As a diligent individual who is magnetised towards confrontation and pours out disdain on misinformation, I spent over a week detailing the Lewis v Peterson episode. This was my foundation to deliver this critique of a journalist who was cognitively out of her depth.
Exacting an agenda with a Clinical Psychologist of the calibre of Peterson was amateurish, and I can construct this analogy by the second word of Lewis’s summing up being: ‘man’ – not as a collective term but a gender-orientated nuance on an intellectual which has the backing of over thirty years of knowing his craft. Not a wise move, and I clarify, the performance tweaked my irascibility antennae enough to take heed at the motives of a feminist.
To call Jordan B Peterson a 'YouTube' star devalues his credentials and well-rehearsed prophecies, yet Lewis’s intention is purely to pull him down a few pegs. She did hesitate before saying ‘yes’ – a handful of seconds isn’t an enough time to mindfully percolate anything, let alone a beast like Peterson. If I could advise, I’ll get her to contact Sam Harris for some pointers prior to the meet. Systematically absorb the data and then three months’ time engage, knowing the core position is ironed out sufficiently so there’s no woolly-headed misgiving if the Professor was in reflective mode. Lewis started the tractor off on a motorway; you can easily guess what I concluded.
Lewis’s concerns of Peterson’s loyal supporters missile-targeting her social network comments surely garners an opinion she knows how poorly constructed her wiles are. Comparatively, as a polemicist I am fully engaged and forever ready for any metaphoric arsenal; this poses the question in regards to Lewis: why play a phoney game of Tom & Jerry with the ilk of Jordan B Peterson? And this oddity about whether he’ll win or not…. questions Lewis’s comprehension of what the intention of the discourse was about in the first place. Was it a condition that the publicist Jonathan Cape had with the feminist regarding her book: ‘A History of Feminism in Nine Fights;’ due out in spring 2020. Simple Q&As has zero foundations for a debate, surely this invites converse, not in keeping with debate standards. For example: there’s a participating audience who’ll determine the winner in regards to Votes and stringent timeline phases that structures a fairness that most feminists neither relates to or prefers not to see the bigger picture. What I observed was a YouTube film of just over 90 minutes -- this exemplifies Lewis’s true misinterpretation.
From off the cuff, I would never deem the Professor as a salesman of logic -- much of what his evaluations derive from circumnavigates competent research pathways that are not open to cognitive extra-curricular. The whole idea in discussion is to simulate an equivalent synergy not to reconfigure actuality; if you’re courageous enough pose a differing research statement, expect any intellectual to call you out on it. This is where Lewis flounders for her desideratum isn’t done by study but via well-rehearsed allegory that’s logged in an adult’s consciousness.
Indeed, not a valid answer, henceforth, this gold-standard of articulation cannot verify the status quo as anything new, why Lewis’s position faltered and why Peterson’s followers are likely to disparage her efforts. Does this from a voyeur point of view intrigue me, yes it does; albeit, I know already the approach that Lewis will adopt in her impending book. As Peterson implied, ‘good luck with that’ is a fair assessment, not an endorsement of fascination for a chieftain who simplifies patriarchal hierarchies by underlining the fatal flaws in boosting egalitarianism. A greater belief in women’s rights whatever they are acerbates the gravely issues, it doesn’t corrects them at all. The tools of language are specifically devised for a feminist to envelope an ideal – a so-called gold-standard of existence, proven ineffectual.
Scandinavian communities exposes these ideological derailments, herewith a rise in Neo-Nazi populism in the region that outstrips the rest of Europe. Dangerous times to promote feminism eh, knowing full well the consequences; although Helen Lewis will push it all under the carpet and calls Peterson’s book: ’12 Rules For Life’ as being…. very, very weird. It mixes homespun life advice with denunciations of Soviet communism.’ - An offside propagandist perspective, from a social democrat which Helen Lewis conceitedly calls herself; she retorts that the Professor is Right-Wing; an absurd giant pit that journalists fall into; an incongruous splatter echoes the chamber. In a throw-away comment - henceforth, a germane one, nevertheless to announce that Nietzsche’s sister gifted the Nazi’s his works to re-translate / for propagandist usage.
