Gabor Maté on Jordan Peterson

[Lou Gold]

Reality is "that which selects" for survival of the human species.

Nope! Reality is that which selects for life with or without the human species. There is no scientific evidence that humans are forever or even long term. The track record for bacteria is immensely spectacularly more vastly without doubt more impressive. Similarly, there is no evidence that instinct is a nature dripping with the blood of tooth and claw waiting for moral conscientious humans to arrive. Indeed, instinctive mutuality and collaboration seems to be more the key to survival.

[SanteriSatama]

His usual way of expressing this belief is to reference pragmatic philosophy and ancient mythology and point out that we moderns are in no position to question the Reality of that which is expressed in mythology, since Reality is "that which selects" for survival of the human species.

Or perhaps better said, it is vital to keep on investigating, questioning and questing our evolutionary mythologies and archetypes, testing through lived experience which myths in which forms are worth preserving and improving in service to the imperative of evolution, which archetypes in which forms we can let go of.

Philosophical skepticism means continuous investigation, the empirical middle path between belief and doubt.

[Lou Gold]

His usual way of expressing this belief is to reference pragmatic philosophy and ancient mythology and point out that we moderns are in no position to question the Reality of that which is expressed in mythology, since Reality is "that which selects" for survival of the human species.

Or perhaps better said, it is vital to keep on investigating, questioning and questing our evolutionary mythologies and archetypes, testing through lived experience which myths in which forms are worth preserving and improving in service to the imperative of evolution, which archetypes in which forms we can let go of.

Philosophical skepticism means continuous investigation, the empirical middle path between belief and doubt.

I would say, "Skeptical belief is the middle path between faith and doubt." In other words, "Fake it until you make it."

[AshvinP]

Reality is "that which selects" for survival of the human species.

Nope! Reality is that which selects for life with or without the human species. There is no scientific evidence that humans are forever or even long term. The track record for bacteria is immensely spectacularly more vastly without doubt more impressive. Similarly, there is no evidence that instinct is a nature dripping with the blood of tooth and claw waiting for moral conscientious humans to arrive. Indeed, instinctive mutuality and collaboration seems to be more the key to survival.

There is evidence that everything we experience and know, or that we can potentially experience and know, is from the perspective of a human, so the concepts of "reality" and "selection" without humans are meaningless.

[AshvinP]

His usual way of expressing this belief is to reference pragmatic philosophy and ancient mythology and point out that we moderns are in no position to question the Reality of that which is expressed in mythology, since Reality is "that which selects" for survival of the human species.

Or perhaps better said, it is vital to keep on investigating, questioning and questing our evolutionary mythologies and archetypes, testing through lived experience which myths in which forms are worth preserving and improving in service to the imperative of evolution, which archetypes in which forms we can let go of.

Philosophical skepticism means continuous investigation, the empirical middle path between belief and doubt.

Sure, we can be skeptical without being cynical, the latter presuming ancient myths were essentially articulated for oppressive reasons.

[SanteriSatama]

cynical

In the positive meaning of the word, I'm a big fan of palindromic theology of Diogenes. Dog = god.

[SanteriSatama]

There is evidence that everything we experience and know, or that we can potentially experience and know, is from the perspective of a human, so the concepts of "reality" and "selection" without humans are meaningless.

This very perspectivism calls for human gnothi seauton of how our perspectives form from fusion and divergence of perspectives of spirit in all its costumes and natures. The humanity of spirit also in costumes of bark, scales and fur, and our perspectives of hawk, camel and lion. Shared perspectives of child and parent in every costume.

[Peter Jones]

I am just repeating what you already admitted - that you don't read JP's books.

I think what I said is that I didn't plan to read the book that was the subject of that discussion.

Then you channeled John Lennon in your response to Cleric - "Imagine if most people knew that the doctrine of Upanishads is the only global theory that makes sense and explains metaphysics... Imagine if everybody understood the monotheism is a dumbed-down explanation of Reality". You don't think those are arrogant things to say?

