Gabor Maté on Jordan Peterson

[Lou Gold]

Not only is not obvious, it's the exact opposite conclusion I reach when considering his body of work. With regards to philosophy at least, who knows or cares about "mysticism", whatever that means.

Ah. If this is your approach I wouldn't expect you to understand what I;m talking about.

I wonder what brings you to this forum, Speaking roughly, mysticism is non-dualism, which is what BK is selling.

Non-duality gives openness and duality gives meaning, which is why humans, but not God (M@L, Supreme Whatever), need both.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Peter ... Well Gabor is not a 'philosopher' either ... nor was Jung, who JP, as well as Bernardo, relies on with great affinity, and indeed in his latest book BK makes the case that Jung essentially was one. But perhaps you disagree there too, in which case I sense we're likely going to have to agree to disagree. So be it.

[AshvinP]

Not only is not obvious, it's the exact opposite conclusion I reach when considering his body of work. With regards to philosophy at least, who knows or cares about "mysticism", whatever that means.

Ah. If this is your approach I wouldn't expect you to understand what I;m talking about.

I wonder what brings you to this forum, Speaking roughly, mysticism is non-dualism, which is what BK is selling.

BK is 'selling' "mysticism" which is "roughly equivalent" to non-dualism? Now I have to question whether you understand philosophy or have read any of their books (BK or JP). And how can anyone understand what you're talking about if you don't elaborate on your short cryptic phrases. This isn't twitter, there is no character limit.

[Peter Jones]

BK is 'selling' "mysticism" which is "roughly equivalent" to non-dualism? Now I have to question whether you understand philosophy or have read any of their books (BK or JP). And how can anyone understand what you're talking about if you don't elaborate on your short cryptic phrases. This isn't twitter, there is no character limit.

BK endorses 'transcendental' or 'Absolute' Idealism, which is non-dualism. This is the philosophical foundation of the Perennial philosophy.

I'm not sure why you would want to disagree.

Perhaps you could check out my articles on BK's blog for more info. .

[AshvinP]

BK is 'selling' "mysticism" which is "roughly equivalent" to non-dualism? Now I have to question whether you understand philosophy or have read any of their books (BK or JP). And how can anyone understand what you're talking about if you don't elaborate on your short cryptic phrases. This isn't twitter, there is no character limit.

BK endorses 'transcendental' or 'Absolute' Idealism, which is non-dualism. This is the philosophical foundation of the Perennial philosophy.

I'm not sure why you would want to disagree.

Perhaps you could check out my articles on BK's blog for more info. .

Of course BK endorses non-dualism. But he rarely talks about "mysticism" or makes any sort of philosophical arguments for it without making the topic much more precise. Which is the same thing JP does - he formulates the philosophical questions he is thinking through and attempting to answer very precisely. Which is not what you are doing in your criticism of him at all. You have already admitted you have no desire to read his books, and I imagine the same applies to his lectures/interviews, so why offer an uninformed opinion in the first place?

[Cleric K]

Peter,

can you write in summary what are the far reaching consequences of the Perennial philosophy? Let's imagine that humans become more reasonable and if not all, at least majority of Earth's population adopts it. Everyone becomes pencil balanced on their tip. How do you envision this to transform society, if it is about society at all? Or it's about individual liberation after death?

[Lou Gold]

I think that GM is much more experience-based relating as a doctor with multiple souls and JP has deeper exploration from the individual mythic pov. Perhaps this is why GM would like to debate JP on the topic of compassion, which could be a pretty interesting exchange.

[Peter Jones]

Of course BK endorses non-dualism. But he rarely talks about "mysticism" or makes any sort of philosophical arguments for it without making the topic much more precise. Which is the same thing JP does - he formulates the philosophical questions he is thinking through and attempting to answer very precisely. Which is not what you are doing in your criticism of him at all. You have already admitted you have no desire to read his books, and I imagine the same applies to his lectures/interviews, so why offer an uninformed opinion in the first place?

Why do you suppose my opinion is uninformed? I have no desire to read his book because I''m well enough informed to know he doesn't understand philosophy or mysticism. I'm not sure whether he'd agree but I suspect he would.

BK does not make the topic more precise. He avoids making the connections to mysticism because it would not serve his agenda and might actually do damage. Compare his mate Rupert Spira with JP. and ask yourself who has a better grasp of reality.

I'm not putting JP down, just noting that he is not as well-informed as he could be.

[Peter Jones]

Peter,

can you write in summary what are the far reaching consequences of the Perennial philosophy? Let's imagine that humans become more reasonable and if not all, at least majority of Earth's population adopts it. Everyone becomes pencil balanced on their tip. How do you envision this to transform society, if it is about society at all? Or it's about individual liberation after death?

Fantastic question. It deserves its own thread.

Imagine if the majority of people pursued a meditative practice and understood that Reality is Consciousness. Imagine if most people knew that the doctrine of Upanishads is the only global theory that makes sense and explains metaphysics. Imagine if everyone was aware that materialism is a logically absurd and pre-philosophical idea. Imagine if most people believed that meditation and self-enquiry is a path to knowledge and truth. Imagine if everybody understood the monotheism is a dumbed-down explanation of Reality. Imagine if philosohers all agreed on the correct answers to metaphysical questions. Imagine if..... the list goes on.

If we look at the effect that the discovery of Buddhist doctrine and practice, say, has on those who discover it, then we can just multiply this across the population.

Basically, it would raise the consciousness of humanity to a higher level, and only good things could follow. I suspect it's happening slowly anyway, with BK playing an important role, although probably not fast enough to save life on earth as we know it.

[Lou Gold]

Peter,

"Basically, it would raise the consciousness of humanity to a higher level, and only good things could follow. I suspect it's happening slowly anyway, with BK playing an important role, although probably not fast enough to save life on earth as we know it."

I don't know if it would be a 'higher' level but surely a different level or even a new emptiness, which may require the replacement of Homo Sapiens with something else. After all, there seems to be no scientific reason to suspect that we who philosophize will be around forever or even long term.