Jordan Peterson: 12 Rules For Life, Rule 7, Rule 8. Pages: 161 - 230 Instigator: Jon
Instigation Deadline: EOD - 1/22/19
Response Deadline: EOD - 1/28/19
Okay Jon. You can get this one rolling.
Well Thomas, never one to let convention stand in the way of a good idea, has gone ahead and posted a bunch of comments not only about chapters 7 and 8 but also chapter 11 and I think he worked in some chapter 12 as well. So, I guess we can all follow his lead and go ahead and make any remaining comments under this post. I will be putting my thoughts out there shortly on Thomas' comments and all the remaining chapters.
33 comments:
Chapter 7 - Pursue What Is Meaningful (Not What Is Expedient)
First, let me apologize for the group that I haven't been more engaged in the discussions. I'll make every effort to be a good citizen from here on out.
I thought I would come at the instigation a little differently. Rather than tell you what I think, or what I think Jordan Peterson thinks, I think I'll ask a few thought provoking or discussion-generating questions. Whatever you do, don't try to answer them all. Just pick the one or two you feel most interested in. Or shoot a question back at me, Socrates-style (or Jesus-style!) Anything goes. :)
Question one: SACRIFICE
[Page 161] "When engaging in sacrifice, our forefathers began to act out what would be considered a proposition, if it were stated in words: that something better might be attained in the future by giving up something of value in the present."
[Page 166] "It’s as if something like the following happened as humanity developed. First were the endless tens or hundreds of thousands of years prior to the emergence of written history and drama. During this time, the twin practices of delay and exchange begin to emerge, slowly and painfully. Then they become represented, in metaphorical abstraction, as rituals and tales of sacrifice, told in a manner such as this: 'It’s as if there is a powerful Figure in the Sky, who sees all, and is judging you. Giving up something you value seems to make Him happy—and you want to make Him happy, because all Hell breaks loose if you don’t. So, practise sacrificing, and sharing, until you become expert at it, and things will go well for you.' No one said any of this, at least not so plainly and directly. But it was implicit in the practice and then in the stories."
From these two passages, how closely does Peterson's spin on 'sacrifice' jive with your understanding of sacrifice in the Christian scripture? Do you feel that he is making the idea of sacrifice something that matters in this earthly life only, ignoring the aspect of sacrifice as being something that appeases a God Who demands that things be "made right" (righteous)?
Question two: THE BIG MOTIVATING IDEA
[page 191 and following] "An idea is a personality, not a fact. When it manifests itself within a person, it has a strong proclivity to make of that person its avatar: to impel that person to act it out. Sometimes, that impulsion (possession is another word) can be so strong that the person will die, rather than allowing the idea to perish." ... "It is the most fundamental convictions that must die—must be sacrificed—when the relationship with God has been disrupted (when the presence of undue and often intolerable suffering, for example, indicates that something has to change). This is to say nothing other than that [this is Jordan's BIG IDEA] the future can be made better if the proper sacrifices take place in the present."
Have you ever had an idea that was so compelling inside you that it changed you, made you into its "avatar," that you simply HAD to do it, or move towards it? Where do you think the idea came from? What do you think of Jordan's BIG IDEA?
Question three: THE KINGDOM OF GOD
[Page 195] "To place the alleviation of unnecessary pain and suffering at the pinnacle of your hierarchy of value is to work to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth. That’s a state, and a state of mind, at the same time."
How closely does this quote capture the essence of the Kingdom of God in your mind? a) Not at all. b) Not much, but maybe a little. c) He got it half right. d) Pretty close to what I think, just a little off. e) He nailed it.
Question four:
Could your average Joe read chapter seven, follow the reasoning, grasp the concepts, "find" himself in this moment in human history, and then begin to work for the betterment of himself, his family, and all mankind by sacrificing the Expedient on the altar of the Meaningful? A more broad way of asking the question is, To what extent do you think this book is suitable for the masses? What kind of person do you think would be most engaged/motivated by this chapter/book?
Bonus question five:
How motivating do you personally find this chapter, in terms of finding a reason to make the world a better place? Let's say you're a Christian, did this chapter feel like a scolding, or did it confirm your feelings of who you are and what your role is here in this life? Let's say you're an atheist, do you find any motivation here, what with the heavy reliance upon the stories (or "fables") and central teachings of the Christian scriptures?
I'll be back with another set of questions from chapter 8.
