Category Archives: Jordan Peterson

Its day 2,346 of staying home, and if youre like me, youve streamed yourself into a coma. I actually watched the John Gotti biopic starring John Travolta the other day, thats how bad its getting (It wasnt as bad as youd think).

If your brain and soul are hungry for something deeper, two surly, foul-mouthed British comedians are here to the rescue. In the most recent episode of his podcast Under the Skin, comedian Russell Brand interviews fellow British comedy luminary Ricky Gervais. I became a fan of Brands podcast after his two amazing conversations with Jordan Peterson, both of which also provide excellent intellectual calisthenics.

The hour-long episode covers everything from Gervaiss love for animals, their narcissism, and the nuances of God, spirituality, and religion. While you may not agree with either, seeing these two exceptionally bright, self-effacing, piss-and-vinegar comedians exchanging barbs and wisdom is just the mental stimulation you need today. Their own search for the truth might even prompt the sort of self-reflection we all could use at this time. Heres a sneak preview.

Brand and Gervais are millionaires many times over and enjoy even greater fame in Britain than in the United States. Still, neither came from wealth or acclaim. Brand was an only child raised by a single mom. Gervais signature edgy humor is inextricably tied to growing up in the working class. Knowing where they stand in society can be tricky.

As Gervais explains, Were court jesters we have to be court jesters. We have to have low status. Were in the mud with all the other peasants, teasing the king. But we have to keep our low status somehow, I think. I feel I want to.

Gervais is the creator of the original The Office series, and Brand talks about feeling sorry for his character, David Brent. The pair both see him as a sad figure, engaged in ever more absurd acts in order to reach a place of acceptance or worth. Compared to our reality TV culture nowadays, this character isnt even absurd anymore.

As Gervais jokes, Big Brother contestants make deals with the producers to get on the show. Let me in there, and Ill start a fight and take my clothes off. It facilitates the emotional destruction of people who just want to be loved and the public eats it up. As Brand puts it, Theres been a glorification of idiocy in culture.

Gervais laments the toll this takes on fame-seekers. This obsession with seeing normal people destroy themselves. These people keep going back to fame and going, Do you love me yet? No, they dont love you, they want you to fail!

Gervais is a well-known atheist. While both men have substantial criticism for organized religion, Brands travels through addiction and mental illness have given him a firm belief in some kind of god and a sense of interconnectedness.

Im a solipsistic, narcissistic person, Brand says. Ive been through the mills of addiction, sex, fame, drugs, money, and all that kind of stuff, and its placed me at a point where Ive had to open myself up to different ideas.

He means this as a challenge to Gervais that while they both have criticisms for organized religion, Brand sees Gervais as having a similar sense of wonder and awe at the universe, the same wonder that prompted Brands spirituality.

Gervais concedes, I seem like a spiritual person, but not literally, which is totally true. I am in as much awe at seeing a tree, or a mountain, or a bird, or a river as anyone who thinks God made it. I see the beauty of nature.

While Brand sympathizes with Gervais distaste for the constraints of organized religion, he explains, Ive gone on sort of the opposite journey, in that I feel like I started off atheistic just in that I would reject any attempt to impose regulation or control on me for the purposes of domination.

But as Ive gone through my own stuff with addiction and mental health or whatever it is, Brand continues, my own sense of despair particularly looking at it from a perspective of mental health issues and addiction is that there is an unaddressed yearning for a kind of oneness, togetherness, and for love.

While Gervais understands that desire for connectedness, he doesnt think desire alone is enough to make it true. It is a terrifying prospect that well never exist again, I think, but it doesnt mean its not true, says Gervais.

The bottom line is I cant believe something I dont believe. So how do I find meaning? Well, we are here. The chances of us being us you being you and me being me, existing now, that sperm hitting that egg is 400 trillion to one. Were not special, but we are lucky. We do exist. Its incredible.

As were looking for ways to occupy our minds in this strange time, this conversation is worth a listen. You may disagree with Brand or Gervais conclusions; I do. The redeeming undercurrent, however, is that both men are seekers of the truth. Their convictions are born of deep consideration, and they are willing to follow them to their natural conclusions, no matter how disappointing or inconvenient. Now might be just the moment we need to consider what we really believe as well.

Caroline D'Agati is a writer, former park ranger, and New Jersey expatriate living in DC. She studied English at Georgetown and media studies at The New School. You can follow her on Twitter at @carodagati.

Originally posted here:

Russell Brand And Ricky Gervais Are Just What Your Brain Needs - The Federalist

The problem here is that one mans stable hierarchy and proud tradition is anothers tyrannical oppression and ideology.

Introduction

Instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Edmund Burke inReflections on the Revolution in France: And on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to that Event

Many have been puzzled by post-modern conservatisms distrust of so-called liberal elites and the appeals these liberal elites make to scientific consensus, academic authority, and other rationalistic tropes. Less appreciated is the fact that this animosity on the part of post-modern conservatives has a longstanding basisfar-right priests of reason and logic notwithstanding. Conservatives have long defended tradition as the stored locus of wisdom and insight, which is only to be deviated from with great caution. This is linked to the longstanding conservative skepticism of reasons power to accurately know what is and what should be. The store of insight available to even the most intelligent personalities is so limited that it would be unwise to put faith in its power. This inclination goes back to Edmund Burke, who castigated the rationalistic philosophes of his day for thinking they could simply recreate the world wholesale from the idle speculations of their pens. For authors such as Burke and Michael Oakeshott, the skepticism towards universal reasonand the over-educated intellectuals who swear by itcan lead to flirtations with the virtues of a politics of faith. At its most extreme, in the work of figures such as Joseph de Maistre and Carl Schmitt (and the counter-Enlightenment movements they cheered on), it can trend towards an outright embrace of irrationalism.

The unusual feature of this embrace of tradition is that it is often very hard to tell what insights conservatives think we should glean from it. This relates to another fundamental feature of the conservative mind, which is that it is driven more by what Russell Kirk called an attitude or disposition that is resistant to the changes put forward by liberals and, especially, the political left. As my friend Nate Hochman put itin National Review ,the path to conservatism begins as a knee-jerk reaction to the contemporary Left: a feeling that its assertionsmustbe wrong, with little understanding of exactly why. This means that many of the defenses conservatives put forward of tradition are rationalizing, rather than rationalistic. Conservatives sense that this or that venerable institution or principle, which is being attacked for its prejudices, serves a valuable function, and they, then, set out to justify its existence. This is quite different from liberals and progressives who hold certain first principles to either be self-evident or required for any society to be called just and, then, seek to steer their own in the correct direction.

The Problem with Rationalizing Tradition

The effort to rationalize tradition is understandable. Logic bros notwithstanding, most conservatives have long understood that people often have deep emotional attachments to their shared ways of life and histories. Critics from Kant through to Benedict Anderson have often pointed out that these attachments are not nearly as natural as many suppose; states spend billions of dollars per year inspiring a sense of fidelity and loyalty to their flags. At some level, we are all intuitively aware of this, as the deepening hostility towards government officials and rhetoric implies. But that has never been sufficient to entirely break the spell of non-rational attachments to collective traditions. Moreover, as other thinkers, such as Jordan Peterson, have pointed out, these attachments reflect an even deeper need on the part of individuals for a sense of order in reality. Human life is filled with tremendous precarity, as well as the ultimate threat of total annihilation, which is tied to our existential finitude. Shared tradition provides a partial barrier against the to-and-fros of the world. And tradition cannot be easily replaced by institutional changesor even effective egalitarian economic reforms to spread wealth more evenly to protect individuals against material destitution.