Ultimately this doesn’t mean the great modern philosopher believed in propagating their hideous morality, does it? Denunciation is not a verified term in that context; evidence of a feminist’s proclivity to overstate their own motive rather than delve deeper into intellectualism. Jordan B Peterson revels in the identity politics that feminists automatically flower themselves in, he exhibits tautology tendencies on this particular thread. Concurring they brazenly disable open-mindedness, especially to our chemical comparatives to a lobster in a social sense. Y’see lobsters respond to antidepressants the same as Homo sapiens do, why can’t Lewis get her head around that?
In one hand, Lewis appears to accept the Professor’s detailed explanations are supported by science and then has grievances of suchlike without identifying any verification of counter-argument; this is the delinquency and it exasperates Clinical Psychologists. Lewis brackets: ‘He doesn’t use crude or demeaning language;’ - this is silly, scholars per se don’t use vulgar language that’s expressed in bar-room, hence, why did Lewis refer to this simile in her summing up? All she is doing is stereotyping a sexist in juvenile terms, no academic worth their salt would revisit that archaic analogy; so, don’t expect her book to sway above that infantile standard. Without being too rude, there’s a reason why a Professor can make his / her point with ease and authority, it’s due to visiting that particular agenda or data umpteen times, no different to walking down the same street for a decade. The idea its new thinking is a falsification, yet to feminism which via default allures to identity politics the research on say… it’s not a man’s world causes an analytical schism.
The exchange was haphazardly planned and from a voyeur perspective you don’t need to be a scholar to work that out. Lewis could’ve fared better if the subject line had concentrated a feminist focus; for example: identify Gustave Foucault’s nonchalant quest to overlook gender-orientations. Apparently, women think as men do and surely this creates a ‘black hole’ in Foucault’s discourse into his hierarchy analysis. Discuss. Now if Helen Lewis was Sandra L Bartky; Peterson may’ve been forced to adopt an identity politic approach – which’ll inadvertently been more palatable for Lewis; theoretically Peterson probably would feel less comfortable, or at least come up with some identifiable theory, that has no scientific study to cement his point. The problem with feminists who systematically label gender into boxes unheedingly, Foucault is a contentious juxtaposition for a feminist, if only Lewis was audacious enough to walk that particular plank.
Frustration rather than annoyance was etched over the Professor’s face and tone when Lewis claimed to know more about neuroscience theories than a scholar of the subject for over thirty years. Call it ignorance, that Lewis used the term ‘bollocks’ without first understanding the lobster comparative constructs. It’s like saying to a NASA chieftain, ‘bollocks, how can you say that, spacesuits are made of tin foil, I saw it on Blue Peter once.’ Publicists Jonathan Cape, please take note. There’s a shocking gender-identity derangement that motivates Lewis; much of it isn’t case study based but based on misplaced discriminatory values; at least we’ve learned that by having a conversation with a Professor of Peterson’s ilk it outlines, underlines her nonsensical feminist evaluation. Naturally Lewis predicted she’d cause outrage within Peterson’s fan base, for the record, I am not one of them. Thus, you cannot siphon off my cognitive view so easily under a congruence theorem - my dissident nature is beyond that self-perceived remit.
The main rankle I have with the cognitive decree of Lewis is her default language is divisively personal, Peterson out rightly claimed during the discussion he’s not confrontational, yet afterwards Lewis highlights this: “his whole appeal is based on intellectual superiority and *confrontation*, and it doesn’t leave much space for humility and humour.” That’s quite a character arraignment, and based on actuality fabrication and all in one meeting -- how myopic can one be, makes you wonder why Peterson even bothered to agree to it? Everything about the exchange was premeditated by Lewis. Assumptions galore, claiming they’ll be incongruities, rather than gearing up to impartiality.
A choice Lewis made, it was the wrong one. Also, who gauges collective charm on the calibre of intellectualism and levels of humility? This is alien to me, I’ve never been so improper to an individual who advocated time to me. Furthermore, who doesn’t love their own family; I cannot fathom the inane superficiality expressed, nor do I care if the professor is happy; (I don’t think he seems very happy) naturally I wish him well, albeit, how can anyone actually write that in a magazine with 100% chemical assurances?
Perhaps this is the problem with journalists they’re too focussed with the political identity, (Rousseau’s Body Politic) of their subjects and habitually without heed usurp on an age old idiom that a man on tour automatically makes him ‘unhappy,’ Unsurprising misandry, considering Helen Lewis failed on so many levels to intellectually compete.
I’ll be sending this observation to ‘Jonathan Cape.’
Comments
Post a Comment