Why Has The West Been So Successful?

Pundit Ben Shapiro narrated a Prager U video on 4/8/2019 about why has the West been so successful. Here are my notes on the video. Ben: Western Civilization. Some want to save it. Some want to see it go. What is it? Is it the great cathedrals of Europe or the Nazi concentration camps? Is it the freedoms secured in the US Constitution or chattel slavery? Life-saving medicines or poison gas? My response: The West in general and America, in particular, are humankind's last best hope. It is not perfect here, but it is pretty darn good. Ben: The Left likes to concentrate on the bad: genocide, slavery, environmental destruction. But those have been present in every civilization from time immemorial. The positives are unique to the West--religious tolerance, abolition of slavery, universal human rights, the development of the scientific method. These are accomplishments of a scope and scale that only the West can claim. My response: The Left lie. Injustice and wrongdoing are historical realities everywhere, but the wondrous moral, cultural and legal advancements have been historic advancement, and that has happened, only in the West. Ben: As Western thought evolved, it secured the rights of women and minorities, lifted billions out of poverty, and invented most of the modern world. My response: Why would we want to undo Western progress? One must be evil or stupid to undo what works and works so well. Ben: Why has Western civilization been so successful? There are many reasons but the best place to start with the teachings and philosophies of Jerusalem and Athens. Jerusalem represents Judeo-Christian religious revelation: the beliefs that a good God created an ordered universe and that this demands moral behavior from his paramount creation, man. The other city, Athens, represents reason and logic, from the great Greek thinkers. These two ways of thinking--revelation and reason--live on constant tension. My response: Eric Hoffer has long written that tensions between opposing attributes are what goad people to strive, arrive, think, create, argue and goad themselves and others forward. This is the axiomatic law that moderation is the source of truth, love, goodness and creativity. The tension pushed Westerners to grow, think, seek liberty, technology, science, profits and creative ideas. Ben: Judeo-Christian religion posits that there are certain fundamental truths handed down to us by a transcendent being. We didn't invent these truths; we received them from God. The rules He lays down for us are vital for building a functioning, moral civilization and for leading a happy life. My response: The fundamental truths handed down to us by transcendent God are objective truths that help us live in a functioning, moral civilization and to lead happy lives. We are so blessed for this heritage. There is no need to abandon it. Ben: Greek thinking posits that we only know truth by what we observe, test and measure. It is not faith, but fact, that drives our understanding and exploration of the universe. My response: Greek thinking awakened in us a hunger for worldly, practical knowledge, yielded from studying nature under the scientific method. Faith and worldly facts together help us enjoy and comprehend the universe. Ben: The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that God created an ordered universe, and we are to make this world better. This offers us purpose and suggests that history moves forward. Most pagan religions taught the opposite: that the universe is illogical and random, and that history is cyclical. History just endlessly repeats itself--in which case, why bother to innovate or create anything new? My response: Progress is possible under the Judeo-Christian ethos, but with the pagans there is no change, no reform, no progress. Ben: Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that every human being is created in the image of God; that is, each individual's life is infinitely valuable. This seems self-evident to us now, but only because this is our tradition. The strong more natural belief is that the strong should subjugate the weak--which is precisely what people did in nearly every society in all of history. Only by recognizing the divine in others did we ever move beyond this amoral thinking towards the concern for human rights, democracy and free enterprise that characterizes the West. My response: Jordan Peterson teaches that the sovereignty of the individual is the core axiom of Western thinking, and that each individual is created in God's image is the core concept driving this wonderful belief. Each life is precious, unique and immeasurably important. The law of the jungle polity pattern, endless tribal strife, of most countries in history has been replaced in the liberal West with laws about human rights, democracy and free market. What civilized advancements these are! Ben: Our modern civilization also required Greek reason to build our modern civilization. Greek reason teaches us objective observation. Through reason humans have the capacity to search beyond revelation for answers. My response: God works in various ways to share answers to guide us, via De's reasoning, our reasoning, and through God's revealed word from sacred texts and the prophets. Ben: Greek reason brought us the notion of natural law, the idea that we could discover the natural purpose--the telos--of everything in natural by looking to its character. Human beings were created with the unique capacity to reason; therefore, our telos is to reason. By investing reason with so much power, Greek thought became integral to the Western mission. My response: God is the Rationalist, that created the ordered universe governed his De's Logos, De's rational principle. As we reason in our armchairs and apply the scientific method to the experiencing of natural phenomena, powerful reasoning made and still powers Western advancement. Ben: The Founding Fathers of America took the best of European Enlightenment with its roots in Greek thought and added to it the best of Judeo-Christian practice with its roots in the Bible and melded them into a whole new political philosophy. My response: The Founding Fathers, steeped in Judeo-Christian spiritual and moral orientation and classical reasoning with Enlightenment Era liberalism did forge a unique, wondrous culture and political system that much be preserved as the foundation of our constitutional republicanism and society of participating supercitizens and anarchist individuators going forward. Ben: Without Judeo-Christian values, we fall into scientific materialism--the belief that physical matter is the only reality, and therefore also fall into nihilism, the belief that there is meaning in life, that we are merely stellar dust in a cold universe. My response: Without Judeo-Christian values, atheism, godless materialism, communism, totalitarianism, world war and nihilism are the human lot, and that witch's brew of troubles have many satanic origins. Without Greek reason, we fall into fanaticism--the belief that fundamentalist adherence to unprovable principles represents the only path toward meaning. My response: Greek reasoning allows us to be objective, moderate, logical and in love with liberty, free speech, free thought allowed for every individual citizen to think, do, act, speak and believe as his conscience guides him to express himself. There is no ism to be forced by terror and intimidation upon all resisters and unbelievers. Ben: The Soviet Union, Communist China and other socialist tyrannies rejected faith and murdered 100 million people in the 20th century. My response: Whether fanatics in a mass movement are religious or secular, ultimately does not matter much, because they are so similar and vicious once in power. They are dumb, mistaken, cruel and killers, and their master is Lucifer, not God. Ben: Modern Muslim world is rejecting reason whereas for 100s of years they embraced Greek reason, and were a leading center of scientific advancement. My response: Great point. Ben: We need the marriage between Jerusalem and Athens, revelation and reason. But Progressives reject both. Progressives want to go backwards, to a time when humans were governed neither by reason or faith, but by feeling, a time of moral chaos and disorder, a time of feeling over faith. My response: Ben does a great job pointing out how the blend of faith and reason handed us our great Western culture and civilization. This is our grand tradition, the key to a blessed and happy future not just for Americans but for all humankind.