However, the problems with this position are also easy to note. The first is that since conservatism is a disposition or attitude rather than a rational outlook, it will often be forced to play a reactive and defensive role against its opponents. Liberals and progressives will make a case against some institution or principle conservatives cherish, and their opponents will have to respond by building a case for it. This, often, gives conservative intellectualism a frenetic quality, with its advocates raising to a pastiche or even self-contradicting bricolage of principles, data, and even crude appeals to faith. The efforts by fusionists to reconcile an unbridled support for capitalism and freedom with support for social conservatism and religion (when the hedonism and permissiveness of the former will always undermine the latter) are representative. It also means that conservatives are always at a disadvantage. Since liberals and progressives are always on the offense, they need only win a battle once to typically triumph in perpetuity.

Conservatives must always succeed or resign themselves to the institutions and principles being cherished joining others on the ash heap of history. While it is untrue that history moves in one directionand that there cannot be successful counter-revolutionsthe inexorable entropy of existence inclines to change, rather than permanence. Finally, conservative rationalizations often fall into the performative contradictions, which inevitably tar any efforts to reject reasons authority. To demonstrate the limits of reason to challenge hierarchy, conservative intellectuals must inevitably raise rationalizing objectionsor fall into mere dogmatic assertions of fidelity. But if they do this, they also concede that there are ways to assess the value of a tradition; if the tradition is found wanting, there may be a powerful basis for abandoning it. The mere assertion this is the way we have always done things is no argument for its efficacy. People clung desperately to the idea that the sun revolved around the earth, that there were natural slaves, and that God apparently granted a divine right to rule to even the most incompetent monarchs. This brings me to a more crucial point.

Conclusion

More damning is that the conservative disposition can become so attached to order that it comes to support even the most unjust or evil hierarchies, if they provide the only defense against liberal and progressive change. Roger Scruton even acknowledged as such when he pointed out that conservatives will be far more willing to tolerate levels of injustice that are known and acceptable, rather than take their chances with the fickle promises of reform. The problem here is that one mans stable hierarchy and proud tradition is anothers tyrannical oppression and ideology. When the American Founding Fathers mused on the evils of slavery but conceded that changing it would bring too much disruption, they committed a banal act of moral indifference. The rot of this choice corrodes the United States to this day. Joseph de Maistre lambasted the violence of the French Revolution, while nodding approvingly at the possibility of millions of people being killed as divine punishment for beheading their monarch. J.S Mills calls for women to be granted the right to vote and to enjoy status beyond being property of their husbands were lampooned as unnatural (perhaps a reason he infamously claimed Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives). Ironically, this point was well-described by F.A Hayek, the libertarian economist in his essay Why I am Not A Conservative:

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior peoplehe is not an egalitarianbut he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

There is nothing wrong with tradition in and of itself. It is often a source of meaning and stability for individuals in a strange and chaotic world. However, there is also nothing inherently good about it either: whether one means inherited wisdom, or providential arrangements of hierarchy to the benefit of all. A mere attitude fearful of change and rationalizing justifications to avoid it is no basis for preventing important reforms that need to happen.

Matt McManus is Professor of Politics and International Relations at Tec de Monterrey, and the author of Making Human Dignity Central to International Human Rights Law and The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism. His new projects include co-authoring a critical monograph on Jordan Peterson and a book on liberal rights for Palgrave MacMillan. Matt can be reached atmattmcmanus300@gmail.comor added on twitter vie@mattpolprof

Follow this link:

The Problem with Edmund Burke and Defenders of Tradition - Merion West

The New England Patriots spent their first three picks in the 2020 NFL Draft on the defensive side of the ball. They notably nabbed Division II safety Kyle Dugger with their first pick in the draft at No. 37 overall, but they made another second-round pick as well.

With only a handful of picks left in Round 2, the Patriots traded up to select Michigan edge rusher Josh Uche. The hybrid linebacker/defensive end should have a chance to make an impact on the team's defense right away and will join 2019 third-round pick Chase Winovich, another Michigan man, on the edge.

Download the MyTeams appfor the latest Patriots news and analysis

It wasn't a surprise to see the Patriots move up in the draft. After all, they had an overage of picks on Days 2 and 3 of the 2020 NFL Draft. Butthere was a specific reason that the teamultimately decided to move up to the 60th pick tograb Uche,according to Andrew Callahan ofThe Boston Herald.

According to a league source, had the Patriots failed to trade up for Uche, he would have been taken by one of the teams that owned the next three picks after 60th overall; the Titans, Packers or Chiefs. Instead, late in the second round, the Pats shipped the 71st and 89th picks to Baltimore in exchange for No. 60 and a fourth-rounder.

That certainly explains why the Patriots felt the need to move up 11 spots. All of the three teams mentioned would've made sense as landing spots for Uche.

The Titans have a need for a potential long-term starter at rush linebacker across from former Boston College product Harold Landry. They signed Vic Beasley this offseason, but he has regressed since a 15.5-sack All-Pro campaign in 2016.

As for the Chiefs, Andy Reid loves to bolster the trenches and they still need a replacement for Justin Houstonwho was cut last offseason. The Chiefs have former Michigan pass rusher Frank Clark as their big name on the edge and spent a fifth-round pick on another Michigan edge player, Michael Danna. So, it stands to reason that they could've targeted Uche in the second round had he been available.

And finally, the Packers could've made sense for Uche as well. Preston and Za'Darius Smith are two solid starters, but the team doesn't have a lot of quality depth behind them after the departure of Kyler Fackrell in free agency. They spent a first-round pick in 2019 on Michigan's Rashan Gary -- another edge player --so maybe they got a good look at Uche while scouting Gary and liked what they saw.

Listen and subscribe to Phil Perry's Next Pats Podcast:

Either way, the point is moot since the Patriots traded up to get Uche. And from the description of Uche provided by his former defensive coordinator at Michigan, Don Brown, it sounds like he'll fit in very well with the Patriots.

"Hes a football junkie. He wanted to know everything he could possibly know," Brown said, per Callahan. "Our strength coach did a really good job developing his hand quickness, and really, I thought was instrumental in helping us out. But Josh, hell do exactly what you tell him to do and you know, some pass rushers they think they can win it all. Hell do exactly what hes supposed to do."

So basically, Uche is athletic, absorbs a lot of information,and likes to do his job. Maybe that's why Bill Belichick fell in love with him and felt comfortable moving up to acquire his services.

During his final season at Michigan, Uche logged 33 tackles and 7.5 sacks for the Wolverines. The Patriots will hope that he can make an immediate impact as a pass rusher in a rotational capacity, much like Winovich did as a rookie in 2019 (26 tackles, 5.5 sacks).

