Jordan Peterson: 12 Rules For Life, Overture, Rule 1, and Rule 2. Pages: xxv - xxxv and 1 - 64 Instigator: John
A few ground rules.
Per the previously posted schedule, I will put an entry out
here for that session of discussion. Then by the specified date the
instigator should put his thoughts out there as a comment to the entry.
(This is the first entry.)
Etiquette:
We have some diverse
opinions in our group. It is important to be respectful of all
perspectives. Obviously no personal attacks. It is great to give
differing views just be respectful in presentation. Remember on-line
statements may sound more harsh than in person. So, bear that in mind.
Rather than saying "I think you are wrong" in response you may want to
say something like "you make an interesting point. However, I look at
it this way..." Definitely you should not say something like "anyone who
thinks that way should die a thousand deaths." or something like that.
Finally, one the reverse side of things also remember that on line
communication can sound harsher than intended. So please take any
responses in the most positive light.
37 comments:
Here is my first crack at instigation. Let discussions begin...
Overture:
I liked it. It was short. Okay, on to the first rule…
Just kidding.
More to come.
Instigation.
Overture:
A synopsis of the overture would be the following 3 points.
Order (top of xxviii): People can and should strive for order which can provide meaning and structure in life. However, an over emphasis on order can result in crushing, stultifying, totalitarianism. Page xxxiii “…the horror of authoritarian belief…”
Chaos (top of xxviii): The opposite of order in human existence is chaos which manifests in a purposeless and meaningless existence. Page xxxiii “…the chaos of the collapsed state, the tragic catastrophe of the unbridled natural world…”
Proper Life: The right place to function as a person is the edge between these two realms. You have a light system of belief but you might be maintaining some contradictory premises.
I can’t explain everything but everything is not chaos either. Page xxxiv “’There’ is the dividing line between order and chaos. That’s where we are simultaneously stable enough, exploring enough, transforming enough, repairing enough, and cooperating enough. It’s there we find the meaning that justifies life and its inevitable suffering.”
I believe all humans live their lives with contradictory believes and premises but most of us reject that and do mental gymnastics to make them agree in our own minds event if we can’t convince everyone else. This didn’t have much to do with the book. I just wanted to say it.
As I read through this section I had some of the following additional thoughts. These might be a little random.
I should read Solzhenitsyn. I never have. He has come up a few times in things I have read / listened to lately.
I liked Peterson’s summary of the thoughts / quote of Solzhenitsyn on page xxvii “In a crisis, the inevitable suffering that life entails can rapidly make a mockery of the idea that happiness is a proper pursuit of the individual” but rather a better pursuit would be “developing character in the face of suffering…” Although I’m not convinced that his answer is the best final answer I do feel developing character is a better pursuit than just pursuing happiness.
One of the questions that came to my mind as I read this was if a child grew up in a context where they did not get good teaching and guidance would they ever reach this same conclusion that happiness is not the goal, character is the goal? Do people have to have some kind of basis or launching point that they learn from others to adopt this kind of perspective on life? I think I lean to yes. A person with a sub optimal even destructive upbringing may never reach this conclusion on their own.
Peterson’s descriptions of order and chaos resonated and seem to be meaningful and important in understanding our life experience but I’m not yet convinced that they are the preeminent categories for us.
I should read Heidegger. I never have. He has come up a few times in things I have read / listened to lately.
My last note on this is that Peterson has a provocative note on the top xxxii about the perils of not walking the line between order and chaos in our current day in age. “…loss of group-centered belief renders life Chaotic, miserable, intolerable: presence of group centered belief makes conflict with other groups inevitable. … we have been withdrawing from our traditions-, religion- and even nation-centered cultures, partly to decrease the danger of group conflict. But we’re increasingly falling prey to the desperation of meaninglessness, and that is no improvement at all.” This seems quite relevant and one could argue that this partially explains what we see in the opioid crisis in America today.
Rule # 1
It is a fact humans interact in hierarchy. This is a primordial character of being human. Hierarchy will emerge regardless of the structure society assumes because it is innate in humans to be hierarchical. The rule around this is to understand it and behave and conduct yourself in a way that projects that you are NOT at the bottom of the hierarchy.
His discussion on lobsters etc. was interesting. I found it interesting that even a lobster raised in isolation automatically knows how to behave in the context of hierarchy when placed with other lobsters. Also, the fact that the defeated lobster’s brain melts and it grows a loser brain was also interesting. Enough about lobsters.
His point on Prices law and the L shaped distribution of resources seems apt for ALL societies. I just finished a book called "Every Falling Star" by Sungju Lee. He is a North Korean defector. As he described the communist North Korean society it was very much hierarchical.
A brief interlude on Creation vs. Evolution. This will get a little far afield to the main points of rule 1. So, feel free to skip over this as it is really a discussion on creation v evolution and not about the book per se. Okay, cards on the table. I lean heavily toward accepting creation as the origin of our species and do not accept evolution. Dr. Peterson clearly leans toward evolution and it is a big part of his argument in Rule 1 although he concedes on the top of page 12 that evolution is a theory and might be fair game to question. “That theory … appears to account for the continued alteration of life-forms over the eons.”
On page 11 Peterson indicates that “when something evolves, it must build upon what nature has already produced.” He uses this “fact” to posit that the notion or concept of hierarchy occurred in or evolved into the biological make up species relatively early in the evolutionary process and subsequently evolved species inherited the awareness of social hierarchy and it is therefore inherent in our being. I personally do not find the theory of evolution compelling but rather ascribed to the notion that God created various species at various points in times past. He started by creating simple single celled organisms and progressively created more and more complex species and as He built on this complexity He used design patterns. In particular, design patterns that had proved successful in the past. I tend to agree with Peterson that awareness of hierarchy occurs relatively early in biological history (100s of millions of years ago). I would just assert that it is an early design pattern rather than a characteristic that evolved early.
