Some see stakes er spring in times, springs us spring to words. All
right, welcome to the next discussion, as we continue the analysis of the
Jordan Peterson personality course that he did in twenty fifteen. We did this a
few weeks ago and we had a bunch of stuff come up, so I'm
glad to get back to it, and I've done the next two lectures of
his on Jean Piaget, most famous for child psychology, but according to Peterson,
is very influential and important for Carl Young, and he argues that for
Carl good Jung there is tremendous amount of influence from Jean piage I encountered PJ
in maybe one class. I think, maybe we read one thing from him
when I was doing Underground, I think, and I never really paid a
lot of attention to it. And then years later I encountered him again in
an odd way through looking at Egyptology. I'm not an egyptologist. I don't
really have that huge of an interest in Egyptology. I think it's interesting.
I think the parallels between the Memphite creation narrative in Genesis and all that stuff
is very fascinating. And I know a little bit about Egyptology. I'm certainly,
certainly not any kind of expert, but I encountered some of this through
a Egyptologist that I stumbled upon when I was looking at the parallels between how
Egyptians also had this idea, probably what passes into Plato's Timaeus, of the
microcosm of the macrocosm. So they had this idea that the human body or
maybe even you know Pharaoh or as the image of Rob, that he's a
microcosm of the macrocosm. And if you know about Plato's Tamaus, you know
Plato says that the information the Tomaus came from Solon, who was a Greek
philosopher guys statesman who went and got the traditions of the Egyptians from their priests
and brought that to the Greeks. And so the claim, at least in
the Tomaus, is that the secrets of Platonism are actually the secrets of ancient
Egyptology. So the then is that the Tomaus, which is the most famous
of Plato's, the most famous of his not ever discussed dialogues, which,
for whatever everybody talks about, you know, the other ones like Crito and
you know Faido and these southern winds. But the Tomaus is his cosmogeny,
his philosophy, theology of the origin of the universe, and so a lot
of things that you've already seen referenced in doctor Peterson's lectures, like the Ora
Borros, this is prominent in Plato's Tamaus, and other things come out of
the Tomaus that you've probably heard of, like the platonic solids, the idea
that the universe is in some ways structured from its smallest level to its macro
level. Again another kind of macrocosm microcosm relation. And for those that may
be new to this, we're just gonna I'll show you briefly here at the
platonic solide that you know, you've probably seen this in geometry mathematics that comes
up pretty frequently. That would be things like this. And if you watch
the lectures and interviews that we've done with the father Vladimir, or the talk
that we did with him live, then you've seen him analyzed. You know,
a lot of the Renaissance art in regard to these platonic solid structures,
because this is a big part of Renaissance neo platonism and esotericism, tetrahedron,
octahedron, icosahedron, hexahedron, dodecahedron, and so we get you know,
this fascinating almost mysterious presentation in the Tamaus that the universe is in some way
structured from its lowest levels to its highest levels. And for those that would
like to support the show, by the way, I did see some of
the super chats that came in night. I appreciate those. There you go,
you can support the show there anyway. Platonic solids are very important in
the Tamaus. Tomas is a very difficult enigmatic text. So it's definitely not
if you if you're not replicate Plato's dialogue, it wouldn't I wouldn't recommen sorry
that the grasses are like the highest level grass pollen allergies they've ever been here
in Tennessee. They're like out of nine today, So I'm really I've already
taken two organic allergy medicines and it's like it's not doing anything. So today
it's pretty rough. So you're just gonna have to deal with it. Was
you always snorting because I'm attacked by a demon known as pollen Boy. By
the way, there's a horror maybe that came out about a pollen demon,
so maybe I should watch that. Maybe it's insightful into what's going on.
The song in the intro is literally on the screen when the song's playing,
so everybody's who does your intro music? It literally says on the screen who
the artist is? So I don't know what why people can't figure this out.
Maybe people are new to this channel. They're like, why is the
new story to live stream? Because I didn't So that's how it is.
