/lit/ - Literature

Is this Hegel?

>>11047725
even better

>>11047725
Jordan Peterson

>>11047721
I’ve seen people making fun of the complexity of his diagrams, but when you read Maps of Meaning, the diagrams make a ton of sense in the context of the book.

They look so strange because sometimes he’ll use a diagram and then put that diagram within another diagram, so if you don’t understand the first diagram, you won’t understand the one it’s been placed in.

>>11047721
He meant that you should clean your room and slay the dragon XDDDDDDDD

Peterson is such a pseud LOL

>>11047721
Incoherent diagram thread?

>>11047760
This is actually very comprehensible and it makes me want to kill.

>>11047760

Get a load of this

>>11047760
this is clear, it's just stupid.

>>11047760
Get aload of this
Lol dumb frogs

>>11047721
>>11047771
And yet Petersonfags accuse feminists, poststructuralists and Marxists of being pseudoscientific.

>>11047895
>using mathematical notation for vague non-mathematical concepts

>>11047895
And the signifieds butt heads with the signifiers,
And we all fall down slack-jawed to marvel at words!
While across the sky sheet the impossible birds,
In a steady, illiterate movement homewards.

>>11047898
>doesn't know what falls under the domain of science
Sad.

>>11047725
xDDDD

>>11047923
>Pseudomythological esoteric bullshit falls under domain of science

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

>>11047923
>falling under science
Bitch even Jung himself went out of his way to say his psychoanalysis is not scientific

>>11047927
That's my point you retard. You can't prove or disprove those charts through empirical analyses of human behavior. Peterson is talking about the ethical and behavioral patterns in world mythology.

>>11047937
I'm replying to a guy who called it pseudoscientific, as if Peterson is trying to make scientific claims

>>11047941
Well that was my original point you imbecile. Petersonfags decry non-science of all groups they disagree with but use them themselves. It's hypocritical.

Jesus Christ, when did /lit/ become the board of brainlets?

>>11047721
this is faux Lacan, Peterson is such a hack

>>11047950
The social sciences claim that their methods are empirically sound and perceive themselves to be a science, hence the name. You're the retard here.

>>11047906
The actually arent vague concepts but using mathematical notaion is just a symptom of it's dumb binary relations
This is what it should look like

>>11047946
Well it is a failure to communicate on your part

>>11047957
>Implying contemporary feminists, contemporary Marxists and of them fucking all poststructuralists proclaim to be scientific and not interpretative
>Implying these all can be considered to be social sciences, a term you directly pulled out of your ass

Stop shaming yourself online, mate

>>11047760
this makes me angery

>>11047957
And unlike those social scientists, Peterson claims all his stuff has no empirical basis?

>>11047968
Holy shit dude read more. The biggest criticism people had of the Marxist materialist conception of history is that people initially claimed that it was a scientific approach to historical analysis. People in those fields did make claims of empiricism and rationality.

>Implying these all can be considered to be social sciences, a term you directly pulled out of your ass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

>>11047963
It was a failure of interpretation on yours

step aside kiddos

>>11047997
>Interpretivist social scientists, by contrast, may use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically falsifiable theories, and thus treat science in its broader sense
Literally in the second paragraph retard. Positivists are cancer

>>11047997
>I clearly wrote contemporary Marxism to distinguish it from classical Marxism
>B-B-B-BUT READ MORE!

Holy fuck mate what is your reading comprehension.

>>11048037
>no contemporary sociologist who employs Marxist and feminist interpretive prisms claims to be working in an empirical field
Nice fantasy you've constructed there

>>11048031
>Positivist social scientists use methods resembling those of the natural sciences as tools for understanding society, and so define science in its stricter modern sense.
This is what i'm critiquing. These people claim to be scientific while employing questionable methodologies

>>11048063
Yes and as that paragraph clearly showed, not all social scientists are positivists (which is a relatively new trend) like you are moaning about. Just accept that you are wrong and move on

>>11048023
based laffoley

>>11048023
imagine the autism

>>11048075
>In modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using multiple methodologies (for instance, by combining both quantitative and qualitative research).
If you muddle up your methodologies by using a priori knowledge, a posteriori knowledge, and just basic human intuition, then you open yourself up to criticism for affecting scientific rigor by combining both empirical and antipositive methods. You can't use both the tools of science and the interpretive tools that the scientific method was intended to protect against.

>>11048049
>You can't be a scientist and work in extra-scientific fields

Huh, I wonder how Petersonfags would explain all the citations from peer-reviewed journals he has amassed.

>>11048107
your science can't protect you from anything now

>>11048112
I'm not a Peterson fan

>>11048107
Your opinions on the methodologies of positivists doesn't change the fact the people you are moaning about are interpretivists. Stop wasting both of our time by constantly moving the discussion into more and more minute details

>>11048140
>doesn't change the fact the people you are moaning about are interpretivists.
My point is only that interpretivists, by using many of the same empirical methods used by positivists (along with other methods), attempt to appropriate the prestige and public perception of objectivity that actual sciences have.

>>11048173
>to appropriate the prestige and public perception of objectivity that actual sciences have
No one is doing that except positivists you retard

postmodernism is haram

>>11047721
complete misunderstanding of psycho-spiritual dynamics and an autistic attempt at codifying emotional folk wisdoms into some kind of system that he probably does not even use

>>11047721
It's pretty comprehensible to anyone who bothers studying Peterson at all. But of course /lit/ doesn't actually read.

>>11048279
Positivists attempt to use empirically sound methods though

>>11048023

Strangely imposing if nothing else...