Rule # 1 continued...
Okay. Enough about creation and evolution.
I found the 3 errors of people’s understanding of nature interesting.
Error 1: Nature is static and directing the evolution of species in a given direction. He argues that the environment is changing all the time and what makes a species successful or individuals in the species successful changes over time. He also notes that part of nature is the species itself and so what makes an individual successful is how it functions / thrives in the constructs innate in the species. As an example the dominance hierarchy. I thought this was cool and I dug it.
Error 2: Nature is pure virtue and Beautiful. He argued that nature is also brutal and oppressive. Hard to deny.
Error 3: “…nature is something strictly segregated from the cultural constructs that have emerged within it.” For me this overlapped the 1st error a little but I would summarize this as the Being that is selected is in nature and is in part also the selector. The selected is also the selector. One of the selecting forces that is embedded in the nature of the selecting species is the dominance hierarchy. Individuals that are successful in the dominance hierarchy will produce offspring with the same attributes thus reinforcing the current dominance hierarchy. I felt this made sense.
I wanted to talk about Matthew 23:1-13 and what Jesus said about the dominance hierarchy. But I ran out of time.
He gets into a bunch of biology on how an individual behaves when they are aware they are at the bottom of the hierarchy. Because of this biology we are innately aware we are at risk for impending doom and emergencies and so we are jumpy and reactive and focused on the present rather than planning for the future. “The bottom of the dominance hierarchy is a terrible, dangerous place to be… even the smallest unexpected impediment might produce an uncontrollable chain of negative events… The physical demands of emergency preparedness will wear you down in every way.” Whereas at the top of the hierarchy … “change might be opportunity, instead of disaster… you can afford to be a reliable and thoughtful citizen.” The natural behaviors of the individual at the bottom of the hierarchy will at times may be helpful in near term survival but in the long term make it difficult or impossible to have a truly free and fulfilling life. So, what to do.
Peterson, starting on pages 17 and 18 begins to talk about what to do by addressing behaviors that unnecessarily cause us to act as a bottom hierarchy individual. He calls out sleep, diet, and drug / alcohol use and encourages positive routines. He also talked about negative feedback loops and when I read his discussion on agoraphobia I became afraid I was going to get it. I thought all this was good other than my new found fear of agoraphobia. What would you call the fear of agoraphobia? Agoraphobiaphobia?
Still more on Rule # 1
Starting on page 23 and finishing on page 24 the following rang true for me. “When skillfully integrated, the ability to respond with aggression and violence decreases rather than increases the probability that actual aggression will become necessary. If you say no, early in the cycle of oppression, and you mean what you say (which means you state your refusal in no uncertain terms and stand behind it), then the scope for oppression on the part of the oppressor will remain properly bounded and limited. The forces of tyranny expand inexorably to fill the space made available for their existence.” I have experienced this working out multiple times in the work environment. Most recently on my current assignment, shortly after I started, two individuals on another team insulted my competence and our team’s competence. They did this in a meeting and in a public way. I came back at them hard in the meeting, defended clearly in the meeting our teams and my performance with evidence and then called theirs into question. The meeting went on a little longer and at then I thanked the two folks for their honesty and the willingness to have hard and open conversations. This was an honest sentiment because I believe they were truly saying what they felt was true. We have had very good working relationships ever since. Boundaries set. I have also seen myself put up with bullying way too much in the work place and be surprised by the positive result when I pushed back.
The key here is “skillfully integrated.” I think it can be difficult to discern between being bullied and being appropriately called out for performance you need to improve. Responding aggressively rather than acceptingly in the latter case is inappropriate and will probably have very bad long term outcomes.
As Peterson wraps things up for rule 1 he covers a few other points. 1) If hierarchy is such a fundamental part of our existence doesn’t someone have to be at the bottom? Doesn’t someone have to be miserable? I would spend time on this but I felt he adequately addressed this concern. 2) When people behave in ways that signal they are at the bottom of the hierarchy, society tends to respond to those signals creating a negative feedback loop that keeps them at the bottom. 3) He encourages us to act and send signals that we are not at the bottom. He mentions several things but he summarizes these behaviors by saying “stand up straight and put your shoulders back.” Exhibiting these behaviors can start a positive feedback loop that allows you to begin to reach your full potential. “You will embark on the voyage of your life…and pursue your rightful destiny.” As the lady says in the Discover card commercial “it’s all very exciting!”
I thought this rule was great advice.
Rule # 2 – Treat Yourself Like Someone You are Responsible for Helping.
I thought that there were some interesting items Peterson brought up as he built his case for why he thought this was a good rule. I also felt this rule was spot on and something I’m trying to focus on in my own life.
How Peterson talked about the first 11 chapters of Genesis was provocative. The ancients “were much more concerned with the actions that dictated survival…” rather than “…what we now understand as objective truth.” It should be “…understood as something more akin to story or drama.” I do feel like in the modern era we want to read it as a scientific treatise and it was not written that way. In fact the people that wrote it didn’t even know what a scientific treatise was. I will also say that I am not completely satisfied with Peterson’s approach to Genesis 1-11. And I’m not completely satisfied with my own. So unsatisfied that I’m not comfortable articulating it. More work for me to do there. That being said, I feel Genesis 1-11 is articulating profound truth that is relevant today and Peterson seems to agree.
