Jordan Peterson “Beyond Order” book excerpt: Aeon of Horus, Osiris, Star Wars, Jung and Crowley

[Soul_of_Shu]

Speaking of Egyptian mythos, although leaning more toward Shu-ness, a book I loved is The Field of Transformations: A Quest for the Immortal Essence of Human Awareness, which is both inspired by and a commentary on an ancient Egyptian sacred text: Revelation of the soul of Shu (which I've since borrowed from as a forum namesake), translated by Bika Reed ~ the major theme being about the bond between existence and meaning. Alas, it now seems to be out of print, and hence quite pricey given that I paid $12:95 when I bought it.

[AshvinP]

Osiris, founder of state, becoming willfully blind, is basically the same story as King Oedipus blinding himself after learning the truth of the reason for the plaque in his City. Later in Kolonos, the old and blind father figure of Oedipus, guided by her daughter, finally enters the cave of underworld, for his final restorative rites.

The tension between class society of state, and on the other hierarchy in the true meaning of the word is what the myths discuss. Hierarchy means holy order, holy rule, holy principle. The unholy and the unsustainable inherent character of the class society can't be denied, but can't be openly recognized, so the willful blindness. Also JP is very careful to talk about hierarchy, and very seldom if ever about class society, in his own willful blindness, which diverts the discussion of the social myth, used mainly as state propaganda but also to question class society, into individualist psychology. This is not criticism, to comprehend a myth we need to live it.

That's a very one-dimensional take on the myth. And I am not sure how an accusation of "willful blindness" doesn't count as a criticism

What you are doing is avoiding the hard work of comprehension by reducing the myth to political-economic power dynamics. It's easy to understand the world when everything is primarily a function of "class society", only secondarily about psychological and spiritual truths. Or when spiritual truths are nothing more than class dynamics. It's the same thing I you and Lou were doing on the other thread... reducing the essence of hierarchy into power over others rather than distinctions of value and priority which have evolved over countless iterations.

Of course there is an overlap there, but the latter goes much deeper into the structures of reality, structures that were present long before the various religious, political and economic hierarchies of power were instantiated in human societies. To keep the myths alive by living them out is precisely not to reduce and flatten them out in such a manner. Not to assume we have transcended their spiritual import. If we venture to deconstruct the myths then we must also adopt the responsibility for building them back up, rather than resting comfortably in the void that is left by their absence.

[Lou Gold]

Osiris, founder of state, becoming willfully blind, is basically the same story as King Oedipus blinding himself after learning the truth of the reason for the plaque in his City. Later in Kolonos, the old and blind father figure of Oedipus, guided by her daughter, finally enters the cave of underworld, for his final restorative rites.

The tension between class society of state, and on the other hierarchy in the true meaning of the word is what the myths discuss. Hierarchy means holy order, holy rule, holy principle. The unholy and the unsustainable inherent character of the class society can't be denied, but can't be openly recognized, so the willful blindness. Also JP is very careful to talk about hierarchy, and very seldom if ever about class society, in his own willful blindness, which diverts the discussion of the social myth, used mainly as state propaganda but also to question class society, into individualist psychology. This is not criticism, to comprehend a myth we need to live it.

That's a very one-dimensional take on the myth. And I am not sure how an accusation of "willful blindness" doesn't count as a criticism

What you are doing is avoiding the hard work of comprehension by reducing the myth to political-economic power dynamics. It's easy to understand the world when everything is primarily a function of "class society", only secondarily about psychological and spiritual truths. Or when spiritual truths are nothing more than class dynamics. It's the same thing I you and Lou were doing on the other thread... reducing the essence of hierarchy into power over others rather than distinctions of value and priority which have evolved over countless iterations.

Of course there is an overlap there, but the latter goes much deeper into the structures of reality, structures that were present long before the various religious, political and economic hierarchies of power were instantiated in human societies. To keep the myths alive by living them out is precisely not to reduce and flatten them out in such a manner. Not to assume we have transcended their spiritual import. If we venture to deconstruct the myths then we must also adopt the responsibility for building them back up, rather than resting comfortably in the void that is left by their absence.

reducing the essence of hierarchy into power over others rather than distinctions of value and priority which have evolved over countless iterations.

I think this happens whenever any reduction to a single hierarchical privileging of judgement is offered. I'm happy to accept multiple hierarchies of values and priorities. I prefer a merkaba to a pyramid, multiple multidirectional merkabas even more, living fungal networks even more.

