The Meaning Crisis, and Shadow work, Jordan Peterson on Jung ft. John Vervaeke and Anderson Todd 

Here is the follow up Q&A session with Anderson and I ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BsUquRO-70w.html

I half agree with the criticisms of Peterson towards the end of this video, in that everything that was criticized is technically true. But I'd give him more credit in the sense that I think he's aware of that. I think Peterson is giving people who feel totally lost and overwhelmed a simple, easy to understand, already culturally-ingrained interpretation of the world that is beneficial and gets them to start thinking more deeply about myth, archetypes, and their relevance to our lives. I haven't found anyone else who does it so clearly as Peterson; in fact, Peterson is the reason I'm now getting more into Vervaeke's work and trying to get to the "next level" so to speak, three years later. It'd be interesting to ask Peterson about that directly, but that's my impression... I don't think he's being misleading, just purposefully simplifying things, and I think it does much more good than harm.

Should Dr. Peterson decide to jump back into the fray, and should he manage to avoid the trap of political commentary, these are the kinds of conversations I'd love to see him be part of.

I have spoken with Anderson and he has agreed to make himself available for a live Q&A on Fri Feb 7, 2020 at 1500 EST here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BsUquRO-70w.html

“You think I’m just a hill-god!? Snakes for you!” Damn, that made me laugh out loud.

It took me all day to watch this because I had to keep pausing and thinking about the ideas being raised. Good to see some rational critic of Peterson, he's been attacked by so many people who clearly haven't even tried to engage with his theories or understand the concepts behind them. You give him respect by taking his work seriously.

I totally resonate with Anderson's description of trudging through Jung's corpus and periodically bumping into those deeply affecting gems that justify the whole endeavor.

What a brilliant conversation. I sometimes wonder if what Jordan is doing is intended to be compensatory and 'of the moment.' Much of what he says seems to square with Anderson's presentation of Jung. Peterson looks to be less concerned with presenting a fleshed-out theoretical model than he is with making an impact and filling certain cultural voids. For example, I think that he 'overemphasizes' logos over eros because the generation he's speaking to has largely lost an appreciation for logos. People in my age range, myself included, often see rules and order as arbitrary, and as a result we drown in chaos. Jordan's overemphasis of certain parts of Jung are only 'overemphasized' from a neutral theoretical vantage point, but it may be just what the doctor ordered, from a cultural standpoint. Similarly, I think that his defense and presentation of Christianity ends up revising Christianity while updating it with some Gnostic insights. I see this all as analogous to Jung and how careful he was with managing his image and avoiding accusations of mysticism. It lays the groundwork for changes down the road by shifting the window of discourse.

If that’s the best critique a Jungian scholar who has been reading Jung since 12 years old could come up with, considering the sheer amount of materials JP put out there, I am relieved. With regard to that shadow critique, Todd himself seems to follow the same recipe Peterson subscribed to his audiences in his resentment example. He realized his projection, figured out what was it he was projecting - that’s internal shadow work, but then took actions and confronted externally to invite the guy for a beer. That seems like an internal external shadow work process.... to integrate shadow, just internalizing it isn’t enough, is it? Also regarding “you know what to do” critique, I don’t think JP said you know what to do to align yourself between order and chaos, however if you happen to achieve that perfect alignment , you know it. Nonetheless, I learned a lot from this video!!

The encounter with the Self is always a defeat for the ego.

Thanks for putting this together! A lot of us are listening and trying to piece this stuff together!

I have been waiting for this episode for some time. Thank you for putting this together.

Brilliant stuff. The combination of knowledge and humility between the two of you is encouraging and awe-inspiring.

As David Fuller said in a very recent "My Journey with the IDW - JV is one of the emerging thinkers of the next decade. Great discussion, clarified a number of my concerns.

fantastic level of discussion! would be nice to pull Jordan into the discussion as well :)

I could use a couple more hours of this ... I'd want to quit the video, then they would get onto something that fascinated me. I liked JV's comment about criticism. Serious work requires some criticisms. I was glad to hear some counters to Peterson, as he is one of my heros. Heros require scrutiny else we become slaves.

Perfect way to end the year, thanks for the insights gents.

