Christianity and the Modern World: Bishop Barron & Jordan B. Peterson

[Soul_of_Shu]

Beating Ashvin in the sharing of this, it no doubt should be of interest to the Christianity-inclined here ...

[AshvinP]

Wow. I was listening to this on my drive to work and was definitely going to post it here today, so you were spot on. Great minds think alike! I haven't finished it yet but the Bishop's remarks have been very interesting so far. He referenced Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (spiritual evolutionary thinker) and also a line from Hegel about the recognition of limits already putting us beyond the limit. That is a good anti-nihilistic sign.

The ignorant man is not free, because what confronts him is an alien world, something outside him and in the offing, on which he depends, without his having made this foreign world for himself and therefore without being at home in it by himself as in something his own. The impulse of curiosity, the pressure for knowledge, from the lowest level up to the highest rung of philosophical insight arises only from the struggle to cancel this situation of unfreedom and to make the world one's own in one's ideas and thought.

[Eugene I]

The impulse of curiosity, the pressure for knowledge, from the lowest level up to the highest rung of philosophical insight arises only from the struggle to cancel this situation of unfreedom and to make the world one's own in one's ideas and thought.

Hegel is bang on, this is the hallmark of the Western "spiritual science" approach (the Christian one included) to close the Kantian gap and the split between "me" and "otherness" of the alien world (which is essentially what duality is about): "to make the world one's own" in one's ideas and thought. In other words, man closes the division by reaching to the the "ideas" of oneness by thinking. As opposed to that, the Eastern approach is to realize the oneness experientially by discovering the invariable omni-ever-present experiential/existential aspects of reality that unites it into oneness, and then it can compliment it by ideas about such aspects. In other words, Western-vs-Eastern approaches are about penetrating into deeper levels of reality by thinking vs. by experiential/existential knowing them though direct conscious experience. I'm not criticizing the Western approach here in any way, I think it is completely valid, I'm just emphasizing the key difference between these approaches.

[Shaibei]

I'm not used to listening to Peterson much, but I listened a little to what he said, and as one who greatly appreciates Victor Frenkel, it's hard for me to ignore Frenkel's music in Peterson's words. Peterson speaks of meaning and values, of these being transcendent as a condition to demand man and his freedom of will the responsibility for their fulfillment. These are beautiful things.
Despite my fondness for various aspects of Jung and Neamann's psychoanalysis that echo a symbolic thinking, expressing what cannot be expressed in words, of something that can only be pointed at and one absorbs it according to his inner self, I still find in Frenkel's psychoanalysis something that takes man out of the stuckness in his "I". Shalom Shalom

[AshvinP]

The impulse of curiosity, the pressure for knowledge, from the lowest level up to the highest rung of philosophical insight arises only from the struggle to cancel this situation of unfreedom and to make the world one's own in one's ideas and thought.

Hegel is bang on, this is the hallmark of the Western "spiritual science" approach (the Christian one included) to close the Kantian gap and the split between "me" and "otherness" of the alien world (which is essentially what duality is about): "to make the world one's own" in one's ideas and thought. In other words, man closes the division by reaching to the the "ideas" of oneness by thinking. As opposed to that, the Eastern approach is to realize the oneness experientially by discovering the invariable omni-ever-present experiential/existential aspects of reality that unites it into oneness, and then it can compliment it by ideas about such aspects. In other words, Western-vs-Eastern approaches are about penetrating into deeper levels of reality by thinking vs. by experiential/existential knowing them though direct conscious experience. I'm not criticizing the Western approach here in any way, I think it is completely valid, I'm just emphasizing the key difference between these approaches.

That's not accurate. Creating this dichotomy between thinking and "direct knowing" is a relic of rationalism and dualism. Thinking is "direct conscious experience" just as much as anything else. Why? For many reasons, but philosophically because no experience exists without thinking activity. That is what it means for it to be an aspect of ontic prime, which you have agreed with several times in other threads.

