Jordan Peterson  2017/06/15: 12 principles for a 21st century conservatism

(there are approximately 18 minutes of introductory remarks by Randy Hillier before the talk) 

June 22, 2017

The following notes by Dr. Peterson are posted with the YouTube video.

"Conservatism has all-too-often found itself unable to articulate a coherent positive doctrine. By this I mean specifically that the laudable conservative tendency to preserve the best of past has too-often manifested itself in a series of "thou shalt not" statements, instead of laying out a manifesto of fundamental values that might serve to unite people around a set of common ambitions. I am attempting to rectify this problem with this statement of principles, some of which I believe might have the additional virtue of being attractive to young people, looking for mature and forthright purpose and responsibility. I am not making the claim that the statement is perfect, comprehensive or final.

Background to the talk: I spoke at Carleton Place, a town in Lanark County, Thursday, June 15/17. I was invited by Randy Hillier, who is a Member of Provincial Parliament for Ontario (randyhilliermpp.com). You can find out more about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_H.)

Note updated link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Hillier_(politician)

"Tenets of a viable 21st century conservatism:

1. The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid. 
2. Peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and to war. In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual impulse and idiosyncrasy. 
3. Hierarchies of competence are desirable and should be promoted. 
4. Borders are reasonable. Likewise, limits on immigration are reasonable. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that citizens of societies that have not evolved functional individual-rights predicated polities will hold values in keeping with such polities. 
5. People should be paid so that they are able and willing to perform socially useful and desirable duties. 
6. Citizens have the inalienable right to benefit from the result of their own honest labor. 
7. It is more noble to teach young people about responsibilities than about rights. 
8. It is better to do what everyone has always done, unless you have some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise. 
9. Radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change. 
10. The government, local and distal, should leave people to their own devices as much as possible. 
11. Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity. 
12. We should judge our political system in comparison to other actual political systems and not to hypothetical utopias."

I read these with interest. This is a list of opinions and I'm not sure how they should be seen as, "Tenets".

I must admit I smiled at the rationale, or lack thereof, of some.

I highly recommend watching the actual talk.  Here's another on a different topic:

Joe Rogan Experience #1107 - Sam Harris & Maajid Nawaz

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, and The Moral Landscape. Maajid Nawaz is a British activist, author, columnist, radio host and politician.

 I went to the wrong website. I listened to an hour before I'd had enough. It was all opinion and populism at that. Populism is the easiest thing to sell because it saves people from having to think. I speak from only personal experience. I was a conservative until I was in my thirties; hell, it was the way I was brought up. Then I started to try and justify a few of my beliefs and I couldn't. 

The thing that amuses me about America is that so many profess to be Christians.Christ spent three years preaching left wing ideals and railed against the conservative, "Law". THINK if you DARE! 

 Hey Theo,  Here's the start of an interesting take on religion (a lengthy series by Jordan Peterson):  Biblical Series I: Introduction to the Idea of God.   

Dr. Peterson writes: "In this lecture, I describe what I consider to be the idea of God, which is at least partly the notion of sovereignty and power, divorced from any concrete sovereign or particular, individual person of power. I also suggest that God, as Father, is something akin to the spirit or pattern inherent in the human hierarchy of authority, which is based in turn on the dominance hierarchies characterizing animals."

BTW - What was the "wrong website" that you mentioned above?

Good to read your comments, William. I SHOULD say, that given we're half a world apart, some, "Impressions" may be different. "Love your neighbour as yourself", is a left-wing principle. That doesn;t mean that all right-wingers ignore it but it's a left-wing principle.

"The Good Samaritan" parable is left-wingish.

It's an easy test. Christians should care about ALL their fellow men and that includes the poor and society's misfits. The Old Testament is all about an, "Eye for an eye". Christ preached forgiveness.

Last question first, mate. I'm in my dotage and simple clicked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_H 

I deleted my comment but it said, Comment deleted" so I thought I should restate it. Deleted comments rouse the curiosity in us.

As for the rest, it's simply one man's opinions and he's entitled to them. I never debate opinions because they're neither right nor wrong. Unfortunately, most come from the heart and that's not the, "Thinking organ".

Hey Theo. You're not the only one 'in your dotage.'  LOL!  We 'geezers' often have a lot to offer and shouldn't put ourselves down!  But we also can still 'explore strange new worlds' as it were.  

I believe that the labeling of ancient stories and texts as either 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' is a mistake. It ignores historical context, among other things.  Dr. Peterson addresses the historical stories and myths and tries to explore and explain their seeming internal conflicts.  But complex ideas cannot be adequately summarized in a few sentences, or a few soundbites.  That is why many of his video series run for an extended period and provide much 'food for thought'.  Presently involved in a number of his online efforts, I have realized that he is not 'preaching' but, rather, seeking to stimulate thought and 'conversation'.  Through his YouTube presence I have also been introduced to an ever expanding, diverse group of interesting, and challenging, individuals (and ideas).  Who says "you can't teach an old dog new 'stuff'!" (not just "...tricks")? 