One of those conversations where I was clueless 75% of the time while desperately clinging the other 25%

Whew. So much to learn, so little time. Echoing Prof. Todd’s introductory statement on his early delving into some of this material; it’s tough but every so often there’s a nougat that gives one enough to keep pushing forward through difficult material. We inherently know it’s worthy of the effort even if we can’t initially see the forest for the trees.

Wonderful conversions! You UFT folks are really doing amazing work! Thank you!

Thank You, both! Very helpful, and full of insights. Particularly to one who feel affinity to Jung. Thanx again.

Brilliant conversation to follow up finishing the meaning crisis before going through my second run through. And as someone who found immense value in Jordan’s work I feel the criticism of him was very fair and powerful, would like to see his response to it.

Jung: Agent 488. Wow!

Wonderful interview - you listen intelligently and intervene with insightful questions which move the discussion forward congruent ly. . You can feel the erudition in the room. Great start to 2020. Thank you very much.

JV you rocked 2019, keep it up!

This was excellent in every way. Thank you both!

Our modern conception of the hero's journey too often puts the individual on a pedestal while forgetting ka tet. No hero ever succeeds on his/her own. They are *always* part of a group, or at least reliant on others. The hero's journey is more often about transformation through connection and relationship with each other and the world. There's no place like home.

Oh wow. Anderson Todd is a treasure. Thank you for giving him a wider platform. Would love to see more discussion with him.

Excellent conversation. Thank you.

More of that please very helpful

Excellent content John. Thank you.

Fascinating and helpful! Thank you both so much. I’m especially helped by that idea of the “golden shadow” -working to engage with those good yet unaccessed parts of myself. I’ve also had multiple dreams like the kind you mentioned: a threatening monster appears, but it morphs into something harmless or good when I approach it voluntarily. I didn’t know this was a common thing!

finally someone speaking about Peterson's interpretation of shadow work. It never sat well with me that it was just "speak truth/courage to resentment".

Dr Peter Kingsley's take on Jung is what is needed

This was amazing and novel and fun. Thank you and more please.

Two Canadians discuss a "mouse coming out from behind a couch" @ 20:00. Fantastic. Please make use of being "out in a boat fishing for trout" to continue maximising the Canadian accent.

This is motivating me to go read my thick dense Jung books again. I'm reminded of Alan Moore's assessment of Star Wars: a fundamentalist work of science fiction if there ever was one, that turned the clock back to the ideas of the genre from 50 years before. A pleasure to listen to you two gents, thanks.

Very useful discussion, thanks.

Really valuable. Thank you. BTW this has reminded me of a discussion between JP and Sam Harris. At the end they were both asked what they fear the most or something. And when listening to their answers, you could see it like black on write where their great theories are coming from. This was actually the most fascinating aspect of the whole discussion. Points me right now to my own shadow work again and that is how I remembered the discussion. Sometimes you just create a theory or a whole paradigm to counter something deep inside you don't want to see, I guess. What I mean to say, it is interesting to discuss theories, but it's really mad how personal aspects can lurk in, even into science. Who were all these people? Plato, Nietzsche, Jung... Reminds me again of Jonathan Haidt, how you create arguments only after your opinion is already long formed...

This is pretty awesome to witness. Insightful to say the least and above all driven by curiosity and courage through openness and epistemic humility. In the spirit of philo-sophia and - I suppose - in love of humanity. Thank you for sharing.

In relation to the criticism of Jordan Peterson's discussion of shadow work, this quote from Rumi seems relevant: ""Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself."

Thanks for your great work.

finally, Anderson with with the heavy weights. this is going to be great.

Fantastic conversation. Only problem was it was too short! I’d like a couple more hours.

Great talk

Thank you very much for doing this. I am incorporating some of Jung's ideas into my own framing of the world and it helps me to understand and accept many of the dark and hurtful behaviours I see every day. Oddly enough it is this acceptance that gives me hope and direction to make changes in my own small circle that may tilt the world incrementally towards being a better place.

I’m not as well educated as some lucky people but I have read the spread of thinkers from Nietzsche to Foucault (who despite being partly responsible for opening some dangerous paths is still a mesmerisingly fascinating thinker/writer). I search the internet to its edges and I truly believe you guys (and Peterson) are literally the best (at least western) thinkers in the world right now. It is truly a privilege to be able to simply listen in as if I were almost there and so am hugely grateful to be able to do so. It is your thinking and sharing that has helped me away from addiction and possibly death. My humblest thanks 🙏❤️

I especially appreciated Anderson's comments on Peterson. It came across as quite fair and informative.

