The way this man synthesizes information is intense

The non political first 10ish minutes were gold! Mind blown.

I must be listening to too much Jordan Peterson because I was enjoying this conversation and then as a soon as the interviewer said @ 14:15 white privilege men I said I am out before Peterson did lol

Pure brilliance. He's such a smart man, I'd have never thought of Piaget's theory like that

Jonathan "yes, yes, sure, sure, right, right, yeah" Rowson

Best conversation I've listened to on KZfaq in a long time! Thank you so much for posting.

Wow, just wow. The most concise formulation of Petersons' philosophy. Amazing!!!

Man, this interviewer asked some good questions!

Starship Troopers voice: "Would you like to know more?" Yes please, when/where is the full version available?

JP made me fall in love with Carl Jung. I found out why he references him this much. Jung was really an intellect.

He was talking about “mysterium coniunctionis” in some detail, which I don’t think I’ve ever heard him do, and you changed the subject. Horribly done.

You ended this segment by asking a question that was less about asking a question than it was about making an accusation, and then when he tried to answer you ended it. Come on man.

Good, unique questions to ask of an interesting intellectual

Brilliant man and thank you for this.

Theres more ideas in the first 5 minutes than the every season of Keeping Up with The Kardashians in its entirety 😅 I need subtitles to keep up!

That was awesome, intrusive interviewer and deeply smart academically speaking... deconstruct thinking by negation a important step to transcend like he seem to said ...peterson seem against ... appealing ... thank you , i enjoy

One of Peterson's best interviews IMO. I wish he would debate with people on his level, like this, more often.

What an absolute HERO. HE doesn’t let a stupid stance take it’s undeserved position. He just shuts down the topic because it’s invalid from the beginning. Once you acknowledge the lie, it’s not a lie.

I think I understand my room better than most people understand their religion, thanks to JP. Roomism ftw.

And why would white men have privilege in a society based on competence. Think outside your mostly white culture for one moment. Is it white privilege allowing Chinese men in China to be successful? Or is it perhaps that they have been the most successful members of a society that is mostly Chinese? Competence in any society will lead to "privilege" in the eyes of the unsuccessful in that society(a resentment driven lens), but there are a huge number of the majority "race" in any society that aren't successful. If the society privileged one race above all else there should never be an un-privileged member of the majority race, and all of the members of the oppressed race should inevitably be unsuccessful. If a society has members of the minority that hold the same privileges as the majority race then how the hell can the same privileges be based on race? Do rich black men in the U.S. have culturally appropriated white privilege? It begs the question, are they now the defacto whites all of the bigoted sjw ideologues constantly accuse them of being(uncle tom, race traitor etc.)? It's exhausting running through this illogical circle jerk. Only a small percentage of people end up at the top of any given society, but as the majority of any society has a larger pool of possible winners in that society there will inevitably be more of the majority at the top. If a society has 1000 blondes and 100 brunettes, and the rules are the same for everyone, and we exclude freedom of choice all together, 1% of the blondes and brunettes would end up on top. So yes 10 blondes and 1 brunette would be at the top but this is entirely due to the distribution vs success rates. The Blondes are not oppressing the brunettes by a factor of 10. There are actually more blondes being oppressed and failing to get into the top 1% as a whole. Equality adjustments to ensure the division is 50/50 (equal) would actually be unjust. Once again this is an extremely simplistic mental exercise that completely ignores the infinite number of other factors such as personality and preference that are derived at an INDIVIDUAL level. But you are free to assume the bigoted sjw view, that every member of every group is synonyms to any other member of that group, and then label them appropriately by the most racist or sexist superficiality possible (what color they are or the shape of their genitals).

Tyranny and compulsion are far more compelling than decency kindness and reason.

Haha after such a brilliant speech that dude had to mess it up, JBP I love how you put the breaks! I’m out too!

You are talking to a class A intellect, and you want him to agree with , "some people's feelings" make a legitimate argument. Lordy, lordy...

An interview where they actually interview JP, instead of trying to prove he's a monster by twisting his words... What a concept.

Jordan Talked abou logos in a logos format near the beginning. It was impressive.

Jordan Peterson is the prophet of the equilibrated state.

Brilliant and Understandable! Genius

Minor misunderstanding of Buddhism. Traditional Buddhism, what the Buddha said, focuses on achieving enlightenment alone. In Mahayana Buddhism, we achieve enlightenment for all beings. The confusion is that some schools of Buddhism recognise more than one Buddha.

This discussion ended abruptly! I wanted to hear more.