Genesis 8:20-22

Here is this verse from The New American Bible: "Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and choosing from every clean animal and every clean bird, he offered holocausts on the altar. When the Lord smelled the sweet odor, he said to himself: 'Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of man's heart are evil from the start; nor will I ever again strike down all living beings, as I have done. As long as the earth lasts, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, Summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." After the flood is receding and the human race and creatures of nature are saved, Noah built an altar to the Lord, and killed sacrificial animals and birds, offered as an offering to the Lord, and God was pleased to receive them." Noah offers up a sacrificial animal in praise and thanksgiving and God is happy to receive this offering. Yahweh vows to himself not to wipe out all on earth again to exact a harsh justice upon humans, whose hearts are evil from the start. Note that this is one of the earliest Biblical references to human depravity revealed as the human condition. The New American Bible carries an explanatory footnote on this on Page 11: "8,21: From the start: literally 'from his youth.' It is uncertain whether this means from the beginning of the human race or from the early years of the individual.' My hunch is that both interpretations are coequally correct and apt. Here is this verse from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And Noah built an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered the burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savor; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground anymore for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." One wonders if these burnt sacrifices anticipated that Jesus Christ, the son of God, would one day die on the cross sacrificing himself to pay for human sins, so the way of heaven would be open for all humanity. It is a strange and indirect admission that humans are in charge of the earth, that all live on earth was almost wiped out to pay for human sinning. Note that this older translation of the Bible refers to the imagination of the human heart being evil from his youth, a remark of natural human depravity--no ambiguity about it in this older translation.

Genesis 6:18

The New American Bible has the following verse, describing how Yahweh will destroy the world by flood, to wash away sin and filth, but he will save Noah and his ark will also carry the beasts and creatures of the field. He would establish a covenant with Noah and his descendants" But with you I will establish my covenant; you and your sons, your wife and your sons' wives shall go into the ark." God wiped out the wicked but spares the righteous so that humankind would have a future. Yahweh, whose Creator powers include Logos, his spiritual and rational principle, immanent in and controlling nature and reality and yet transcending them both. God, the speaker and rational being, speaks to allow the average person to enjoy a contract with the Divinity, partners forever. God had a legalistic mental outlook, so he enters a contract with humans whereby he protects them and blesses them, and they in return obey his commandments, spread his cause on earth. God pays humans a silent compliment: he treats them as equals, someone that he would enter a covenant with. Mortal humans then enjoyed a permanent contract with high God. Humans have worth, so they must live well and be holy or pay the price because will accept no less from them, and God is monitoring their every move. Let me quote this same verse from the Holy Bible (KJV): "But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee."

Randian Exceptions

On Page xi od her book, The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand seems to identify and label some egoistic actions as bad behavior: "This is said as a warning against the kind of 'Nietzchean egoists' who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one's own benefit. Just as a satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one's own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims . . .” She dismisses Nietzchean egoism as counterfeit, bogus, ill-conceived, evil altruistic and bad. She seems to define a good action is one done rationally for one's own benefit. She seems to categorize actions rationally generated and planned as good, be they altruist or egoistic, although the motives for actions are best and most desirable when egoistically conceived for one selfish personal end. I think the world is complicated and tricky to sort out, most of the time. I would rather we draw up a list of actions, and categorize them as good, bad or neutral in value, independently of their motivation. Then I would rank them based on the psychological origin, whether felt or irrational, or conceived and rational. Rationally engendered acts usually are superior and better than irrationally generated acts, but both can motivating of good or bad actions. I would generally then want to categorize the act as in line with self-interest or other-interest. Normally, egoist acts are superior and better than altruist acts, but there are many exceptions and qualifiers that apply.

Cultural Appropriation

Someone from another country or ethnic group is imitating your speech, your dance, your dress, your cooking and your music, and you are offended? Really, just be thankful that a foreigner or outsider appreciates the unique cultural gifts that your people have to share with the world. We should hear no more about this.

Bobby Jindal

The former governor of Louisiana, and conservative political pundit, on August 16, 2021, narrated a Prager U video, What Unites Americans. Below are my notes on this video, which will be written out, and interspersed with my responses. Jindal: Our values and our history unite us as a people. Jindal notes that his Indian parents immigrated to the deep South and voluntarily and happily studied and absorbed American history and values as their own, becoming loyal, happy, contented Americans while still retaining their own ethnic identity, language, food and culture. My response: yes, Mark Levin and many conservatives have also noted that traditionally immigrants to America assimilated and identified with our main history and values, becoming proud, patriotic Americans. Jindal refers to his friend Dennis Prager, as counting two historic fathers for himself: Abraham, father of the Jews, and George Washington, father to the American people. Prager, like most older Americans, accepted that once assimilated into America, one became fully American, following the teachings of these two American historical fathers. Shared values and a shared history unified millions of immigrants like the Jindals; this was a regular immigrant transformation, and valuable one. My response: we need to restore our primary history, traditional values and our English language, the cultural umbrella under which new immigrants can assimilate while retaining their own language, religion and culture as significant but secondary influences upon their new American lives. Jindal refers two pre-Civil War abolitionist preacher, Theodore Parks as identifying three uniquely influential and American concepts that guided those living here and arriving here. Parks referred to this cultural narrative as The American Idea. The three concepts were: All people are created equal; all possess certain inalienable rights; all have the opportunity to develop their individual talents. These concepts held sway simultaneously and nicely sum up our cultural narrative. My response: This traditional cultural narrative was our narrative and should be our cultural springboard into the future. We must restore this narrative, and to live by it. Jindal: This one American set of values and historical vision have largely worked. People came here from all over and were united as Americans. They had it better here than almost anywhere. My response: I agree, and ethnicity and race are almost irrelevant in the land of individualists and future individuators. Jindal: Our founders ideals, once a source of shared pride, now are defamed by the Progressives as a source of shared shame. In schools, on campus, in the media and in corporations, this Leftist narrative is being advanced as truth. Americans always were and still are serving the interests of systemic racism and exploitation. My response: Mark Levin decries this new narrative as Neo-Marxist attacking American values. Jindal: The obvious and tragic consequences of the teaching of this new Anti-American narrative is obvious as America is now falling apart as the young and many adults no longer believe in America. We are told that the Founders are dismissed as slave-owners protecting their class interests, not championing the cause of liberty. We are told that the Southwest was stolen from Mexico. We are warned that free markets lead to worker exploitation, not their enrichment. New immigrant employees at seminars on inclusion, diversity and equity are alarmed to be told that their white peers, who treat them well, do secretly hate them. My response: I am slightly optimistic that the countervailing conservative push back against this false, vicious, defamatory Leftist narrative will suffice to expel its backers from position of power in government, academia, etc. Jindal: Americans are now told that to be born white is to be privileged, and to be born non-white is to be a victim. Americans are told that hard work, self-discipline and luck no longer and maybe never did allow you to transcend your past to make for a bright future. The Left denies this. My response: We must instruct the young and immigrants that skin color, ethnicity, group identity, or religious creed are interesting and valuable, but what really counts is the individual believing in America, in himself and is optimistic that hard work and self-application will still make the American Dream come true for him and his family. White people do not care to thwart his efforts, and nor do they care what is the color of his skin. Jindal: Group identity defines and pre-defines you. You cannot improve as an individual. If you are non-white only the government can save you, and lead to a better life for you. My response: Your group identity does not define you, unless in some sick, stymied way. Only as an individual can you find meaning, success, love, God and happiness. The government only pretends to save you, but they nab minorities and immigrants and dupe them into being dependent on governmental handouts and protection, depriving them of a chance to build a life on their own. Once enslaved, people never get free. Jindal: The way that we seek social improvements has now changed on how to improve things. Abolitionists in the 1850s and civil rights workers of the 1950s successfully appealed to America's conscience to right historical wrongs. My response: I agree. To seek to do reform peacefully, gradually, nonviolently and rationally by reaching out to the people to change their minds as a people--that is how to seek to gently, in a civilized way, seek to change public opinion, over time, that leads to improved public policy. Radicalized Leftists, though, are authoritarian revolutionaries, and they seek government fiat, court orders, lawsuits and restrictive laws mandating things limits on free speech and vaccine passports to compel public obedience, and to change public policy from the top down, not from the bottom up. Jindal: The Left now rejects appeals to the American conscience, now dismissed as inherently corrupt and unchangeable. If you do not fully buy into the Leftist plan for a new America, or just remain quiet, you will be punished for nonconformity because there is no free speech and silence will be enforced. My response: Jindal has their number, and these totalitarian zealots must be vigorously opposed right now, for they are sick, serious, dangerous, fanatics out to overthrow society and install their dictatorship of the proletariat. Jindal: Progressives used to champion free speech, even if it was hate speech. Now if a conservative asserts that there is only the reality of two biological sexes, or reject apocalyptic environmentalism, or support voters mandated to present personal ID before voting, then these conservatives run the risk of being banned from social media, the new town square, fired from their jobs or their reputation ruined. The Left sees this pattern as our new future. The Central Left are missing in action: these liberal moderates are silent, and it is unknown where they stand on Leftist excesses. My response: Jindal is right, and the world he describes is scary, and could lead to fascism or communism being the law of the land in America. Jindal: Conservatives counter that we have shortcomings but are always striving to become a more perfect union. We seek more freedom, more opportunity and more protection for our minorities occur here than anyplace on earth. My response: America is not Jerusalem on the hill, but it is much better than almost anywhere else on earth, and we have it pretty good here, so no revolutionaries need be heard here or heeded. I love America as it is, and let reforms go forward but peacefully, gradually and let the people decide to accept them or not voluntarily, and then they can order their politicians to make accepted changes only. Otherwise, the status quo prevails.