What was you so mean? Because I am meanest man on Internet Awards,
So welcome you guys. If you don't know. We did a previous two
parts series on Peterson and now we're continuing with lecture too. These are all
half and halfs, meaning that you get access to the first half here in
the public section, and then you get access to the second half by subscribing
to my member section on my website for four nine five months six dollars a
year. You can also subscribe on rock fin as well. It's just a
little different, but oftentimes it's the same content most of the time. A
little bit of difference between the two. But the website has all of my
archives going all the way back the last eight or nine years. So it
was about eight or nine, maybe ten years ago when I was really reading
this Egyptology stuff from one of the Egyptologists who made a lot of use of
PJ and he pointed out that there's a parallel, he thinks between what the
representation of the Egyptian gods and the ogdoad, the Hindo Ad, the hint
Ad, excuse me, the deckad, you know, the eight nine ten
key deities, which sometimes people map onto the ten Sefferat. Sometimes people map
that onto the Porphyrian tree, kind of a structure of the universe, the
tree of life structure. We saw that in the first part when we analyzed
the Peterson talk. The other good news, too, is that I will
finally be getting a table, because I'm sick of this horrible glass table and
it has annoyed me for three years straight. So people ask, what does
that sound? It is a stupid table. It's a glass table. And
I appreciate Mom for giving it to me because it was a hand me down,
free glass table. I'm sure it was a nice, expensive table,
but it's the worst possible table for live streaming. There you got. I
just did a techno remix, the Techno table remix for you guys who would
hit like and share. We're covering nonsense, just getting recovering. Jordan Peterson
on PSJ. Anyway, So pj's most famous, as everybody knows, probably
for child psychology and the locomotive aspects of how a child develops his motor functions
and relationship of his body to the external world and learns things like depth perception,
learns things like object permanence and so forth. And Peterson argues that there's
a lot of philosophy. I don't know if he even calls it that,
but as I'm hearing him lecture through PJ, I'm like, well, these
are just philosophical issues, and maybe that's why the Egyptology stuff that I was
reading ten years ago found a lot of parallel with PJA. So I haven't
read enough PJ himself to know if he is platonic or influenced by Neoplatonism.
Certainly Kadjung is neoplatonic or influenced by Platonism. The archetypes will have their patterns
and their predecessors, and platonic ideas as well as gnostic ideas. And this
isn't even controversial. Karl Young's famous Red Book is explicitly a neo Gnostic presentation.
Furthermore, other texts like Karl Young's aon which interestingly Peterson references in the
next lecture. So the next lectures on Karl Young, aon which I've not
read the entire I read the expert that I have in one of my books.
It presents a dualistic, quasi Luciferian ideology. Literally, and I'm not
being sensational. Karl Young in the essay explicitly says that Christ and lucifer are
the same. They're flip sides of the same dialectical coin. He says,
Antichrist is Christ. They're just kind of the same coin, flipped from different
perspectives. And that's part of the reason why Peterson in the Karl Young talk,
which is the one after this, which will be covering in the part
too for subscribers, Peterson says Young is one of the most frightening thinkers of
all time. He keeps using this Young's terrifying why he's absolutely terrifying, right,
and then ties it in with a lot of Nietzsche again, so the
borders of psychology and philosophy are very blurred, and I don't have a problem
with it. It's just that I don't know that Peterson's focus on psychology it
kind of translates into what he's saying philosophically and ironically, some of the texts
that I've been working through more recently that deal with metaphysics in the first thousand
years of Christianity, they actually it's actually dealing with the very things that Peterson
is translating to his psychology audience in these lectures. So it's really weird,
kind of a providential synchronicity, shall we say, Karl good John. By
the way, my rap name is young Boomer, like Junng Jung Boomer.
If you guys would hit like and share support the show of I extremely I
was by the right, the link is in the show description. Stream Labs
is how we do super chats now since twenty eighteen, so we've been demonetized
since twenty eighteen, so it's all through stream labs, So you use the
stream labs link if you guys would. By the way, I don't know
why the volume was so low. It's like it resets so annoying. Is
that better? It's weird? So back to you know, PJ. As
we said, Peterson sees him as tremendously influential for Krawl Young, and when
we get to Young we'll see why. But I wish Peterson had focused more
on archetypes in the Young lecture. He mainly talks about a lot of things
that occurred in the twentieth century to kind of scare people. And I guess
he's just looking for events cold war, you know, apocalypticism, whatever that
touches us on a deep level of our our deepest seated fears. So he
probably thought that was a more practical way to translate these ideas to his audience.
But in regard to PJ, he says that is interested in knowledge,
which is interesting because you know, in the history of epistemology, what happens
in the twentieth century especially, is that epistemology kind of capitulates to psychology and
psychologism. And that's not to say that there aren't philosophers that you know,
don't continue to do epistemology or analytical philosophy, and you know, analytical epistemology
or something like that that does exist, but the predominant majority opinion, you
know, kind of is moving in that direction of science antism, and Neil
de grass Tyson's kind of you know, what's the point of philosophy, What's
what's even the point of it? It's what's the time? Right, So
I'm talking in terms of like predominant percentages, right, more and more the
study of psychology. And this is what we get in Quine, right,
Quine's naturalized epistemology is really just psychology, and he says something to that effect,
Right, what's the point of epistemology anymore? We might as well just
do psychology. We're just studying brain states. It's no longer about theory of
knowledge, the status of knowledge, right, meta epistemology, that's all done,
because that's all medieval stuff, right, post Kant, post Hume,
it's all done. So Peterson again is launching into a theory of knowledge,
which is not really a theory of knowledge, but it's attempting to be via
PG. I'm not saying that Peterson agrees report with PJ, but will notice
as he lectures through this that he is touching on epistemology issues while trying to
remain in the domain of psychology, and so he says the PJ is actually
not so much focused on child psychology, which is what he's known for,
but he actually wrote like vast volumes of texts that deal with what we would
call philosophical questions. What is knowledge is a pressing issue for PJ. And
in the process of modernity, knowledge is not a state, according to PJ.
