Jordan Peterson's idea of god.

[LordKiran]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&t=7569s[/YOUTUBE]

So I've been watching this little bit at a time and I have to say this is the first time in a long time I've felt properly stimulated by theology. Peterson's archtypal interpretation of the bible that largely sets aside the notion of god as a physical entity and instead conceptualizes god as a metaphysical construct we use to orient ourselves into properly noble beings has given me a fresh perspective on christianity. For my own part I have never been fully satisfied with athiesm. It makes sense to not presume in a material diety sure and I don't think the idea of an anthropomorphic god in a literal heaven will ever not be silly to me, but then what does that leave us with? From whence comes a man's impetus to be noble if not from something bigger than himself? What peterson among others seem to be tapping into is that there is an underlying craving for transmaterial succor in our society that cannot be sated in a belief in nothing.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Exactly this is why we invented the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So I've been watching this little bit at a time and I have to say this is the first time in a long time I've felt properly stimulated by theology. Peterson's archtypal interpretation of the bible that largely sets aside the notion of god as a physical entity and instead conceptualizes god as a metaphysical construct we use to orient ourselves into properly noble beings has given me a fresh perspective on christianity. For my own part I have never been fully satisfied with athiesm. It makes sense to not presume in a material diety sure and I don't think the idea of an anthropomorphic god in a literal heaven will ever not be silly to me, but then what does that leave us with? From whence comes a man's impetus to be noble if not from something bigger than himself? What peterson among others seem to be tapping into is that there is an underlying craving for transmaterial succor in our society that cannot be sated in a belief in nothing.

Atheism is not "nothing." Atheism is everything except gods. And because gods are not real, atheism is literally everything.

Belief in gods requires a belief in nothing - because that's allegedly what gods had before there was everything. Therefore, theologically speaking, we are still nothing, we still equate with nothing if gods are the premise.

So gods would have me as nothing.

And of course, "nothing" is as bizarre a concept as is "god." Like typical gods, it is not something demonstrable, not even as a behavior.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Ugh, Jordan Peterson. I usually really dislike his vague, word salad musings. I'll set this aside for later.

 

[Jobar]

Thanks for this. I'll watch at least some of it when I have time.

I do agree that atheism is a very simple and limited concept, and not an adequate basis for a complete world view, or for the philosophical and social structures that allow us to live in and even to some extent comprehend the universe. It's true as far as it goes, IMO; but it really doesn't help us live our lives, except by the avoidance of the bad memes of theism.

 

[LordKiran]

So I've been watching this little bit at a time and I have to say this is the first time in a long time I've felt properly stimulated by theology. Peterson's archtypal interpretation of the bible that largely sets aside the notion of god as a physical entity and instead conceptualizes god as a metaphysical construct we use to orient ourselves into properly noble beings has given me a fresh perspective on christianity. For my own part I have never been fully satisfied with athiesm. It makes sense to not presume in a material diety sure and I don't think the idea of an anthropomorphic god in a literal heaven will ever not be silly to me, but then what does that leave us with? From whence comes a man's impetus to be noble if not from something bigger than himself? What peterson among others seem to be tapping into is that there is an underlying craving for transmaterial succor in our society that cannot be sated in a belief in nothing.

Atheism is not "nothing." Atheism is everything except gods. And because gods are not real, atheism is literally everything.

Belief in gods requires a belief in nothing - because that's allegedly what gods had before there was everything. Therefore, theologically speaking, we are still nothing, we still equate with nothing if gods are the premise.

So gods would have me as nothing.

And of course, "nothing" is as bizarre a concept as is "god." Like typical gods, it is not something demonstrable, not even as a behavior.

Allow me to further explain my meaning. Athiesm in and of itself and in the absence of religion in general is what I am referring to. Its not so much that I am referring to the concept of nothingness but more to the absense of religious/spiritual/metaphysical experience. Most of my peers were/are athiests but in the absence of theism they don't seem to have much going for them. Some of them resort to wicken parlor tricks but that's about it. The rise of athiesm is fine for me because the church power structures needed to be challenged, but what have we replaced them with in their decline? Nothing, and that has left a hole in many that they can't even seem to articulate what it is. You especially see this in the alt-right. To me the alt-right is partially a consequence of athiesm in my age-bracket. I can't quite explain that as I want to put more thought into it and find the right words but through casual observation of their social circles that really seems to be a part of it.

