New Upcoming Warband Nords Campaign

I am working on a new Warband campaign, focusing on the Nord faction. Like Bannerlord, there’s no saying exactly when it will be available, so I’ll just say “soon.”

A Response to Sam Harris #62 What is True? (with Jordan B. Peterson)

Sam Harris #62 What is True? (with Jordan B. Peterson)

In the introduction, Sam says Jordan is his most requested guest so far. Many of his viewers also watch other channels where Jordan has been a guest, such as the Ruben Report, The Saad Truth, and Joe Rogan Experience.

Peterson is best known for his recent conflict with administration at University of Toronto for his criticisms of bill C-16, an amendment to the federal human rights code of Canada. However, most of the interest in having him on the Waking Up podcast came from his unique views on religion, mythology, and claims on religious vs. scientific truth.

 

 

According to the introduction, the conversation broke down on different understandings of what constitutes truth and remained there. Sam then invites viewers to break down what happened and determine if anybody was at fault. Peterson responded with an open letter in an attempt to clarify his position. Harris responded on his blog with his own summary to the discussion, a response to the open letter, and a poll in which 81-19% voted in favor of a part two follow up.

 

I want to clarify my position in writing this. I have some interest in philosophy, but would’t claim to be heavily invested in the subject. There are ideas and references made here that are new to me, much of it I have to pick of from the context or from google. What I find compelling about this discussion, besides the philosophy, are the personalities involved. Harris and Peterson are both charismatic people with very effective but differing communication styles.

My familiarity with Sam Harris is limited to a couple of debates I watched on YouTube and his appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience. His ability to structure communication and speak authoritatively or at least coherently on large a number of issues is impressive. He strikes me as a very disciplined individual. Within the context of this debate, we don’t get to know him or understand the more nuanced aspects of his philosophy. In part, we have to rely on Peterson to draw the lines for the audience. This only goes so far, as Harris consistently resets the conversation when prompted to put more forward, particularly in regard to his understanding of consciousness and the framework for his rational conception of “well-being.” The debate takes place on his forum, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume a good part the audience is familiar with his books and perspective. The rest of us were left to assume a good deal.

I first heard Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast. While I understood his political perspective on transgender rights, social justice, and Marxism, what I really connected with was his perspective on identity, religion, and truth. His connection of natural selection, dominance hierarchy, and symbolism are artfully portrayed in his Maps of Meaning lectures, available on YouTube and based on his book of the same name.

 

Definitions (courtesy of google)

Natural Selection – the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.

Pragmatism – an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

Materialism –a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

Rationalism -a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Ontology – a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.

“The neologisms of radical PC authoritarians… I’m not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest, and THAT’S THAT!”

5:45-25:00 Peterson explains bill C-16, his take on gender spectrum, and pronoun usage as compelled speech.

If you’re unfamiliar with the social justice movement and why people would object to it, I’d recommend watching this segment, because my description is insufficient. If you are familiar, this brief recap will explain Peterson’s recent conflicts with and criticisms of the movement. For the debate itself, scroll down and look for the bearded man.

This part is a recap of Peterson’s experience in the past few months. What’s important about it, other than serving as an introduction, is establishing how Sam and Peterson agree with each other. I haven’t looked at their responses to the social justice movement side by side, so it’s hard to say if all their reasons to contest it are the same.

Dr. Peterson describes the Ontario Human Rights Commission and their self-named  Social Justice Tribunal. This organization has the right to suspend legal and judicial procedure. It has an agenda to introduce mandatory bias training in human resources personnel, soon to be expanded to others. He challenges the efficacy of these programs, claims they are counterproductive and dishonest about their motives.

Jordan posted two video responses to these political developments, and describes the response he received. Two warning letters from the university ordered him to cease and desist. By publicly refusing to use pronouns, his videos constitute hate speech. He is at odds with the University, which is responsible for the actions and speech of its personnel.

Harris characterizes free speech as “the highest value… the only mechanism to improve society… the value to improve other values.” Peterson claims that post-modern radicals reject free speech because they don’t believe in dialogue or rationality, or that groups with different orientations of power can discuss their differences and reach resolution. “Canada has written a social constructionist view of human identity into the law. It is illegal to claim that biology has anything to do with gender identity, expression, or social orientation in a causal manner.”

Sam Harris then describes positive vs. negative injunction, and how this is important to how we perceive and implement justice. With negative injunction, you can ask another to stop a behavior. The workload or demand is much less than a positive injunction that demands action from the other. To demand a positive injunction is necessarily creating further injustice.

 

The debate begins!

 

Here I have gone through and selected quotes that I feel created the framework of the rest of the podcast. They also demonstrate the tone of the speakers. I opted out of describing the specific “micro-examples” that will be referred to throughout. Hopefully, the time-frames given should help you find the context in the podcast. I honestly found them too tedious, bulky, and unhelpful to quote in full. Here we go!

 

I’m here to help, maybe?