So I detect from Peterson that we're moving into the domain of the pragmatic.
We can learn things, we can know facts, and what is the
law of this process? Apparently is one of the concerns of PJ. And
he launches into a discussion of Thomas Cohon's scientific Structure Scientific Relations, which,
as every hopefully in this audience, famous text one awards because it was dealing
with the fact that when new revolutionary ideas and science emerge, they are not
immediately adopted on the basis of who has the best facts and logic. In
fact, new ideas are almost universally dismissed and opposed, and that's because the
entrenched paradigms don't want to give up the entrenched paradigm and kind of makes sense
in terms of, you know, human weaknesses why that would be nobody wants
to be wrong, Nobody wants to give up their entrenched system. They cling
to it. We see this in every debate, every time a position is
challenged, every time somebody has their paradigm kind of collapsed and destroyed in a
debate, or you know, in a conversion situation. It's a very arduous
struggle that people go through. It's a kind of death and resurrection, which
Peterson, for instance, the previous lecture right converting from atheism to you know,
something else, or from religion to atheism, right, that these processes
are oftentimes can be very upending and tumultuous and a kind of death even,
and so scientific revolutions are no different. A lot of the famous Coon book,
which argues basically that we're all kind of stuck in our ivory towers,
and we can't get out of these ivory towers because systems are incommensurate. They're
incommensurable, they don't overlap, and so you have your system, my system,
and so what happens is that one system just has to basically replace the
old system. That's it. And that just happens over time as the old
system wears down. But It's insightful because the book demonstrates that the way most
normies, for example, think about how science works, all the scientism soy
Reddit people, doesn't work that way. There's not a high council of science
that just estigates the objective facts and knowledge and then adopts the new correct position.
Totally ridiculous, naive, and nonsensical just given basic human nature. So
I certainly think you could critique Koon's conclusion that will therefore all paradigms are incommensurate
and we can never be outside of our paradigms, because Koon doesn't consider the
possibility of transcendental arguments and comparing and contrasting paradigms as a whole, and that
you can actually prove in disprove paradigms based on transcenial arguments. But Koon's book
is great, it's illustrative, it's relevant for showing that there's no such thing
as a theory neutral objective science. Science is part of some paradigm, and
thus it cannot operate as a non theory laden adjudicator of truth, falsehood,
fact, lie, etc. It's not possible, by the very by the
very virtue of what it is. It literally cannot do that. And you've
seen us bring those up many times in debates with atheists naturalists when they bring
up value judgments, you know, when they try to have is oughts derived
from is. And so you know Peterson understands that much, at least because
he recently brought it up with Sam Harris. But uh, you know PJ.
He's saying, then has this concern post you know, dealing with koons
stuff. He because he Peterson, I'm saying, sites the coun stuff.
And then so the idea here is that will children have sequences of in stages
of development? And this of course what PJ is mainly known for. But
the idea here is that can we find a schema, a repeated pattern amongst
many instances of events or perception of objects, or the growth of a child,
et cetera that creates it's a mental structure, a schema you know,
maybe kants categories which are just psychologized versions of Aristoli's categories, something like this
that allows us to interpret and give meaning to the world. And so you
know, this is probably I haven't watched maps of meaning yet, but I
assume this overlaps with maps of meaning and how we need underlying archetypal structures or
universals, or a lot of problem with the one of the many, and
so forth, going back to played with the priestsocratics in order to predicate and
have meaning at all. So again I have not gotten to maps of meaning
yet I'm assuming, based on what I've just heard, that that's probably the
kind of direction that he will go in. And again it's not surprising because
of course Carl Young does have platonic influence. Let's see he mentions constructivism and
he says that our I'm assuming I think he means our schemas are they genetic?
