A Chesterton quote comes to mind: “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

Postmodernists : “There is no objective truth” Me : “Is that objectively true?”

"Progress without telos" is the perfect description, Jonathan! I've frequently remarked that that the modern myth of progress teaches people that simply moving in any direction, as long as it's away from the past, is moving in the right direction. But with out a meta-narrative that can establish a transcendent source of ethical norms (especially a transcultural meta-narrative), our only sense of "oughtness" is the feeling that we ought to simply move away from tradition of any sort.

On the shared bathroom-issue: I live in Malmö, in the south of Sweden where we have a popular outdoor sauna- and baths facility. It’s right on the sea, so no enclosed pools but actual seawater for the bathers. It’s open all year round and is kind of an ’institution’ for winter bathers, also quite popular (or exotic?) for tourists, although outdoor winter bathing after sauna is more of a finnish tradition. Now, the thing is with this bathing faciltiy (Ribersborgs Kallbadhus) that it is also a nude facility. You can wear bathing clothes on the premises but hardly anyone ever does. In the sauna it is NOT allowed to wear a bathing suit. There’s a women’s department and a men’s departement but the nude rule applies to both. If you leave the bathing/sauna department or walk into the café you naturally have to put clothes on. The ruling majority in Malmö city (a coalition between social democrats, members of the Left Party and members of the Green Party) have decided that it is discriminatory on behalf of the city to have separate departments for men and women. Or rather, to have only TWO departments in the facility when there are individuals who consider themselves neither men nor women. Last Monday shared nude departments were introduced. The departments were deemed gender-less or possibly even queer so that anyone regardless of sex could enter into any of the two departments. Apparently, some women who consider themselves just that - women - and who hadn’t heard of the ’Queer Monday’-experiment were shocked when they went into their normally secluded area, nude, to find it swarmed with not primarily trans-people but mostly straight naked men, some of which were known offenders. The women wrapped themselves in big bathing towels and sarongs to shield from unwelcome stares and glares and gazez. Finally some women fled into the men’s section which was almost void of people. There were a few women who voiced their disappointments openly to the local newspaper, especially since they had paid for their seasonal cards when there were no such thing as gender-less nude areas in the women’s department (and for that matter a likewise gender-less nude area in the men’s department, where not many people seemed to be bothered to visit). When the local Left Party politician, herself quite the queer activist, was asked about the sad and disappointed female paying customers’ experiences during Queer Monday, she basically responded that it was the visible and unfortunate consequences of living in a Patriarchy, and that men just have to get themselves together and stop behaving badly.

As you know, we Gamers have been working hard on flipping it over again! :)

''There is nothing new under the sun'. 'ideas' reincarnate into modern versions of the same narrative. Seems rather depressing when we look and see where we are on the cycle of repetition. The question is, how much suffering is avoidable this time round.

From what I can tell (an incredibly novice perspective from a 21 year old linguist here), postmodernism seems to be a sly attempt to control or influence certain schools of thoughts and even certain political perspectives. This idea you touched on of "radical hospitality" especially interests me - "if only you'd open yourself up to more perspectives, if only you'd step outside of yourself and see different ways of viewing information and viewing truth, then you'd be a better person". To me, it seems that postmodernists want you to discard what you believe to be innately true or real, to make yourself tabula rasa in effect, so that they can instil their own sense of truth or morality into you. A subtler take on "listen and believe": open yourself up and accept what *I'm* saying, not necessarily what your soul or your reason is saying. Very clever.

I like Roger Scruton’s observation for its succinctness: The moral relativists have made a virtue of moral relativism. We’re at the ground floor for ethical systems and they keep trying to destroy the foundations, but then they remember they need something to stand on to justify the destruction. This is probably the most tightly woven circle or ‘inverting’ process that I see modern sensibilities perform *all by themselves* on a daily basis. Upside down world is simply inhospitable, even to the people most enamoured with it. Postmodernists are in an abusive relationship with their own ideas.

