# Jordan Peterson



## ambush80 (Aug 27, 2021)

I enjoy listening to Peterson.  I like his take on God.

https://unherd.com/2021/08/does-jor...od_type=3&mc_cid=3b1d23cdc2&mc_eid=7bd4383915


----------



## Danuwoa (Aug 27, 2021)

I’m a Christian who also likes Peterson a lot.  I don’t agree with everything he says but he’s right way more than he’s wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 27, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I’m a Christian who also likes Peterson a lot.  I don’t agree with everything he says but he’s right way more than he’s wrong.



I've bee thinking about this notion of "Acting as if God were real" that Peterson subscribes to. I don't really like his explanation of miracles like the resurrection.  I heard his say something like "If Jesus was a person who was able to perfectly master the balance between order and chaos, I don't know what might have been possible for him to achieve".   I feel like that analysis is a bit lazy.  

What things do you think he gets right and what things does he get wrong?


----------



## Israel (Aug 29, 2021)

ambush80 said:


> I've bee thinking about this notion of "Acting as if God were real" that Peterson subscribes to. I don't really like his explanation of miracles like the resurrection.  I heard his say something like "If Jesus was a person who was able to perfectly master the balance between order and chaos, I don't know what might have been possible for him to achieve".   I feel like that analysis is a bit lazy.
> 
> What things do you think he gets right and what things does he get wrong?


First, you've never been far from my thoughts. Good to see you.
And if I remember correctly, as I think about it often and your years ago previous comment(s) regarding what Peterson had said (in regards to your noting them) it was more along the lines of the "right mix of life and death in himself" that Jesus may have apprehended according to Peterson, or do I remember incorrectly?

But I do think that a "chaos and order" understanding is not far from it _by extrapolation_. Life showing an order and orderliness in being to the extreme consequence of resulting consciousness; death being unable to know or know even...what it shows.

Jesus is quite absolute in regards to life and its ultimate and true manifestation as that particular sort called _eternal life._ I find Him unrelenting in this matter as to what it is in what _could appear explanation_ but is not; being itself rather, the identity of it. Perhaps best and simply stated by Him as that _order of it _found in:



> And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.



Jesus is forever winnowing away at the appearance of life (mere animation) from the, and those matters, that pertain to true life; again, described as eternal and true. It is not a stretch to say that one must "die" to _what appears _(or once did) as the true in order to apprehend the true. In that sense a man understands change being wrought in himself from what was in _once understanding_ to what (as he would describe) is of better understanding. A dying to a once held ignorance in whatever form it takes.

_I have not heard_ Peterson affirm nor confess to (which does not mean he has not) this matter of _the absolute_ as Jesus states. But faith holds a mystery in its working of trail and trials that is assigned to each for discovery by an order and orderliness described by, and found in Jesus Christ. First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. A progression of consciousness _in truth. _And again, I would find it remiss to not note that Jesus is unwavering in all His speaking that He alone is the way of this consciousness for the way of man.

His first order of business (so to speak) and His unchanging order of business is to clear the air between man and God (the _only true God_) by His death to, and for, sin. All His speaking, all His teaching while in His body of flesh is to this end which He Himself recognized and confessed in



> Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.



This matter that taints the air withholding clarity is, not only of first order for dealing, but of that order in testimony (God being true in all order and orderliness) of what to this moment I am convinced is the highest (call it truest, most true, essential in nature or by whatever superlative seems appropriate) function or faculty of consciousness...mercy and grace.

It is manifest in its manifold ways but true source remains all and only One. To the very intelligent, as I imagine Peterson is...well, even the very intelligent can be fully persuaded.


----------



## Israel (Aug 30, 2021)

I see the OP has changed.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 1, 2021)

Glad to know you're well, Isreal.


----------



## jollyroger (Sep 2, 2021)

One of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of our time.

I've often heard comparisons (or criticisms) of his views to gnosticism.


----------



## Madman (Sep 2, 2021)

I believe we should act as if God exist, just as I believe we should treat each other as though everyone is armed.


----------



## Israel (Sep 3, 2021)

Act as though God cannot _not exist_, but you can.


Yet even that is puffery.


