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

[Soul_of_Shu]

A bit of brilliance excerpted from Beyond Order, followed up by a nuanced analysis relating an ancient Egyptian mythos to Jung's metaphysics, and more ~ in contrast to the baseless superficial nonsense that is projected upon JP by detractors.

[AshvinP]

A bit of brilliance excerpted from Beyond Order, followed up by a nuanced analysis relating an ancient Egyptian mythos to Jung's metaphysics, and more ~ in contrast to the baseless superficial nonsense that is projected upon JP by detractors.

Thanks for sharing. I have not gotten into too much of the guy's post-excerpt analysis yet, but I wanted to comment on one thing before I forget. Peterson is clearly coming at the mythology from the Jungian 'analytical psychology' angle, which I really enjoy as well. However I can also see the danger in that approach, which is not at all related to the million different nonsensical critiques his various detractors make (here's looking at you, Dr. Mate), but rather the inclination to take these myths as 'contents' of the collective human soul, which still reside 'within' us but are also kind of fading away into the past or, at best, lingering around as images which influence us every now and then when we think about them.

At the same time, we know for sure that Jung was thinking of the collective archetypes as autonomous beings as well, or living processes, not metaphorical ones but ones which actually exist. The reason he did not emphasize that even more is a) it would undermine his hard-won persona as rigorous empirical scientist, and b) he was very influenced by the Kantian epistemic limit and felt to talk about these patterns as living, conscious or semi-conscious beings would be to imply their existence as things-in-themselves which we cannot possibly experience. Nevertheless, throughout his later works, it becomes clear that is how he experienced them.

A good 'solution' to this quandary is in the work of Steiner, who had absolutely no problem stating these archetypal beings existed and exactly how they were related to us and influencing our world, at least as best as he could express with mere conceptual language. Then it becomes our task to actually experience those relationships and test what he was conveying. Cleric can and has spoken on that much better than I possibly could right now, but I had been considering some of Steiner's lectures on the "Egyptian mysteries" lately and it's truly inspiring stuff. The Isis-Osiris-Horus trinity is especially critical to understand. The ancient myths are truly alive and kicking in the works of Steiner.

That being said, I can also see how an Anthroposophist with no familiarity with Jung may get somewhat lost in the 'external' relations to these living myths and ignore the 'inner' soulful aspect. Broadly speaking, Jung focuses on the soul while Steiner focuses on the spirit, at least from my admittedly shallow perspective. I'm sure Cleric can speak more insightfully on that polarity as well. The main point I want to get across here is that there is so much metaphysical and spiritual richness to be explored through current thinkers like JP, BK and others, if we just listen openly and attentively without a million different assumptions standing in between our living spirits and theirs.

[SanteriSatama]

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.

The shamanic journey to the Underworld, the processes of dissolving, transforming, integration and individuation into the social institution of a tribal shaman, the "attentive avatar of your culture", is the underlying contrast of the myth, which in it's political propaganda layer of willful blindness tries to convince that the Pharao, the King, is always a true shaman, integrated servant manifesting the collective consciousness of the social body and it's balanced harmony and renewal with the Cosmos. Yet anyone who travels deep enough and looks with the Eye of the Horus and sees the whole landscape, can't unsee the untruth of the political propaganda layer of the myth. The contradiction is real and remains unresolved. Yes, we can hold that tension with love, as Lou says, but it creates also a general drift, a flow of way finding towards creative resolution, which can't be resisted on collective level. The river flow which the prophecy of Hopi Elders speak about, the flow of our times, the flow of We are the ones we've been waiting for.

"And do not look outside yourself for your leader." In the myth of our times, which Tolkien tells as new version of the Osiris and Oedipus, the hidden king travels through the underworld, wins the great battle with the army of dead, but the real battle is elsewhere, inside the little hobbits and their journey to the Underworld of Mordor (Underworld not in a cave but spreading on Earth), now unaided by the Wise and the Strong, as they were in the Underworld of Moria. It is made explicit that the big battles in the external are just gas lighting, Maya squirted by Isis to divert the attention of Seth and Sauron. And in the new myth evolution, as his real his coronation, the new king bows to the hobbits.

Of course the liberal individual, a product of mass psychology of class society, exists. And it's good and necessary that JP speaks to it and it's transformation into something else on a leveled way, traveling the same journey in the same boat. The real challenge is emancipation from class society, where ruling class of scribes, aka professional managerial class aka the deep state, sees itself as the collective parent and power dynamics rests on keeping the masses (including and especially the individual members of the ruling class!) in the infantile state of a man-child, the Peter Pan individual. Rejuvenation of the state keeps happening by imprisoning people in the juvenile Peter Pan syndrome that refuses to grow up to accept responsibility and freedom. Emancipation from class society is a pretty big process which involves also this viral pressure of collective dark night of the soul to open our eyes to new light.

In the Eye of Horus, tears keep flowing. Good tears, that is how we release tension, giving tears both to sorrow and joy. Having cried enough, we can rotate the Eye of Horus half a turn and see in a new way.