25:00 It begins! Darwinian pragmatism, and religious truth vs. scientific truth

• J: One of the things I thought I might due is pursue the tack that you’re not enough of a Darwinian… You’re an advocate for materialist rationalism… an unbelievably powerful tool. It presents a potent challenge to traditional views of the world.
• S: You’ve claimed science tells you what things are, and religion tells you how to act.
• J: I know you don’t accept Hume’s distinction between an “is” and an “ought.” I’ve been thinking about the contradiction between a Newtonian and Darwinian world view. The Darwinian as recognized by WIlliam James and his crowd was a form of pragmatism. Every action you take has a truth embedded in it, and if it works, it’s “true enough.” Finite organisms keep up with reality by generating random variance, and those that are “correct enough” live long enough to propagate. The organism is a very bad, partial solution to an impossible problem. The only way to ensure adaptation to the unpredictably transforming environment is random mutation and death, and there is no truth claim that can surpass that.
• S: You’re equivocating on the nature of truth in two different senses and finding a contradiction I don’t think exists. From the Pragmatic view, people can’t make observations from an outside perspective, so our best tool is successful conversation. Our effort to organize how the world works comes to us with concepts in language… with successful and unsuccessful iterations… falling within the empirical context of an evolving language game. This does connect with post-modernism in a way that is decidedly unhelpful (in the way of Derrida and Foucault).”
• S: The claim you’re making about Darwinian truth and knowledge can explain how we got here, but our conception of truth in general, scientific truth specifically, and Darwinian evolution within that is not functioning exclusively by Darwinian principles… There is no reason to believe that our cognitive faculties have evolved to put us in error free contact with reality. We should have our common sense expectations challenged through scientific investigation.
• J: It’s not unreasonable for me to assume that you’re making the claim that Darwinian truth is nested within Newtonian truth.
• S: I would oppose realism with pragmatism. In pragmatism, you can’t locate truth outside the context of existing conversations and conceptions. In the Darwinian view, there is no larger sphere where you can claim everyone can be wrong about something.

Here we are challenged with how we interpret pragmatism, and how pragmatism fits into natural selection. Do Darwinian principles affect the realms of thought as they do biology? Is that what Peterson may be suggesting? Is that a necessary assertion for it to be relevant to this discussion?

 

When we integrate ourselves with supercomputers, it’s gonna be so lovely.

45:00 The mind and machine, the nature of consciousness, suffering and well-being

• J: Science leaves out what it doesn’t know, it strips the world of its subjectivity. It is useful as a tool, but not a description of reality. That’s where we differ. The more we learn about the objective world in your realist manner, the better our chance to survive. That’s a conceivable outcome. Radical changes produce unexpected consequences… One potential outcome is that in 500 years we’re more machine than human… you can claim that’s a positive outcome, but it isn’t necessarily. You’re assuming there is an alignment between the two.
• S: No I’m not claiming that. There’s nothing about my conception of science that discounts subjectivity. You won’t find a friend of eliminative materialism in me. That’s not how I view the human mind.
• J: Would you say that’s true of your views of consciousness?
• S: I don’t think that characterizes my views, but we can get there… Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that can’t be illusion.
• J: We agree that the most undeniable form of consciousness is acute agony. You posit well-being as the opposite of suffering. I think there is a paradox in your thinking.
• S: That’s all right for discussion, but let’s get back to truth.

I don’t know about Sam’s attitude about subjectivity. I do know that he often talks about the binding of the human mind to supercomputers with a sort of relish and sense of inevitability. I’ve heard the idea conveyed on the Joe Rogan Podcast when discussing self-driving cars and the future of human consciousness. This is something I’d like to hear him discuss with Jordan.

 

51:00 A common framework of truth.

• S: If we discover a truth that gets us all killed, we could say that it was a truth not worth knowing, but that doesn’t necessarily make it untrue.
• J: We’re starting from different fundamental axioms. If it doesn’t serve life, it’s not true. The scientific endeavor must be nested within the moral endeavor.
• S: I accept that claim.
• J: Well, then the moral endeavor can’t be grounded in the scientific endeavor, because the inside thing can’t ground the outside thing.
• S: I would disagree there, but let’s talk about that when we talk about morality. Here, we’re still getting bogged down on the concept of truth. You can’t have a concept of truth that is subordinate to well-being.  My definition of it is expansive, and it remains to be discovered what in the end will conduce to the greatest flourishing of minds like and beyond our own. When we integrate ourselves with supercomputers, who knows what meaning and beauty will become available to us?

Sam challenges the idea that whether or not something is good for the species has no bearing on whether it is scientifically true. Jordan suggests that it undermines the idea that scientific truth is the ultimate truth. Sam says it doesn’t undermine it epistemological, only as something that you’d want, in terms of value to the species.

Jordan cites Nietzsche for his definition of truth, that truth must serve life. Sam accepts that scientific endeavor should be nested in a moral framework, but doesn’t accept that if removed from the moral framework, the facts derived become any less true. There’s a lot to be said here about the supercomputer thing, and questions about the expansive definition of well-being. We don’t get into any of that in this podcast.

Should you really admit to gerrymandering the truth? Or should we all just to stay honest?

59:20 Avoiding the moral discussion

• J: I don’t think that facts are necessarily true. Even if they are correct from within the domain they were generated, that doesn’t make them true. I know I’m gerrymandering the definition of truth, but I’m doing it on purpose. I’m trying to nest truth within the Darwinian framework, which is a moral framework.
• S: This will make it hard for people to understand what others mean when they say truth, and is counterproductive. The truth value of a proposition can be evaluated whether or not it is worth knowing or dangerous to know.
• J: That conception of fact presents a moral or mortal danger to people, producing nihilism and making them more susceptible to ideological possession. The highest truths are moral truths.
• S: I wanna get there with you, that’s the center of the bulls eye, but we have to nail down some epistemology here.
• J: Or even some ontology!

The ontology suggestion here is interesting, but I don’t know what that conversation looks like. There are claims being put forward here that seem to be coming from multiple domains, and clarifying the relationship between them, or if there are separate domains to begin with, seems to be the “center of the bulls eye.” When they get towards that conversation, it seems to lead into well-being, Sam attaching computers to everything, and Peterson attaching “meta” to everything. I think that’s where most viewers are wanting it to go, but Sam pulls it back each time in a way that seems a little territorial.

1:08:00

J: The danger is we’ll sidetrack the entire conversation, and that won’t be useful. I recommend we recognize for the moment that we’re starting from different claims of truth.

S: I don’t think we are. You’re simply deciding to say that any truths that led us down a path you don’t like mean that they’re not true.

J: Right. You have to chose what you mean by true. I’m not accepting the same definition of truth you operate under, because I believe pragmatism trumps realism.

S: What if knowing about Darwinism gets us all killed? It would bit its own tail and disappear.

