UKH

I'm putting this here in the hope it doesn't attract the ideological loons of other sub-forums of this site... I know even that statement will draw the downvotes... so be it.

I watched this fabulous conversation between Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson. I've put it here for your enjoyment, watch it if you want, but please don't bother commenting if you can't be.

I found two things particularly striking. Firstly, that two people who skirt the edge of personal sanity could be so clear headed and delve into the most profound subjects. On the other hand perhaps that's why they can? Many of our best have been in that position... Nietzsche... Van Gogh. Secondly, is this a blueprint for a solution to the division we see in our society today? Two people who can have varying ideological views coming together to discuss their differences and their crossover.

On the whole I agree more with Fry, but Peterson as always, provides his immense academic insights. Dawkins is mentioned a fair bit and I think Fry is almost the perfect bridge between the other two.

I know I have been guilty of widening the divide during inactions on here. I have often tried to bridge the gap, but when this is thrown in my face I don't react well. I tend to toss the table... I will try to do better in the future... or just avoid the 3 obvious sub-fora (especially for the gramma-nazis 😉 ) where this is a particular issue.

youtube.com/watch?v=fFFSKedy9f4&

Are you new to the internet? I ask because this isn't how it works.  

No... I'm just the eternal optimist. 😉

Just noticed I wrote "inactions" instead of "interactions"... perhaps the former would have been more advisable! 😄

Why don't you tell us who you used to post as? 

Why are you so interested?

It's probably my innate curiosity, you've been banned multiple times before and I boggle at the idea you can't merely apologise for being a massive bellend and get unbanned, rather than crawling back under different disguises until you again reveal the massive bellendery. 

Please don't take offence at that ^ it's only because you asked. 

Lol.

Did you watch him get taken apart by Zizek? The man is an intellectual flea who doesn't seem to have bothered to read anything about any of the subjects he pontificates about.

And through your efforts to “bridge the gap” it’s not occurred to you that opening with unprovoked insults probably doesn’t help?

Ah yes... UKC.

Aw, don't be like that. You've only been here a month (honest, guv), if you stick around you might like it. 

Which is/are the forum/forums ABOVE those/these so-called sub-forums? 

And don't bother emailing me again, post it on here or fock off. 

I've never emailed you... unless this is a sock puppet account.

Well, it wouldn't be your first. 

Are you drunk by any chance? You come across as though you are. How's your blood pressure?

A fock puppet? 

I watched it.

I don't find Peterson a particularly substantial thinker and can't concur on your use of the work 'immense'. His base ideas are interesting but his conclusions I find quite lacking and easily commandeered by dubious agendas I find unhealthy simply to their being so unanchored in rigor. To my mind he squeezes small-C-conservative results out of tired old material. I find him to be part of the permissive academia - at times bordering on pseudo - that is used as source material for big-C-conservatives who would have people like Fry burned at the stake.

Hence it's always a pleasure to to see him so politely dismantled by the likes of Fry. Fry's reactions to Peterson's gibberish at around the 30min mark are poetry in themselves.

To my mind, both are guilty of western-centric thinking where 'we' and 'us' fails to include other civilizations like the Chinese or Indus and even often Persia, let alone beyond, when it comes to discussing myth and the development of things like non-religious thought, philosophy and societies. Campbell who they often reference was terrible for this too. 'Us' is a bit too anemic in it's use here I think to have much credibility.

A good watch though. A lot of waffle - fun when it comes from Fry, distracting and almost embarrassing when it comes from Peterson - but a good shot at discussing some difficult-to-nail down concepts that never could be reduced to convenient bytes.

I commend Fry for doing all these sorts of gigs, but I can't help thinking he's become a pop standard for credibility, ie Rogan & Peterson-types 'getting Fry on' as if it gives them some sort of credibility by association or osmosis. Not always of course, but maybe this time.

Thank for your comment. It's way too late to get into it now, so I'll leave it until tomorrow. It don't disagree with much of what you have said, though I would make one small point about Peterson often referring to Mesopotamian religious ideas. I think a real value of conversations like this (and the aforementioned conversation with Zizek) is the manner in which they are held, i.e. people with opposing views being able to talk without the need to denounce the other as some kind of evil heretic.