Boy, the fur is going to fly when Vanderklay responds to this discussion.

Great discussion

Circa 1:50 criticizing JP's approach to shadow because it's outward/heroic rather than reflective. 12 Rules 6) Set your house in order before you criticize the world. 9) Assume the person you are listening to might know something you don't. These 2 rules are specific injunctions to reflective shadow work. So there.

Thanks Anderson and John.

Well done. That was a good and honest conversation.

Thank you so much for pointing and reminding me of some of Dr JPB’s lack of efforts or shortages or omissions. I follow his teaching because he has been telling and selling stories that we can understand and relate. He sometimes says things that I already knew but I didn’t know I knew already; He is a great story teller and a Professor, and sometime he confuses which role should come first and when? If he is the Yang, I think you John is the Ying? He needs you now more than ever so thank you for being a great friend. Happy New Year! Looking forward to 2020 to see more works from you and your friends. Also looking forward to the next 12 Rules of Life. When you have some spare time, can you give 12 Rules for Life a book review sir? But I know you are extremely busy. Congrats on your recent promotion and welcome back from your sabbatical.

delicious analysis

Fantastic discussion, really puts your awakening lectures into direct relationship to one of the prophets. Do you have plans on covering the other prophets in the same way? 1:40:30: I am pretty sure JBP means that the person might have pushed the ability to be assertive and “difficult” into the shadow. This is often brought up by JBP in conjunction with the psychological profiles of for example sudden mass shooters, something he often talks about. In that sense, integrating anger from the shadow, and acting on it, before the resentment grows to an uncontrollable scale, is indeed shadow work. This, according to him, is therefore also important in order to mitigate growing collective resentment (which undoubtedly is his primary concern). In that sense, the hero myth becomes very important to mitigate collective resentment. But sure, resentment could also be mitigated (and shadow work made) by questioning why one feels resentment against something in the first place. Would also be great if JBP could be brought into the discussion next.

Appreciate the video...I’ll have to come back in 30 years though when I fully understand what they (mainly Vervaeke) are talking about, lol. Maybe if I had started reading Jung when I was 12....

Thanks for providing this discussion. I really liked Andersen’s “Spock Buddhist” example!

On a more serious note: this stuff is 10/10.

Love the phone/mouse/couch analogy

Great shoes, John!

Excellent conversation, thank you. Learnt a lot about Jung. And some very pertinent critiques of Peterson's weak spots e.g. his over-emphasis on the hero/warrior myth, allying Jung with Christianity, and his fetishisation of 'certainty' - as in "you know what to do" (1:55:00). Re. the latter, I was struck by John's remark that this was "decadent romanticism".

10:42 I believe Peterson mentions this in a taped U of T lecture back in 2016 or 2017. As I recall, Peterson expresses great relief having this data point with which to defend Jung (and himself, indirectly) against the wide-spread misconception that Jung was reprehensible.

I'm a Peterson fan but why is it so hard for people to accept legit criticism of the man? At what point are you not defending the man but a belief system? The very thing he warns against.

Thanks

**Cracks open bag of popcorn**

I agree that Jordan Peterson is not beyond critique but also acknowledge his experience with actual people from his clinical practice. This gives him more insight then other academic intellectuals! So his messages when put in to practice are very effective and proven so by individuals so if his interpretation shadow is not fully “correct” is trivial in the goal of helping people to help themselves to practice responsibility and discover meaning as an offset to eminent suffering!

Excellent discussion! It struck me how Anderson's advice for handling the shadow was strikingly similar to Jordan's.

Damn, this was epic.

Individuation makes sense alongside Jung's quote that "“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” -- actually I was looking for a different quote that states something like, man's goal is to bring that which is unconscious into consciousness. In other words, until we become fully aware and can account for the entire scope of our facticity, "who we are" evades us and we cannot act as fully responsible persons.

