Fight the dragon of Chaos

Never read Peterson. Does fighting the dragon of chaos have to do with The mythological leitmotif of the chaoskampf, and modeling your behavior after the myth to embody its power?

>Jordan doesnt know or seem to care about understanding other sexes than his own.
He's talked a lot about how his ideas relate to females and what they can do. It's actually YOU who doesn't seem to care about understanding him.

You are completely correct.
I've watched enough dr. Phil to know where this guy is coming from.

I know theres a point you are trying to make, but i dont understand what it is in context to what i posted.

That's alright sleeping beauty i'm sure prince charming will come along and shed the necessary light needed to help you understand, and hopefully before your ovaries have dried up.

>Captcha:attack helicopter
Fookin nice

Then why are you making statements about what he cares about understanding if you agree that you don't even understand him? That takes away all your credibility in this topic.

Oh i get it.
You're saying that the only way women can self actualize is if they devalue their own social value for reproduction instead of choosing the values she deems the most important to her.
This makes total sense.
Tell me, do you still crave approval from your father?

I think thats something you need to deal with and not me.

all I said was that you admitted to commenting on things you are ignorant of. I didn't say you needed to deal with anything so you are misunderstanding me

Not him, but what exactly would define the transition from girl to womanhood in most females? From what values does this transition arise from?

Beauvoir wrote books about that.

Unless this guy says stuff completley contrary to what he writes, i think i know him well enough . I mean the only people that take this guy seriously are graduate studenta trying to hop on the next ideology train, or the saps that consume his tony robbins academic philosophy.
Hes only an intellectual as far as his pr and capitalism will let him.

so you faggots only like peterson because he is the father that you never had? no wonder that the pol numales adore the little bitch then lmao

You are wrong to conclude that he would need to contradict himself in order to make his ideas apply to females. As I said above he has talked a lot about how his ideas relate to females and what they can do to live up to them.

give an example of what he has written that would require him to contradict himself in order for them to work for females

No one gives a fuck what broads think.

>feminist interpretations of Jordon B. Peterson

Can women go a day without needing to appropriate everything to fit their little pro-woman club

its a fucking male imperative. women need not fight anything in american society apart from their own inane conceptions of reality

Women ARE dragons. And they hoard their wealth through divorce courts and government sponsorship. A western man's journey to self-actualization is nothing like theirs.

dumb animeposter

>where does this tie into peterson's conception of the male dominance hierarchy
So essentially Peterson believes that young men are feeling like the dregs of society due to the lack of responsibility expected from them in the contemporary world. The male dominance hierarchy is the process in which males organise themselves to be selected from the 'matriarchy' as potential mates. it ties into the 'fight the dragon of chaos' concept somewhat i suppose as you could say that, to a degree at least, your position on the overall hierarchy is at least partially determined by your ability to solve scalular problems. I think you're misunderstanding him in a way though, as I tend to interpret the dominance hierarchy's as just a tool for sexual selection and the 'clean your room' and 'sort yourself out' concepts to be a means of taking responsibility in your life and bettering it; which he believes is congruent with the meaning you'll get out of it.
>can a woman fight the dragon of chaos and rescue the father, or is she reduced to a mere domestic helpmate?
of course they can m'lady, as fundamentally it's just a means of maturing, taking responsibility and becoming more virtuous as a person to garner meaning in your life which of course is applicable to everyone and is separated from the strictly 'male dominance hierarchy'. I do understand where you're coming from though as he has said a few times that he mainly aims his talks at young men because thats the majority of his audience and that women already have enough responsibility in their lives.
>feminist interpretations of Jordon B. Peterson?
transphobic piece of shit.

>ex-harvard professor with an IQ in the 170's
>he's a pseud, not as smart as I...

>devalue their own social value for reproduction
A woman's value is reproduction though, to claim otherwise is to deny biology and happens also to be a direct path to extinction

>instead of choosing the values she deems the most important to her.
do you consider yourself equipped with enough talent and determination to enable a richer experience for yourself than being a homemaker and having a family could provide?

>Tell me, do you still crave approval from your father?
Yes, he's truck in the belly of the whale though, in the midst of rescuing him atm

I love J P

I honestly think a large amount of the flak or backlash or whatever that he receives is resultant from most people being not very intelligent and failing to really understand what he is conveying, relying instead upon various brands of group think and popular association. It is quite sad really. Doubly so when the same thing can be said of many people who claim to advocate his ideas.

>Can a woman fight the dragon of chaos
Yes, but you fight by not fighting him.

All you have to do concerning the dragon of chaos is not to awaken it. Leave Smaug's treasure alone. Leave the Fruit and the serpent where you first saw it.

