Revealing the Substance of the Gap: Is the Tragedy of Peterson the Irony of Zizek ?

The Tragedy of JBP
— Read on

“Come down, you distanced travelers, from your great intellectual heights, down to where we humans can meet, again, eye to eye.” –c.n.

Wow. Makes one think.

…and kinda makes one sad as well.

I decided that I’m just gonna post the comment that I put on the original post:

“Damn. Makes one wonder about celebrity. You know, I thought he had a pretty good point, I think Peterson has a pretty good point to make so far as psychology and mental health, and then some of his philosophical support I think it’s pretty good but it just goes to show that the kind of continental intellectual left… I mean, if I can say “we“, we’re kind of mean sometimes.

But I always thought Peterson was making a good point from a mental health standpoint. But it seems nowadays especially since Zizek. That a whole intellectualized group of people are really unthinking when it comes to their assertion of theory and what should make a proper argument and things like that.

When you look at the debate between Z and P. I really think that Zizek saw this of Peterson and was kind of giving him a break. People saw this is kind of like a sucky debate, but I think it was a really good debate because Zizek had the good sense to be able to see there was no point in him unloading all his theoretical BS upon someone who could give a shit about it; which is to say, and I have made this argument too and some of my posts — and I even sent Peterson a letter of what is this debate about really, but I didn’t insult him in it — that Peterson really doesn’t understand what Zizek And the generalized Continental force is really saying Nor what it’s really doing. And I have made arguments other places in my blog that I’m not really sure that the Continental’s, and the generalized group of people that support that kind of intellectualism, I.e. the Fans, really know what they’re talking about either, but they’re vicious, they really don’t think about humanity as this thing that they are a part of as a group. It appears sometimes that the Continental Intellectual Fans behave as though everyone needs to be ultra rational and that this rationality supersedes any sort of compassion or considerations of what the being of human actually is.”

…And honestly, I wonder if that is the present Continental philosophical conundrum aggravated and expressed as phenomenalist correlationalism: the frustration  involved in not being able to breach what is correlational in their existence thus being forced out, or projected, upon the object of their frustration: Peterson and his ‘weak’ philosophical-intellectualism. Yet, ironically, when you take away his Christian motif, what is left so far as a psychological approach is really the problem of ideological correlationalism,  so it would seem that Continental Philosophy. is exactly the problem Peterson psychology is aiming at. 

Peterson asks how can we use reason to make these large jumps to great ideological structures in which we are encompassed if we don’t first come to terms with who we are as being, who we are as essentially a human entity, so to speak?. He suggests that the kind of philosophy that finds the subject within these ideological structures and then attempts to solve the problem of subjects interacting according to these ideological structures, are itself the manifestation of a psychological mental health problem.

Then he further suggests that the solution of this problem is to be found within oneself, to look and see what people (we, me, I) are doing when they are using these ideas, these ideologies, to situate people in structures of power. That the solutions to our current world problems are not to be found in trying to manipulate ideological structures that influence what the subject is within this ideological space. That the ideological space is indeed the problematic space. Rather, if we want to find a solution to the problems of our world we need to get honest with ourselves and start with ourselves as the fundamental philosophical problem.

And indeed, while everyone loves to read Zizek as talking about politics only, Zizek really is indicating nearly the same thing when you begin to understand and take ownership of what is occurring as discourse, within the material world, so far as we are subjects within it. But Zizek tries to imply this kind of situation, Attempts to show the problem involved in ideological situations such that the only way to solve this problem is come back to the original source, the Hegalian-Lacanian historical consciousness, so to speak.

The “parallax gap” is that fundamental space that is left out of political focus: the subject. The Lacan angle thus shows how ideological posture function through a basic historical trope that is the ‘other end’ of the Master Signifier; the ‘petite subject a’ and the ‘barred subject’ are aspects of the discursive symbols for what is imagined to be substantial, or the ‘big other’.

Lacan says that consciousness behaves like discourse, but this is to say that the problem begins in the psychoanalytical mirror stage where the child identifies with the image and thus becomes ‘castrated’ to him or herself to become indeed the ideological subject, the basic and fundamental mistake as the heart of all political struggle.

But no one desires to realize the truth of what we are dealing with, hence what is Real is always held at bay, so the subject of this initial trauma (of constantly being confronted with a truth of the reflection it has identified with) replays the event through this post-traumatic fantasy which keeps the subject limited by a freedom of the image. Emancipation is thus always recouped by the political ideology to manifest as the mechanisms for capitalism.

Recalling the Zizek/Peterson debate, we can see how both were centered upon the same problem, working together in a dialectical manner in the effort of revealing the oppressed subject which lay at the center of the ‘mistaken’ views upon the ‘material’. One one hand Zizek playing from the ‘negative’ , and on the other Peterson playing from the ‘positive’ iterations of the emancipated subject.

Wow. Thanks for your little research on Peterson because actually just the other day I was wondering what he was doing. I figured he just kind of settled back into his academic career and was kind a like a, well that was interesting. But it kind of seems like it really affected him, and not in a good way.”

Some Material for Psychology

” To connect to this point such a pathway is a form of self-responsibility that allows us to overcome internal and unconscious pathological prohibitions. In the old traditional world we had “Master Figures” (embodying the moral superego) to tell us what to do in relation to a “Cause” which transcended pleasure. Now such “Master Figures” (embodying the moral superego) are negated. However, this negation did not open up a world of free subject’s enjoying their simply pleasures (as presupposed by 1960s counter-culture), but instead a world of self-enslaved subject’s who become frozen or static in relation to internal and unconscious pathological prohibitions coming only from their own head. Such a world can only be transcended through self- responsibility (not more rights), from becoming aligned with the inhuman Master (Death).”

