• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Jordan Peterson On DMT And Psilocybin

Migrated topic.
I´d being following Jordan Peterson for quite a while, watching some of his personality series lectures and his last book (although his first book "maps of meaning" is suppossed to be more consistent and less mainstream).

I´ll mention some clues or interesting facts I catched from him from different sources... conversations, lectures, interviews, etc. Little things that rang my bells:

1_ He is a honorary "native american" member (or should I said "native canadian"), I don´t remember the exact tribe... I think these people like to use Peyote or other cacti.

2_ He admited having taking phychedelics and describing them as "f... weird".

3_ He is a Jungean and likes to quote Jung when talking about phychedelics, something like: "...beware of the undeserved knowledge...".

4_ In one interview he is asked "who is the new Galileo Galilei of XXI century"?, implying something you are not allowed to talk about (earth not being the centre of the solar system...).
I don´t remember the exact answer, it was something along the lines of Political correctness, you can´t talk against gender equality, racism, IQ, WWII jewish holocaust denial (in a Zizekian way), etc. And also phychedelics, the one thing you are not supposed to dig into.

5_ He is familiar with Aldous Huxley, Carlos Castaneda, Mircea Eliade, Rick Strassmann (DMT the spirit molecule), and who know what else.

6_ In some lectures he would show religious imagery (like the snake on a stick) from many sources and would talk about DNA symbology from hinduism, budism, christianity, babylon, etc. He said "...this
image is 4000 years old and represents the DNA, but don´t ask me how I know this, I can´t tell you..."

7_ In another video recorded at his house, he described a sort of mystic experience, when thinking really hard and burning his brains out about the nature of music as a non-linguistic carrier of meaning... some loving entity appeared to him, like an angel or deity. Kind of Phillip Dick´s exegesis...

8_ He had a rough time with his daughter´s health condition, and also his own struggle against depression I think that puts him in a position to really think about the nature of reality and go deeper.

9_ The message or advice he carries, is that of "speaking the truth", don´t lie to others, don´t lie to yourself, behave yourself in a way that you don´t need to lie (or as minimun as possible). That there is a fight between chaos and order (they way our brain is splitted in hemispheres) and having meaningful conversations is the way to put order in life.
Certain paralelism can be found with other new spiritual trends that claim your thoughts, actions, desires and emotions have to be "aligned". (although this is not unfamiliar to modern phychology... Rogers and others)


So, to sum up, I think JB Peterson has tried phychedelics, but he is a smart guy and won´t talk openly about it, cause that can seriously damage his reputation.

Right know he is reaching massive audience, bigger than any other "phychedelic guru" from the past, cause these are mainstream audiences and not just a bunch of hippies, people from the left and from the right, they are selling tickets for 3 hour long live debates... 3 dudes seating in a couch talking for 3 hours... and they are having full houses in places where you would normally go to see a rock concert, he and other people from the so called "intelectual Dark Web" (really cheesy nickname... that includes Rogan, Harris, Rubin, Shapiro, Weinstein, others)
 

Attachments

  • WEB_Peterson_Jago_art-e1525920446543.jpg
    WEB_Peterson_Jago_art-e1525920446543.jpg
    75.7 KB · Views: 0
I was pleasantly surprised to find out that he is at least interested in psychedelics.
Peterson is someone who is very much involved in self-empowerment and while his overall outlook on life is a bit too gloomy for my taste, he certainly is a refreshing thinker and also throws himself personally against the rise of facism.
 
Oh Snozz... I love you dude, you're a class act and I generally agree with you on most things. However I think labeling Peterson as a fascist hack is just adding more angry hornets to a nest that was built in the wrong place.

It's a shame that I have to see people who dare to say what I've been thinking for years torn apart in a backlash because of their popularity or 'ballooning celebrity and wealth' as the increasingly cynical Guardian puts it.

I'd sooner listen to the words of those who spoke them, as they spoke them. Or watch actual video footage or read exactly what they wrote, where it was written. I couldn't exactly call that guardian article a hatchet job but it was entirely predictable. But there is no real criticism of the man worth any merit from such cartoonishly biased sources as The Guardian.

I agreed with a lot of what Richard Dawknins said before his popularity made him a martyr in the eyes of his critics, but now I'd sooner fight against the demonization of religion and be labelled a right-wing religious nut case as a result. It always goes too far because people put too much momentum into these pendulum swings.
 
Personally, i wanted to like Jordan Peterson, because almost everyone seems to (from what i've seen online lol), but i just don't understand the hype, dude hasn't really said much that i agree with, and when it comes to Psychedelics he's far from experienced, same with his thoughts on Autism. People even think this guy is the next Terence McKenna or something lol, i mean i'm sure he's an alright guy and all, but i've watched several of his videos and podcasts and i just don't understand the hype, people think this guy is so bad ass or something, but from what i've seen he's certainly nothing special.
 