Excerpt from:

Why are the Pats suddenly betting favorites to land Cam Newton? - NBCSports.com

Dave Rubin, the YouTube talk show host with over a million subscribers, an audience that rivals many cable news shows, is probably best known as the "Why I Left the Left" guy.

That was the title of a video he did for the conservative site PragerU, which has been viewed more than 13 million times on YouTube and which Rubin says was the original title of his new debut book, since renamed "Don't Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in an Age of Unreason."

Now a self-described "freethinking classical liberal" or "old-school liberal," he's become the right's favorite ex-leftist, an identity he uses to warn right-leaning audiences that the left will come to destroy all the freedoms they hold dear. He knows, he says, because he was one of them.

His publisher writes that "in a time of madness" the book will give "you the tools you need to think for yourself."

A representative passage reads: "I want you to walk into a bar and order a full-bodied opinion. I want you to get absolutely wasted on facts until 3:00am, and then, when you're just about ready to pass out, I want you to get another glass of reality and chug it."

With that level of humor and sophistication, "Don't Burn This Book" seems to signal that there's nowhere for Rubin to go from here, because for all his relentless use of the word "ideas," he doesn't appear to have many.

In the book, Rubin proudly repeats a story he's told many times before, about how he changed his entire worldview on racism after it was clear he was hopelessly unprepared for an interview with a black conservative radio host. He calls it "the best and worst moment" of his career.

Rubin, a former comedian, was only a few months removed from hosting his eponymous show for the progressive The Young Turks online network. He described the original version of the show as "a comedy panel talk showlike 'The View' meets 'SportsCenter.'" For a political network, the show wasn't particularly political.

Now hosting a new iteration of his show featuring long-form interviews with iconoclastic guests, in 2016 Rubin interviewed Larry Elder, a veteran conservative talk radio pugilist.

Elder challenged Rubin's use of the phrase "systemic racism" by rattling off a series of contextless statistics about black-on-black crime and anecdotes about misreported incidents of police brutality.

Rubin, visibly flummoxed, folded.

Elder in just a few minutes had completely changed Rubin's thinking about racism in America, namely that he now believes there basically is none, except that which comes from the woke left.

But Rubin's newfound "freethinking" would not include challenging his new viewpoints by, for instance, hosting a Black Lives Matter activist or an expert on police brutality to express ideas that ran counter to Elder's.

His mind had been changed, and no further discussion favorable to those bad "regressive" ideas he once held was necessary.

Through interviews on his show, Rubin linked up with the "Intellectual Dark Web," a loosely affiliated group of online personalities generally bound together by a mutual loathing of left-wing censorship and "woke" identity politics. Then, as Jordan Peterson's hype man on an international tour, he was able to reach a massive audience of mostly young people.

Now he's a regular on various Fox News shows, and his YouTube show is re-broadcast on Glenn Beck's The Blaze network. He also does regular paid appearances with Turning Point USA, the pro-Trump student group with close ties to the administration.

Though he's very careful to never fully endorse President Donald Trump, he won't articulate any meaningful criticism of him. In fact, Rubin recently gushed about briefly meeting President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago and hosted the president's son, Don Jr., for a backslapping appearance on his show.

Rubin's interviewing style is to rely on "civility," which in practice serves as a platform for the guest to present their arguments unchallenged. But that idea seems to apply only for one side.

In a 2019 interview with then-Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson, Rubin scolded her for making what he called "a "slippery slope" argument in comparing the Holocaust to slavery.

Guests like far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos (who said Jews control the banks and media), Stefan Molyneux (who said blacks have smaller brains than whites), and Lauren Southern (who defended Richard Spencer's "white nationalism" as distinct from "white supremacism" and whom Rubin later called "fearless") were met with no pushback at all when making egregious statements on "The Rubin Report."

If you're at all familiar with Rubin's show or Twitter feed, "Don't Burn This Book" is unlikely to contain any surprises. Despite its provocative title, it's hard to imagine anyone being so angered by a book loaded with the same milquetoast arguments that he's been hammering for years.

He again posits that "classical liberalism" essentially libertarianism in US political terms is the true form of "liberalism," which he says has been bastardized by progressives or anyone affiliated with the Democratic Party.

In a chapter titled, "Learn How to Spot Fake News," he again refers to non-right-wing news outlets as being hopelessly inundated with left-wing "activists" and repeatedly puts the word "journalists" in scare quotes. True to form, he levels no criticism whatsoever for institutional bias or even the occasional inaccuracy at right-leaning outlets like Fox News.

Though he says he hates identity politics, Rubin never misses an opportunity to remind the reader that he's a married gay man as evidence of his "liberal" bona fides.

Rubin touts his paid appearances at conservative events as proof of their open-mindedness and tolerance, especially compared to the rigidly dogmatic left.

And even when presented with an easy lay-up of an opportunity to take issue with Trump, he demurs. Writing about Trump's border wall, something generally opposed by libertarians, Rubin refuses to take a stand, literally writing that he's not advocating for it but also doesn't oppose it. He adds with comedic flourish, "you could say I'm sitting on the fence waka! waka!"

He makes gobsmackingly reductive arguments. Among them, the Nazis were actually of the left because the word "socialist" is in the National Socialist Party name and Hitler was an "art-loving vegetarian." He argues that the disastrous and immoral US military intervention into Vietnam was good because "our contribution secured much-needed freedoms."

Rubin the "old-school liberal" even deploys the old Republican saw about the "Democrat Party" being the party of slavery 160 years ago, as if neither party had undergone substantial philosophical and demographic shifts in the century-and-a-half since.

"Don't Burn This Book" contains one of Rubin's most oft-repeated lines about discussing "ideas, not people." The point, if I surmise correctly, is that one should not attack one's opponent with ad hominems, but engage their ideas.

He rarely lives up to this stated principle, or any of them.

His Twitter feed is loaded with name-calling and personal attacks on his political adversaries and the "mainstream media." Rubin saves particular venom for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who he has called "an extraordinary idiot" and "a genuinely terrible person," and outlets like Vox, The Daily Beast, and HuffPost, which he refers to as "Pox," "The Daily Barf," and "HuffPoop."

Relatedly, he's a self-described "free speech absolutist" who like Trump supports "mass lawsuits" against media organizations for libel. His book contains not even a passing mention of the many government-imposed conservative assaults on free speech.

He hates identity politics and the left, but presents himself as the "gay liberal" when flattering conservative audiences. He's the former progressive and comic who now makes jokes about "HuffPoop." He's a brave freethinker, who keeps himself hermetically-sealed from potentially contentious interviews and debates.

And he's branded himself as a paragon of "civility," despite not being particularly civil to people with ideas that offend him.

Dave Rubin has one tune to play: "Why I Left the Left." Given the opportunity to explore new ideas across more than 200 pages, it's clear he hasn't learned any new chords.

If you never criticize Trump or the right, but relentlessly shriek about "mainstream media," the "Democrat Party," and "social justice warriors" as threats to Western civilization, it's hard to convincingly make the case that you're not just a basic tribalist conservative media personality.

There's only so long you can trade on a former political identity as the main credential for a new one, without offering any new ideas.

The rest is here:

Dave Rubin is out of ideas - Business Insider - Business Insider

Michael Jordan and Buzz Peterson played together all three years His Airness worked his magic at the University of North Carolina.