I'm not sure why you would think them arrogant. They are just thought-experiments.

If you're questioning the truth of what I'm asking you to imagine this is a different matter. I'd be happy to debate this.

But I was asked what would happen if we all endorsed the nondual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy, so my answer must necessarily assume it is true. ,.

If you started off saying "JP doesn't understand philosophy and here is why - X,Y,Z" then maybe I could take you seriously and we could have a discussion on X,Y,Z and perhaps learn something from one another. But you didn't do that, and when asked to elaborate, your answers became even more stubbornly parse. So I have no reason to take your 'matter of fact' opinion of JP's philosophy seriously and I am confident it can be attributed to prejudice against Western spirituality.

I don;pt believe there uis such a thing as 'Western spirituality', so this cannot be the explanation. .

I take your point.

But does JP claim to understand philosophy? Does he claim any profound knowledge? Does he seem to comprehend the world? It seems obvious to me he is groping towards and understanding and not in a position to teach.

I'm not sure I we need to get into a detailed discussion to establish that JP is not as well-informed as Spira, Sadhguru, Mooji and other youtube stars. It's usually best to learn a subject from people who seem to understand it, or at least claim to do so. JP makes no such claim.

Let's not fall out. I'm just suggesting that JP is not a reliable source of truth, and I doubt he'd disagree. . .
'

[AshvinP]

I am just repeating what you already admitted - that you don't read JP's books.

I think what I said is that I didn't plan to read the book that was the subject of that discussion.

Then you channeled John Lennon in your response to Cleric - "Imagine if most people knew that the doctrine of Upanishads is the only global theory that makes sense and explains metaphysics... Imagine if everybody understood the monotheism is a dumbed-down explanation of Reality". You don't think those are arrogant things to say?

I'm not sure why you would think them arrogant. They are just thought-experiments.

If you're questioning the truth of what I'm asking you to imagine this is a different matter. I'd be happy to debate this.

Sure, I am more than willing to debate 1) "the doctrine of Upanishads is the only global theory that makes sense and explains metaphysics" and 2) "monotheism is a dumbed-down explanation of Reality". Perhaps we can start with (1) and you can lay out your argument. Keep in mind that I accept metaphysical monism-idealism and think it is found in Judeo-Christian scripture as well as Eastern philosophy.

But does JP claim to understand philosophy? Does he claim any profound knowledge? Does he seem to comprehend the world? It seems obvious to me he is groping towards and understanding and not in a position to teach.

I'm not sure I we need to get into a detailed discussion to establish that JP is not as well-informed as Spira, Sadhguru, Mooji and other youtube stars. It's usually best to learn a subject from people who seem to understand it, or at least claim to do so. JP makes no such claim.

Let's not fall out. I'm just suggesting that JP is not a reliable source of truth, and I doubt he'd disagree. . .
'

Yes, I think he does claim to "understand philosophy" if by that you mean he is familiar with various schools of philosophy which have been prominent in the last few centuries and their arguments related to ontology, epistemology, ethics, etc. He definitely claims to have a deep understanding of Jungian depth psychology, which is evident from his lectures, and as BK has shown in his latest book, Jungian depth psychology is nothing less than metaphysics (psychology=metaphysics must be the case under idealism).

You think he would agree that he is "not a reliable source of truth"? That's a very weird thing to claim... I wonder why he keeps writing books and doing interviews then.

[SanteriSatama]

You think he would agree that he is "not a reliable source of truth"? That's a very weird thing to claim... I wonder why he keeps writing books and doing interviews then.

Not at all weird. JP makes it clear very often that he is not in position to teach from "Master-level", on the contrary I love most his soul baring moments of insecurity, fear and doubt, which people can connect with on deeply shared level. His magic is his sincerity as a fellow seeker.

Writing books, giving lectures and participating in dialogues is the age old method of learning by teaching, teaching by learning. "Teacher" is just a role that a deep learner takes, to keep on learning.