ilovefuzz.com

DadDick...I really did it this time. Got expensive ramen again. Why do humans do this to themselves?

A series of alternative tunings, per my earlier post.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ole0XjOOvGA[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ole0XjOOvGA
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw8VCRscJ9w[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw8VCRscJ9w
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmIY48D4nvY[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmIY48D4nvY
An oldie but a goodie...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eekMvaPeRwk[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eekMvaPeRwk

This Jordan Peterson stuff is really ramping up, huh, $hark? What do you make of it?

I've spent a fair amount of time with his writing and lectures in the last couple weeks--read some books, heard some interviews, stuff like that. The crazy thing is that he's essentially indicting the entirety of my long-ass training, and I'm pretty sure he's right about most of it. Definitely not taking it personally, as I never really trusted 'postmodernism' as a conceptual framework (or neo-marxism, or post-structuralism, or any of the other buzzwords that ordered my thinking from ages 21-29). It'd be great if maybe there were a little more familiarity with some of the racial histories he kinda dismisses, but--beyond that--it's a cohesive and convincing set of arguments.

This latest series of skirmishes in the culture wars is really preeeeetty worrying. It's not really clear what we're ramping up to (if anything), but tension is definitely ratcheting. The Peterson stuff is ideally apolitical, and therefore maybe a good solution, though no one who needs to hear it will ever interpret it that way.

Invisible Man wrote: ...It'd be great if maybe there were a little more familiarity with some of the racial histories he kinda dismisses...

nearly everything he talks about falls apart as a whole when you begin to really look at it in relation to racial histories, or i guess even broader you could say just detailed history in general, and he clearly leaves this out of a lot of what he talks about so that his ideas seem to be packaged neatly. But this isn't how history works/has worked, and isn't how people organise their own world views not only about others, but about themselves. I could talk a lot about this, but i guess my point is that he is doing a huge injustice to many peoples by trying to just present things in this dismissive sort of way (which is kind of funny, because he often complains of others not understanding or being educated about history in general).

Invisible Man wrote:The Peterson stuff is ideally apolitical, and therefore maybe a good solution, though no one who needs to hear it will ever interpret it that way.

ideally, but it could never be accepted as such if what i mentioned above is held as true, and that is by people that wouldn't even necessary 'need' to hear it like you mentioned above. Some of what he talks about is interesting like you already said above, but there are some huge holes in his general outlook and overall i can't help but feel like he is somewhat detached from a broader reality of what is happening in the world. I don't see his ideas translating easily across borders either for this reason as well.

Hey IM, not being evasive or coping out. I just haven't been following the situation and I don't want to give a haphazard opinion. Especially if I try to research it in a crunch and miss crucial details. Sorry. Better to just say "You don't know" than spew bullshit.

That said, something I am an 'expert' in...muh hahaha. I finally saw PHANTOM THREAD (DadDick, if you're reading this....). You can skip it.

Let's start with the positives.
1. PT Anderson and his Team know how to photograph a film. It was beautiful.
2. Johnny Greenwood know how to score a film. Great job for him! I hope he gets some awards for being robbed for THERE WILL BE BLOOD
3. All the actors, besides Daniel Day Lewis, were great.

That said, how they summed up the film, the last act, was very student film-ish.

Regarding Daniel Day Lewis...this is why his version of method acting infuriates me. You did all that work? For that? Are you kidding? People like Viggo Mortensen, Ed Harris, Sean Bean, Choi Min-sik, Ricardo Darín, Idris Elba, and Dominic West can act circles around Lewis and with much less effort.

Javier Bardem, Forest Whitaker the list goes on..all actors that bring tremendous understatement and sensitivity to a role. All actors with a range.

That said, again, huge props to Lesley Manville in her role.