He also won North Carolina high school basketball player of the year over Michael Jordan before they each joined Dean Smiths squad. Now he works for his as assistant general manager for the Charlotte Hornets. So one could say that Peterson has seen it all when it comes to Michael Jordan. Or at least considerably more than most.

With ESPNs The Last Dance taking over the dormant world of sports, Roderick Boone of The Athletic spoke with Peterson about his days playing with the GOAT in Chapel Hill.

He says that anytime someone brings up his winning player of the year over Jordan, Michael replies, Yeah, Buzz got that award because in North Carolina there are seven major newspapers and his dad owned six of them. So thats how he got the award.

Little did he know that Jordan would go on to become one of the most dominant players in college basketball.

at first, the success he was having, it was tough, Peterson recalled. Personally, it was very hard for me, and at the time it was like, OK, this guy, hes really good, Buzz. Hes really good. For you to beat him out, its going to be really difficult. Hes just very gifted. But you can still be one of the guys to play out there with him. And so once I made my mind up and just to see him the unique thing was how he got better each year at Carolina from freshman to sophomore, sophomore to junior, how his game got better and better.

Embed from Getty Images

Peterson also recounted how Jordan would more than hold his own over the summer between his freshman and sophomore year going up against North Carolina legends like James Worthy, Walter Davis, and Al Wood.

However, there was one former Tar Heel that Peterson claims actually scared Jordan.

There is one guy that I always thought, and I know to this day I dont know if Michael wont admit or not, but I swear that he had a little bit of fear of and it wasnt a basketball player. It was a football player by the name of Lawrence Taylor. LT, phenomenal athlete. Could guard east to west, as quick as anybody, could jump, big hands, strong and was a bit crazy. So Michael in the back of his mind said, Sh-t, I better be careful with this guy. And LT always wanted to guard him.

He also remembered that during his four years at North Carolina he roomed with Michael Jordan for two years and Brad Daugherty for two years.

Ill never forget, I remember seeing something in Sporting News one time, said Peterson. They said, If you want to pick the right roommate, call Peterson because he chooses the right millionaires to be roommates with.'

Read this article:

There Was Only One Player Michael Jordan Feared Playing, According To Former Teammate At UNC - BroBible

Shares of Graco Inc. (GGG) are down about 15%, and this has put this dividend aristocrat on my radar. I thought Id look in on the shares to see if theyre worth buying at the moment. Ill answer this question by reviewing the financial history here, and by looking at the stock itself. For those who have missed the title of this article, and have skipped the bullet points above, Ill jump to the point: this is a great company, and the dividend is safe in my view, but the shares are overpriced. Just because I dont think theres value at current prices doesnt mean that I think theres no value here, obviously. Thankfully, the options market presents investors with the opportunity to generate cash by agreeing to buy this great company at a great price.

The financial performance over the past few years has been impressive in some ways. For instance, sales have grown at a CAGR of about 5% since 2015. In spite of that, though, net income was basically the same in 2019 as it was in 2015. On the other hand, cash from operations has exploded, having grown at a CAGR of ~17%. For their part, management has spent about $484 million on share buybacks over the past five years. In addition, theyve returned just over $418.6 million to owners in the form of ever-growing dividend payments. This has caused those dividends per share to grow at a CAGR of about 10% over the past five years. In my view, the future of the dividend here is of critical importance, and Ill spend the rest of my words trying to work out how sustainable (or not) the dividend actually is.

After looking at it, I think the dividend is sustainable here for a number of reasons. First, the companys traditional payout ratio (i.e. dividends divided by EPS) is quite low, and dividends relative to cash from operations per share is even lower. Second, the company has cash on hand of ~$220.9 million, which is greater than the estimated outflows over the next three years, per the table below. In addition, the company generated ~$418 million from operations over the past year.

Finally, as of December 27, 2019, the company had unused credit lines of ~$546 million. Investors who are either interested in reading more about the debt picture here, or are suffering insomnia, are advised to check out pages 44-45 of the latest 10-K for a more full discussion of debt here. Ive done that work and have concluded that debt will not crowd out dividend payments. In sum, comparing the sources of cash to the obligations laid out in the table below suggests to me that the dividend is reasonably safe here.

Source: Latest 10-K, author compilation

Source: Company filings

Nothing Ive ever written or said will be as well known or impactful as something like the (alarmingly authoritarian sounding) phrase ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country or Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall brought to the world by Raegans great speechwriter, Peter Robinson. Ill never match those or countless other famous turns of phrase that offer interesting insights into the human condition or the politics of a particular time period. What I lack in insight, though, I make up for in repetitiveness. My small circle of friends and associates know me for repeating one phrase: The more you pay for something, the lower will be your subsequent returns.

Although my phrase lacks the depth and timeliness of something like we have nothing to fear but fear itself, it does stick with people because I bludgeon the listener with near-constant repetition. The result is that whenever I pull out this truism in conversation, phrases like drone on and yeah, we know and shut up about it, already soon follow. Its an almost liturgic call and response between my friends and I. Id like to take the opportunity to welcome you, dear reader, to this now virtual community.

In case its not obvious, the point of the phrase is that price paid is the single largest determinant of the returns the investor will enjoy over time. If a company can produce a stream of future cash flows discounted to a value of X, paying more than X will lead to terrible returns, and paying less than X will lead to great returns. For that reason, I think investors need to obsess about not overpaying for a given companys future cash flows.

I judge the risk of overpayment in a few ways. Most simply, I look at the ratio of price to some measure of economic value. If the company is trading at a low price relative to its own history and to the overall market, thats a good sign in my view. On that basis, Graco is hardly cheap, per the following chart.

Interestingly, the valuation has held up relatively well here. In fact, the shares are priced at approximately the same level as they were over the past three years. This is troublesome in my estimation. In addition, I think a PE of 23 times is objectively too expensive for most companies. For that reason, I cant recommend the shares at current levels.

Data by YCharts

Source: YCharts

In addition to looking at the simple ratio of price to economic value, I want to understand what the market is assuming about the long-term growth rate of the underlying company. The more optimistic the market, the more risky the stock. In order to work out what price is telling us about future expectations, I turn to the methodology outlined by Professor Stephen Penman in his book Accounting for Value. In this book, Penman walks an investor through how they can isolate the g (growth) variable in a standard finance formula to work out what the market must be assuming about long-term growth. Applying this methodology to Graco suggests that the market is assuming a growth rate of about 7% for this company. Thats massively optimistic in my view, and is another reason I cant recommend buying the shares at these levels.

Because I dont think theres value at current prices doesnt mean I think theres no value here. I think shares of Graco Inc. are trading above the rate of their discounted future cash flows. That said, I would be willing to buy if shares traded in the mid-30s. This presents me with what I consider to be a fairly easy choice. I can wait for shares to drop in price from here. The problem with this approach is that its deadly dull and the shares may never actually drop to a level that I consider appropriate. Alternatively, I can sell put options, on which I make money by selling to people the right to sell me this company at a price I want to pay for it.