And my Two Routes comment:

The significance of the Two Routes is in as much as there is one route which sees discourse as indicating specific and localized actualiities. That this one route does not encompass or tell of all there is or can be. For example: As though Zizek’s discourse is saying such and such, and means this and that, then or now — specific local identies which can be overcome through relying upon that/those identities. For example, the “master signifier” that this author uses to talk about how there is no longer an ideological “master figure” which allows us to have cogent and substantial sense of self in the social atmosphere, that its been “negated”. The author thus uses this to construct an argument to say that what is required then is we take responsibility for this dissolution of the figure, that it is or has been dissolved and no longer functions as the static signifier, that we are left with a sort of Sartrean Existential situation where we have to just make our own meaning.

Then there is the other route which would say that still Zizek’s model is operating, and indeed there is a master signifier that is drawing forth this particular essay and discourse in the sense that there is an underlying or over arcing structure through which I can understand what his essay could mean. And that at no time has what Zizek or Peterson talked about or described been overcome in any way or changed in anyway so far as it indeed is having to do with the subject that would presume to be able to overcome the discourse: the subject is indeed intact and involves responsibly; what is needed is a radical break into existential responsibility (Christ). Here discourse ‘floats’ over real things granting appearance of change through the identification with the term rather than, what I call, the truth.

This is the Laruellian issue in his non-philosophy. The way it plays out in “actuality” is that one of these routes needs to be denied in order for progress to occur, which is to say in order them for the subject to make for itself a place of identity within the ideological sphere. The issue is then just what progress occurs?

Hence again the discussion of this essay occurs along two routes that are always in play and cannot be reduced to one or the other necessarily or contingently; this is to say that the moment it is reduced to one or the other is exactly when we find out the authors’ orientation upon objects, and we find out because of the nature of choice (discussed elsewhere).

In other words, there is no “old” in the sense this author used the idea except in as much as he views himself as occurring within an ideological construct (Zizekian and Petersonian and “world state”) which has ties constructed ‘in state’ as a stable and manifested static identity or entity unto which a free or unfree subject can then enact itself in the “actual” omnipresence that is the “figured” political world.

And Zizek’s discourse replays itself as a capitalistic-Christian God-world-cross substance prefigured in Peterson’s archetypical psychology.

Responsibility can indeed take the form of centering ideologically in the capitalisitc excess of subjective agency. Or the responsibility can arise as emancipation through a radical break which allows for the embodiment of material limit.

One More Z/P Goodie: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time

On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time

On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time
— Read on

It appears that the people who really do use their thinking skills took a little longer for their comments. Here is another goodie. Bobby gets a little deeper into the various philosophical authorial substrates, and a couple play by plays from the debate.


Bobby points out one of the significant parts of the debate that I forgot about; namely, that Peterson definitely sees a kind of progress of history, sees history as a ground outside of human cognition, and then that cognition indeed is able to perceive this ground and make analyses of it. Then; Zizek’s rebuttal to this kind of suggestion is, basically, that though it is possible to perceive some sort of progressing lineage, the lineage itself is articulated at the same time as these articulations disrupt the continuity of the scheme, and at that, at a notably random times.

Bobby has a better version of what they actually said, and then goes into the various philosophical ideas around this idea, for example, Derrida’s trace and erase.


I Am digging his approach, but I depart from Bobby’s analysis in a couple of ways.

1) I am not sure that there is any argument that can be made which overcomes the presentation inherent of the debate. And, what I mean by this is that when we understand, say, Derrida, then there is a further development philosophically that shows us that there is no “proper truth”, As though By virtue of what Derrida proposed the nature of human existence demands that there is no historical ground that human beings can cognitively know in the manner Peterson stakes his position. I describe this particular situation and I am indicating right here some of my earlier posts, perhaps from a year or two ago; I will not rehash them here. If we understand Derrida, then much of what he says is like the wind — “the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth…”

2) It is sufficient to say, that the argument (as a form) has only a particular bearing upon truth, and that Francois Laruelle’s non-philosophy has basically disrupted the idea that there is some sort of unity of truth that human beings can be suspended within to thereby exist in a argumentative reality. The suspension is itself, as I say, real, but not true.

In my work, I try to show how this particular method, this particular way of coming by or upon reality, that I call the “conventional method”, is but one manner, The One Route of the Two Routes. Further, these two routes do not further indicate a “reasonable or rational” route as opposed to and “irrational” route, but that this kind of argumentative way of establishing truth is indeed one “rational’ manner of coming upon objects. The routes are mutually exclusive in a non-philosophical manner, not complimentary as the early 20th century Existentialists would want people to believe: Belief is required first for the compliment to be realized.

In short, I am saying that all Bobby really does is kind of lean on supporting what Zizek is reputed to argue in relation to a traditional lineage of authorial representation. And that’s ok.

And –

My take is that there is no reduction of this sort possible once we understand what Laruelle is saying; and indeed, this is what I think Zizek was relying upon, as it indeed accounts for why he did not plow into Peterson.

My position is that these two men represent The Two Routes upon objects. These routes do not further reconcile to another unitive, and a singular route. And this is to say that what the debate shows is that these two routes function together without necessarily reducing to either, nor to another further unity.