[Eugene I]

That's not accurate. Creating this dichotomy between thinking and "direct knowing" is a relic of rationalism and dualism. Thinking is "direct conscious experience" just as much as anything else. Why? For many reasons, but philosophically because no experience exists without thinking activity. That is what it means for it to be an aspect of ontic prime, which you have agreed with several times in other threads.

The point is not to create any dichotomy, but to recognize the value of both and use both approaches in the investigation of reality, still understanding the difference between them. It's like in science both experimental data and theoretical models are of equal importance, but nobody take predictions of the models for the experimental data and vise versa, and instead, each of them has their proper place in the scientific method.

[AshvinP]

I'm not used to listening to Peterson much, but I listened a little to what he said, and as one who greatly appreciates Victor Frenkel, it's hard for me to ignore Frenkel's music in Peterson's words. Peterson speaks of meaning and values, of these being transcendent as a condition to demand man and his freedom of will the responsibility for their fulfillment. These are beautiful things.
Despite my fondness for various aspects of Jung and Neamann's psychoanalysis that echo a symbolic thinking, expressing what cannot be expressed in words, of something that can only be pointed at and one absorbs it according to his inner self, I still find in Frenkel's psychoanalysis something that takes man out of the stuckness in his "I". Shalom Shalom

Yes this was an excellent discussion. JP made several attempts at steering towards the idea of theosis and how that is the only way to make sense of the Christ event. At one point he said "someone had to be the first" in reference to Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ. Jungian archetypes were brought up a few times. The character of Satan in Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost as well. Sometimes it seemed Barron was agreeing with the non-standard take on the 'Good News' and other times he was pushing back with standard Christian dogma. Overall I thought it was a fascinating and insightful conversation.

[AshvinP]

That's not accurate. Creating this dichotomy between thinking and "direct knowing" is a relic of rationalism and dualism. Thinking is "direct conscious experience" just as much as anything else. Why? For many reasons, but philosophically because no experience exists without thinking activity. That is what it means for it to be an aspect of ontic prime, which you have agreed with several times in other threads.

The point is not to create any dichotomy, but to recognize the value of both and use both approaches in the investigation of reality, still understanding the difference between them. It's like in science both experimental data and theoretical models are of equal importance, but nobody take predictions of the models for the experimental data and vise versa, and instead, each of them has their proper place in the scientific method.

Usually when we speak of "thinking" in these discussions you are using it to mean basic intellectual ratiocination, and in that sense I agree it is not sufficient nor is it the only approach. But thinking in the much broader and deeper sense of intuition, reason and overall spiritual activity - that is an aspect of every experience and therefore it does not make sense to say there is an approach without it.

[Eugene I]

I agree, no matter what kind of "direct" experience we can acquire in any kind of "non-thinking" states, it would not make any sense to us unless we recollect it and comprehend it and fit it into our overall worldview with thinking. And of course thinking includes all of those aspects you mentioned.

[Shaibei]

I'm not used to listening to Peterson much, but I listened a little to what he said, and as one who greatly appreciates Victor Frenkel, it's hard for me to ignore Frenkel's music in Peterson's words. Peterson speaks of meaning and values, of these being transcendent as a condition to demand man and his freedom of will the responsibility for their fulfillment. These are beautiful things.
Despite my fondness for various aspects of Jung and Neamann's psychoanalysis that echo a symbolic thinking, expressing what cannot be expressed in words, of something that can only be pointed at and one absorbs it according to his inner self, I still find in Frenkel's psychoanalysis something that takes man out of the stuckness in his "I". Shalom Shalom

Yes this was an excellent discussion. JP made several attempts at steering towards the idea of theosis and how that is the only way to make sense of the Christ event. At one point he said "someone had to be the first" in reference to Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ. Jungian archetypes were brought up a few times. The character of Satan in Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost as well. Sometimes it seemed Barron was agreeing with the non-standard take on the 'Good News' and other times he was pushing back with standard Christian dogma. Overall I thought it was a fascinating and insightful conversation.

Religion aside, from what I have seen of Peterson I have an appreciation for him as a person and as a thinker