Has he been to Maggie’s house? Her pantry is labeled. I recently found a shoe…
Has he been to Maggie's house? Her pantry is labeled. I recently found a shoe in my fridge. Tell me which is Order and which is Chaos.
...
For example, he sees the world as fundamentally divided between the forces of âchaosâ and the forces of âorder,â and explains the difference:
...
[Chaos is] what extends, eternally and without limit, beyond the boundaries of all states, all ideas, and all disciplines⦠Itâs the foreigner, the stranger, the member of another gang, the rustle in the bushes⦠the hidden anger of your mother⦠Chaos is symbolically associated with the feminine⦠Order, by contrast, is explored territory. Thatâs the hundreds-of-millions-of-years-old hierarchy of place, position, and authority. Thatâs the structure of society. Itâs the structure provided by biology, tooâ¦Itâs the flag of the nation⦠Itâs the greatness of tradition, the rows of desks in the school classroom, the trains that leave on time⦠In the domain of order, things behave as God intended.
...
Itâs very easy to hear the echoes of authoritarianism, even fascism, in this: strong men create order, which is what God intends, and the social structure is preserved by deference to authority, tradition, hierarchy, flags. (Heck, he even talks about the trains running on time!) But the moment one tries to critique this, to talk about the dangers of adhering to flags and traditions for their own sake, Peterson will angrily insist that you have misunderstood his theory: order is symbiotic with chaos, not superior to it! (âOrder is not enough.â)
...
Whatâs important about this kind of writing is that it can easily appear to contain useful insight, because it says many things that either are true or âfeel kind of true,â and does so in a way that makes the reader feel stupid for not really understanding. (Many of the bookâs reviews on Amazon contain sentiments like: I am not sure I understood it, but itâs absolutely brilliant.) Itâs not that itâs empty of content; in fact, itâs precisely because some of it does ring true that it is able to convince readers of its importance. Itâs certainly right that some procedures work in one situation but not another. Itâs right that good moral systems have to be able to think about the future in figuring out what to do in the present. But much of the rest is language so abstract that it cannot be proved or disproved. (The old expression âwhatâs new in it isnât true, and whatâs true isnât newâ applies here.)
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
...
For example, he sees the world as fundamentally divided between the forces of âchaosâ and the forces of âorder,â and explains the difference:
...
[Chaos is] what extends, eternally and without limit, beyond the boundaries of all states, all ideas, and all disciplines⦠Itâs the foreigner, the stranger, the member of another gang, the rustle in the bushes⦠the hidden anger of your mother⦠Chaos is symbolically associated with the feminine⦠Order, by contrast, is explored territory. Thatâs the hundreds-of-millions-of-years-old hierarchy of place, position, and authority. Thatâs the structure of society. Itâs the structure provided by biology, tooâ¦Itâs the flag of the nation⦠Itâs the greatness of tradition, the rows of desks in the school classroom, the trains that leave on time⦠In the domain of order, things behave as God intended.
...
Itâs very easy to hear the echoes of authoritarianism, even fascism, in this: strong men create order, which is what God intends, and the social structure is preserved by deference to authority, tradition, hierarchy, flags. (Heck, he even talks about the trains running on time!) But the moment one tries to critique this, to talk about the dangers of adhering to flags and traditions for their own sake, Peterson will angrily insist that you have misunderstood his theory: order is symbiotic with chaos, not superior to it! (âOrder is not enough.â)
...
Whatâs important about this kind of writing is that it can easily appear to contain useful insight, because it says many things that either are true or âfeel kind of true,â and does so in a way that makes the reader feel stupid for not really understanding. (Many of the bookâs reviews on Amazon contain sentiments like: I am not sure I understood it, but itâs absolutely brilliant.) Itâs not that itâs empty of content; in fact, itâs precisely because some of it does ring true that it is able to convince readers of its importance. Itâs certainly right that some procedures work in one situation but not another. Itâs right that good moral systems have to be able to think about the future in figuring out what to do in the present. But much of the rest is language so abstract that it cannot be proved or disproved. (The old expression âwhatâs new in it isnât true, and whatâs true isnât newâ applies here.)
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Notes from the field
No notes yet · members & customers welcome
- No notes yet. Be the first to leave one.
Join MichaelFilter
Michael Joel Hall’s daily reading — the field journal, critical-thinking cards, and synthesis — as a membership.
$5.50/month · cancel anytime
Join — $5.50/mo →Secure checkout on theyoga.club. A yearly option ($55) is available there too.