Regarding Jon’s comments on sacrifice. It does seem like JP kind of glosses over some of the things the Bible emphasizes around sacrifice as a means of putting yourself in right standing with God. He seems to look at it more as a practice that involves being willing to give up something now to get something better in the future. In that sense JP seems to have a temporal focus whereas the Bible seems more focused on righteousness and potentially eternal impacts. This thought process looks like this: I did something wrong but I can fix it with God by sacrificing. In a broader sense JP’s thought of give something up now aligns with the concept that I did something bad and God in the future will punish me or my future family but if I sacrifice something now that future bad thing won’t happen. The future will be better for me. That is a little jumbled and not fully thought out.
I think JP doesn’t really care about the details of any particular religion’s reason or meaning of sacrifice. JP is finding commonality in that no matter what the specific details of given rules of sacrifice for a given religion, the one thing that is common is… I give up something now for something better in the future whether that be in the temporal world or eternal world, whether that be the avoiding of a deserved future catastrophe or the benefit of an otherwise missed future blessing. If you are not religious it may not matter what the specific religious rules are just that a good life rule is the ability to defer gratification.
More thoughts on sacrifice. In general I like the way JP thinks about religious questions but I don’t always agree with his conclusions. Reading JP is encouraging me to take a broader perspective on many things and thinking in a different type of way about a variety of thing.
As a Christian one of these areas is the idea of sacrifice. For many years I have not felt I really understand that concept and why it is important / required. I’m not saying I can’t articulate the concepts of sacrifice for propitiation of sin. I feel like I understand that. But rather why is that fundamentally important to God.
For example. Did God adopt sacrifice as a means for people to interact with God because it was a practice common to man and so if he made laws that involved sacrifice people would understand it? Like speaking a language people understand. Taken this way, if different religious practices had evolved in human culture perhaps God would have set up a regiment other than sacrifice to work out and articulate our relationship with Him. Or is there something truly fundamental about sacrifice and relating to God. If there is something fundamental could God have created things where that wasn’t fundamental and why did He not do that? These ideas are all very fuzzy and half baked (ha). Something I should think through more someday.
From Jon’s post: Have you ever had an idea that was so compelling inside you that it changed you, made you into its "avatar," that you simply HAD to do it, or move towards it? Where do you think the idea came from?
With regard to the first question. ABSOLUTLY!
THE IDEA. All capable men should mentor at least one under privileged boy from a single parent family as they grow up through high school and beyond to help show them how to be successful and in that way help them break the cycle of poverty that they are in.
Where it came from: I was participating at our church in a collaboration with another church which is mostly a black church. The idea was that by sharing between the churches we would find ways to make the relationship between blacks and whites in our society improve.
I went to many meetings and there were lots of discussions and I learned a lot and I met a lot of nice people. I started to ask myself, why is it that so many years after civil rights so many black people still struggle and lag behind at least financially in our society.
I drew two conclusions:
1 – I do feel for young black poor men there is a degree to which the legal system is tilted against them.
2 – There is a pattern in some groups and in the black community in particular with a large amount of poverty to have dads who are not engaged with their sons or their families which makes it much more likely that their family will be poor. The sons see this behavior in their fathers and learn that this is the way a male is to act and then they repeat it when they are adults and it creates a generational cycle of poverty.
I became interested in issue number 2 and felt that one way to stop that cycle of poverty is to put mentors in young men’s lives that could model more productive adult male behavior and start to break the cycle of generational poverty.
For me the idea was compelling and I started spending lots of time on it. I talked to at least 30 people trying to sell the concept. I tried to get our church involved in recruiting men to be mentors. I developed a relationship with big brothers / big sisters. In the end I was fairly unsuccessful but for me the idea definitely motivated my behavior for many months
I finally got around to reading Jon's questions and I'll respond to the one that struck me: The Idea
Idea: Cook for my wife (ideas don't always have to be earth shattering)
I started working from home nearly a year ago and have never cared much for cooking. In fact, I mostly dreaded it. But about 6 or 7 months ago I started to cook regularly. Simple meals at first and then a bit more daring as time went on. What happened was an unexpectedly joyful 30 - 45 minutes of my day that I began to look forward to the more I did this. I found myself pleasantly anticipating the peaceful time I would have cooking; just a man in a kitchen, some music, a cat and all the comforting smells that were brewing. I became excited to see my wife (not that I wasn't before, but everyone knows what I mean) because I enjoyed her reaction and thankfulness of having a meal ready. With this calming period behind me I believe I was/am a better listening to her and it usually leads to more interesting conversations.