Driving Around

I used to be a roving maintenance technician, and one of the perks of that job was listening to talk radio while going from building to building. I am stationary now, but did a part’s run to St. Louis Park yesterday, so I got to hear a few minutes of wise Dennis Prager. It was a physic for my soul: he was on fire. These wise conclusions were the generalizations that he tossed off to the audience in 30 minutes my paraphrases are shared with the reader: 1) It is a common myth of misunderstanding that great art comes from being very unhappy, and this suffering drives genius to create great art to make it all meaningful. Prager denied this, advocating that happy people can crate great art too. My response: Dennis is more right than wrong, for individuators, more from happy ambition than seeking answers for their past sufferings--they do that too--can be highly motivated and highly successful at making great art. Jordan Peterson might be more inclined to believe that great art grows out of great suffering and unhappiness, and that has motivated many artists in the past. 2) When US is weak militarily (As under incompetent Biden and his botched exit from Afghanistan.), evil and brutality grow in the world. My response: This is a brilliant insight and too true. 3) If someone is asked the following question (Which do you fear more--human evil or climate change?), in reveals their cultural outlook, their political stance, the values that they live by. My response: Conservatives fear human evil for humans are evil more than good, especially in this modern age of godlessness and no traditional moral values. Progressives deny that evil exists, that humans are evil, that the Devil is anything more than an imagined construct. Progressive have no value orientation to withstand the growth of evil, let alone confront it early, immediately in their midst. Progressives by omission allow the Dark Couple to expand their kingdom on earth, and by conscious or unconscious commission actually work for these Demons.

Objectivist Ethics

Who is to be the beneficiary of one's moral actions? Here is what Ayn Rand writes on Pages x and xi of her book, The Virtue of Selfishness: "The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life--and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license 'to do as he pleases' and it is not applicable to the altruists' image of 'selfish brute' nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes and whims." My response: It is patently obvious that Rand recommends that the actor always be the beneficiary of his action; I agree for the most part, but my phrasing would be that the actor normally should be the beneficiary of his own action. If the actor must act from his rational self-interest, his rational self-interest should be reasonable, temperate, logical and common-sensical because it is rational. Thereby, Rand qualifies selfishness as a virtue that it must be rationally guided. Her view is that his right to act for his own benefit is is right to do so (I agree mostly.) is derived from his nature as man. I agree but likely for different reasons that Rand would accept. We are to be individualists and ethical egoists because that is how God made us in De's image, and that is how De commands us to conduct ourselves. Yes, moral considerations must guide our daily lives and as a rational, objective thinking agent, his self-interest being his telos is good for society and for him. Again, the true believing Rand admits that egoism is not a license for the agent to do as he pleases, and he is to be logical (emotional also and inevitably I suggest.). I agree that the reasonable egoist, the moderate, will feel and emote without passionate excesses like indulged urges, wishes and whims.

Randian Redemption

Ayn Rand wants to redeem the concept of selfishness in service to her egoist ethics. And I basically agree, but I would use rough synonyms for selfishness, words life self-interest, enlightened self-interest or egoist concerns. Let me quote her from her book Virtue and Selfishness, Page x: "To rebel against so devastating an evil, one has to rebel against its basic premise. To redeem both men and morality, it is the concept of 'selfishness' that one has to redeem. The first step is to assert man's right to a moral existence--that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and fulfillment of his own life . . . The reasons why a man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man's natural values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions." My response: Rand is a moral giant and courageous moral leader that exhorted humans to rebel against traditional altruist ethical codes, to redeem the ethical principle of egoism as morally worthy and desirable. Good and evil, ethical states and values, are concepts that are built into nature itself, and permeates human societies everywhere. To do good and live well is desirable and leads to happiness, and maybe to heaven as a final destination. To eschew evil is wise too. A moral code is critically useful to human need for ethical guidance on how to live and become good. Rand urges that each agent has a right to be the beneficiary of his own moral actions, and for the most part I agree with her.

