Gabor Maté on Jordan Peterson

[AshvinP]

Ashvin ... I too doubt that anyone here knows to what extent GM has delved into JP's body of work. But his comment about JP supposedly not speaking out against atrocities committed in the name of Christian fundamentalism leads one to conclude that his understanding of JP's ideas does not go very deep at all, and that this all too facile point is not without some preconceived confirmation bias.

I did not get to that part, but yeah that is a very shallow claim, and it seems to confirm my suspicion that a lot of these impressions of Peterson are related to the Western-Eastern metaphysical/spiritual divide. That is also correlated with politically right-left leanings, perhaps even extroversion-introversion (in a much more complex way), but I think the metaphysical/spiritual dimension is the most influential on our subconscious perspectives.

I listened to the rest of that clip and yes it is extremely shallow. He does not seem to realize how much JP refers to Nietzsche in admiration, who was the most devastating critic of institutional Christianity. He talked about one passage from Beyond Good and Evil for 45 minutes, which is still one of my favorites:

[Peter Jones]

I would agree with Gabor. What strikes me about Peterson is not what he is saying, but how he is saying it, his psychological and spiritual/energetic state. He speaks about meaning, faith, love and peace, but the spiritual "wavelength" of this message is so toxic, it's full of rage and anger and that is why I just cannot listen to him. But that's only my personal opinion

Mine also. The guy doesn't get it. Shame.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Mine also. The guy doesn't get it. Shame.

Hi Peter ... Nice to see you checking in to the new venue. Not sure what you're referring to that JP 'doesn't get', since there are others here who clearly feel that he 'gets' quite a bit. Perhaps you could be more specific.

In any case, I found this interesting quote from Gabor that perhaps explains his issue with JP's take on 'God' as an Source, and which I feel would make for a fascinating conversation between him and JP, were they to sit down and have a heart-to-heart chat ...

"I don’t believe in God, so you don’t have to worry about it; I’m not trying to convince you of anything. But if there is a God, he/she/it was uncreated; unformed. It was original; it had no source. It is its source. We’re created in the image of God, which means we’re also the source. The big difference is that we’re not uncreated. In other words, the place where we create from has origins before our creation, so it’s hard for us to see that we’re actually creating our lives.

It takes a lot of consciousness, a lot of conscious effort, to get to the point of realization that we’re a source. Most of us never get there, or we get there only very partially.

My intent is to help you see that you’re a source, which is to say I want you to get what I don’t get myself, which is the understanding of the source. I don’t live my life as being about a source, or at least I’m not aware of that much of the time. Nevertheless, that’s the truth as I understand it." ~ GM

[AshvinP]

Mine also. The guy doesn't get it. Shame.

Hi Peter ... Nice to see you checking in to the new venue. Not sure what you're referring to that JP 'doesn't get', since there are others here who clearly feel that he 'gets' quite a bit. Perhaps you could be more specific.

In any case, I found this interesting quote from Gabor that perhaps explains his issue with JP's take on 'God' as an Source, and which I feel would make for a fascinating conversation between him and JP, were they to sit down and have a heart-to-heart chat ...

"I don’t believe in God, so you don’t have to worry about it; I’m not trying to convince you of anything. But if there is a God, he/she/it was uncreated; unformed. It was original; it had no source. It is its source. We’re created in the image of God, which means we’re also the source. The big difference is that we’re not uncreated. In other words, the place where we create from has origins before our creation, so it’s hard for us to see that we’re actually creating our lives.

It takes a lot of consciousness, a lot of conscious effort, to get to the point of realization that we’re a source. Most of us never get there, or we get there only very partially.

My intent is to help you see that you’re a source, which is to say I want you to get what I don’t get myself, which is the understanding of the source. I don’t live my life as being about a source, or at least I’m not aware of that much of the time. Nevertheless, that’s the truth as I understand it." ~ GM

That was a very awkward way of putting it, but I think I get what GM is saying in that quote. And he may find that JP is very open to that possibility as well, i.e. we as humans are not other than God. That is an ancient 'esoteric' tradition within Judeo-Christian thought, not only Eastern thought.

On another note, when are we going to get an intelligent, detailed criticism of JP and his ideas?? I am always on the lookout for those and always get disappointed

[Soul_of_Shu]

On another note, when are we going to get an intelligent, detailed criticism of JP and his ideas?? I am always on the lookout for those and always get disappointed

Yeah, I'm not much interested in just cursory comments about not liking someone's 'vibe.' After all, there are times when I'm not resonating with Bernardo's 'vibe', and I've no doubt that he too is in an ongoing process of dealing with the shadow elements, and is not above 'shadow-boxing.' And likewise there are certain non-metaphysical positions that I would disagree with BK about. However, that does not in any way devalue the worthiness of his overall body of work. Why JP isn't cut the same slack I'm not quite sure, as I have no issue with either him or Gabor, and feel that they're both doing good work.

[Brad Walker]

I like Peterson's passion but not his overconfidence. He makes occasional vague or fallacious claims that people accept on delivery.

132 characters

[Brad Walker]

Peterson would be better if he only published writings, where readers could be more critical and not swayed by charisma.

120 characters

[Soul_of_Shu]

Peterson would be better if he only published writings, where readers could be more critical and not swayed by charisma.

And apparently as long as they aren't intelligent, detailed critiques that require an attention span that exceeds 280 characters

[AshvinP]

Peterson would be better if he only published writings, where readers could be more critical and not swayed by charisma.

120 characters

Since you are so interested, here are a few of his published writings to get you started:

• "Three forms of meaning and the management of complexity" - https://t.co/qn6TQiHmlr?amp=1

• "The Meaning of Meaning" - https://www.academia.edu/keypass/WjJ2RF ... card=title

• "Complexity Management Theory": Motivation for Ideological Rigidity and Social Conflict - https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SUljeH ... tion-paper

• "You Can Neither Remember Nor Forget What You Do Not Understand" - https://www.academia.edu/keypass/UnY3Z2 ... tion-paper

• "Self-deception and impaired categorization of anomaly" - https://www.academia.edu/keypass/MHZ2dX ... card=title

[Brad Walker]

AshvinP, only.

14 characters