We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Betrayal is a common catechism in the Church of the Self. Hymns to Me are the hosannas it hurls at an empty heaven. The politics of such a church require as First Things a rejection of all things not of, by, and for the self. A religion or a country of the people, by the people, and for the people is high on the list of things to be abhorred since it requires an allegiance that is other than to the self. The Church of the Self effectively mandates treason, and we see it now manifested daily in the bright robes of “unstiffled dissent” which shroud an increasingly vicious anti-Americanism that has its roots, not in reasoned criticism, but in unreasoned hate. We hear the hate but what we have not been allowed to see is the treason behind it.
"Sorting yourself out is harder than you think." It's just a good chat about foolish youth who want to save the world. Peterson is right. It's adolescent narcissism.
There goes a job. I had never encountered a robotic parking garage until last weekend in Fort Greene, Brooklyn. (By the way, Fort Greene was once a scary place. Not anymore. Very pleasant, with a perfect cozy neighborhood Italian joint, Belli on Fulton St.)
The garage had rack parking 3 floors underground. You park the car on the elevator, get out, and down it goes. When it's time to go, you watch the robot lift your car off the rack on the video camera. Robot places your car on the elevator, and up it comes.
Illuminating review of Peterson's new book by somebody who was prepared to trash it. He includes comments on Peterson's psychotherapeutic work too:
I’m really embarrassed to say this. And I totally understand if you want to stop reading me after this, or revoke my book-reviewing license, or whatever. But guys, Jordan Peterson is actually good.
His only quibble is with the foundations of Peterson's idea of the good life: "Reduce suffering." If there is a better idea outside of religion, I either haven't heard it or cannot understand it.
Several gals I know read this book to understand how (many) men function. They want to be man-savvy and particularly predator-savvy.
It seems like a how-to book for guys who have been disappointed in their romantic or simply sexual pursuits. Some guys are luckier than others. Some guys are chick magnets, and they are not all tall, dark (or orange), and handsome.
It's not just rich and powerful guys who decide to give their instincts free rein. It's not just guys, either.
Interesting to me that nobody needs to write books for women about how to get appealing males into bed. It just comes naturally to them.
Walk a Manhattan sidewalk, and try to guess who has a credit line of $10 million and who has one of zero. Take a transcontinental business class flight—who paid $5,000 for it and who saved up his frequent flyer miles for a year to travel in style? The guy in the jogging outfit and the girl in a business suit have no real clue of where the other falls in the social hierarchy...
It is true for sure. However, I think his observation applies more to guys than to gals. Most guys prefer to dress in as relaxed a manner as they can except when they need to "dress for success" for meetings. Billionaires do not need to dress for meetings.
Families without good father role models do not work well, statistically. Where are the good men? And why do women go along with this program if it works poorly for their kids?
Emergent Properties refer to outcomes that one cannot predict in advance in complex systems. Things to which reductionism does not apply.
Life is considered an emergent property of chemistry and physics. Consciousness is often considered an emergent property of biology.
If I provided anyone with a group of DNA molecules from any life form, could that person look at the sequence of nucleotides and accurately predict the outcome such genes? So is God an emergent property of Homo Sapiens or vice versa?
Once you get past his bit about his (14-minute) anger with the Linfield College administration's dismal treatment of him, he delivers a stimulating sermon on life, including topics of the "impartial brutality of reality"; the need to make life more difficult; the necessity of hitting walls in order to grow; that the meaning of life is in reducing suffering; the necessity of self-doubt and humility for spiritual, emotional, and intellectual growth; the dangers of isolation/insulation; the idea that to learn and develop, an old part of you has to die; and "black truths." And more.
It's a sermon with too many themes, but is there anything "controversial" enough to be banned here? "How do you radically justify your miserable existence? Start with yourself."
The true villains are the intellectuals who proposed a loosening of social mores, launched a parade of excuses for a long list of destructive behaviors, denied agency (and therefore full humanity) to the West’s euphemistically-named “poor”, built bureaucracies that reward the most irresponsible citizens with the greatest largesse, and otherwise indicted faceless society for the failures of individuals. Daniels uncovers the foolishness with elegance and wit.
Everybody knows what ingredients can result in unfortunate lives regardless of money: bad luck, bad genes, low IQ (half of the population is below average), addiction, maladaptive, annoying, (or intolerable, eg sociopathic or impulsive) character traits, poor judgement, unappealing appearance, mental illness, poor social awareness, low-functioning parents, poor child-rearing and lack of a father, etc. etc.
As we reiterate here, a stable bourgeois life is tough enough for most, even if lacking in those obstacles. Everybody is insufficient, and everybody stumbles. I know people with beautiful fulfilling lives, but have never known anybody who has not endured grievous troubles or terrible years. Peterson keeps saying "Life is suffering." No, but it has its share of it. You can count on that. Tragedy is unavoidable.
• For social justice, focus on symmetry and risk sharing. You cannot make profits and transfer the risks to others, as bankers and large corporations do. You cannot get rich without owning your own risk and paying for your own losses. Forcing skin in the game corrects this asymmetry better than thousands of laws and regulations.
• Ethical rules aren’t universal. You’re part of a group larger than you, but it’s still smaller than humanity in general.
• Minorities, not majorities, run the world. The world is not run by consensus but by stubborn minorities imposing their tastes and ethics on others.
• You can be an intellectual yet still be an idiot. “Educated philistines” have been wrong on everything from Stalinism to Iraq to low-fat diets.
• Beware of complicated solutions (that someone was paid to find). A simple barbell can build muscle better than expensive new machines.
• True religion is commitment, not just faith. How much you believe in something is manifested only by what you’re willing to risk for it.
The ballet-trained Tommy Rall branched out into Broadway, movie acting, singing, opera. And painting. Is it fair that talent is unequally-distributed? Many talents in one package, via neo's The man who could do everything: Tommy Rall
How often do most people wear evening gowns and tuxes nowadays in the US? Less and less often, for certain in New England, as even the upper classes and aristocracy prefer more informal events and dress.
Where the instructions "Formal attire" used to mean gowns and dinner dress fro men, now it means dresses and suits. Dress has obviously become small-d democratized. There is a loss in that, a loss of elegance at the least.
We're now at the point where even formal black or white-tie weddings (evenings only, please) look like silly costume shows. That ten year-old gown should be fine, and who cares?
I recently realized that I own enough formal wear, footwear, outerwear, sportswear, riding wear, ski gear, boating gear, and athletic gear to last my lifetime, not including new tennis racquets. I am done accumulating it as long as my size doesn't change, which will not.
What is most art "for"? Well, it's to be decorative or at least interesting. It can be social signalling or status-seeking. It can be used for investing or money-laundering. I suspect all of these things have applied since the Renaissance.
There goes a job. I had never encountered a robotic parking garage until last weekend in 
Several gals I know