Indeed Petersons argument is valid by the mere fact that people — regardless of what argument I want to make to pronounce upon such ‘other people’ — indeed can and do experience and encounter reality in exactly the way that Peterson is philosophically describing in his solution. And that this particular way, or route, is not false by virtue of the fact that I may come up with an argument against what they are saying. These people are not wrong or somehow have some sort of invalid way of understanding the truth of reality. The way they (those who understand an objectively knowable history) understand it is indeed True. And this truth, while perhaps in communication with me nevertheless does not fall into falsity due to my points, nor theirs due to mind. And, our existence is not relative nor reductionary to either that or this. It is true. Period.

Objects do not require my acknowledgment or permission to be true, or otherwise have or hold truth.


And whether or not Peterson understands technically what is going on philosophically in this ‘larger’ sense, Zizek nevertheless does understand and that is why (I submit) he didn’t plow into Peterson about his ignorance, to show how ignorant Peterson might be upon these philosophical intricacies and subtleties.

(See my earlier post about what Peterson might actually be involved with.)

We can find evidence everywhere in his talks and writings that Zizek Understands what I’m talking about: when he talks about “naïve”, he is talking about that particular kind of existence which does not answer nor even fall into the category of the philosophy he proposes by his analyses as a sort of categorical imperative. The ‘common people’ do not answer to his kind of philosophy, and indeed exist outside of it in an essential sense, even to the extent that those people’s reality (truth) has nothing to do with what analysis he is making upon them. This is the nature of his philosophy and it forms a foundational ground that most people seem to miss or are unable to reconcile with their experience.


If you are interested in The exploration of the two routes, please check out The Philosophical Hack: The concluding unscientific post-script to event, by Cedric Nathaniel.

It is crazy inexpensive.

The Point of the Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson debate: An Assessment

Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson: An Assessment
— Read on

Thanks Neotonos! I agree with much of his assessment.  He hits on some significant turns of the debate; Im glad, because I didn’t really want to assess a play be play.

I’ll use this repost to give my final comments on the Z/P debate.


It’s intresting to me that none of the commenters saw what I saw, which is, really saw any big picture. It really is, like Neotonos said “like a bunch of people reporting on a cricket match”. To my eyes and ears, it really is like people miss the debate for the spectacle. I think Noetanos gets a little more involved that the others I’ve read, though.

First off; yeah, I get it: people wanted a WWF slam-a-thon, of whatever that WWF thing is.  Zizekians wanted Zizek to take Peterson apart, and the Petersonians wanted him to show Zizek where he is stupid liberal, or something like that. These two celebrity philosophical figures represent a certain polemic in the philosophical world; people wanted a battle.

The thing is, if you have been listening to Zizek lately, and understand Peterson’s general effort (which he does use his point in the Z/P debate), both are actually more concerned with the world than they are just political voice boxes. Both actually care. They both advocate responsibility.
You can listen to and read my essay about the current state of philosophy HERE, the essay I wrote before the debate. One of the main reasons why one can tell they actually care is because they don’t give a shit about towing the political lines.

It is interesting to me that people seem perplexed about Zizek’s apparent shift from what they understand as his usually Marxism, and his basic support for capitalism. But if one is familiar with Zizek’s philosophy, he has not changed his view; rather, he had elaborated more upon the situation given the condition at hand.

In the debate Zizek even alludes to his earlier work about Marxism, of which he says he’s not going to take the debate that way; it is obvious to Zizek that Peterson has not read Zizek enough to be able to address the subtleties involved with Z’s “Marxism”. He highlights his Hegelianism. But the reason for this, I think, is because Zizek was not concerned with showing how Peterson is a ignorant fool (like many of us were hoping). Zizek’s point has always been Marxist in that the subject is a state of being which is involved with a dialectical reality which shows up in the Lacanian manner at all times. That is; through the symbolic order mediated by what is ‘imagined’, or what is the real fantasy. This fantasy is manifested in the (further) dialectic between what appears should occur due to the symbolic presentation. But there is a problem (as we understand the “barred S”). When the subject attempts to speak about what the symbolic world is presenting, a transformation takes place: similar to Derridean issues of subjectivity, what was once the true meaning of reality is noticed as a fantasy. The issue within this world, though, Is that one has to be able to notice it (clean house; think).

It is in this dialectic that Zizek locates his Marxism, because it indeed functions to supply all the multiplicity of material for and by which the subject is able to act in reality. There appears to be an element or aspect which oppresses the subject’s ability to appear in the world. This is why Lacan’s “Real” is impossible; because reality presents that which appears to not exhibit a contradiction in its terms for existing as such. It indeed shows aspects of its operation everywhere as contradiction in the, what i call conventional and what Zizek calls naive, sense, but because the withdraw that this ‘Real’ enacts occurs in the dialectical relationship with the symbolic-imaginary domain, as I just said, manifesting an appearance of real truth. As Cedric Nathaniel discusses in his book The Philosophical Hack, it is this ‘real-truth’ that is the political world.

There is no “actual” reduction to the usual traditional-conventional rhetoric or some “actual” political state where the “pure” Marxists or the “pure” capitalists exist because these supposed entities, states, or situations are –yes — already occurring in the discussion, as Nathaniel discusses, of term-object identities. The idea of ‘identity politics’ is a mistaken or distorted use of the the concept of the Term-object Identity in the same way that reality is a ‘mistaken’ apprehension of what is Real. They are dialectical mechanisms.

