Gabor Maté on Jordan Peterson

[Lou Gold]

I don't get why his [JP's] stuff occupies so much space on this forum, especially given that most of his nonsense is overtly political and not metaphysical.

Might it be because it's a way to bring politics to the forum dressed up as metaphysics?

[AshvinP]

I understand that is the narrative you support, but I don't agree with it and neither does JP.

Unless JP has given you the power of an attorney, it's not kosher to speak for him.

I'll dig up some tweets to share at some point. His latest interview is with Abigail Shrier about "gender dysphoria"... not exactly the same phenomenon but definitely in the same ballpark.

It is basically equating Western civilization, all the way down to the level of its mathematical origins, with class oppression in the worst sense of the word "oppression". It is cynical to the very core and infects every aspect of Western civilization with resentment, perhaps the only negative emotion capable of disguising itself as spiritual meaning. Maybe you are not resentful, but then you are by far the exception and it's easy to understand why so many people who follow that logic are.

The wrong turn was "Cantor's paradise" (as called by Hilbert, father of Formalism) which lead to the prevailing set theory. Not Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek math as such, or Indian, Chinese, Maya etc. math. The resentment you refer to seems to be mostly phenomena of settler self-hatred originating from complex Shadow projection and integration processes on cultural level. Echoed and amplified by the hysterics of very American outrage culture. As Lou said, forgiveness to self can be the hardest thing.

If sin is defined as separation from God, as Christian scholars very often explain the deeper spiritual meaning, then those separated by a false theory of mathematics are lost lambs, don't you agree?

No, I wholeheartedly disagree. Alchemy was technically false science but spiritually very useful. Which again goes back to pragmatic definition of "truth", a philosophical outlook that has no problem with any mathematical system which can be employed towards productive ends. "Sin" means to miss the target, i.e. to aim at something and miss. If Cantor's math ever stops being capable of helping one hit the target one is aiming at, then I will gladly cast it aside.

Honestly I view this as a means of setting a standard for the foundation of "authentic" spirituality which you know, or should know, will never be met. It's the easiest way of making sure no one will take nondual Western monotheism seriously again, ever. It serves as an anti-theory to pragmatism by making the most exclusive framework and the framework which is least likely to be adopted as the one which is most "important" for spiritual faith. And that's a terrible way to go about it.

Open interval is not an exclusive concept, it's both more and less. Nor is it a competing religion, no belief is required, it's only offering ability to think more clearly about the age old problem between continuity and discontinuity. It's just math, prior to Aristotelean logic. Aristotelean etc. logic of either-or becomes really possible only with the concept of a closed interval, such as empty set. Closed intervals of finite sets are not denied, the only trick is to switch the foundational order. Closed intervals (etc. school arithmetics) can be coherently (<and prag[ma]tically!>) derived from open interval, but not vice versa. The initial truth theory is here same as BK applies, coherence theory of truth. The coherence theory in turn enables more specific proof theories, such as classical logic, intuitionist logic, etc. as they become defined in further construction of the foundational theory.

both-and - inclusive
either-or - exclusive

Do you get it now? Closed intervals, which enable meaningful either-or relations between objects, can be derived from halting the process of an open interval, ie. "neither more nor less/neither increases nor decreases". The good, computable aspects of math are not lost, only given a coherent foundation.

Thank you for your patience and attention. You are helping much to learn to speak this more plainly. Perhaps some day so plain, that even Lou comprehends, despite his "resentment" towards intellectual comprehension...

Oh, so now we are taking it back to the roots of Western civilization. I think everyone gets what you are on about with this stuff, even without being well-versed in math, but what's hard to fathom is why you place metaphysical-spiritual importance on it for any reason other than to critique what you also feel is the essence of the Western world in its continuous chain of "colonial" cultural domination.

Seriously, do you think it would be this hard to get across if it as important to the very fabric of reality and genuine truth-seeking spirituality as you make it out to be? It's not a coincidence that BK's idealism is so much easier to grasp and appreciate than that of various post-structural philosophers. That it captures people's archetypal imagination without fail if they just take an hour to listen carefully. Unlike someone like Derrida, where you could listen to someone else's simplifying summary and still feel like it is a major burden to slough through.

[Lou Gold]

Oh, so now we are taking it back to the roots of Western civilization. I think everyone gets what you are on about with this stuff, even without being well-versed in math, but what's hard to fathom is why you place metaphysical-spiritual importance on it for any reason other than to critique what you also feel is the essence of the Western world in its continuous chain of "colonial" cultural domination.

Might it be that Western Civilization conquests depended on the myth of One God whereas the Great Myth brought by conquests from the East was The Invention of Money? BTW, what conquesting civilization empire is not dependent on a "continuous chain of "colonial" cultural domination"?