----------



## 1gr8buildit (Sep 3, 2021)

Watching bits and pieces of this guy. I like listening to him, although I find much to be thought provoking, and wise.... Much is used as it was never intended when referring to bible stories. But hey, he could make a great preacher. That's what most of the "word smith's" do. He is a thinker, and unlike myself, who considers myself a thinker, he can convey a thought very well.

 I would like to point out something though. The word Gnosticism comes up often. He specifically gives a definition of it. However, I consider it to be incorrect. However, as much as I hate to say it. Words evolve. Take Athiest for example. That word used to be attributed to belierers in one God, not multiple gods. We know it is not used this way now. Same with Gnosticism. Imagine how your enemies, or those that might misunderstand you, etc.... or think of politics, how everything gets blamed on the "other side" attributing things to them that may not be legit. The "winners" always write history.... and... as if they were right.

 Early Christianity had a division take place. A witch hunt. Modern Christianity does not acknowledge it, but the NT speaks much to ideas such as, "to whomever has ears"... "or eyes to see"... or the "keys of the kingdom given to", implied not to all. My point is that early Christianity was more of a silent religion. Where "no longer will a man tell his neighbor, know the Lord", etc, was believed. Charismatic preachers were not the norm. Tithes were not collected for home churches. Religion was not as we see religion today. 

The silent belief that God was our teacher, that God would reveal, and the assumption that I should remain silent, and not try to teach anyone, the assumption that if he reveals things to me, he is capable of revealing to others, that I'm not so smart, that I figured out the keys, therefore, he gives the keys.  That he gives those keys to whom he pleases, at his time frame, that my interjection of that would blaspheme the Holy Spirit, would derail his work, by taking elementary  Christians and trying to teach them my version of College level Christianity was more damaging than good, thus harming the little children. The belief that I know things that he has revealed to me, but I with hold them silently, allowing levels of learning to coexist, quietly and peacefully. This was the essence of early Christianity. To "Know" something. Something revealed, something clearly in the NT.  Gnostic means "to know". And the NT supports this, but now is not supported in modern Christianity. It deny's that Christianity was sometimes presented as a secret not obvious to all. But more than that, the assumption, that what I know, or will be given... is not mine to give to another. That's his job, his choice of who, timing, etc. 

So, somehow, this peaceful belief in the church was deemed to have to be eradicated. Thus a witch hunt formed where they tried to flush out everyone whom thought this way. Eventually, as time went on, those not understanding this as being  biblical, eventually went on to accuse every heretical belief that ever arose as being Gnosticism. Every issue the church every faced for a period... they blamed it on those early believers they called Gnostics. Eventually, the word evolved to basically become any heretical belief. But it was not always that way. And it sprung from ignorance and the pride of those who could not stand it that someone might have the arrogance to think that god might have revealed something to them that they were not "in the know of"..... even though they never went around taunting them "i know something you don't know". 

Jesus himself was not a teacher in the sense of selling himself or a gospel. Most of his red lines were parables. Meant to hold secrets.  He said over and over. "All those the Father gives me will come to me". He never had a mindset that his words were going to convert anyone. He was the first Gnostic. And just as the early believers were persecuted and called gnostic within the church, Jesus was persecuted because they did not understand him and were offended by him.


----------



## jollyroger (Sep 4, 2021)

1gr8buildit said:


> Watching bits and pieces of this guy. I like listening to him, although I find much to be thought provoking, and wise.... Much is used as it was never intended when referring to bible stories. But hey, he could make a great preacher. That's what most of the "word smith's" do. He is a thinker, and unlike myself, who considers myself a thinker, he can convey a thought very well.
> 
> I would like to point out something though. The word Gnosticism comes up often. He specifically gives a definition of it. However, I consider it to be incorrect. However, as much as I hate to say it. Words evolve. Take Athiest for example. That word used to be attributed to belierers in one God, not multiple gods. We know it is not used this way now. Same with Gnosticism. Imagine how your enemies, or those that might misunderstand you, etc.... or think of politics, how everything gets blamed on the "other side" attributing things to them that may not be legit. The "winners" always write history.... and... as if they were right.
> 
> ...


Sorry I just now got your message but it appears that you may have already found what you were looking for ?

Good stuff you wrote here.