Postmodernism: "There is no truth, except for marxism. Now give us power.".

I spend a lot of time with progressive, postmodernist, atheist types (even though I'm much more of a libertarian/conservative and a christian) and one thing I've noticed is that the more open ones are very interested in my religious views once they get to know me a little. I've even managed to convince a couple of them into believing the metaphysical necessity of God and relate that belief to a more moderate political perspective, probably because politics become secondary when you're open enough to seriously consider the possibility of God's existence. Also, in every case they seemed to become much more tolerant of my political views afterwards. This is to say that your perspective definitely corroborates my personal experience. Good stuff.

"Truth is subjective" "No it's not." "YES IT IS!!!!!"

1) So radical openness can lead to destruction. But a properly calibrated openness, a wise openness that keeps the total situation in mind, can help realize the benefits of openness without giving way to the radical openness that leads to disintegration. Fair enough. But in this fallen world, the act of limiting openness is not without consequence, in that someone's interests get selected against in a particular context. Mature people have to be willing to make those discriminating choices, and to bear the responsibility of their consequences. Your discussion of post-modernism highlights the fact that philosophy can only do so much for us. After coming to understand the conceptual landscape of "openness," and with full awareness of the dangers of excessive and insufficient openness, we then need to look at particular cases and take concrete positions. Otherwise, like Derrida, we just do a lot of tail chasing. 2) What you describe as the "flip" back, say, in the case of leveling gender leading to a re-asserted hierarchy, is not so much a flip as the revelation of the flaw in the egalitarian position. The egalitarian argument goes like this: i) Every so-called biological difference between the sexes is in fact a social construction. ii) The mechanism whereby these so-called biological differences are constructed is by separating men and women and telling them that men are better at certain things and women better at others. iii) Therefore when we allow men and women to compete freely, and repeat to ourselves over and over again that women are as strong as men, the differences will disappear. But (iii) is false, therefore (i) or (ii) is false. "The hierarchy reasserting itself" is just what you call reality crashing into the falsity of one of these premises. If I do my best to put this in your terms, a rigidly enforced social equality of the genders leads to a recognition of the differences between the genders. And I can see how a rigidly enforced inequality of the genders, say by refusing to allow a woman to ever pursue masculine interests, can make salient, to borrow a term from your last video, the fact that there are exceptionally strong women who are stronger than exceptionally weak men. But if we get out of our own heads, and instead of thinking about the circumstances that make more obvious to us one or other aspect of the problem, we try to develop a way of thinking about how to organize our behavior around the reality of sexual difference, taking into consideration what becomes salient at the extremes, we might come up with something like this: 1) It is beneficial to separate male from female spheres in domains where the general tendency is for one of the sexes to outperform the other. 2) But provided we do not weaken the standards in the more skillful sex's domain, it is permissible to let those people who can only test the limits of their potential by moving into the opposite sex's domain do so. There is no need to accept any false metaphysical premises about "social construction." Nor is there any need to conceptualize the biological tendencies of the sexes as if these tendencies were subject to mathematical precision, as if they were strict logical categories. This is a core incoherence in the egalitarian position: it is only by viewing the biological tendencies of the sexes through the lens of mathematical precision that the egalitarians are able to make the argument that finding one exception disproves general rules such as "Men are like this" or "Women are like that." Once you understand that biology is not math, or metaphysics, or some other deductive science, the whole line of thinking collapses. *edited a typo

Every time you said "a normal hierarchy" I could hear the exploding heads of a million sociology grads 👌.

This is good stuff. I was in a discussion where someone brought up the idea, if God is dead then anything is permissible. I remembered Zizek said in one of his talks that he believes that if God is dead, nothing is permissible and I think that's right. This goes along nicely with your point about hospitality and the prostitute. In the wake of the death of God and the dismantling of the meta-hierarchy, so to say, we aren't free. We fall into Nihilism, which is not a place where someone can live for long, so then we are positioned to become victims of brutal political and social ideologies. So by getting rid of God and the ultimate hierarchy leads to subjugation by other hierarchies in which you will have less freedom, not more. I really like how you explained the move from extreme openness to the possible possession by a hierarchy.