Like what gives us meaning and perception and consciousness is a genetic or is
it environmental? Maybe it's a false dialectic. He says the environment is actually
an information field. I agree with that we integrate that into our own inner
information processor here, and so information in information also is symbiotic. There's an
active approach to knowing you've heard me. In reference to Alba noe book Action
and Perception, that's one of the arguments of that book is that there's a
symbiotic relationship between perception not being just a blank slate receiving thing on our end
tyby Larrassa, but actually that there's an inactive approach that we are active in
perceiving. So that ties in also with PJA because in the no A book
there's a lot of discussions of infant locomotion and how babies learned depth, perception
and stuff like that. So he argues that there's a pragmatic approach that PJ
has, which is that knowledge is not merely abstract or propositional, but that
there is this learned experiential approach to knowledge. And thus infants and other you
know, entities, creatures, presumably animals as well, infant animals, infant
baby, human babies, et cetera, they develop these schema and structures from
experience, at least in part. Hence the pragmatic element here. PJ is
very pragmatic, Peterson says. And he's also interested in how you as an
individual to apply the knowledge that you obtain. So I think there's definitely insights
in this. That's why I'm trying to translate it into you know, the
Alvinoe book Action and Perception, because probably and I haven't read that book in
many years, but I mean PGA might even be cited in the book and
don't recall it wouldn't be surprised because seems like they're interested in the same issues
and questions. And then Peterson mentions that point I said about new information coming
in and can conceivably then demolish older paradigms, and he likens this to when
you're a child and you know, you're learning to move around the room and
babies are crying and bumping into things, and then so you know, you
bump into something three or four times as a child, and it's a little
mini traumatic experience, and so now you know not to try to run into
the wall because you can't run through walls like a Jedi in Minister Goats.
So you've learned from this mini trauma to re configure how you go about interacting
in the world. Solid objects do not allow me to pass through them.
Thus, new information can demolish our paradigms, and then we reconfigure and restructure
in our inner workings how we then act in the world. And he's saying
that you can then take those principles that you apply to a child and their
development of you know, locomotive functions and all that, and apply that on
a bigger scale to what happens to you know, individuals when they are older
and they encounter new information that you know, argumentation that demolishes their previous paradigm.
I'm a Protestant that I encounter, you know, arguments from the Church
fathers, and then my whole worldview collapses something like this, or Pearson also
likens it to drug experiences where you have a really you know, explosive bad
trip or something like that, maybe not even a bad trip, and it
you know, absolute and seeing God, dude, you know, something like
that, your worldview changes. New information thus demolish our paradigms and create a
new kind of up thrower direction, which you mentioned in the previous talk in
Trench paradigms can resist change. That's the point of referring to Thomas Coon,
as we said, and he's saying that that's a humans work. There was
an interesting talk too about the limitations. Now this was a twenty fifteen lecture,
and he goes into start talking about darpadogs, so he's kind of hinting
at transhumanism and AI and the capabilities and possibilities. And he did make a
good point that even at that time now maybe darp and m I T have
overcome this difficulty. But he was making the point that a lot of things
that we think, oh, computers are going to take over everything, probably
not. I mean, because even something that you might think is innocuous,
like busting a table, Peterson points out that that's a really complex task that,
as far as he was arguing at that time, Uh, DARPA has
not been able to create a robot that can successfully clean tables, right,
because it involves all kinds of you know, equations, I guess to figure
out, oh, this spill needs to be wiped, this glass has turned
over, it needs to be turned up, and you know, all this
kind of stuff is very complex that you might think, oh, well,
we could easily create you know, uh diner waitress bot. You need more,
You need more tighter dots with that. Oh, you nate more tighter
dots. If you go in a diner, right, there's always a raspy
cigarette voiced woman in there. You want more tighter dods with that cannot clean
up your table. Maybe y'all have never been into a diner or a greasy
spoon in the South. Well, now, uh, Virginia Slim Grandma is
going to be replaced with Virginia on Grandma bought word, straight busting, straight
busting tables. Baby, Grandma will never raspy Virginia slim taighter tot. Grandma
will never be replaced. You can quote Jordan Peterson on that one. Baby.
By the way, if you want to support the show by stream labs,
you can use the stream labs function. We've only had one super chat.
Everybody's being stingy today. It's okay. If you enjoy this, you
can support me right there and we are learning about Jean pj Jean. That's
the name of the diner, raspy cigarette tatter, todd waitress. Her name's
Jane. Going over there to Jay. Give you some small tighter tots.
Honey, you want small Calvey, you only top at coffee if honey,
okay, darling tighter tots. Grow your own grandma some what he Sam just
kidding? Build your own grandma like Anakin built three po remember that? Are
you an angel? Are you an angel? I want to be in the
race, Oh Anny, Oh Lenny, Oh shit, what do I do?
I hit their own button? Oh Lenny, I'm trying to remember some
of Annie's stupid lines. He's got some real zingers when he's talking to Wado
Remember that, But I can't remember the dumb lines and he has, He's
always like he's It's like Qui gon Gin shows up and they're eating dinner and
Annie just blurt. Annie is blurting out all this nonsense and bragging about the
Bunta race, bragging about building freaking building a gay robot. It's like Anakin,
why why would you build a gay British robot? Are you an angel?
And then he that's he's trying to spit game at Natalie Portman says,
are you an angel? What's another one of Annie's lines? I've already forgotten?