ShamensStamen said:
Personally, i wanted to like Jordan Peterson, because almost everyone seems to (from what i've seen online lol), but i just don't understand the hype, dude hasn't really said much that i agree with, and when it comes to Psychedelics he's far from experienced, same with his thoughts on Autism. People even think this guy is the next Terence McKenna or something lol, i mean i'm sure he's an alright guy and all, but i've watched several of his videos and podcasts and i just don't understand the hype, people think this guy is so bad ass or something, but from what i've seen he's certainly nothing special.
Click to expand...

Hype is a problem for sure. Ever see Life of Brian ? Great film.
 
Peterson is so well received because he is true to his views to the point where he is risking his career. That is why some feel he's a "badass". Indeed, there are very few people that are so public and outspoken about certain views who are at the same time not openly affiliate with some sort of group or ideology. In fact, listening to his talks you can see that he shares both conservative as well as liberal viewpoints.

I'd sooner listen to the words of those who spoke them, as they spoke them. Or watch actual video footage or read exactly what they wrote, where it was written.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the temptation to soothe yourself in group think is strong. Not saying this is what's happening here bu i'd imagine its a rather common reason.

when it comes to Psychedelics he's far from experienced
Click to expand...

Same impression.
 
Orion said:
Oh Snozz... I love you dude, you're a class act and I generally agree with you on most things. However I think labeling Peterson as a fascist hack is just adding more angry hornets to a nest that was built in the wrong place.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, the fascist label was a misnomer and it was incorrect of me to use it. I'm a bit sleep deprived with everything going with MAPS and should have been more deliberate in my word choices. It was sloppy and uncalled for and I'm sorry for that.

Can I call him a hack who promotes misogynistic/patriarchal ideas and, as a result, associates with and finds incredible amounts of support from misogynists? Would that be more agreeable?

I think many of the ideas that I've encountered from him are problematic and perpetuate coercive systems that I would like to work towards dismantling.
 
dragonrider said:
I think one day he is gonna wake up and realise that most of his followers are just as bad, if not worse, than his worst enemies.
Click to expand...
Especially the race-and-IQ debate is toxic to the core. I think he and others (like sam harris for instance) have realy made a huge mistake in how they choose to enter this debate.

The race-IQ topic is the very pillar of the current neo-nazi ideology. I should know, because someone who was once my best friend has become a neo-nazi, so i unfortunately know much more about the whole current nazi-movement than i like.

This thing, is what many, if not most nazi's call, their "red pill".

So i think it is an mistake of realy epic proportions to choose to emphasize that black people generally perform worse on IQ tests than white people, instead of focussing on how socio-economic conditions truly have a massive impact on how people perform on those tests.

The important thing is not how people score on the tests, but how to interpret this.
The very fact alone, that the average performance on these tests has, for more than a century now, gone up with around 5 to 6 points every ten years, should be a clear sign to most people that these tests say much more about a persons "nurture", than about his/her "nature".
And there are many more of these facts that undermine the scientific credibility of any of the "race-IQ" kind of claims.

Like that all of the available IQ tests out there are highly correlated, but far from equivalent. Or that chronic stress affects performance on these tests negatively. Or that stereotyping does this as well (if you say to a person that "their kind" is generally doing worse on the type of tasks that you'll see in these tests, than the rest of the population, this will affect their performance negatively as well). Or that there is not a universal agreement yet, among psychologists, what intelligence is exactly. Only in broad terms.
Or that (mal)nutrition during pregnancy and the early years of a child, does affect all mental capabilities later in life. Etc, etc, etc.

And thus, the idea that these tests provide ANY evidence at all, that white people are genetically smarter than black or arab people, is based on nothing. It truly is.

So to put so much emphasis on the data, in the name of free speech or honesty, without explaining the utter uselesness of these data as a means for distinguishing superiour genes, is realy a bad move.
 
Can´t denny that many people, under the proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" have ridden the JB Peterson train and use it for their own interest, as for most of them, they haven´t even read or watched him directly. Some other people are really invested in their political community or tribe and won´t even try hearing what he says, that´s a pitty.

What attracted me to Peterson was having readings in common such as Dostoievski, Tolstoi and Solzhenitsyn, that opened a window into other of his content, which by the way, there are hundreds of hours of lectures and interviews on YT, so for me, there´s no point in quoting articles from third parties, who are eager to label him under a certain category so they can start using traditional reputation attacks.

A different type of attack happened a few months ago, there was an article from Slavoj Zizek, he said something like this: "what he says is truth (peterson), but he´s saying it for the wrong reasons, the left needs to do his homework and give these man a real, elaborated reply..."

