Jordan Peterson: Advocate for Spiritual Freedom

[AshvinP]

The form of a bird that does not know most of the spiritual truths is no less valuable, no less beautiful and no less unique for the One that the form of an Archangel with the knowledge of those truths. Every form of life that the One created is equally valuable regardless of how much truth is known to it.

And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good.
Genesis 1:31

I agree, it isn't any less valuable or beautiful. So will this valuable and beautiful bird-form forever remain at the mercy of nature "red in tooth and claw" or will it be brought along in the spiritual evolution we are all partaking in so that its desires, feelings, and thoughts are eventually aligned with ours which are aligned with even higher beings ("alignment" doesn't mean we have the same exact experiences or thoughts, since many people can desire similar interests with many different experiences and thoughts towards manifesting them)? I'm not saying we should form our conclusions based on what we want to happen, but let's be clear about the implications of our respective views. In your view, it is most likely that many minerals, plants, animals and humans will remain in a state of fragmentation with limited resources, predators and prey, cannibalism, infanticide, wars, pestilence, and many other such things, as each being or group of beings pursues their own interests. You can't demand the sort of "freedom" you are demanding from Reality - where all beings are free to perpetually explore whatever experiential pathways they desire - without any major costs of this sort.

[Eugene I]

The world does evolve, but not along a single vertical hierarchical dimension. The ocean does move, but not along a single stream.
Evolution is not a single-dimensional vertical ascension.

[AshvinP]

The world does evolve, but not along a single vertical hierarchical dimension. The ocean does move, but not along a single stream.
Evolution is not a single-dimensional vertical ascension.

You completely avoided the question - what happens to the valuable and beautiful songbird when perspectives remain ever-fragmented to explore all possible paths perpetually? Does nature raise out of its bloody struggle for existence and, if so, how?

Also, you should really stop using analogies that work completely against your position. We all know that streams and rivers cannot continue flowing separate forever and are nested within common sources of water to which they return, and those common sources are likewise nested within One shared 'water organism'.

[Eugene I]

You completely avoided the question - what happens to the valuable and beautiful songbird when perspectives remain ever-fragmented to explore all possible paths perpetually? Does nature raise out of its bloody struggle for existence and, if so, how?

Labeling the Divine creation as "bloody struggle for existence", as "fragmented", "dualistic" and so on shows your rejection of it. And this is real nihilism.
Rejecting World Rejection

[AshvinP]

You completely avoided the question - what happens to the valuable and beautiful songbird when perspectives remain ever-fragmented to explore all possible paths perpetually? Does nature raise out of its bloody struggle for existence and, if so, how?

Labeling the Divine creation as "bloody struggle for existence", as "fragmented", "dualistic" and so on shows your rejection of it. And this is real nihilism.
Rejecting World Rejection

No, Eugene, it's called living in the real world where beings die, beings hurt each other, beings eat each other, beings get swatted down and lay twitching on the pavement, beings get crushed by your shoe. So in that sense, I suppose I am rejecting your completely fictitious physical world of "love, peace, and harmony" which simply does not exist. You are constructing a complete fantasy world to avoid confronting my question, because you know the implications for your perpetually fragmented worldview are dreadful.

[AshvinP]

You completely avoided the question - what happens to the valuable and beautiful songbird when perspectives remain ever-fragmented to explore all possible paths perpetually? Does nature raise out of its bloody struggle for existence and, if so, how?

Labeling the Divine creation as "bloody struggle for existence", as "fragmented", "dualistic" and so on shows your rejection of it. And this is real nihilism.
Rejecting World Rejection

No, Eugene, it's called living in the real world where beings die, beings hurt each other, beings eat each other, beings get swatted down and lay twitching on the pavement, beings get crushed by your shoe. So in that sense, I suppose I am rejecting your completely fictitious physical world of "love, peace, and harmony" which simply does not exist. You are constructing a complete fantasy world to avoid confronting my question, because you know the implications for your perpetually fragmented worldview are dreadful.

And my apologies to Steve, but the below is exactly why no one can take religious theology, whether historic or modern or post-modern, seriously anymore. It has no relationship to our experience of the world, but is simply one long string of abstract 'apologetics' which speaks of "love, beauty, and meaning" as if they are inherent facts of all actions and events of the world, rather than something we must carefully and painstakingly build towards by aligning our innermost desires, feelings, and thoughts with what is loving, beautiful, and true. And that is exactly why so many people look to figures such as Peterson - because, even if he can't put his finger on exactly why, at least in a spiritual sense, he can still clearly point to the major role of personal responsibility and speaking the truth, i.e. the bearing of one's Cross, in alleviating the suffering and evil in the world. People actually change their entire lives and relationships for the better because of that.

Life, even with the potential for evil, is such a wonderful gift. In fact, it is the fundamental core of life that offers the good which also creates this potential for evil. So what about the problem of evil? If the potential for evil is a necessary component of life, does that mean we should acquiesce to it or tolerate it? Obviously not. While life entails the potential for evil, it does not entail a specific evil. Specific evils are not necessary. They ensue only if allowed. What we also see in examining life, particularly as presented by culture is another struggle, the moral struggle. Evil is obviously a relative term, depending on the perspective of those concerned. This is also part of life. Moral decisions not only involve the individual but also the collective being of all things. As such, moral decisions must accommodate both the needs of the one as well as the needs of the many. These accommodations will be evil to some but positive to others. Back to the basic question of the future of the cosmos. If life, itself is primary and not some ultimate culmination, then what do the changes in life mean? I think that rather than looking to some distant resolution of the “fallenness” or problems of life today, we can see life as an eternal creation of love, beauty, and meaning. Each generation builds on the love, beauty, and meaning of the prior generations, but that change is not towards some ultimate goal but as part of the eternal process of life.

[Lou Gold]

nature "red in tooth and claw"

Sorry, but I think this is pretty glorious >>> The Queen of Trees

[Steve Petermann]

And my apologies to Steve, but the below is exactly why no one can take religious theology, whether historic or modern or post-modern, seriously anymore.

So, you're saying that the theology offered by the gospel writers and Paul shouldn't be taken seriously? They were historic theological presentations. Particularly the Gospel of John is full of abstractions.

[Soul_of_Shu]

As much as I've been enjoying some of JP's interactions with interviewees on his podcast lately, since the election call up here, he's turned his focus to talking shop with a couple of politicos offering the usual platitudes that come to the fore when that happens. What a slog they are!

[AshvinP]

And my apologies to Steve, but the below is exactly why no one can take religious theology, whether historic or modern or post-modern, seriously anymore.

So, you're saying that the theology offered by the gospel writers and Paul shouldn't be taken seriously? They were historic theological presentations. Particularly the Gospel of John is full of abstractions.

No, Gospel of John is not "full of abstractions". This is exactly the problem and it is still somewhat shocking for me that this sentiment could be expressed by someone who considers themselves at least somewhat faithful to scripture. St John is speaking of concrete events, beings, and people in the world then and in times to come. This why I mention that Peterson does not attempt to thrust scripture down into terms of mere "personal psychology" and why people respond so forcefully to his Biblical lectures, even if not sure exactly why. Cleric and myself have tried to start discussions with you to flesh out this inner logic, but you seem unwilling to engage in that. Which is fine, but I definitely see why Eugene relies on you so much, because he also has a max level of comfort with spiritual investigation. I appreciate the fact you have a blog and articles and put effort into it, which is more than most can say, but there are some tendencies which do way more harm than good. Some of your articles I found myself nodding my head to, but this one not at all for the reasons mentioned. I don't see how anyone could read that and feel that they came away with a better understanding of evil and suffering in the world.