Gabor Maté on Jordan Peterson

[AshvinP]

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.

Well this is silly... I imagine if you had any philosophical arguments to back that claim up you would have made them already. And based on your response to Cleric, it looks like your criticism of JP boils down to the same tired criticism which started off this thread - a vague distaste for Western philosophy and metaphysics, especially of the religious variety.

[Soul_of_Shu]

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.

This does raise an interesting inquiry. Like Bernardo, JP deeply respects and refers incisively to Jung, who was arguably a realized sage in the sense of a being modern 'western' shaman, and as BK makes the case in DJM, indirectly pointed to the primacy of consciousness. Yet, Rupert Spira, also arguably a realized sage, more from the Ramana Maharshi/Advaita Vedanta lineage, who teaches the direct path to grokking the primacy of consciousness, seems a very different kind of sage than Jung. Furthermore, it seems neither Jung nor Spira would define themselves as philosophers; while I suspect that neither BK or JP would claim to be in that realized sage state. And whereas BK references both eastern and western approaches toward mysticism and self-realization, with both informing his metaphysics, JP seems primarily focused on the western, especially Judeo-Christian, tradition. So one wonders what either of them would make of the Jung/Spira comparison. Also, as 'metaphysicians' on the path, as opposed to 'mystics', and both scholars of Jung, how would JP and BK understand each other? Seems a chat between the two would be intriguing in that regard. Shall we lobby for that?

[AshvinP]

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.

This does raise an interesting inquiry. Like Bernardo, JP deeply respects and refers incisively to Jung, who was arguably a realized sage in the sense of a being modern 'western' shaman, and as BK makes the case in DJM, indirectly pointed to the primacy of consciousness. Yet, Rupert Spira, also arguably a realized sage, more from the Ramana Maharshi/Advaita Vedanta lineage, who teaches the direct path to grokking the primacy of consciousness, seems a very different kind of sage than Jung. Furthermore, it seems neither Jung nor Spira would define themselves as philosophers; while I suspect that neither BK or JP would claim to be in that realized sage state. And whereas BK references both eastern and western approaches toward mysticism and self-realization, with both informing his metaphysics, JP seems primarily focused on the western, especially Judeo-Christian, tradition. So one wonders what either of them would make of the Jung/Spira comparison. Also, as 'metaphysicians' on the path, as opposed to 'mystics', and both scholars of Jung, how would JP and BK understand each other? Seems a chat between the two would be intriguing in that regard. Shall we lobby for that?

Yes we should! The hard part of course is finding a way to get BK and his work on JP's radar. Perhaps the other JP (Pageau) will be useful in this regard, as he had agreed to a discussion with BK on Twitter. We just need to periodically remind them both to actually follow through.

[Lou Gold]

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.

Well this is silly... I imagine if you had any philosophical arguments to back that claim up you would have made them already. And based on your response to Cleric, it looks like your criticism of JP boils down to the same tired criticism which started off this thread - a vague distaste for Western philosophy and metaphysics, especially of the religious variety.

Ashvin, How might you explain the fact that I share this "tired criticism" AND hold the Cross, Jesus and Mary as my core foundational Archetypes? IMHO, it would be precisely because of the difference between philosophy and mysticism that Peter is pointing toward. Although I've had profound, life-changing mystical experiences, I do not claim to be a mystic. I definitely am not a philosopher but the little I've read of the Upanishads made easy recognizable intuitive sense to me. My consciousness (as defined by BK) is based on direct experiences, which seem as different from yours (no criticism of you implied!). Might this be the reason for our differing philosophical preferences? Does it just boil down to different life experiences? If not, why?

[AshvinP]

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.

Well this is silly... I imagine if you had any philosophical arguments to back that claim up you would have made them already. And based on your response to Cleric, it looks like your criticism of JP boils down to the same tired criticism which started off this thread - a vague distaste for Western philosophy and metaphysics, especially of the religious variety.

Ashvin, How might you explain the fact that I share this "tired criticism" AND hold the Cross, Jesus and Mary as my core foundational Archetypes? IMHO, it would be precisely because of the difference between philosophy and mysticism that Peter is pointing toward. Although I've had profound, life-changing mystical experiences, I do not claim to be a mystic. I definitely am not a philosopher but the little I've read of the Upanishads made easy recognizable intuitive sense to me. My consciousness (as defined by BK) is based on direct experiences, which seem as different from yours (no criticism of you implied!). Might this be the reason for our differing philosophical preferences? Does it just boil down to different life experiences? If not, why?

