I got a bit of a shock the other day when Vox Day took out after Jordan B. Peterson for something he'd written about Jewish IQ. One of Day's memes is that Jews are not as smart as they/we think.
I can understand why the alt-right doesn't like Peterson. That's because Peterson's work is not about defending Christian culture and the nation state. I see that in Peterson's interest in Nietzsche and Jung.
What Day and the alt-right are doing is fighting back against the left's war on the bourgeois culture of responsibility and the Christian world-view. Nothing wrong with that. But Nietzsche's most famous books are Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals. And Jung at one point was trying to get Christian divines to recast their theology in the light of his study of myth and the unconscious.
Do you see what is going on? Here is what I think. First of all, my reductive Three Peoples theory, that we humans come in three flavors. First there are the People of the Subordinate Self, workers and peasants that are moved by the neo-feudalism of the welfare state; their god is the local lord. Then there are the People of the Responsible Self, responsible citizens and middle-class who believe in the formal social control of law and right and wrong; their God is the Axial Age god of divine justice and mercy. Finally there are the People of the Creative Self, artists and writers; their god is the creative spirit in each of us.
On my view the story of the last two hundred years is this. The newly emergent People of the Creative Self decided that all the sins of the world were caused by the People of the Responsible Self -- the bourgeoisie -- ragging on the People of the Subordinate Self and exploiting and oppressing them. So the newly emergent People of the Creative Self would beat up the People of the Responsible Self and save the poor helpless People of the Subordinate Self from the cruel oppression of the Responsible bourgeoisie. This all started, if you like, in the 1840s with Marx and Engels, and got tried out in the Bolshevik and Maoist Revolutions with about 100 million deaths. So there was a problem. But the revolution continues with today's left warring on the People of the Responsible Self for their racism, sexism, and homophobia against helpless women, minorities and LGBTs and the left's promotion of global migration and apology for Islamism.
Now I think that the War on the People of the Responsible Self has been a tragic and evil mistake. But the critique by Marx and Engels had a point. The middle class of the mid-19th century, the People of the Responsible Self, were busily remaking the world in their own image, of cities, trade, manufacture, prices, law, trust, etc., exactly what seemed natural and physical to them and their world view. But for the People of the Subordinate Self, streaming into the cities from serfdom and starvation in the countryside, the agenda of the People of the Responsible Self was alien and horrible. And it seemed to require them to slough off the sleep of ages in ten minutes and join the join the responsibility revolution right now. But since the bourgeoisie extended the vote to the workers the problem eventually got softened by the welfare state that allowed the workers to continue as their Subordinate selves and put off their assimilation into middle-class respectability and responsibility.
But here is the problem. The bourgeoisie might have been a bit hard on the workers and peasants, but their culture of responsibility was just the thing to midwife the Great Enrichment from $3 per day to $150 a day in 200 years. Talk about a poverty program! Yet the People of the Creative Self have been ragging on the People of the Responsible Self and attempting to destroy their responsibility culture. Really? Turning back the clock on the Miracle of the last 200 years? I don't think so.
So, the People of the Creative Self have been doing exactly what they were accusing the People of the Responsible Self: bullying people less enlightened than themselves, and trying to force feed them with a cultural narrative which didn't make any sense to them. This is sick and wrong.
In the stead of this folly and failure here is my noble and perfect agenda. The People of the Creative Self and the People of the Responsible Self should unite on a thoughtful and compassionate agenda to bring along the People of the Subordinate Self, the workers and peasants, into the middle-class culture of responsibility. This must mean a dilution of the welfare state and a program to lead the Subordinates out of their victimhood and envy and their desire to sit in unionized good jobs at good wages forever without regard to the inevitable changes in the labor market. If you don't teach the workers to be responsible they end up dying of despair like the white working class of which we've heard tell, and we don't want that, do we.
Next, the hard part. The People of the Creative Self need to be just and tolerant of the People of the Responsible Self as they demand that the People of the Responsible Self be tolerant of the People of the Subordinate Self. That means they must stop beating up on Christianity, marriage, motherhood, family, manliness, and capitalism. All these things are markers of the responsibility culture and are just what the doctor ordered for People of the Responsible Self and also the People of the Subordinate Self if they want to master life in the city.