 

[Angry Floof]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&t=7569s[/YOUTUBE]

So I've been watching this little bit at a time and I have to say this is the first time in a long time I've felt properly stimulated by theology. Peterson's archtypal interpretation of the bible that largely sets aside the notion of god as a physical entity and instead conceptualizes god as a metaphysical construct we use to orient ourselves into properly noble beings has given me a fresh perspective on christianity. For my own part I have never been fully satisfied with athiesm. It makes sense to not presume in a material diety sure and I don't think the idea of an anthropomorphic god in a literal heaven will ever not be silly to me, but then what does that leave us with? From whence comes a man's impetus to be noble if not from something bigger than himself? What peterson among others seem to be tapping into is that there is an underlying craving for transmaterial succor in our society that cannot be sated in a belief in nothing.

"All the gods, all the heavens, all the hells, are within you." Joseph Campbell

The only gods worth even discussing at all are the only ones that exist and they are thge ones within us, our creations, our psychology, our experiences. God exists completely and entirely within us. Why is this not enough? Why are you as a human being not interesting enough to delve into and instead yearn for external magic? We're already connected to the universe in ways that are real and demonstrable in our everyday lives. Why is this not enough?

"Is this not enough? This blessed sip of life, is it not enough?"

And the "belief in nothing" bullshit is just a lazy, willfully ignorant straw man of religious apologists who prefer confirmation over truth.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There have actually been some movements that aimed to supply a post theology society. Humanism for one. Ethical Unions for another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Humanist_and_Ethical_Union

And of course we have things like neo-paganism.

 

[LordKiran]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&t=7569s[/YOUTUBE]

So I've been watching this little bit at a time and I have to say this is the first time in a long time I've felt properly stimulated by theology. Peterson's archtypal interpretation of the bible that largely sets aside the notion of god as a physical entity and instead conceptualizes god as a metaphysical construct we use to orient ourselves into properly noble beings has given me a fresh perspective on christianity. For my own part I have never been fully satisfied with athiesm. It makes sense to not presume in a material diety sure and I don't think the idea of an anthropomorphic god in a literal heaven will ever not be silly to me, but then what does that leave us with? From whence comes a man's impetus to be noble if not from something bigger than himself? What peterson among others seem to be tapping into is that there is an underlying craving for transmaterial succor in our society that cannot be sated in a belief in nothing.

"All the gods, all the heavens, all the hells, are within you." Joseph Campbell

The only gods worth even discussing at all are the only ones that exist and they are thge ones within us, our creations, our psychology, our experiences. God exists completely and entirely within us. Why is this not enough? Why are you as a human being not interesting enough to delve into and instead yearn for external magic? We're already connected to the universe in ways that are real and demonstrable in our everyday lives. Why is this not enough?

"Is this not enough? This blessed sip of life, is it not enough?"

And the "belief in nothing" bullshit is just a lazy, willfully ignorant straw man of religious apologists who prefer confirmation over truth.

I don't think it's fair to call it a strawman when I base it on myself and the people around me. Sort of implies a dishonesty that isn't really present with regards to myself.

And no, it's very clearly not enough. People are proud. They need/crave justification and validation. People want purpose and meaning. That's not something the concept of atheism in and of itself can ever really provide. It's the incomplete part to a coherent moral philosophy.

It has become increasingly clear to me that people abandon the old faiths not because they do not have a desire for spiritual contentment that has been replaced with pure rationalism. They leave because the institutions those faiths were built on have failed them which is something perhaps a lot of people on this forum can empathize with. How many of you were believers until the man in the cloth turned his back to you? That's yet another grievance of mine with the fundies and evangelicals. They are failing their own religion and the proof is in the demographic shift.

I don't want the old institutions to survive. But we need something to base our society around a higher call to virtue that doesn't come from cold rationality, the same higher virtue that elevates inalienable rights above mere transient privileges. How can you have inalienable rights that stand the test of time if there isn't a cultural moral imperative to preserve them for posterity that exists beyond you? Like it or not we do need something to believe in. The alternative is to accept moral relativity in which case what right have you to shout at the man in Washington or Wallstreet looking out for himself damned be the rest? Who are you to tell him that his way is wrong?

 

[LordKiran]

There have actually been some movements that aimed to supply a post theology society. Humanism for one. Ethical Unions for another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Humanist_and_Ethical_Union

And of course we have things like neo-paganism.

Nifty but I'd have hoped for something a little more involved than a tri-annual convention. Neo paganism is pretty neat too but kindof a mixed bag. Depends on the individual tenants of a group but I do like the tenants of the satanists even though "Satanism" is pretty difficult to take seriously.

 

[ruby sparks]

For my own part I have never been fully satisfied with athiesm. It makes sense to not presume in a material diety sure and I don't think the idea of an anthropomorphic god in a literal heaven will ever not be silly to me, but then what does that leave us with?

Probably no god of any sort. Suck it up.