----------



## Israel (Sep 24, 2021)




----------



## 1gr8buildit (Sep 25, 2021)

I started off a little intrigued by this guy ..... but then... my youtube feed became full of his videos, hundreds from all across the spectrum, from all different topics.... and it turned me off of him. Does he really think he knows everything? Then I pondered his content.... he rambles all over the place, like a drunk with an audience. I don't know how his edititors pick a title. If you watch based on the title, you may never find it within the ramble. The only reason, at first, that I thought I might like him.... is that within his rambling, it was thought provoking. Which now I realize was because of his inability to  stay on a topic, to hold my attention, and left my mind to wonder on the many rabbit trails he opened.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2021)

1gr8buildit said:


> I started off a little intrigued by this guy ..... but then... my youtube feed became full of his videos, hundreds from all across the spectrum, from all different topics.... and it turned me off of him. Does he really think he knows everything? Then I pondered his content.... he rambles all over the place, like a drunk with an audience. I don't know how his edititors pick a title. If you watch based on the title, you may never find it within the ramble. The only reason, at first, that I thought I might like him.... is that within his rambling, it was thought provoking. Which now I realize was because of his inability to  stay on a topic, to hold my attention, and left my mind to wonder on the many rabbit trails he opened.




I think his appeal to those who appreciate him is that he explores ideas in real time.  He's working through his ideas and lets the audience watch the sometimes messy and disjointed process.  He seems to have developed a bit of a schtick around some issues that gets repetitive.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 2, 2021)

He just announced a new tour.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 5, 2021)

atlashunter said:


> He just announced a new tour.



I saw him in Vancouver with Sam Harris.  Once is enough for me.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 9, 2021)

Israel said:


> Act as though God cannot _not exist_, but you can.
> 
> 
> Yet even that is puffery.



Interesting statement for a believer because that seems closer to atheism than theism.  As far as I can tell I haven’t always existed, there are a great number of potential existences that never came to fruition, and I expect my state of existence after life will return to what it was before life. The believer on the other hand cannot stomach that idea and insists their existence will one way or another be eternal. With respect to the gods the believer and non believer are in agreement there are a great many gods that can not exist. The believer just wants to make an exception for the gods that in most cases they were indoctrinated from childhood to believe in. If Zeus can not exist I see no reason the same doesn’t apply to El.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 9, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I’m a Christian who also likes Peterson a lot.  I don’t agree with everything he says but he’s right way more than he’s wrong.



Same here. Even the points of disagreement are food for thought.


----------



## Israel (Dec 10, 2021)

atlashunter said:


> Interesting statement for a believer because that seems closer to atheism than theism.  As far as I can tell I haven’t always existed, there are a great number of potential existences that never came to fruition, and I expect my state of existence after life will return to what it was before life. The believer on the other hand cannot stomach that idea and insists their existence will one way or another be eternal. With respect to the gods the believer and non believer are in agreement there are a great many gods that can not exist. The believer just wants to make an exception for the gods that in most cases they were indoctrinated from childhood to believe in. If Zeus can not exist I see no reason the same doesn’t apply to El.



Yes, I get that to some it may


> seems closer to atheism than theism.



Even some in the past, who would probably describe themselves as theists, have had sufficient conviction that I appear to them in some way "Godless" with enough motive to act upon it.

In the continuing persuasion that my being is derived (totally dependent) I share some with what appears both, perhaps to the atheist described as _only_ the _natural order _of the universe, while to others a something/someone else.

I am far more than intrigued by the things Jesus Christ says very much as though I can find no release from them...nor care to. I am bound to their consideration regardless of whether others find any depth there or not. Or worthiness to explore.

And though to some it may appear a _head game _(as I have little doubt to some it does appear so) I would mention this in the regard to the thing you mention pertaining to



> As far as I can tell I haven’t always existed, there are a great number of potential existences that never came to fruition, and I expect my state of existence after life will return to what it was before life.



Which I infer to speak to this matter. Of being and non-being(?) or something else (?).

I am not sure we need even agree to that particular point (except that it does exist) where a thing changes to _not be that thing _any longer. But do we both agree that for practical purposes (and the purpose of discussion) that to say:



> and I expect my state of existence after life will return to what it was before life.



could have some plain issues of seeming contradiction unless you care to correct me?



