Christianity and Metaphysics - Jordan Peterson interviews Jonathan Pageau

[Eugene I]

Ashvin, I don't have time for these long discussions about physics etc. One simple thing I can tell you is this. There are many metaphysical variants and spiritual traditions under idealism that are not necessarily agree with each other. You can see representatives of these variety of views and traditions on this forum. We all have differences and disagreements, many of them are not reconcilable. But we can still cooperate and together form a coalition to confront materialism . However, if one tradition or philosophical position will keep claiming its superiority, ultimate truthfulness and meta-position, no one else will cooperate with it. We can only cooperate on equal terms by accepting our differences and dropping any superiority claims.

[SanteriSatama]

There are many metaphysical variants and spiritual traditions under idealism that are not necessarily agree with each other. You can see representatives of these variety of views and traditions on this forum. We all have differences and disagreements, many of them are not reconcilable. But we can still cooperate and together form a coalition to confront materialism . However, if one tradition or philosophical position will keep claiming its superiority, ultimate truthfulness and meta-position, no one else will cooperate with it. We can only cooperate on equal terms by accepting our differences and abandoning any superiority claims.

Well said. Carving out genuine differences of opinions is also a very nuanced process of getting through semantic and terminological traditions with their confusions and various contextualizations. Keeping idealism as generic roof concept is good for more nuanced discussions.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, I don't have time for these long discussions about physics etc. One simple thing I can tell you is this. There are many metaphysical variants and spiritual traditions under idealism that are not necessarily agree with each other. You can see representatives of these variety of views and traditions on this forum. We all have differences and disagreements, many of them are not reconcilable. But we can still cooperate and together form a coalition to confront materialism . However, if one tradition or philosophical position will keep claiming its superiority, ultimate truthfulness and meta-position, no one else will cooperate with it. We can only cooperate on equal terms by accepting our differences and dropping any superiority claims.

Again, you are not transcending "superiority" claims by positing everything is of the same value, you are simply creating a different heirarchy of values which you believe are superior. It's really that simple.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'll suggest that the most apropos path, and thus 'superior' only within some specific context, is the path that demonstrably is working for any given individual, such that by their fruits you shall know them. And for some that may be a more eclectic and syncretic approach that involves an integral confluence of various paths. Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, none of the recognized traditional paths falls into the category of being an ideal integral path that I can singularly resonate with. Hence the need for their ongoing evolution into a novel religion for the integral stage and age that is not strictly confined to any prior iteration, but which integrates and applies the best of all of them ... or so it seems.

[AshvinP]

You sound like basic epistemic humility of philosophical skepticism and various relativist ethics based on such humility is a bad thing. Could you be building a strawman of relativism to argue for some kind of dogmatic universalism?

No, because I am stressing there are many spiritual paths leading in the same direction and towards the same destination, whatever that may be, and that there is a fundamental continuity of spiritual development through human history. There is nothing dogmatic or universalist about that, except to the extent that it implies everyone, through their unique individuality, is free to participate in the Divine.

[AshvinP]

FYI, Mark Vernon has chimed in on the dynamic duo of JPs in conversation ...

As usual, MV nails it. Thanks.

[SanteriSatama]

No, because I am stressing there are many spiritual paths leading in the same direction and towards the same destination, whatever that may be, and that there is a fundamental continuity of spiritual development through human history. There is nothing dogmatic or universalist about that, except to the extent that it implies everyone, through their unique individuality, is free to participate in the Divine.

Thanks for the clarification. Your position is a possibility, but I would not take it for granted. For example, the goal of Divinely Integrated Differentiation is by definition not same, but more unique. Same destination for all is a universalist position, as I understand the philosophical meaning of the term. Many vs all and some critical theological questions are at play here.

[AshvinP]

No, because I am stressing there are many spiritual paths leading in the same direction and towards the same destination, whatever that may be, and that there is a fundamental continuity of spiritual development through human history. There is nothing dogmatic or universalist about that, except to the extent that it implies everyone, through their unique individuality, is free to participate in the Divine.

Thanks for the clarification. Your position is a possibility, but I would not take it for granted. For example, the goal of Divinely Integrated Differentiation is by definition not same, but more unique. Same destination for all is a universalist position, as I understand the philosophical meaning of the term. Many vs all and some critical theological questions are at play here.

Yes, as usual, it all depends on what we mean by various terms, like "same destination". I can hardly conceive what such a destination may be, but I am confident it will not be a homogenous realm of automatons.

[SanteriSatama]

Yes, as usual, it all depends on what we mean by various terms, like "same destination". I can hardly conceive what such a destination may be, but I am confident it will not be a homogenous realm of automatons.

For example, the destination of Heaven of fairly standard Christianity is very similar to the destination of Pure Land Buddhism, but neither consider that ultimate destination, it's basically a storage faculty to hibernate before resurrection, and the Buddhist version does not consider it universal in any sense, just an option among many.

[AshvinP]

The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross is largely about a purported connection between early Christianity and the pagan/shamanic practice of using of a psychedelic, likely involving mushrooms, to induce visionary/healing experiences. As we know, this theory, along with similar theories about the Eleusinian mystery schools, and speculation about other 'foods' of the Gods, like manna and soma, is currently coming back into vogue, with the so-called psychedelic renaissance. And given JP's knowledge of this, and his own daughter's experiential explorations in that regard, I'd be surprised if he hasn't given some consideration to the healing powers of these plant 'medicines' used in a therapeutic context of proper set and setting, to get at the core of some psychospiritual crisis manifesting as corporeal illness. However, whether or not he's actually open to that possibility in his own case, I've no idea, and besides wouldn't be possible if he's still using any prescribed anti-depressant/anxiety meds ~ alas one such prescribed drug, benzodiazepine, being culpable for making his condition far worse. But whatever is the cause of JP's struggles, it somehow doesn't seem solely corporeal in nature, and indeed, if Jung is correct, could not be without some spiritual correlate.

The most significant difference between Freudian and Jungian approaches is that for Freudians anxiety is a given without hope of liberation, but Jungian integration offers hope of liberation also from anxiety. It's another question whether you would want a total liberation from all anxiety, though. But in case of JP, he's having a very real and serious dance with anxiety and I guess we are all curious what might come out of his dance.

I would say the most significant difference is what BK makes a compelling case for in his new book, which is that Jung was a metaphysical idealist for all intents and purposes. All kinds of implications for the psychic possibilities of humanity flow downstream from that.