From whence comes a man's impetus to be noble if not from something bigger than himself?

Yeah. You're right. We need to believe in god in order to not to go around stabbing people.

What peterson among others seem to be tapping into is that there is an underlying craving for transmaterial succor in our society that cannot be sated in a belief in nothing.

Some peoples likes woo. Big deal.

 

[LordKiran]

Probably no god of any sort. Suck it up. [1]


Yeah. You're right. We need to believe in god in order to not to go around stabbing people. [2]

What peterson among others seem to be tapping into is that there is an underlying craving for transmaterial succor in our society that cannot be sated in a belief in nothing.

Some peoples likes woo. Big deal.[3]

1. k

2. Not stabbing each other is the bare bones basics of sociability that while important, is not in itself a basis for a complex modern society with millions of participants. I accept that our biology plays into our conceptions of morality to an extent, but only so. I don't take for granted that a solution for social harmony and virtue lies solely within our biological impulses which in fact are often the cause of much human misery.

3. Oddly condescending but okay! Good point...whatever it was.

 

[ruby sparks]

Probably no god of any sort. Suck it up. [1]


Yeah. You're right. We need to believe in god in order to not to go around stabbing people. [2]

What peterson among others seem to be tapping into is that there is an underlying craving for transmaterial succor in our society that cannot be sated in a belief in nothing.

Some peoples likes woo. Big deal.[3]

1. k

2. Not stabbing each other is the bare bones basics of sociability that while important, is not in itself a basis for a complex modern society with millions of participants. I accept that our biology plays into our conceptions of morality to an extent, but only so.

3. Oddly condescending but okay! Good point...whatever it was.

Look. I understand what you're saying. Life sucks a fair bit, and you'd like something imaginary to help you float your boat a little higher above the waves before the worms get you. Superstitious woo is good for that, I hear, and apparently still at least reasonably popular, albeit in decline in educated societies.

 

[LordKiran]

1. k

2. Not stabbing each other is the bare bones basics of sociability that while important, is not in itself a basis for a complex modern society with millions of participants. I accept that our biology plays into our conceptions of morality to an extent, but only so.

3. Oddly condescending but okay! Good point...whatever it was.

Look. I understand what you're saying. Life sucks, and you'd like something imaginary to help you float your boat a little higher above the waves before the worms get you. Superstitious woo is good for that, I hear, and apparently still at least reasonably popular.

You're making a looooot of assumptions right now.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybeeeee youuuuuu arrrrrre toooooo.

 

[LordKiran]

Maybeeeee youuuuuu arrrrrre toooooo.

Am I? Or is that an accusation and not a question?

 

[abaddon]

If the video's about the death of God, and the archetypalism of Jung and Hillman and Campbell as an answer, then I'm familiar with the general topic from decades ago.

When I was young I looked for archetypes in my dreams and in "active imagination". I thought the Arthurian cycle really resonated with me, and even read Tarot cards... not to predict the future but like structured rorschach blots, to invoke "messages" from the unconscious.

Eastern thought (especially Daoism and Zen) encouraged me to stop looking for symbols everywhere. Because it's painting the world in "shades of human". I never lost my respect for the inescapable need for stories though. But at some point, I wondered "Why look to ancient myths rather than to contemporary science for them?" Ecology seems an apt choice for our times. It doesn't have to be gods and heroes, it can be the relations of trees and bugs and wind. Because those are my nearer blood-kin than gods.

After all, what's wrong with the material world as our source of transcendence? The opportunities to transcend egocentricity are all over the place.

The old habit though is people want to derive their meaning from the fantastical. It can't be earthly, it has to be cosmic, and more than that. Spiritual ideals are meaning-laden for not being material. The more intangible the more everlasting (like people used to think of "the celestial") and thus the more meaningful... That is the apparent "logic" behind this ancient prejudice.

That's backwards. Or too top-down. Why no start at the other end?

When the stuff "down here on earth" seems too mundane to be meaningful, the only solution is weirdness. People don funny robes, chant nonsense, try to contact beings in "metaphysical realms". We feel like alien "minds" stuck inside an annoyingly limited body (limited compared to gods!). So setting up a transmitter to a "home" beyond the stars requires the schizotypal behavior.

Look at the existentialist response to "the death of God" and how well they [didn't] re-valuate all values. To stave off despair, their solution is to rebel against the absurdity of existence. One creates his own futile meaning. It's done to spite being a body-encased "mind" that somehow finds itself, purpose-less, stuck in the "void" of a material universe. So, they didn't much overcome the lunatic cultural background.

So, let's glance where there wasn't any such christian background. Say, ancient China for an example. What did some of their "existentialists" have to say?