>>11048367
>attempt
Yea it is clear you are just trying to nitpick for no reason

>>11047740
>no (you)s

>>11047960
>Binary relations are dumb.
>I use THREE nodes instead of two!
The absolute state of Peircetards.

>>11047960
>>11048536
is this the power of the anglo?

>>11047918
I've been reading up on Valentinian cosmology lately and it is definitely fucking wack, totally beyond reason. I honestly thought reading Gnostic texts would help me come to appreciate esotericism better but it is just so bizarre and stupid.

>>11048536
Show me that binary semiotic relationships can be reduced to relations of adicitiy less than three and we will talk.
Diads must be constructed out of triads. If you don't understand why I believe that you have no business criticizing Peirceian sign relations in the first place.

>>11048693
If it helps, just enjoy looking at the trippy Gnostic comic book art and avoid thinking about it too deeply.

stacking turtles again, son?

>>11048536
schelling also used ternary trees

the first guy who tried to map the entire world to a tree structure was probably ramon llull

>>11047918
you cannot chart gnostic cosmology if you don’t know basic geometry or formal maths nigger
>>11048023
genius ass schizo
>>11048031
>>11048037
both need to be dumped in rubber cement
>>11048279
that’s absolutely not the case at all, i know that because i read soc science studies all the time
>>11048693
again, if you do not know maths, did not read the actual texts, have no background in greek mysticism and are geometrically retarded and cannot into alchemical (read holarchic) thought, it is not for you, dumb fucking nigger. should have started with the gospel of st thomas and pistis sophia

>>11047760

I present to you
Intellectual Paralympic Games 2018
Matt Dillahunty vs. Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8

>>11049208
>fat tonyism

Bourdieu doesn't get enough credit as the king of shitty charts.

>>11047725
nice b8 m8

>>11047721
It makes perfect sense if you read the book

>>11050568
What art do you like /lit/?

>>11050582

>>11050598

>>11050951
I bet that instead of these pretentious terms it would be possible to use short plain English words

>>11047721
Bruh it's figure 66. All these diagrams build on each other's base, starting from the first. Try actually reading Maps, my guy. For as much as litfags preach against people commenting on Marx without reading him, they sure love to comment on Peterson without actually having read his primary work.

>>11051040
I literally lmao

>>11051189
me too kek

>it depends on what you mean by true

>>11047721
so is maps of meaning essentially jungian dialectics? if so that's pretty interesting.

Proud owner of Fanged Noumena here. Land is the indisputable king of stupidly complex diagrams. I mean, the essay all this relates to is actually quite interesting and comprehensible, but this really is something else entirely

LOL gordan memerson is such pseud kek lol HAHAH am i right guys???? XDDDDD we so smart !!!!! IM A STRONG INDEPENDENT AUTIST AND I DON'T NEED NO NORMIE TO TELL ME TO CLEAN MY ROOM MMMMHMM! Haha guys he got moniz on patreon REEEE people only like him because they got daddy issues HAHAHAHAHAHA much kek

>>11051040
t. Pragmatist

>>11051377
I never thought about it that way

>>11050439
now that's a big cat...

>>11050439
Tony, lay off the flakes.

>>11053223
yeah. kind of interesting to think about.

i'm partial to campbell myself, in that it is actually one of the most easily visible psychological patterns ever: just go to the movies and you can see it being done. the path of the hero is as about as worked-out and reified a system as there is.

but i could never quite figure out JBP's diagrams and this kind of thing. could actually be interesting if he expanded it or made his diagrams a little bit more easy to understand. maybe he'll write a clarified or simplied MoM someday. it's not like we've cleared up everything there is going on in the jungian unconscious mind.

>>11053223
seriously...

>>11053270 follow up

this is 70% of /lit/ >>11053018

>>11053269
I think the diagrams make sense in the context of the book, which I think is written pretty clearly. It is a complicated text though.

>ascent
>conjunction
literal astrology

>>11047895
I want to sneak this onto the projector in my Wittgenstein course, I know some pseuds will finally think they "get" it kek

>>11053269
>made his diagrams a little bit more easy to understand
???
Just read the book dude, starting with Figure ONE (1). He explains everything and just offers a schematized visual aid alongside it.

>>11053319
kek. okay. you're right anon, it is kind of ridiculous to ask him to make some of those simpler. fair point.

more like maps of gay sex

>be psychologically like the lobster
>eat lobster
>improve manliness
>become more like lobster in turn
>read JBP to understand
>crush dragons
>rescue maidens
>develop force powers
>clean room
>run for office
>destroy capitalism
>bring capitalism back because fuck you capitalism is awesome
>my lobster powers are only beginning to increase
>repeat forever

i feel myself becoming stronger

>>11053534
this copypizza is gonna slay so hard on 9gag

>>11053534
PICKLE LOBSTER!!!

hmmm

what did he mean by this?

What did they mean by this?

>>11052307

>>11047963
Holy shit you're fucking retarded

>>11053214
I will hunt you and everyone you love down and efficiently cull your lifes. Just as one should do to swine of your kind.

>>11047721
symbolizes that shrinks need to be burned alive

>>11048023
It is terrifying.

>>11048582
Good god, I would feel really shameful if I came up with that.

>>11050568
i want this as a poster

>>11047760
Incoherent diagram thread.

bump

dragon energy, my friend

>>11047857
Quite convoluted in what it originally conveys, but it's interesting to see the figure claim Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics believed genres of faculties of psyche in the old days are the same as a character creation setup in video games.

>>11047950
>when did /lit/ become the board of brainlets?
It always has been, hence being full of brainlet has-beens.

>>11053223
fucking....>>11053018