Making a truth claim about truth not existing has no ground to stand on.

Really enjoyed this. The idea that even maximum possibility has a container between beginning and the "goal" will turn itself back into a hierarchy. Absolutely is a outcome when dealing with existence. Great video

You and The Distributist have some good guidelines about pushing back rather than just criticising. It’s helpful for the riffraff like myself that straddle the post modernist deconstructionist and the structure of tradition- quite by accident. Many thanks.

I love following intersectionality to its end. You get right back to "everyone is an individual," a child of God if you will, a soul, knit together, your hairs and years numbered by God.

The examples you give are very easy to understand , rich in content logical. It gives me sense that I really understand what are the pros and cons of deconstructism. Thanks a lot for posting this video.

Your final point of recreation of hierarchies from deconstruction is brilliant, really made me think

Very helpful. I would love to watch more videos about this! Thank you so much for your work

hey man! just wanted to say love the work you are doing, makes me happy

So basically, "radical hospitality" is openness without perspective, caution or mindfulness. It is openness without order, boundaries, or limits. Openness without scrutiny may lead to chaos.

There's the example of the male to female transgender MMA fighter. I remember seeing a picture of her, somewhat more masculine and certainly more deadly than your average male, ragdolling a(n actual) lady in a fight.

I love your talks they have broaden my views, and deepened my understanding of my faith in Christ. Also, it helps clarify postmodernism and how it's playing out in the world stage. Keep it up, and thank you from the bottom of my heart.

YES THIS IS THE ONE I WAS WAITING FOR

You sir, should do this much more. Thank you.

Very instructive video! This type of content would be a nice addition to your other videos :)

As a lifelong Symbologist ~ I am very happy to have found your channel.

Thank you so much for your work. I am a baptized Byzantine Catholic. However during my childhood it was mostly an ethnic (Slavic) experience. Nonetheless, I always felt like a stranger in a strange land during my schooling and college experience. It wasn't unti' I started going deeper, reading the Church fathers, that I felt the aha moment : I had been entering reality from the point of view of the Resurrection, which is completely foreign to modern Western culture. I now live in France. The battle us real. Please consider having Fr Thomas Loya on your show to talk about Theology of the Body. Thanks again.

Big thanks to enlighten us with your deep thoughts.

It’s interesting because the Blessed Mother also seems to stand for radical hospitality. Lots of food for thought!! Thank you.

Definitely make a video on those "real peer review" tweets! I think we would enjoy hearing your analysis.

He actually is describing the Catholic Church since Vatican II.

All of this really connects in my life

Thanks for you video. I think you could have used a few more examples of how one could use Derridas biblical readings to turn PM on its head.

Great video, thank you!

I'd love a deeper dive into biblical hospitality minus the post-modernism (I was raised Jewish and went to an orthodox jewish school and I remember many many passages on, rabbi commentaries on, and rituals of hospitality), if you ever get the chance! But grateful and happy as usual that you're here making by far some of the best content out there. AND I CANNOT WAIT FOR YOUR BROTHER'S BOOK AHHHHHH. Thanks, man, you're a treasure.

I think I have thought this by telling myself I shouldn't be too open or else my brain or mouth will spill out unmentionable horror. Northanger Abbey seems to deal with that radical hospitality as it explores the superficial versus real friendships between Catherine Morland, the Tilneys, and Isabelle.