Randian Defiance

Ayn Rand calls for a rejection of altruist morality, and an uptick in egoism is the future. Let me quote her statement on Page x of her book, The Virtue of Selfishness: "If you wonder about the reasons behind the ugly mixture of cynicism and guilt in which most men spend their lives, these are the reasons: cynicism, because their neither practice or accept the altruist morality--guilt, because they dare not reject it." People cynically run in packs, escaping freedom and self-liberation as individuators in line with answering God's call to each of them to stand out, and be all that they can be. They, on some level, know they can be more and should be more, but they settle for being much less, group-living conformists and sell-outs. They are ready to become individuated egoists, self-engaged and finally building lives. Rand writes more: "To rebel against so devastating an evil, one has to rebel against its basic premise. to redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of 'selfishness' that one has to redeem." My response: We can only redeem men and morality by working to have all know and accept that selfishness is the virtue, not the vice.

Secondhand

You must grow and live from where you are at financially. Should you need to purchased secondhand or used goods, because that is the best that you can afford, then you purchase is sensible and warranted.

The Index

It would be useful to list your faults and your virtues. Once this index is complete, then you can decide what you want to change, and what your are wiling to abide by. Should you opt for a life of maverization, this index will inform you on how to proceed.

Broken

Yes, each vicious child must be broken or civilized, like the wild horse that it is. But the child must not be over-broken so that they lose their will to live, their spark, their natural feistiness. Their willfulness and individuality must be resurrected and restored, so as civilized adults, they can maverize and take their place supporting and upgrading society and themselves.

The Proposed Resurgence Of Randianism

i propose a resurgence of Randian morality and her philosophy, blended with and moderated by my Mavellonialism, moderation sense of truth and proportion, and belief in God.

Ayn Rand: Unconventional

On Page ix of her book, The Virtues Of Selfishness, Ayn Rand self-identifies her definition of selfishness as unconventional and it is: "If it is true that what I mean by 'selfishness' is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man--a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself or others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites--that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men--that it permits no concept of justice." Rand turns conventional moral definitions on their heads by defining selfishness as good, desirable and virtuous, and altruism or other-centeredness as evil, undesirable and vicious. And she is correct. People are born deprave--my moral stance, not hers--and hate themselves. They suffer a natural lack of vital self-esteem. They run in packs, and don't self-support, self-love or self-realize. They share the social lie that unselfishness is good, and that selfishness is bad. They lie and do evil, and are praised for doing good, so for this reason, they never have to cease doing what it is that they love to commit. None are too respect themselves, only the collective, the pack is to be revered and respected. Rand points out the kindness shared with others as he supports himself, but not others, and neither sacrifices himself or others. Where people would do their own thing, and support themselves and esteem themselves, allowing their neighbors the same social graces, justice and a benevolent co-existence would come about. Each person victimizes no neighbor nor sponges off of them. Where people disallow others to parasitize them or victimize them, much tyranny, exploitation, warring and needless suffering would subside.

To Act

We are not completely other-determined. We can think, choose an act, should we will do do so.

Accidents

Do accidents occur? Are there uncaused, utterly randoms events that occur, without antecedents agency acting upon them? Of course, they exist and happen. Not all is necessitated, predicted, controlled, to be anticipated. Such uncaused events are existential reality. Most events have causal forces creating them but not all do.

Meaninglessness

Yes, there is absurdity built into our lives. And suffering. And senseless cruelty and injustice. And pointlessness and meaninglessness. But there is goodness too. And hope. And love and beauty. God provides the latter and these are free gifts to be shared with a suffering humanity so in need of receiving such gifts.

The Will To Live And Thrive

In her book, The Virtues Of Selfishness, Page 1x, Ayn Rand writes that each human wants to live, wants to pursue his own interests, and that he must work or starve: "Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one's own interest is evil means that man's desire to live is evil--that man's life, as such is evil. No doctrine could be eviler than that. We are animals with many drives, but the drive to survive, to have food, shelter, sex and meaning are deep-rooted drives. It is not evil for each human to desire to live, make a living, better himself and pursue his own interest. It is evil for altruistic guilt-assigner to make him feel bad for making the pursuit if his own interests a priority assertion from him. We can be egoists, do our own thing as our primary priority, and that is quite honorable.

Your Choice

At the end of Plunder and Deceit, Mark Levin queries the reader, asking if she will serve tyranny or liberty? I choose liberty myself.

The Alert Citizenry

1 Mark Levin, in Plunder and Deceit, pages 160 and 161, includes a long quote from brilliant 19th century legal thinker, Joseph Story. Let me paraphrase the quote: Story suggests that good government is best achieved and kept within the framework of a constitutional republic. He wants protected and preserved personal rights, private property and the liberties of the whole people. To protect the life, liberty and property of each sovereign individual, each citizen, is the paramount objective of said government. He wants wise laws and well-administered execution of them in line with said constitutional system. 2 3 The establishment of that constitution and able, honest legislators, judges, bureaucrats and the President are not enough to make the constitutional survive and persevere. I would argue as an individuator/anarchist supercitizen is that an educated, principled, active, organized, vocal, engaged, principled citizenry are the only way for such a constitutional system to thrive and flourish. When they do their job, the politicians will do their job right and well, for the most part. 4 5 Let me quote Levin quoting Story (Page 160): "It is equally indispensable for every American citizen, to enable him to exercise his own rights, to protect his own interests, and to secure public liberties and just operations of the public authority. A republic, by the very constitution of its government, requires, on the part of the people, more vigilance and constant exertion than all others. The American republic, above all others, demands from every citizen unceasing vigilance and exertion; since we have deliberately dispensed with every guard against danger or ruin, except the intelligence and virtue of the people themselves. It is founded on the basis, that the people have wisdom enough to frame their own system of government public spirit enough to preserve it; that they cannot be cheated out of their liberties; and that they will not submit to have them taken from them by force." 6 7 My response: Jordan Peterson wants the adult to act like the sovereign individual that God made him or her to be, and to take up responsibility to lessen suffering in the world. Fair enough. Let us couple that sense of the responsible sovereign individual asserting his rights with Story's exhortation for each citizen exert himself to serve as an engaged, public-spirited citizen, running the country, guiding the politicians, judges and bureaucrats in all that they decide, legislate and administer. 8 9 Now, if that middle-class citizen is an individuating, anarchist supercitizen, try and conceive of the enmasse result of such a citizenry running things. Wow! 10 11 Let me quote Levin quoting Story further on pages 161 & 162: "We have silently assumed the fundamental truth, that, it can never be in the interest of the majority of the people to prostrate their own political equality and happiness, so they can never be seduced by flattery or corruption, by the intrigues of faction, or the arts of ambition, to adopt any measures, which shall subvert them. If this confidence in ourselves is justified . . . let us never forget, that it can be justified only by a watchfulness and zeal proportionate to our confidence. Let us never forget, that we must prove ourselves, wiser, and better, and purer, that any other nation ever yet has been, if we are to count upon success. Every other republic has fallen by the discords and treachery of its own citizens." 12 13 My response: Levin and Story presuppose that there is a universal human nature, and we today are quite likely to repeat the mistakes of citizens of ancient republics, now fallen by the wayside, due to citizenry corruption, error and negligence. This constitutional republic can fail and decline first into a majority ruling mob, and then into strong man Communism.