> _my state_ of existence


 (Italics mine)

that "my" becomes problematic, doesn't it? Somehow it points to a continuance of ownership. Is it only a conversational issue? Something else? But you are not the only exclusive to this...I suffer the same. I concede to a "not me or my" to existence...even "mine"...but finding that place of clarity also impaired by an inherent resistance.


Jesus said this:

For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.

How can it be that a "man not born" not only could...but would have the better...even the "good"? Is a man "not born" a man...even? Then where does he, can he, exist as such a man in possession of good?

And I understand some seem not captivated. Or declare themselves not so.

Whether it is the how, or the who or some understanding of both that frees from, or better..._frees to_... the _not being _the man born to betray the son of man is become my occupation...where to see him, where to find him, where to know him, as the one who knows good.

A man cannot be betrayed by one he considers an enemy.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 10, 2021)

Israel said:


> that "my" becomes problematic, doesn't it? Somehow it points to a continuance of ownership. Is it only a conversational issue? Something else? But you are not the only exclusive to this...I suffer the same. I concede to a "not me or my" to existence...even "mine"...but finding that place of clarity also impaired by an inherent resistance.



Yeah I think it's a conversational issue. Maybe my wording could be better but hopefully my point wasn't so poorly conveyed that you didn't get it. It's my contention and I could be wrong although I have no basis to think so that not only is it possible for me to not exist but indeed there was a time not so long ago that I did not exist and another time to come when I will not exist. My existence (or the existence of me if you must get hung up on "my") is neither necessary or permanent. A believer at the very least contends their existence always will be. If they believe it always has been then in what sense do they believe they can _not_ exist?




Israel said:


> For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.
> 
> How can it be that a "man not born" not only could...but would have the better...even the "good"? Is a man "not born" a man...even? Then where does he, can he, exist as such a man in possession of good?



Maybe it means no existence would be better than a horrific existence?


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2021)

I think there are many ways to skin a cat and more ways to explain it.

Man is a raider. Man is not a raider.  If man is on the side of the no raiding and happens to get into raiding directly or indirectly and tells himself that " well that's the way life goes, you sometimes get yourself swept up into a raid even if you don't care to so no need to  repent ( change anything). That's life." You are however a betrayer to the no raider clan and their life, doesn't matter how you sugar coat it.

The least or best one can say about such an individual is that, ( at the funeral perhaps) He/she was both hot and cold, cold and hot. She/he identified as (A) but on occasion was (B). And that is ok,  he/she did the best they could. They loved the best they could love and repented the best the could repent. Their lives were not authentic, but who's is?

That's Peterson in a nut case.


----------



## Israel (Dec 12, 2021)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah I think it's a conversational issue. Maybe my wording could be better but hopefully my point wasn't so poorly conveyed that you didn't get it. It's my contention and I could be wrong although I have no basis to think so that not only is it possible for me to not exist but indeed there was a time not so long ago that I did not exist and another time to come when I will not exist. My existence (or the existence of me if you must get hung up on "my") is neither necessary or permanent. A believer at the very least contends their existence always will be. If they believe it always has been then in what sense do they believe they can _not_ exist?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the response and the engagement.

And I do not disagree with your interpretation that it could mean no existence could be better than a horrific existence. And that despite those matters that present themselves if, or once, that understanding is adopted.

Makes me think of several things...including a man like Jonah. I'll suppose you are not unfamiliar with the story...even if not in the particulars...but for all I know you may have the whole of it memorized.

But regardless...it has long been the end of the account that has intrigued/captivated me. Where setting himself in a place he surveys the city to see what will happen with a great anger that God has stayed His hand of judgment. Yet, he enjoys a shaded place to observe, even in his anger.

But when the shade is removed and the blistering winds and hot sun beat down upon his head he was beyond having had enough.



> and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, _It is_ better for me to die than to live.



We could even forgo any consideration (if we care to) that the account shows him in a continuing conversation with his god. Even if we do not agree there is a God to speak to who answers, we might at least agree (that if Jonah is completely sincere in his wish to die)...he has come to that place of unbearable being, _or at least life unbearable._ At least in such understanding (if we agree) that death...wishing for it, hoping for it..._wanting it_...is that deliverance. Would we say he so hates what he knows of life as he sees it...that such knowing of how it can appear...(and does to him) is beyond his ability or desire to continue?