Which is like saying: "I know you are right, but I don´t like you, the way you smell, I don´t like your clothes or what your group represents and I think you are saying these for some secret evil reason". So, if heavyweights like Slavoj are repplying Peterson arguments in such a childish way, not willing to engage in a real conversation (and he´s got a PhD in Phychology, Philosophy and don´t remember what else), what can you expect from the rest?

PD: I don´t agree with everything he says, like poverty erradication and wealth distribution; greco-roman enlightment values, etc. But at least he seems to be willing to seat and talk about things.
 
I don't necesserily think he's a racist or a mysoginist. I'll just assume that he means well and his intentions are good...or well, i don't know enough about the guy to assume otherwise anyway. But he and others have, probably with the best intentions, unleashed something. Something a lot less harmless than it seems, and something that can't be undone.

It would be wrong to hold him accountable for everything his followers say and do.
But it has been said here by others as well: there's a hype going on around this guy.
And the guy himself may be okay. Or at least i'll just assume he is until someone comes with a quote of him that realy is racist or sexist. But the hype around him is definately not that harmless.

I've seen some video's on youtube where he talks about feminism, and apart from the fact that he defines feminism in a very narrow way, there where a lot of these comments in the commentsection below, that realy shocked me. I didn't know that there are so many men, who realy hate women. And who hate women that much.

And he has lectured at a symposium in the netherlands, that was organised by people who realy have a little brown smell to them, politically. Not very openly or extremely. But a little brown smell that is definately there. Wich he didn't adress, being there.
 
Likely Peterson's most cogent observation is that language is a bio-cultural birthright. As such, it is not and will not be codified, through force of the state. He argues that the academy grows increasingly prescriptive in its demand that particular language be used or forbidden, noting that not only is this coercive, but, organically impossible.


JP reminds us that language is not available for policing and that the often delusional harridans proscribing such at university will fail in this endeavor. Their inability to do so stems from the weakness of their arguments AND the collective "ownership" of language by the species and not the state or a particular "marginalized" subset of dysfunctionals.


Peace
 
Legarto Rey said:
Likely Peterson's most cogent observation is that language is a bio-cultural birthright. As such, it is not and will not be codified, through force of the state. He argues that the academy grows increasingly prescriptive in its demand that particular language be used or forbidden, noting that not only is this coercive, but, organically impossible.


JP reminds us that language is not available for policing and that the often delusional harridans proscribing such at university will fail in this endeavor. Their inability to do so stems from the weakness of their arguments AND the collective "ownership" of language by the species and not the state or a particular "marginalized" subset of dysfunctionals.


Peace
Click to expand...
Well, i agree with that. The PC "language police" people are crazy as shit.

But if he realy is such a brave guy who is not afraid to say it like it is, he should say to his followers that mysogenists are a bunch of sexualy frustrated, sad losers who are just not atractive enough to women because of their weak character, who blame women for their own shortcomings and who would not get any if they turned gay either.

And that the people who always want to bring up the race-IQ controversy are not motivated by a passion for truth, because the fact that on average black people don't perform as well on IQ tests as white people says everything about an actually existing, gross socio-economic unequality and nothing about "superiour genes", and that the correlation between low IQ's and conservatism is much stronger because the relationship here, likely IS a causal one instead of a secundary one.

But i don' think he has the balls to do that.
 
dragonrider said:
and that the correlation between low IQ's and conservatism is much stronger because the relationship here, likely IS a causal one instead of a secundary one.
Click to expand...

IQ debate almost always ends up in bare knuckle boxing... I´m not myself on the top of the gene pool pyramid when it comes to IQ (ashkenazi juwe, asian, northern european, southern european, latin american, african, native australian, pigmy), being mixed latin-american southern european. But I have to admit the figures are there and are not necessarily made for white people, cause asian score even higher than them, and when it comes to asian and their hard working culture, they seem to succeed despite not having any white privilege, some of them starting as humble inmigrants working on drugstores.
Asian even suffer a discrimination on campuses, as judes did in the last century, they won´t exceed a 20% quota in some universities despite scoring high on admission tests. Some universities argue they choose their students taking into account "leadership" qualities (like being white, tall, broad shoulder with a George Clooney´s smile...).
What I mean is, when people seem to be "loosing" in a specific game, they would try to complain, claiming victimhood, and then bend the rules, turn it upside down. Why not?

I found these differences between asian and western extremely interesting, Marshall McLuhan suggested that they have less ego (more obedient and less destructive than westerners) because their alphabet is not phonetic, (you can´t read it word by word as you pronounce it) being the ego some sort of conversation inside your head. And that is not a good idea to teach english (or other phonetic alphabet language) to chinese people, that would awaken the monster, their ego.
Even in architecture you can find differences in the spaces they inhabit, way smaller, like hamster houses, in some bedrooms the ceilings are so low you have to crouch. Specially when you compare it to the "american dream" suburb house with a 2 car garage and big lawn, the "sprawl".
Any thoughts on this?
 
Back
Top Bottom