Life experiences matter, but I think innate personality dispositions matter even more. Usually people higher in trait openness (creativity) and introversion lean more towards Eastern spiritual traditions. People higher in conscientiousness and extroversion will lean towards Western. Of course it's more complicated, since the person's unconscious will try to compensate for the dominant conscious traits by going in the opposite direction, and other factors will come into play such as what traditions they were born and raised into.

Anyway, I am just pointing out that the people here who view JP as harboring "repressed anger" or simply "not understanding philosophy" are also the people who are very critical of Western spiritual traditions and naturally feel more drawn to Eastern ones and/or "liberal" political affiliations. I doubt that is a coincidence.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes we should! The hard part of course is finding a way to get BK and his work on JP's radar. Perhaps the other JP (Pageau) will be useful in this regard, as he had agreed to a discussion with BK on Twitter. We just need to periodically remind them both to actually follow through.

Worth a try, and as a 'teaser' we should point JP toward reading DJM, since I suspect that, while they would share much in common regarding Jung, at least one point of distinction between BK and JP is that while Bernardo has committed to idealism and the primacy of consciousness as the irreducible ontological primitive, even siting Jung as a significant influence in positing this premise ~ right up there with Schopenhauer ~ I feel that Jordan would be far more agnostic in that regard. So one has to be intrigued if JP could be swayed by BK's cogent, Jung-inspired case for a counter-materialist alternative.

[Lou Gold]

Well this is silly... I imagine if you had any philosophical arguments to back that claim up you would have made them already. And based on your response to Cleric, it looks like your criticism of JP boils down to the same tired criticism which started off this thread - a vague distaste for Western philosophy and metaphysics, especially of the religious variety.

Ashvin, How might you explain the fact that I share this "tired criticism" AND hold the Cross, Jesus and Mary as my core foundational Archetypes? IMHO, it would be precisely because of the difference between philosophy and mysticism that Peter is pointing toward. Although I've had profound, life-changing mystical experiences, I do not claim to be a mystic. I definitely am not a philosopher but the little I've read of the Upanishads made easy recognizable intuitive sense to me. My consciousness (as defined by BK) is based on direct experiences, which seem as different from yours (no criticism of you implied!). Might this be the reason for our differing philosophical preferences? Does it just boil down to different life experiences? If not, why?

Life experiences matter, but I think innate personality dispositions matter even more. Usually people higher in trait openness (creativity) and introversion lean more towards Eastern spiritual traditions. People higher in conscientiousness and extroversion will lean towards Western. Of course it's more complicated, since the person's unconscious will try to compensate for the dominant conscious traits by going in the opposite direction, and other factors will come into play such as what traditions they were born and raised into.

Anyway, I am just pointing out that the people here who view JP as harboring "repressed anger" or simply "not understanding philosophy" are also the people who are very critical of Western spiritual traditions and naturally feel more drawn to Eastern ones and/or "liberal" political affiliations. I doubt that is a coincidence.

Again, this is what would make a dialogue between JP and GM so interesting. In debate format, it might be called "Compassion versus Conscientiousness." To get beyond the either/or they might be driven toward an instinctual loving/creating God.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Another point I feel inclined to make here, is that the apt comparison is not between JP and Rupert Spira, but between JP and Bernardo, or even Gabor, none of whom would claim to be in Spira's category, and indeed each of whom have conceded to being very much works in progress in that regard, with much shadow-work left to process ~ BK even confessing to being highly neurotic (his words), and JP speaking openly about his disposition toward depression. Whereas, to all appearances at least, RS would seem to be neither ~ albeit, who knows what might still be lurking in the shadows, given how many gurus have fallen from Grace, and been caught in acts of 'sin.'

[Soul_of_Shu]

Further to my last point, I would go so far as to say that insofar as shadow-work goes, show me a guru who has transcended it all, with no more shadow stuff, whether individual or collective ~as they are inextricable ~ left to resolve, and I'll show you maybe a fantasy character in a work of fiction.

[Lou Gold]

Further to my last point, I would go so far as to say that insofar as shadow-work goes, show me a guru who has transcended it all, with no more shadow stuff, whether individual or collective ~as they are inextricable ~ left to resolve, and I'll show you maybe a fantasy character in a work of fiction.

Or a myth such as duality or non-duality. Show me a manifestation without an evil twin.