did you read the wikipedia link you shared because it doesn't say what you think it says. ancient peoples were not this brain-damaged and language is not the result a coordinated defense against reptiles.
you dont actually have any idea what postmodernism is and neither does jp. he just uses the word postmodernism to refer to about 20 european writers all with extremely different positions. the ironic thingi s that his conception of what 'truth' is very similar to some postmodernists
this guy just uses an endless series of garbage words that impede and convolute each other through story and metaphor and psychological theory to arrive at this point: nothing. its like the grandpa from the simpsons had sex with a thesaurus. but because he's anti-sjw and has an extremely vague way of applying evo psych-pop to defend traditionalism he has attained a following of reptilians who are incapable of reading books.
deletedover 7 years
what better way to spend 3 hours than listen to kermit rant about trannies and dragons
if you're going to bother to say "everything they said is meaningless and sounds like 420 talk", you are literally deconstructing in the post-modern sense, to borrow peterson's terminology
he offers a lot of insight, even if it is oversimplified. even then, the point is that humans tried to make sense of the world around them by assigning figurative meaning to creatures, often reflecting their own emotions within those creatures.
hence the shadow of one's self, and the shadow finding a home in the cave. going into the cave to brave the darkness, as in fighting the dragon with gold - danger and evil symbolized with a promise of reward for surviving the shadow of the cave - even in the most obvious symbolism of shelter vs entrapment
he's not saying that but if he was he would be a big old dumbass since that's not the case at all about how people viewed frogs. similarly the thing about snakes is a gross oversimplification. also this is all entirely meaningless either way and sounds like two people having a conversation over a 'fat bowl.'
again, he's literally talking about how people who did not know what frogs were, had no science to understand the world around them, framed frogs as a bizarre creature, representing confusion and chaos.
he makes a similar didactic argument with snakes, as representing the root of evil, because the serpent was always an insidious enemy to early hunter-gatherer human tribes
it doesnt mean he's right, but you can see throughout the history of literature that these symbols definitely did exist, and frankly are still used today.
like he says in the podcast, you dont just disregard thousands and thousands of years of ancient knowledge that humanity built civilization upon. in understanding our earliest roots, there is much to be learned about our contemporary troubles and interpretations of the modern world
he's speaking about the root of metaphors and the natural link to language itself and how biblical doctrine originates from one's natural existence in the ancient world.
but hey, take anything out of context and im sure you will make it seem dumb. meanwhile this man is tenured, has a PhD, and is a practicing clinical psychologist with a long history in psychoanalytic interpretation of literature.
again, that's not to say he will automatically speak wisely, but he does raise a lot of fascinating points in this podcast, if you bothered to open your ears.
somewhere, deep within your psyche, you are blasting his argument away from your inner conscience, because you know it might actually have an impact if you bothered to hear it out.
i respect that you at least listened, but then im not sure what listening to you means, given that you relish making a point more than you do learning one