Therefore the world's Big Problem is to teach the People of the Creative Self how to abandon their current religious Crusade on the People of the Responsible Self and find a new religion, one that is tolerant of the People of the Responsible Self and does not cruelly draft the People of the Subordinate Self as foot-soldiers in a War Against the People of the Responsible Self.
This is not an easy task, but this is what, I think, people like Jung and Peterson are trying to do. I have just finished Jordan B. Peterson's Maps of Meaning: the Architecture of Belief and I can say that he helps us on the road, but he doesn't get us to the Promised Land.
Suppose we accept that, with the current world we are Beyond Good and Evil. But then what? What Jung is saying is that, for better or worse we are the creatures of our unconscious, both the personal unconscious and the precipitate of the ages in the collective unconscious; therefore we need to incorporate that in the Religion of the Future. What Peterson is saying is that "change" does not come from left-wing activism, but from sacrificial heroes, living dangerously (and creatively) on the border between the known and the unknown, and bringing the unknown into the known by their courageous and humble willingness to explore the unknown, begin to understand it, and bring back its meaning to us. On this view, what the left does today is a travesty of the hero's journey. It assumes that anyone can do activism -- even good little girls that need safe spaces when traumatized by microaggression; it assumes that we already have the answer to the modern question, and that is a fight against oppression and exploitation; it demands that the hero get a grant from the government to carry out his plan.
Very nice. But how do we get there from here? Well I think we need both the work of the Petersons and the counter-offensive of the alt-right. We need to paint a new picture of Heaven in the sky and a develop a religion of creativity that tells its novices that the way ahead is hard and traumatic: no safe spaces and don't forget that many are called but few are chosen. And we need to give the left a stunning blow in the solar-plexus to demoralize it and send it into the mythical underworld from which it can, after a long sojourn in the wilderness, return sadder and wiser with a plan for humanity that can avoid the disasters of the Soviet Union, China, and Venezuela.
I can understand why the alt-right doesn't like Peterson. That's because Peterson's work is not about defending Christian culture and the nation state. I see that in Peterson's interest in Nietzsche and Jung.
What Day and the alt-right are doing is fighting back against the left's war on the bourgeois culture of responsibility and the Christian world-view. Nothing wrong with that. But Nietzsche's most famous books are Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals. And Jung at one point was trying to get Christian divines to recast their theology in the light of his study of myth and the unconscious.
Do you see what is going on? Here is what I think. First of all, my reductive Three Peoples theory, that we humans come in three flavors. First there are the People of the Subordinate Self, workers and peasants that are moved by the neo-feudalism of the welfare state; their god is the local lord. Then there are the People of the Responsible Self, responsible citizens and middle-class who believe in the formal social control of law and right and wrong; their God is the Axial Age god of divine justice and mercy. Finally there are the People of the Creative Self, artists and writers; their god is the creative spirit in each of us.
On my view the story of the last two hundred years is this. The newly emergent People of the Creative Self decided that all the sins of the world were caused by the People of the Responsible Self -- the bourgeoisie -- ragging on the People of the Subordinate Self and exploiting and oppressing them. So the newly emergent People of the Creative Self would beat up the People of the Responsible Self and save the poor helpless People of the Subordinate Self from the cruel oppression of the Responsible bourgeoisie. This all started, if you like, in the 1840s with Marx and Engels, and got tried out in the Bolshevik and Maoist Revolutions with about 100 million deaths. So there was a problem. But the revolution continues with today's left warring on the People of the Responsible Self for their racism, sexism, and homophobia against helpless women, minorities and LGBTs and the left's promotion of global migration and apology for Islamism.