Is this unique to Jonah? Or is there a reason...something about life at times (at least as we see it and experience it) that leaves me no need to explain both this fairly recent saying (in its common popularity) and its meaning...."just shoot me now".

Of course it's most often heard as uttered facetiously...but because it so strikes a chord of knowing (in our understanding) that a downward trend, when embraced _as real_ at some point and seems to only indicate a further heaping of misery in further descent...the best one could do...is opt for an ending of it ASAP.

Strange place to be, even if in all facetiousness...a (to me) plain stating "Life has taught me life is not worth living." It's kinda like (maybe exactly like) "I prefer to not know...what I know".

It's a grand impetus "to know" though, this thing that keeps us in our seats to see the end of the movie...even when we may think we have it figured out...does the author have a twist? Is there something in all my thinking that_ I know_ that is not accounted for? How would I know...how could I know...what I don't know by my accounting?

We talk about biases not infrequently...confirmation bias...the bias to which some attribute another's "faith" by mere atmosphere (you're a christian because you were born in a christian nation...if born in Indonesia...etc) and I am not pressed to dispute that. But what of all the other matters that contribute to biases we rarely consider? White? Male? Black?...female...IQ over 100...under?...generally considered good looking...ugly?...tall, short, parents who provided...parents who were junkies...ate in the last half hour...haven't eaten in a week...have some money...have no money? Things even said to us before we consciously knew of speech? And on and on and on...but it doesn't take much thinking to see how "our" experience of life as "coming to us" in experience...is so filtered through things of which we do not often take into account because we simply consider our normal...as normal...yet we know...

"Pretty girls just seem to find out early how to open doors with just a smile".

Is there something that can be touched that is "life"...or a we all condemned to only know our own...with all filters and distortions (that we consider normal) in place?

Ambush posted an interesting portion of a poem by Yeats recently. Whether he meant it for endorsement or not...or that he only meant a portion for consideration...I really don't know.

But it ended with:

nothing can be sole or whole
that has not been rent.

I see that. There is a necessary reduction...a renting...tearing away...tearing down...to know wholeness. To know. A breaking down to finally irreducible part/parts. There sight is, there understanding is...there...knowing is.

We are well into sub atomic particles now...and theoretical things only hinted at in equations that have necessitated a Hadron collider to verify.
It's all pretty cool this way of investigation and discovery.

But while some of us are pretty sure "why others are the way they are"...we may forget the mystery man in our midst that we think we know...that also has no less a cue ball effect on all he surveys as being in the mix...our own self...living our own life. We ripple and distort the pond no less than all the other things we may sense...rocking our boat.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 12, 2021)

1gr8buildit said:


> Spin off from Israel's post.... In regards to the story of Jonah. I try not to focus on the whale, the storm, the vine, the shade, or anything else in the story that has potential  to allow us to read into it all sorts of things that may or may not be intended. I focus solely on Jonah's attitude of wanting to see judgement. From here we can derive many things.... Jonah had no compassion, Jonah assumed he was not among those requiring grace, etc... However, I intentionally look at the main over riding topic... Jonah was disgusted that these people were not going to pay for their sins. Reminds me of modern day Christianity. I hold the belief that their is no such thing as a he11 for non believers. Christians will fight against this because "they want it". They want their to be a place where they  burn forever.
> 
> He11 is for those believers whom were deceived by the antichrist, whom were already given eternal life. Of them, it is said, better to have never been born. Non believers, the  non chosen,  will simple die and be no more. Whether you believe it or not, this is the book's  context.


Are you suggesting many Christians want a He11 for non-believers as a way of saying "I told you so?" I have heard Christians say stuff like "Well God will take care of him by throwing him in he11" like they are almost wishing it.
I would imagine many Christians may be disappointed if the non-believers or the ones who don't do enough good works aren't thrown in He11. That these others are just gonna die when they die.
 I would think for many everlasting life with God in Heaven would be reward enough but I would agree many will be disgusted if the others don't burn.


