I don't even know how to title this

[tsuki]

https://youtube.com/shorts/p_a6_eTBNbc?feature=share

Props for trying Jordan... I guess...

[kinesin]

Why don't you say what you actually mean?  What are you trying to show us?  What's the intention behind reposting the clip?

[tsuki]

Alright, I'll take a shot.

JP is on a crusade against postmodernists and relativists because according to him, deconstruction leads to nihilism, resentment and the fall of society.

Here, he's admitting that he failed to grasp what Derrida was getting at because "he was playing games", and was bad at articulating his thoughts.

I get it, Derrida is notoriously difficult to read and like I said: it's admirable that he actually tried to read the book, but his dismissal of his ideas is in line with the ideology he's selling.

[kinesin]

@tsuki  His point though, is that often when a thing is 'notoriously difficult' for honest and intelligent people to understand it's because it actually doesn't make any sense.  Less intelligent people who aren't as aware of their own judgments go on to claim understanding of it, when all they actually did was essentially scry their own personal interpretation out of the text.

Infact, Derrida cannot be understood because there is nothing there to understand.  If there were infact something real within his works to grasp onto, that essence itself would be subject to deconstruction and it would be immediately torn down.

Critique is the favourite pastime of the mid-witted, and ultimately to those midwits, Derrida stands as a mythological symbol who gives them not only permission to critique, but makes the action appear honourable.  Get 2 Derrida sycophants together and they'll have a great time for hours telling one another that they've misunderstood it all, and each will happily play the social game of listening intently in exchange for the same in return while really, neither of them understands anything the other has said.  Ironically though for a philosophy founded in the belief that one cannot truly understand things, the sycophants will never dare to admit their own failure to understand.

Edited June 21, 2021 by kinesin

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, kinesin said:

Derrida cannot be understood because there is nothing there to understand. 

There is something profound behind post-modernism: relativity.

Few people truly understand it.

[SOUL]

Peterson is a fervent believer in hierarchical authoritarianism and the socially enforced 'traditions' so anything that questions the hierarchy and explores nontraditional expression to him is chaotic evil which he sees as 'destroying' his safety blanket belief system so he fears and hates it.

It's one thing to derive meaning from the traditional but it's another thing to assign morality on it which Peterson joins in with the religious conservative ideologues that calls evil anything or anyone that doesn't adhere to what they deem 'traditional' values at any given moment.

Traditions change and evolve with society so if some people are using it to publicly denigrate and actively discriminate against those that don't believe as they do it's antithetical to individual freedoms that he and those others talk out of the other side of their mouth do profess to support.

Edited June 22, 2021 by SOUL

[tsuki]

9 hours ago, kinesin said:

@tsuki  Infact, Derrida cannot be understood because there is nothing there to understand.  If there were infact something real within his works to grasp onto, that essence itself would be subject to deconstruction and it would be immediately torn down.

The fact that something cannot be expressed with language does not mean that it is unreal. There are things that language is built upon, and are real, and yet, cannot be articulated. One of such things is understanding. If pure understanding was a feature of language, then how would you learn language in the first place?

Another thing language is contingent upon is perspective. You cannot say what perspective is without building a perspective of a perspective. Similarly, you cannot positively describe what perspective is made of without dismantling the perspective. These are movements in a domain that is prior to language and cannot be positively articulated.

Similarly, you cannot form a method of dismantling perspectives because it would be constrained by a perspective. This is why deconstruction is difficult to grasp - because it is not constrained by the same thinking that thinks in language.

[Depersonilized]

@tsuki I don't think that's entirely true. Understanding can be pointed to with language, and the number one way this is done is with analogies. They force you to think about what the author is trying to communicate. This is why sages speak in parables. An indicator that someone understands something well is that they can explain it in their own words and is articulated well enough for the reader to be able to grasp. Analogies is one of those ways. Understanding itself is the integration of the many aspects involved with a complex idea. An analogy could be analogous to the idea of the archetypal dream, which I believe, is the integration of the emotions involved with a complex idea. Obviously there is more to that portion, but this is the simplest explanation. If an idea is miscomminicated or communicated improperly, it is an indicator that the author doesn't really grasp what they're saying even if there is some kind of fuzzy vision they have. In these instances, I'd stop blaming language and start being skeptical of the source of the ideas beyond the ideas the author is promoting. 

Whatever you think about JP doesn't really mean much in this instance because he is 100% correct here. If you cannot articulate your ideas well, you should put a disclaimer that you don't grasp what you are saying well enough yet. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Depersonilized
Grammer

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, Depersonilized said:

I don't think that's entirely true. Understanding can be pointed to with language, and the number one way this is done is with analogies. They force you to think about what the author is trying to communicate. This is why sages speak in parables.

You can teach someone that is willing to listen by creating analogies, but you cannot make them understand. Understanding is not contained within language. It is a movement that has to be performed for oneself, in response to what is being said. 

I don't think we're in a disagreement here. 

1 hour ago, Depersonilized said:

An indicator that someone understands something well is that they can explain it in their own words and is articulated well enough for the reader to be able to grasp.

