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

[Lou Gold]

OK, Lou. If you can't understand the simple fact that one can kill, rape and destroy by instinct, even if there's not a trace of thinking, I don't think there's anything more I can say.

Of course,I understand and do not doubt it. I also say that the opposite defensive moves are also instinctive and will naturally drive toward balance. By highlighting one side and projecting it onto to me you set up a strawman. I'm not saying that we didn't learn that hygiene could counter Black Plagues. I'm saying that pain and paradox felt instinctively drove the process. Again, I get what Santeri means by this is an argument between Process and Substance Philosophy. Using the lingo, I believe the former is more plausible than the latter and therefore align better with Idealism.

[Lou Gold]

I speak of the same spirits that you mention. The difference is that, from what I see from you and Lou, it seems that the path of the Heart consists in flowing with whatever flows out of the heart, which is connected with the spirits. It's believed that if we simply let everything flow from there it will somehow be 'good'. That this is not so, is glaringly obvious even from the most superficial survey on the facts.

Oh, no, not everything that flows in and out is good, in the relative sense. With attached love comes also all the hells of fear, hate, jealousy etc. The "old master" grade spirits can also have their quarrels and jealousies, putting each other down to elevate their own prestige. And what properties they manifest in various situations reflects your own path, what lessons your spirit is in the quest of learning. Also, empathy without skillful action can crush you, if all empathy barriers are removed and all the pain in the world is let in without ability to deal with that in skillful manner. Too bad "skillful action" doesn't seem to be anything definable, only learned in practice and trials of life.

When speaking of balance, it needs to be understood that we (I suppose Lou agrees) mean always a moving balance, very multidimensional balance, which can't be reduced to any static geometric metaphor. When mind tries grasp the balance into an image, there's always something beyond imagination, and heart will tell that time will tell. And in due time, time often tells in a glorious moment of everything 'clicking', which shows a long past in whole new light which changes history.

What you call 'Eastern thought' vs. 'West' is two strands of Indo-European/Indo-Aryan thought and experience having their mutual spiritual quarrel. Classical Greek and Sanskrit are linguistically very close, and thought thinks within confines of language, while also trying to break those confines and think further and beyond. Speaking only one language, thinking only in one language, is a major handicap for the process of thinking, but nothing is absolute.

The Escapist and the Activist are symbolically associated with "East" and "West" in the internal dialogue of Indo-European/Indo-Aryan thought-experience. Indeed, what does it benefit our compassion and empathy, if a single ego-mechanism is released for good in Moksha, and manages to escape the frustration of Karma, leaving others behind to rot in their suffering? And, what does it benefit to seed and grow new Universes, if you feel you have seen and felt enough of those? Both sides of the argument have their subjective point of view, as they continue their argument inside a mind. There are many other cultures and languages, which can share similar questions to various degrees, and have have their own questions and views. And much exchange and dialogue between languages and their spirits.

Before we speak of 'path of the Heart' we must understand what the mind is and what the heart is. The mind didn't led the colonial expansion after some careful calculations and simulations that showed that this is the best approach. The mind has always been in service of the heart. The heart desires for power, for pleasure, for domination - all these are feelings, not thoughts. The mind only uses its creativity to satisfy the desires of the heart. And if this is not understood today it's partially because of the completely devastated cognitive abilities of modern man, thanks to spurious philosophical and spiritual teachings that deify and worship contradiction, irrationality, chaos, mindlessness, confusion, ignorance, inexplicability.

Not just heart and mind, really. Also "guts" (In Finnish: sisu). Something to do with the strength that arises from from being rooted, grounded, attached. Of course such willpower can have also it's negative aspects, and heart is where sisu/guts and mind meet and mix. Mental processes play their role in balancing guts, heart and mind, but at ground, it's empirical process of life experience. Colonialism is by definition something up-rooted, eradicated and eradicating, more ethereal than earthy. It's detached from Luonto, the spiritual nature-connection, the source of sisu. Yet, there can be a greater purpose to the whole process, spiritual growth to "Global is the new Local", through all this hardship. A new sisu starting to grow and strengthen if and when a new global level is formed and starts to root.