1:06:05 is epic

Great discussion: in fact, it is so rare to hear an intelligent back & forth focused on Jung thought it can stop right there. Although I think if you asked the same questions to older Jungians you may get a more robust conversation: Murray Stein, James Hollis and Nathan Schwartz Salant - all neo-Jungians with extensive clinical experience you may get to a deeper dialogue. BTW for the Mind-Matter aspect of the Pauli-Jung dialogues, Harald Atmanspacher, editor of The Mind-Matter journal will also add important perspectives under current research. Lastly, given the importance of what you are addressing, having conversations who will readily understand your overarching intention, yet are not people who are part of your network of relationships may considerably further the conversation. In any case, good work and thank you for your considerable effort and courage in publicly working thru the inquiry you are conducting. LAD 6267

I would love to see Anderson Todd and Jordan Peterson in conversation

I was out for run earlier today, listening to this again and got a realization. You mentioned that Jung became more inclined towards mysticism towards the end of his life, coming from a resistance to it. I was then thinking about Anderson, who is still young and holds on to the ideals of science, *for now*. I'll disclose right away that the point I'm making is that there might be an inherent difference between a younger person and a person who has reached a ripe old age regarding the attitude towards spirituality. It got me thinking of WHY that is, and why that is significant. We like to think that old age is related to wisdom, and wisdom is rarely and simply a manifestation of objectivity. It is a life long learning of what is important and what is not and how to synthesize that into meaningful words for others. So, is it telling that a man like Jung became more spiritual with age? Ok, I know I don't sell the point properly. The punch line of all this is that the function that religion might serve is the transfer of old-age wisdom from old people who have learned the important things in life THROUGH BECOMING OLD, to the young who will do the wrong things for 45-50-55-60 years before learning. How would you transfer the knowledge to the young? Through intricate meaning-weaving that transmits the wisdom of old age and "all" you have to do as a youth is to listen and adhere to the principles. That way you walk in the shoes of the people before you and do not repeat the faults that the old already know are faults. I don't know, religion became justified in my eyes through that realization. Perhaps the way to make it more accessible to people in this day and age is to get rid of the supernatural parts and just relay the information. We do not want to believe in anything today and it makes us weaker. We don't have to believe in anything supernatural, but we have to have a system of behavior to believe in or else we drift apart. We try find substitutes but fail miserably, which makes sense if Christianity really is several thousands of years of behavioral wisdom passed down from the old to the new.

WoW, It was most deep critic of Jordan I have ever heard.

This is by far the most profound criticism of Jordan Peterson I've heard to date. Very insightful video! Excited for the Q&A!

Casually remarks that he could read Freud and Jung at 12 years of age.

The breadth and depth of JP's work deals with most of the criticism that Anderson and JV bring up, and I have little doubt that if Jordan was present he would round out his thinking on any particular controversial statement as, to me, he is holds his truth claims tentatively rather than absolutely. JP is not beyond criticism but it needs to be deeply considered not to come across as a some sort of resentment.

Re: 1:49:30 a very important distinction between signs and symbols. "Symbols are multiaspectual and inexhaustible ... A sign means a thing, a symbol means a lot of things and is endlessly disclosing; that is the point of it. That's why it's sacred, that's why it's useful."

I feel like the divine double in neuroscientific terms is the beginning of an insight cascade, like flow is but on a completely different timescale. In a sense, I suppose, it's a state where you subconsciously access information about past states at which you have transformed, and then that information is used and mimicked so it can put you in an a state where transformation is possible. Symbolically - the divine double knows exactly how you learn best. (This is just a thought by the way, I have no idea what I'm talking about, any reply is appreciated)

I need to read more Jung to fully understand this convo

Would love to hear both your takes on the enneagram typing system.

When he says Jung went 'more cosmic towards the end' in some degree: you can see this 'simplification while still expressing the important details to get across the essence' · when looking at how painters or other artists that do highly detailed 'realism' tend to go very loose whole preserving the essence. It's a common 'Confucianist youth to Taoist elder' transition. Bruce Lee saying 'When he started: a punch was a punch and a kick was a kick... with more experience: a punch was no longer a punch and a kick was no longer a kick (because he was breaking then apart in analysis) - eventually with understanding/mastery: a punch and kick were once again just a punch and a kick'. - This is the development process phases seen through one particular lense worth note.

Golden Shadow - seems like through the Metta arena you can encounter this projection(your ignored agent?) quite conveniently/directly.

