>Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others.
Jordan Peterson has a net worth of 1.5 million USD just spewing bullshit for the masses. He never truly benefited this world or community in any meaningful way. All he does is repeat self-help slogans like an idiot.
Joshua Perez
What about this is so hard to understand?
Christian Gomez
As in, violent moral conflict.
Communism rots ypur brain.
Luis Robinson
so this is the power of uneducated JP sycophant incels
Jonathan Gutierrez
do you ever notice how JP's speech is always as if he's writing some fictional book and is making an attempt of being descriptive? almost as if he's just making his language flagrant to pull in his 90 IQ followers? It's almost.... It's almost like he's just making all this shit up like a schizo.
Evan Bennett
I agree with the semantics, its a fully fleshed version of reality that we all have to experience
Lucas Anderson
OP's text is from Maps of Meaning, a literal book.
Cooper Turner
It’s quite comprehensible. I’m not sure I entirely agree with his final point though.
Luke Williams
Right, it's very intelligible, I just disagree with Jungianism.
Jackson Young
It’s prolix. All he’s saying (at least in the first half, which is all I read) is that when values clash a reorganisation of moral systems occurs, which is just a truism.
Thomas Rivera
i'm not particularly fomd of memerson but man, benzo withdrawal is hell on earth
Christian Hughes
But he's explaining it.
Noah Flores
And what have you done?
Angel Gonzalez
>in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants.
Jaxson Morgan
This makes sense within context. Even just the slightest peek at one of Peterson's lectures will make anyone with an IQ greater than 3 get this paragraph.
Nicholas Lewis
I must agree with everyone. Jordan is full of himself.
Christopher Phillips
that''s a lot of words explaining his cuckold fetish