This is a very Petersonian idea. He predominantly thinks in words and this statement smuggles in the assumption that this way of thinking is special or superior. 

There are domains that are alien to language and cannot be expressed coherently. One of such domains are archetypal experiences, which, by their very nature are nebulous, paradoxical and illogical (by the conventional use of this term). He, of all people, should be aware of this.

1 hour ago, Depersonilized said:

Understanding itself is the integration of the many aspects involved with a complex idea. An analogy could be analogous to the idea of the archetypal dream, which I believe, is the integration of the emotions involved with a complex idea.

I did not understand this paragraph. My understanding of Jung's archetypes does not correspond with this. Jung is clear in that archetypal experiences cannot be fully articulated, or made clearly meaningful because they express themselves in symbols that point towards things that we cannot consciously experience. Yet, trying to describe them is beneficial to mental health.

1 hour ago, Depersonilized said:

If an idea is miscomminicated or communicated improperly, it is an indicator that the author doesn't really grasp what they're saying even if there is some kind of fuzzy vision they have. In these instances, I'd stop blaming language and start being skeptical of the source of the ideas beyond the ideas the author is promoting. 

Again, understanding is not necessarily descriptive, but it is rather operative. One understands a hammer, when he is able to hammer a nail in. One understands communication if he is able to articulate ideas. These two domains are disjoint and both express intelligence.

1 hour ago, Depersonilized said:

Whatever you think about JP doesn't really mean much in this instance because he is 100% correct here.

I appreciate him for his psychological knowledge, not for his philosophy or political thought.

Edited June 22, 2021 by tsuki

[Applegarden8]

There is actually a valid point behind and there is an example of this. For example the more profound knowledge Leo acquires, the harder is to transmit it, so in order for that transmission to be as effective as possible, he has to take the burden of making it possible to understand and as easy to understand to whom he is transmitting and if he failed, what's the value of his en-devour to raise the human consciousness. This is applicable to every field. Yes, the consumer/the one who is getting the transmission also can be at fault in many ways.

So in short Leo has to use analogies, images, some sort of engaging exercises, meditation, detox, reminders, abstractions, reference to other people, even logical contradictions. emotion e.c.t. in a mix that would work, and not only that. In a mic that would work as efficiently as possible, so in education this is extremely relevant, and valuable facts, experiences of life can be transmitted trough various means and previous education - even things like shaktipat or a satori experience can aid in understanding certain literature. 

[Depersonilized]

12 hours ago, tsuki said:

This is a very Petersonian idea. He predominantly thinks in words and this statement smuggles in the assumption that this way of thinking is special or superior. 

I was specific about this by saying "an indicator". Not "the only indicator." That insight is something you can realize on your own. I find it odd that you would think I'm saying it is superior to another indicator. I never said that. 

12 hours ago, tsuki said:

I did not understand this paragraph. My understanding of Jung's archetypes does not correspond with this. Jung is clear in that archetypal experiences cannot be fully articulated, or made clearly meaningful because they express themselves in symbols that point towards things that we cannot consciously experience. Yet, trying to describe them is beneficial to mental health.

The archetypal dream happens when the mind tries to form an understanding of the world around them in order to orient themselves. This has resulted in the existence of ideologies and religious beliefs. While the symbology is "true", it gets taken at face value by most people. When it's taken at face value, you can twist the meaning to support your survival. Then you realize that the symbols were an analogy. It's on the way to a higher understanding beyond the symbols themselves. That higher understanding reflects multiple POVs you have integrated into yourself. To clarify further, a complex idea is an idea built on multiple ideas; usually many other complex ideas. Analogies utilize this mechanism within your mind to carry you from pure knowledge to an understanding of that knowledge. While the archetypes in their "pure form" (although that's a silly idea to begin with) cannot be communicated, they are communicated through stories, which is a long-form analogy. 

This right here points to something I forgot to mention: target audience. JP brought up authors speaking in the subject of math. If the target is other mathematicians who can understand it, and the average individual cannot understand it, that is intentional. However, if the target audience is the average person, and the majority cannot understand it, you done effed up. What's different about how Leo does it, is that he clarifies not to take his words at face value and for you to go figure it out yourself because those are ideas that you cannot communicate in a pure form. That is an entirely different thing, although, I'm sure eventually people will find a way to communicate it even if you don't know how that's possible yet. The authors that JP mentioned in the video were not communicating ideas that are uncommunicable. They just aren't good at communicating their ideas. That's all it comes down to. 

12 hours ago, tsuki said:

I appreciate him for his psychological knowledge, not for his philosophy or political thought.

The movement between knowledge and understanding is a psychological phenomenon. Just as the movement between understanding and wisdom is. You underestimate psychology here. It's the movement from right to left brain and then to both (I think). You need to take these words outside of the cliches to see this. Purely speaking materially. Not arguing on metaphysics. 

[Nahm]

Understanding is like wifi, and some phones believe it’s their wifi. Can ya blame em though? Totally seems like it is.  There are countless reasons that it is. Infinite ‘reasons’. WiFi’s funny like that. Or phones are funny that way. Depends on how you look at it. The wifi can never actually say or explain or understand, the wifi.