Jordan Peterson: What is the post modern lens?

BidenPresident said:
False. Cite one of those postmodern thinkers stating that.
Click to expand...

"E=mc2 is a sexed equation because it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" – Luce Irigaray.

This is not a direct answer to your question – because of the way postmodern thinkers express themselves, that would require a library full of books – but it may suggest what insights they are capable of.
 
BidenPresident said:
Seems made up. What is the source?
Click to expand...

Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray's thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence.

The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

You do not have to be a physicist to smell out the daffy absurdity of this kind of argument (the tone of it has become all too familiar), but it helps to have Sokal and Bricmont on hand to tell us the real reason why turbulent flow is a hard problem: the Navier-Stokes equations are difficult to solve.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076200/posts
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
"E=mc2 is a sexed equation because it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" – Luce Irigaray.

This is not a direct answer to your question – because of the way postmodern thinkers express themselves, that would require a library full of books – but it may suggest what insights they are capable of.
Click to expand...

Ironic you think postmodern thinkers don't believe in truth and you cannot cite where Irigaray made that statement.
 
BidenPresident said:
Seems made up. What is the source?
Click to expand...

You may appreciate this explanation of Irigaray’s thinking (which also cites the original source):

When Irigaray says that E=Mc2 is a sexed equation, she does not imply its inaccuracy neither its incorrectness. The action of choosing which matters would demonstrate and explain the energy ‘E’ is itself problematic because of its sexual orientation. Being sexually oriented does not mean that it is sexist … Irigaray rather says that asking for gender equality and gender neutrality cannot solve the suppression of women.

https://encounter75-blog.tumblr.com/post/77363772334/is-e-mc2-a-sexed-equation-perhaps-it-is-let-us

See? :)
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
You may appreciate this explanation of Irigaray’s thinking (which also cites the original source):

When Irigaray says that E=Mc2 is a sexed equation, she does not imply its inaccuracy neither its incorrectness. The action of choosing which matters would demonstrate and explain the energy ‘E’ is itself problematic because of its sexual orientation. Being sexually oriented does not mean that it is sexist … Irigaray rather says that asking for gender equality and gender neutrality cannot solve the suppression of women.

https://encounter75-blog.tumblr.com/post/77363772334/is-e-mc2-a-sexed-equation-perhaps-it-is-let-us

See? :)
Click to expand...

I found no source in her writings. Only alleged by critics. So, fraud.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
You may appreciate this explanation of Irigaray’s thinking (which also cites the original source):

When Irigaray says that E=Mc2 is a sexed equation, she does not imply its inaccuracy neither its incorrectness. The action of choosing which matters would demonstrate and explain the energy ‘E’ is itself problematic because of its sexual orientation. Being sexually oriented does not mean that it is sexist … Irigaray rather says that asking for gender equality and gender neutrality cannot solve the suppression of women.

https://encounter75-blog.tumblr.com/post/77363772334/is-e-mc2-a-sexed-equation-perhaps-it-is-let-us

See? :)
Click to expand...

No.
 
BidenPresident said:
I found no source in her writings. Only alleged by critics. So, fraud.
Click to expand...

I don’t make claims, even half seriously, without doing my best to check sources.

The remarks by Irigaray are in her paper Sujet de la science, sujet sexué? published in the collection Sens et place des connaissances dans la société, 1987. Afaik this is not online, but you can do a library search to check that it really was published.
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/1673502

The person I quoted in post #45 was defending Irigaray’s thinking, not attacking it. If he could have shown it was invented by ill-wishers, don’t you think he would have said so?


Technical note

In relativistic units, widely used by physicists in this context, the unit of length is 1 light second. Then the famous equation E = mc2 becomes E = m. Voila! No more sexism. I suspect that Irigaray was unaware of this.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
I don’t make claims, even half seriously, without doing my best to check sources.

The remarks by Irigaray are in her paper Sujet de la science, sujet sexué? published in the collection Sens et place des connaissances dans la société, 1987. Afaik this is not online, but you can do a library search to check that it really was published.
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/1673502

The person I quoted in post #45 was defending Irigaray’s thinking, not attacking it. If he could have shown it was invented by ill-wishers, don’t you think he would have said so?


Technical note

In relativistic units, widely used by physicists in this context, the unit of length is 1 light second. Then the famous equation E = mc2 becomes E = m. Voila! No more sexism. I suspect that Irigaray was unaware of this.
Click to expand...

hard to care
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Death Spiral - We're in an epidemic of narcissism and bad decision making
Click to expand...

18:57 - 'phenomenological'

Who the FUCK in his crowd are going to know what that word means?
Almost NO ONE.

He does this a LOT.
He CLEARLY tries to use the most, complicated words he knows to try and make himself seem smart.
To try and intimidate the weak.

And think - you Peterson saps?
Why the FUCK would a shrink (which is all he is), deliberately use words that he/she KNOWS his patients will NOT understand?
That would be lunacy.

I GUARANTEE you that he ONLY talks like this to DELIBERATELY try and intimidate, stupid/weak people.
It is a well-known, con artist trick.
Hitler used to do it.


Yes, sometimes he says good things.
But most of the time?
He just spews out this con artist, WAY-overcomplicated bullshit.

But his basic message - overall - is: 'things were great. But now that women/weak men have more power? They suck.'
No wonder most of his fans are incels/misogynists/morons.


And before you - Hawkeye10 - object?
Yes...you ARE a misogynist.
BIG time.

You said the following:
'My certified genius Hot Slut of a wife pays all the bills, I have told you so many times...please attempt to update that shit quality brain of yours.'
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?193830-Jack-never-came-back&p=5270242#post5270242

Hell...you might even be a fucking pimp.
No wonder you love this guy.
 