Given that Id be comfortable buying in the mid-30s, my preferred options at the moment are the November puts with a strike price of $35. These are currently bid-asked at $1.40-$3.50. If the investor takes the bid on these puts, and is subsequently exercised, theyll be obliged to buy at a net price about 27% below the current level. Holding all else constant, this corresponds to a PE of about 20, and a dividend yield of about 2%. For my part, Id be happy to own these shares at this level.

Investing, like life in general, involves making choices among a host of imperfect trade-offs. Not to name drop, but when I was interviewing him in his Kitchen, Jordan Peterson reminded me that theres no risk-free option. Theres risk a, and theres risk b. We do our best to navigate the world by exchanging one pair of risk-reward trade-offs for another. For example, holding cash presents the risk of erosion of purchasing power via inflation and the reward of preserving capital at times of extreme volatility. The risk-reward trade-off of buying shares should be pretty self-evident in early 2020. For those who are just emerging from their hibernation, I'd suggest the risk-reward trade-off for stock ownership involves the potential for capital loss weighed against the potential for capital gain.

Put options are no different in this regard. I've described the reward potential of these often, so I'll spend the rest of this section talking about their risks. I think the risks of put options are very similar to those associated with a long stock position. If the shares drop in price, the stockholder loses money and the short put writer may be obliged to buy the stock. Thus, both long stock and short put investors typically want to see higher stock prices.

Puts are distinct from stocks in that some put writers don't want to actually buy the stock; they simply want to collect premia. Such investors care more about maximizing their income, and will therefore be less discriminating about which stock they sell puts on. These people don't want to own the underlying security. For my part, I'll only ever write puts on companies that I'd be happy to own, at strike prices that represent good entry points for me. For that reason, being exercised isn't the trauma for me that is for many other put writers.

In my view, put writers take on risk, but they take on less risk (sometimes significantly less risk) than stock buyers in a critical way. Short put writers generate income simply for taking on the obligation to buy a business that they like at a price that they find attractive. This circumstance is objectively better than simply taking the prevailing market price. This is why I consider the risks of selling puts on a given day to be far lower than the risks associated with simply buying the stock on that day.

Since I've never passed up the opportunity to belabour a point, allow me to drill this into your head even further using Graco as an example. The investor can choose to buy the shares today at a price of ~$45.00. Alternatively, they can generate a credit for their accounts by selling put options that oblige them - under the worst possible circumstance - to buy the shares at a net price 27% below today's level. In my view, that is the definition of lower risk.

Although I think Graco Inc. is a fine company with a great dividend history. More importantly, I think that dividend is safe at the moment, and I think that will go a long way toward supporting share price. The problem is that most of that good news is already priced in. I dont have a problem with the company, and would be happy to own it at the right price. In my view, the problem is that the price is not right at the moment, and investors who buy at current levels face more downside than upside. Thankfully, its possible to generate some money by selling put options at the moment. If the shares remain overpriced, the investor simply pockets the premia, and thats never a hardship. If the shares fall in price, the investor will be obliged to buy a great company at a very good price.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: I will be selling 10 of the puts mentioned in this article.

View post:

The Shares Of Graco Are Still Overpriced - Seeking Alpha

LAWRENCE, Kan. Chris Harris Jr., was named to the National Football Leagues All-Decade Team on Monday, representing the top-players in professional football from 2010-19.

Harris, who was a member of the Jayhawks from 2007-10, was selected to the All-Decade team as a defensive back, joining Tyrann Mathieu as one of two defensive backs selected. Harris earned four Pro Bowl appearances and one first-team All-Pro nod during his nine years as a Denver Bronco and was also a Super Bowl Champion with the Denver Broncos in 2015.

In his nine seasons , Harris has started 121 of 139 games with the Broncos, compiling 20 interceptions, 518 tackles and four touchdowns in his career. On October 13, 2019, Harris recorded his 20th career interception against the Tennessee Titans, making him just the 12th Bronco in franchise history to record 20+ career interceptions.

As a Jayhawk, Harris was selected as the Big 12 Defensive Newcomer of the Year by the Associated Press in 2007, while earning Freshman All-America Honorable Mention by The Sporting News. Harris was a part of two Bowl victories as a Jayhawk, including the 2008 Orange Bowl and 2008 Insight Bowl.

Now entering his 10th season in the NFL, Harris will do so with the Los Angeles Chargers, after signing a 2-year contract on March 18.

More here:

Chris Harris Jr., Named to NFL's All-Decade Team - Kansas Jayhawks

Notably, during these times of self-isolation, it should be a near-requirement to use our time to delve into certain subjects.

It is my experience that it is rather more difficult to recapture directness and simplicity than to advance in the direction of ever more sophistication and complexity. Any third-rate engineer or researcher can increase complexity; but it takes a certain flair of real insight to make things simple again. And this insight does not come easily to people who have allowed themselves to become alienated from real, productive work and from the self-balancing system of nature, which never fails to recognise measure and limitation. E. F. Schumacher in Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered

Immanuel Kants eminent 1784 essay Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment? begins with an introduction of the Enlightenments motto: Have the courage to use your understanding. Many recent intellectuals, such as Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins, have advocated for bringing back the Enlightenments values in an era supposedly lacking in the courage to use [our] understanding. Whether we actually live in an era lacking this courage is debatable. It, nevertheless, is not harmful to evaluate the degree to which we, as a society, currently choose to exert ourselves and engage with difficult ideas. Notably, during these times of self-isolation, it should be a near-requirement to use our time to delve into certain subjects. Unfortunately, compared to the contagiousness of the Coronavirus, the fun of engaging with certain challenging ideas is much less communicable.

In what follows, I will try to make the case that immersing ourselves in complex ideas is anything but natural to us. In addition, several internal and external influences often seek to suppress actual engagement with complexities. (I define complexities as ideas, subjects, concepts and theories with a higher than average difficulty and that are mostly discussed in non-fiction literature.) However, I will argue for engagement. This is in contrast to those, who seek to stifle engagement, often for political purposes. As such, certain populist politicians, including in my home country of the Netherlands, have sought to capitalize on the difficulty that some people have when it comes to engaging with complexities for their political gain.

One important method to gather information about complexities is the technique you are using right now: reading. Reading (for pleasure) about a complex subject is, as Jordan Peterson rightly noted, a speciality market. Some might be inclined to see the similarities with school work, which might induce less than stellar memories of being forced to read complicated books. Yet, I disagree with Petersons unconcern regarding the decline in the number of people who read for pleasureand in the amount of time they spend reading. As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2018, the average American spent just over 15 minutes a day reading for pleasure. According to the BLS, this number has been steadily declining for the last two decades; it was 23 minutes per day in 2004, for example. The rise of audiobooks, podcasts and Youtube videos seems to Peterson to be the second-best approach for gathering knowledge, following reading.

The beneficial element of engaging with ideas though these digital mediums cannot be disputed; for this reason, I wont attempt to either. What can be disputed, however, is whether these means have the potential to substitute for the decline in reading consumption. However, there is some evidence to support the large demand for both audiobooks and podcasts. The same goes for the ability to comprehend ideas via listening, instead of reading. Education professor Beth Rogowsky studied this issue with her colleagues in 2016. To begin with, Rogowsky and colleagues assigned each of the 91 participants a group their own technique to absorb a non-fiction text (reading, listening, or both). Rogowsky and her colleagues could subsequently compare the effectiveness of these techniques by handing out identical tests that measured both their retention and comprehensibility. Surprisingly to me and Rogowsky herselfthe findings concluded that there were no significant differences in retention or comprehensibility, depending on whether the text was read or listened to. Case closed, you might say.