To everyone hating on Jonathan Rowson... He asks good questions. Would you rather that Peterson wasn't challenged? Playing devil's advocate is very useful.

host is too rigid in his thinking. Peterson, bang on form.

Great conversation!

Equality of outcomes and diversity cannot be the goals because they are tyrannical in nature, they do not follow the iterativity requirement. Dealing with past injustices is not possible because there is nothing you can do to undo them and there is no possibility of reconciliation once the participants have died. You are merely projecting dead people's identities onto yourself if you attempt to even the score for the past injustices and this is not individuation. The only thing you can do is admit there have been people who suffered injustices in the past and virtually nobody denies it today so that's done. The moment you use word like white PRIVILEGE it removes the other half of the story and Peterson will not have this conversation with you because you are not arguing in good faith at that moment. There is no social justice term for the negative sides of being white that you allude to, the ideology is not big enough to contain those two ideas simultaneously or have a discussion. about the applications of the term

brilliant first half.

I’ve made a lot of mistakes in the past, not harming others. Helped others at my expense. The results are overwhelmingly negative. And now I’m in a desperate situation. I take responsibility for that, but does anyone here have a way forward?

Ans:Second Tier(Spiral Dynamics)

How do you integrate your mind and emotions? How then can you act upon that? How can you take that to society?

Great interview

Why does this interviewer keep saying "yes" and "ok" it's so distracting

there is no Logos in ideology. Only resentment

This is why I hate to search up Jordan Peterson on KZfaq nowadays. All that comes up is him winning in a political debate against terrible, mislead debaters.

Where is this full interview

7:15 what was Jordan going to say before he was interrupted?

What an end. Fantastic. Formula Yamaha cornering at 170° & 200 km/h. So much Jung, so little remained.

It sounds like what they're saying is that if you have to compel people to do the right thing there is a problem.

This interviewer is in the picture next to the word 'knob jockey' in the dictionary.

What a waste of a good discussion with the last minute ambush question. Truly a perfect example of a disingenuous person, trying to get a dig in on Peterson.

Ideology is selective in regard of life experience and that’s why the last will eventually burst the bounds of ideology. On the other hand, religion has set universal boundaries of life experience in order to preserve its integrity so we could use the paradigms discovered and to secure our best position to observe and explore the mysteries of the universe all for the purpose of individual and collective metamorphosis. Ideology seeks affirmation and it’s reductive while universality of religion seeks transformation and expands the freedom for unlimited growth. Our modern society struggles so much because it has directed its skepticism toward universality of moral law instead of human behavior. The same old brand new! Human behavior can’t be stopped until it has its self destructive way to the next crossroad.

The interviewer here is asking a very specific and serious question informed by the Harvard Professor Robert Kegan. The basic gist of that question is that there is a stage of adult meaning making and level of complexity of thinking called the Self-Transforming mind that occurs after Self-Authoring. Self-Authoring is achievable in your 20s, but Self-Transforming is more for your 40s and 50s. The idea of this is that one learns not only to be rational, but to hold different viewpoints as "true but partial" and balance them in complex wholes. So he's essentially asking Peterson: Aren't some of the leftist ideas you criticize partially true? I think Peterson says they are partially true in other places, but he does this less so here. Anyway, it's a very legit question if a person knows Kegan's stuff.

Does anyone know from which work of Piaget Peterson got "tyrannical society vs. equillibrated society" from (7:10)?

The problem with the man on the right in the screen is that he is defining LOGOS according to bank account.

I don't like videos with what appear as jump edits, I understand and like the discussion but am not sure if some of his responses are trimmed or not, hard to tell when the cameras switch back and forth. Jordan reminds me of Howard Bloom but just younger, they both are very expressive speakers and articulate and detailed. I don't always agree with either of their points of view but I find their view interesting nonetheless.

is access to an archive of the "public event" available? thanks

I.E. A tyrannical imposition of ideology is less efficient & more destructive than the efficient & constructive individual freedom to choose self motivation. That is the focal point of what I understand most from this complex conversation.

Who is the interviewer? Can someone send me a link to the longer event they refer to at the end?

THANK YOU very much, Dr Jonathan Rowson for interviewing Dr. Peterson ! Much too short, unfortunately. Too bad that Peterson doesn't know ROBERT KEGAN from Harvard (or KEN WILBER, for that matter). How can you talk, lecture or wrIte about PIAGET and never refer in your talks to ROBERT KEGAN, LAWRENCE KOHLBERG or JAMES FOWLER (Stages of Faith) ? ? ? Keep questioning him !