Are you my dad? Now? This is podcasting, right? Who
else is gonna give you an Annie impression and a Wado impression out the middle
of nowhere? Bro? Not a little orphan Annie. I'm talking about Anakin
Skywalker day. Ain't you ever seen fans on there? That's wrong? Y'allly
never seen Fantom Menace. He's got some really dumb lines. I'm trying to
remember some other lines anyway, I can't remember my top of my head.
You got Liam Neeson over there making up bullshit science submit his Midclorian counters off
the charts. Midaclorian, dude, faking gay. They ain't no such thing
as Mediclorian's. That's a bunch of dang pseudo science made up Non's meta clorians.
Give me a Breakdobe, you slept through phantoms? What's another one of
his funny lines. If you go back and watch Phantom Menace, Jamie and
I watched noting like we were laughing at just how ridiculous Andy's lines are.
He's just constantly blurting out all this nonsense and he's he's constantly blurting and bragging.
He's really annoying as a kid. But it's also funny when you watch
it, like you go watch it, it's he will The movie is so
cheeseball and corny that it'll make you laugh. And I don't know who's who's
worse, Annie or jar Jar. It's hard to say. Jar Jar is
kind of like he's come out like it's so bad that it's come out the
other end that it's good, you know what I mean, like Jingle all
the way right, there's this there's this rare class of movies that were like
big kind of you know theatrical release movies that are so bad that they actually
come out the other end. It's like the oral boros of bad movies.
It comes out the butt of that snake that they're good. And I would
actually class Phantom Menace as one of these. It's it's so bad that when
you now go back and watch it is super entertaining. Anyway, maybe we
could tie the medical Oreans into this Jordan Peterson conversation. By the way,
Jordan is all in the news today because the COMMI Canadian government, the calm
Nadian government, has mandated that doctor JBP has to go to re education.
I'm not joking. You can't make this up. I saw this headline today
when I was putting this up about JBP, and I'm like, surely they
wouldn't openly call it re education. Oh no, they do. No,
it is re education. Let's see what the news says here. Let's see
what the normy news says. Normy news. Ontario court rules that Jordan Peterson
must undergo media training. One of them calls it. One of them called
it re education. Maybe that was just people in the Twitter calling it that.
No, forced re education. Let's see what this is seventy five thousand
signatures and counting on the petition calling on Ontario College of Psychologists to abandon the
force re education. So this is him saying this what today? Is this
today? Yeah, this is like a few minutes ago. Okay, So
here's Joran Peterson staying this a few minutes ago. Uh, that's pretty crazy.
I mean it's almost like in twenty twenty, everything uncloaked in regard to
like the globalization, global elites and all that. Everything just they just fully
uncloaked. All right, all right, you got us, We want you
all dad, We're gonna use all the psy ops to koup lock you down.
Uh, we're gonna we're gonna put every education. Yeah yeah, okay,
fine, It's like they just uncloaked. All right, fine, you
got us. Yes, all the conspiracies were correct and everything that you can
is there. Said, now, where's Jordan Peterson on you know, the
conspiracy stuff? Because multiple things that we've seen Jordan Peterson over the last five
years shy away from, he's then had to come back around and say,
oh, I guess you guys were right, But he still won't say conspiracy
theorists are right and you know that's something that I am critical of. So
I'm glad that Jordan Peterson has distanced himself from and rejected the sustainability climate scam
stuff. Okay, but that means that I wasn't a conspiracy theorist. You
say that means I was correct because I said that that was a globalist scam
all along. Stabby's koup right about that. Guess what when it comes to
a lot of these other things that doctor Peterson had the RFK on, like
the CIA, and jfk Oh been right about that too, talking about that
for fifteen twenty years, Guess what we're right about the other things too,
Big nine right in Kiltra, We're right about all those other things. So
maybe we know about this other stuff that we've been talking about for twenty years
that the normay people are just now figuring out. I'm not knocking the normal
persons for just now figuring it out. Come on into the hot tub.
The water's warm and we've been waiting for y'all. But look, don't be
trying to take a bunch of credit like you broke these stories or figured all
this shit out after calling us tempol hack kooks for the last twenty years,
ridicule, mocking people losing their jobs, worse over these topics for the last
twenty years. This is the great era of vindications, the last three years
especially. I can't even keep up with all of the conspiracies that have been
correct. Like Harrison Smith made that video, he went there, like twenty
of them where we've been right. I guess, well, there's more than
that now. I didn't get everything right right. And that's part of what
Peterson is getting into in this talk actually, which is new information should does
and ought to re orient our paradigm. However, as human beings, because
we are falling, in my view by the way twenty fourteen, fifteen twenty
fourteen lectures, we often resist change. And I couldn't help. But as
I listened to this lecture of doctor Peterson, and I'm not knocking him when
I say this, it's honest thoughts and criticism. Again, he says a
lot of true things, but also I have some critiques. One of those
critiques say is the very thing that you say here in this And then the
next lecture about krul Young about being open minded, highly open individuals, creative
individuals, they ought to be open to information and going where the data leads,
even if it's uncomfortable. Well, you mean, like where we conspiracy.