Peterson introduced the ideas of chaos and order in the overture and starting on the top of page 35 Peterson goes into further depth on these concepts of chaos and order and navigating between the two. Peterson equated the 3rd part, the navigating between the two as consciousness which is very interesting. He also reiterates “…so many of the world’s traditions regard the suffering attendant upon existence as the irreducible truth of Being.”
My thoughts below might side more on the side of chaotic than orderly…
Bottom of page 43. “When life suddenly reveals itself as intense, gripping, and meaningful; when time passes and you’re so engrossed in what you’re doing you don’t notice – it is there and then that you are located precisely on the border between order and chaos.” I am familiar with this experience. I had not thought of it in terms of order and chaos. Although I kind of see his point.
I liked what he said about chaos as opportunity and order as tyranny. He also talked about it being human nature to look at things as tool rather than just objects.
As I thought about Peterson’s ideas on chaos and order I questioned whether these are the fundamental aspects of Being. Aren’t other things equally fundamental? Good and evil, grace and truth, us and them, time and eternity?
Of course he does address one of these categories (good and evil) around page 47 and has another nice reference to Solzhenitsyn when he mentions “…the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” Also further below on page 54 he further defines evil by saying, “Only man will inflict suffering for the sake of suffering. That is the best definition of evil I have been able to formulate.”
Rule # 2 closing thoughts.
My thoughts. To some degree it is the history of intellectual thought to try to reduce things down to a few simple premises. Descartes reduced things down to a fundamental axiom of “I think therefore I am” and built a system based on that axiom. Marxists try to define life / society as a struggle between the owners / bourgeoisie and labor / the proletariat. Peterson tries to reduce human existence down to managing between order and chaos. What if the world and even human nature is too complex to reduce down to fundamental principles and every time we do this we inevitably leave important things out and by so doing do damage to ourselves and those around us when our actions are based on this over-simplification. One can certainly argue that is what happened with the Marxists. Perhaps the same would happen with Peterson’s idea of order and chaos. I’m not sure what we do about the problem of oversimplification, if it is a problem, but it does tend to make me want to question Peterson’s hypothesis on chaos in order. On the other hand what I am saying fits right into Peterson’s thought. The world is complex and therefore chaotic. We look for and devise principles to try to make sense of it and order it. But as we live our life according to these simplistic principals they bump up against the chaos of the world and sometimes break down and fail in the face of nature (including society). In which case we have to adjust our principles. Which kind of sounds like his concept of “the way.”
Page 50 I feel he has an interesting discussion which I summarize as, if you want to have the possibility of achievement you have to also accept the possibility of failure. Seems true.
On page 53 Peterson comes back around to the point of the rule which is why he thinks that people don’t treat themselves as well as they should. “No one is more familiar than you with all the ways your mind and body are flawed. No one has more reason to hold you in contempt, to see you as pathetic – and by withholding something that might do you good, you can punish yourself for all your failings.” I see the logic of this but I’m not sure how well this explains what I see in my life and in other people’s regarding not being willing to take care of ourselves. He also indicates that our knowledge of our own capacity for evil as a reason to punish ourselves. And later on page 57 he adds a 3rd item that even though we have these faults we are still not willing to turn to God and walk with Him. The knowledge of these three things make us feel unworthy.
Peterson counters this sense or acceptance of worthlessness by noting on page 60 that, “You are not simply your own possession to torture and mistreat. …your Being is inexorably tied up with that of others, and your mistreatment of yourself can have catastrophic consequences for others.” Definitely true if you are in a family. Secondly he notes “you have a spark of the divine in you, which belongs not to you but to God.” “We are … made in His image.” As imperfect as we are we owe it to others and God to be the best that we can be. He also notes that in spite of all our frailties people still accomplish noble and remarkable things under often dire circumstances and that in some way warrants a sense of worthiness. “Things can fall apart…it is always wounded people who are holding it together.”
I thought his note on Original Sin was interesting on the top for age 55. I liked Peterson pointing out we are created in the image of God and that part of the image is the ability to create order out of chaos. I believe that is on target.
Top of page 62 Peterson has a nice and compelling summary. “You are important to other people as much as to yourself. You have some vital role to play in the unfolding destiny of the world. You are, therefore, morally obligated to take care of yourself.” I find this very personally encouraging and motivating.
General notes on the the cyber book club. I probably took like 3 times as many notes I I should have to kick this off. So, feel free to be much less verbose when it is your turn to kick things off. Or not...
Rule #1 Comments
My view of evolution/creation is very much like John's. And I got a little hung up on his dependence on the evolution of the Hierarchy of Dominance (HD) for support of this argument for Rule #1. If you take away evolution how do you get there? You would have to come up with some other source for the inherent nature of the HD. And if you reject evolution then you are left with a creator who bestowed the HD upon us. I as a Christian believe that the creator is God. And God, through the writers of the New Testament, described to us the Kingdom of God, which to my understanding is very much not a Hierarchy. You know the slave is equal to his master, the Greek and the Jew are equals, men and women are equal, the last shall be first and first last and all that. So, from the perspective of my worldview I don't feel that he adequately supported Rule #1.
In general, I like the rule, and based on my 53 years of living here and observing the world there seems to be a lot of merit in it. And I defiantly believe that people should stand up for themselves and not allow themselves to be bullied. Jesus did not allow himself to be bullied. However, the I don't think the HD is how God intended things to be.