Despite this evidence, Im still skeptical. Not about the degree to which people interact with informationbut rather about the degree to which people interact with difficult information. We are well-aware that scientific complexities (and the engagement with these ideas) are not for everyone. Arguably, we should not judge people by the degree to which one engages with these complexities. There are numerous factors that come into play when assessing the likelihood of engagement (many which are not in the power of the individual to control or alter in any way). As a 2016 Pew research found, the people who are less likely to have consumed a book (audio, digital or printed) in the last twelve months tend to be to be less educated (high school diploma or less), live in a rural area, be non-white or non-Asian, have a relatively low income (less than $30,000 annual), and be an adult male. Findings show that 27% of American adults have not touched a book in the last year.

As such, what seems to be unclear to some, who neglect reading, is the actual benefit of engaging with complexities. Perhaps some perceive such exercises as a chorenot leisure. When we measure what economists call opportunity costs, most of us (not frequent readers of journals like Merion West, however) put engaging with complex subjects on the chore side of the equation. Keep in mind, this is, of course, subjective. Many also find issue with this activity because of its direct compensation, which is mostly non-existent. Compared to actual labor, we do not obtain any (relatively) short-term monetary reward by, for instance, reading an article or listening to a podcast. Yet, there is an opportunity cost, of course, and, unfortunately, many nowadays prefer not to pay this price.

The lack of observable benefits makes engaging with complexities, at best, evidently undesirable. Yet, we observe complexity all around us. And because of its large continuing availability, it could be said that we are born to be scientific. However, Steven Pinker asserts in his book How the Mind Works that natural selection did not shape us to earn good grades in science class or to publish in refereed journals. The involvement with complexities is not included in mother natures list of qualifications, unless it actually shapes us to master the local environment. Besides that, Pinker describes how science is a costly (and enduring) endeavor. Thus, [f]or the provincial interest of a single individual or even a small band, Pinker argues, good science isnt worth the trouble.

Instead, our (nearly) second nature, according to Kant, lies in our nonage: the inability to use ones understanding without anothers guidance. This means that we would rather rely on other people telling us what information is important, as opposed to constructing our own narrative by immersing ourselves with complexities.

If this is the case, holding onto the scientific attitude might be as difficult as Kant described. Consequently, we will have people who mock science. In Enlightenment Now, Pinker talks about how science, which consists of many complexities, is increasingly and beneficially embedded in our material, moral and intellectual lives. However, many of our cultural institutions cultivate a philistine indifference to science that shades into contempt. The distaste for the scientific complexities is not solely derived from cultural institutions.

Presently, there are numerous politicians or journalists who take part in fostering or furthering this contemptuous stance towards science itself. They, furthermore, make use of our dependence on the information they provide us by being well aware that most of us will not do the work for ourselves. This lack of engagement gives room to transmit any information with the minimum amount of disbelief. In other words, the largest share of society would not have done the research to invalidate (or be skeptical about) the claims these politicians or journalists are making. One of these individuals fostering a mistrust of science is a Dutch, right-wing populist by the name of Thierry Baudet. He is the chairman of the party Forum for Democracy. During the last four years, Baudets party has increasingly been receiving a larger chunk of the voters of Dutch citizens. Last year, Baudets party received just over 17% (more than any other party) of the overall votes during the provincial state election. When we observe the traits of this partys average supporter, we identify similar traits that Ive mentioned when discussing the rates of people who are less likely to read books. That is, they are predominantly male and less likely to be highly educated. (It should be noted that the Dutch left-populist party, besides having predominantly female supporters, has almost identical statistics). Nevertheless, Baudet is well-aware of the socio-economic features of his supporters and uses this advantage to inform his supporters about his views on climate change, the dangers of the media, but, most of all, he emphasizes the decline of Dutch identity currently accelerating in the country.

Baudet often refers to Roger Scrutons meaning of oikophobiathe felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ours as a way to characterize (for him) the hellish nature of the European Union. He applies this also to modern art and multiculturalism. By the means of his party, Baudet tries to restructure the Dutch identity back to the Golden Age. Pinker explains how these figures see problems not as challenges that are inevitable in an indifferent universe but as the malevolent designs of insidious [in Baudets case] foreigners. Forum for Democracyand parties like itnot only diminish the tremendous amount of progress we have made as a nation; they additionally ridicule scientists and the complexities they engage with. Likewise, Baudet spreads lies to seemingly denigrate his own country. In a May, 2019 essay in American Affairs, Baudet discusses how in the Netherlands suicide is facilitated to ensure that here, too, no constraintssuch as the duty to care for your parentsare placed on the individual. With much confidence, I can tell you that we, in the Netherlands, do not let our parents kill themselves to relieve us of our responsibilities. The word Baudet should have used is euthanasia, not suicide.

All and all, populist politicians seem to make use out of the nonage of men and women. They set themselves up as intelligent, competent leaders. But, instead of encouraging intellectual freedom, populism is occupying itself with scorning, as Pinker puts it, the rule-governed institutions and constitutional checks that constrain the power of flawed human actors.

Weve already settled on the idea that engagement with complexities has been (almost by definition) a minority occupation. However, Im rather optimistic about the extent to which people are able to integrate complex subjects into their daily livesirrespective of the forces that suppress this engagement. In his February Quillette articleOn the Study of Great Books, Andrew Gleeson asserts that booksprimarily Great books can be simplified when we give into, what Gleeson calls, the academic fallacy. That is, the notion that the most important reading is the highly specialised type found in academic journals. According to Gleeson, because of this fallacy, we overshadow the actual complexities that are part of great literature.

Similar to needlessly inflating the difficulty of simple ideas, we should dwell on the notion of overly simplifying complexities to the extent that these complexities lose their name. That does not take away from the fact that people might start off at the bottom (at a reduced level of difficulty) and gradually move up. This process is where part of the fun lies. We should bear in mind that when a large number of people get involved with scientific complexities, this might result in a phenomenonIve called the Curse of Interest. This bias tells us we are susceptible to the intense need to share the information related to our interests. It has the possibility to affect our social interactions because of peoples common disregard for the interests and occupations of others. Essentially, this describes the opposite of nonage; in this scenario we only rely on the information we gather ourselves after engaging with the associated complexities. Even so, we keep informing others about our findings.

Nevertheless, we probably will not get to this pointprecisely because politicians like Thierry Baudet wont let us. No matter how great my optimism might be, most of us will keep their dependency, and most institutions or individuals who benefit from the dependency of others will continue this trend for political gain. Whether this is changing (in the long term) as a result of our large-scale isolation is hopeful, but unlikely. The cost of exchanging your leisure time for an activity that is more cognitively demanding seems, at first glance, a terrible trade. However, its benefits are numerous. This might be the change in mindset we need to win over people who doubt the benefits of engaging with complexities. For some of us, this activity comes naturally. For others, it is a challenge to figure out who actually possesses the courage and thereby, as Kant put it, Dares to know.