Yes I think you're right - and more so to remind me as I often miss it - in that the meeting of factions is the main value here. To which they both were very cordial (though neither are at towards the edges where the meeting of ideologies really get confrontational), but nevertheless, good to see. I think Peterson has a genuine respect for Fry despite being associated with some things Fry stands against.

re Mesopotamia; true, but it's 'Mesopotamia-then-turn-left' ie how it went on to develop western thought and not have just as much affect eastward. I feel it's a big blind spot in a lot of these discourses. Almost like referencing Mesopotamia is enough to not need to bother looking further eastwards, when it's actually fundamental. Consider that whole conversation had they included the way heroic theism had influenced or confronted civilizations eastward. The entire base myths of half the worlds humans are almost left out by two men using the words 'us' and 'we' in nearly every sentence.

Don't get me wrong - and excellent post. Hopefully one day we will see similar where Fry zooms with his equal to compare notes between Greece and, say, Chinese mythology and the left/right divide. I wonder if Ai Weiwei is available?

I don’t see anything very “academic” about his views, just the window dressings of authority in a sector where there is absolutely no professional standards body and the barriers to becoming an esteemed professor are not well aligned in the way outsiders think they are.

When it comes to “immense” I can see ways I think that applies....

Once again, thank you for your replies. I wonder, judging from the time of your post, whether you live in the "East"... or perhaps you're just a night owl?

I agree there is a heavy occidental slant to this conversation and also that ancient Greece (and in turn Rome and then Christianity) was influenced by 'Mesopotamia-then-turn-left'. I also agree with your point about Peterson having "a genuine respect for Fry despite being associated with some things Fry stands against." This association that is tied to Peterson is I feel somewhat unfair. Yes, there are elements of his 'fanbase' that are, let's just say, 'Mid-West Bible Belt' types, but he is hated by the extreme right as much as he is by the extreme left... which is always a good sign!

To defend both Fry and Peterson, I think they are discussing what is pertinent to their worldview, the society they live in and the present malaise it seem to be in. It also cannot be denied that the Western World has dominated the globe in terms of technology and culture over the past few centuries. Having said that, perhaps due to the fact that our advancements has created what is now a 'global village', I feel there are aspects of our culture that are now been found to be severely wanting and maybe we could benefit from integrating Eastern societal aspects and philosophies? There appears to me to be a "Fall of Rome" scenario being played out, perhaps our time has come or perhaps we can avoid or lessen it by integrating aspects of other societies into our own? It is not entirely impossible Western society will enter a new 'Dark Ages' where society stagnates or even declines. I very much doubt the Romans thought theirs would during the Pax Romana.

I'm gonna kick up some dust here! Perhaps it was Christianity that provided the conditions for the West to become so technologically advanced... or perhaps it was just war? As Fry alludes to, the importance of wonder cannot be understated in our development as a species and as Peterson says "[wonder] is a primary aspect of religion". Perhaps Christianity (by accident) provided the most fertile ground? Sure I know about Galileo and the burning of heretics, but then Newton was a religious man and thought that science would prove the existence of God. The correctness of this view (or indeed his own science) is neither here nor there, it is the driver that led to his discoveries and then through him to future scientific advancements. I get the feeling with the demise of Christianity we have enter a new societal phase that has its own religiosity... 'scientism' (which is also very evident on these pages, I guess due to the large number of university educated members of this forum). 'Scientism' certainly has its own sacred tenets and burners of heretics... the case of Semmelweiss mentioned in the conversation being an example. I'm sure there have been many instances of scientific advancement being dismissed due to denunciation (or fear of it) in the scientific community. Is there any place for that woolly aspect of life called 'spirituality' or 'wonder' or 'esoterica', I get the feeling from some that there isn't and that science is all we need. I'm not so sure about that and Peterson isn't either and that's why he get the abuse from certain quarters that he does (see above).

To conclude and come full-circle, I wonder if integration is the key to success. The East seems to have made significant advancement due to adopting aspects of Western culture, perhaps we need to do the same? It is a similar case when it comes to Western politics and the current left/right divide that is prevalent, at least the 'Anglosphere'. There seems to be a tendencies to write off any dissenting view and the people holding them as evil and something to be destroyed. This is true of both sides, but as (that terrible thing) a centrist, I see it coming more from the left and there are those on the left, like Fry, who think the similarly. What might be needed is more integration, more understanding the other and more tolerance. And I include myself in that.