J: Not necessarily. Our understanding of evolutionary processes might be flawed and probably are.

 

“Suppose I had a hotel on Boardwalk.”

“How did it get there?”

“Irrelevant, just suppose”

1:13:40 Time to loosen the reins, Sam

• J: When we start messing around with the definition of fact and true, you get to the place where you have to make axiomatic presuppositions.
• S: I don’t think you are understanding the price you are paying to redefine truth. Ironically, it’s probably a steeper price than what the gender pronoun maniacs are asking. Truth is a bedrock conception.
• J: People have been surviving for millions of years without an empirical conception of the world.
• S: it’s possible to survive, but it’s probably not possible to be reliably understood in a conversation about the relationship between mind and matter or anything else that we’re trying to talk about here.

To better understand what we’re trying to talk about, it’s going to take a little bit of give from Sam. I understand that he’s trying to avoid pitfalls, where he might end up seeming to endorse relativism or anything resembling religion. Unless he supplies his understanding of moral value or his well-being theory, there won’t be an effective point of reference to contrast with Jordan’s, and we are left with a stream of “micro-examples,” or the now obviously unfruitful pursuit of epistemological agreement. He says that the relationship between mind and matter can’t be understood outside of an empirical conception. That basically says, “end of discussion.”

Jordan has now suggested twice I think that there are different presuppositions at work on what constitutes truth. He is proposing one that subjugates the rational to the moral by practical or pragmatic means. Sam is proposing one that either holds no moral value, or holds it separate and independent from interpretation. Sam believes his presupposition is necessary to grant validity to scientific endeavor, and that Peterson muddies the waters. Jordan is offering a necessary challenge and potential alternative. Protesting the inconvenience or hazards it presents doesn’t really address the challenge. Accepting a change of domain and explaining the well-being framework might help here.

The excerpt below, from 2016 Lecture 08: Maps of Meaning: Part 1: Hierarchies and chaos, gives some insight into the rhetorical “micro-example” game at play here. Jordan exposes the game, but throughout the podcast, we see them both continue to play with it. I think Jordan is more prone to decontextualization to prove his moral purposes, and Sam for his rational, epistemological ones.

“Why is a chair a chair? The legs? How about a bean bag? It’s a chair because we can sit in it? Is the desk a chair? It can be. You’d say it’s not a canonical chair… It has to have the right structure and function to be a chair. That thing as an object is only existing in relationship to you. If it was floating somewhere between the sun and Pluto, I don’t think considering it a chair would be reasonable. You can decontextualize something so completely that it isn’t what it is anymore… It’s like a party trick for intellects. You wouldn’t be able to think about it in 15 seconds if it was an ultimate question.”

1:17:20 My micro-examples aren’t pragmatic, but neither is your framework

• S: “…granted it’s a cockamamie example.”
• J: “Yeah, but that’s the problem.”
• S: “Take my terrorist…” (enters again into the micro-example)
• J: You’re claiming that I’m going to run into all kinds of problems by conflating truth with beauty and goodness, but you’re doing the same thing by claiming there can be a scientific basis for morality. You’re just inverting the causal order. I’m coming from a pragmatic perspective, you’re coming from a scientific one.
• S: But it’s not pragmatic.
• J: You can’t come up with a moral conception that isn’t pragmatic!

Is the Darwinian pragmatic model offered by Peterson really pragmatic? It depends on how you view the Darwinian model, for starters. Early on, Sam assumes that the de-emphasis of tribalism is essential to human progress and survival, but also characterizes it as necessary to the Darwinian model. We could look at it and say that it boils down to might makes right, predation, and the worst aspects of tribal and animalistic behavior. That is a very selective view of the whole picture. If we give any credence to the Darwinian model, we have to acknowledge that the state we find ourselves in now, with our moral order, cultures, and diverse survival strategies, is also a derivative of natural selection. We have to account for individual survival strategies vs. group ones, and the varying levels of cooperation and competition they entail.

1:32:00 Cognitive Complexities or Semantic Swill?

• S: We need to be able to use the words true or false without dancing around and swapping in synonyms. You have to acknowledge something can be true and dangerous.
• J: I’d say it’s objectively true, as far as our theories are accurate at this time, in this local context. I’m aware of the pit this produces and the complexities this entails. I’m no so sure you’re aware of the consequences of the rational, realist ethic you put forward in your books. They create cognitive complexities at least as serious as the ones you pointed out with my position.
• S: Let’s move on…

1:41:00 An inconvenient truth

• S: You’re forced to rewrite our history based on a single criterion, whether it terminates in bliss or death. That just doesn’t make any sense.
• J: I don’t think that’s any different than your claim that science should be nested in well being.
• S: We’ll move on to that, I just need to plant a flag here. Many people listening will share my frustration that you’re not granting fairly obvious and undeniable facts, and we have to use this concept of truth in a pretty inconvenient way.

2:02:30 Your position doesn’t work in reality

• S: Most of the statements we have on truth have no obvious connection to our survival
• J: Why do you care about well being then? You’re making two paradoxical claims.
• S: You’re wanting to move on to another topic, which is understandable at this point.
• J: When you’re talking about the other topic, you’ll necessarily end up in the position that I just described.
• S: Not if I can’t make your position make sense when talking about terrestrial reality, or even fictional reality.

 

Impressions

I’ll start with some biblical wisdom that I feel relates to the topic at hand and differences of opinion and perspective. I think these verses demonstrate my highest hopes for these philosophical debates, where both the rational and moral mind can be satisfied, but where we also realistically address the “stumbling blocks” that lie in our way.

Proverbs 27:17-20

“As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. The one who guards a fig tree will eat its fruit, and whoever protects their master will be honored. As water reflects the face, so one’s life reflects the heart. Death and Destruction are never satisfied, and neither are human eyes.”

1 Corinthians 1:19-24

“Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”

Jeremiah 12:1

“You are always righteous, LORD, when I bring a case before you. Yet I would speak with you about your justice: Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all the faithless live at ease?”