--- legend for understanding steven's notes ---
"" = quotes directly from the book i found intriguing
--> = my personal thoughts
-QUESTION-> = question that calls for a response, if you'd like
--- foreword ---
"... the foremost rule is that you must take responsibility for your own life."
--> we need more of this in Western culture.
--- overture ---
"We are not happy, technically speaking, unless we see youselves progressing..."
--> so true.
(quote from John) "One of the questions that came to my mind as I read this was if a child grew up in a context where they did not get good teaching and guidance would they ever reach this same conclusion that happiness is not the goal, character is the goal? Do people have to have some kind of basis or launching point that they learn from others to adopt this kind of perspective on life? I think I lean to yes. A person with a sub optimal even destructive upbringing may never reach this conclusion on their own.""
--> absolutely true. however, i think it's important to note that no one reaches this conclusion on their own. we are shaped by the people who love us (or don't). so even those folk who reach this conclusion did not do it of their own volition. this gives me hope for people who have not yet reached it, because they can always be loved by someone who may shift their perspective.
--- rule #1 ---
"The poor and stressed always die first, and in greater numbers."
--> good motivation to not be poor and stressed.
"I council my clients to eat a fat and protein-heavy breakfast..."
--> i need to take his advice on this.
--> i found it interesting that DEATH and SOCIAL HUMILIATION constitute the two most basic fears... makes sense to me.
"Those who start to have will probably get more."
--> true. i think this is also the foundation for 'privilege.'
--- john's rule #1 sidebar ---
(john's quote) "He built on this complexity He used design patterns. In particular, design patterns that had proved successful in the past."
--> By saying "proved successful in the past" implies that God was experiementing and didn't know what would be successful. God is all-knowing, so this simply could not be true. Just food for thought, so you can bolster your argument when articulating this in the future :-)
--- rule #2 thoughts ---
--> i understand the dicotomy between CHAOS and ORDER... i haven't seen enough compelling evidence yet to believe that CONSIOUSNESS is the process of mediating between the two realms.
-QUESTION-> can anyone provide some furhter evidence to compel me to believe?
"We appear to have taken that primodal knowledge of structured, creative opposition and begun to interpret everything through its lense."
--> I think this is why it is very difficult to bridge the true understanding gap between different people groups. Ex: straight folk & LGBTQ+ folk. Each person interprets everything through their value lense, which makes it difficult to truly understand the other's point of view.
"It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, "No!" For the men, that's a direct encounter with CHAOS, and it occurs with devastating force every time they are turned down for a date."
--> When this happens, it truly is chaos.
"Paradise... means walled or protected enclosure..."
--> I find it facinating that paradise cannot be achieved without walls & protection. Every time I want to rebel against the world and seek 'freedom,' I should keep this in mind.
"Women have been making men self-conscious since the beginning of time."
--> A humorous toungue-in-cheek statement, with an unervving depth of truth.
--> I was not pleased with his definition of SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS (pg. 54): "... we know exactly how and where we can be hurt, and why."
-QUESTION-> If anyone can offer up a better definition, I'd be thankful :)
--> PRECOSMOGONIC is a freaking sweet word.
--> My shorthand summary of how to care for yourself properly. Start by reflecting with honesty:
1. Where are you?
2. Who are you?
3. Where are you going?
4. Articulate your principles.
5. Make promises to yourself & keep them.
6. Reward yourself for kept promises.
"That would justify your miserable experience."
--> I love dr. peterson's edge.
John: The most meaningful concept you noted in my opinion "....start addressing behaviors that unnecessarily cause us to act as a bottom hierarchy individual. He calls out sleep, diet, and drug / alcohol use and encourages positive routines." I think in my natural state, I am undisciplined. Not sure how profound this is. I just wanted to let you know. But for the grace of God, medical/psychological research and a very disciplined husband, I'm not sure if I would be part of the a fore mentioned HD (and yes, I think I am a "lobster winner"). I find the discussion of neurotransmitters and brain chemicals dopamine and serotonin fascinating. I believe before the fall, the level of these chemicals were stable and all humans that were on earth prior to the fall were part of the HD. My last thought to John...you are funny.
Eric: Thank you for keeping things focused on what's real. When Jordan talks about "evolution" I translate it in my mind as "creation." Creation is a mystery to me. I have not studied it like you and John have, so my thoughts are purely faith based, but it just does not seem to me that the structure of the atom, the vastness of space, the miraculous complexities of the human body, not to mention its complicated emotions are a result of a cosmic microwave. Needless to say, Jordan's purpose (I think) as a psychologist is to provide information that we can take to overcome our propensity to be low on the HD. He does, at least in this discussion leave out the most important study, Soteriology. Even though, his ideas on self-help and life choices are very biblical and may be what the world needs to prepare their hearts again for the message of the Gospel.
Steven: Thank you for your legend. It was very helpful. I agree with you about bridging the gap between groups of people who view everything through 1 lens. I find it difficult not to be one of these people. I have strong beliefs (If you haven't already noticed). I try to focus, although not always successful, on pushing through that lens and see others as they are...created in the image of God.
General comments about Rule #1-increase your serotonin in your brain so you stand up straight. We want to reflect Christ as a strong, confident person not a sad, pitiful one. Rule #2-Don't let chaos win over order. Strive to be disciplined and conscientious and even in times of chaos in this "miserable experience" try harder, because the power of chaos to ruin and affect your life is strong, push back against it. I Timothy 3:5, 2 Corinthians 4:2, 2 Corinthians 7:1, 2 Corinthians 3:5. Although the "Rules" are not gender specific, his concepts seem to attract the male species :). Why? Men need to hear this more than women? Biology differences compel men to search for meaning? Society has failed men and therefore they have lost their identity? Looking forward to the next chapters. Have a great week!