Let all be like children and enjoy the playground of the Earth. Really? And what have we been doing so far? Does the indiscriminate following of the heart (and the spirits working there) guarantee that two kids won't reach for the same toy at the same time? Does it guarantee that one of them will give way? Does it guarantee that kids won't begin to gather into groups as they find that the hearts of some kids desire things incompatible with others? If all this is thought thoroughly we'll see that we'll be tracing exactly the history of humanity on Earth.

When someone welcomes a new child to the world, that does not mean that the spirit who welcomes is a child. When a gardener nurtures a seed and a sprout, that does not mean that the gardener is a plant. These are complementary relations, not identities.

No. I don't think there are any guarantees, in the sense of mechanistic determinism. What fun could there be with such, what challenges and learning?

And if there's one thing that our human experience has thought us so far it should be that if we are ever to find peace and harmony we'll have to understand, to penetrate with full awareness into the heart-world, so that we can discriminate the spiritual sources of the heart's desires and give way to these that lead to peace, harmony and love.

Aho.

There was a moment of great beauty and importance in Standing Rock, when settler veterans dressed in Blue Coats presented their sincere apology to an Elder representing the Red Path. The Elder responded with first uttering: "World peace! World peace! World peace!". This is our commitment, the direction of our sisu, through all our pains of spiritual growth.

If it is alright with your mind and heart, please accept the gift of sisu, these directions of where and how to look for it. There may come times for a great need for it.

Thanks again Santeri for your storylines and for interlacing them with personal experiences.

Somehow I'm reminding of 40+ years ago when I hung out with a serious academic researcher of perception and cognition who ran an interesting set of experiments. He videoed the interactions between a mother and her infant. He would identify a 'magic moment' of special contact and create a very short video clip to present to a group of about 8-10 observers with the question, "What's happening here?" After each round of interpretations the observers were told to throw away their interpretations, watch the clip again without repeating the same interpretation. It starts with a lively presentation of many views but as the game continues the players get bored and simply refuse to offer new interpretations. A this final point there is consensus about what is happening. My friend carried it forth into personal inquiry across months in which he watched, asked and tossed the interpretations many 1000s of times. To his surprise, his whole worldview began to change and he sensed he had become something beyond his previous QM mathematician turned to cognitive researcher. He went to India, connected with Sai Baba and wrote a book on the Upanishads.

[Cleric K]

Not just heart and mind, really. Also "guts" (In Finnish: sisu). Something to do with the strength that arises from from being rooted, grounded, attached. Of course such willpower can have also it's negative aspects, and heart is where sisu/guts and mind meet and mix. Mental processes play their role in balancing guts, heart and mind, but at ground, it's empirical process of life experience. Colonialism is by definition something up-rooted, eradicated and eradicating, more ethereal than earthy. It's detached from Luonto, the spiritual nature-connection, the source of sisu. Yet, there can be a greater purpose to the whole process, spiritual growth to "Global is the new Local", through all this hardship. A new sisu starting to grow and strengthen if and when a new global level is formed and starts to root.

All good. The bold text fits what I'm saying. But things go in loops again when we speak about the practical aspect of how these mental processes should be used. If we are to balance through mental processes this implies that we need to have some understanding of the way we are out of balance and the direction for restoration of balance. And here I fully agree the it's a moving, heart-felt balance and not purely intellectual one. But still, in some way we need some kind of knowledge. And it is here that the loop is formed. Because it is not at all clear what should be changed. Especially when it is said that everything should express freely - love, hate, jealousy, war, goodness, badness, etc. As you say "I'm perfect, there's no fault that I don't have." OK, so what does it mean to be out of balance? Isn't world peace highly out of balance condition? Especially if it's assumed that hate and destruction are first class citizens, at the same rank as love and symbiosis. So there's a bias towards peace and war is to be excluded. I'm all in. But the world is us and if there's no world peace it means the we are at war. I'm not viewing war only in the sense of military conflict but in the widest sense of hatred and infliction of pain - physical and emotional - between souls. It happens not only between nations but much more between the people around us and usually our closest ones. And we can't blame these aspects on bunch of politicians with sick ambitions. Everyone of us is involved. So everyone must do something to change. And here we are - what is out of balance within us? How to recognize it when our philosophy insists that everything is already good and we are perfect as we are?