Last edited:
McRocket said:
18:57 - 'phenomenological'

Who the FUCK in his crowd are going to know what that word means?
Almost NO ONE.

He does this a LOT.
He CLEARLY tries to use the most, complicated words he knows to try and make himself seem smart.
To try and intimidate the weak.

And save the 'brilliant people talk like that' nonsense.
NO...they do NOT.
My brother has a degree in Physics from Cal-Berkeley.
And his bunch are/were just dripping with IQ.

And they talk...NORMAL.
Intelligent - yes.
But, otherwise...normal.
Sure, they throw in 'big' words that need to be used to describe, certain things.
But they never, EVER, talk like this loser.

And think - you Peterson saps?
Why the FUCK would a shrink (which is all he is), deliberately use words that he/she KNOWS his patients will NOT understand?
That would be lunacy.


I GUARANTEE you that he ONLY talks like this to DELIBERATELY try and intimidate, stupid/weak people.
It is a well-known, con artist trick.
And - it probably works.


Yes, sometimes he says good things.

But most of the time?
He just spews out this con artist, bullshit ('things are terrible now...but they were great before women got power') bullshit for incels/misogynists/morons.


And before you - Hawkeye10 - object?
Yes...you ARE a misogynist.
BIG time.

You said the following:
'My certified genius Hot Slut of a wife pays all the bills, I have told you so many times...please attempt to update that shit quality brain of yours.'
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?193830-Jack-never-came-back&p=5270242#post5270242

Hell...you might even be a fucking pimp.
No wonder you love this guy.
Click to expand...

I could listen to these two all day, you maybe five minutes!!

 
Last edited:
Last edited:
McRocket said:
18:57 - 'phenomenological'

Who the FUCK in his crowd are going to know what that word means?
Almost NO ONE.

He does this a LOT.
He CLEARLY tries to use the most, complicated words he knows to try and make himself seem smart.
To try and intimidate the weak.

And think - you Peterson saps?
Why the FUCK would a shrink (which is all he is), deliberately use words that he/she KNOWS his patients will NOT understand?
That would be lunacy.

I GUARANTEE you that he ONLY talks like this to DELIBERATELY try and intimidate, stupid/weak people.
It is a well-known, con artist trick.
Hitler used to do it.


Yes, sometimes he says good things.
But most of the time?
He just spews out this con artist, WAY-overcomplicated bullshit.

But his basic message - overall - is: 'things were great. But now that women/weak men have more power? They suck.'
No wonder most of his fans are incels/misogynists/morons.


And before you - Hawkeye10 - object?
Yes...you ARE a misogynist.
BIG time.

You said the following:
'My certified genius Hot Slut of a wife pays all the bills, I have told you so many times...please attempt to update that shit quality brain of yours.'
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?193830-Jack-never-came-back&p=5270242#post5270242

Hell...you might even be a fucking pimp.
No wonder you love this guy.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight.
 
McRocket said:
A simplistic ad hominem.
The entirety of your brain...came up with that as a reply?

No wonder you look up to this self-admitted, "the intellectual hero" for incels...for guidance and goodness knows, what else.
https://www.newsweek.com/jordan-pet...-incels-jab-olivia-wilde-piers-morgan-1747407


Go and waste someone else's time with your trolling.
I cannot be bothered.

We are done here.

Good day.
Click to expand...

He has an exceedingly wry sense of humour, maybe that's why you don't understand him. What I love about that is the top two Regressive bête noires are in that video.
 
McRocket said:
Which part?
That you are a pimp?

You freely admit your wife is a 'slut'.
And she pays all the bills.

Sounds like you are a pimp to me.
And a misogynist.
Not to mention - utterly useless at taking care of yourself.
Click to expand...

So, if they are happy with that, who the fuck are you to pontificate??
 
McRocket said:
18:57 - 'phenomenological'

Who the FUCK in his crowd are going to know what that word means?
Almost NO ONE.

He does this a LOT.
He CLEARLY tries to use the most, complicated words he knows to try and make himself seem smart.
To try and intimidate the weak.
Click to expand...

The above is just the most obvious of numerous words that Peterson uses when he speaks.
I have noticed this every time he does.
He uses larger/more, complicated alternatives of common words.

Now...I assume you Peterson lovers will claim - 'brilliant people speak this way'?
Wrong.


Here is the famous, theoretical physicist, Edward Teller - a STAGGERINGLY, brilliant man and 'the father of the hydrogen bomb'.
In the interview below - the speaks in ways that most people can understand.


Now, if he wanted, he could have used terms that almost, NO ONE on this board would 'get'.
But that would be pointless.
He knew this, so he didn't do it.

Plus? Think people?
How could brilliant professors teach their ignorant students if they laced their diatribes with words/phrases that the latter did not understand?
That would be ridiculous.

Even automotive 'technicians', sometimes 'dumb down' their conversations to their customers.
About the technical problems their vehicles are having.
Just so, said customers will understand them.
And I doubt most of them are as intelligent as Peterson claims to be.


Yet Peterson will not do this.
The reasons are obvious:

Either a) Peterson is so clueless, that he has no idea that most of his 'followers' do not know, many of the terminologies he uses (which I doubt)?
b) Peterson is not smart enough to use 'common terminology' to explain more, complicated verbiage (I doubt that also)?
c) he is doing this deliberately to impress/intimidate his listeners.

Obviously, it is 'c'.
There is no other, logical reason.

Thus, he feels, that he must get people's respect...through the use of centuries old, con artists tricks.
And/or - he is just extremely insecure and desperate to impress.

Neither bodes well.


Now, I realize, you Peterson lovers, refuse to even consider that he is doing this.
So, save the excuses you pour out?
I ain't wasting my time, reading the rambling's of closed-minded saps/incels about their 'professor'.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top