Mind blown 🤯

So just as soon as the conversation became meaningful and real, the interviewer shut it down? Am I missing something here? Didn’t Peterson begin to explain why using the term “White Privilege Men” is anathema to the entire goal of the discussion of integration and getting beyond ideology into true logos? Was this. I tinted later? Or did the interviews suddenly realize how vulnerable to truth his ragtime to was and he bailed?

10:50 *any ideas concerning proper 'stacking'?*

The problem is behaviorism. It sprouts out of human ideology ands it ability to do it. How far can mortal man go?, not very far. Something bigger than us has to invite us into union where fellowship can be in eternal life. That is the only thing that makes sense.

What does JP say to the person who has inherited a fortune, who has never had to work for himself, and who doesn't know where to begin with cleaning his room because he has always had a hired cleaning lady to clean his room for him?? It sounds nice to "get your act together", but what about those who have an inherited act? Does he recommend they burn all their money and forms of passive income and start getting their act together from scratch?

If the universe ALIGNED to make me a Caucasian human being - shouldn't all the geniuses on the left be blaming the universe? All I have done is use the tools available (never using them to force a disadvantage on others) to my best UTILITY.

The interviewer didn't make the distinction the "white privilege" was part of the parasitic ideology Peterson was talking about. Great job as a host and great interview. I will be analyzing this for weeks.

I don't think anyone takes exception or issue with the "aim" being suggested by the interviewer. An integrated person who aims at something like "achieve equality among people" doesn't seem out of step at all with JBP's self authoring ideas. However, the "game" that keeps getting put forth in the public sphere is a game in which a small subset of criteria (race, gender, sexual orientation) are the only criteria in which equality is pursued. Further, the methods offered for achieving equity among that limited group of criteria involve substantial coercion. I don't think that "game" would pass Peterson's standard of the game being good for you, your family, and your community now and perpetually into the future. Can anyone honestly say that game will work? There are many people playing an unfair game (disabled people, ugly people, people with low intelligence, people raised by poor parents, etc). Will it be good for those people to perpetually play a game in which their traits that put them on unequal footing never get considered? If not, what are you going to do factor in and weight every criteria? The problem isn't the "aim", the problem is the "game" that is being presented.

10:24

This may not be a very intellectual sounding critique of the interviewer, but I attribute his bent towards identitarian norms to be driven by the desire to pass on his genes.

The Function of productive enterprise is to discriminate and exclude. It’s particularly important that inferior institutions don’t cry ‘inequality’ and ‘white privilege’ in order to unfairly get an advantage. Consequently, white consciousness is paramount

What is the name of the interviewer?

What about consciousness? It is seperate from mind ans body.

You guys are doing God’s work (symbolically speaking)

I really, really, really want a fanvid where Peterson's voice comes out of Kermit's mouth talking about the Logos.

Please don’t say “yeah” every 3 seconds....

14:02

🌸🌼🙂😌

You bet, you bet...

This interviewer needs to familiarise himself with Nietzsche's notion of Slave Morality, and in particular the concept of ideology (as manifested through victimhood and external blaming). THEN he would understand JP's answer in relation to social "justice", but he wouldn't have asked the question in the first place, so.. moot point.

The only equilibrate state where no external force is needed for it to sustain itself in in the return of Jesus Christ where humans will receive immortal flesh and join fully in the life of God because of God. This was articulated in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

If you keep saying 'right' and 'true' after every 3rd word he speaks you definitely aren't focusing on the whole concepts he's expressing and you're being disruptive both towards your interlocutor and towards the potential audience

This guy read the word “logos” in the new testament and gets excited about it. The word is ubiquitous in pagan greek literature and nobody makes a big deal out it. This is how you know Mr Peterson is nothing but a snake-oil salesman.

It’s all fun and games until Jordan does this 🤨😠

Wow, this interviewer tanked in the last minute or two.

That last statement from JP was full of crap. In the west with group efforts we “ tall poppy” intelligence and consciousness in order the stay unconscious and defensive.

The reason the "white privilege" perspective is immediately ideological is because, like Dr. Peterson said in his distinction between religious systems and ideologies, it doesn't see the other side of the story. Assuming for a moment that "white privilege" exists, the concept dismisses any idea of a balancing concept of white oppression, white obligations, white duty, white guilt, white responsibility, the white man's burden... the more freedom/privilege one is given the more accountability/responsibility one bears.

It was really disappointing to realise that this guy had a political agenda. It seemed like he was just interested in discussing psychology at first.

