BK basically answers this question later in the interview. He states that he believes the East got it 'right' metaphysically, but practically he is a Westerner and believes we must act as if there is a telos to the evolved self-reflective nature of being. Therefore, he does not view the Self as a quality we need to escape from. Although Jung certainly praised Eastern philosophy such as Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, I believe he ultimately identified with a Christian metaphysics, although there is some room for reasonable debate there.AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:42 amAround 1:45:00 BK is finally asked about Peterson, and says he doesn't know enough about him, but knows he is a Jungian and that serves as a common foundation. He is then asked where he disagrees with Jung, and says he doesn't disagree with Jung on anything, that Jung is a 'flat out' idealist, and considers him along with Thomas Kuhn as the two most important 20th century thinkers. That is a hell of a statement (which I agree with, top 5 without a doubt). BK mentions that Jung was "unbeatable" in his breadth and depth into the human condition, not even close to his peers.AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:53 amWow this is a hell of a discussion so far and I am only about an hour in. The question of "morality" under BK's idealism is a great one to explore. I largely agree with BK's assessment that 'moral codes' so far have been nothing more than human constructions which do not seem to be reflected in Nature, but I don't necessarily agree that no 'higher' moral order could be discerned from the archetypal patterns of Nature we experience, including those which currently appear as 'red in tooth and claw'.Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:54 pm Clearly BK is finding more time for interviews again ~ who is up for a hero's dose ~ the latest being well over 4 hours
I am really looking forward to reading BK's new book on Jung. It appears to me that Jung tended towards a belief in God as conceived in mystical Christian traditions, and that seems like a conception BK disagrees with at an ontological/metaphysical level. Perhaps BK understands Jung much differently in that regard, or perhaps he did not have religious belief in mind when saying he does not disagree with Jung on anything. Any ideas on that?
BK's view seems practical yet somewhat anti-pragmatic, in so far as he is confident that the most practically useful system for finding meaning in the face of suffering is not the system which is metaphysically true. My inclination is that, intellectually, we can remain agnostic about the metaphysics until we know more, either in this lifetime or the next or the next after that, so on and so forth.
BK brings up an interesting point regarding 'ego dissolution' with high-dose psychedelics, which is that we need to be consistent in our interpretations of those reports or experiences if we consider ourselves 'naturalists'. In my view, that actually weighs against the Eastern notion that an ego-dissolved state is the 'final reality'. If the ego-dissolved state feels 'ultra-real', then the Self is also real in some fundamental sense for there to be a contiguous reality. Perhaps reality is not contiguous in that manner, but then I am not sure we can call ourselves 'naturalists'.