Zhuangzi rejected the hierarchical evaluating that is people's habit. Throughout his writing he mocks the judgments like bigger is better than small. Useful better than useless. Lasting better than ephemeral. A later Zen text, emulating his ideas, advised "The path is not difficult for those who have no preferences... Make the smallest distinction and you are as far from it as heaven is from earth."

IOW, the judgments dissociate a person from reality. Again, we "paint" nature in "shades of human". If a "worldview" dissociates its believer far from immediate experience such that he seeks his justification in "somewhere else"... then, however meaningful to some, is it a life-affirming meaning?

I'm suggesting maybe a meaningful search for meaning starts with doubting the questions and the standards by which we judge. What if one simply stopped judging the mundane as "not good enough"?

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybeeeee youuuuuu arrrrrre toooooo.

Am I? Or is that an accusation and not a question?

In English, the adverb 'maybe' usually indicates possibility.

 

[LordKiran]

Maybeeeee youuuuuu arrrrrre toooooo.

Am I? Or is that an accusation and not a question?

In English, the adverb 'maybe' usually indicates possibility.

Ruby Sparks is a nazi who hates babies puppies and candy and wants to destroy the earth to appease his immortal god hitler...Or is he?

See, I'm just asking a question, nothing wrong with that!

 

[LordKiran]

If the video's about the death of God, and the archetypalism of Jung and Hillman and Campbell as an answer, then I'm familiar with the general topic from decades ago.

When I was young I looked for archetypes in my dreams and in "active imagination". I thought the Arthurian cycle really resonated with me, and even read Tarot cards... not to predict the future but like structured rorschach blots, to invoke "messages" from the unconscious.

Eastern thought (especially Daoism and Zen) encouraged me to stop looking for symbols everywhere. Because it's painting the world in "shades of human". I never lost my respect for the inescapable need for stories though. But at some point, I wondered "Why look to ancient myths rather than to contemporary science for them?" Ecology seems an apt choice for our times. It doesn't have to be gods and heroes, it can be the relations of trees and bugs and wind. Because those are my nearer blood-kin than gods.

After all, what's wrong with the material world as our source of transcendence? The opportunities to transcend egocentricity are all over the place.

The old habit though is people want to derive their meaning from the fantastical. It can't be earthly, it has to be cosmic, and more than that. Spiritual ideals are meaning-laden for not being material. The more intangible the more everlasting (like people used to think of "the celestial") and thus the more meaningful... That is the apparent "logic" behind this ancient prejudice.

That's backwards. Or too top-down. Why no start at the other end?

When the stuff "down here on earth" seems too mundane to be meaningful, the only solution is weirdness. People don funny robes, chant nonsense, try to contact beings in "metaphysical realms". We feel like alien "minds" stuck inside an annoyingly limited body (limited compared to gods!). So setting up a transmitter to a "home" beyond the stars requires the schizotypal behavior.

Look at the existentialist response to "the death of God" and how well they [didn't] re-valuate all values. To stave off despair, their solution is to rebel against the absurdity of existence. One creates his own futile meaning. It's done to spite being a body-encased "mind" that somehow finds itself, purpose-less, stuck in the "void" of a material universe. So, they didn't much overcome the lunatic cultural background.

So, let's glance where there wasn't any such christian background. Say, ancient China for an example. What did some of their "existentialists" have to say?

Zhuangzi rejected the hierarchical evaluating that is people's habit. Throughout his writing he mocks the judgments like bigger is better than small. Useful better than useless. Lasting better than ephemeral. A later Zen text, emulating his ideas, advised "The path is not difficult for those who have no preferences... Make the smallest distinction and you are as far from it as heaven is from earth."

IOW, the judgments dissociate a person from reality. Again, we "paint" nature in "shades of human". If a "worldview" dissociates its believer far from immediate experience such that he seeks his justification in "somewhere else"... then, however meaningful to some, is it a life-affirming meaning?

I'm suggesting maybe a meaningful search for meaning starts with doubting the questions and the standards by which we judge. What if one simply stopped judging the mundane as "not good enough"?

I'm not really sure how to come at this exactly there's a lot to unpack.

The idea of painting the world through a human lens is sort of an inescapable part of your being, wouldn't you say? As if you could see the world through any eyes other than your own. Is the human mind's ability to create and interpret sophisticated thoughts from images and icons in itself what you could call a religious experience? I mean the icon itself doesnt have anymore meaning than anything else. You wipe out humanity then the painting ceases to be a painting and just becomes a collection of particles suspended in a solid matrix. The painting comes from our intent and interpretations. So is art 'real'? Are the experiences they give valid?