Have you read Whitehead? I talked to Matt Segall recently about Whitehead, God and reality's trajectory (the podcasr will come out soon). It feels relevant to this. A lot of the things I've been thinking about recently have been making me want to go back to your work. So I'm glad you posted this, it's great !
Wonderful. Brilliant. I look forward to reading the entire book in due course. I was thinking recently of how misunderstood or under-appreciated Dr Peterson is. The superficial, or those not capable (through no real fault of their own) of critical or deep thinking, started by embracing this "self-help phenomenon" - but without ever reading or at least part-understanding Maps of Meaning, or taking any notice of his constantly repeated advice in various lectures to read Erich Neumann or Jung or Mircea Eliade, or trying to grapple with them - have ended up accusing him of either having "lost it", because they can't follow his evolving thinking processes, or having a go at him for "not being a proper Christian" and wholeheartedly taking on the propositional superstitions of established religious institutions. They had listened to his Genesis lectures - which never once, not once, included any silly suggestions about embracing creeds or propositions - and flooded back into Churches - which he just never told people to do; he only supported the "social glue" of respecting ancient traditions, rituals and writings. They never really listened to or understood anything he said about e.g. resurrection, as a permanent archetype pre-dating Christianity, and with symbolic significance for natural and psychological transformation, not as something you could have videotaped with a camcorder and a time machine. And now the more fundamentalist types feel somehow let down by him and accuse him of just "psychologizing" the Biblical stories whereas they of course "know" that the Bible is "objectively true" - never having read about or grappled with its internal contradictions, the idea that preachers and writers actually have psychological agendas of their own, especially when writing a Gospel or a tract to those either already faithful or intended to be converted - as if you can't "psychologize the Bible"! It seems to me that they want him to be a New-Testament propagandist but he seems to me more like an Old Testament prophet - somebody who wandered in from the desert and started telling people what's what whether they like it or not. And it doesn't seem to occur to them that if you want to "go back to Christianity" and "blame" Dr Peterson you can do so, but his phenomenon is so much larger than that, because if you want to abandon long-discredited historical claims - but still accept that it means something serious to your life and your society if you always aim at the highest - then you can also "blame" the influence of Dr Peterson, without having to start repeating creeds that you couldn't take seriously if you've done any historical/literary research of your own. So he's more important than superstition, or pure propositional claims. It seems to me that your work will build on this in important ways, as a kind of "unofficial sequel" to Maps of Meaning, although I am not for a moment trying to constrain or judge what you need to say and explain, as I have no right to do any such thing for something I have not yet read in full. I certainly have no intention of causing any kind of offense to either you or Dr Peterson by suggesting such a thing; the comment comes from a place of appreciation and great respect for both of you.
Another excellent article Brett. Really enjoyed reading this and learning from you. I'm also happy to see you posting again and I - together with some friends on a private forum - have already committed to buying your book when it emerges from chaos.
I look forward to future instalments. Wishing you creativity, diligence and perservance. KEEP IT UP!
This is great, Brett, thanks for sharing. Maps of Meaning is a foundational text for me, and Peterson a foundational thinker, so I think what you're doing here - updating and revitalising his work through this new lens of dynamical systems and complexity science - is essential.
Reading the chapter, I was thinking about Peterson's most recent conversation with Dawkins. Although I believe Peterson is brilliant, I think he has become less clear and persuasive in explaining his thesis, particularly to figures like Dawkins. I think if Dawkins read your work, or you had the opportunity to explain it to him, it may help him to understand the value of mythological and narrative religious stories in cultivating and sustaining psyche's and societies.
Looking forward to reading more - best wishes with the writing and editing process.
Unfortunately JBP hasn’t been the best exemplar of his own ideas lately. I agree that someone like Dawkins could probably be swayed if he were presented with the ideas competently.
Have you read Whitehead? I talked to Matt Segall recently about Whitehead, God and reality's trajectory (the podcasr will come out soon). It feels relevant to this. A lot of the things I've been thinking about recently have been making me want to go back to your work. So I'm glad you posted this, it's great !
