Jordan Peterson with Bret Weinstein - A Metaphysical Delight

[AshvinP]

What I first thought was going to be a discussion focused on issues about PC and "woke" ideology turned out to be a metaphysical delight and I am only 30 minutes in. It really picks up steam around minute 17 when JP begins discussing his 'psychological' (see idealist) approach to the Fall in Genesis 3 - "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked." Then they discuss 'nascent' forms of 'delayed gratification' in animals, which is essentially JP pushing back on Weinstein's biological reductionist approach. Although Weinstein then lands a surprise blow to my expectations when he begins discussing human consciousness as a fundamentally shared quality, not "inside our skulls", and that individual consciousness is "secondary" to the shared consciousness. JP responds by referencing his oft-stated view that we have no idea what consciousness is, that phenomenal consciousness is "mysterious" and says, "the fact that experience exists is almost indistinguishable from the idea that being itself exists, so it's a very deep idea". And that's where I am right now.

[AshvinP]

And it is just getting better and better. They are now discussing pragmatic philosophy and Jung's derivation of science from alchemy, and how "the scientific enterprise is seriously nested within a narrative world". JP is basically continuing his debate with Sam Harris to make a case for the Truth of the spiritual world of meaning-values but with someone who can actually follow his Darwinian perspective. Seriously must-watch material.

[AshvinP]

Wow. If you watch nothing else, go to minute 40 where JP asks Weinstein, "what does this mean metaphysically?" and "is it unreasonable to propose that the ideal form of that complexity is 'Divine'?". Weinstein responds "the Universe has not been aiming at it, as far as I can tell..." and at minute 41, JP almost yells at Weinstein saying "Well I didn't want to smuggle in a too overt teleology... but HERE WE ARE and everything!".

[AshvinP]

[AshvinP]

Wow. If you watch nothing else, go to minute 40 where JP asks Weinstein, "what does this mean metaphysically?" and "is it unreasonable to propose that the ideal form of that complexity is 'Divine'?". Weinstein responds "the Universe has not been aiming at it, as far as I can tell..." and at minute 41, JP almost yells at Weinstein saying "Well I didn't want to smuggle in a too overt teleology... but HERE WE ARE and everything!".

The discussion basically becomes a debate about what role consciousness has to play in driving biological-cultural evolution, with JP defending the Darwinian-pragmatic approach which puts consciousness as the primary agent and Weinstein dropping a ton of scientific knowledge while trying to defend a reductionist view, without realizing all of the science actually bolsters the idealist view as long as we refrain from making Weinstein's unnecessary philosophical assumptions about the process. And then JP drops the megaton bomb - "I feel I am caught in a modern incarnation of the arguments between Freud and Jung...". Weinstein says, "I'm not playing Freuds role, am I?". JP, "yes I think you are... what I hear is, 'genes' as 'id' and 'superego' as inhibitory mechanisms".

[SanteriSatama]

Sounds like JP - or rather collective subconscious through him - is doing superb job of marketing BK's new book.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Looking forward to this chat, once I get around to it, and get over having overdosed on JP lately.

[AshvinP]

Sounds like JP - or rather collective subconscious through him - is doing superb job of marketing BK's new book.

For sure. I have never heard him that sharp and ready with philosophically focused response in a live discussion, and Weinstein is no joke... he has deep knowledge of evolutionary theory and many other related topics. If only we could somehow get him interested enough to read BK's new book... I think after that he would be pining for a metaphysical discussion with BK, who could also point him towards Hoffman, and who knows what would happen from there.

[SanteriSatama]

At about 39:- JP invites criticism of evolution of religion in connection to discussion of chimpanzee patriarchal power hierarchy.

A glaring omission of the whole discussion is Bonobo collective matriarchy, preference for loads of instant sexual gratification by Bonobo females (they have very big clitorises in comparison to other apes), and relatively more peaceful behavior than chimps. Which does not mean they are total peacenik hippies, but a different bio-socio-cultural evolution strategy from chimps.

Great apes show ritual behavior, like also elephants etc. Not just funeral rites, but also dancing at rainfall and waterfall, etc. Not sure why chimps do that, but when I was a child, me and my cousins somehow decided to do a rain dance, and it worked.

Just some more additional info, not sure what to make of it in the evopsych frame, but themes of food/drink acquisition and generally metabolism and ritual behavior and magical thinking related to that is a theme that arises, together with rites of passage related to at least death. Also animal telepathy is empirically well established, but further implications of that have not been studied in this context. Any case, before we get the phenomena of organized religions and their mythologies, there's the whole spiritual and shamanic substrata, of which hierarchically organized religions are a particular subset, not necessarily very representative of the whole.

And another thing. Humans are far from only species that uses psychadelics and other mind altering drugs. I have not done extensive study of the field, but not only other mammals, but also insects, birds etc. trip with drugs. A big difference between humans and our closest relatives is that our receptor systems are much more versatile, enough so that we could be defined as the psychadelic ape. We can do patriarchy, matriarchy, power hierarchy, anarchy, war and peace and sex orgy like chimps and bonobo, but they can't do psychadelics like we can.

I think that's far more important explanatory distinction than delayed gratification. Overemphasis of delayed gratification and work has clear cultural background in the phenomenon called 'protestant work ethic'. A good scientist should be aware of that, and be careful to avoid universalizing his own specific cultural background.

[AshvinP]

I think that's far more important explanatory distinction than delayed gratification. Overemphasis of delayed gratification and work has clear cultural background in the phenomenon called 'protestant work ethic'. A good scientist should be aware of that, and be careful to avoid universalizing his own specific cultural background.

But it's not only related to Protestant work ethic, rather the concept of 'sacrifice' (delayed gratification) is at the heart of all Christian formulations of redemption. And we can see echoes, shadows, pre-figurations, etc. of that in most other major spiritual traditions as well. The idea that sacrifice through individual responsibility provides the maximal meaning to one's life on the social, physical and psychological level is hard to argue with.