Now, the situation that I described above is the real political situation. It accounts for why we are having such huge discrepancy in political ideals and ability to get things done in government across the globe. It is the situation of what I call “no communication”. This situation of no communication is what Zizek refers to when he says that he does not see a way out of our capitalistic situation of inequality and exploitation, because it is exactly the ‘equality’ which is posed in the politically real estimation which is able to skim profit off of the ‘excess’ which occurs in the dialectic between what is true and what is real, between what is ‘equal’ in the dialectic of relation of what is Real, and what is ‘unequal’ in the dialectic of what is real politically. This current process of existing in which humanity finds itself now, seems inescapable because it is indeed how we function ethically, which is to say, in remaining fidelitous to what we know as true (Soren Kierkegaard defines this space, and Alain Badiou describes our activity within it).

OK. Peterson, on the other hand, sees a ways out. Both philosophers (Z and P) do not see any constructive point in continuing with the regular status quo situation which they both see in their ways. They both do not simply give up and be naive nor inauthentic (in the Kiekegaardian sense).

In another lecture, Peterson gives us a similar description of Capitalistic nihilism, of the situation that Zizek cannot see a way out of: Peterson describes the situation of larger projects losing their ability to be effective. His idea is thus that we must begin with the smallest or more local project. As he says, we must clean our own house first. We must begin with ourselves, put our own houses in order. He thus extends this manner of being able to get honest with oneself and associates it with a Christian kind of theme.

Both of these philosophers thus pose the same question, have a similar manner of understanding it, and also see that the only way through is, indeed, Capitalism; we must use what we have, and stop attempting to escape the problematic situation through all sorts of fantastic psychic mechanisms (for those kinds of ways of denial enforce the philosophical correlation). Hence, Peterson’s “see how apparently antagonistic positions can work to communicate”, and Zizek’s “think!” as their closing statements, respectively.

Yet, to focus on the small, segregated, details of the debate is exactly a capitalist manner of approaching discourse, even if one says they are Marxist. The hard Marxist activists are indeed perpetuating the capitalist agenda by constantly reifying routes of control for the capitalist congregant (all of us). It does not matter what kind of revolutionary (or fundamentalist) state would do or say to assert a proper manner to have reality because reality itself is being informed by the ontological exploitation of subjective excess. Hence, political-reality is that inescapable condition where philosophers find themselves. And yet, the move seems to be to stop attempting to be Gramsci-esque proponents for the masses, because so long as this kind of philosophically ‘enlightened’ manner attempts to alleviate the struggle of the disenfranchised, the activist has only asserted that those she would help are indeed lost, as they both become as now a positive historical cause.

Yet I am skeptical that siding with the super-wealthy (as some have already decided is best) will be any more effective, for they, as a general class, are “large scalers”, abusers of excess, exploiters of the world, creators of chaos and confusion.

Ok. I could go on, but I think Ive made my point. And if you ae really interested, you can always read mine and Nathaniel’s books.

Prime Example of the Thinking Inside the Box.

How Zizek Should Have Responded to Jordan Peterson

How Zizek Should Have Responded to Jordan Peterson
— Read on

Here (Studebaker. Going forward “S”)is the perfect example of why Zizek tells us in the debate (Peterson/Zizek) why he can’t see a ways out of our dilemma.

It’s great that S has such a high esteem for Zizek, but S seems to not be able to understand how that ability of Z was actually working the other night.

The post in Current Affairs shows the laziness that current intellectualism rests within. S give us exactly the kind of lazy-fare production that exemplifies capitalism and the main reason why Zizek claims there is no way out: S analysis is pedestrian and relies upon not only his assumption of thought (And exalted at that) which goes into his essay writing, but likewise the presumption of substance which is invested already in the publication itself : in other words, what Peterson admittedly does not do a great job as defining, I have no problem making notice of: the Postmodern expert. (See an earlier post of mine).

The debate centered, as an object in-itself, the being of the debate, on indicting the status quo which argues itself as solution-oriented and progressive. The debate was indeed dialectical in its nature, two sides of different positions nevertheless working together to show a truth.

S is unable to see beyond his own Postmodern subjective privilege into what was actually pointed directly at him and intellectuals like him. Studebaker is unable to think without the ideological supports that tell him how to think. In other words: exactly what this debate was about, how one goes about viewing a debate, and what a debate is supposed to mean.

Here is, what (I don’t know?) a Harvard instructor (?) who can’t even see this simplest execution of philosophy right in front of his own eyes ??

What does this say about our institutions of higher learning and reporting? Really.



🤣. I am such a dork. Lol.

But really.

My longer analysis coming shortly.

My Take on the ** GREAT DEBATE ** (Zizek/Peterson): Initial comments.

I think it was excellent. Yeah, it was a little let down for all the hype, but the encounter itself was great.

Before I start in, here’s a couple few other people’s ideas on it.

I like that both these videographers admit that they don’t know very much about either Zizek and Peterson. ok. grains of salt.

This guy has a kind of equivocal attitude upon it, and generally thinks it was thought provoking and good overall:


This guy —

well, you be the judge.


And here is The Guardian’s editorial commentAnd here is THE GUARDIAN’s editorial take.

Oh, and wait, here’s the analysis that really gets to the heart of the debate. Here is an example of what the debate was about, if anyone missed it.



I take on the guardian first: WWE smack down: thats what this guy wanted for his dollar. Great. Intellectual GIANT, this guy.  Obviously he was not listening to the debate for anything which would constitute significance for humanity.

Nick Fuentes:  Yeah, ok.  Very conventional thinker and commentators who admittedly does not know anything about philosophy, but indeed had a very sensible, if limited, view upon what actually occurred. And it only took him nearly a long as the debate itself to tell us about how arrogant he is.

The first vid guy:  as I said, he equivocates.