There's have been telling you for the last what how many years has Joan
Peterson has been popular now, twenty fifteen sixteen? Is that when he really
started popping off? Okay, so we're almost ten years. We're eight years
into the popularity of Peterson. And from that initial period, many many,
many conspiracy people who many of them done. I mean, RFK is he
count as a conspiracy theorist? I mean he's just a So this is becoming
the norm and it's just more and more difficult to really make that boomer era
label stick. It's such a boomer critique, right, Oh, he's a
conspiracy theorist because look, we're in the age of the Internet. This stuff
comes out, people are people are figuring all this out at faster and faster
speeds. Yes, there's a lot of normies. It's still taking people too
long to figure out stuff. But look this profile who promotes my stuff version
and versionism he put up the other day. This look right, and I'm
I'll share it with you guys. I mean, we're at the point where
you know, this gets thousands of likes, over a thousand shares in no
time. The conspiracy theorist title was created, concocted by the CIA to manage
perception and destroy the credibility and character of the people questioning the JFK event.
So what's interesting is that even if you don't believe the narrative of conspiracy,
even if you think the official story of JFK is the case, why would
the CIA have to concoct an entire psychological operation geared towards discrediting and attacking the
people who are questioning the Warren Commission back in the sixties. Ergo, Conspiracy
theorist is a CIA created term, a weaponized term, just like Tavistock and
other entities weaponized terms like isolationism. That's part of what they do at Tavistock.
Been talking about that for how many years? Lord Valdemort talked about it
yesterday, and there you have it, weaponized term, conspiracy theorist. In
other words, they were raising good questions, and so rather than deal with
their questioning of the JFK event, destroy them and their character. This was
in the nineteen sixties, the late sixties. Is this CIA document. It
was declassified in ninety three. It's a nineteen sixty seven CIA document. So
do you understand this is mockingbird stuff? We just covered mocking Bird. I've
got the freaking Wilson. I've been reading the mocking Bird book by the dude
that wrote the book on it. We did a whole talk on that.
We broke down. This is not new, guys. I mean you think
ministream media is corrupt? Trump called it up. It's been corrupt for back
to freaking Rockefeller, Howard or Hurst. What are you talking about? Quickly
talks about mainstream media and publications being corrupt at last hundred years. Quickly says
in Anglo American establishment that the British elite bought the Rothschilds, et cetera.
They bought off all the major publications in the UK in the eighteen nineties and
nine. It's like, what are you talking about? The media's corrupt?
Oh well, welcome to level one of what we've researched and talked about for
twenty years. So now I'm not being mean or rude. I'm happy that
people are waking up to it. But look, y'all need to get up
to speed, and you need to get out of this childish, ridiculous attitude
of trying to take credit for stuff that people have been putting out for twenty
thirty years or more, acting like y'all figuring this stuff. You didn't figure
this stuff out. You made fun of everybody who talked about it, disc
to everybody who talked about it for the last twenty years. All right,
So Pierson needs to, I think, get up to speed on this stuff
daily wire and all those people they don't want to touch, They don't want
to talk about conspiracy, even though it's in everybody's face. So I mean,
I'm sorry that Boomers can't deal with conspiracy. It's just a reality.
And it's not my fault that y'all are super conditioned. Okay, conspiracies are
real, doesn't mean they're all real. There's there's a lot of disinformation.