Initially I had thought I was "sacrificing" myself and my time by doing something that I didn't enjoy. But ultimately it has led to another activity I greatly look forward to. I won't be on Hell's Kitchen anytime soon, but I did find a very rewarding way to spend a part of the day.
Regarding Jon’s Kingdom of God question. I’m glad you asked. My thoughts were provoked by JP’s thoughts on suffering as well.
Based on minimal reading on contemporary ethics it seems there might be a bit of a consensus that avoidance of suffering is the seminal principle driving ethical systems in contemporary thinking. This is central to Peter Singer’s thinking who is a leading ethicists and animal rights advocate.
On the outside chance that you actually reads this comment and you have had to suffer through my name dropping and lame attempt at fancy talk, I apologize. That was a little gratuitous. Let’s move on.
Here is my opinion.
I would fall somewhere between b) and c) with potential gusts in the direction of d).
I feel avoidance of suffering (for ourselves and perhaps more importantly others) is very important and should drive much of our behavior. In fact, should probably be a consideration in everything we do.
That being said, I think the avoidance of suffering is way too low of a bar for something made in the Image of God. Quantities of joy, delight, accomplishment, laughter, love, romance, thrill, surprise, transcendence, the good feeling that comes with acting with integrity, freedom, discovery, creation, beauty, companionship, the intimacy of a shared secrets should all factor in. Frankly, a world or life that’s primary feature is only the absence of suffering frankly sounds almost bleak.
Personally, I’d trade a little suffering for the feeling I got recently when a friend sent me a link to Barber’s Adagio for Strings, or the excitement I felt when 30 years ago I was Christmas shopping in a B Dalton book store and they had George Winston’s “December” on and I was amazed and I bought it on the spot or the thrill I felt stealing my first kiss from my future wife in a wild strawberry patch in the woods of Michigan.
As the boys from Switchfoot would say, “We were meant to live for so much more.”
Finally, I dipped into the scriptures a little bit to see what was said about the Kingdom of God knowing for sure that I would find great information to support all that I just said. Stuff about the Glory of God and such. Well as usual, it wasn’t that straight forward. First of all most of what Jesus said about the King of God sounded like He kind of assumed everybody knew what the Kingdom of God was and Jesus focused on how to get into the Kingdom of God or what would cause the Kingdom of God to come to pass or that it was right in front of them or would grow organically. So, that wasn’t a ton of help. Although when Jesus did talk about the Kingdom of God it was often in juxtaposition to suffering. And Jesus did emphasize alleviation of suffering. So, that does play a big roll.
Link to Switchfoot song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXcrEVFZOXs
Link to December
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5qGUhWPi6w
Wow. Beautiful set of sentences Heath.
Randomly I happened to read your post right as Chris Stapleton's Tennessee Whisky came on my Pandora channel. It seemed to fit perfectly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zAThXFOy2c
Add to my list of stuff that is more important or at least as important as the avoidance of suffering ... Serendipity that brings joy, peace and fulfillment while bringing you closer to the one you love. Or additionally the serendipity of reading an unexpected post that stops you short and warms your insides on a cold winter evening.
Thanks.
Incredibly kind of you to say John. The pace of that song seems to go perfectly in the kitchen. I may be incorporating it into my playlist.
Loved this paragraph on the Kingdom of God
Jon - "That being said, I think the avoidance of suffering is way too low of a bar for something made in the Image of God. Quantities of joy, delight, accomplishment, laughter, love, romance, thrill, surprise, transcendence, the good feeling that comes with acting with integrity, freedom, discovery, creation, beauty, companionship, the intimacy of a shared secrets should all factor in. Frankly, a world or life that’s primary feature is only the absence of suffering frankly sounds almost bleak."
Whoops, that was John with an h...one two many Jon's here.
Dang it, I step away for a few days, and you guys do a bunch of commenting. I thought I had this set up to alert me of any posts!
If you're back in the game, I'll go ahead with my chapter 8 comments, and I'll come back through this thread with some thoughts.
Hi Jon let er rip on chapter 8.
It think this chapter is kind of the kernel of his idea for the entire book. If you want to know what / how JP thinks or what this book is about this chapter is the best summary.
I think the answer to Jon’s 4th question is yes. It is a little heady but not out of reach for the vast majority of people. I generally think that the “average” person is not given enough credit.
