Crustacean Jung vs Cocaine Hegel
" Our respective central nervous systems share plenty of similarities in how they operate, one such similarity is how we tend to respond to hierarchical dynamics. He only brought that up as a counter to some halfwit claim that heirarchies are purely political/cultural constructs to demonstrate that since these responses exist in a nature void of what we call politics, the reason they exists can't be politics. That's the point you couldn't get to because in your head it became a battle and thus the nature of your biology forbade you to yield an inch. You won't get no glory on that side of the hole.
| |
|
The joke is the passion showed regardless of the argument. The willingness or "need" to be right, correctingly showing the knowledge. Arrogant LOL |
|
|
I might add that if you are an educator and you think that flashing your vocabulary like some intellectual exhibitionist is more important than succesfully communicating to your audience, then you suck at your job.
" More so than simple arrogance, I'd boil it down to a desire to be competitive. You won't get no glory on that side of the hole.
| |
" Good thing that Lobster Daddy claimed neither. GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
| |
" A debate is a formal contest. I can't view it as a contest if competing is given orders of magnitude less weight than at least trying to find some part of a solution to the presented problem. While competing is a strong motivator, it can also be a corruptive influence in that it risks shifting the goal from problem solving to winning. Hence, I refrain from labeling "debates" as such if participants have their priorites in check. edit: typos and minor ramblings You won't get no glory on that side of the hole. Last edited by Upandatem on Apr 23, 2019, 7:33:33 AM
| |
|
A three-dimensional representation of a two-dimensional representation of a four-dimensional object. And that four-dimensional object you can think of as a representation of time and space … It means the same thing that music means.
" Nice summary, confirming no need to watch the thing. A few levels of learning beyond my ken, though the mechanics comes through. I notice the article mentions Lacan. Every so often the city Lacan Society sends a delightful old-fashioned and beautifully printed cardboard flyer in an envelope to the organization I work for. The flyers advertise the upcoming programmes of lectures. No-one else reads the flyers, to my knowledge. I always take them home and think, one day I might go along to one and just experience it. On reading, I got a new tablet as part of a telco deal. Might just make things easier to read than on my damn phone. Now just need to get into the habit of using it, which always takes me a while. So slow to warm to new technology, but once I do, it's all systems go. How's the current book coming along? | |
" I suppose not watching a 2-hour 'debate' is a small price to pay to maintain preconcieved, misrepresentative views; learning nothing comes at a bargain! Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, nobody has time (or energy) to follow every recorded discourse so we have to prioritize. But now you're just being a parrot. ... For charan, and anyone else who mistook this for a WWE production and thought that Zizek didn't savagely clothesline Peterson because he for some reason wasn't worthy of the effort (or some such utter nonsense), I direct you to this snippet at the end of Zizek's initial 30-minute statement @ 1:12:20. "Please, don't do this because I really think that... I hope you Jordan agree that why we are here, engaged in this debate, don't take it as a cheap competition. It may be that, but we are as you say in your introduction desperately trying to confront serious problems" This is but one example of what it may look like when one puts the importance of a subject ahead of the self-importance of ones competetive ego. So yes, there wasn't ever a serious match here, and 'slackademics' is a rich word from someone who thinks problem solving is (or should be) a fucking sport. Bleh. You won't get no glory on that side of the hole.
| |
" I feel like seeing a debate like this as "problem solving" would require the assumption of good faith on the part of both participants. As stated upthread, the fact that Peterson has spent much of his recent career railing against marxism and marxists and postmodern neomarxists (a very silly term indeed) but only now, for this debate, has bothered to do even the most basic reading of Marxist or Socialist texts, is a pretty good indicator that that's not really what's going on here. I mean, here's Benjamin Studebaker, professor at Cambridge University, with his take on Peterson's first few minutes: " Not to be too blunt, but if you've made a career out of opposing marxism, and it's so blatantly obvious that you've barely dealt with any of the material (or, y'know, you admit that you've barely dealt with any of the material, as Peterson does), there's something badly wrong. I realize this a lefty critique that even Contrapoints mocks on the regular, and most people aren't going to even read Das Kapital, let alone less-well-known books on socialist thought, but Jordan Peterson is a university professor - if anyone can be expected to do the coursework, it's him. He really doesn't have any excuse to speak so loudly on a subject he knows so little about. And in a better world, Zizek would have loudly called him on this - "Hey, wait a minute - you've done less reading than a political science freshman on this subject to prep for a public debate with me on my home turf? You've been out there decrying marxism publicly and you haven't done the slightest bit of background reading on it?!" Because it's deeply dishonest, and cuts to the core of what Peterson has been doing for the last while. This is why I think this debate isn't in good faith. Because I don't think any of Peterson's critiques of Marxism have been in good faith, just like I don't think his opposition to Bill C16 was in good faith. He hasn't engaged with the material in any meaningful sense. This is less "two open minds on a fact-finding tour", and more "Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye" or "Peter Hadfield vs. Christopher Monckton" - except Zizek never really rises to the level of Nye or Hadfield. Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof |
|
|
^ Yep, happy to not watch it.
" "desperately" is a dig, lol. | |
|
I have a hypothesis that if you write the name Jordan B. Peterson on a piece of paper and put it in your washing machine with the laundry, everything will instantly tumble even if unplugged. Wherever that name appears some stirring and tumbling gets done. I own a hardcover copy of 12 rules for life and I keep it in a safe bolted down to concrete floor for that exact reason, I don't want to find broken items in my apartment after coming back from work.
I also need to fortify my workbench to do an experiment - what will happen if this book get's placed right next to Waking Up by Sam Harris, I expect sparks but what will happen instead is most likely lvl 1 feedback loop while arguing on definition of truth, I want to record that and measure the frequency. Be ready. You're not paranoid, you're PREPARED.
I quit this game every few months and so should you to continue playing it in the future. The device is believed to have been dropped |
|