Rule #2
John, I agree that human nature is too complex to be reduced to a few simple axioms. However, you have to start somewhere and build on that. Just like in physics, you don't start with general relativity and quantum mechanics you start with understanding mass and gravity. Scientist spent hundreds of years fumbling around just trying to figure out gravity. Human nature and physical nature might be apples and oranges but I think the principle applies. When it comes to human nature we might still be in the fumbling around stage.
I was taken aback a little when Peterson said that even God couldn't create a space where evil couldn't encroach, or something like that. At first I thought this is not true and that God did create that space but Adam and Eve screwed it up. After thinking about it for a while I concluded that yes, God could have but that was not his purpose. He could have created man without free will and created the garden without the tree of knowledge but he didn’t. He created man to worship God of his own free will. So as soon as God created a wrong choice and gave man the ability to choose that wrong choice the door was opened for evil to enter. So, God could not have created a safe space and fulfil His purpose for creation at the same time. I think that with the availability of the wrong choice and the free will to make it, it was inevitable that evil would enter the garden, with or without the serpent's intervention. The serpent just made it happen sooner.
Steve, I like your summary of how to care for yourself.
I appreciated and agree with this rule as somewhat of a starting point but I disagree with his purpose for the rule and in the end it feels incomplete to me. I think he is saying that it is better to not be at the bottom of the hierarchy and the higher up you are on the hierarchy, the better. However, I wonder about the Kate Spades and the Michael Jacksons. They were certainly the most successful and I would say that Michael Jackson had his pick of women…we know the end of their story. I also think he is saying that we live in a cold, cruel, world and we have to survive in it. We have to be strong and tough. And we must begin with a certain physicality to it to survive. True. The part that doesn’t set well with me is to think about the disabled and those who can’t stand up for themselves—how does this rule help them? Do they have no purpose in life? Should they just “die out?”
Of note, I need more than this act to increase serotonin and dopamine but it is a good place to start and it does help.
I also liked the brain shrinking part-neuroplasticity is real and so interesting and our brain can continue to grow and change (or shrink) on into old age depending on our actions and lifestyle (Healthy Brain, Happy Life, Dr. Wendy Suzuki).
Verna-thank you for your comments-specifically on the gender specific! I am choosing to ignore his references because otherwise females so far have just gotten themselves soft and naked for the king lobster and make men self conscious, otherwise it appears very masculine. I'm not offended if that sounded offended....:)
John-also funny-I had the same feelings on agoraphobiaphobia...
Wow. Lots of very interesting thoughts.
Eric –
Rule # 1: Total agree with your discussion on Christ and HD. I actually went and read Matthew 23 and was going to post a bunch of stuff about it but I had to cut something out. Glad you shared those thoughts.
Steven –
Liked the “…take responsibility…” quote. I skipped that section. Agree with your sentiment. I also liked your hopeful comment “…they can always be loved by someone who may shift their perspective.”
Regarding breakfast. I usually each granola. Maybe I should switch to Jimmy Dean microwavables.
Regarding your “God is all-knowing” thoughts. Mulling that over. Look for more on a future post.
My initial reaction to Peterson’s comments on consciousness was… “that’s interesting, not sure I buy it, moving on.” Then later I caught myself thinking about it more and wondering if there is something to it. I tend to think of consciousness as self-awareness. A tree actively works to provide light for its leaves but it is not aware of a desire within itself to do so. It just does it. We are aware of our desires etc. Peterson’s definition adds action to this awareness which is probably appropriate. That’s all I got. Kind of half baked. Question was too interesting to leave lying there.
I tried to find the self-consciousness reference on page 54 but could not find it. I agree with the quote you presented about being hurt but that is not what I think of when I think of self-consciousness. Usually it is a negative term like. “relax, you are being too self-conscious.” It think it means being focused on how you think you might appear or be appearing I someone else’s conscious. Which come to think of is a strange word to use for that. Maybe if should be self-other-conscious.
I really like “5. Make promises to yourself and keep them and 6. Reward yourself for kept promises.” I think that comes up again I rule 4.
Verna -
Whoa. Very interesting take on how neurotransmitters might have functioned before the fall. Never thought about it like that before.
I like your take on Soteriology. Agreed. And I liked that you were the first one to use the term Soteriology. Could be part of a drinking game. Just saying.
Regarding why men like JP more than women… On one of his you tube videos he said maybe it is because most people discover him through you tube and men watch you tube a lot more than women. Maybe…
Eric –
Really liked your analysis of evil and the Garden of Eden. It rings true.
Mary –
Oh boy. Mary. Getting controversial up in there. I wondered / worried that some people are relegated to the bottom of the HD. He did address this. Don’t remember all of it and am too lazy to look it up now but I know he mentioned that we can be members of multiple HDs finding different roles in each and we can move from HDs that don’t suit us. I took his ideas in a somewhat different way. The HD is a fact. It exists. You can’t ignore it. Given that, what should we do. When we send signals that we are relatively high on the hierarchy (even if we are not) we tend to get better / more positive feedback and create a virtuous upward feedback loop. When we send signals we are on the bottom we tend to get negative feedback and fall into a negative downward feedback loop in society. Even many disabled people can work on sending these positive signals and get the benefits from that. Although it might be tougher. Additionally there is a lot to life. I feel we are called to help others when we can HD or no HD. My life is not just about establishing myself in the HD. But I ignore it at my own peril.