----------



## Israel (Dec 12, 2021)

1gr8buildit said:


> Jonah was disgusted that these people were not going to pay for their sins..




I agree.
Yep, to the point of angry enough to die.
Or at least say so to God.

I kinda love that God went so far as to include the cattle.

It would be funny were it not so not funny, the ways we don't know...or don't want to know, how we deny ourselves the very mercy we may think we preach.

But it's always cool to discover...and how God gets a man to discover he's doing that.

The not showing of the mercy we have received and/or claim for ourselves.

"A man once had a great debt to the King he was unable to pay..."


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 30, 2022)

Took the wife to see Peterson in Nashville a few weeks ago. We really enjoyed it. Whatever his imperfections he has to get credit for combating the destruction caused by many of his academic contemporaries.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> Took the wife to see Peterson in Nashville a few weeks ago. We really enjoyed it. Whatever his imperfections he has to get credit for combating the destruction caused by many of his academic contemporaries.



Things overheard in the restroom at a Jordan Peterson event "It's like, you have to follow the preponderance of evidence, Man". 

Ever seen this?

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

He seems to have helped many, many people and no one can point to anything he has done to cause harm.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 30, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Things overheard in the restroom at a Jordan Peterson event "It's like, you have to follow the preponderance of evidence, Man".
> 
> Ever seen this?
> 
> ...



I hadn't. Did you find it persuasive?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2022)

atlashunter said:


> I hadn't. Did you find it persuasive?



No.  Ms. Southey and I don't agree on much of anything, as far as I can tell.  I've seen some Peterson "fan boy" videos that remind me of the scene in Fight Club where the members of Fight Club misunderstand what the protagonist is telling them about the death of one of their comrades.  His analyses often require allot of nuanced and careful consideration in a time when people are looking for a "magic bullet" or a "gotcha", and are often used as fuel to advance regressive ideas.  That's not Peterson's problem.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2022)

Me and my wife read his first book (she read it first).  I like his message for the most part, but as a creative person, I find some of his advice stodgy.


----------



## Israel (Mar 31, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Things overheard in the restroom at a Jordan Peterson event "It's like, you have to follow the preponderance of evidence, Man".
> 
> Ever seen this?
> 
> ...



I took a peek at the article, so correct me if I am wrong for not wading through the whole of it.

I only scanned it once the proposition was advanced that the author found herself uncomfortable with being told to call family friends "Auntie" and was setting this up as a sort of parallel situation. We all seem familiar with the term straw man.

Peterson's stock rose (and he has seemed rather tireless in making this clear) upon the great distinction between an individual making request for some form of social address and the government weighing in by legislating what forms of speech would now be state sanctioned. (Look! He never misses an opportunity to say _state sanctioned_, where "legal" would suffice!)

What he has done with that stock is his business. (Envy is such a weak thing) And who is going to fault him with having more to say than just the issue that catapulted him into the spotlight? And since _he was willing to bear_ some opprobrium for that first issue (and many since) with what I find some thoughtfulness, restraint, and grace why shouldn't he merit a fair hearing on other matters? He seems rather content (one thing I have never found him is shrill) with occupying that place he recommends in general...that the marketplace of ideas will eventually sort out wheat from chaff. No need to legislate nor be heavy handed.

Once we make comment we leave the place of observer and have entered the fray, as much as we may covet to ourselves the notion of pure and uninfluenced judge above it all. And for as many who are (or may be) trying to ride the coattails of some upsurge he seems to have curiously tapped, the naysayers no less, have also hitched their wagon as talking heads in seeking to gather up some crumbs for themselves.

The moment a man says "the sky is blue" in some sort of declaring there will always be those (c'est moi!?) more than willing to present their finer sensibility by saying "I'd say cerulean". And we are all familiar with the notion of cottage industries.

And it's a short trip from popularity to _over exposure _and ennui if things are not kept fresh for the hungry masses always looking for the next big thing or latest champion.

It may not be the most deeply creative author who also keeps claim to a good portion of movie rights, but it may be the more astute...about whom much will be said in envy. As being the less pure of intention and sensibility by the mere commentators.

Critics are a dime a dozen. Bystanders can be had by the gross for less than that.

But the man in the arena? He's the only one giving anyone anything to either watch or talk about.


----------