Yeah, ok , it wasn’t really a debate, and it was more a discussion.  I am wondering how many philosophical debates these guys have seen.  This isn’t debate club.

In fact, it appears to me that this small sample of three, one of which is assumed knowledgeable of the debaters, missed the debate.

And Im gonna dig into the Guardian dude, Stephen Marche, a little.  It appears to me that this guy (of the three) is deserving of the most shit giving, because obviously he doesn’t give any craps about philosophy nor was he really understanding what the hell Zizek and Peterson were doing, what was actually occurring in the debate. If this is all the Guardian has got, they really need to get someone else on the philosophy part. Maybe I should get a job on the Guardian as their philosophical correspondent. Any votes ??

Oh, and then the last guy, in The Stranger article: Can anyone say “postmodern religious congregant”?  I think this post of mine will tell you what I mean: The postmodern condition: Google is Manipulating You – Putting You in Their “Filter Bubble. (Well maybe that is the wrong post to explain what I mean by PM religion. I got one somewhere though.) Id say that this opinion attempts too much and is most likely the kind of view Zizek was trying to critique in this debate with Peterson.  One should keep in mind that when one discusses philosophy at this level they have stepped outside of debate club.  Can I say “debate club” again?  Debate club.  Debate club accomplishes something else, something other that what this debate was really about.  Again, one can  look into my earlier post for my argument about The Two Routes.


Yes. The beginning started a little weird. We knew it would. We know that Peterson’s approach might be a little — how shall we say — geeky? Like he thought this was going to be debate club. But then with Zizek’s opening he could see that this discussion/ debate was actually going to have some meat to it.  From how Peterson then responded, one could tell Zizek’s opening threw him off; it took him a couple minutes to get his bearings. And thats what I like about Zizek: He’s no bullshit. And I think Peterson also; despite my opinion about him (which I will talk about shortly, though maybe another post, if not my past ones), he gives only one or two fuks also, and I think this is why the discussion was so great:

They simply did not give a shit about the typical politic hype sandwich that everyone wants to eat. They are not the kind of people who give in to what people want or expect.  Beautiful; these guys actually had a philosophical debate. They were actually discussing what is represented by Nick and Stephen, actually addressing what is usually perpetuated as “philosophy and politics”, actually getting down to some significances of out current state.

The issue is that one needs to have at least attempted to encounter the state of things in order to have seen and understood what these two guys were talking about. This is pointed out in both their ending statements:

Peterson: He hopes that everyone will see how communication takes place.

Zizek: Think. Or, At least attempt to stop playing the naive political games.

But of course, the common folk will not have this.  They want WWF Smack Down.

All right. Ok..

The nay sayers got their rights to have their own opinion, of course.  But it does not mean that know what they are talking about.

You’ll have to wait for my further analysis in another post.

But who the feeeuuuge. am I?


— I kinda disappointed with the Guardian dude.  Im a little kind of embarrassed for the Guardian now.  hhmf. It kinda shows that even the Guardian is not what it is supposed to be; my opinion of the paper just fell a few notches, I think. Quite flat thinking.

I am wondering what substance he was looking for. His accusations and general sullenness for lack of answer or entertainment shows that they were talking about people just like him.

I don’t think it was the debate that was lacking, i think it was the listeners.



Standing in wonderment: The case against the psychologist who shall not be named (JP 😉).

I am intrigued about this Jordan Peterson phenomenon and so I’m trying to at least invest a little time into finding out what he is really saying.

So above is a little clip of him on the Bill Maher show. I got to say that Bill Maher just clicked down a few notches on my intelligence scale. I definitely liked him back in the politically incorrect days, but it seems as much as these two white men are talking about thinking, they are really not thinking it through very well. It sounds like they’re just patting each other on the back for being rich and famous. Lol.

Ok here’s what I really think.

For one, I don’t really like how they throw around the word “truth”. Now, I am appreciating what they are saying about offending someone or being disrespectful; I agree, this world has become a little bit too sensitive. But also I think it is very unthinking to go from people are just too sensitive – the universities are not holding up standards of truth – they are caught in postmodernism — etc..

Let us indeed be real here:

Who is actually the one who is being offended? Is it the Queers? Who is really being too sensitive? The Gays?

I think it is Peterson himself.

First of all, at risk of being immediately stuck into a category of postmodernist — as anyone who reads my blog knows I am critical of postmodernism — I will suggest that these two white men on this show are throwing around the word “Truth” like it is something that cannot be a problem. In the other videos I’ve watched of Peterson he likes to talk about “reality” also. In fact I think he relates “honesty” with being in tune with reality.

Now, the reason why I keep saying “these two white men” is because indeed this is what we are talking about that even the intellectualizing white men are not comprehending, it seems, or could give a damn about (hence the problem).

Really, ironically, what I’m saying is that this white man, Jordan Peterson, is offended down to his core; White men who are offended meet those who are disrespecting their rightful “reasonable” righteous whiteness with indignation. So to defend himself, he uses the quite post-modern method of twisting discourse so that no one can see that he is deeply offended; that deep offense of his whiteness he returns back to the discourse to keep what is offensive at the level of postmodern discourse. He is doing what he is arguing: exactly what he is saying he is arguing against the PoMos about. And this is to say, so he can argue against “postmodernism” as if it is this resolved and specific thing.