I think I said we should wrap up our discussion today but I say keep it coming. Good stuff. Looking forward to hearing from Heath and Isabelle and Jon and Michal and Matt and Gil and others. Plus I still owe Steven a comment.
Rule #2: He had me on board with this one. It is very true that we don't care for ourselves, People in general do not. Peterson gave different percentages but we were taught in school that when writing a prescription, only 50% of those you write it for will actually take it. As he said, reasons are complex, but I would agree that in general we don't feel we are worthy because we know every single fault/sin/weakness/evilness within us (or the alternative narcissist). He does a good job of giving both the how (Steven summary thank you) and the why: you can help direct the world, on it's careening trajectory, a bit more toward Heaven and a bit more away from Hell. I also really like the Nietzsche quote "He whose life has a why can bear almost any how."
Hi John-thank you for your comments and I appreciate them. It has helped me articulate how I feel because I did not do that very well in my first comment. I know the HD exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know that your life (or anyone here) does not revolve around the HD and it is not your purpose for life. I also probably instinctively respond to the HD on a daily basis. It’s a good thing to realize it is out there because it is a dog-eat-dog world basically. But-my point is in line with what Eric has said and that is that it matters whether or not you believe in evolution or creation. Like Verna, I have not studied extensively, but I believe in creation and not the theory of evolution. I think Dr. Peterson is stating that the HD is a product of evolution and therefore a good thing. I believe the HD in the garden of Eden consisted solely of Christ as head. Then the fall, and the HD all changed. I think the HD in our culture and among animals is a result of sin. Therefore, it is not’s God’s plan for us and he has a better way.
Sorry I'm a bit past the deadline for this discussion but I was late on my "homework". Enjoying reading the comments so far.
My quick thoughts -
Using your consciousness and resulting creativity and awareness to explore pathways (unavailable to the lobster) that require foundational things like good sleeping habits and a healthy breakfast
is the best way to not just live but grow, refine, and enhance our lives. Like philosophy, a lot of meaningful human activities can only be accomplished once our basic needs have been met.
I loved JP including Taoism, which is an interest of mine. (strongly recommend the easy read "The Tao of Pooh", regardless of what you believe).
Another semi-related note; on p.61 JP's description of how people, each with their own set of issues to deal with, come together and create a world with clean water, electricity, healthy food is one which I think about often.
It is remarkable. People are exceptional in that they see something and desire to make it better.
I also thought a lot about Steven's comment on consciousness and another description. But after 3 pages of notes and scribbles I only managed to confuse myself :)
Hi Mary. I liked the Nietzsche quote as well. Okay. I see where you and Eric are going I think. It seems possible that the HD or at least the way it is constructed today is a result of the fall. I quickly get befuddled when I think about the fall and original sin. It is clear that Jesus challenged us to rise above just functioning in the HD thoughtlessly. He definitely preached a different type of hierarchy. I am inclined to believe that in the resurrection / kingdom the biological structure including the predominant HD will be super way different / better / more wholesome than it is in our current state. Am I thinking along the same lines you are?
Steven. A few thoughts on the point of "God is all-knowing." Here’s where I am coming from. Almost if not everything we know or say about God is a metaphor. God is our Father. God is not a father in the way that I am a father or my dad is a father etc. Saying God is our Father is a way of helping us understand how God relates to us. We have a conception of how a father should relate to his children and the authors of the Bible are saying that is a little bit like how God relates to us. But in reality. The way God relates to us is probably much more profound than what is entailed in the father child relationship. But it helps us understand God. The same could be said of God is Love and many other things we think of when we think of God. Now to the point God is all knowing. Can we really say that God knows in the same way that we know? God made us with the capacity to "know" things but that capacity is just something that he created in us. Similar to the capacity to see or to walk. The concept of seeing is a concept that was created and didn't exist until God created it. Before God created sight there was no notion of sight. You could say the same thing about knowing or knowledge. There was no such thing as knowing or knowledge until God created it. So, to say that God knows things is perhaps a metaphor as God fully existed before knowing or knowledge existed. He surely does something like knowing as we understand it but whatever it is He does that is akin to knowing is different than what we experience as knowing. Whatever He does it would be far more awesomely better than what we can consider as knowing. We say that God is all knowing because that is the best way or at least a short hand way of saying that God must do a super awesome thing that is kind of like knowing. That being the case, can we say that because God has this super awesome quality that He can’t learn or experiment (or whatever God does that is akin for these things)? Maybe. I’m not sure. All I know (ha) is that what we see in the species is a growing complexity of designs apparently culminating in humans. If we look at the historical record of say motorized vehicles we see the same type of progression of improving design patterns adjusted over time based on environment, needs, and learning. The Old Testament seems to imply there was some kind progression in the creation process. To me it looks something like experimenting and learning was happening. But I could be totally wrong. I’m still leaning lightly into some of these concepts.
Heath!!!! Thanks for joining all the discussion. It’s great to hear from you. Looking forward to hearing more.
“Like philosophy, a lot of meaningful human activities can only be accomplished once our basic needs have been met.” Very true. We are very blessed to live in a time of great plenty and a 40 hour work week giving us time and energy to set our sights on things beyond basic survival.
I have heard of “The Tao of Pooh” but have not had a chance to read it. Might be a good option for a book club next year.
Regarding the 3 pages of notes and scribbles. Ha. Been there done that. More than I would like to admit.