Growing up in Sunday school singing silly songs about Joshua fighting the battle of Jericho and now I’m here in awe of the meaning one can find in the story 😳

I think this relates to my read on the Moral Foundations Theory. The theory posits 5 dimensions of morality: Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, Sanctity/degradation. I would argue these also relate to the Big 5 Personality Traits, eg. openness and conscientiousness. My thinking, as relates to your discussion is that the morality dimension of Care/harm and the personality trait of openness relate to the principle of "extreme openness". And then loyalty/betrayal and authority/subversion, "authority" including tradition, eg. "culture" as related to your descriptions in the stories, relating to the notion of the protection and support of one's own city and one's own culture. On the Moral Foundations Theory, a study was done exploring those dimensions versus political/philosophical leaning. What was found was that liberals primarily focused only on care/harm, fairness/cheating and very little on loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation. But on the other hand, conservatives consider all 5 dimensions on a more equal footing, albeit with slightly less emphasis on the first two than the liberal apply. I think what you describe is that it is important to include the dimensions of loyalty/betrayal and authority/subversion to avoid "extreme openness" resulting in one's own demise or the demise of that which one values (eg culture, societal values, etc.)

Excellent information and very clearly delivered. One technical complaint though. Please adjust the volume discrepancy between your intro and main body. I love your take on "Beast Master." It's plain to anyone with experience. Put the most well trained and physically dominate woman against a male equivalent and it would be no contest. Frightening that some people choose not to acknowledge this fact.

Has anyone got links for talks, books or articles (Pageau's and others') about Elijah?

Too open --> chaos and reordering, possibly putting those who were so "open" on the margins or eradicating them.

An obvious example of what you outlined in this video is the intuitive and inevitable reconstruction of a hierarchy taking place in European countries especially, who have, at first, been radically open to Muslim migrants. This radical openness, in the name of tolerance and acceptance, has led to new citizens who do not reciprocate that tolerance and openness to the traditional ideas and the traditional culture of their new home. For example, if new citizens do not tolerate homosexuality, or Christianity, or even atheism, in the way that these things have traditionally been at least tolerated (or at the very least, tolerated moreso than they have been in predominantly Islamic countries), then native citizens are left to ask themselves what exactly they are doing and, what exactly they are "progressing" towards, in the name of radical openness and tolerance. In many ways it's symbolized by the image of the snake eating its own tail. And now in many European countries, Europeans are reevaluating whether they have gone too far initially, what exactly it is that they are progressing towards, and, perhaps most importantly, they are reevaluating their contradictory elevation of relativism to the top of the value-hierarchy; they are realizing that cultures are not equal, values are not mere opinions...and resizing this in a very concrete way.

Great video. Would love a video on those tweets!

It’s interesting to hear about ‘openness’ with regards the future. That positioning is embodied in the ‘yin’. Surrendering one’s will to God is the basis. Having spent a considerable amount of time in meditation I can attest to the appeal of it, surrendering your attachment to thoughts is the basis of the pathway to ‘enlightenment’. It’s a very alienating and confrontational path. You may find a video recording of Dr David Hawkins called ‘The Final Doorway’ of interest. It’s someone describing the subjective experience of radical openness through the lens of a spiritual hierarchy. Not promoting or condoning it at all, but you may find it interesting.

I'm very keen on meditation in a secular Buddhist context. That allows a radical openness to whatever is present in the moment, and a radical deconstruction of what we take in our experience to be a true self, but is actually ultimately unreal or 'empty of inherent existence'. But what that means is that you are effectively surrendering to what is ultimately real, the source of being. This is seems a feature of most spiritual traditions, so in Christianity it would be opening to Christ and God, in Buddhism it would Nirvana or Suchness. I was interested recently to read about a catholic philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand, that saw this process as ironically allowing you to be more of an authentic individual rather than than simply destroying the reality of your individuality e.g. "In the measure that man submerges himself in his adoration of God, his personality becomes ampler and richer, and adorned with higher values", so the individual is flipped back on his feet as more real once again perhaps?