It's not a matter of winning the fight or not, it's a matter of not starting it in the first place. It's not rocket science.

Put that shit down.

>and rescue the father
Again you can, and again it's counter-intuitive because you rescue the Father by leaving your own lower-case f father and making a boy into one.

A father is made, not born. The world needs more fathers, and if all of you see so many boys around you but no men, your job is to use make them and multiply them.

Your own dad cannot help you here.

>Also, feminist interpretations of Jordan B. Peterson?
CLEAN YOUR ROOM

stop shitposting, satania, no more evil deeds today

Sounds a lot like how Jung describes intergration of the Anima/Animus.

If a knight fights a dragon to rescue a princess. The dragon represents his shadow while the princess is his Anima.

The classic story for the woman is a to humanize a beast by helping him confront his inner demons (think beauty in the beast). In this case the beast-prince is the Animus and the inner demons are the shadow.

The wealth represents spirtual or cultural wisdom. Your interpreting the metaphor literally.

anime website
f-f-fuck you

...

wait what the hell this is just crypto-arrogant speak for subtly undermine the intelligence of the people around you by extending yourself in ways most people respect themselves too much to lmao

Nah. If you understand Campbell or Jung it's not cryptic at all.

stop saying crypto-arrogant or I'll sock you in the goddamn face you'll stay plastered

>every ideology is possession
>even having a moral system not supported by religion is proof of some ideological indoctrination!
>Christianity doesn't count though, praise Jeebus
what a fucking pseud

I love how he uses the typical pseud smoke and mirrors every time he's in difficulty: "I have studied [insert convenient topic] for the past 40 years!"
How the fuck can you not see the ropes?

shutup tubby you're not going to do anything to anyone and youre going to continue sitting on your fat lard ass browsing Veeky Forums instead of doing anything even marginally productive because you're a fucking loser

They can't, that's not their purpose.

>is she reduced to a mere domestic helpmate?

Yes, women have to accept this and not be resentful about it.

>swn painstakingly dust your bookcases, taking care not to damage the spines and putting each book back in alphabetical order

shut the fuck up

I watched 9 hours of his most recent Maps of Meaning series and he did not say anything of note.

The fuck are you praising him for

hey, peterson fags, can any of you link me some vids where he talks about the feminine side of this stuff?

Are you seriously saying there are no women talking about women's issues out there? They are literally everywhere at the moment.

He talks about religion a lot and religion doesn't talk about the feminine side of things very much because it doesn't actually matter.

>it doesn't actually matter
>negating the totality of God that includes God's femininity
Peterson confirmed for armchair "philosopher"

His discourse is aimed at those holding NO responsibility whatsoever regarding their own or other lives. Those who hold no social burden nor personal burden to carry on meaningfully and contribute to the totality of the social schema. Basically, he seeks to un-NEET society.

With this in mind, one can see that, in spite of very often not bearing personal responsibility, women are faced pretty much unanimously with social responsibility. 'Being a woman', ironically thanks to feminism itself, involves conflating housekeeping with working independently and sustaining at least your own children. Those woman who give in to the NEET way are denying their social call and can answer to the same discourse Peterson sends to 'the boys'. The other women need not listen to that, they are working, being married, taking care of their children, and whatever else they bear as personal responsibility. "Male dominance hierarchy" does not mean women are "reduced", only that they have less personal (but not less collective/social) responsibility to bear (which should be pretty good for them as long as they are allowed to combat violence inside their own houses, which they are in the West).

So, basically, women can fight the dragon of chaos and can rescue their fathers, but this would be a defeat anyway if men fail to do so first, and men are the problem Peterson seeks to solve. Men today bear no social responsibility other than achievement, and if they do not seek personal achievement, society has nothing to offer to them.

women cannot even fight a simple inconvenience without blaming someone else, fucking resource wasters that they are

What men should do about femininity matters because men are the actors, women are the receivers.

how much of a dejected shut-in gamer bitch do you have to be to take archetypes seriously lol

This guy got pretty successful studying them.

youtube.com/watch?v=EPAfS8-wm8g
youtube.com/watch?v=ILNRQ7ekGjo
youtube.com/watch?v=nbzAynn80SU
youtube.com/watch?v=kj7VgBnQNUc

The woman has no need to rescue the father because reinstitution of the word of the Father doesn't fulfill anything in her Self. The dragon of chaos and the tyranny of the Father's order are allied in their subjugation of her.

I haven't read what you're referring to but that's my feminist/jungian analysis

Hope you haven't ditched, I actually know a good bit about feminism and archetypes and am down to discuss this

lucas era star wars is genuinely shit.

