After I had read the third or fourth awkward post, I felt an impulse to delete them, but I resisted the urge. For better or for worse, I decided to leave them as they are. If nothing else, I believe they serve as testaments to the wrong turns I have taken and the errors in judgement I have made. Deleting these wrong turns and blatant errors in thinking might help me feel better about myself, but the purpose of this blog is not self-therapy, self-promotion, or ego aggrandizement, but truth-seeking, spiritual growth, and self-discovery. Any honest pursuit of truth, spirit, and discovery is bound to have its share of missteps and stumbles. Deleting regrettable posts might make me appear better and more consistent in readers' eyes, but it would also present them with a skewed and edited version of my thinking over the years. More importantly, deleting my awkward posts could alter my perception of my own thinking over the years and prevent me from learning valuable lessons from times I was wrong, mistaken, or misled.
Among the worst offenders by far are my posts lauding Jordan Peterson, but I have left all of these intact on the blog because I believe they provide valuable insights into the hows and whys of my errors regarding the Canadian psychologist.
My interest in Peterson began shortly after he had vehemently objected to Canada's gender pronoun legislation. At the time, he was still a relatively obscure university professor. Having lived in Canada's oppressive PC climate for many years, I viewed his opposition to the proposed pronoun bill as an immense act of courage. As time passed I also became intrigued by his Joseph Campbell-like philosophy of mythic and religious archetypes and his unorthodox interpretation of Christian tenets and symbols. My esteem for the professor was so high that at one point I wrote a post in which I declared my wish to have Peterson read my novel (I still cringe when I remember that post. Warning: it's a doozy).
The months passed and I asked a few bloggers I respected to provide their own opinions of Peterson. I was somewhat taken aback by the negative replies I received. Nevertheless, I took these opinions into consideration as I continued exploring Peterson's thought and ideas. During this time, Peterson began what can only be described as his meteoric rise to fame. Suddenly the obscure professor was popping up on everyone's radar. He stopped appearing on small, mostly right-leaning You Tube channels where he had found the majority of his small but sympathetic audience, and became a regular feature of large left-leaning You Tube channels and major media outlets. This immediately raised my suspicions, but I was still willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt.
Then Peterson started pushing his online psychology course, his forthcoming self-help book, and launched what I can only describe as a magical mystery tour. His suits became fancier, his opinions less acerbic, and his ideas more mainstream. I finally recognized his professed religiosity for what it truly was - repackaged materialism. When he joined a California-based talent agency and the New York Times branded him a member of what it called The Intellectual Dark Web, my interest in Peterson popped like a soap bubble, and I was finally able to see him for what he truly was - a shameless self-promoter and a master of the soft-sell whose main interests reside almost exclusively in the accumulation of fame, influence, and wealth.
As regrettable as my interest in Peterson seems now, I do not regret having gone through the process I described above for it taught me much about my own weak points and faulty judgement. I realized I had projected much of my own thinking and ideas onto Peterson rather than accepting his words at face value.
Part of this has to do with Peterson's rather slippery mode of communication, but most of it had to do with my own inability to properly and precisely process the ideas and opinions he spouted. As insincere as Peterson is, it would be unfair of me to blame my error in judgement solely on his chimerical verbiage. No, the responsibility for the error was mine and mine alone. My desire to support a champion for the Good overrode my ability to recognize Jordan Peterson as little more than a champion for his own good. Leaving my Jordan Peterson posts intact on the blog helps remind me where I went wrong. They contain insights I can use to avoid falling into the same trap in the future.
Overall, I am satisfied with the posts I have written over the past four months. Most contain decent levels of clarity and insight. Some are duds and misfires, but in their entirety, I believe my 2019 posts reflect a more stable and sound line of thinking, exploration, and inquiry. Of course, when I revisit these posts in two-years' time I might find some of them lacking or peculiar, but I doubt they will make me cringe as much as some of pre-2019 posts do.
At least that is my hope.