It's in our nature to perceive patterns. Detecting more patterns is a sign of a higher intelligence, which inevitably leads to continuous conscious and unconscious construction and modification of hierarchies. Destroy all hierarchies and they will simply reemerge due to our natural mental functions, unless you can somehow - and want to - rewind our evolutionary progression/state, which conclusively signifies a psychological retraction from the future, i.e. a severe and disabling lack of openness and acceptance.

How does this "flipping" differ from Popper's Tolerance paradox?

If I'm reading what you are saying across your videos in general, then one of the main themes of Christianity is the correct integration of the stranger in a way that allows you to keep your identity cohesive while incorporating useful new information. As an aside post modernism is really more of an argument for a statistical approach to interpretation than an abolition of meaning altogether, it's just that it's quite counterintuitive for people that they struggle to see it through to the end.

I asked, "Should we only believe in things that are provable?" The answer I received was, "yes" Then I asked, "Is that provable?" Full circle!

Necessarily find these tweets and show us in the film

Summary of Turning Back Post-Modernism (perhaps and updated video is needed) Example of Hospitality - Jacques da Derrida • Radical openness to “new” things, open to the movement towards new meanings, to the end times. Key words: Openness, Tolerance, non-judgmental, progress, etc. • Purpose; disarms the person, group or society to their own self-destructions. Definitions, identities, and groups are burst open as a virus kills a cell. Note how some groups are destroyed while others are artificially emphasized. • It is “Progress without telos”. • A basic tenant of “deconstruction” is “you can’t totally control the results of the deconstructed thing. For instance, the “meaning of the text” (i.e., the deconstructed thing) because in post-modernism (textual criticism) the “text” is always referring to other things, things “outside of itself.” The author’s meaning is impossible to know, thus it only matters how a reader receives it. • Biblical examples: Rahab the prostitute, who helps the Israelites to destroy Jericho. Elijah the prophet against the King who marries Jezebel, who then imports her gods. How to turn post-modernism back on itself? • Continue the process of deconstruction to where it breaks down and differences, distinctions, and hierarches will then reveal themselves. Real distinctions can then reassert themselves.  Some breakdowns will be recognized as absurd, dangerous, evil, etc. Expose them and use them to point out true hierarchy.  These can be pointed out to show that the “thing” being “deconstructed” in fact has true meaning.  For example, trans athletes, trans sexual fetishizes, or the rejection of merit/performance.  Hierarchy is their enemy therefore they label it “Patriarchy”. • Ask, “to what are you progressing towards?” “Question progress without purpose. This is difficult for them to answer because they have no positive goal. A tenant of post-modernism is to never give a positive proposal, it is antithetical for them to do so. This is why they hide behind “the” science.  Recognize the trick, defend definitions, and defend meaning, and purpose.  Expose that the destruction of meaning is the goal. Point out how absurdities and dangers reveal true meaning.  The hierarchy of meaning can then reassert itself as the person moves away from anxiety.  Always remain open to change that has a specific positive purpose.  James Lindsey advises to be a stable “landing pad” available to those seeking to escape the anxiety of post-modernism.

Starting to really wish you would work in Jung. I'm just starting to think about this idea that Christ is the Jungian Self within that survives death and rebirth processes. That view of it matches up with the unconscious phrasing that Christians use, so I guess that's a point in its direction. ~ The description you made in Sacred Spaces ('Why you should go to church') was unbelievable. I am repeatedly amazed by just how deeply correct this 'intellectual dark web' is: when I went to church, they had a flyer that said something like "every Sunday we gather for church, and then spread out across the P____ area." (the exact quote presented the point better but I don't have the flyer with me) and I thought... "Why did they phrase it like that? Spread out? You mean 'go home'?" then I realized that it is exactly as you described: the church is the center, and everyone's lives are oriented in relation to the church.

Your description of the prostitute interested me. I questioned why it's so demonized in society today and the uncertainty of whether or not Mary Magdalene was one or why is it significant to the story. I still have more research to do on that but I will put it together soon.