Re: ibarakishi:

It depends on which direction you’re looking—do you want to extrapolate data from the history of class struggle or from Jungian archetypes. I have less of a beef with Peterson giving historical accounts short shrift than I do with it being another ideological growth (from Jung). It’s not necessarily new, in other words. He’s synthesizing and applying the gospels, Genesis, Aristotle, and more modern thinkers and applying them broadly to data sets and our specific cultural malaise. None of that is easy to argue against, and is therefore pretty convincing.

it is interesting you brought up Jung, because he is somebody that i think has a habit of falling into this sort of 'broad strokes' category as well, and was actually the first person i thought of when encountering him for the first time. The simplest way i can think of condensing everything i could write about this is that much like jung, in trying to be all encompassing and universal, he fails to look at or resolve the specific. And if any value at all is placed in that, then this is a problem. When looking at broad sets of ideas or like you said data, it seems to at least function somewhat. Like you already said, and i agree with, his ideas are not really new, but the application of older ideas to more modern situations is interesting like i said above. Nearly every psychology professor i ever talked to hated Jung and criticised him for bringing nothing new or of real weight to the table. But i think in having that perspective, it kind of oversimplifies what he was able to bridge and also reevaluate, though what he concluded with in the end was by no means perfect (and he continued to try to resolve those issues to the best of his ability until his death). It was only my philosophy teachers that were able to admit this strangely and see the value in it. I feel similar about Peterson. I understand his intent, see his argument, but i can't buy it at full value. Maybe part of that too is that i think that in by allowing such dismissiveness, i don't see things getting better, at least on a long term scale. I think that people that just stare at the surface of his work and take it for that face value are usually from my experience are the exact group of people that are feeding the social distress that you mentioned earlier as well. You can see very clearly i think how people, especially in Europe and north America, have immediately recognised this dismissive quality of his work in general and have used it to champion their own generally backwards world views, and thus try to suppress lots of specific groups of marginalised groups or ideas, which i think in general has to be pretty sad for him to watch as a whole (maybe?) because he is in many ways trying to fight against that in many of his opening mission statements. IMO this is why he is so famous now honestly, not because of the full merit of his work. Things might look great or feel great when sitting in the armchair, but when you apply those ideas and sentiments to the outside world and let that same world run with them however it wishes, this is another narrative all together. And i feel he is not at all aware of this, or aware of what some of the broader consequences are for some of his views, especially outside of places like north america and europe.

these are just my thoughts. i am not and never will be an expert in any of these fields. i am not a professor. i haven't dedicated my life's time to these areas of thought and have never had a conversation in person with him to allow him the chance to clarify further his thoughts and feelings. i don't want to come across like i am an expert or that i am necessarily right. these are just things i have thought about.

Hippies hype Jung, he's mind bait. Psychology and the occult was a good book though....if I hear one more hippie talk about "the shadow" I'm goin slap slap happy.

I’m going to second comsect on the “fuck Jung” front.
Like Freud, he laid some foundations but we mostly look back on them as relics now.
And also, fuck hippies.

Jung > Freud. Freud used ‘case studies’ as a means of legitimizing and making his goofy shit seems clinical when it has effectively zero basis in anything observable. I don’t for this to sound douchey, but it’s true—I studied for years with some highly-regarded psychoanalysts and was completely baffled by the stuff they said. Not because I disagreed, but because it seemed and seems incomprehensible. Same for Derrida, who I have railed against here and there and everywhere. I was too young to meet the dude, but studied with one of his co-authors and one of his translators/friends...one seminar spent an entire term on a paragraph of Derrida. Maaaaaaaybe pull back on the veneration a little bit, folks. Dude had one interesting idea in his life (which is pretty significant, but cmon now).

I like Jung. His stuff doesn’t seem like a great structure for building an entire life as an individual or as a way of being, but I don’t know that he’s wrong. Much like what I said about Peterson, the direction of his thinking makes sense to me even if the conclusions aren’t that easy to assume or agree with.

And ‘yes’ to the hippie problem. I agree. But that’s because people pick and choose bits of philosophies that support their lives and agendas, not because they see a coherent and observable truth. Philosophy becomes a comfort blanket and not a provocation. It’s one argument for teaching high-level concepts to kids when they have the potential to be formative. Most adults ‘don’t have time’ for abstraction, because fuck bitches get money.

And I want to respond to $hark and ikarabishi but it’s 4am and I should probably try to go back to sleep.

tell me more please

wut

You seen those plus sized barbie dolls?...me lady said mattel did a test group to see how kids would respond to the new look and the kids ignored fat barbie...once you buy the 6 foot tall dream house, next thing you know you got 4 new dolls swimmin in the pool, cats and dogs making messes in the living room and metro sexual dudes rollin up with their camaros wanting to use the grill ..all the while barbies dream horse is prancing around to dance music on double A's ...