If our rational investigations are not derived from a moral core, we can pursue things unworthy of us, or those things not worth knowing. Our pursuits are a reflection of our heart, our fruit of where we plant our roots, our honors of who our master is. This should be an equal consideration for the morally and rationally minded.

There is fear in this debate that, if left unchecked, the ideology of each party will lead to a destructive end. The rational mind fears that the pragmatic will pursue what it will and justify it as truth, in opposition to what is fact. The pragmatic mind fears that the rational will pursue what it will without regard to truth, and justify it as fact. The need of legitimacy is equally binding in both cases, and I agree with Peterson that the causal order or presupposition is inverted in each case. This is the “iron sharpening iron” in a very fundamental sense.

The Darwinian pragmatist philosophy proposed by Peterson suggests a moral core. What we derive from our pursuits is a reflection of our intentions, as the fruit is the product of the trees we tend. What purpose does the tree have for the fruit, or the man to guard the tree, if they stood independent of each other?

How we interpret natural selection is the biggest challenge to the legitimacy of this theory. Darwinian evolution is often associated with “might makes right,” the limitation of tribalism, and a negative or primitive conception of competition. From a moral perspective, then, one should challenge how pragmatic it really is. This of course does not account for all our adaptations and survival strategies, but still remains a potent challenge.

Critique

I enjoyed the challenges put forward in the conversation, but, as with most listeners, I am mostly disappointed with where the conversation didn’t go. I can’t really blame Peterson too much. I think he was very forthcoming in his intentions, and thorough in explaining the tools he was bringing to the table. Sam seemed unwilling to be vulnerable in the same way, saying things like “We’ll get there” and “We’ll move on to that,” all the while keeping the pressure on Peterson and refusing to partner in what was established as a shared problem.

When challenged to engage on his views morality in specific, which he characterizes as “well being,” Sam backpedaled into the domain that he felt comfortable. He played the cards close to his chest, stuck to his territory, and kept a controlling rein on the conversation. I would have loved to see iron sharpen iron here, but Sam decided it would be better to criticize Peterson’s ideas while refusing consistently to produce his own, declining multiple invitations to produce them side by side. The quotes I listed above have been selected to demonstrate not only the flow of the conversation, but also all the occasions where Sam stifled an equitable exchange.

What I chose not to include in my rough recap are the micro-examples. This will be frustrating to people who thought Sam did very well in the debate, because they cite them as being very effective towards their goals. I don’t think they are particularly effective at expanding our understanding of these issues. They come off as being combative, short-sighted, and after 2 hours, extremely tedious. The smallpox example was actually offered by Jordan in the beginning, and was a little bit helpful, but the rest seemed to be hastily constructed to bait and trap. Jordan described them like this: “The problem with toy moral conundrums is that you get define the context and leave out what you want. The problem with real-world conundrums is that they’re near impossible to define.”

In this video from Veritasium, we are asked the question “Is most Published Research Wrong?” I think it is useful to our investigation of what is true. Derek Muller explains how research is conducted, and what factors are considered to improve or reduce the accuracy of statistics in a study. He suggests that there is an incentive problem buried in statistical reports. “Data doesn’t speak for itself, it must be interpreted.” This is not to undermine the importance of studies, value of statistics, or the usefulness of the scientific method, but to challenge truth claims that come from a community always striving to do better, but often falling short of their established values.

The same certainly applies to communities who establish their values in the moral domain. We continue to challenge their truth claims in an attempt to refine our understanding of faith, consciousness, and proper living, while also weeding out the claims that fall short. This is a process of selection that has immediate application in the realm of thought, but also incomprehensibly significant bearing on biological selection.

Questions to be addressed

Micro vs. Macro-examples: how does the Darwinian pragmatic philosophy address the transition between the two?

What exactly is Sam Harris’s perspective on well being as derived from science or materialist rationalism?

What is Sam’s understanding of consciousness, and how would the connection of human consciousness to supercomputers affect morality?

Is the division of truth into separate domains (like Peterson’s scientific truth vs. moral truth) coherent? Does it lead to relativist chaos?

Does the pursuit of the materialist rational perspective leave out a necessary moral perspective, leaving us “vulnerable to ideological possession?”

Does the Darwinian pragmatic proposition effectively frame morality in the way that Peterson suggests?

Who is effectively separating truth and morality, Peterson or Harris?

Is the ultimate objective of either person to unify or separate these values?

A response to Potential lecture by Dr. Jordan Peterson

 

I get something different from this TED Talk each time I listen to it. I’ve been following Jordan Peterson since he was a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast in November. This talk on Potential is one of the most concise and deliberate presentations I’ve seen from him. There are a lot of ideas being yoked together, so I did my best to narrow them down by giving my own recap of the contents. At the end I’ll explain a bit about my feelings and interpretation.

 

 

Introduction

What is reality, and in what ways can we discover it? What are the assumptions of our culture, of the scientific age, and how do they  lend themselves to personal development and pathological thinking? Peterson asserts that the scientific and rational viewpoint that is dominant in our culture gives too much credence to the objective and relegate phenomena and greater meaning to realms deemed subjective or illusory. Our lack of infinite knowledge is most demonstrated by our relationship with consciousness.

Shining Forth

If we forfeit our claim to positive, transcendent meaning, it leaves us weak to pathological belief systems. The things that threaten us the most are the most real things. How do they “shine forth” to us? The way things shine forth to children is different from adults because they are so vulnerable, on fire from what is manifested to them. The fire we see commands our attention, instinctively we do not screen it out. This is the untrammeled reality that diminishes as we grow older and specialize.

You close in and narrow your vision. Rather than everything shining forth as it does to a child, your vision sharpens towards “a particular way of being.” This process develops out competence and practical ability, but our scope can screen out what doesn’t become immediately apparent.

