, as with his understanding oftentimes of scripture, is shallow. In looking at Cain and Abel psychologically, for example, he robs it of its greater historical and cultural significance connected to the rise of capitalism upon a class “struggle in the field”, created through the enclosure of once common lands by the nobilities to raise sheep for a growing wool market, and thus forcing laborers away from villages and into the growing cities functioning on wage labor and the rising factory system replacing the previous domestic manufacture, and setting the stage for industrialization, and so that Cain built a city from such certain agricultural bases originally that were also connected to the marketplace and private acquisition.
This implies, as The Communist Manifesto asserts, that all history hitherto has been a history of “class struggle”. And if that were not still the case today, there would be places for the poor and common to assemble in public hearing and petition; and I heartily wish someone would show me such a place in our society that nonetheless claims a freedom of speech and liberty and justice for all.
Freud’s focus on the sexual, likewise, was not a mere eccentricity. He grasped its psycho-physiological centrality in the “organization of the instincts” upon the body and its functional as well as holistic integration as much unconsciously as consciously of its parts, where the genitalia inevitably became a central focus to the child in the mystery of procreation, obviously connected to both genders, just as the mystery of God is connected to the divine and prophesied birth of Christ, and so that the two tiered system of categories guiding religion are the identity of birth and death, that the latter, in certain rites like taking up one’s cross, is the birth into immortality of the former.
The psychological breakdown of that organization of the instincts is what is symbolized by Tom Hanks in Savin Private Ryan, when his hand begins to shake uncontrollably - any sense to things, any imagined possibility beyond potentially being blown to bits in the next instance, was breaking down, and the body losing its psychic integration in stable meanings.
19:00 I could not disagree with her more.
This whole anti-liberalism/post liberalism thing she pushes is just as disturbing as wokeism.