, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s post was inspired by a dear and loyal reader, one JTLiuzza who wrote the following comment:

I enjoy your blog but I must admit I’m at a loss to understand your fascination, or anyone’s for that matter, with this Peterson fellow.

Before your humble blogger provides you, dear and loyal reader with that which he wrote in response, a transcript from the above video embedded at the top of this post is in order. It sets the context of the below discussion.

The exchange between Dr. Peterson and just the next in line cookie cutter feminist takes place coming right out of the gate, and is a follows:

Narrator: In this video, I would like to discuss a particularly contentious exchange where Lewis confronts Peterson attacking Peterson’s now famous lobster hierarchy argument, featured in his bestselling book 12 Rules for Life.

Lewis: My big problem with the lobsters it’s that it’s scientifically… bollocks. Right? You cannot read across from lobsters and what they do and what humans…

Peterson: Of course you can. That’s why serotonin works on lobsters.

Lewis: But it works in two different ways. Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive and it make humans less aggressive. Right?

Peterson: No. It makes them more dominant. No that’s not right. Serotonin makes human beings more dominant, but less aggressive. And the only reason it makes them more dominant is that they are less irritable and they are less defensively aggressive. So it’s not bollocks. I know my neurochemistry. So if you’re going to play neurochemistry let’s go and do it.

What is of particular significance in the above exchange is the contrasting degree of competence brought to the discussion by the respective sides. The interviewer is just a typical IDEOLOGUE who asks a question without doing her homework about what it is that she is in fact asking. Dr. Peterson in turn knows his neurochemistry and confronts her directly.

So the moral of the story is: OBJECTIVE REALITY always wins.

Which brings me back to my response to JTLiuzza, in which your humble blogger wrote the following:

I am not sure how much of Dr. P’s work you are familiar with, so I’ll explain.

What I find fascinating about him is that he is a (self-avowed) Traditionalist in the Natural Law sense of the term.

If we look at the nature of reality (ontology) we can distinguish between the natural and the supernatural. The supernatural reality we obtain from revealed Truth. The natural reality we obtain through the “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”. This is what is known as natural theology.

What Peterson does is that he takes that which we know from the natural light of human reason and ties it back to the supernatural part of ontology. In other words, he reconciles the natural with the supernatural.

And from what I observe, his message is a very effective weapon for not only proselytizing, but more importantly, for stopping the eradication of Christianity from the public domain altogether.

Concluding, the most destructive element of the Modernist revolution and that which we call the Enlightenment is that the forces of evil have been able to put in place this notion that the supernatural is some sort of an exotic “superstition” and relic from a past dark, ignorant age and will eventually fade away and die out. And then we will enter a new age of enlightenment where our values will be generated from reason, empiricism and science.

And along come Dr. P and makes the obvious observation that reason, empiricism and science can explain reality, but they can’t generate a set of values which will give meaning to the lives of those who are guided solely by reason, empiricism and science.

So Dr. P makes the case that no matter how much the Modernists would like to eradicate (organized) religion, they will not be able to do it since it satisfies a basic human need. And I find this aspect of Dr. P’s work nothing short of prophetic.

Hope this helps.

Now, with the material in this video and in that which Dr. Peterson espouses, we can agree with most and disagree with some. What we can’t do however, is to discount the impact that he is having on what we call on this blog: RECONCILING post-Modernist VIRTUAL REALITY with OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Frankly, it’s the only weapon that is at our disposal to deal with something like this below:


Nota bene: Dr. Peterson stated that the end of this child abuse will definitely come when the institutions that are promoting this genital mutilation, are bankrupted by future law suit judgments. Sound familiar? But I digress…

Which brings me to another positive development which I have been noticing of late. I see this phenomenon as a return to natural theology.

Over at another of the Deus ex Machina’s favorite blogs, the Non Veni Pacem (simply love that title), we get a discussion on Overton Windows and growth functions. The title of the post is: Nuff said: “Sunlight is always the best disinfectant”. In this post, Non Veni Pacem discusses the significance of the Msgr. Bux interview. (see here)

The relevant passage is as follows:

But the point being made here, with regards to the idea of the Bergoglian Antipapacy being the blue line on this chart, is that we just passed Point “A” in the last 24 hours. Point “A” is when the idea takes off, and the chart hockey-sticks. Which means we are about to see a whole lot more focus – white hot light – on this question.

Where point A is defined in the below graph:

Which suggests that within 26% of the Catholic population, it is ACCEPTABLE to question the validity of the Francis bishopric of Rome.

Let that sink in!

And finally, please recall that: (see here)

What appears to be the case is that:

Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.

Extending the above SCIENTIFIC CLAIM into the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, it could be restated as:

When just 10 percent of the CLERICAL population holds the unshakable belief that it is the “spirit of the new springtime of the Second Vatican Council” that is the ROOT CAUSE of the disintegration of the post-conciliar church , their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society and the inevitable Restoration will be at hand.

In other words, the follow-up question is, how close are we to point R with respect to the population that holds an “unshakable belief” that this is in fact the case?

Which answers the question as to why all Catholics need to follow Dr. Jordan B. Peterson religiously.

And on that note, I will wish you a pleasant day!