I think Brian might be chiming in at some point. Looking forward to what he might have to say also.
I have enjoyed reading the book much so far. I have read over 1/2 of the book so far. I was surprised at how much he uses the Bible to develop his view point on many issues. It would look like he uses the Bible to help develop his world view. I guess the "liberal" crowd does not like him much.
I need to read the syllabus a little more closely. Do I get any credit for work turned in late? Any hope for some make-up bonus points later on? Grading on a curve, I hope.
Chapter 1
After setting the stage with the Heirarchy of Dominance and comparing us to sparring Lobsters, I felt a bit disconnected from myself. So I read the chapter again to see what I was missing. I want to relate, honest. Maybe I'm a skeptic. Or maybe I just don't want to have my antennae ripped off. Upon a second reading, I think there are some things missing.
Missing: Any consideration for Lobsters who don't want to fight. Are we seriously all doomed to a life of escalating sparring matches with others in our species? Is the HD really that all-encompassing? Ok, I'll go along with the idea that we obsessively compare ourselves to one another (my vehicle has more rust than yours--I must suck. Or vice versa), but I don't remember the last time I sparred with another two-legged Lobster.
What about those Lobsters of the two-legged variety who just want to go about their business? Who are content in their station in life. Who just want to grow a garden every year, harvest the crop, put it away for the winter, do that about 75 times, then expire.
Missing: Hope for a shot of seratonin for those who slouch a bit. What about the poor metal detectorists, who by force of habit scan the ground for little shiny bits? What about thoughtful people, who would rather ponder the sparring habits of Lobsters than make eye contact? What about boys who grew up too tall for their age and didn't want to play basketball (and who are resentful that the world and everything man-made seems designed for people who are 5'10" tall)? Ok, I slump a bit. Whatever. Get over it, Peterson. I want my seratonin.
Missing: Acknowledgment that crap happens to people (starts at birth when the first human interaction might come with a slap), and there may be fears or pain or malformity from past situations that have crippled the very spirit, and that very history can keep a Lobster on the sidelines. Should (can) a person who was serially abused during their childhood simply decide to "throw their shoulders back, get a shot of seratonin, and go seize the day"? Yeah, we're only on chapter one, and he is a psychologist so he has to know how heavy the past can be on a Lobster's shoulders. I'll have to wait and see if he actually acknowledges that people can get so warped that a chapter like this can actually come across as another grab at one's drooping antenna.
Missing: Mention of the invisible realm of life which cannot be seen with the naked eye, in which those "at the top of their game" are actually imposters, born into wealth or status, who behave in ways that Peterson's poor do--grasping for short term pleasures, don't know what to do with money, poor decision makers, etc. Likewise, those who are seemingly at the bottom of the pile, who will never be known as anything, but who are true gems--dropping a couple mites quietly into the gift box, more contented NOT being noticed, blessing those around them in so many invisible ways. The Kingdom of Heaven is so counter-intuitive in every way, that we would be wise to look at the weak, the lowly, the humble, and go and do us likewise.
At the end of this chapter (yes, yes, it's only chapter one) I feel like I should take a deep breath, send three easy payments of $19.99 for a back straightener device, and go ask my boss for a raise. No thank you.
I quite like the heirarchy of the Kingdom of Heaven, where the last shall be first, the weak shall be given strength, and the meek shall inherit a nice piece of ground suitable for a little garden. Because seeing all those bright green peppers hanging on the pepper plants delivers quite a nice shot of seratonin, thank you.
Creation vs. Evolution: I don't have any idea where this all came from. No one was there with an iPhone to make a video, so we're left to wonder. I'm ok marveling at the mystery of it all.
But it seems to me that the Theistic Evolutionists might sleep a little better at night. They get to go along with the "this thing seems really old" thing, and they get to embrace all this extravagant beauty and intricacy of design as having come from a Purposeful, Thoughtful, and Witty Creator.
I have this image in my mind of the Creator smiling on the inside, as David Attenborough tells us about the antics of the Birds of Paradise, and gives credit to--no One in particular. Have you seen that episode? :)
Ho ho. Like you posts Jon. Will be reflecting on them and putting my two cents in on Tuesday. After I record the obligatory 20 points off for a late assignment and flag in the additional comments section of the report card. "Does not take direction well."
Having lived on both extremes of dominance hierarchies, I feel that Jordan Peterson’s words on this topic ring with the truth of experience. I’ve observed the pre-eminence of serotonin first-hand. I have St. John’s wort as a serotonin reuptake inhibitor as a means to break the feedback loop of depression that had been gnawing at my emotional stability from age 16 to 23. However, also decided to set several other serotonin-boosting interventions in place -- a chemical crutch was simply not enough. I also engaged with the Christian community through volunteering, matured several friendships to displace the vacuum of isolation, exercised daily, permanently changed my approach to nutrition, and started a job that paid better -- giving me the resources to stabilize my personal life. I became passionately devoted to playing bass guitar and guitalele so that I would not become bored and engage in self-destructive habits. I began to retell the story of my life in a positive light, and all of the prior factors helped stop the negative thought-loops that used to haunt me daily. I shifted the focus away from my own problems and started helping others overcome their own, and my self-esteem soared. This was so much more than standing with a back straight, head up. But I find that the title isn’t even the point of the chapter. It is to recognize the prevalence of dominance hiearchies. So let’s look at that now.