I think the people who would / could get the most out of this are…
1 – A young person who is struggling to move into adult life effectively. I think this book could give a good frame work to move in a positive direction.
2 – An adult that has gone through a crisis and is trying to figure out what is next. Recent divorce, career flame out / lost job, that type of thing.
3 – Old guys like me who have embraced our modern era and societal change but with misgivings. I find myself saying and feeling all the way through this thing. “Yes, that’s right. I knew there was something wrong with this or that and finally someone saw it and said it in a way that is hard to argue with.” I am going to be lazy and not try to cite any examples (example of how not to follow rule 10) but I have to say I really like this book. I feel emboldened and reaffirmed.
My first post was brilliant but somehow I lost it when trying to publish it from sheer incompetence, so keep that in mind when I present my recreated thoughts. Take them with a grain of salt.
I’m a long time listener. First time caller. This is Thomas. I’m almost done with the book, and reading it has generated a lot of thoughts. Unfortunately I have not put them on this blog yet. But hoping to remedy that. The discussion on JP’s ethic of avoiding suffering caught my attention because I’ve been thinking a lot about that. Like John said, the non-suffering ethic seems limited and bleak and insufficient in its view. It doesn’t seem to encapsulate the wonder and tragedy of life. An ethical code should show us the best way to live and not simply how not to live. I believe JP was trying to articulate a secular ethic, but missed the mark by being too binary in his thinking. I’m an evolutionist like JP and I appreciate his scientific and evolutionary explanation on things. So I’m going to attempt the same approach using evolution and Carl Rogers, who JP mentioned in Rule 9. So here is my proposition, which is still half formed, so keep that in mind.
What distinguishes us from other living things, besides tool-making and such, is our extraordinary social structures and behavior, which allow us to work with and cooperate with one person, families, large groups of people, entire nations, and world-spanning religions to wage wars and build magnificent cities and infuse our lives with spiritual meaning. The worst punishment you can inflict on someone is social expulsion, isolation, exile, solitary confinement, which drives people to insanity or suicide. A biological/evolutionary example is the human eye. We are the only mammal with huge white spaces surrounding our irises to enable other people to easily see what our eyes reveal we are doing and saying and thinking and feeling, even from a distance. To truly understand someone, we look into their eyes. The point being, our most distinguishing characteristic as humans is our hyper-sociability, and any ethic should reflect that.
Having said that, I propose a kind of relational-group ethic, where things that enhance and foster interpersonal and group relations are good, and those that don’t are bad, or less advantages for cohesion and advancement.
Ok, so there is my big idea inspired by JP and comments on this blog. It may be a lot of sound and fury and full of baloney. After all, I’m a divorced middle-aged single dad of two little boys with no authority on any of these subjects. They are just thoughts I think because I like to think thoughts. I will try to make some other comments regarding the book as well, where his whole idea and justification for prevailing hierarchies gets a little troublesome.
I also wanted to put down my thoughts on JP’s dominance hierarchy since, after reading most of the book especially rule 11, DH plays a central role, if not the primary role, in his thinking. At first blush, his lobster/human analogy seemed to make sense and had a lot of truth to it, but further reflection has left me less enamored of the link and it’s veracity. I believe he had a preconceived notion of how human society works and sought out scientific and cultural correlations to prove his point. However, there is a danger in that. I used to teach college writing courses that were heavy on analysis and argumentation. One of the units I always taught was on logical fallacies. And I believe JP is guilty of one in regard to his lobster/human analogy and its proof of dominance hierarchies being the dominant human social structure.
If I understand JP correctly, he is saying lobster dominance behavior is embedded in our genes and brains because lobster ‘s have nervous systems like humans, and because they existed long before us, there is a direct correlation between lobster behavior and human behavior. He does not put it in those explicit terms but I believe that is the claim he is making. That is the rationale for the analogy.
However, I contend that he is using a false analogy, which is a logical fallacy where assuming two thing are alike in one way then they must be alike in others ways. The problem is when the similarity is stretched too far and significant or more essential differences are ignored. In the case of the lobster, differences far outweigh similarities. For one thing, lobsters do not have brains. Lobsters do not work in large scale groups. Lobsters are not even mammals. These are essential differences. A better analogy to present day human behavior would be to use primates which are more closely related to us or ancient hunter/gather societies. Unfortunately, those analogies don’t fit as well with his stark idea of a dominance hierarchy, while lobsters do.
Before I put down a few of my thoughts on Rule 11, which I had a lot of issues with, I want to mention some things and ideas I liked of JP.