Alessandro van den Berg is an economics teacher in the Netherlands.

Read more here:

Reading in the Age of Coronavirus - Merion West

Happy Wednesday one and all.

We are halfway through another week of quarantine and things are definitely hitting the monotony.

That is okay, because the NFL is primed to save us from that, as in 15 days we have the weirdest NFL Draft in history.

For that and all the news from around the web on your Arizona Cardinals we have your morning links.

Enjoy.

Larry Fitzgerald, Patrick Peterson, Chandler Jones Named To All-Decade TeamHall of Fame selection committee picked best from 2010-19

After 2019 Breakout, Jordan Phillips Ready To Show Staying PowerFree agent addition confident he's not a one-year wonder

Kingsbury: No Concern DeAndre Hopkins Trade Will Be Done Before DraftPlayers in deal need physicals before official completion

Challenge Of Virtual Draft Doesn't Intimidate Kliff KingsburyCoach confident in technology and Cardinals' process

No Hard Knocks For CardinalsArizona Cardinals Official Team Website I Arizona Cardinals AZCardinals.com

Phillips On New Contract: 'I Was Made For This'DL Jordan Phillips talks to the media about his three-year deal with the Cardinals.

Recapping The Cardinals On The 2010s All-Decade TeamRelive highlights from the Cardinals who were named to the 2010s All-Decade Team.

Cover 2 Clips - Justin Murray SignsCraig Grialou and Mike Jurecki discuss OL Justin Murray and what the offensive line position looks like before the draft.

Kingsbury Want To 'Be Better" In Year TwoHead Coach Kliff Kingsbury meets with the media and talks draft preparation, free agency and entering his second year with the team.

Kliff Kingsbury - Arizona Cardinals' trade for DeAndre Hopkins will be official by draftCardinals coach Kliff Kingsbury said Tuesday that he has no doubt the trade that landed wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins from the Texans in return for running back David Johnson will be completed before the NFL draft begins on April 23.

Cardinals WR Christian Kirk expected to see fantasy football dip in 2020Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Christian Kirk might see his fantasy football production go down following the arrival of wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins.

3 Cardinals make The Athletic's 'best to wear every jersey number'Larry Fitzgerald was joined by two past Arizona Cardinals who were named by The Athletic as the top players to wear their respective jersey numbers.

Trio of Cardinals make NFL, Hall of Fame 2010s All-Decade teamArizona Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald, cornerback Patrick Peterson and pass-rusher Chandler Jones made the 2010s All-Decade Team.

Really weird prop bets for a remote 2020 NFL DraftHow many dogs or cats will appear in the first round of the remotely produced NFL Draft? This is a thing you can put money on.

NFL Draft: Teams told to prepare to pick virtually because of coronavirusA league memo advised teams to prepare to conduct the NFL Draft virtually, with team personnel at home instead of in the facilities.

Five things to know about new Cardinals DT Jordan PhillipsCardinals DT Jordan Phillips discussed his fit on a new team, his bowling talent and a hectic past few weeks that included the birth of his daughter.

DeAndre Hopkins calls Cardinals 'classy,' asks for Arizona food staplesReceiver DeAndre Hopkins answered questions from fans and asked for food and sight-seeing suggestions in the Phoenix area during a live Instagram stream.

Kingsbury: Cardinals' remote operations for NFL Draft not all that badThere are bigger problems in the world than a remote NFL Draft. There are even streamlined parts of the process, said Cardinals coach Kliff Kingsbury.

9 Arizona Cardinals offseason questions, answered by Kliff KingsburyWhen will DeAndre Hopkins officially be a Cardinal? Is the team working on a deal to re-sign free agent center A.Q. Shipley?

View post:

Bird Droppings: Arizona Cardinals preparing for virtual draft, Jordan Phillips looks to build on career year - Revenge of the Birds

I dont know who discovered water but I doubt it was a fish. ~ Marshall McLuhan

Astonishing! You mean that you learned all of this JUST through physics? ~ The Dalai Lama to Anton Zeilinger upon completing a tour of his Innsbruck laboratory, as recounted by Alan Wallace.

Linconscient, cest le discours de lAutre. ~ Jacques Lacan

One mountain, many paths. ~ Buddhist adage

To sin: to miss the mark.

Eric Weinstein and I both studied at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1980s, but I doubt Weinstein was as interested in Professor Philip Rieffs work as I was. Nor did Weinstein appear particularly interested in the sociologist when Rabbi David Wolpe mentioned him during an episode of The Portal. Weinstein is what Rieff would call a bagels-and-lox Jew, a cultural Jew, but not a philosophical Jew. And this is where Joe Rogan and Eric Weinsteins latest three hour podcast missed the mark: for the synergy between the two men was conspicuous in its absence. During the final 30 minutes of the episode, when Weinstein discussed his 14 dimensional theory, Rogan should have wailed, You should try DMT, man! because that would have landed them firmly on common ground, or rather in common ethers where physics intertwines with spirituality. Until Weinstein meditates on how Sefirot relates to and interacts with Ein Sof, and maya relates to and interacts with Brahman and sunyata, he will not be able to construct the formulas he is so yearning to create.

So is space travel (without rocketships) possible?Absolutely.Is time travel possible?Absolutely.But first you have to concede that space and time are illusory; they are constructions of human consciousness, the way we happen to make sense of phenomena.

Physics is one subset of science; it is an hermeneutics, a theory of interpretation, a lens. Biology is another. Economics is another. Painting is another. Music is another.

Human consciousness is influenced by the systems of thought that human beings have created (or that have evolved or emerged, however you care to frame it). Such systems include science, capitalism, American democracy (wherein 2 of the last 5 presidents lost the popular vote), the arts, education, property ownership, competition, sports, travel, transportation, work, banking, currency/money/credit, the future, government, justice, law, history, race, sexuality, media, entertainment, religion, freedom, authority and as I discuss in my bookHow to Survive Your Childhood Now That Youre an Adult: A Path to Authenticity and Awakening,The Myth of Romance.

And then under the above systems fall additional subsets: for example, medicine would fall under science, pharmaceuticals and surgery would fall under medicine, appendectomies and heart transplants would fall under surgery, and so on.

Weinsteins first episode of The Portal was riveting and brilliant because he and his friend and employer Peter Thiel agreed that all systems have been corrupted.

So the common ground that I imagined watching unfold between Rogan and Weinstein would have been as such:

What is the nature of reality?

Weinstein could have offered a perspectives such as Kants: There is an objective reality out there but we can never be certain of our subjective understandings of that reality. And then Joe could have offered something more pedestrian such as, The nature of reality? Thats a stupid question, man! which would have been a humorous update of the Buddhas usage of the word (translated in English as) unprofitable. Yes, maybe a lot of Western philosophy is composed of unprofitable questions. It is distinctly possible.

Then, they could have discussed

What are the limitations of human perception?

To which Joe could have offered that fractals remain invisible to the human eye without enhancements such as DMT for himself and artists such as Alex Gray, or absinthe and other spirits for artists such as Braque, Picasso and Duchamp.

Then, they could have discussed

What are the limitations of human consciousness?

Can you imagine infinity or is the best your mind can offer are placeholders for such unfathomable concepts?