"white privilege" is Cain vs Abel

The thing is, Dr Peterson (all of you, uncritical fans of his), that by your own definition, all major religions like Christianity (both Catholicism, Evangelicals, and Protestantism), Islam, Buddhism, etc are not religions but ideologies.

太难了

What if instead of getting defensive Jordan Peterson could "let go of the old dead structures and let something new come forward." What if instead of a blanket shut down he could have explored the idea of white privilege with some curiosity? I agree with the interviewer that Jordan Peterson seems to involved in an ideological struggle without being able to "not be subject to" or get a critical perspective on his own perspective. If I read Robert Kegan right this would suggest being embedded in what Kegan calls the Institutional (ideological) self. Kegan calls this the self authored self. The interviewer and Robert Kegan suggest further development with what he calls the intraindividual self, the self that can risk being curious and exploring critiques. Would the conversation be different if instead of quickly denying or defending themselves whites could explore and investigate this concept of white privilege. What if we could begin the conversation instead of shutting it down? What if the new that is trying to come forward will be better for all humanity?

This guy is such an agitator. He's the intellectual version of Cathy Newman. He has a preset-in stone, world view and he gets his feathers ruffled any time Dr. Peterson says something that challenges it. He doesn't even take a moment to consider it. His defenses go up and he gets hostile straight away. You can see his demeanor shift when it happens.

idea....is very dangerous word....if you....use wrong way......but.......at end.... no one 2 blame.....but you....yourself....idea is just a suggestion

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha JBP in a perpetual endless self examination gets no where - should end with a statement in belief that can be examined in detail.

Intelligence and consciousness... it would be so great if it was real.... when the stat and theory confronts the reality... only my point of you ... do not agree with Peterson at the end.... would have been interesting to have the second part... For info, i leave in Europe.

.

Like Brand, this guy just can’t stop interposing communist ideas into Peterson’s analysis. Shut up

Came to this video after watching the Jordan Peterson and Iain McGilchrist video. Can't say just how disappointed I was. If I had I come across this video first I would not have bothered with other videos from this channel. Which is sad because I thought the Jordan/Iain video was one of the best conversations I've heard. Sincerely unimpressed with Jonathan Rowson here. Hope this is not representative of him.

Jn. 1.1. “Consciousness” no no no Jordan please don’t speak heresy! Logos is the ‘word’ and that word is God incarnate who is the Christ, the promised One. Please don’t speak on this subject until you get a ‘biblical’ understanding of the meaning of the Logos! Dr. Peterson, all your interviews etc. we love, you’re articulate of course, you’re certainly honest, your fan base reflects appreciation for you and your values. But, theology is unlike any philosophy science or any other discipline or ideology! Theology isn’t man-made, nor can it be ‘man interpreted’, if you can understand. The Word of God can only be received, therefore it is given. Theology doesn’t offer any understanding to any man without God giving that understanding! Perhaps I’m trying to tell you that one must be “born again” Jn, 3.3 one essentially must be enlightened only by the Sprit of God and under no circumstances by the spirit of man, for if he ever was, he would not be a Christian theologian with any relationship to God, but simply a philosophic heretic. Please Mr. Peterson, not you, don’t be duped in to the satanic honey trap of hypocrisy! Your reach is massive, therefore your heresy will be equally massive but exponentially so. The church has had to fight long and hard defending this particular doctrine: personification of the logos. If this isn’t understood after having attempted to give you a brief outline here, go to biblical scholars such as the late RC Sproal, pastor John MacArthur, “Wretched Radio” or James White. All very fine scholars on apostolic doctrine and theology. It’s not necessary to know Biblical Greek but even a basic understanding of NT Gk. of this text would never allow such an interpretation as the logos being any kind of ‘consciousness’.I If you care for Jordan Peterson, get this message to him.

Interesting contradiction between the first and second halves of the interview! Would the “conjunction” of self with the world include seeing the privilege and power of being white, male, wealthy and Western? Perhaps Dr Peterson is saying we should not apologise for being what we are, but I believe we could listen more. For me, awareness IS becoming more aware of the suffering of the powerless (which is a huge theme in Jesus’s teaching), that we become more humane. Women, slaves, non-whites, disabled people, LGBT and animals have all, and in some cases still do unfairly suffer as being seen as ‘less than’, or even as commodities. We should not be ashamed of what we are, but maybe we need to expand our awareness of other perspectives and level up the playing field!

like he ever talks about anything else than that lol

i subscribed, then heard about white privilege, i unsubscribed.

12:03 Jesus Smuggling :D