There's a lot of dumb stuff out there that itself is also a conspiracy theory
because or an actual conspiracy, I should say, because I can give you
the paper that Cass Sunstein wrote about how to This is an updated form of
what you see in the document by the CIA, where Cass Sunsteen is tasked
with and gives the philosophy for how to disrupt online truth communities by interjecting false
misinformation conspiracy theories. I read this paper back when it came out. This
came out in two thousand and eight. Here it is. You guys can
go read it, maybe learn how this stuff works. He was Obama's one
of Obama's oars, and then he went on to the NSA conspiracy theories,
how they work, and then how to undo them by interjecting false conspiracies into
their Internet cultures, mean groups, thread groups, forums, etc. I
mean, I've been studying this for a long time. I'm pretty sure I
understand how this stuff works. But we got all these people who don't know
anything or they are new to all this, and it's just hard to get
through to these people. But the irony again, if we want to be
open to new information, then you can't be locked into a paradigm that shuts
out the information that people like myself talk about. And Peterson himself says you
should be open to these kinds of pieces of information in these talks, So
I'm just holding him to what he says. So Page, as we said,
was interested in mind, body, into relations and how they relate to
material things and There's an interesting bit in this lecture that dealt with criticisms of
AI and transhumanism and how you know, there's a lot of these a lot
of stuff isn't really going to do what they claim it's going to do,
so that I agree with. That was a really good insight there. Humans
imitate, babies learned by imitation. Pearson launches into an interesting talk about Russians
and people doing impressions and how we do that when we're babies. We imitate
adults, people that we look up to when we're kids. This is part
of how humans learned. This was something that Poja was very interested in,
and so Peterson then ties that into the way that humans construct archetypes. One
thing that Peterson doesn't touch on in this talk is the actual ontological status of
archetypes, which I'm interested in. What does he think they are, Where
does he think they're located. Are they in the divine mind? Are they
purely human mental constructs? Is he a platonist where there's an ethereal and personal
ideal realm? Would have to see, But at this point he's just dealing
with poj schemas that are constructed out of an infant learning the way that he
can operate in the world. And the reason I brought up the Egyptology stuff
is because I was saying many years ago I read a bunch of dis guy's
Egyptology philosophy, which is fastating. I think this guy is kind of a
he's a perennialist. Certainly, I'm not agreeing with or accepting all of his
perennialist views, but in them Van den Dungan the perennialist egyptology guy. He
has a lot of analyzes of Egyptology and Egyptian philosophy, how it influenced for
example, the Les and Aximun or Pythagoras. So the pre Socratics people like
this, they're dealing with questions that weren't necessarily made up by them. But
Allah of the Tomaus could have potentially come from Egypt. And again, it's
been probably ten years since I read any of Van den Dungan's stuff, but
to my best recollection, and I think I cited him in some of my
essays. His idea is that it is true that Platonism, he argues,
is Egyptology. So I'm sure scholars would say, oh, you know,
in the Tomayus, this is a myth, this is all made up.
Anyway, What does this have to do with what we're talking about. Well,
he makes a lot of interesting parallels to PJ. And you'll notice here
he talks about my own understanding of the philosophy of Egyptology is that it comes
from My contribution is from epistemology to Egyptology, layering the cognitive growth in modes
of thought which developed in stages. This is the genetic approach of PJ.
So he utilizes the structures that we find in Egyptology and the gods of Egypt
as mapping onto archetypal figures, and Peterson does that as well. Again,
I've not read enough Peja to know if Poja himself has any association with Egyptology,
but as we saw in the early Peterson lectures, Peterson makes this connection.
So perhaps Peterson has read Bunggan. I don't know Bend, but he
says the Father, Peter, that is, Peterson takes his PG lecture to
talking about the Father, the Great Father, how the Great Father plays this
role in society. This, again, in the earlier Peterson talks was from
Egyptology sites. Oh, Peterson brings in these other kind of random I don't
know why he brings in Daoism, but he brings in these random statements about
Daoism that all things are nothing, which I think is a nonsense statement.
And he says he has this example of the Daoists that if you had every
symphony ever on a recording and you layered it to have all of them playing
at once, it would be white noise, and so therefore all things are
nothing. This is a ridiculous category mistake in terms of metaphysics. So the
fact that a bunch of things being sounds being made at once that are that
then become incoherent, does not mean that the sounds disappear. They're still there,
and it doesn't mean that they're no thing. Right, So bringing in
the weird Daoist you know, pseudo contradictions, I don't know why he brings
that in. But humans imitate. Humans develop through imitation. We learn this
from planned sequences of behaviors. Babies want to get from point eight to point
B. They do this many times, and this path the structures there their
way of doing this, and then they create schemas and this is how it's
adopted into Vander Dungen's Egyptology, which is so the baby, for example,
has a father and a mother, and so multiple years of interactions between mom
and dad, the baby develops this schema, this mental structure about the relationship
that's proper to the mom and to the Thus the child develops the father archetype,
which is a real archetype. But exactly what it means to be real,
we don't know yet. We're gonna have to wait and see where Peterson
goes in the next talk. So we had a couple of super jests.
Renegade ran eight sixty five. Thank you so much for that A season's five
dollars. I think no, that was from last time. BMX thirty dollars,
Thank you so much. BMX is always a faithful super chat to appreciate
that. Guys, if you would hit, like and share. Also remember
to head on over to chalk dot com, that is Chalk dot com with
choq dot com to get access to the best supplements out there, like the
Sheila Jit one hundred. But I've been chatting quite a bit with Sam Hide
and We're gonna try to figure out a way that I can go train under
the Candyman himself. But we gotta figure out who I can box against.
So Sam and I've been chatting about that and he's like, look, you
gotta start running. So I've actually been running, which I hate to do,
but I gotta get up to like twenty laps, which is crazy.
Freaking hate running, dude. I don't know. I love exercise, it's
just I don't like to run. I don't mind basketball because basketball is not
essentially running. It is essentially putting the ball in the hoop. Running is
part of it, but it's the unfortunate part of it anyway. But look
forward to that. I look forward to that. So if we can make
that work, it's gonna be a lot of fun. There was something else
I had with Vanden Dungen I can't remember. I think we need to save
this. I was gonna talk about e Wallace Budge and Egyptian temples. There's
parallels interatly between Egyptian worship temples and the way that God had the Old Testament
Temple structured. And I'm not saying that the Jews ripped off the Egyptians.