Of course,I understand and do not doubt it. I also say that the opposite defensive moves are also instinctive and will naturally drive toward balance. By highlighting one side and projecting it onto to me you set up a strawman. I'm not saying that we didn't learn that hygiene could counter Black Plagues. I'm saying that pain and paradox felt instinctively drove the process. Again, I get what Santeri means by this is an argument between Process and Substance Philosophy. Using the lingo, I believe the former is more plausible than the latter and therefore align better with Idealism.

OK, so what I reckon is to trust our instincts and accept in surrender the resolution even if it takes many more cycles of war, destruction, colonialism. Instinct will someday get it right. In other words, if we make errors because our instincts are not yet perfected it's OK. We should simply not try to alter the path of instinct through unnecessary thought out actions.

[Lou Gold]

There's a magic moment at the end of 'forgiveness work' when it is fully realized that there's nothing to forgive. One groks that experience only if one has had it and there is no convincing one who has not.

[SanteriSatama]

At this final point there is consensus about what is happening.

Nice storytelling, leaving the answer unsaid. The difference between poetry and philosophy/science is that in the latter, the consensus needs to be also spelled out.

[Lou Gold]

At this final point there is consensus about what is happening.

Nice storytelling, leaving the answer unsaid. The difference between poetry and philosophy/science is that in the latter, the consensus needs to be also spelled out.

Perhaps not always spelled out. Perhaps more like a vegetalista singing an Icaro that triggers visions or healings in the listener. Probably different technologies depend on different spells -- poetry and philosophy/science and more.

[SanteriSatama]

things go in loops again

They sure do that too. Camus tells a very good story about the essence of Sisu(phos):

Camus is interested in Sisyphus's thoughts when marching down the mountain, to start anew. After the stone falls back down the mountain Camus states that "It is during that return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me. A face that toils so close to stones is already stone itself! I see that man going back down with a heavy yet measured step toward the torment of which he will never know the end." This is the truly tragic moment when the hero becomes conscious of his wretched condition. He does not have hope, but "there is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn." Acknowledging the truth will conquer it; Sisyphus, just like the absurd man, keeps pushing. Camus claims that when Sisyphus acknowledges the futility of his task and the certainty of his fate, he is freed to realize the absurdity of his situation and to reach a state of contented acceptance. With a nod to the similarly cursed Greek hero Oedipus, Camus concludes that "all is well," indeed, that "one must imagine Sisyphus happy."

If we are to balance through mental processes this implies that we need to have some understanding of the way we are out of balance and the direction for restoration of balance. And here I fully agree the it's a moving, heart-felt balance and not purely intellectual one. But still, in some way we need some kind of knowledge. And it is here that the loop is formed. Because it is not at all clear what should be changed. Especially when it is said that everything should express freely - love, hate, jealousy, war, goodness, badness, etc. As you say "I'm perfect, there's no fault that I don't have." OK, so what does it mean to be out of balance? Isn't world peace highly out of balance condition? Especially if it's assumed that hate and destruction are first class citizens, at the same rank as love and symbiosis. So there's a bias towards peace and war is to be excluded. I'm all in. But the world is us and if there's no world peace it means the we are at war. I'm not viewing war only in the sense of military conflict but in the widest sense of hatred and infliction of pain - physical and emotional - between souls. It happens not only between nations but much more between the people around us and usually our closest ones. And we can't blame these aspects on bunch of politicians with sick ambitions. Everyone of us is involved. So everyone must do something to change. And here we are - what is out of balance within us? How to recognize it when our philosophy insists that everything is already good and we are perfect as we are?