I found that it was useful to read Dostoevsky's "The Idiot" in terms of Dostoevsky putting pieces of his consciousness into a dramatic space, and watching them interact. Honestly, I think that this is the point of most drama. Remember the scene in Endgame, where all the resurrected heroes came back and lined up for the final battle against Thanos? That was awesome.

JV’s shoes are 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

👍🏻 wow thanks

This looks like a treat. Hopefully a talk about a non-New Age twaddlespeak approach to Shadow work.

Regarding the first question in the description, whether Peterson has misinterpreted Jung or not is insubstantial. What matters is if Peterson's version is useful, and if its differences from Jung's are likely to cause trouble. The rest is only noteworthy for Jung-scholars.

Excellent unbelievably high level discussion Interesting criticism, mostly I just take them for what they are. Although, not sure I agree that symbols must be taken as inexhaustible. There may be reason to believe that but there seems to be plenty of reason to not believe that. Depends if you want to go with Jung on it. Peterson's take would be that symbols are episodic representations of information, which makes them very highly interconnected but by no means literally infinite (although maybe technically infinite). As well, I don't think this discussion properly centered around Maps of Meaning like it should have--THAT'S Peterson. Value hierarchy determining salience, the heroic Logos as the principle-spirit that integrates anomaly thus updating moral-behavioral wisdom. Like, Peterson's claim isn't that certainty is right at hand if only recognized--it's that chaos can be explored by consciousness, courageously, to turn unclarity (emotion, eg.) into clarity. His recommendation is to play your own game by your own rules, whatever it is, but to use your imagination about what could be good (be conscious about your values, thus pushing them higher than the default mode of being), and to pay attention to your own emotions as signs that either you played your own game wrong, or anomalous information is manifesting itself that can be used to _straighten out the game_ thus changing your personality/morality and improving you. He's not for the praising of clarity as such, he's for the process that produces clarity. That is why he focuses so much on the heroic myth. I feel like your opinions about the Hero myth being "too central" for Peterson and the culture at large is directly connected to this misunderstanding of his idea of morality and clarity. Really, any discussion about Peterson should, as far as I can tell, be absolutely centered on Maps of Meaning, the book, first and foremost.

Circa 1.40 in: the Jung quote is that psychotherapy can be replaced by supreme moral effort, not an act of honesty as is mentioned here.

I think the models that we use to understand Jung's ideas are vital to comprehension of them. I interpret Jung to have a monistic, layered view of human consciousness; so if you think of each individual ego as comprising the boundary of the totality of the Self, then beneath that we have each individual person's family background and history, then we have cultural and linguistic specificities, then we have the archetypes of the mother, father, hero etc. and then there is the ground of being, the Self, which I relate to the Platonic Form of the Good/God which sits at the heart of consciousness and from which meaning derives.

Individual; in-di-vid-u-al; indivi-dual; in-divi-duality In divine duality...very cool :-)

The injunction ‘first know Kant or shut up about Jung’ seemed at the time a discordant note and is here inconsistent with professing the ideal of less certainty in the statements of others. I have greatly enjoyed the series. Thank you.

1:31:46 - Anderson just recaps on what Jung means by the shadow, and this for me accounts for the personae. Why mitigate your free expression if every vice and virtue that springs from it is met with warmth and validation? So I'm thinking that the masks we wear are the behavioural consequence of rejected parts of ourselves? So here's the rub for me. We suppress certain facets of who we are in order to be seen and heard in the world. This necessitates an evaluation of our free expression from which the personae is constructed. This mask wearing is re-enforced by our culture not because anyone who act's directly from their ego (uninhibited) poses a threat to our orderly structuring, but because it offers a shadow mirror back to those in positions of responsibility. So we are unconsciously supporting the continuing habit of creating shadows as a necessary measure to be seen and heard, while collectively undermining the civil substructure because of the unrest within our own being, which is being projected out as an enemy of some sort. So you could see ecological collapse as a manifestation of our unexamined (or unprocessed) collective shadow, and that the best way to tackle this existential super tsunami (metaphor!) is to reconcile our relationship with ourselves, which in turn brings clarity to our "having" and "being" needs, which would in turn generate greater fulfilment and far less consumption due to such clarity...

I had a brush with death and it clarified nothing for me (aside from how little control I have over things). It caused permanent injury so I can't say I came away with anything positive from the experience.