Dominance hierachies have dominance hierarchies. Let’s take a look at the workplace for instance. You may notice that your team has a particular pecking order. Your boss may have one or two go-to lieutenants who are given more opportunities to help out. This increases their chances for pay raise and promotion. If you are one of these people, you may be quite happy with this arrangement. If you are bottom of the hierarchy, you may not feel so good about this. As the Bible says, “For whoever has, to him more shall be given...but whoever does not have, even what has shall be taken away.” It’s important to note, however, that there our immediate hierarchies are nested within other, broader hierarchies. For example, your team has work is one hierarchy, but as a unit, the team may be contained within the hierarchy of several teams in your department. If you work hard and make your team shine, this increases the chances that your team will receive recognition -- maybe your boss could get promoted, and this would be good for you as well because this increases your value in your team hierarchy.
We may notice that some people, however, aim to please their boss at the cost of an even higher hierarchy -- perhaps your team looks good, but you cut corners when no one is looking. Many people do this, and the department suffers from a secret rot that creeps beneath its can-do exterior.
Or maybe this doesn’t happen. Because life is chaotic, the company could go under anyway despite your best efforts -- within the even higher hierarchies of the business world, some companies win and some lose -- only a small percentage rise to the top. Or maybe a brutal round of lay-off sweeps you into the chasm of unemployment -- even though you seemed to be doing everything right.
So at the end of the day, it is my opinion that the most important hierarchy of all for us to straighten out (and I may be preaching to the choir here) is the hierarchy of values. We may not be able to control our company, but we can control how we respond when things go well or things go badly.
And this brings us to the second chapter -- “Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping.” I view this rule in terms of a hierarchy of values -- our internalized book of rules regarding how we respond to things outside of our control. We want to find a way to manage chaos in such a way that we express our core beliefs through our actions. We want to first and foremost decide to take better care of ourselves now, so we can take better of others later. In this manner we fulfill the value of love -- and JP drives home that point that when we have knowledge of good and evil, we have a responsibility to shoulder our own suffering, “the irreducible truth of being” in order to continually strive against the forces of chaos that upend the systems of order. We may even need to lean into the suffering of existence now so that others may suffer less later -- because life, according to JP, quickly makes a mockery of the pursuit of happiness.
Regarding the apparent gender-gap in JP's audience -- I first heard him on Joe Rogan's podcast. A lot of the folks that get on that podcast tend to blow up -- and Joe Rogan definitely talks a lot about MMA...so his audience might be more male-centric. If a lot of people came to JP through that medium, it's not surprising that his audience is predominantly men. Also, JP frequently has clashed with a number of female media figures aiming to paint him as a sexist/racist because he opposes a very small number of extremely vocal social justice warriors on the far left. Really, though, it's hard to draw the line between correlation and causation, in my opinion.
Anyway, this has been fun -- looking forward to the next discussion!
I really liked the first paragraph of Brian’s post and would like to hear what Jon thinks of it. I’ve enjoyed and benefited from having a front row seat to the events that Brian has described. Interesting direction. I had not thought of hierarchies within hierarchies. What hierarchies we are in is very dynamic for a complex set of reasons. Would be interesting to hear if the ladies in the group feel JP is inclined toward men. I don’t feel that way but I might be blind.
Jon. Your thoughts are quite thought provoking. Summary: There’s got to be other / better ways to get the benefits of serotonin in your life. Probably I guess.
I have to say I am a fan of JP. Hopefully not a sycophant. In responding to some of your notes I hope I don’t sound too much like an apologists. I don’t think JP is saying that people should strive to be at the top of any given HD. I think he would leave that to the individual. I think he would say that people should be aware of the signals they are giving. These signals will emit a response from society. A response that they might find negative. If they find themselves in a bad place this is one of 12 tools to help get them to a better place. If they are happy walking around contemplating cool things and growing tomatoes. That’s great. Lots of people do that and they get along just great in society. But if you don’t like how things are going in your life. How the world is treating you. Think about the signals you are sending and what reciprocating behaviors that is inviting in your life.
“Missing: Hope for a shot of serotonin for those who slouch a bit.” I don’t know a lot about serotonin. I imagine there are other ways to get it. Do you know of any other ways? It sounds like you are saying there should be other ways to get it and that is a better way to go. Brian identified some medicinal options. Perhaps that is better.
“Missing: Acknowledgment that crap happens…” I wondered similarly if someone can be beaten down beyond recovery. Maybe. Probably. I know he has said in other contexts that some marriages are beyond repair. Perhaps that is true of people also. I would argue that there is a much higher percentage of people who are groveling along in a sub-optimal life that they are not happy with and they choose to metaphorically walk around with their shoulders slumped when the could take action starting with the signals they send to the HD. Sure, 5 to 10% of people may be in such bad shape that this does not help them much. But the other 90% can benefit.
I agree that people at the top of the economic hierarchy may actually lead dreadful unfulfilled lives and those at the bottom of the economic hierarchy may have very rich and rewarding lives. I think JP would agree. Regardless of how much money you have or how many friends on face book. If you act like a loser people are more likely to treat you like one and if you act like a winner acts people are more likely to treat you well. And rich or poor, being treated well is good for you. And acting like you deserve to be treated well is good for you.
My take. This is one tool that will help you live a better life. Just one. If past experience, how your parents or brother or society treated you renders you unwilling or unable to try this. Okay, well, you might feel a little better because you can blame something else for why you can’t do this to make you live a little better but at the end of the day. Your still living a sub-optimal life.
On to the next rules intrepid Chaos busters!!!!
I’m tired. Time for bed.
You should eat avocado toast w/ an egg for breakfast 😉
I might not able to do avocado but egg might work.
Post a Comment