Maybe Jordan Peterson Was Right

When people talk to me I tend to look at them in a funny kind of a way. ‘Very good – you are saying the thing’, I tell them. I nod at them encouragingly. I don’t really have a clue what they’re up to to. I never have the correct emotional response. I have eyes on stalks.

 

Maybe we’re not human beings at all but lobsters. Maybe Jordan Peterson was right? Did you ever think of that? Did you ever think of that? We think that we’re all so damn clever don’t we? Don’t you ever get sick of it – meeting people who are apparently so damn clever the whole time? Yapping like fools. Mouthing off out of them the whole time. ‘Just shut up,’ you’d like to say. ‘Please just shut up…’

 

The street is full of lobsters. Your workplace is full of lobsters, snapping at each irritably. Threatening each other with their giant pincers. The dance of the lobsters, that’s what it is. The dance of the lobstrosities. Maybe we’re not human beings at all – did you ever think of that? It’s a common delusion of course. It’s a popular misapprehension. ‘We are human beings,’ we chorus in unison. ‘I’m an actual real person,’ I say, waving my pincers about. ‘I’m going to give someone a pinch, sure as eggs is eggs. You bet I am…

 

Lobsters, lobsters, lobsters – huh? What are you going to do? Where are you going to turn? There’s nowhere to turn so you might as well not bother. There’s a story that we are actually real human beings but you don’t want to be giving that any heed. We are all lobsters with suits on, lobsters in high heels, and that’s the long and the short of it.

 

Have you ever noticed that when we communicate all we do is project limitations? All we do is indirectly assert limitations whilst ingeniously pretending that we are breaking new ground. We pretend that we are ‘reaching out there’; we pretend that we’re probing the universe, seeking to explore its mysteries. A noble endeavour, wouldn’t you say? Let’s all engage in noble ventures. Why not, after all? Why wouldn’t we?

 

We shut everything down whilst claiming to be engaged in open enquiry. The perennial pursuit – closing reality down. Shutting it down, shutting it down. Shut the door on your way out, wouldn’t you? What were you, born in a barn? What are you, some kind of fool? You have to put up with the mockery of your peers then, you see – you have to put up with the unceasing mockery of your highly-respected peers.

 

Maybe we are all frobsters, did you ever think of that? We think we’re so damn clever. We think we’re so damn clever because we invented Superman. Because we invented mouse pads, because we invented hair conditioner. Maybe we are all frobsters, did you wink at that? We think we’re on TV, playing to the gallery, but we’re not. We think we’re live-streaming, deep into the subtleties of ethnographic research, but that’s not true. We’ve become who we were supposedly studying – we’ve gone native, we’ve lost the plot.

 

There is no plot. We think we know where it’s going – we don’t see the twist. The twist is that there is no twist, the twist is that there is no plot, no story-line. There’s just a babble of voices. Always, always, always – just a babble of voices. And the ominous clacking of pincers. You mustn’t forget the ominous clacking of pincers….

 

 

 

 

Art –  Lobstosity, by SylverWynd on deviantart.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 thoughts on “Maybe Jordan Peterson Was Right

  1. shapeofshapes

    “Freedom of Beach!
    What colour lobster are you”?

    So to claims engaged to open enquiry… or closing down reality?

    Have not listened to much of Jordans “musings” however he does seem to have made an interesting distinction as to what freedom of speech is …It seems the stance he takes is that being made to say certain somethings by law is unthinkable however being prevented from saying certain somethings by law is conditional on the subject.

    Freedom of speech is not conditional ! Is it?

    Or is that a silly question… ?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  2. zippypinhead1 Post author

    Freedom of beach very important, yes, yes, yes… I’m a yellow lobster, cringing and cowardly, with low self-esteem!

    I think JP is interesting because of people seem to really take against him – I can’t really see why though. I must admit I have spend a lot of time watching YouTube videos where he is being attacked by various people and what they all seem to do is castigate him on the basis of their misunderstanding of what he said. So then he explains what he really meant (not what they said he meant) and they don’t seem to listen or get it in any way and then – after a pause – they come out with what they originally accused him of all over again, full of righteous indignation! It’s kind of fascinating, really…

    Nothing free can be conditional it’s true. I think all that came out of what there can be laws about, so that there can be a law against speech that inspires hatred of minorities (and that is probably reasonable, although some people would disagree) but you can’t pass a law stipulating what you should say, which is what happened in Canada. In their commendable urge to be supremely politically correct.

    Like

    Reply
  3. shapeofshapes

    Isnt this similar to what a delerium trumper or a Quipster does, except that in this case his “intellect” is more honed?

    These days its easy to give voice to a smart guy as spokesman to determine what philosophical debate is for us, with all the counter intuitive diatribe, they can pit themselves against “celebrity intellects” so that rhetorical banter can be vollied back and forth in the public eye in the pretence that its possible to have an opposing point of view.

    In this climate of almost total unethical policy making “the new wonder boy does well …” Jordan Lobsterson is positively sparkling with cool headed Libertarianism… so what actual difference does it make to anthing? Regurgitating the age old ideas of how to “achieve” in an unfair society all over again… and what are the possibilities now …?
    “Go clean your room”! and write your diary.

    In reference to one of your other nullworld stories…. If you can not call a cat a fishhorse or horse a catfish then does that mean “a cat” is just a cat “a fish” just a fish “a horse” just a horse in all contexts…. ?

    Labels often serve to diminish and divide …The clacking of pincers continues, or is that the sound of knitting ?

    Minimising or maximising language does not change attitude towards something either way it encourages its distortion into something else.

    So if there are more and more determinates on what people are allowed to say or think then its no wonder people become paranoid …it’s the only rational response…

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.