Now I think that the War on the People of the Responsible Self has been a tragic and evil mistake. But the critique by Marx and Engels had a point. The middle class of the mid-19th century, the People of the Responsible Self, were busily remaking the world in their own image, of cities, trade, manufacture, prices, law, trust, etc., exactly what seemed natural and physical to them and their world view. But for the People of the Subordinate Self, streaming into the cities from serfdom and starvation in the countryside, the agenda of the People of the Responsible Self was alien and horrible. And it seemed to require them to slough off the sleep of ages in ten minutes and join the join the responsibility revolution right now. But since the bourgeoisie extended the vote to the workers the problem eventually got softened by the welfare state that allowed the workers to continue as their Subordinate selves and put off their assimilation into middle-class respectability and responsibility.
But here is the problem. The bourgeoisie might have been a bit hard on the workers and peasants, but their culture of responsibility was just the thing to midwife the Great Enrichment from $3 per day to $150 a day in 200 years. Talk about a poverty program! Yet the People of the Creative Self have been ragging on the People of the Responsible Self and attempting to destroy their responsibility culture. Really? Turning back the clock on the Miracle of the last 200 years? I don't think so.
So, the People of the Creative Self have been doing exactly what they were accusing the People of the Responsible Self: bullying people less enlightened than themselves, and trying to force feed them with a cultural narrative which didn't make any sense to them. This is sick and wrong.
In the stead of this folly and failure here is my noble and perfect agenda. The People of the Creative Self and the People of the Responsible Self should unite on a thoughtful and compassionate agenda to bring along the People of the Subordinate Self, the workers and peasants, into the middle-class culture of responsibility. This must mean a dilution of the welfare state and a program to lead the Subordinates out of their victimhood and envy and their desire to sit in unionized good jobs at good wages forever without regard to the inevitable changes in the labor market. If you don't teach the workers to be responsible they end up dying of despair like the white working class of which we've heard tell, and we don't want that, do we.
Next, the hard part. The People of the Creative Self need to be just and tolerant of the People of the Responsible Self as they demand that the People of the Responsible Self be tolerant of the People of the Subordinate Self. That means they must stop beating up on Christianity, marriage, motherhood, family, manliness, and capitalism. All these things are markers of the responsibility culture and are just what the doctor ordered for People of the Responsible Self and also the People of the Subordinate Self if they want to master life in the city.
Therefore the world's Big Problem is to teach the People of the Creative Self how to abandon their current religious Crusade on the People of the Responsible Self and find a new religion, one that is tolerant of the People of the Responsible Self and does not cruelly draft the People of the Subordinate Self as foot-soldiers in a War Against the People of the Responsible Self.
This is not an easy task, but this is what, I think, people like Jung and Peterson are trying to do. I have just finished Jordan B. Peterson's Maps of Meaning: the Architecture of Belief and I can say that he helps us on the road, but he doesn't get us to the Promised Land.
Suppose we accept that, with the current world we are Beyond Good and Evil. But then what? What Jung is saying is that, for better or worse we are the creatures of our unconscious, both the personal unconscious and the precipitate of the ages in the collective unconscious; therefore we need to incorporate that in the Religion of the Future. What Peterson is saying is that "change" does not come from left-wing activism, but from sacrificial heroes, living dangerously (and creatively) on the border between the known and the unknown, and bringing the unknown into the known by their courageous and humble willingness to explore the unknown, begin to understand it, and bring back its meaning to us. On this view, what the left does today is a travesty of the hero's journey. It assumes that anyone can do activism -- even good little girls that need safe spaces when traumatized by microaggression; it assumes that we already have the answer to the modern question, and that is a fight against oppression and exploitation; it demands that the hero get a grant from the government to carry out his plan.
Very nice. But how do we get there from here? Well I think we need both the work of the Petersons and the counter-offensive of the alt-right. We need to paint a new picture of Heaven in the sky and a develop a religion of creativity that tells its novices that the way ahead is hard and traumatic: no safe spaces and don't forget that many are called but few are chosen. And we need to give the left a stunning blow in the solar-plexus to demoralize it and send it into the mythical underworld from which it can, after a long sojourn in the wilderness, return sadder and wiser with a plan for humanity that can avoid the disasters of the Soviet Union, China, and Venezuela.
No comments:
Post a Comment