The Citizen:

Being a good citizen requires you to give up more of what could be, at least to sustain what is. Young people in particular struggle with accepting archaic and flawed conventions because they recognize how the culture can blind you. Peterson points out how that culture and its conventions educate you. Unless something greater overlies citizenship, we don’t necessarily mature as people.

The Individual:

So far he has characterized our development as an initially open state that narrows into specialization. This is described as an inhibition process, the closing of doors. Once we acquire our skills, we use them to pursue that which shines forth. The pursuit helps us accomplish our goals as citizens, but more necessarily, changes the nature of our goals.

Your synchronicity with something beyond you is what allows you to bear your limitations. Following what manifests itself to you will bring you to adversity, and that pursuit tempers and aligns you. It transforms you from a citizen into an individual.

 

Reflection

One of the things I like most about this presentation is how unexpectedly romantic it is. He describes human development as an initial openness or sprouting, a narrowing and protected phase, and a final blossoming. The whole concept gives me a different perspective on suffering and a new and lovely appreciation for the human journey. The concept that reality shines upon you, molds you and is gracious to you, nurtures you through adversity and brings you to enduring peace.

I was a little jarred by the emphasis on “pathological thinking,” which dominated the introduction and was tucked back into the conclusion. It made me ask, what is the agenda here? Is this a polemic of some kind? I don’t think that’s the bottom line. The most specific pathological thinking he challenges is Marxism. He characterizes the individual as a matured citizen. The individual identity is informed and equipped by being a good citizen, but must necessarily evolve beyond the limitations of the role.

If our identity stops at being a citizen, and our pursuits are limited to how that identity is defined, then the limits of our culture ensnare us. The “Modern Major-General” is his example of this, a persona he describes as objectionable to the artist and free spirit. The structures we inherit from birth inform us and allow us to categorize and define our reality. They fall short of giving our reality a meaning beyond our practical purposes, and “let us do what we need to do and no more.”

The things that shine forth to us do so from outside of our realm of control, which is what makes them valuable, interesting, and beautiful. The way we pursue them matters. It’s hard to sum up something so movable and abstract by saying “It’s not the destination, but the journey.” I don’t think that’s completely true. There are things that happen to us that fundamentally change who we are, and that isn’t the end. From there, we open up the doors and continue moving forward.

Peterson mentioned the golden snitch from Harry Potter, a modern interpretation of the round chaos symbol in alchemy. It represents the transcendent. The difficulty in catching it lies in the fact that it precedes the spiritual and material. I don’t know of a practical guide to quidditch or alchemy to explain this process, and if such a guide exists, I doubt one would describe it as being practical. Maybe this quote from T.S. Elliot, provided by Peterson in the presentation, will help: “We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.”

 

 

SoundCloud updated!

New music available on my SoundCloud page.

Blog update 3/21/16

Hello, everyone! I have returned since my September blogging spree, and I have a few projects in the works. I intend to keep a mix of video game playthroughs and few strategies, cultural commentary leaning towards the arts in favor of overt politics, and maybe a few thoughts about religion if I feel inspired. I’m looking into improving the visuals as well by merging my giant blobs of text with my giant screenshot uploads.

My Mount and Blade and Civilizations 4 posts take a good bit of filespace, so cutting back on the number of screenshots is a must. I’ll still take a bunch but only upload ones that are important. Plenty of times you don’t need the extra visual, where certain aspects are repetitive but important to the narrative. I’ve also adopted certain techniques into my gameplay that were developed by others, so to increase the value of these posts as a reference to other players, I will add links. Additional references, further reading, and various wikilinks will be added to smooth things out (I may even write a few myself).

A few newbie mistakes aside, I feel this is going to be fun. If anybody wants to watch, I’m starting to broadcast on Steam and my steamtag is Shmuckmuck.

 

I started a review of The Rival Queens by  Nancy Goldstone that I originally intended to break down by parts from the text (a total of 3), but I’ve had trouble determining my direction with it, so it may sit in drafts for awhile. I’ve transferred much of my focus onto a comparison of historical events in the 16th century and the plot of Game of Thrones. I’m not sure how many characters, places, or events I want to do, but right now I have historical representatives for 4 or 5 that are being planned out.

Much of this project has so far been informed by The Rival Queens, but I intend to reference some of what I learned from other sources about Italy, Spain, Portugal, and England at the risk of broadening what began as a “century piece.” Learning about the economic, political, and religious environment of renaissance Europe as a whole makes it easier for me to draw comparisons that feel more than skin deep.

Edit: I think this article lacks the citation necessary for me to publish. I’m taking it off public viewing until I work out the kinks. It is my intention to develop interesting theories of my own, not what I imagine to be Nancy Goldstone’s.

 

There are a few podcasts and radio programs I’ve dropped in on that have either used the term alpha male or had conversations about gender discrimination or bias, domination vs. submission, and what is normative behavior seen through those lenses. I’ve learned a few things about myself and how I feel about these issues. Despite the layer of contentious ice that frozen over most readily available dialogue, I feel like there is more room to explore. Hopefully it makes some good reading and good conversations.

Mount and Blade – Adventures of Red Beard, Episode 9: The Khergit Crisis (extended episode)

This will be a rather extended episode, covering what ended up being a rather extended campaign under Khergit command against two enemy factions. Sieges, battles in the field, protecting allied caravans, even a good old fashioned raid!

We start in the Rhodok highlands, with an intent to join the Khergits soon, but in need of cheap supplies that may not be available on the road for some time. We head to Yalen, an ideal place to load up on produce, cheese, fish, and butter. And maybe somebody there may be interested in taking out this obnoxious bandit hideout. Far too many ruffians offering to “escort” travelers in these parts.

Count Gutlans, Lord of Yalen, is eager to pass of the responsibility of protecting his lands to me. I oblige, and am rewarded with plenty of experience and denars. I also pick up supplies for the future campaign. Nothing like a bit of Yalen cheese and eggy wegs to sharpen you up for a bit of the old “ultraviolence.”