Hi, really liked what you had to say, found it incredibly thought provoking. I want to make it clear that I understood what you had to say, but I remain sceptical as to how effective this would be in practice. I can't quite put my finger on what's "missing", but my sense is that if I tried to deploy this now against a pM, they'd be able to tear me down in a way that would undermine the cause - it wouldn't be an "Auschwitz" moment (as dropped by a certain JBP recently...) I think a part of my reservation comes from understanding just how slippery these regressive pM types are when you try to debate them... that this isn't, in and of itself, enough to pin them down and really put them on the spot. Maybe it's because it's the first time you've presented this idea in this way (assumption), but it really felt like a prototype... a half-finished idea that still needs work. It's CLEAR you're onto something, but the exact details are still a little fuzzy. Or to look at it a different way (and as this is a war of ideas...), it's like you've described a wonderful new rifle and said "you point it in the direction of the enemy and squeeze"; using a weapon is different to understanding how it works... Anyway, hope my ramblings make sense to you. As I said, I KNOW you're onto something and I hope you can revisit this idea soon! We need everything we can get if we're going to survive this insanity...

Every lie, falsehood and deception eventually cancels itself out, including their proponents who refuse to let them go. Like suicide; enter Judas Iscariot.

Hospitality, in which you attempt to court understanding that isn't AS preconstrained by its origins. Thinking outside the box, in other words. To do this, for me, I've had to treat myself like I'm one of several different people living inside my head, and I pose an inquiry to these other people, and usually it's inchoate if I can manage it. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those "other people" are the parts of my brain that deal with art and drama (aka symbolism, eh?) more so than with articulated language (except insofar as words and phrases might have an artistic/dramatic nuance to them depending on the context, i.e., if I'm writing a poem I can evoke an image/feeling using words, only the words themselves aren't the important part, rather the peripheral nuance is the primary meaning...it's tricky to set that up, though). It's hard to do this, though. It's like standing on a high dive, and the only way you can get past your fear of jumping off is to pretend you're NOT going to jump AS you jump. If you're quick enough, you'll find yourself already on the way down before your fear catches on, but by then it's a fait accompli, right? Once I've posed (or more properly, start posing) the inquiry, then I listen to what comes back to me by paying attention to the periphery of my awareness. It's not just lateral thinking, it's more like a precursor to lateral thinking. Hence "hospitality," in which you invite understanding to (begin to) manifest itself out where you can get a handle on it more consciously, so that it doesn't slip away the moment you turn your more direct attention to it. Usually this kind of endeavor IS attached to a form of inquiry, though. If it isn't, then you will have a very hard time making any sense of what might (or might not) waft back at you. I.e., if you keep rejecting your mind's attempt to make sense, you'll end up with nonsense. So...dispensing with an answer just because it's an answer is like building a pool by destroying what you've built every time you notice that it starts to hold water. Jordan Peterson talks about this from a direction that's a little easier to grasp as a beginner when he observes that yes, there are an infinite number of interpretations (correct post modern observation), but those interpretations will always be constrained by what works in the real world and what doesn't--so not all interpretations are valid and reliable. Okay, hang on a sec while I copy and paste this into a hard file on my computer, since KZfaq has a vicious sense of timing when it comes to glitching when posting...

They call it "deconstruction" when a better term is "demolition"

What is the title of the intro music?

Does anyone know of a non-video forum for analysis of post-modernism? I have access to the canon of said philosophy, but I seek a place for discussion about this at a higher level than the comments section. My sibling has been "indoctrinated," and I have always had some amount of conflict with the philosophy.

I can't believe you talked about Beast Master and not include the Beast symbolism that is permeating the show.

I'm french but i learn and speak english as well. Although jonathan's is incredibly rich and complex vocabulary, i somehow have a grasp of what he's explaining here. But still not enough to understand it fully. Could somebody help me by resuming in a more accessible way his endgame? Because i too can not stand this boundry less philosophy and its condescents believers and i am searching for higher level arguments to shut them down.