The point is the guy made oodles of money, created one of the biggest franchises ever with 9 movies a trillion video games and who knows what else, got his own movie studio, and worldwide fame by working with the archtypes? The guy has a level of success that losers on Veeky Forums can't even dream of and all you have to say is that you didn't like his movies. LOL

Hollywood fucking worships the archtypes! Joseph Campbell is their patron saint. That's the power of Jung's system, it helps fuels a multi-billion dollar industry. Being a ressentful, dismsissive loser gives you no power at all.

>That's the power of Jung's system, it helps fuels a multi-billion dollar industry.

not only is this to fatally misunderstand the culture industry, but even if it were a correct reading of the success of these state propaganda films, it would amount at best to lack of imagination and at worst to shallow and contemptuous bootlicking, both of which seem to be natural consequences of believing that the best artistic output is indirectly predetermined by the mystery content of ancient, unchanging tropes. when you couple that with the fact that the positive signs of the Jungian "system" are essentially violent tales of competitive overcoming, narcissism, and isolation, you have the ingredients for fascism made all the more miserable and unselfconsciously ironic for its faux-spiritual character in an age of utter spiritual impoverishment and social atomization.

This, for all Peterson's talk of Jung, I don't know why he doesn't refer to the Animus for female development more often.

because he's a disingenuous hack who can only read instrumentally

You don't seem to understand a thing about archtypes. Using the word 'trope' to describe human nature LOL.

Let me explain it with an example. All human beings are genetically programmed to seek out food with certain properties: nutrients we can digest and free of harmful bacteria. There's already a mental concept of what proper eating is and each culture will have their own variation: but we still all consuming protein and vitamens while avoidng and harmful molds.

Archetypes are also built into us genetically just like we are genetically built to want certain properties in our food we are built in to want certain things in spiritual and social development. And just as each person requires a different diet of nutrients each person requires a different diet of archetypes.

I think holleywood and the entire entertainment industry is wonderful and highly spirtually developed. The world is a damn good place.

It sounds like it's YOU that live in spiritual poverty seeing as how you are dismissive and hostile to everything.

Le professor turned youtube star meme

FUCK OFF PSEUDS

yeah no i get that the archetype theory thinks it can justify itself through passing reference to a misunderstood darwinism. this doesn't make it any more true than social darwinism, nor doesn't prevent the archetypes themselves from reduction to a theory of tropes. what it does instead is make it is a site for the reproduction of market ideology according to which only the best deserve to survive. i think it's a little disingenuous therefore to say i'm hostile to everything: i'm hostile to things that substitute community for refined individualism, competition, and mutual destruction.

you could've picked a better example than food. a third of americans are obese because it is natural to seek sugar rich foods, except such a disposition is maladaptive in a time of plenty. hollywood is like the fast food of entertainment. they've hijacked the archetypes and turned them into cultural weapons of mass destruction that renders our spiritual world barren, even if those very archetypes traditionally spiritually fulfills us.

with* not for, sorry

you've got the order of determination backwards. it's not that they've hijacked the archetypes: its hat marketers have a set of tropes which, if disseminated and naturalized, valorize their sugary, poisonous products, and in the archetype theory petersen takes the naturalization at face value

The origin of Jung's archetype theory is from Nietzsche who was the first to conceptualize religion entirely as something psychological. You can see a very crude version of the archtypes in Birth of Tragedy where Nietzsche tries to classify both art and human sensation of aspects of either Apollo or Dionysus.

Now you are absolutely correct that you can use the archtypes to just create a circle jerk, just pick an audience find out how they feel and create a movie that amplifies to mystical proportions! And yes it is possible to get swallowed by an archetype and lose your individuality, you end up looking for other copies of that archetype in the physical world and giving them unquestionable loyalty. A great deal of therapy in the Jungian school involves dealing with this.

I actually think that's how Peterson conceptualizes them. His theory basically tells people all power comes from 'outside' yourself and he cut out all the Jungian ideas that talk about 'inner power': the Anima/Animus are prime examples.

my point would then be that the "instinctual" reading of nietzsche's will to power, the reading that makes it an eternal and unchanging characteristic of man, is the darwinist one, which is not necessarily absolute. you could work toward a foucaultian model whereby power is a social artifact, the end of society rather than its means.

other than that you haven't contradicted me so i'll take that as your tacit admission that archetypes are bourgeois ideology. continue believing in them for all i care, just know that you do so against your own interest: even if you win a rat race, you're still a rat.

lol

saying that the marketers have been hijacked by the archetypes conceals more than it explains. the success of hollywood and sugar marketers (actually high fructose corn syrup because why bother to hide the fact the dumb sheep will happily lap it up out of ignorance anyway) are because they use archetypes as tools that one can manipulate, as opposed to sacralized concepts that are immanent and taken as a given.