As a former addict to network (read 'soundbite') news, it has taken some time to re-learn to focus on a 'conversation' for extended periods of time.  Fortunately there is a 'pause button' for YouTube.  

I have also begun taking to heart Peterson's "Rule 9 / Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't."  I now listen more closely (even to my elementary grade chess students) than has been my habit, and encourage all of you to question, develop, and expand upon what you see or write here.  

I, also, "reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks," as politicians in the halls of our Congress so often state.

No much there with which I disagree, mate. "Dotage"? (We Aussies excel at self-deprecatory humour or statements).

I'm not seeking to categorise everything, or indeed, anything, into left or right wing but some thoughts and actions simply fall that way. (Who would've thought that the Nazi behaviour and Israeli behaviour would both fall squarely inot the right-wing category. Communism took the left-wing ideology of Socialism to such an extreme that it too, became right-wing. (The meaning of, "Socialism" is slowly changing and my friend, The Oxford, has yet to catch up. ). I know that, "Socialism" is still a dirty word in the States but to me, it almost encapsulates the teachings of Christ.

(Your serve )

Here's a link to an interesting article by Steven Lewis: Words, Meanings and Context

I first became interested in the General Semantics of Alfred Korzybski as a student back in the '60s.  His influence is widely seen today (although not widely enough, in my opinion), even if his name is not so widely recognized. There's lots of stuff on YouTube, but its tough going for the novice.

I checked the site, Omar, and of course, was amused at the examples of sloppy journalism.

I stopped reading when I came to this sentence, because it's, by definition of two words, patently wrong. The two words are, "Words", and, "Intrinsic". the purpose of a word is to deliver an intrinsic meaning. It's the selection or use of the incorrect word or, as in the above cases, punctuation, that changes the, "Value". 

The moral of the story is that words have no intrinsic meanings

                                                      Dave Rubin

There is an increasing amount of intelligent and rational discussion of many issues of concern to all, on the so-called 'Intellectual Dark-Web', of which I have only recently become aware.  There are multiple and diverse forums where I am increasingly able to listen to ideas on many sides of current topics, expressed in serious and lengthy conversations by people who are much wiser than I.  Two of the regular forums are hosted by Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan.   I would never have encountered either of these gentlemen in my former life.  Check them out.

In my limited free time, I expect I will be posting more 'links' and writing less. But who knows?  Anyway I hope you all will provide some feedback.

                                                      Joe Rogan

(8/2/18) Check this out: "Joe Rogan Experience # 1139: Jordan Peterson" on YouTube (July 2, 2018). An inspirational conversation and experience (about 3+ hours but well worth it). After you watch it post your reactions.

I apologize for being so busy that I have been neglecting this group.  Perhaps some of you can pitch in with some ideas, or links, of your own.  That's why this group exists, after all.  

Here are some recent items I have enjoyed and found to be thought provoking:

Culture vs Ecstasy, Jules Evans

The Diversity Delusion (Heather Mac Donald Interview)

College President Fights for Truth on Campus (Dr. Everett Piper Interview)

    Forgive me for posting this on several different forums simultaneously.  That is evidence of just how important I find the topic.  Education, Politics, and Western Civilization all cry out for the intelligent discussion of many questions:  “What can we trust? Why is the 'information ecology' so damaged, and what would it take to make it healthy? [These are] fundamental question[s], because without good sensemaking [at the heart of Korzybski's 'general semantics'], we cannot even begin to act in the world. It is also a central concern in what many are calling the "meaning crisis", because what is meaningful is connected to what is real.”

      The War on Sensemaking…  (Rebel Wisdom on YouTube, 1:48:49) Premiered on Aug 19, 2019.  There's a lot to unpack and think about in this video.  I took three or four distinct (but rewarding) sessions to listen to it all, but I plan to see it again in the near future.

      “Daniel Schmachtenberger [a new discovery for me] is an evolutionary philosopher - his central interest is civilization design: developing new capacities for sense-making and choice-making, individually and collectively, to support conscious sustainable evolution.”

For more from Daniel, he blogs on these topics at https://civilizationemerging.com/

He’s also the director of Research and Development at Neurohacker Collective https://neurohacker.com/ethos

(9/3/19) In frustration over the "climate alarmism" exhibited by much of the current coverage of Hurricane Dorian, I post  the following coverage of a "Scientific panel on the Global Climate Action Summit organized by the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute and held in Oakland, California, on September 13, 2018. A year old but still relevant.

Rebutting Alarmism at the Global Climate Action Summit  
(Pt.1) [YouTube 1:31:41]  Part 2 (Day 2) is also available.

(10/11/19) 

epistemology   (ĭ-pĭs′tə-mŏl′ə-jē)

     One of our biggest problems, today (2019), is "faulty epistemology."  In fact, most people have never heard the word, or thought about it.

     "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance."
― Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business