And then they could have delved into philosophy of mind and discussed

What are the categories of consciousness? Or, how does human consciousness chunk reality? Spatially? Temporally? How else?

Then

What are the systems of thought that influence the way we think?

Or as Joe might phrase it

Why do we think the shit that we think?

Wherein Eric could ask Jamie to pull up Foucault and systems of thought on Wikipedia and then Lacan regarding the unconscious.

And then

How have those systems of thought become corrupted?

We already know why those systems became corrupted: because power corrupts and human beings primarily will choose satisfying their own ephemeral hedonic treadmills than looking out for the greater good. This is why regulations ensure secure yet limited freedom while the neo-liberal free market is self-terminating, as Weinsteins friend Daniel Schmactenberger so astutely observes. And if many of the above systems have been corrupted and are amidst self-terminating or imploding, then the final questions would be

What are the next systems after capitalism, currency/money, property ownership and how can we help facilitate a smooth as possible transition to the next way human beings interact?

I love how Thomas Piketty phrased it the opening of his new book: Every human society must justify its inequalities: unless reasons for them are found, the whole political and social edifice stands in danger of collapse. Every epoch therefore develops a range of contradictory discourses and ideologies for the purpose of legitimizing the inequality that already exists or that people believe should exist.

Pimps up, Hos Down. Welcome to the Jungle.

Is human consciousness with all of its quirks and foibles capable of creating sustainable, incorruptible, compassionate, equitable systems?

One fundamental problem is that human consciousness appears to be primarily an either/or system. Weinstein goes into several binary possibilities about his theory late in the podcast. He starts Either Im crazyORI have something (of note) either either. Eric, its a particleANDa wave. You are BOTH crazy AND you have something. So this seems to be a tremendous foible or propensity of consciousness: constantly juxtaposing. Black and white. Sun and moon. Male and female.

And this foible manifests as dialectics both within science and in common discourse. Thesis plus antithesis equals synthesis. But what if reality is more akin to a Jackson Pollock painting and human consciousness inflicts order onto chaos by imposing artificial dialectics? And are their psychological ramifications to perpetual oppositions? R. D. Laing thought that schizophrenics had the most accurate perception of reality.

The mandate of science to ascribe causality; as I have stated elsewhere,ignoramuses conflate correlation and causality, which is one reason that science has become fatally corrupted. A brief search on the Internet will show you that people believe they can prove virtually anything scientifically; however, most scientific studies can be and are eventually refuted.

According to Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle we cannot measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. There are infinite variables that compose the matrix of reality; it is impossible to hold enough variables constant in reality to accurately measure anything. Yes, on paper and in graphs we can make if/then approximations but if you deconstruct the field of economics it is easy to discern that it is more of an art than a science and most economic winners are luckier than they are smart.

Including the dimensions of percipients and measurement instruments in 14 dimensional theory is an act of post-Einsteinium genius, but Weinstein is at his best when discussing his brother Brets discovery that the mice used in laboratory experiments are genetically disparate from mice in the wild and may have therefore corrupted a good deal of the results when experiments were conducted using those mice.This is exactly the type of exegesis for which these irreverant podcasts shine: dismantling the old regime and legacy media by exposing hypocrisies, contradictions, and lies and offering new, more accurate, more authentic narratives, narratives that do not depend on anyones bottom line.

Which is why both Rogan and Weinstein undermine their own causes by pumping and pimping sponsors. Both are sufficiently wealthy to never earn another penny and live at the same level of comfort they and their families have become accustomed to for the rest of their lives. By accepting money to advertise products for others they become part of the problem.

Funny, both Rogan and Weinstein respect Tulsi Gabbard because she cannot be bought. Do you not smell the hypocrisy? Or does this betray jealousy, ladies?

In my article,The Problem with Ayahuasca,I argue that ayahuasca is not a hallucinogenic; using Vedanta I argue that maya everything we perceive through our five senses and chunk into narratives is the hallucination. We are seduced by the blue pills of our Matrixs fictions such as, that we live in a meritocracy and will be rewarded for working hard. What folly!

Heres my wishbone to pick with Joe Rogan: I am saddened that the universe/mystery/Brahman/God/sunyata/Eif Sof has not yet allowed you to become one of the animals you have murdered at the second your arrow pierces the unsuspecting animals heart. I appreciate the commitment of a murderer who eviscerates his own victims, in the same way that Bill Maher said, Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, its not cowardly. However, there are consequences of living in a society that murders 50,000 cows per hour, and billions and billions of other animals per year. Ever hear of climate change?

While their discussion of professional wrestling was a great analogy to unveil the intentional theatre of Donald Trump, I propose that Rogan and Weinstein have sinned by missing the opportunity to enlist a wide audience in a methodological new narrative regarding how we attain the next society -preferably before we blow ourselves off of the planet or the earth hemorrhages the cancer known as humanity from itself via tornadoes, tsunamies, hurricanes, volcanoes, plagues, viruses and myriad other problems for which Weinsteins matzah offers neither escape nor solace.

As opposed to say Native Americans who lived as part of Gaia, Christian-Scientific-Capitalism (or the way it has evolved) has placed a primacy on humankind and thus licensed us to be sanctimonious apex predators, conduct grotesque experiments on fellow people, murder billions of animals for meat and fur, pollute the oceans, drill and frack, contaminate the ozone layer, and make the earths climates unstable, as well as continously justify the exploitation of others under the guise of bullshit meritocracy.

And where Weinstein is correct in being contra equality of outcome, he should recognize equality of outcome as a straw man propped up by myopic self-righteous blowhards such as Jordan Peterson. What we should agree on is Equality of OPPORTUNITY. So while reparations for slavery may have unintended psychological ramifications and be useful primarily in assuaging our collective guilt for slavery, as a society we need to figure out a way that all people start on more-or-less equal footing and Warren Buffets lucky gene pool and its requisite nepotism are minimized.

Weinstein is right; human beings are terrible shepherds of the planet earth.

Trump is a symptom; not a cause.

Weinsteins 14 dimensional theory appears to include both McLuhans aforementioned fish as well as Schrdringers Cat, but The Portal will remain a cul-de-sac until people like Rogan and Weinstein admit that white males and the systems we built such as capitalism are the cause of most of our addictions and the planets afflictions.

Einstein said, No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it. Through his use of DMT, Joe Rogan has had insights into other levels of reality beyond human consciousness; however, he possessed neither the erudition nor acumen to discuss them intelligently with Weinstein. So the next time your hanging out with Eric at the back bar of the Comedy Store, Joe, please tell him that youve already visited Jupiter and Neptune and you didnt need his fellow Penn alumnus Elon Musk to propel you there.

Maybe human consciousness remains in the maya part of the Matrix and trapped on earth because we have become addicted to the taste (of power)? Our predatory proclivities and will to power allowed us to crawl out of the primordial stew, learn how to farm, build glorious cities, create miraculous inventions and channel magnificent music and art. At this pivotal moment in history, lets put searching for the source code on the back burner and instead develop new systems of thought that hinder and alter the predatory and ultimately self-terminating impulses of human consciousness.

Read this article:

How Joe Rogan and Eric Weinstein Sinned - Thrive Global