Yeah, there is need for moderation. Maybe the spirit will have mercy, and some day somehow the Sisyphean task of world peace on some concrete enough level is reached, and new challenges can emerge from that condition. Maybe some day the Rock of Peace will stand still on the hill, and not roll back to the canyon.

But to wish or demand that all drama of family, community, etc., would stop, would be same as wishing and demanding that Pulse of Life would become a flat line, that the music would stop for good.

The current consensus is that what is out of balance, out of proportion, is our relation with our nature-relation, and for the sake of our children, as well as other costumes of life, we need a rebalancing direction and movement.

In this worry of our womb, hysterical worry for the fruit of our loins in the most concrete sense, there is also much need for philosophy and spirituality for better balanced calm of mind, "contended acceptance" of our situation and choice, which enables coherent maintaining and directing of Sisu, pushing towards our goal against all odds.

Having chosen our purpose and surrendered to it, and made our purpose clear in our minds, it becomes an obligation not to surrender to the worry, to the hysteria around us (while not ignoring it), but to keep balancing towards ataraxia of calm resolution in our minds and guts, as the condition of the world keeps shaking us. It becomes an obligation to feel well in our hearts, connected to the Source, so we are able to let the pain of the world in and heal it for the part of a heart. This is how my experience, thoughts and words speak the Warrior of Heart.

[AshvinP]

Good point. The desired 'outcomes' for the whole would need to be specified precisely. In relation to Lou's remark about 'abundance', the desired 'outcome' would be specified as 'equalization of material resources' or something like that. Right now it seems we can only imagine such an outcome in relation to centralized systems which forcibly redistribute a limited amount of resources (there are 'anarcho-communist' proposals and what not, but those don't seem feasible except at the smallest scales). So the outcome, at best, is that everyone ends up with a very small share of resources and is extremely resentful because they were forced into that situation.

But if the material resource limitations are, in reality, an artifice of our specific stage of evolution on Earth, then perhaps the mathematical models could be useful in pointing towards, or simply confirming, the ways in which such outcomes are achieved through agents with maximum 'degrees of freedom', i.e. very little to no compulsion? Basically it would look like a situation where every part of the network involved is autonomously and maximally contributing their talents to generating resources and also autonomously sharing those resources as needed throughout the network. I don't know... I am just speculating out loud at this point and perhaps none of it really makes sense.

I get where you're going but there's a fundamental problem The hardest thing of all is to model what exactly is the difference between voluntary and involuntary actions. And as you can imagine this is not a strictly mathematical problem but philosophical. Actually it can never be settled in any formal system of thought. Interestingly, if you pursue this path - trying to model the agent's behavior through some intellectual model - you'll more and more reach the situation of today's science where the term freedom simply doesn't make sense in a system governed by mathematical or other rules. By extension, if you model the voluntary agents within such a system, they'll also be governed by some rules - different from the rules of the compulsory agents but still rules. Maybe somewhat more fuzzy, more interconnected, maybe including some pseudo-random variations.

I think that the most that this simulation will show would be something like this: Here, the agents which are restricted in only this and that direction are not as effective as the agents that can evolve their behavior and find better patterns of behavior. But this doesn't come as a much of a surprise Then if you want to say that the less restricted agents represent spiritually free human beings you shoot yourself in the foot. You'll be opposed by the scientist "What do you mean free? The model shows that the 'free' behavior of the agents is simply a more versatile and complex algorithm but it's still a compulsory algorithm, not in principle different from that of the restricted agents." And this enters into the endless arguments what is consciousness for these models, what is experienced as voluntary, etc., etc.

My life experience so far shows that if someone resists to understand something about his own spiritual structure, when I describe with clear and simple examples, it's even less likely to do so with more complicated models. They only give the correspondent more hooks for the conversation to go astray.

Thanks, that was really what I was curious about and you cleared it up for me with the above points