[SanteriSatama]

That's a very one-dimensional take on the myth.

Of course, myths are multi-dimensional deep structures, a short form interpretation in the flow of discussion is by necessity linear extraction for the purposes of discussion.

What you are doing is avoiding the hard work of comprehension by reducing the myth to political-economic power dynamics.

That line of interpretation was the given context, I just followed the thread further and more coherently. As for hard work, we can really know myths only by living them, and can't say I been spared in that respect. This is not intellectual debate for me, but of course that level exists too, and i respect also that. Peter Jackson, director of the trilogy, told that every time he watched the scene of Aragorn kneeling to hobbits, it made him cry the good tears. And it had same effect on so many others. If you can close your heart to the meaning of that, doesn't mean others can and will.

It's easy to understand the world when everything is primarily a function of "class society", only secondarily about psychological and spiritual truths. Or when spiritual truths are nothing more than class dynamics.

Straw man projection.

It's the same thing I you and Lou were doing on the other thread... reducing the essence of hierarchy into power over others rather than distinctions of value and priority which have evolved over countless iterations.

OK, I'll spill the beans. As already hinted by my discussion of the etymological meaning of term 'hierarchy'... tribal shamans don't really want to become such. It's very hard, the death rate is high, and they lose so much, by the collective spirit of the tribe and it's ecosystem individuating a human body into its vessel and a tool. Power of the tribe etc. spirit over "one for all". Yes, It us a form of human sacrifice, the original form. For a long time, the general drift has been away from the individuation towards softer, kinder forms of shamanhood, more distributed and decentralized forms. As is the way of learning process, its creativity, trial and error. Class society and it's politics is an attempt and experiment to distribute and evolve social functions of shamanhood - which are enacted by spiritual power. JP in the clip quoted sees a big part of that process, which is not a small feat, but not the whole of it, not the whole layer of shamanhood before the Pharao, before myths and practices of sacrificial kings, etc conservative, disruptive, restorative and creative myth cycles and story telling that go also beyond the cycles of class society.

To keep the myths alive by living them out is precisely not to reduce and flatten them out in such a manner. Not to assume we have transcended their spiritual import. If we venture to deconstruct the myths then we must also adopt the responsibility for building them back up, rather than resting comfortably in the void that is left by their absence.

Sometimes we live myths to release the tension built in them, to bring a myth to a closure, to make room for new myths, explorations and experiences. Archetypes are not eternal and immutable, they evolve, and we very much participate in the evolution through our life experiences and lessons learned. That's JP's main thesis of Jungian evolutionary psychology, and I very much agree with that thesis.

Where does the willful blindness originate from? We do know that in order to keep on evolving, we need to share the burden of shamanhood and learn to do that better and better. On the other hand, only a fool wants to do that voluntarily, because the cost is high. Various trips to underworld, losing your child-like innocence, and what not. Even though we keep on searching for softer methods, and have found many, JP is very much drawn to the Jungian way, which reflects the very old way. Of course JP is doing his own Hero's Journey in the classic "I did it my way", style of alone and unguided, blind, first the high climb of his fame tour, then the deep plunge into his withdrawal symptoms etc., now slowly crawling back from that, to continue who knows where. In the ritual, shared and guided forms based on millennia of experience such as theater, the order is reverse: first the Underworld drama, then the katharsis. And keeping it mostly in the confines of the ritual. I have nothing but respect and deepest sympathy for the "I did it my way" style.

[Lou Gold]

Santeri,

OK, I'll spill the beans. As already hinted by my discussion of the etymological meaning of term 'hierarchy'... tribal shamans don't really want to become such. It's very hard, the death rate is high, and they lose so much, by the collective spirit of the tribe and it's ecosystem individuating a human body into its vessel and a tool. Power of the tribe etc. spirit over "one for all". Yes, It us a form of human sacrifice, the original form. For a long time, the general drift has been away from the individuation towards softer, kinder forms of shamanhood, more distributed and decentralized forms. As is the way of learning process, its creativity, trial and error. Class society and it's politics is an attempt and experiment to distribute and evolve social functions of shamanhood - which are enacted by spiritual power. JP in the clip quoted sees a big part of that process, which is not a small feat, but not the whole of it, not the whole layer of shamanhood before the Pharao, before myths and practices of sacrificial kings, etc conservative, disruptive, restorative and creative myth cycles and story telling that go also beyond the cycles of class society.