I would love to see, if you could write about it.

So radical Hospitality ends up getting abused by people who do not reciprocate and want to overthrow your culture

merci beaucoup!,..Amen

I wish you had explained more concretely how the total solidity of the text is broken apart or how it slips and slides.

so, no need to worry, order will spontaneously reassert itself?

A similar story to your beastmaster show happens right now in germany. In on of our states (North Rhine-Westphalia) there was a different requirement for height for men and woman to be part of the police-force. 1.63 metre for woman and 1.68 metre for men. Now some people sued the state, because "gender equality". Now the requirement height for both genders is equal at 1.63 metre. Next thing that happens: Some woman sue the state, because woman are generally smaller than men and this favours man over woman. Seems like no matter what you do, you lose if you play this game.

How far into chaos do we slip until things are able to flip back? I can see that an historical lens is probably inadequate to answer this question. Is there a symbolic view that answers it? How much power do individuals have to bring forth the true hierarchies in a peaceful way?

Enjoyed a lecture about bill of rights built upon reason not religion. However, pointed out that reason is no longer a fashionable philosophical style.

Thanks

Jordan Peterson was right. This content is incredible. Keep making it.

Cool connection with Rahab and with Elijah. Rahab has no allegience to the city that, maybe from her pov, let her fall to the bottom. OMG Beastmaster! my fam watches that too. There was that gymnast French lady and an American poledancer that got to the second lvl via exceptional flexibility! But the gymnast was too short to jump from the tube.

So that's why pooping is such a transcendent experience...

What's obvious to me is that this radical openness is just an expression of Derrida's Jewishness. Being the perpetual outsider, preaching this openness to insiders (europeans) serves his interests very well and allows him to change society in his favor. Seeing that this outsider's(Derrida) conflict of interests should make one suspicious of anyone espousing these views.

Donc voyons voir if I got the gist of the vidéo: if we let the postmodern arguments run their course, as the narrative unfolds, a hierarchy (whether we notice it or not) still emerges? Btw the prostitute does discriminate right? Between those than can pay and those that can't. Derrida must've mentioned that right?

I understand that the idea of wanting this heirarchy. It’s orderly and it often allows things to function efficiently but I feel like viewing it as a hierarchy can be dangerous. People will begin to look at data and say that A is better than B without realizing (or even being able to realize) the whole picture. What I imagine will happen if this goes too far is that postmodernist ideas will find themselves back in this natural order, the perception of this order as necessarily a hierarchy will bring people to force strict rules to shape this natural order into something purely black and white to make something absolutely efficient. This will swing back to another idea similar to postmodernism because people will see the faults and then try to fix it. Trying to fix the world is dangerous. It leads to confusion and arbitrary rules. It needs to be realized that if we see the world as something needing to be fixed then we will carry a mindset that is harmful to the world. As I type this I realize that I’m being hypocritical because I am carrying the mindset that our view of the world should be fixed, which if carried out would certainly lead to deleterious conditions. My point is that I do not know the full answer because I don’t have the full question. No one does. Humans are not built to process the full question so none of us have the full answer.

"Radical hospitality" was/is better portrayed by both Abraham & Lot's characters, seen in genesis stories. It is generally understood also, to be somewhat a "middle eastern'' custom of sorts, in comparison to the West's. The Prostitute's motives were spelled out early in that story of Jericho you mention here, beginning with the primordial aspect of "fear/awe." As a used/abused "public servant'' to men's sexual desires, one might also surmise that she perhaps had little respect for/little to no loyalty ties to the cities' inhabitants (esp male) as well as herself. There are both literal and figurative symbolic truth results to the "walls coming down" as well as the "scarlet cord" laid down upon the city walls in which the spies escaped and some, suppose, that soldiers saw & climbed up in the later invasion/destruction of Jericho. Many lessons here to learn, understand, and perhaps use....going forward. Re: Jericho ---> www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+2%2CJoshua+6%3A12-25&version=KJV