Moral Dogmatism

I am not a moral dogmatism. Morality is not black and white, but it is mostly black and white. God makes sense and expects certain behaviors from us, and there are consequences to refusing to obey God.

No MoraL Significance

In The Virtue Of Seflishness, Page ix, Ayn Rand laments that an altruistic ethic shames a man for most of his ethical pursuits: "Apart from such times as he manages to perform some act of self-sacrifice, he possesses no moral significance: morality takes no cognizance of him and has nothing to say to him for guidance in the crucial issuess of his life; it is only his personal, private, 'selfish' life, and, as such, it is regarded either as evil, or at best, amoral. My response: The worldly work for dark powers. Egoism is the ethics of goodness, hope and liberation, but if the individual does his own thing, he is dismissed as evil or amoral. Only his unselfish acts are praised. It is a wicked, mixed up world where, what is wrong is labeled right, and what is right, is labeled askew and undesirable. It goest to show that those that do evil lie all the time. There is a close correspondence between truth-telling and truth-living and moral and spiritual worth.

Hierarchies

Peterson is correct, and hierarchies are natural and unavoidable. One powerful piece of evidence in support of Jordan's thesis is the absolution obsession most people express as they vie for social rank somewhere along the social hierarchy (one of many kinds of hierarchy, organizing and comprising human society). People will put up with anything, pay any price, believe any lie, and commit the most vicious act--all to gain group approval and increase their social standing. Should people become morally awake and sentient, then they will not eliminate but will much discard the effort to seeking standing in the social hierarchy. As individuating anarchists, they will flatten the social hierarchy and live, compete and cooperate in this greatest nation on earth.

Altruism

Ayn Rand on Page vii of her ethics book, The Virtue Of Selfishness, defines altruism and characterizes all the problems and difficulties that this misguided ethical system has brought upon all humanity: "Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral issue--and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes." My response: Rand is a purist ethically and is too pro-egoism and too anti-altruism, but she is correct more than not. Altruism is eviler and than good, and egoism is better than evil. Altruist motives must be secondary and fewer in number, and egoist motives must be primary and more numerous. On the same page, Rand goes on to lay out a laundry list of the wicked results of altruist ethics, hurting people, and it is a doozy: "Hence the appalling immorality, the chronic injustice, the grotesque double standards, the insoluble conflicts and contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human societies throughout history under al the variants of the altruist ethics." Satan is an altruist and joiner and rules this world, so the ethics of hatred can only sow seeds of violence, injustice, suffering, cruelty, poverty, war and injustice.

Genesis 6:9-13

Here are some verses from Genesis, from The New American Bible: "These are the descendants of Noah. Noah, a good man and blameless in that age, for he walked with God, begot three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. In the eyes of God the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness. When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals led depraved lives on earth, he said to Noah: 'I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on the earth." Note that Noah and his family were blameless, and walked with God, for the vast majority were depraved, and walked with Lucifer. Naturally, there are not only elites in terms of talent and brains, but in moral goodness too. Is this due to elite genes for a few superior humans, and inferior genes for the majority renders them inferior in brains, morality and talent? Of course, Jordan Peterson is correct that humans are created unequal in talent and intelligence, but this range of inequality is a modest difference from top to bottom, but that hierarchy of competence does not tell the true story of potential human achievement. It is my original idea, that just dawned on me, that the people superior in brains, talent and ethical arete, are not much different genetically from the inferior peers. What set them apart is their naturally or environmentally induced or free chosen election to live apart from the group as individuals and individuators, and this godly orientation is the key to their success at performing excellently in so many different fields. They are not so much genetically superior, or choosing to individuate, as they are allowed to understand the possibilities and advantages to them, made available by individual-living, individuating, loving and following the Divine Couple and their Good Spirits, maverizers all. Note that naturally the vast majority of humans are slower, less talented and more wicked--completely depraved at the time that Genesis was written. Are they inferior to the elite few that excel in so many ways, so pleasing to the Divinities that they walk with. No, their wills are not free, and they know mostly not what they do. They group-live, run in packs, and serve Satan and Lera, more out of custom and ignorance, than of their own free will, though they do that some too. Note that lawfulness is living well and in accordance with Divine Providence and divine commandments for human conformity and obedience to these laws. God made the world, and the rational principle (Logos) is God's Divine Reason written down in language as natural law to govern said universe. The sinners so offending Yahweh in the time of Noah had embraced lawlessness, or obedience to the laws of chaos and destruction wielded by Satan and Lera. Their language of irrationality, violence and entropy and death smashed all that was good, orderly and holy. What else Yahweh is letting us know is that if we rebel and disobey God, through our free-willed choice, if we are bold enough and vicious enough, God will not just wait until after our deaths to send us to Limbo and hell, God will punish society while we are alive, by sending disasters like the Flood down to wipe us out and humble us. This is not to suggest that every disaster, misfortune or plague is a divine punishment, but that possibility may sometimes be the case. Let me quote these same lines from the Holy Bible (KJV): "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth." The earth was corrupted by corrupt human rulers, so most of the earth must suffer the penalty with its erring rulers. God's path or way on the earth has been utterly corrupted and stained, so it must be wiped out, cleansed, so only those with walk with God shall survive the cleansing flood.

Genesis 6:5-8

In Genesis Yahweh warns of the impending flood coming, so here is how it is recorded in The New American Bible: "When the Lord saw how great as man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil, he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart grieved. So the Lord said: "I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them. But Noah found favor with the Lord." My response: We know that people will free will because they had chosen wickedness away from God, wickedness so fell and foul, that Yahweh decided to send a flood to wipe out wickedness for this creation has failed. It makes me wonder if God is a spaceman going through the universe planting colonies of intelligent beings that exercise free will. When God comes back later to visit them and assess their progress, if they are too wicked, they are wiped out. If they are good or part good, they are allowed to live and propagate. Notice when Satan and Lera rule a planet, only a few find favor with the Lord, and most are so wicked, militantly so, that they warrant death. It is noted in footnote 6, 5-8,22, that there are two sources for this flood stories, that certain inconsistencies are glaring, and the Biblical flood story is similar to the ancient Mesopotamian flood story. I believe that the Bible is canonical, despite its inconsistencies and internal contradictions, and borrow from more ancient mythologies. It is all part of the mystery of life that too often is not seamless and airtight. Let me quote these passages from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made men on earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both men and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." Note that if God were all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, how could he make a free willing race of depraved creatures that he did not anticipate in advance, that they likely would turn so toxic, evil and dangerous, they must be eradicated lest evil take over the entire planet, or even the galaxy? This is another mystery without satisfactory answer. I worry less about whether God knew in advance what he had to do and that they were doomed to fail, but it is possible that he could not predict their outcome with utter certainty, but when they become so spiritually polluted, they had to be taken out to preserve the universe.