What an excellent discussion - thank you both very much! This was a rich and insightful talk which I found really illuminating. I would like to offer a critique of one of the propositions that I heard being put forward. However I would also like to stress my humility in this effort as there is much I do not fully understand here... The claim I would like to critique is: "Jung is a non-theist". From reading Jung my sense is that he, like Jordan Peterson following him, was anxious to concern himself strictly with the "Imago Dei" (Image of God) in the soul as opposed to the question of God in itself. There is something Kantian about that as you both note. I think the influence of Freud and the rationalism / materialism of the 19th-century should not be understated here. The intellectual context within which Jung wrote was deeply sceptical of potentially religious claims in the domain of psychology. I think the same probably holds today with Jordan Peterson. This is tragic from my point of view, and Anderson rightly picks up on this, because psychology means "the study of the soul" - hence it is a discipline which is religious in essence. Anderson is right to stress how Jung, contra other psychologists, takes the soul seriously. Which is precisely what any "psychologist" should be doing. There is a fundamental ambiguity in Jung on the question of God (again, there is an evident echo of this in Jordan Peterson). Jung when asked whether he believed in God stressed his problems with the word "belief" and emphasised instead that he "knows". Which sounds very Gnostic, not Christian. However I am not so sure. It sounds to me like a stressing of the "participatory" modality as primary relative to the "propositional". Mircea Eliade for example thought that religion begins with a "hierophany" (a revelation of the sacred). This maps onto Jung's idea of the "numinous" I think. The idea that religion, first and foremost, has to do with the phenomenological reality of encountering the transcendent. It is participatory first and foremost. My point is that, for me at least, Jung's work forms a "bridge" to theism precisely by stressing the interior 'merely psychological' reality of the Imago-Dei (Image of God) and the phenomenology of religious experience. So I mean the "theism" / "non-theism" thing is something that I don't see clearly answered or addressed in Jung for understandable reasons. However in my experience, and I think this is what is curative and healing about his work, his ideas do 'open up', 'afford' or 'suggest' the possibility of an encounter with a transcendent reality. A lot of this you both touched on anyway. However the idea that Jung is a "non-theist" did not clearly follow for me. I think this is something we need to be agnostic about with respect to Jung. He is less "is there a God" and more "what happens to the soul when we experience God" - or something like that. That is my humble understanding anyway. Really appreciate your work John and thanks for bringing Anderson's fascinating perspective into the conversation too.

Of course we know what to do,.We just don't want to do it because we hate responsibilities that comes with it

Hi, Is anyone familiar with transjectional. I am understanding it to means thst which throws across or paradigm shifting, disruptive etc. Is this from John's meaning lectures

Fantastic video. This decentralized stuff that is really a lot more in depth and interesting compared to what seems to get a lot more attention is really what my idea of intellectual dark web would be barring encrypted content and communication that would actually entail the dark web, taken out of the large commercialized marketing interests and actually more free, and less seemingly about growing it's numbers. In a way I guess it illustrates that we can be our individual selves and access quality content with out the inconvenience of egotistical marketing manipulation getting in the way, even right in the middle of it. (An important line of thought for people worried about ending up in dystopian/totalitarian scenarios) Although, I wonder from sudden striking forms of eerily similar lines of thought if in the way mentalists can appear to be psychic but are really making it very likely that we think or ask the exact questions they want by narrowing the probable down to a small predictable set if something like algorithms aren't operating at a similar level. Enough distraction, I just got lost in thought there but ... I was first exposed to shadow theory when I was in High School. I have noticed many common threads with Jung stuff and then with like with Star Wars etc (loose threads), but didn't quite understand the connections and this video unexpectedly touched on things I kind of had compartmentalized in the back of my mind but none the less find very interesting. It does a great job articulating what has lately to me seemed a butchered conveying of Shadow and Shadow work where Peterson has been the butcher (I do feel like I'm picking on him). I had and hold hope that even Peterson has a deeper understanding then he conveys and is at early stages of giving a taste of some important stuff to an audience in need and whether it is planned or unplanned it is being presented in a way that. I just don't feel I am target audience and I try not to watch, so alternatives like this fill my need. Which of course in the first place may have been created and/or teased out and exploited with the hopes I'd seek fulfillment in an alternative setting which is more profitable to a select few? Maybe? Just a possibility I consider.