Wonderful. Brilliant. I look forward to reading the entire book in due course. I was thinking recently of how misunderstood or under-appreciated Dr Peterson is. The superficial, or those not capable (through no real fault of their own) of critical or deep thinking, started by embracing this "self-help phenomenon" - but without ever reading or at least part-understanding Maps of Meaning, or taking any notice of his constantly repeated advice in various lectures to read Erich Neumann or Jung or Mircea Eliade, or trying to grapple with them - have ended up accusing him of either having "lost it", because they can't follow his evolving thinking processes, or having a go at him for "not being a proper Christian" and wholeheartedly taking on the propositional superstitions of established religious institutions. They had listened to his Genesis lectures - which never once, not once, included any silly suggestions about embracing creeds or propositions - and flooded back into Churches - which he just never told people to do; he only supported the "social glue" of respecting ancient traditions, rituals and writings. They never really listened to or understood anything he said about e.g. resurrection, as a permanent archetype pre-dating Christianity, and with symbolic significance for natural and psychological transformation, not as something you could have videotaped with a camcorder and a time machine. And now the more fundamentalist types feel somehow let down by him and accuse him of just "psychologizing" the Biblical stories whereas they of course "know" that the Bible is "objectively true" - never having read about or grappled with its internal contradictions, the idea that preachers and writers actually have psychological agendas of their own, especially when writing a Gospel or a tract to those either already faithful or intended to be converted - as if you can't "psychologize the Bible"! It seems to me that they want him to be a New-Testament propagandist but he seems to me more like an Old Testament prophet - somebody who wandered in from the desert and started telling people what's what whether they like it or not. And it doesn't seem to occur to them that if you want to "go back to Christianity" and "blame" Dr Peterson you can do so, but his phenomenon is so much larger than that, because if you want to abandon long-discredited historical claims - but still accept that it means something serious to your life and your society if you always aim at the highest - then you can also "blame" the influence of Dr Peterson, without having to start repeating creeds that you couldn't take seriously if you've done any historical/literary research of your own. So he's more important than superstition, or pure propositional claims. It seems to me that your work will build on this in important ways, as a kind of "unofficial sequel" to Maps of Meaning, although I am not for a moment trying to constrain or judge what you need to say and explain, as I have no right to do any such thing for something I have not yet read in full. I certainly have no intention of causing any kind of offense to either you or Dr Peterson by suggesting such a thing; the comment comes from a place of appreciation and great respect for both of you.
You'll have to try much harder than that if you want to offend me :)
It will, in many ways, be a successor to Maps of Meaning. If I had to pick a single book whose thesis is most similar to mine, that would be the one.
Another excellent article Brett. Really enjoyed reading this and learning from you. I'm also happy to see you posting again and I - together with some friends on a private forum - have already committed to buying your book when it emerges from chaos.
I look forward to future instalments. Wishing you creativity, diligence and perservance. KEEP IT UP!
That was Fantastic! Can't wait for the book.
This is great, Brett, thanks for sharing. Maps of Meaning is a foundational text for me, and Peterson a foundational thinker, so I think what you're doing here - updating and revitalising his work through this new lens of dynamical systems and complexity science - is essential.
Reading the chapter, I was thinking about Peterson's most recent conversation with Dawkins. Although I believe Peterson is brilliant, I think he has become less clear and persuasive in explaining his thesis, particularly to figures like Dawkins. I think if Dawkins read your work, or you had the opportunity to explain it to him, it may help him to understand the value of mythological and narrative religious stories in cultivating and sustaining psyche's and societies.
Looking forward to reading more - best wishes with the writing and editing process.
Thanks David.
Unfortunately JBP hasn’t been the best exemplar of his own ideas lately. I agree that someone like Dawkins could probably be swayed if he were presented with the ideas competently.
Really excited for this, especially the role of the feminine.
Great read, looking forward to more :)