[Lou Gold]

In the Eye of Horus, tears keep flowing. Good tears, that is how we release tension, giving tears both to sorrow and joy. Having cried enough, we can rotate the Eye of Horus half a turn and see in a new way.

Lovely description all above and below in that Santeri. And in the grand East-West debate, to see that Jesus saying, "I am movement and rest" and "Thich Nhat Hanh saying, "My joy and pain are one" and the Lakota saying, "Be Like an Empty Reed" and one spiritual and mythic insight after the next, why do we debate "WHICH WAY?" and "HOW DOES IT RESOLVE?" Is it as simple as the tension powers the engine of the One's creativity and therefore our own as well?" Aho Mitakuye Oyasin

[SanteriSatama]

Is it as simple as the tension powers the engine of the One's creativity and therefore our own as well?"

The more we get down to finer detail, the less simple it becomes. In the various worlds of details, each unique path has it's own unique purpose and contribution to our collaboration in all our relations.

[Lou Gold]

Is it as simple as the tension powers the engine of the One's creativity and therefore our own as well?"

The more we get down to finer detail, the less simple it becomes. In the various worlds of details, each unique path has it's own unique purpose and contribution to our collaboration in all our relations.

Are you really arguing that it is a complexity that does not boil down to the simple fundamental everlasting engine of creativity in the one/One? Every detail or purpose that manifests, constructs and deconstructs, collaborates and divides, lives and dies. Collaboration is one aspect of all our relations, which means ALL.

Recommendation: If you want peace, be peaceful; if you want love be loving; if you want collaboration then collaborate. Does this seem too simple at the level of unique path? Why?

[SanteriSatama]

Are you really arguing that it is a complexity that does not boil down to the simple fundamental everlasting engine of creativity in the one/One?

I'm allergic to too big words like "everlasting" and "One". Even and especially as poetry, they insult my poetic sensitivities. We, the spirit in each of us, has potential to mechanize functions which happens mainly in the nitty gritty fine detail. That does not mean spirit should become and stay one with an engine, or a theory that is needed to make an engine work. The Halting problem is undecidable. There's no algorithm to rule over all algorithms.

The Ring, which makes the wearer of the ring invisible, is our current relation with technology. By focusing on external power and getting trapped by it, we lose self-awareness, the subject that creates the object, the machine and the "eternal law" that is supposed to keep the machine going on, denies his subjectivity, and even more so the asubjective ground on which subject-object relations come and go, appear and disappear.

If it is your detail to become an engine of change, that sort of machine self-destructs and stops working at the first idea that insists on something eternal and immutable.

[Lou Gold]

Are you really arguing that it is a complexity that does not boil down to the simple fundamental everlasting engine of creativity in the one/One?

I'm allergic to too big words like "everlasting" and "One". Even and especially as poetry, they insult my poetic sensitivities. We, the spirit in each of us, has potential to mechanize functions which happens mainly in the nitty gritty fine detail. That does not mean spirit should become and stay one with an engine, or a theory that is needed to make an engine work. The Halting problem is undecidable. There's no algorithm to rule over all algorithms.

The Ring, which makes the wearer of the ring invisible, is our current relation with technology. By focusing on external power and getting trapped by it, we lose self-awareness, the subject that creates the object, the machine and the "eternal law" that is supposed to keep the machine going on, denies his subjectivity, and even more so the asubjective ground on which subject-object relations come and go, appear and disappear.

If it is your detail to become an engine of change, that sort of machine self-destructs and stops working at the first idea that insists on something eternal and immutable.

[Lou Gold]

Are you really arguing that it is a complexity that does not boil down to the simple fundamental everlasting engine of creativity in the one/One?

I'm allergic to too big words like "everlasting" and "One". Even and especially as poetry, they insult my poetic sensitivities. We, the spirit in each of us, has potential to mechanize functions which happens mainly in the nitty gritty fine detail. That does not mean spirit should become and stay one with an engine, or a theory that is needed to make an engine work. The Halting problem is undecidable. There's no algorithm to rule over all algorithms.

The Ring, which makes the wearer of the ring invisible, is our current relation with technology. By focusing on external power and getting trapped by it, we lose self-awareness, the subject that creates the object, the machine and the "eternal law" that is supposed to keep the machine going on, denies his subjectivity, and even more so the asubjective ground on which subject-object relations come and go, appear and disappear.

If it is your detail to become an engine of change, that sort of machine self-destructs and stops working at the first idea that insists on something eternal and immutable.

[Lou Gold]

If it is your detail to become an engine of change, that sort of machine self-destructs and stops working at the first idea that insists on something eternal and immutable.

We've got the same allergy. Anything put into words, concepts, symbols including the Eternal Tao starts deconstructing at first utterance, including what I just said. This is why, in the Old Tradition, one never says the name of God and why, in the New Traditions, there are infinite names. So go create whatever you want to have.