[SanteriSatama]

Alchemy was technically false science but spiritually very useful. Which again goes back to pragmatic definition of "truth", a philosophical outlook that has no problem with any mathematical system which can be employed towards productive ends.

Newton's Alchemical meditation of gravity field is very good spiritual addition to Metta, heart breathing.

"Sin" means to miss the target, i.e. to aim at something and miss.

Spear throwing is a concrete meaning, as is calculating how to hit with a cannon ball. The more general meaning of missing one's purpose, taking a wrong turn, is more plausible in spiritual context, than the meaning of use of a weapon.

If Cantor's math ever stops being capable of helping one hit the target one is aiming at, then I will gladly cast it aside.

So, ends justify the means? Or, as Dawkins justifies technocratic scientism: "It works, bitches!"?

You get it the wrong way, pure math is not, or at least should not be derived from the practical purposes of applied math. Deciding how pure math should be founded and constructed from the teleology of calculus is the wrong way of doing pure math. Pure math does not deprive engineers and artillery officers their applied math of calculus, but to stay honest, pure math can't be enslaved by mechanical teleology.

In pure math ends do not justify means. Pure math is constructive, not destructive target hitting.

Oh, so now we are taking it back to the roots of Western civilization. I think everyone gets what you are on about with this stuff, even without being well-versed in math, but what's hard to fathom is why you place metaphysical-spiritual importance on it for any reason other than to critique what you also feel is the essence of the Western world in its continuous chain of "colonial" cultural domination.

So now you identify your projection of "Western world" only with Cantor's paradise, Hilbert's formalism and materialist technocracy, and nothing else? Seriously? Brouwer and intuitionism are not part of Western world? Pythagorean and Neo-Platonic spiritual mathematics don't belong in it, or spiritual alchemy etc.? All the renowned mathematicians, Berkeley, Wittgenstein etc. who never accepted "completed infinity", are not part of Western world?

What on Earth is the "Western world" you keep talking about, really? What exactly is the nerve that feels targeted and getting hit by discussion of pure mathematics starting from idea of continuity instead of discontinuity, from processes instead of objects?

[Peter Jones]

Honestly I view this as a means of setting a standard for the foundation of "authentic" spirituality which you know, or should know, will never be met. It's the easiest way of making sure no one will take nondual Western monotheism seriously again, ever. It serves as an anti-theory to pragmatism by making the most exclusive framework and the framework which is least likely to be adopted as the one which is most "important" for spiritual faith. And that's a terrible way to go about it.

Sorry to butt in, but I would point out that there is no such thing as 'non-dual monotheism'. or not unless you call Brahman, Consciousness or Reality 'God, which would be unorthodox.

[Lou Gold]

Honestly I view this as a means of setting a standard for the foundation of "authentic" spirituality which you know, or should know, will never be met. It's the easiest way of making sure no one will take nondual Western monotheism seriously again, ever. It serves as an anti-theory to pragmatism by making the most exclusive framework and the framework which is least likely to be adopted as the one which is most "important" for spiritual faith. And that's a terrible way to go about it.

Sorry to butt in, but I would point out that there is no such thing as 'non-dual monotheism'. or not unless you call Brahman, Consciousness or Reality 'God, which would be unorthodox.

Sometimes being unorthodox is the point.

[AshvinP]

Honestly I view this as a means of setting a standard for the foundation of "authentic" spirituality which you know, or should know, will never be met. It's the easiest way of making sure no one will take nondual Western monotheism seriously again, ever. It serves as an anti-theory to pragmatism by making the most exclusive framework and the framework which is least likely to be adopted as the one which is most "important" for spiritual faith. And that's a terrible way to go about it.

Sorry to butt in, but I would point out that there is no such thing as 'non-dual monotheism'. or not unless you call Brahman, Consciousness or Reality 'God, which would be unorthodox.

Why would it be unorthodox? I grew up in Hindu home going to temple once a week and God was mentioned prettty often.

But regardless there is definitely nondual Christian monotheism. This was discussed over in the Nietzsche thread.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Sorry to butt in, but I would point out that there is no such thing as 'non-dual monotheism', or not unless you call Brahman, Consciousness or Reality 'God', which would be unorthodox.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by Brahman ...

Paul Deussen states that the concept of Brahman in the Upanishads expands to metaphysical, ontological and soteriological themes, such as it being the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe", the "principle of the world", the "absolute", the "general, universal", the "cosmic principle", the "ultimate that is the cause of everything including all gods", the "divine being, Lord, distinct God, or God within oneself", the "knowledge", the "soul, sense of self of each human being that is fearless, luminuous, exalted and blissful", the "essence of liberation, of spiritual freedom", the "universe within each living being and the universe outside", the "essence and everything innate in all that exists inside, outside and everywhere"

[Peter Jones]

Why would it be unorthodox? I grew up in Hindu home going to temple once a week and God was mentioned prettty often.