Hallmark Signs

There are a couple of self-administered assessment tests that can alert the aspiring individualist as to whether or not he is a great soul or approaching that status. First, does he individual-live? If he group-lives, sacrifices everything to keep and increase his group popularity rating, he is a joiner, not a loner. Second, is he an utter failure at making friends and fitting in anywhere, with anyone--if he is lucky, he may have married his soul-mate, or have one or two individualistic friends of either gender--and yet he is a good, kind, decent, pleasant, non-gameplaying person? If repeated social failures have him down on himself, muttering that he belongs nowhere with no one, he is probably speaking the truth about his colossal, utter social failure. Where this occurs, his raw personality, naturally so or willed by him to live or end up inevitably cast out by all groups, all cliques, rebuked by all joiners, he has the crude, undeveloped great soul potential, that the Good Spirits can work with. If he accepts his suffering and tragedy, and gets up, dusts himself off, and announces to the world and himself that, henceforth, he will dedicate his life to loving service to the Supreme Individualists, the Mother and the Father, then his development as an artist, an intellectual, an ethical and moral and spiritual giant, will transfigure and transform him into a living angel, and that is that rare, high-end human belonging to the great soul category. Third, when he learns to forgive lesser humans (not inferior in ability, but inferior in under-performing regarding self-discipline, self-sacrifice, in willingness the serve the Divinities, industriousness and self-love), and not expect too much of them, then he will have grown and matured into a sensible, calm living angel. It is never the case that others cannot do what he has achieved. It is only that that they do not understand what God calls them to do and become, or, having understood that beckoning, they will to rebel and not serve God, per capita, as an individuated individual. We do not love our fellow humans if we expect too much of them. We do not love them if we seek totalitarian force through government or other oppressive institutions to force them to maverize. They must choose to grow and come alive when they choose to, or not. The moral great soul must not be angry with others, resent them, or hold a fierce grudge against them, seeking hateful revenge upon them for their non-compliance with his superior set of values. Free will, free agency and liberty are all integral aspects of the soul of a good person that could become a great soul. We can force or terrorize noncompliant, sinful nonindividuators and joiners, to be evil and shrivel, but we cannot force someone to be good, love, learn and flower. Our depraved natures respond to force to be hurt, hurtful and hateful, but the paradox is only a good human nature would allow us to respond favorably to being forced to be good and live wisely. But good people would rebel against any do-gooder, intellectual or guru seeking to compel them to be good. Such soul-raping violation of their free will status and power to choose would rot their souls out and make them wicked, so the forced reform always has to backfire upon the idealist terrorizing the masses for their "own good". The great soul is a great soul only if he has learned patience with other people. He respects their individuality above all things. He, by example and some gentle advice, does advise, and counsel them, but then he is silent. They grow or not, make it or not with the Divine Couple, on their own if they choose to grow and evolve. He is not authorized by the Mother and Father to interfere in their lives. Even the Divine Couple do not interfere in the lives of individual persons lest their free will be taken from them, and that is a mortal sin of huge proportions. When the impatient, frustrated great soul does grab the free-willed power that each agent is to wield as she sees fit, he goes from being a great soul, declining into being a cruel tyrant, and his social viciousness as leader of the pack will holy corrupt his victims and subjects, as well convert his well-meaning intentions, soul and being are degraded, downgraded and lost, as he is becoming a fierce, great demon now attacking and preying upon an unfortunate humanity that has been hurt enough by kings, elites, tyrants, gurus and ill-wishers in power.