i'm not saying either. i'm saying that what you take to be archetypes are advertising tropes, manufactured in parallel with the cornflakes they're called on to hawk. there is no "organic" moment here, it's all instrumental, abstracted from human life, the product of a numb market rationality and objective social forces that require vaporizing more commodity capital than the population needs in the form of shitty corn meal

valorizng*

yeah perhaps corn flakes have no analogue, but it does for hollywood

ofc the "organic" branding movement is a coopting of what is organic by making it into another bourgeois consumer choice

>Bourgeious
LOL If your actually going for that Marxist stuff there's no need to debate it. You already know the evil capitalists have won.

Power is everything bro. Society's ability to define things is power. Myths are power, Communism is power. So the system of archtypes is justified because the art made by it is more fun and the psychology produces some of the strong personal growth (I've gotten huge results with it myself). And 'proletiate' ideology is unjustified since it just produces a bunch of resentful losers rather than institutes of power.

As for my interests. They are aligned with the evil capitalists.

This hatred of consumers and the market's ability to give them exactly what they want is disguesting. These people work jobs they hate and than when they get a chance to have some serious fun: watching a movie, playing a video game, whatever. Something that really makes them think there's more fun in life than pain you want to insult them for that.

You are just as manipulative and power-craving as the capiltists you despise, trying to get these people to follow your own little communism for your own interest. The only difference is that when johnny the fry cook interacts with the capilists he gets an awesome video game and a great time at the theatre watching super heroes. While when he listens to you all does is learn to be dissatisfied with his life.

yes how privileged we are that our capitalist overlords have elected to entertain us at our expense while we're restoring our broken bodies and minds.

again, all you've shown me is your despicable lack of imagination. your aesthetics derives an is from an ought in the most instrumental way imaginable. just because popular culture valorizes power-violence doesn't make it "justified," and your simultaneous denunciation and defense of "proletarian ideology" is disingenuous and pathetically transparent. you will defend anything if it means buttressing your stupid fanboy's love of star wars because you can't really imagine liking anything that wasn't decided for you and everyone else in your demographic before you were born.

>its a fucking male imperative
This, and Peterson pretty much states it explicitly. Women have in-built purpose, men don't and it's hardly debatable. If it weren't true men wouldn't be expendable, and women wouldn't be the selective sex.

Climbing the male dominance hierarchy means being competent enough to master the world around you. Part of that competence is conserving your culture (rescuing the father), or what good is in it, while at the same time making things better (fighting the dragon of chaos, or bringing order to chaos).

I think Peterson basically says women are already fulfilled by their ability to birth children and the implications of that.

you're responding to two people and i'm not a commie. i use "bourgeois" unironically because neoliberal capitalism is in cahoots with a castrated "communism" and functions on the same material plane. i'm not sure how to respond to your retort that "they have leisure after their labor so it's all good" because you're reiterating the very assumptions that i am calling into question. i'm not insulting consumers, but given that they've been so obviously turned into "consumers" instead of human beings means i'm merely holding a mirror into reality. i wouldn't have wished for things to turn out this way, so you can hardly accuse me of being malevolent.

S-sorry master, do you want to have a bath or eat lunch first? Or... do you want me first?

The world needs wage slaves. The societies that do not use it will be crushed by the economic power of those that don't. There is no moralizing involved, the place is rather to affirm the system, since the countries that love it the most will be best at it and crush the other countries. Therefor it is wonderful that these people with petty tasks can experience satisfaction and meaning in art. There is nothing wrong with consmpution bro. Need to eat to live and if there's no enjoyment there's nothing to live for. Consumption is practically a synonymous for 'experiencing the stuff that exists in life'. And ultimately it's their fucking money, they can spend it on world of warcraft and iron man if they want.

> capitalist overlords
What part of "I side with the evil capitalists" don't you get? Also the evil Jung and the evil Nietzsche. Calling Jungian ideology "bourgeoisie" is a compliment to me. That word means "holy" in my book. I think there's actually a Nietzsche quote about how 'aristocratic' originally meant to be favored by God. Continue siding with the peasents and despising everything around you in this evil capitalistic world and I'll continue enjoying the fuck out of it. We are in perfect harmony bro, we just live on opposite sides of the spectrum.

What a load of shit Lmao. Just avoid having a wife or girlfriend, there's a reason the most alpha men avoid committed relationships. They already learned by age 21 or so that bitches ain't shit and that friendships and family bonds are what matter.