Further, It is interesting to me that he is a PhD in psychoanalysis, and yet he is totally blind to how he is repressing those aspects of reality that offend him, and that he is projecting the object of his offense out upon the world as if there’s nothing wrong. Reaction formation, I Think it’s really called. It is basic Freudian psychoanalysis. I think he needs to go back to his psychology school, take some classes, Maybe listen to some Zizek for a little bit. I think Perterson might need some counseling. 😀

And the thing is, if anyone were to call him out on this, he would use the very post-modern method and skill of manipulating the reality of the situation back to discursive definition to show that that is not what is occurring with him, but is indeed a defense mechanism of what is occurring for me, say . In short, he would be dishonest about what he is in countering in reality.

Shall I mention his short synopsis of Kierkegaard? (In the previous post, his little rambling long talk). Can we say “agenda-filled reading” of Kierkegaard? It is so incredibly off the mark of what Kierkegaard is really talking about, I think I’m about to cough up my pancreas.

And yet here he is in the spotlight, famous calming having a bunch of people enjoying his arguments and relating to what he has to say. Even being offered a fellowship at Cambridge. I mean, this is not just about a difference of opinion or free speech, it’s a literally about different levels of intelligence and education; it’s about different capacities of understanding what the issues are and how they are being addressed.

I mean, I think I have talked about elsewhere, somewhere in my other posts, that the issue of philosophy now is to be able to distinguish between types of philosophy. And I mean this in the sense of how philosophy is being used as though is it it is a unitive category. This to say that it is not merely epistemology or ontology or teleology or whatever sort of other ologies; wit is literally about how discourses are being used under the umbrella category of philosophy. I submit that philosophy is being used in two distinctly different ways.


This is why you cannot prove that whiteness is real to people who are stuck within it, and this is why I say such subjectivity is really a religious tenet. In this case, the religion asserts the privilege of being white, that you do not have to admit when you are offended and you definitely don’t have to admit to something being true if you don’t agree with it. All you have to do is yell louder and present as a white man and you are above reproach, as you refer to the religious theological ground (truth;reality).

Keep in mind, I’m not saying that there is not a truth or that there is not a reality; Rather I am saying what we are presently involved with a religious effectuation; what in the past we have called ideology, we are finding now is really a manner of coming up on reality that really has nothing to do with whether or not my thoughts equate with a sensible object, or what that means.

What we are involved with now is getting out of these limiting, correlational structures, and the opening of oneself to the possibility of other. It is not postmodernism; postmodernism is the description of the typical religious activity of thought. (I admit, there is a certain faction in the university that calls itself “postmodernism”, but this is not a religion in the sense that Peterson calls it, rather it is a misunderstanding of discourse in the Lacanian sense).

Just because you have a PhD does not mean you comprehend this aspect; in fact, all it really means is that you can use language in a particular way. What is at issue is the person that is using these methods.

There is a much deeper rebuttal to his whole presentation, but I am just voice dictating here while I’m walking my dog and so it’s hard to edit and write a whole dissertation on how Jordan Peterson philosophical position is skewed. He is unable to see the reality in front of him; what he sees is his own justification for what appears to him self reflexively as truth and reality.

To ask what this truth is that they keep throwing around as if it’s well known, is not a postmodern tactic. Of course Peterson might say it is a postmodern tactic, but that is because he is inherently caught in the postmodern manner of appropriating reality. In my previous post, in the video where he’s talking about stuff, he even pointed this out: namely, that there is some sort of dichotomy in history, some sort of polemic through which human beings are able to behave. His ground summary and resolution to this historical polemic is that in order for a person to be honest with themselves they have to say things that are offensive to other people. And then he uses the trope “postmodernism” as a Patsy to lump people who are “sensitive” into a group of people who are not being “honest”. Jordan Peterson might be being honest by being offensive, but he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to truth because for him truth is based in some sort of common ground of our existence I guess. All one needs to do is listen to his analysis of history to understand his orientation upon the world; he has no problem with his thinking. In fact everyone should think like him because if you’re a white Man, then you know everything there is to know about identity, biology, sex, ideology, philosophy, truth, reality… how convenient for him.

He does not see his complicity with a particular ideology of power no matter how much he wants to talk about domination pyramids. In short, he is using the post modern method of coming upon reality and being in reality as an excuse for his own ignorance. He is being manipulative and he is not being honest simply because he is not able to confront what might be some sort of truth upon his truth operating. He is utterly an example of postmodern subjectivity in the same way that Zizek has indicated Donald Trump. The only truth he sees is that which is self-evident to him. He has no conception of what correlationalism might mean, nor would any of the discussions of the speculative realist folk are talking about over in France, or even LA, have any substance for him.

In short, we can see that he is involved with a particular post- modern religious manner of coming upon the world (there is no common thing called “postmodernism”; postmodernism defines a particular paradigm of knowing and a particular paradigm of being able to come up on world) and asserting that intuitive sense as if it obviously and should be and is supposed to be everyone else’s reality. This particular manner of approaching reality is called “colonialism”. And it seems he doesn’t even know that, Or at least, in the way that he has talked about it in other places, again, He completely exclude himself from the effort of colonialism in the progress of this universal history through which reality and truth only a come about through a persons being honest with themselves he completely exclude himself from the effort of colonialism in the progress of this universal history through which reality and truth only a come about through a persons being honest with themselves. I wonder if his definition of honesty means that everyone else needs to be fucked up in the head and only people like them are allowed to be rational (wat?) .

He is caught in a confusion created by his own presence of being offended by what reality presents to him. He uses ideas and tropes that go unanalyzed and unchallenged – Indeed he uses these troops in a manner that suggests that analyzing them or challenging them is part of the fantasy or a part of not being honest– for the purpose of reestablishing the status quo, which is basically the reality And supremacy Of the white thinking man.