The Full Address

On June 24th, 2018, Jordan Peterson engaged in a Q & A at the Oxford Union in England. What follows are my notes on this over one-hour session and my responses to his remarks and answers to student questions. Jordan commences with a 15-minute speech on hierarchy and its political significance. He describes humans as complex biological creatures that must move forward in the world, from a place less favored or valued, towards a place more favored and valued. Humans are ancient creatures avoiding something and approaching others We require to move to live and want to live and value all. To move towards something is to value it, and there is no escaping living in a world of value in human life. Both physiologically and psychologically we must pursue value. It is a deep truth that we are vulnerable and suffer but an even deeper truth is that we seek value and meaning to transcend the suffering. We pursue things of value. He quotes Nietzsche that who has a why can bear anyhow. My response: I follow his line of thought here, and cannot disagree with it, or add useful insights to it. Jordan warns that those without purpose in their lives turn bitter, then resentful, then revengeful and cruel, and can even go more wicked than that. My response: Amen, I concur. Jordan continues: to pursue value in social space is to compete and cooperate against other people. In ranking value of any pursuit, hierarchies of competence emerge--never mind what the activity is. Inevitably a few people rise to the top, being very good at the specific activity with most people at the bottom. The few at the top end up with the wealth, power and acclaim, and the masses huddled at the bottom of the hierarchy end up as have-nots. Jordan and conservatives argue that we require hierarchies to express value performances and to give humans meaning and something to do. Jordan adds that the Left has a legitimate role here to mitigate the severity of the inequality and distribution of rank, wealth and power, the byproducts of hierarchical society. Tyrants and power-seekers make the hierarchy corrupt with a few at the top and most at the bottom. If the hierarchy is too corrupting and the people at the bottom suffer too much, they may well revolt and overthrow it. Jordan points out that conservatives are conscientious and possess the right temperament to like and support the hierarchy, working and succeeding within it. Liberals are not as conscientious but create new hierarchies and economic opportunities. The economy and democracies require both conservatives and liberals. My response: So far, I cannot disagree with Jordan’s depiction of reality. As I have pointed out elsewhere, all are very talented, and talent is not rare like Jordan the snob and elitist insists upon, as maverizers, most should end at as upper middle class, with only a few people stranded at the bottom. That would take most of the sting of injustice out of capitalists hierarchies and the issue of inequality. By individuating most will flourish, and thus change is constant, helpful and the desperate need for revolution is avoided. Jordan continues: Liberals keep society fresh and innovative, introducing new hierarchies and new territories, new values. Conservative turn static and deadly dull without liberals and their creativity, but liberals are not good at created actualities. They require conservatives to run and administrate these new hierarchies. My response, Jordan Peterson is an ethical and metaphysical moderate, like I am, and he plainly believes in hierarchies, but he wants them to be refreshed and updated. Order is good, but so is chaos, and any extreme is bad for society. I have been advocating these values since 1976. Jordan is conservative, but he is not alt-right conservative. That libelous attribution is hurled at him by Leftists. Jordan continues: Liberals and conservatives are at permanent odds, but perhaps a compromise can be reached (My suggestion.). Humans require hierarchies to provide them with something to do. Hierarchies are not going away, and capitalist hierarchies create wealth, but there will always be poor people in that system. My response: By instilling in most young people the desire to maverize, hierarchies can be minimalized, kept competent and un-corrupted, flattened and deinstitutionalized as individuating anarchist supercitizens do their own things to the maximum, generating upper middle-class income for their family and themselves. The class and poverty issues will mostly disappear. What hierarchies and institutions that exist will be strong, effective, efficient, small and not intrusive as individual supercitizens wield maximum power and enjoy maximum liberty. Jordan continues: The moderator asked him to address political correctness whose backers want to limit, censor, restrict and suppress offensive free speech as undesirable hate speech. Even offensive clothes are to be outlawed. Jordan seems to link political correctness with tyranny, fascism, communism and restriction on individuals and personal liberty. He opposes it vehemently. He accuses Marxist fascists promoting hate speech as those that see the world from a low-resolution narrative. Low resolution narrative do have some value in that they provide humans with schemas to quickly characterize incoming stimuli, and then have a way to characterize and react to it quickly and efficiently. People should use low resolution narratives when useful and fair, and high resolution and more complex resolution when applicable. (Fair enough, I respond.) Low resolution existential theory or narrative is not the same as a description of objective reality, but it is a socially agreed-upon narrative as to how the world is constituted, so that we have a way to live and operate. There are two low resolution narratives that people in society resort to: 1. Collectivism or communal living is a tribal outlook hundreds of thousands of years old. It was useful and practical for a long time, but it turns deadly and ruinous in the modern world as tribes go against tribes and become warlike and violent. This in a world of weapons of mass destruction is not viable. This tribal, vicious rivalry is seen in chimpanzees where the young patrol the border of their territories and find and rip apart chimpanzees from tribes outside their territory. Jane Goodall's discovery in the 1970s of natural viciousness evinced by chimpanzees towards foreign chimpanzees shocked everyone. Most scientists were liberals, believing with Rosseau that humans are innately gentle and good, but learn to be violent, cruel and commit atrocities in society. Her discovery reveals that cruelty is natural to primates, and that tribal units amplify organized, collective acts of cruelty. All humans belong simultaneously to too many tribes, so which tribe that we belong to is canonical, and how do we conceptualize a person by a single tribe membership when that is not anyone's actual reality? This renders intersectionality a meaningless dragon that will eat its own tail. Those advocating political correctness argue that there is no truth, no values, all is opinion only. Reality is but a battleground of competing tribes or groups warring and clambering up hierarchies to amass power for their tribe. This Marxist, postmodernist ethos leads inevitably to chaos and mayhem. 2. Individualism as the alternative, low resolution view is the one championed in the West, and none have done it as well as the UK. The fundamental idea of the sovereign individual is very old but can be articulated as a democracy in which the individual has intrinsic value, and runs the government, and it rules him by his consent. Under this humane and effective narrative, the sovereign citizen is viewed as a member of a tribe--though he is--and he is a sovereign individual whose rights and responsibilities included treating all other citizens as sovereign citizens in regard to their rights and responsibilities Where polities are collective, tyranny and tribal warfare are the result. Where polities are individual, the polities are functional, peaceful, wealthy, free and generate wealth, but some inequality. My response: I agree with most of what he told the students. Jordan continues: He is ashamed that universities are faithless, pushing the tribalist, collective view, doing all they can to undermine the sovereign, individual view. The universities' view is political correctness. When asked if his view of truth was similar to that of the postmodernists, Jordan answered yes and no. Yes, in that he agrees with their history of literary criticism where it was revealed that there are infinite numbers of ways to view the world, and that there is no obvious canonical interpretation of literature, so there is no justifiable grand narrative. He would say no in that there are infinite ways of interpreting the world but only a few that work, and those come close to being weavable into a grand narrative. Postmodernists deny that there is a grand narrative but somehow sneak Marxism, which is contradictory to postmodernist relativism and subjectivism, in the back door (This defunct, discredited 19th century scientific theory that was a grand narrative.), bringing Marxism back into the game. Postmodernists and collectivist use Marxism to grant their ideology or world view motive force. Raw power is the motive ruling the universe, as tribe wars against other tribes endlessly, eternally. (My point: Jordan would agree that this pessimistic, cynical, dark view of human nature is evil and too brutal; humans are also motivated by love, play and cooperation.) My response: Jordan well understands postmodernists, and they hate him for it. Jordan's view of truth is that there is a grand narrative, perhaps not of certain truth, but of highly probable truth--this is my point and my opinion also. Jordan, when considering truth ethically, is tricky. Truth is ethically defined and then scientifically or ontologically described and considered in the objective world, but that consideration is not well sorted out. Jordan digresses introducing a theory of ethics that grows out of Darwinian biology. It evolved and was orderly and articulated over thousands of years. He follows psychologist, biologist Yak Panseth, that documented cooperative fair play in rats, as they have an instinct for iterated, ethical interactions among young, wrestling male rats over time. This is a huge discovery for it shows that even rats develop an ethic of cooperation and communal harmonious settling of disputes over time for the survival of their species. (My point: Jordan seems to be offering scientific, biological proof that the fundamental motive force among animals, and by analogy, for humans is not just competing and warring to amass raw power, but that cooperation and keeping the peace for social benefit is also a powerful, instinctual urge or motive.) Jordan points out that these ethical, iterated interactions among humans and other animals helps these species survive, thrive and adapt and evolve. These iterated, ethical interactions and rules emerged and manifested themselves in our great mythological stories. These interactions were manifested