Well, yes. Indian religion has thousand Gods. But nondualism is not theism. Plotinus carefully and explicitly warns us against imagining that the Ultimate or 'The One' is God. Nondualism requires abandoning God, or, at least, conceding that whatever we are calling God we are It. It could be argued that Meister Eckhart, say, is a 'nondual theist', but he was writing at a time and place when it would have been suicidal to question monotheism, and even with all his care he was excommunicated. So Christian and Islamic mysticism has always had to be dressed up in theistic clothing - at least until quite recently. Even in the mid 20th century Schrodinger got into trouble for saying that inasmuch as there is a God he is it, as are we all.

But regardless there is definitely nondual Christian monotheism. This was discussed over in the Nietzsche thread.

I would disagree. There is definitely a nondual Christianity, as we see in the Philokalia, the sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Nag Hammadi Library, the Mystical Theology of Dionysius Echkart, Ruysbrooke and more recently the book A Course in Miracles and so forth. But this is not theism. Hence the horror of the Church at this doctrine. I would say Jesus taught the nondual doctrine, but regrettably the Church doesn't agree.

I suppose I'm being pedantic, but I don't think you'll be able to get the hang of mysticism while you believe it is theism.

[AshvinP]

Alchemy was technically false science but spiritually very useful. Which again goes back to pragmatic definition of "truth", a philosophical outlook that has no problem with any mathematical system which can be employed towards productive ends.

Newton's Alchemical meditation of gravity field is very good spiritual addition to Metta, heart breathing.

"Sin" means to miss the target, i.e. to aim at something and miss.

Spear throwing is a concrete meaning, as is calculating how to hit with a cannon ball. The more general meaning of missing one's purpose, taking a wrong turn, is more plausible in spiritual context, than the meaning of use of a weapon.

If Cantor's math ever stops being capable of helping one hit the target one is aiming at, then I will gladly cast it aside.

So, ends justify the means? Or, as Dawkins justifies technocratic scientism: "It works, bitches!"?

You get it the wrong way, pure math is not, or at least should not be derived from the practical purposes of applied math. Deciding how pure math should be founded and constructed from the teleology of calculus is the wrong way of doing pure math. Pure math does not deprive engineers and artillery officers their applied math of calculus, but to stay honest, pure math can't be enslaved by mechanical teleology.

In pure math ends do not justify means. Pure math is constructive, not destructive target hitting.

Oh, so now we are taking it back to the roots of Western civilization. I think everyone gets what you are on about with this stuff, even without being well-versed in math, but what's hard to fathom is why you place metaphysical-spiritual importance on it for any reason other than to critique what you also feel is the essence of the Western world in its continuous chain of "colonial" cultural domination.

So now you identify your projection of "Western world" only with Cantor's paradise, Hilbert's formalism and materialist technocracy, and nothing else? Seriously? Brouwer and intuitionism are not part of Western world? Pythagorean and Neo-Platonic spiritual mathematics don't belong in it, or spiritual alchemy etc.? All the renowned mathematicians, Berkeley, Wittgenstein etc. who never accepted "completed infinity", are not part of Western world?

What on Earth is the "Western world" you keep talking about, really? What exactly is the nerve that feels targeted and getting hit by discussion of pure mathematics starting from idea of continuity instead of discontinuity, from processes instead of objects?

You took it back to Aristotle. It's not as if this is the first time we have had this discussion. You frequently identify Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, etc. as at the root of all these "wrong turns". And of course early Christian tradition, monotheism, etc. There is a reason why I keep using the word "essence" and italicizing it - there is a huge difference between criticizing various manifestations of Western thought vs. criticizing the essence of Western civilization, which many post-structural philosophers claim is twisted at its very core. It is hyper-cynical philosophy and therefore it's hard to distinguish from overtly political statements, i.e. a Democrat refusing to vote on any bill a Republican proposes and vice versa.

But let's see if we can get to the heart of this metaphysical issue, anyway. We need to explore what it means to claim something is "true". Can anything which is useful towards achieving human aims be untrue? (note truth does not necessarily imply what we should aim at; the Devil can be real but we don't need to follow him). I hold to the pragmatic definition of truths. Fittingly enough, if our aim with post-modern philosophy is to critique intellectual thought of the modern era, pragmatism is truly post-modern, because it is one of the most effective ways of making such a critique of rationalism, materialism, logical positivism, etc.