It is not that truth is obvious, nor is it that there is no truth. It is not even some “spiritual” truth. It is that the truth of it is not yet viewable through those routes.

The problem is not what lay at the end of Perterson’s pointing finger, as much as he likes to point at things. The problem is that the subject of this pointing finger is not being questioned; it is as if to him some sort of “spiritual – historical mandate” is being communicated from God.

Again, there is a much deeper critique of Peterson which may come out one day but, honestly, I don’t know if it’s really worth the effort because demagogues have their place too. Hence, the discussion about what humanity is by what it does by the Philosophical Hack.

Who is Happier: Zizek or Peterson?

I guess we will find out.

Rock and Roll philosophy

As well, an even more important and influential counselor-philosopher will be presenting a paper at the “Pessimism and Negativity in Religion” conference Put on by the Department of religious studies at the University of Toronto the day before: Me!

And I won’t charge you a cent to come hear me read my 20 minute paper!!


Interesting that the University of Toronto is having a conference about pessimism and negativity in religion, and then the very next night they’re having the Peterson/Zizek debate on the topic of happiness :Marxism and capitalism.

Dude; that just sounds epic!

(but they don’t look very happy in their pictures)

Another argument against the existence of white privilege: The postmodern “no exit“.

There will be a few opinions expressed in this post. My main critique is that Jordan Peterson does not understand the issues that he is condemning, and so what sounds like intelligence is really just small minded opinion based upon an ignorance.


Here is a post worth reposting:

Originally posted on Cadell Last: Synthesis! Video: Slavoj Žižek or Jordan Peterson? Both Please! So it seems like Žižek heard the criticisms regarding his approach to the political phenomenon of Jordan Peterson and has responded quite clearly. In this response he attempts to remind us of the ways in which the “radical left” or the “identity…

via Slavoj Žižek or Jordan Peterson? Both Please! — AGENT SWARM

In our current situation, I do agree that people should talk about things. But, the unpopular opinion is that this is not always the case, and all too often, no communication occurs in the attempts anyways!

I am making a sweeping judgment when I say that I watched this video of Jordan Peterson and it was enough to understand his view, manner, and basis of opinions. I do not think it is a valuable thing to disseminate at least some of this guy’s “scholarship”; his arguments are just plain incorrect. Answering to his points would be like arguing with a person over why 2+4 does not equal 9; there is no point in hearing information that is just incorrect in so many ways. So, I am not even embedding his lecture so readers are greeted with a nice picture when one opens this post. 😆This guy and his lectures are not really worth reposting. They are worth noting, though, because we should keep tabs on dangerous people an their ideas; they are not worth considering as true, except that they do have an effect upon people. They are valid in as much as there is indeed someone with such an idea, but we should always try to keep in mind the audience. So I am putting the link so you reader can watch his 10 minute piece and hear how scholarship and letters can lead to and support all sorts of ideas. Education, intelligence, and letters after your name does not necessarily denote legitimate substance. It’s often, it seems, really no different than saying I have short hair, often wear flannels and wingtips.

— But nevertheless I will be getting my advanced degree. 🤘🏾starting in August. 👽

The reason why it is not always the case that communication can take place is exemplified by this very lettered dude. He is an example of what is able to be wrong with the world education system: The only thing that makes him valuable is that he did some things to get some letter behind his name that makes him important so that people will think he knows what he is talking about. There are stupid doctors you know; he may indeed be quite knowledgeable about things, but apparently philosophy is not one of them (reflection in thought is often only intensional; but there is also The philosophical divide we know as “analytical” and “continental”, even as I’m not really sure these categories locate anything for us. The plain and simple fact is that I can levy the same claims against him that he does against the “Post-Moderns”. He obviously does not understand the issues by which he stakes his position, despite his “education”. The point of the “end of philosophy” or the “end of history” and all those ends, is that philosophy has painted itself into a corner such that no matter what is argued away from the corner it finds itself in the corner. The way that Jordan is arguing, it appears, however he wants to talk about what the “postmoderns” would say, that he does not understand what it means: His reflection upon the issues shows he is not understanding what he is supposed to be reflecting upon.

Now I am not apologist for any “Post-modernity”. In fact, I can agree with him in so far as there are many self claimed Post-Modern school-people (scholars?) who do indeed fall into his category to merit his PM description. I myself have pointed out the lamer PM approach.

Let me see if I can really simply spell out the problems I see with PM and also Jordan . Lets see if I succeed.

I will not be going through his lecture point by point, but in general to those points.

In short, Jordan is a white male reactionary, and traditionally, all that needs to happen for a white male to be correct is to argue the system that the white males erected. What this system is and does is the issue that he doesn’t seem to want to address. Maybe he does elsewhere, but I suspect he will use the discursive sight-of-hand to denounce the aspects that he himself uses to prop his ideas upon, And this because he simply is not understanding the discussion of race and gender relations.

(1) Jordan is puffed up on himself. His letters allow him to be viewed, by himself as well as others, as if he is giving intelligent lectures, lectures that contain intelligence. In fact, we can say that he has intelligence insomuch as we grant credence to the postmodern ideal that intelligence is what we make of it or what we argue of it. Intelligence in this way has dismissed itself from any actual ground: The ground is the “common sense” ground of propaganda. He has no interest in what might be true, only what is real; what is true is so because he is able to use discourse to establish its reality; this is a Post-modern tenant. He is thus caught in the Post-modern condition and is rebelling against this contradiction by outright living in denial. Though he is lettered, its seems he has conveniently missed the one of the basic tenants of white privilege: He will not look at , and is utterly unable to get outside of, his privilege. He is using Post-modern methodologies to argue that the Post-modern methodology is incorrect, then flat out simply asserting that he is correct beyond his contradictory position. In the extent that he is not involved with any irony, such a method asserts propaganda. Did I say that it is obvious that he is not understanding the issue?