Brilliant. May your radiance never cease.

[AshvinP]

OK, I'll spill the beans. As already hinted by my discussion of the etymological meaning of term 'hierarchy'... tribal shamans don't really want to become such. It's very hard, the death rate is high, and they lose so much, by the collective spirit of the tribe and it's ecosystem individuating a human body into its vessel and a tool. Power of the tribe etc. spirit over "one for all". Yes, It us a form of human sacrifice, the original form. For a long time, the general drift has been away from the individuation towards softer, kinder forms of shamanhood, more distributed and decentralized forms. As is the way of learning process, its creativity, trial and error. Class society and it's politics is an attempt and experiment to distribute and evolve social functions of shamanhood - which are enacted by spiritual power. JP in the clip quoted sees a big part of that process, which is not a small feat, but not the whole of it, not the whole layer of shamanhood before the Pharao, before myths and practices of sacrificial kings, etc conservative, disruptive, restorative and creative myth cycles and story telling that go also beyond the cycles of class society.

To keep the myths alive by living them out is precisely not to reduce and flatten them out in such a manner. Not to assume we have transcended their spiritual import. If we venture to deconstruct the myths then we must also adopt the responsibility for building them back up, rather than resting comfortably in the void that is left by their absence.

Sometimes we live myths to release the tension built in them, to bring a myth to a closure, to make room for new myths, explorations and experiences. Archetypes are not eternal and immutable, they evolve, and we very much participate in the evolution through our life experiences and lessons learned. That's JP's main thesis of Jungian evolutionary psychology, and I very much agree with that thesis.

Where does the willful blindness originate from? We do know that in order to keep on evolving, we need to share the burden of shamanhood and learn to do that better and better. On the other hand, only a fool wants to do that voluntarily, because the cost is high. Various trips to underworld, losing your child-like innocence, and what not. Even though we keep on searching for softer methods, and have found many, JP is very much drawn to the Jungian way, which reflects the very old way. Of course JP is doing his own Hero's Journey in the classic "I did it my way", style of alone and unguided, blind, first the high climb of his fame tour, then the deep plunge into his withdrawal symptoms etc., now slowly crawling back from that, to continue who knows where. In the ritual, shared and guided forms based on millennia of experience such as theater, the order is reverse: first the Underworld drama, then the katharsis. And keeping it mostly in the confines of the ritual. I have nothing but respect and deepest sympathy for the "I did it my way" style.

I can't say I disagree with much of anything written above. The myths have evolved and will no doubt continue to evolve. But what the myths they evolved into, i.e. the myth of Christ, also seem like the "very old way" to you, based on prior discussions. They always seem to be too structured and/or too old for you. At some point we just need to specify some solid ground and start building from it.

[Lou Gold]

I can't say I disagree with much of anything written above. The myths have evolved and will no doubt continue to evolve. But what the myths they evolved into, i.e. the myth of Christ, also seem like the "very old way" to you, based on prior discussions. They always seem to be too structured and/or too old for you. At some point we just need to specify some solid ground and start building from it.

Uttering the name 'ground' begins its inevitable decay. Showing up and doing the best work/play we can on the slippery slopes of multiple merkabas is our plight-in-process. Lawyers hurl truths at powers. Be here now, blessed or cursed as you choose.

[SanteriSatama]

At some point we just need to specify some solid ground and start building from it.

Math is a form of socially distributed shamanhood that has good potential to be communicated with great level of confidence and cooperative evolution. Not the current frame of Cantor's Paradise and Hilbert's formalism, though, because they lead to inability to construct mathematics and very deep communication problems as the mathematical foundation of scientism.

For bridge etc. building I'm offering a new gospel of mathematical foundation based on relational operators and their relations instead of metaphysical postulation of quantification. It has been intuitively received in dialogue with the spirit, ie. inspired, and my part has been mainly to interpret and translate what can be translated from fuzzy intuitions into philosophically coherent and communicable mathematical language, that strives to be comprehensible to all people, not just those indoctrinated in the ivory towers of academia.

I've talked about the new foundation many times on this forum, but if you wish, I will gladly lay out the basics again.

[AshvinP]

At some point we just need to specify some solid ground and start building from it.