and described as great narratives, the mythologies underlying our culture. They are not based on arbitrary assumptions but based on observations of what promotes survival and reproduction of the human race. The mythologies speak in a Darwinian manner over thousands of years. This benevolent, grand narrative is biologically based, not a mere deconstructivist truth, or one of infinite truths, but is grand, successful, objective or universal. Jordan describes how our primitive humans, prehistoric humans, could manifest this cooperative, gentle ethic as behavior or dram in mythologies but we were not yet ideationally equipped to represent it or articulate the ethic in words. Nonetheless, a universal, human ethic governs our behavior, but early humans acted out ethics but did not understand it or articulate it. The cooperative, benevolent motive really goes along with the rise of the sovereign individual and this very old idea is portrayed in the great mythologies as a narrative structure based on behavior patterns over time. Our modern ethic is built in biological structures and patterns that emerge reliably over time, a universal human ethic built into our biological and social natures, growing out of Darwinian unfoldings as a universal modern ethic. My response: I am no biological expert, but I like and accept his account for the most part. Jordan continues: What is the source of human meaning, a girl asked him, or is it just human fostered or manufactured? Nietzsche announced the Death of God but not happy about this reality. Nietzsche worried about what would happen to humans living without meaning or value, once God was dead. Nietzsche predicted that we would or must create our own values. But Nietzsche died before he could describe how values, new, should be generated But Freud came along a bit later and demonstrated that there is no evidence that humans are masters of our own houses. We are not strong enough to make our own values, for there are too many internal forces we cannot control. Jung came along and agreed with Freud that humans are too other-controlled to make our own values. We can participate at best in helping create values but only God can create values. My response: As an individuator, I believe that God creates values but that we as great souled theologians and ethicists, should be able to help in creating values, and that we would-be expected by the Mother and Father to do so. Jordan continues: Jung interested in how internal forces organized themselves across time, and this is accomplished in two ways: 1) We set up society as a hierarchy with Christ at the top' 2) Christ is a symbol of the self, and the self is an emerging consequence of the internal arranging of motivational states in a hierarchy and a psychological reaction of activity and social pressure on that self. Jordan then jumps to Piaget as defining meaning as a manifestation of a deep instinct, an elaboration orienting reflex. This reflex orients you towards what you do not understand, an anomaly, which this instinct is present in your psyche to help you make sense of what you do not understand. The reflex operates on many levels of one's nervous system and this reflex is a source of meaning; 3) Our brain hemispheres are specialized. The Left one deals with what has been explored and the Right hemisphere is oriented to what is new and unexplored. In the Right hemisphere is where the orienting reflex manifests itself as imagination where one does not know what is happening, and the Right hemisphere thinks in metaphors. Still, the two hemispheres work together to find meaning. Meaning or purpose or ordering our life is the telos bubbling up in the Darwinian landscape. We don't describe the world; we live in the world. We can live in the Newtonian/materialist world that conflicts with the evolutionary/Darwinian world, and meaning is here. Your telos is real so to survive and not be miserable, seek meaning in the Darwinian sense. And this telos is spiritual or theological, I add. My response: Jordan is wildly imaginative and speculative here, but he might be correct. It would seem that pursuing our divine telos is the welling up of a Darwinian drive that helps us imagine what it all means, and this is our spiritual, emerging grand narrative which all humans sense and work to articulate, and this grand narrative gives us a sense of ultimate meaning. Jordan continues: Conservatives preserve the hierarchy and liberals challenge the hierarchy. If we are too conservative, we end up with pathological order, and if we are too liberal we end up in chaos. These extremes are out of balance, but free speech is important source of respecting and manifesting the logos, a balance of order and chaos. We need to think, talk, disagree and reach compromises, better than war and death. We need free speech to be free and offensive, and we do not want to shut down what people say. My response: This is where Peterson's genius and moral greatness comes to the fore. Now this is my freewheeling interpretation of his rambling defense of free speech: His defense of free speech is a vital, necessary warning to not restrict free speech, because free speech is an engine of discovery, of intellectual growth among conversing humans, and that free speech in the private and public arena is a prayer, a way of contacting and articulating how the Logos, the rational principle running the universe, is reaching out to inquisitive humans. Free speech between humans and the Logos or God is how we update our values, and grow love and knowledge in the world, and allow peace, prosperity, law and order and liberty to coexist for a happy productive citizenry in any polity. Free speech, unrestricted is that critically important to human welfare and survival. Logos, or rational principle ordering the universe, that is reason or spirit, expressed as speech or natural law, running the ordered natural world, is perhaps God at work in the ordered universe. Through the social exchange and untrammeled expression of free speech, we can bring into human consciousness and knowledge the nature, will and expectations that the Divine Couple have for us, as we reinforce good traditional values and instantiate new or update values. Free speech is how the sovereign individual is to find himself, maverize and worship the divinity as he connects with the Logos, and bring love, order, balance, reason and liberty to operate in his personal life, for his family and his society. The politically correct types, the feminist extremists, the intersectional, Marxist revolutionaries and postmodernists of every stripe criticize and loathe free speech which is love speech even where it offends. Unfree speech is the true hate speech and it will lead to totalitarian terror, centralized power, and social misery across the globe. Jordan Peterson knows this and is alerting us to the dangers of postmodernists and their hate speech laws. These are cruel, nasty people to be ignored, marginalized and allowed no say and now power in how to run society or educate the young. These are hateful, wicked, hating elitists that mean to ruin society and reintroduce Communist hell upon all Americans and the entire West. Attacking free speech as hate speech and racism is their ticket to gaining absolute power, and the young have come to accept that free speech is evil and that hate speech curbs are the moral replacement. But who defines what hate speech is, and where does it start and stop, restricting all kinds of free speech once they get rolling. Jordan continues: Men and women are more alike than different especially at the mean, but at the extremes, where examples of aggressive behavior or career preference are expressed, the differences between these genders does show up strongly. 9 out of 10 people in prison are men because men are born aggressive, and that is no social construct. Men do the STEM fields because they like things, and women chose the low-paying helping fields because they like people. Men and women are equally smart, but career choices are more biological than sociocultural, and this accounts for much of the pay gap. Scandinavian egalitarianism made for women choosing to be nurses not engineers, and that proved that the genders are different, and the differences are biological, not sociocultural, although sociocultural influence is still considerable. Hate speech laws are bad but hate speech exists. There is not total free speech in the West, even now since we cannot incite to violence, nor libel others. Free speech goes with the sovereign individual as everyone's logos has the opportunity to clarify the unknown and reconstitute the world to receive everyone's insight. We want the individual to develop to also help the community. Just let people speak hatefully in public and let and sort the public to sort out of truth. To regulate hate speech is to bring about tyranny. To talk about difficult things is to offend people. Let the community decide what is hateful or acceptable on an ongoing basis, and this is not a perfect solution but there are no perfect solutions. (My Point: Perfect solutions sought after only lead to government enforcement and imposition of tyranny upon the people.) My response: My take is that individuated anarchist supercitizens, with their free speech, will donate to human development the wonders of their private art, research, ruminations and philosophizing. Without mostly unrestricted free speech, such high civilization level advancements will not be forthcoming. Jordan continues: High resolution thinking, or solutions forced on people but rejected as too complicated, so they refute it just labeling it as bad and inferior to their low-resolution ideology. But this utopian/tribal/oppression/inequality ideology is leading us straight to hell. He likes the complicated view of reality held by the wise American Founders who pushed balanced of power to prevent ideologues of good intentions from setting up a new tyranny, all in the name of chasing after utopian perfection. When good intentions go wrong, be careful. It is much easy to make things worse but hard to make things better. The wise Founders were humble enough to worry about their inability to bring utopia to America, but the arrogant, incompetent modern Leftist ideologues have full self-confidence in their ability and genius to bring perfection (hell) to America. Jordan self-defines as a traditionalist that openly worries that only a wise social scientist doubts that his advised reforms will make thing better; usually reformers make things worse. They need metrics for measuring how effective their reform is once implemented. He advises individual self-improvement first, because that way one does no harm, and not hurting the world. My response: His complicated, conservative high-resolution traditionalism is really political moderation at work. Where the country is good, just with little racism, injustice and inequality, as in America, then reformers need to be really cautious not to make things worse, and that is what the postmodernists excel at, wrecking tradition, bringing poverty, corruption, pain, suffering, injustice and tyranny to the masses.