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 “chaos” and the forces of “order,” and explains the difference:

...
[Chaos is] what extends, eternally and without limit, beyond the boundaries of all states, all ideas, and all disciplines… It’s 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. That’s the hundreds-of-millions-of-years-old hierarchy of place, position, and authority. That’s the structure of society. It’s the structure provided by biology, too…It’s the flag of the nation… It’s 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.
...
It’s 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! (“Order is not enough.”)
...
What’s 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 “feel kind of true,” and does so in a way that makes the reader feel stupid for not really understanding. (Many of the book’s reviews on Amazon contain sentiments like: I am not sure I understood it, but it’s absolutely brilliant.) It’s not that it’s empty of content; in fact, it’s precisely because some of it does ring true that it is able to convince readers of its importance. It’s certainly right that some procedures work in one situation but not another. It’s 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 “what’s new in it isn’t true, and what’s true isn’t new” applies here.)

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Join me on Friday evening for a collection of practices for utilizing yoga to develop a clearer vision of who you are and where you are going. We'll vision board, meditate, talk philosophy-- and best of all, be in community.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/yoga-for-self-inquiry-your-sacred-mission-and-vision-tickets-62048563925

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/yoga-for-self-inquiry-your-sacred-mission-and-vision-tickets-62048563925