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews52/clockwork_orange_blu-ray/960_clockwork_orange_blu-ray_2x.jp

As I guessed, the Rhodoks play their hand against Swadia, declaring war and entering into alliance with the Kingdom of Nords. We’ll see how greedy Sultan Hakim is. He may choose to break faith with the Veigirs and bring the fight to the Rhodoks while they’re distracted. The war in the steppe has only just begun, so that probably won’t happen until we get our fill of blood and glory.

We meet nobody of consequence until we reach Tulga. On the way, we pass a besieged (and doomed) Khergit force in defense of Narra. Things are not looking so good for the Khanate right now. Once inside the castle, Sanjar Khan tasks me with eliminating a steppe bandit lair, and Chaurka Noyan extends the invitation I’ve been waiting for to join the Khanate as a mercenary. Of course, I accept both. I buy a warhorse to match my riding skill, and up my looting and leadership abilities.

Shortly after leaving the capitol, I stumble upon the lair. Usually, the steppe bandits settle near the woods by Tulbuk, but this time, they stake claim right in the middle of the steppe. No time to deal with them now, however. I am summoned into a new campaign by Kramuk Noyan, Marshal of the Khanate. Apparently, Ichamur is besieged, and calls for aid. Rather than ride towards the rally point at Malayurg Castle, I go to assess the situation at Ichamur.

Not good. Parties stand guard outside the city to harry any reinforcements. I withdraw and meet the marshal not far off. In the distance, I see Narra under Sarranid control, and the outlying villages burning (some of them being looted by opportunistic Khergit lords). I accompany Kramuk Noyan to Ichamur, where we try to repel the Vaegir forces led by Boyar Vlan.

I assume a position to the side of enemy ladders, barraging a largely defenseless enemy from the side. Until I run out of arrows. I run into the fray to grab a fresh quiver from a fallen comrade, and take enemy fire along the way. Soon, those arrows are expended as well. As I take the long, safe route around to scavenge arrows along the other side of the enemy assault, the all clear is sounded, and the battle is won.

Now things get interesting. A feeding frenzy ensues upon the demoralized and battered Vaegir forces. I see my old friend Boyar Meriga on the field (Lord of Rivacheg, I helped him with his sea raider problem). Instead of taking him captive, I set him loose. I think it best to have at least one friend in each kingdom, preferably of some influence. Not long after, King Yaroglek himself falls prey, along with several accompanying lords. Across the steppe, other invaders are defeated in like fashion.

The marshal spends no time gloating over our decisive victory. He asks me to scout for any more approaching enemy forces, or to detect any weaknesses in the enemy line. I meet back up with him near Narra, where we wait to retake the city (You see now, greedy dumbasses? You basically looted your own villages!). While encamped, a runner informs the party that the Kingdom of Rhodoks has declared war against the Sarranid Sultanate! Great news for us, and an aggressive tact that I did not expect from King Graveth.

While fetching a herd of cattle to feed our forces, I hear that a truce has been brokered between the Nords and Swadia. Graveth may have broken off more than he can chew. He brokers a non-aggression pact with the Vaegirs to cover his ass. I join the battle at Narra, and we retake the city with ease. Afterwards, the cattle are accepted by the marshal, who is doubly grateful.

As an aside, I want to note that this is one of the more unusual campaigns I’ve seen, and under a very aggressive and determined marshal. Usually, after retaking an objective or two, A typical marshal will call it quits, and leave you with a herd of cattle you have no use for and he has no intention of paying you for. But Kramuk Noyan? He leads our forces in a hunt for Sarranid stragglers, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he doesn’t organize a counter-assault to come out on top in this conflict. What a goy.

In fact, a feast is ordered and a tournament held in the city. I end up taking the tourney, and a handsome purse as well. I drop by the feast afterward to exchange tales about our victories over the Sultanate.

While out and about recruiting more tribesmen, I discover a group of bandits pillaging Tash Kulun. We draw them out of the village into open ground at the bottom of a hill, and the lancers and archers combined make short work of them. Denying a reward, our reputation with the village increases and our honor as well. A couple hours later, we spot Emir Azadun trying to raid an allied caravan. After driving him off, Nasugei Noyan joins me in punishing his impudence.

We take a quick rest at Tulga after, and then move on to the steppe bandit layer. The fight goes our way, but I make a couple mistakes. For one, I shoot Nizar in the back of the head and knock him unconscious. Then, I shoot a lancer in the back of the head and kill him instantly. Oops… Before I can report my success to the Khan, I must first help him win a battle against Emir Dhashwal, who has a sizable infantry force supported by skilled archers and a few heavy cavalry.

I ask the Khan if he has any other tasks. He mentions a fugitive hiding away in Kedelke. I will have to wait until the village is rebuild. Right now, it is abandoned, so the mission will be unavailable for another few days, at least. Leaving this meeting, good news arrives: peace between the Vaegirs and Khergits! Now we can bring the fight to the Sarranids.

Perhaps not yet… Narra is besieged once more. I head that way and join up once again with the marshal. We scare off the enemy and pick off some of their lords in the field. From there, I seek more gold and a ransom broker. The one in Tulga has moved on. I begin a trade loop, starting from Tulga, through Ichamur, stopping in Khudan, selling a good deal off in Reyvadin, and winding up back in Dhirim, where my brewery is restocked with cheap grain.

I think it’s time to pay the Sarranids a visit. Their rich lands haven’t been tampered with in some time. I swoop as carefully as I can onto Hawaha. The Sultan is spotted in the distance. That’s a fight I don’t want to take part in right now. I wait until he heads the other way, then rely on my looting skill to bring me out safely before the enemy can respond.