Peterson critic earlier derrida ' you nail Perfectly later derrida ' near is death he went deeply theological ' john caputo the continuity of that work , strangely i found peterson use often deconstruction méthodology , jacques told more what it is and what was' then intent of manipulation

I have stumbled over this idea of Post-Postmodernism within Post Modernism when I took "fashion science" class at university. It seems to me, to be a idea of the total fragmentation of all structures of interpretation, ethics and rule even the structure of post modernism. Everything is allowed, there are no rules, no structures, nothing is wrong as long it is done through the lens of post modernism... This is what I think it is, it's was verry blurred and filled of power speech from the professors (commonly also known as wordsalad) so it's probably "open for interpretation" (as long as you interpret within the post modern structure)?

The problem with this approach is that you will get deconstructed in the process. And that for people to recognize the true hierarchy they need humbleness and honesty, stop pretending, or stop deceiving themselves. Many people today say things like "everything is relative" which is an absurdity and illogical, since the very statement is saying an absolute which is not relative, the same as "everything is subjective" that claim is acting as an objective claim thus killing the argument by stating it. But if people don't stop deceiving themselves, the normal hierarchy will present itself to them, yet they will not accept it. I mean THE TRUTH was right in front of them and they crucified him.

It seems that radical hospitality, even in the examples that Dérida uses himself, will be appealing to people that have very little to lose from the fall of their city. They are already people that may have more to gain from a scrambling of the cards than staying in a status quo that has offered little opportunity... I wonder why Dérida wanted to tear it all down so badly...

Does being open to post-modernism include being open to being critical of post-modernism? Am I correct in understanding that you are detailing two different critiques of post-modernism? I'm not getting how the stories of the prostitute and Elijah relate to Beastmaster. These seem like two different criticisms to me.

Hi.... Am new here.... Is it a little hard to follow him in general or me/my English understanding is not sophisticated enough ?!

Wise as a Serpant, Hospitipal as a Dove. 🐍 🕊

In short, STAY BALANCED!

There is some great head-food in here, although the presentation is a linear crawl. I think with some visuals and judicious editing, this could flow much better. Thank you, anyhow!

A mind is like a parachute. You don't just open it up will- nilly to have fun. Unless you have a desire to jump out of a perfectly good airplane for no reason..and even if you're doing it for fun your life insurance and health insurance premiums go up if you do it on a regular basis. Not to mention the fact that it takes training to learn how to open it properly and then it must be folded back up correctly or it can't be opened up again in an emergency. A mind is like a parachute. Be ready to open it. But it's best if you never have to. Most people are so open minded nowdays that their brains fall out.

Beastmaster? Through the Portal of Time???

That would be cool if you made a real peer review video. It would be interesting.

1901: Welcome the Future? 1914: Militarism, World War, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Imperialism, World War again . . . 1945: How'd that work out fo ya?

This is an absurdly long winded way of saying "(maybe) don't be so hospitable that you allow your enemy to undo you", which is a reasonable point. Moreover, this notion of extreme hospitality is obviously remediable to allow for some caution and is also not fundamentally central to potmodernism per se.

Just like John McEnroe said - Serena Williams would be ranked about 700 in the ATP if gender barriers were removed. No one would even know who she was and she wouldn't even get to the juniors under 16. The under 12 league perhaps she'd have a chance.

I'm having difficulty encountering ideas such as this and Peterson et al half way through a systemic counselling degree, which is based on social constructionist and post modern thinking. I'm currently writing an essay on my practise being based on tackling ideas such as Self in the cartesian sense and the Saturated self in the Gergen sense. It's difficult now that I'm always in seeming opposition to them. Listening to the crap Foucault has said is the most difficult.

Is Ruth another good example of radical hospitality?

Dont know what to do i cant focus anymore…

Can someone summarize this so its actually practical, thanks

Tzeentch is pleased with this video