(2) Jordan’s definitional categories of Post modern itself is an incorrect assessment; they are insufficient. While they do indicate a certain group who claims PM, the very ideal of PM has been corrupted by the problem that PM opened up. What is now called Post-Modernism is too often a deformity of the meaning of the texts. In short; his assessment is based upon not only upon an incorrect assessment, but he is very sure that his assessment is correct. The tenants he announces to thereby discredit are populist distortions.

The Post-modern method is exactly that which Jordan is using to discredit white privilege and PM, but in reverse; He is taking a representation of assumption of individuals and discrediting it as if it represents the whole of the group. (In this case, the purported group, the PMs, also often fall into a similar category as Jordan. Yay for letters !!) Again, while there is indeed a group who might claim the title of PM, this title is also not worth its letter, except, as Leotard might describe it, the letters themselves have become indicators or privilege and expertise and do not necessarily convey any actual truth. He understand himself with reference to truth due to the fact that he has done x amount of work; he believes his own script and is unable to consider what might not be included in his ‘expertise’. He is an example of someone caught in the the post modern condition as well as white privilege, but also the system that is being exploited by him is subject to the same fault (hence the exploitation and hence the perpetuation of the racist system).

In short; he is a white male who is reacting to a threat upon his identity. His claim that identifiers reduce to an infinity of identifiers (and so why pick ‘just these ones’) and thus have no credence in real social negotiations has, again conveniently, missed the basic fact that communication does not occur across a common category. His assumption is one of white privilege. It is based on a “should be” rather than an “Is”, but he uses his innate offense upon the basis of his identity, what he perceives as an attack upon is Being, to cater to the crowd and use general ideals such as “reality” to argue a position that is common to everyone, as if every one is a equal human being. This is called the argument from the political state; the Idea is a good one, but it doesn’t translate into reality intact. Intersectionality is a critique about overarching idealisms and institutions that enforce such ‘normalcy”. Jordan is not seeing logic as a tool; evidenced by his use of it, he sees Logic as a sort of ‘holy spirit’ by which one may commune with the great Logos God. Again, he conveniently sets aside his use of discursive gymnastics that is usually associated with the PM lineage. He is twisting and confusing academic rigor with intentionality, engendering religious intolerance under a guise of open theoretical validity.

While I tend to agree with his argument about where the ideas of racism and systemic privilege lead, he seems to miss the real issue. His position is concerned with what “should be”, but the actual issue is about what “Is”. He is arguing an ideology of ontology as an identity ( a common) rather than confronting the teleology it supposes and enforces on the ground. As we find in his other addresses, he associates an assault on his identity, on the categories given to him, as an assault on a general “human freedom” and I would guess he extrapolates this over into the freedoms of democracy and the Canadian-United Sates-and others way of life. Well of course it is an assault on your “way of life”, Jordan! Thats the point. But it doesn’t mean that the “free world” is threatened.

Yet this is also what is at root the problem in philosophy and the critical academics is that most are in a race to the finish line, a race to nowhere. And the method that has come about because of this competition to produce valuable intellectual products  advocates anticipating ends and creating academic products based in those (speculated) ends. More and more, the extension towards these products ends are creating a “ground vacuum” such that Jean-Francois Lyotard was more correct than he could have known (maybe).

We are indeed still living in the Post-modern condition. Lettered people similar to Jordan only serve to make an argument for why the condition still exists because they are incapable of understanding the significance of the discussion. They end up reifying the condition and moving us in a swirling eddy, offering little constructive input, and plain ideological propaganda of the “we shall be great again” rhetorical type.

Oh and the “you’re next”. OMG. If that isn’t reactionary politics going on the offensive…

Maybe Ill be proven wrong. After all, I only watched one video of his.

Im game.

It’s not so much that we need a new theory, it’s that we need a different type of theoreticians.

Like that is ever going to happen for our culture of popularity and products. 😝

That’s where a philosophical divergence comes in the play.


Here is another little bit with Jordan about pronouns and gender issues. In short, he is  (begrudgingly, and in denial that he is) a congregant of postmodern intentionality. While I agree he has a point about pronouns, but again, he is concerned with what “should be” more than what “Is”. The consideration is generalized ,just as he argues that we can’t generalize respect; he is generalizing respect in his thinking and granting it to respect for his own.

The person who posted the vid and made the captions obviously lives on a different planet. Of course, the person thinks the captions make sense, but I don’t know what it is. That is called a “failure of communicating across a category”, and in this case there is a category that I am not recognizing that the person believes they are communicating across, but here the category itself has failed.


Here is a comment by Zizek.


But after all that: what a boring world it would be without different ideas and opinions. So actually, the academy is working well. It only appears that I’m attacking him personally because he acts and behaves as if he’s got all the information, but it is obvious to me that he’s not understanding the things that he is critiquing.

And finally; I am not convinced that Zizek and Peterson represent a thesis and anti-thesis relationship, and therefore there would really be no synthesis that would occur, except in the most mundane form, from their interaction. This is because Peterson does not represent an antithesis, he actually represents a continuing postmodern thesis.

I wonder if he thinks homosexuality is a mental disease?