It doesn’t work. Emir Ghanawa catches me in the act. Fortunately enough, defenders of a village are always stripped of their cavalry (never understood why). We draw them into a kill zone outside the village, and fall upon them from the hills. They redeploy their troops, we fall back and repeat. The battle is ours. Right after we resume with the pillaging, a truce is declared. Fortunately, we are able to finish the job without causing a diplomatic fiasco. The only penalty is the disfavor of the lord of Hawaha, Sultan Hakim. The benefits are far more interesting. I medium size herd of cattle, fine velvet, and plenty of other commodities that will fetch a good price.

So far, being a mercenary for the Khanate has been hard work, but very fruitful.

Civilization IV Beyond the Sword – Mansa Musa on Noble, Part Two: There Will Be Barbarians

Before I even begin: I don’t mind barbarians, but I hate the mechanics they rely on in this version of Civ. Basically, if you don’t have vision of a piece of land, the game will potentially spawn a barbarian there. On a map like this, where we only have 3 civs, including myself, on the continent, that is a big problem. In fact, it consumes most of your time, along with dry details like build orders and worker projects and such.

That being said, let’s begin.

Awful intro… But there’s good news! I just produced my first skirmisher, the special unit of the Malinese empire. And not long after, we discover pottery, along with the ability to produce granaries. They make cities grow super fast, and are a critical element for using the slavery mechanic (I confess, I seldom use it). Pros at civfanatics call this “whipping,” where population is regularly pruned to deliver up units and building projects quickly. I order one up in Djenne.

Our Great Prophet arrives! Ananda is used to construct the Kong Miao, holy monument of Confucianism. From now on, all cities observing the faith add one gold per turn.

A worker integrates copper and pig into our trade network. Meanwhile, a temple and granary are added in the capitol to increase both the health and happiness cap. Kumbi Saleh is founded in the south. Until I learn calendar and ironworking, it’s gonna be a useless backwater.

My Confucian missionary runs into an axeman near the Viking capitol. A chariot accompanies him. Just to avoid complications, I sign a truce and call it good. The war is over, folks! A scout discovers the Arabian lands of the south, but is shortly thereafter extinguished by a barbarian warrior. Saladin hates me, too. I might be up against an alliance in the future.

While Djenne prepares for the military might necessary for further expansion, and likely, conquest, a horde of barbarian archers appear near the border of Timbuktu. I was stressed for a bit, thinking they would mercilessly dominate the field and pillage all my improvements. Instead, they throw their stack directly at the city. Poof. Threat neutralized.

A slave revolt slows up development in Djenne. No biggy. Ragnar asks for reparations. I kick his ass to the curb.

Barbarians swarm in from every direction. The micromanagement in dealing with their constant incursions makes the turns crawl by. Luckily, they pass up improvements I am unable to defend and throw themselves at the fortified city. Gao is founded at the end of the river up north. I ignore a Viking famine.

I spot what looks like a war party, but realize it’s just a settler and escort. Still, that makes one more city I’m gonna have to take later on. Walata is founded on the southern coast to take advantage of both the river and coastal tiles. A second great prophet, St. Peter, is settled in Timbuktu to increase productivity and help balance the budget.

A barbarian archer approaches from the north, eyes set on Gao. He kills one of my axemen, defending a forest/hills tile (wtf?), then kills my spearman a couple turns later (WTF?). Finally my skirmisher ends his inexplicable killing rampage.

Djenne begins developing newly completed cottages, which will hopefully help fund more units and research as they mature later into the game. I’m taking a break to regroup and figure out this barbarian thing. It’s grinding the game to a halt. I have a feeling the short term inconvenience of grinding out an army of skirmishers and paying their maintenance will pay of in the long run.

Company of Heroes, Episode 3. 1v1 Angoville: Grenadiers smash what needs smashing.

The mission here is simple: redeem myself for the 40 minute debacle of the last Wehrmacht bunker match.

1st pioneers builds the quarters, and fills in the strategic connecting points on the east side, then splits across the road to claim the strategic point west. 2nd pioneers seizes fuel and ammo on east side.

Again, the Americans use a Jeep open to harass my 2nd pioneers. A fresh volks shifts from capturing in the west and flanks. Much like last time, the pioneers take a bit of a beating, but the Americans lose their Jeep. An engineer-based counterattack is repelled by volks in the west, while a newly formed MG42 team punishes a rifleman squad for seizing the central eastern strategic point.

With the exception of their connected fuel and ammo points, the enemy is cut off from all map resources. An attempt to break out in the east at the high ammo point is foiled by 2 volks squads, one equipped with mp40s. Now the enemy is massively outnumbered, losing at least three entire squads, and suffering minor casualties elsewhere.

A counterattack threatens our hold on the chokepoint in the west. I allow a riflemen team to slip by and seize the high ammo in the corner, while my volks fortify the fuel across the road, and an MG42 rains punishment on squads attempting to push the line. When the sandbags are complete, the volks set an ambush, lining up along the fence and spraying mp40s, while 2 more volks come in to flank from the east. I think I eradicated both riflemen squads.

Another MG42 takes aim on the enemy’s eastern base perimeter, harassing troop movement and damaging construction. 1st pioneer places barbed wire to allow traffic in from the road, but prevent flanking of the medic bunker in the west. Another attempt to regain field control by the Americans is thwarted, and they throw away another riflemen squad in the process.

The enemy deploys a dreaded mortar squad. I quickly order up one of my own (German tech is better :D). To avoid complications similar to the ones I faced last round, I order in a preemptive sniper to counter any American sniper/weapons team shinanery.

The enemy mortar slays my MG squad, and an engineer places a pesky MG nest in the southwest, protecting their precious fuel and ammo as well as covering the strategic chokepoint from harassment. They deploy a sniper, and I think he might have gotten off a couple of shots. Maybe.

He dies in dramatic fashion under what I presume was mp40 fire.

Or maybe a mortar shell.

Whatever, he died.