Did you listen to the conversation?

No, I got a mallet and hit myself in the head for a hundred minutes.  A much more productive and rewarding use of my time.

I very much doubt JP had anything new to say, if he did perhaps you can summarise it...

Then why bother commenting... or were you just being altruistic?

I'll leave that to you to figure out.

I already have. You seem to have a gift of proving my point.

A fine example of the ambiguity of the word 'spirituality' (see other thread), here clumped together with words that scientifically-minded people wouldn't have a problem with, and seemingly intended to imply that such scientifically-minded people are not being sufficiently open minded.

At least you had the good grace to admit you were using a hopelessly woolly term to try and claim that other people's thinking involves a surfeit of rigour. That's walking the walk, at least.

I don't think you're getting my point or you're just offended by a particular sentence. I was trying to say that perhaps "woolly spirituality" provides the fertile ground that makes scientific advancements easier or perhaps even possible. Like Fry suggests in the conversation, there's nothing that is inherently true or provable about it, but it does seem to have been, in the past at least, an important factor in our evolution.

If you can bear to watch this (it's Peterson again, though his input is minimal), Iain McGilchrist articulates far better than I can some of what I was trying to explain. If you can't be bothered... well... it's no loss to me, I won't take it personally.

youtube.com/watch?v=0Zld-MX11lA&

Jon? (Perhaps not). In truth, I only rejoined this site in order to access the crag database and possibly find people to climb with when my regular partners are unavailable. Again, I have found that I have been sucked into these parts of the site against my better judgment. It honestly does me no good and I tend to project my shadow when faced with the standard fare of social media communications. I can see that I am unwelcome here. I think its time to fock off again and take my massive bellendry with me. Yeah... I'll watch the door on the way out.

Happy climbing... stay safe... regards, EH.

Ok so lots to go with there. I will caveat I personally don't see the actual East-West divide as being nearly as distinct as many do. Very often it's hazy, due to so much interconnection spanning millennia before we even get into where one starts and the other finishes, but for the sake of discourse best stick with what we assume each other means.

Agreed a good sign. To my mind Peterson bookends the edge where conservativism looses grip and goes from unsavory to unhealthy, and I think he settled into that niche - and inflames it - due to a twisted worldview, ie one lacking in diversity. 

Only if one chooses to look at things a certain way. Of course the west has had a great run from about the Renaissance but there's been the equivalent in the East too and it's Fry et al ignoring that which creates the idea. I've been a Fry-watcher for years, and he has a noticeable void bordering on ignorance when it comes to anything beyond the Euro-sphere.

Perhaps, there must certainly be a link. It could be the revulsion against Christianity ie the enlightenment that was the catalyst. The East never had such a distinct schism to push against (though had parallels such as the Mongols).

I think wonder, esotericism, spirituality etc as lens for investigation are the fundamental human experience - where it goes off the rails is when they get substituted for the end state or answer. Our brains are built it seems to be overwhelmed with awe or chaos then to recalibrate around perceived understandings of that awe, to seek functional patterns. Peterson discusses this, with mythology giving meaning, but I find his (and Fry's) ideas dismiss the several billion brains that saw patterns in other ways that also built civilizations.

The cultures of the East are just as divided, albeit sometimes along different divides the West doesn't have. The West seems to have trademarked some political definitions which it has trouble viewing the world without, but the East will have the same. I personally don't think political ideologies from say Asia would work in Western states because the populations organize themselves around different things. Political divides are mostly based on what populations are sold (or coerced into) based on their wants and fears. I think too the East isn't nearly as homogenous as the West - there's few eastern countries that share similar systems, even the socialist ones.

Some ideas are bad and deserve to be rooted out and dismantled, because they aim to kill off the diversity of which healthy evolution is based. To my mind the level of self-satisfaction from hating fascism, or communism or fundamentalism got old but the media and social addiction was there so it was channeled into other hate-objects. I don't want to invoke Orwell but....

There's centrism and there's centrism. My own angle is centrism as a position is doomed to stagnation where bridges collapse rather than connect, but centrism as the engine room for radical ideas that need separation from radical groups - the Radical Centrist position as posited by groups like The Economist - is where crossing the divide can happen. I see Peterson as one of those collapsed bridges, and Fry perhaps also as much as I admire the man.