Guess what faggots, if you wouldn't enjoy a platonic relationship with a girl, you won't enjoy being married to her either, because the romance and sex will get stale over time. Then you're just left with a friend who owns half of everything you do and spends her time telling you what to do.

>women ain't shit
>but friendships and family are what matters

These things link together.

This is literally the central gambit for Peterson, Jung, and the American psychiatry. Peterson makes huge money because Veeky Forums wants him to be their dad as part of a scam that existed far before anonymous.

Interestingly Jung did become a surrogate father for Emma, his wife. Her father had become mentally unstable and Jung was his doctor.

Jung lost his virginity and married her; she was the heiress to one of the wealthiest inheritances in the country and a noble. The guy seemed to have an almost super natural affinity with women in general.

One of his theories is that people who had a neglectful parent need to find a surrogate or enter a relationship with a partner who had a strong parent and borrow that power.

Thanks you for confirming my suspicions. This is what most disgusts me, this aspiration to have a strong ego. Whenever Peterson talks about wanting to empower the "stronger" parts of people I want to strangle him. The only goal of psychiatry should be that people take their desire to the end and thus seek the truth.

I'm a Jungian myself. I had a neglectful father so that might be part of it. He has really helped me in a lot of life. There really is a place for surrogate fathers but just like real fathers you can't be dependent on them forever. In a way Freud was the father of Jung and Jung eventually broke up with him and developed his own ideas, he sent Freud a letter quoting Nietzsche's Zarathustra about how you repay your teachers poorly if you are a student forever.

If Peterson is your surrogate father it might be better than having no father at all.

the vast majority of wage slave jobs are unnecessary, and probably even a drain on gdp. it's a potemkin economy that panders to the cult of productivity because we are unable to conceive of any other convincing alternatives. and how many layers of ideology are you on. you realize that in its current incarnation, capital is transnational right? societies that partake in it lose their incentive to "crush" other societies because they can just trade with them. so if your goal is to crush the others, you've already lost sight of that goal. and if your goal is that you want your society to prosper, well good luck because you've opened yourself up to economic pressure from the herd such that your society might no longer become what you'd want to live in. no one survives. it depends on whether you want to be crushed, or to be crushed. saying you like this is like a masochist begging "please crush me more".

your non sequitur into nietzsche and aristocracy after mentioning the bourgeoisie is baffling. was your intent to say that you fancied yourself a bourgeoisie aristocrat? you realize that aristocrats and the bourgeoisie are different classes and the former generally despised the latter, especially the bourgeoisie who were wannabe aristocrats?

The problem is that if you focus on the surrogate father, perhaps the fact that the father is a means of coping remains invisible. This is the central difference between Jung on one side and Freud/Lacan on the other. Jung assumes that there is a true self based on the father that one must assume, while Freud/Lacan are more agnostic and argue that the father is one means of coping with the fact there is no true self, and that self-realization means examining all the means of coping that are available, which means directly confronting ones desire.

Mainly for standing up to the reemergence of leftist totalitarianism.
Instead watch his Harvard "interview" and the "Banned lecture at Linfield College: Ethics and Free Speech" skip first 20 min and maybe the Q&A.
Then listen to his 2015 or 2017 personality lecture.
The maps of meaning lectures are just his personality lectures focusing more on the philosophical and the mythological maps of meaning no pun intended, it's a fitting name.

And the first 4 lectures of all his lecture series are more introductory all beginning the same way, that might be a legit criticism of JP.
In almost all his lectures you can skip at least first 4 hours.
You have to understand he teaches to people who have never heard what he says before, so he has to begin from the beginning every time.

>leftist totalitarianism

This is a meme. The term "totalitarianism" comes from Hannah Arendt's book, most of which is dedicated to Nazism and its colonial origins. Less than ten pages of her book is dedicated to the Soviet Union, and yet today the main purpose of her concept is to equate communism with the nazis. The popularity of Peterson mostly come from those who want to defend the empire, the same empire from whom the Nazis derived their inspiration (what else is lebensraum besides the american dream? eugenics is concept whose reached its zenith in california, not germany)

You know what I mean, don't argue semantics.
Point is "leftists" are the ones trying to put chains on speech. Next will be action.
Some have even started killing.

>it's a lefty misrepresents The Origins of Totalitarianism episode
she treated both Nazism and Stalinism as equals in that book. It isn't wrong to use that concept to describe both communists and nazis because that is exactly what she did.

>The term "totalitarianism" comes from Hannah Arendt's book

No it doesn't. The word totalitarianism was coined by Victor Serge, himself a Russian Communist revolutionary, and he used it about the USSR under Stalin.

I have a dragon of Chaos in my pants.