Grenadiers smash what needs smashing. A barracks and weapons support center are destroyed. Volks follow suit to the west and smash some engineers. And then some airborne. They went airborne… pfft. They gift me a free mortar. I take it. I throw up a few more field fortifications, and order up a panther for good measure. I’ll be in the middle of researching Tier 3 Veterancy by the time it hits the field.

Volks slay the pesky bunker, 2nd pioneers queue up some defensive mines to catch unwary airborne squads, and the panther panzer hits the field with a vengeance. The scratched my paint job with a single AT shell. After that, it was pretty much game. Overkill veterancy and bunker complexes queue up, but are never put to the test. We wipe out the rest of the base.

Ich spiele videospielen. Sehr gut.

Mount and Blade – Adventures of Red Beard, Episode 8 – The Big Loop, Part 2

Ah, Boyar Meriga, Lord of Rivacheg. I suspect he has a task for us, and a profitable one at that. Destroy the Sea Raider Landing? No problem. Just let me rest up a bit, and we’ll get right to it…

2 bandit ambushes in the streets. 2 consecutive. Why does this town hate me? I decide to leave and engage the raiders at 60% health. There apparently is no rest to be found here, anyway. To further prepare, I fine tune the talents of myself and my party, putting the strongest combat heroes to the front of the line. It pays off, and we take the landing with no casualties.

Boyar Meriga is grateful, showering us with experience and denars. We earn a bit more reputation as well. We rest up a bit, and go out manhunting. After a successful battle where the enemy infantry was drawn into and crushed on open ground, we receive interesting news.

Both the Khergits and Nords declare war on Vaegirs. If this succeeds, they will split the north between them and become the big bullies of Calradia. We’ll see how the other kings react to this aggressive alliance. Graveth has already placed himself in a neutral position, so I don’t expect much from him, but Sultan Hakim may be quite the wild card. This also may backfire against King Ragnar, now that he has to fight on another front while King Harlaus batters him from the south. It appears that Tehlrog Castle was retaken by the Nords, but besieged yet again by the relentless Swadian forces, led by Count Klargus.

After acquiring more salt, fish, and produce from Wercheg, we move back to Reyvadin, where I anticipate prices will be most rewarding. Then, on to Dhirim, where luxuries are traded for cheap grain to stock my brewery there. The Guild Master loads us up with tasks, first to slay a group of night bandits, and then to destroy troublesome bandits plaguing the countryside. Rewarding and easy. From here, we take a caravan to Suno, where I intend to sell of the rest of our cargo.

On the road, our contract with King Graveth and the Rhodoks expires. Good. It isn’t likely I’ll see much action with them, anyway. Also, Sultan Hakim reveals his hand, declaring war against the Khanate and opening a second front against them. Once Graveth’s hands are untied by the treaties on all sides, he may chose to pursue war against the Sultanate, or ally himself with the Nords and stab Harlaus in the back.

We arrive back at Veluca, rounding out our fairly thorough tour of Calradia. In the tavern are heroes who would complicate our party. They wouldn’t get along with it’s current members, and would complain at every step, as I intent to raid villages and caravans as I please. Again, not my usual tact, but I felt like doing something different with this caravan. Not quite a villain, but certainly a more violent fellow than the “man of the people” I usually strive for.

I think I’ll head back to the Khanate and seek a contract with them. Plenty of villages to raid both north and south.

Mount and Blade – Adventures of Red Beard, Episode 7 – The Big Loop, Part 1

We continue on our way to Shariz (I think I may have said Barriye before). On the road, word comes that a trade agreement has been signed between Rhodoks and Nords. Apparently, King Graveth is determined not to involve himself on either side of the war. Let them claw at each other while he trades freely, perhaps marshaling his forces once more against the Sultanate when the truce between them expires.

The Khergits step out of the conflict with Swadia, ahead two castles and associated lands. On top of this, they broker a trade agreement with their Nord allies. How this will develop, we shall see. Perhaps a Nord/Khergit alliance against the Vaegirs, or simply a holding maneuver while they pursue more territory elsewhere?

Bandits attack during a night visit in the village of Ayn Assuadi. The cattle are delivered to the Guild Master of Shariz. On the road to Barriye, we collect all the cheap dyes and dates we can. As an aside, it looks like the Swadians are recovering their territorial losses near the Khergit Steppe by taking a bite out of the Nords. Tehlrog Castle has just been claimed a fief of King Harlaus.

A most profitable expedition in the Sarranid Desert. Plenty of spice, dyes, salt, dates, and pottery, traded at favorable prices for wine and fish. In the tavern at Barriye, we meet Lezalit again, who agrees to join us and lend his training experience and sword. Running along to Tulga, we acquire more salt, spices, and the services of Artimenner, A scholar and engineer. Both of our new companions are of noble birth, and respect each other as well. So far, we have built a fine party.

Rather than risk being overrun by steppe bandits by cutting north through the pass near Ichamur, we travel through Narra and across the eastern Swadian Plains, arriving at last at Reyvadin, capitol of the Kingdom of Vaegirs. The people here buy our goods from the south at very favorable prices, and we acquire cheap iron and dried meat from Curaw, as well as fish and raw silk from Rivacheg.

In the Reyvadin tavern, we meet Alayen, a skilled noble warrior who should prove useful on both horse and on foot. At Curaw, we come face to face with another belligerent drunk. I have to duck back out the door inn order to prepare myself. They never seem to respond to words, but will eventually leave you alone once you earn a fierce enough reputation.

On the road to Rivacheg, home of Alayen, we prey upon a large band of tundra bandits unfortunate enough to find themselves on open terrain. We ride them down without a fuss. Afterwards, the fuss begins. Alayen resents Nizar as a braggart, and Nizar Alayen as a stiff. I side with Nizar and will hear nothing more on the matter.

While doing some manhunting for sea raiders (who reward you with some nice mid tier armor), we come across their lair. I think I know somebody who might want to pay us to remedy this plague of sea rats.