Math is a form of socially distributed shamanhood that has good potential to be communicated with great level of confidence and cooperative evolution. Not the current frame of Cantor's Paradise and Hilbert's formalism, though, because they lead to inability to construct mathematics and very deep communication problems as the mathematical foundation of scientism.

For bridge etc. building I'm offering a new gospel of mathematical foundation based on relational operators and their relations instead of metaphysical postulation of quantification. It has been intuitively received in dialogue with the spirit, ie. inspired, and my part has been mainly to interpret and translate what can be translated from fuzzy intuitions into philosophically coherent and communicable mathematical language, that strives to be comprehensible to all people, not just those indoctrinated in the ivory towers of academia.

I've talked about the new foundation many times on this forum, but if you wish, I will gladly lay out the basics again.

You can, but I doubt I will understand most of it unless it is really dumbed down as much as possible.

The other issue is whether the new foundation is something a wide array of people can relate to and find some inspiration from. JP went to radio silence for almost 2 years and actually gained more of an audience during that time, which I attribute directly to his deep mythological/philosophical appeal, especially via Nietzsche and Jung, and of course the Bible. There are examples of people pulling that off simply by brainwashing others into blind faith in their every word, but I don't find it at all reasonable to claim that is what is going on with JP.

[SanteriSatama]

You can, but I doubt I will understand most of it unless it is really dumbed down as much as possible.

The other issue is whether the new foundation is something a wide array of people can relate to and find some inspiration from.

Dynamic tetralemma:

1) increases <
2) decreases >
3) both increases and decreases <>
4) neither increases nor decreases ><

Another shorthand for variety of such interdependent verbs is more-less.

3rd lemma connects with notions of interval, duration, and self. With open interval that continues beyond horizon, to be more exact. In Finnish interval is 'väli', and the verb 'to care' is 'välittää'. In that semantic connotation, the new foundation is not cold and abstract, it's caring. <3

The foundation starts from irreducible notion of continuum/continua, which meditation science and notion of awareness confirm and necessitate. In that sense it's common, natural and empirical.

Discrete/discontinuous quantification can be derived from the 4th lemma, which denies/halts the continuity of processes and creates ability to think also abstract states. As a necessary relation for any theory of mathematics, the notion of equivalence follows naturally: If A is neither more nor less than B, then A=B. Also closed intervals (aka finite sets) can be derived from 4th lemma: []. Combining open and closed intervals we get following basic forms which include also various beginnings and ends of continuous processes: <>, [], [<, [>, <], >]. These can be further combined, studied and their relations analyzed in mereology of durations/intervals. Mereology means study of part-whole relation. Most basic mereological relation is the Russian Doll, interval inside interval, e.g. <<>>

Of course also standard school math can be derived from this foundation, as we have already basic tools of equivalence relation and various intervals, and deriving already familiar math is fairly trivial and IMHO not very interesting. The new approach to mereology is for me much more interesting, as it enables much more mereologically rich study and discussion of e.g. M@L - alter relations.

JP went to radio silence for almost 2 years and actually gained more of an audience during that time, which I attribute directly to his deep mythological/philosophical appeal, especially via Nietzsche and Jung, and of course the Bible. There are examples of people pulling that off simply by brainwashing others into blind faith in their every word, but I don't find it at all reasonable to claim that is what is going on with JP.

The talent, gift and burden of JP is to co-travel with very big chunk of people, not to rush to the goal before others and preach from there, but stay in the same boat, to face the terrifying Scylla and Charybdis etc. together on same emotional and experiental level, giving voice to their shared experiences and what council some stories of old may provide for the big journey.

Our stories of old (oral traditions combined into Kalevala and preserved in biggest folklore archive in the world) are not same as the Western mythological corpus most commonly discussed, but of course many themes are shared and very similar. They are also more raw and "ancient", not less finessed and deep in meaning, but more directly transformative, especially when reconnected with the power of singing in the tunes of old, new and your own and unique voice and melody. They are not generally well known by Europeans, I don't think Jung discussed them anywhere, but Tolkien liked them and developed first language of Elven, Quenya, from the basis of Finnish.

Free form singing, to open and find his own singing voice, could do some good to JP. His voice is very tight and tense, I suspect at least partly because he tries to fit it in the narrow and restrictive channel of intellectual academic talk, where Jungians despite all their stubborn effort, don't tend to fit very well.