HEIDI (to all women of the group)
Here the videos I talked about at the end of our meeting:
We have watched all of them. It takes time, but it was very much worth it
Peterson is also very much involved in – or better against – the “mean green meme”, the neo-marxist movement inside of society, especially in the universities, but if you dont ‘appreciate it, just don’t watch it.
He has studied Hitler and Stalin for all his career and he knows how these things show up and develop.
I actually do appreciate his courage to stand up against totalitarian trends in our western society. I grew up too near to East Germany and went there often, I know how people feel when they fear to speak their mind…..
Thank you again for what you do to keep up the nexus. Without which there is no “WE”, in Ken Wilbers map of consciousness the Lower left quadrant – shared language, interests, culture.
And of course Jordan Peterson – one of the most intelligent thinkers and a forerunner of rationality.
Thank you Heidi for the links. Yes, an interesting guy, very impressive and quite a performer. This model of ‘teaching’, what we could call ‘top down’ teaching, is geared to producing celebrities, and fits nicely into the patriarchal paradigm. No room for interaction or discussion. I found I could only take so much of it, though I’m sure there are some good ideas to be found.
MONIA (to Anna)
To feel comfortable with Peterson a small dosage is best. To be fluent in English – as you definitely are 😉 – helps, but there are dialogs with other High IQ personalities, where even my fluency is hard tested to keep up.
However, he is one of the first lecturers where you can actually see that he thinks while talking to an audience of definitely less experience than he has. Which may be a hierarchy, but one I can accept.
HEIDI (to Anna)
Thank you for the feedback. For me this type of lecture is exactly what I need to learn deep stuff and also how to think things through. I think there is a place for all types of teaching and at this point – especially when on video – I am not interested in learning in a peer group about things which nobody knows better than myself. For me, peer group (not “top-down” as you call it) is very appropriate to digest new learning and often probably also when being together in person with facilitators who know where to go.
I fully agree with Monia: “Jordan Peterson – one of the most intelligent thinkers and a forerunner of rationality.” and I don’t dare to ask somebody like him to allow me to ask permanent questions which I would need to ask for my learning in a “non-patriarchal” way, as you call it. (btw. I don’t think we should mix all these terms together with modalities of doing, especially when we connect with them a negative judgement.)
I myself listen to the info – and then I can ask someone or discuss the topics with peers (Which I really would love to do in a bigger circle!)
Anyways, reading Ken Wilber and listening to Jordan Peterson: both has allowed my personal growth in ways that otherwise I don’t think it could have happened, because both speak to my inclination to see things in a rational way and both include the other aspects of being human without falling into the trap of assuming to have the only possible way of seeing the world – with other words: they are integral thinkers.
I wish you all the benefit of learning from exceptional people, like those two and certainly many others…
MARK (to Anna)
Dear Anna, just a quick clarification, Peterson spends a lot of screen time answering audience questions.
ANNA (to Heidi)
There are many aspects of life within this patriarchal structure which are nourishing and support our growth. We could not have got to where we are without them, and it is good to acknowledge our dependency on them, and our indebtedness to them.
Nevertheless it is also useful to see how, while supporting us, these aspects can bring with them patterns of behaviour which can undermine our trust in our own abilities, and lead us to overvalue the contribution of others. Notice, I am not saying that these things are of no value, but they are couched in a framework which quite subtly can encourage us to become dependent on ‘experts’. Possibly even to feel that this person is so elevated, so far from an ordinary human being, that like you mentioned in your email, you would not dare to ask a question.
Thank you Mark for the clarification. But asking questions is not the same as peer group discussion. It still leaves the speaker in the superior position. Our whole education system is based on some people – teachers – knowing more than others, which gives them a superior status. This has become ‘normal’. We do not ordinarily question it. But there is no fundamental reason why superior knowledge should give superior status. In Patriarchy differences of status are extremely important. Knowledge, wealth, colour of skin, gender, age, all give rise to different status. This can prevent us from not only seeing the justice of treating every person as precious, but also from asserting our own essential needs and abilities.
HEIDI (to Anna)
Thanks for your reply and I agree with much of what you said.
There is some clarification to be made here: It is not that I don’t “dare” to ask him my questions because I would see Jordan Pterson as superior to me, but I would not do that in such an extensive way as I would need to learn from ONLY asking questions to somebody who knows more than myself, because that person can spend his time better than answering the same question seperately to many people. That’s why he gives lectures. A teacher should know more than his students – and that gives him a higher “seat” in the natural hierarchy of knowing more in a specific area. That doesn’t mean that he/she is “superior” in all areas or that he/she has automatically a higher “status” (which normally is connected with having power OVER and not power FOR)
The other thing: Natural hierarchy and power hierarchy are two completely different things.
I think we are gone quite far in dis-entangeling the status from the quality of what people do. Even within certain professions people don’t automatically assume that the “boss” does his job better than one of his employees. As for instance in medicine: if I need surgery I would go to the best surgeon in the field – and that is often NOT the leader of the department in the hospital (I say this because I know the issue from a friend medical doctor). If I want to know more about how normal people can become ideologues or act in evil ways the best thing is to watch Petersons lectures, maybe also read some books, but I wouldn’t want to be guided by the present prevailing sociological ideas which talk only about patriarchy, power and discrimination – while using power and discrimination quite frankly themselves without admitting it and probably even without noticing it. This is what is part of the “Mene green meme”, named by Ken Wilber.
It is not everything based on power in human life, at least not on POWER OVER. We need to make this very important distinction for not throwing the baby out together with the bathwater… And we need to embrace co-operative ways to come out of the chaos and create a better society – which is not what the radical forces on both sides presently try to implement.
ANNA (to Heidi)
Thank you Heidi for a most interesting discussion. I will have to ponder ‘Natural Hierarchies’ a little more.
Anyway we are agreed that cooperation is needed to move forward.
Heidi (to Anna)
I am glad you got something out of our exchange.
I am wondering if I can post our conversation under our video in the website? It may be interesting to others, too.
ANNA (to Heidi)
I think that’s a really good idea! Yes, it might encourage others to comment. Xx