No, to the contrary, probably Egyptians ripped off the Jewish worship. In
my view, but that's a whole other issue too, about biblical history and
chronology. Cedric says, for five dollars a love of your work. The
recent hype on the civilizations that are lost in ancient Egypt, it might be
a PSI op with UAP stuff. Yeah, I just think that when it
comes to a lot of ancient lost civilizations, we just don't know enough about
it. It's very speculative. I find it all very fascinating, and you
know, I'm open minded about the various possibilities of you know, could ancient
civilizations have had advanced technology. I suppose that's possible. I mean, I
don't know. There's a lot of inexplicable megaliths that are out there now.
Some of the megaliths are explicable. There's easily ways through h you know,
pull systems and h you know, various weights and measures to build and move
giant blocks without having to have levitation technology or alien ancient alien garbage. But
perhaps they're where advanced ancients. I don't I don't, you know, I'm
always open minded about anything, right, Like, we're gonna be doing some
upcoming you know, ghost streams and uh, like I said, you know,
it looks like there's a lot of there's a lot of videos that don't
look to be doctored where because like there's some genuine paranormal stuff going on,
probably demonic stuff. Right, So you know, I'm not a closed minded
person, but I've also seen a lot of jibber jabber and nonsense and the
whole domain of law civilizations, ancient civilizations, Nephelim and Anoki, it's just
fraught with a bunch of kooks and conman So it would be nice if an
open minded person could in somebody combine that with academia. You know, if
maybe if I had become a bitcoin zillionaire one day, I'll just like take
a few years and try to write a scholarly approach to ancient civilizations, and
I'll go on some kind of like quasi Indiana Jones quest, like I wanna
be larp as Indiana Jones or something and go study mega liiths. I don't
know, it just sounds fun, but alright, So heading over to chalk
dot com, choq dot com, get Ahold of the Tall Kettle, use
the Promoco J fifty right, if you use j Y five zero, we
get fifty percent off. They've also got the cacalbeans. They've also got the
chocolate as you see right here. Great products. You can add that chocolate
to your daily smoothie regimen or to whatever dessert tastes like chocolate, no sugar,
and none of that stuff. You know the action two point out to
boost your energy levels. Use the Promoco J fifty J Y five zero to
get fifty percent off. Also remember to check out our sister shows on podcast
like Grand Up World over at Rockfin. My buddy Richard Grove has been killing
it over there with Grand Theft World, one of the best podcasts that you
can find out there when it comes to covering a lot of the geopolitical topics.
I'll give you his link right here. Be sure and subscribe to him
over on Rockfin. He and Tony are putting out some killer content on a
regular basis. I'm a little bit behind. I've not been able to catch
up to the quality that Richard puts out. But there's the link on Rockfin.
You can also subcribe to subscribe to me at rock fin, which is
one of the best free speech based platforms out there. Are okay f I
n You get access to everybody if you do the paid subscription on Rockfin,
including myself, Sam Tripoli, Whitney Webb, Richard Grove, Isaac wisshopped,
tons and tons of my wife Jamie might have her to her tons and tons
of cool people over on rock fin, so be sure and subscribe there.
Also follow me on Twitter. Shout out to myself. I'm laughing like waxing
over here. Hey, do whatever relevant your girl I is. I hit
fifty k baby, Thank you all to the audience, to y'all people out
here. We hit fifty k right there, shout out. Couldn't have done
it without y'all. We're getting quite a bit of growth on Twitter and that's
been pretty good, so happy about that. It seems like everywhere else it's
hard. I mean, rack fins great, but in terms of like the
mainline platforms, it's just really hard to grow. And Twitter seems to be
really good for me in terms of growth. So be sure and get over
there. If you're not on my Twitter, you can always get as we
said, the philosophy course. Philosophy courses also through Autonomy of Gore. That's
Richard's site right there, Reason University Autonomy a Gore a marketplace you can get
my full philosophy course, thirty plus hours of lectures in Q and a right
there on the history of Western philosophy from the Preestocratics all the way up to
the Nietzschean postmodern period. Mister, mister Anderson, mister Anderson, five dollars.
Have you read Farrell's Geeza book. I read it ten years ago,
so yeah, I've read a lot of those texts. I think it's very
speculative. I do not believe that the Pyramids were weapons. Doesn't mean that
I'm not open to various people's megalithic theories, but I don't believe that it
was a weapon. So if guys would hit like a share and if you
want access to the second part of this, you can subscribe to my website,
Jaysonalysis. It's in the show description and we will be covering Peterson on Karl Gajong