I agree with him that life is not about happiness but about character. I can’t remember where that was in the book. But personally I find all the cultural emphasis on finding true happiness as the goal to life misguided and even dangerous. I think character, honing your character, testing your character, improving your character are much worthier aims.
On a personal note I had some character defining times in the last few years from years of chronic illness that landed me in the hospital to an autoimmune disease that damaged my pancreas and abdominal artery and that would kill me without medication to the dissolution of my 14 year marriage. I wish I could say I acted with admirable character through all this but that would not be true. There is nothing happy about those things. And nothing about finding true happiness was going to resolve them. These things certainly tested my character and will continue to test my character everyday. My life goal is to stay healthy so that I can raise and support my two boys as long as possible. That’s it. And that is going to take character not happiness to achieve.
I also appreciated Rule 10. Be precise in your speech, and later in the chapter he went through all the bad communication of a failing marriage and some of it made me cringe with recognition. Ouch. “Precision specifies,” he says at one point. I like that. The more precise and detailed you can be, the more specific and understandable and manageable the problem will be. “You have to consciously define the topic of a conversation.” Very true but very hard to do. Thanks for those nuggets, JP.
Before presenting some thoughts on Rule 11, I want to say I am a proponent and advocate for much of Western culture and civilization. Humanity is much better off with western democracy, capitalism, science, Shakespeare. I do not think, as JP doesn’t think, that western culture is intrinsically a oppression machine, as those on the far left claim and JP points out. However, nothing is perfect, and the West is no exception. Reading Rule 11 was a little disconcerting as JP waded into the culture wars and made me rethink his intentions with this book. Is this a book of rules masquerading as a justification for traditional Western hierarchies? Is it a culture wars Trojan horse? I suspect there were multiple intentions for the book, as John pointed out, but also a stick to whack at the culture wars piñata. Which is unfortunate because he has a lot good and practical advice that could reach a wide audience but he is going to turn off a lot people. I would be interested to know who his prime audience is.
One thing I wanted to address was his views on men and women. If I understand him correctly, he is making a claim that biology and nature subjugate women by necessity and not men, and therefore men at the top of the hierarchy is natural. He does not explicitly say that. Just like in the lobster analogy. But I believe that is the claim he is making.
I completely agree that there are biological differences between men and women, both physically and psychologically that are a result of evolution and nature. Crudely stated, for much of human history women were confined to home and hearth for childrearing reasons. Such responsibilities left them less mobile and physically vulnerable and in need of protection. Men, on the other hand, were stronger and more mobile for protection purposes, hunting, and trade. However, none of the differences necessitated that one gender dominate and subjugate the other. I would argue that men used their natural advantages of strength and mobility to unduly subjugate and exclude women, not because nature dictated it but because men decided to exercise that advantage socially and culturally, not just in West, but in Middle East and beyond. There is nothing in our biology that says women should not be included in the political and decision-making process of society, but women were denied that access in the West until very recently. In some Muslim countries I think it still persists. In Saudi Arabia, women were not allowed to drive cars until a decade ago. There are exceptions that prove my point that biology does not necessitate subjugation. As far as political involvement, many Native American cultures included older women in leadership positions, and there are a smattering of female leaders in western history. But that illustrates their capability, and perhaps superiority, as moderns times have shown, and certainly could have been an integral part of western politics.
Along similar lines is education. Nothing in our biology says that women should not learn to read and write and be educated, yet for the majority of western history, they were denied that opportunity until the early 19th century. In other counties like China, the denial was even more egregious.
Continued.......
More disturbing, in France a husband was allowed by law to beat his wife as long it did not result in death. The law was put in place because too many men were beating their wives to death. In the English common law, men were allowed to whip there wives with an instrument no thicker than one’s thumb because they were responsible for her domestic discipline. Also in the English common law is the provision of coverture where wives were considered property of men. In the US, Domestic abuse of women and children was upheld until 1871 in Fulham vs state of Alabama. Once again, I contend that nothing in biology necessitates domestic abuse or women being property of men. In my mind, these acts are overt efforts to subjugate and exclude beyond the strictures of biology and nature. Fortunately, the West has crafted laws and ideas and mechanism that can correct these past issues, and which is a greater proof of its dynamism and proof of its good worth then holding onto outdated hierarchies.
While I enjoyed reading JP and took many meaningful things away to apply to my life, I ultimately found much of his vision very narrow and sometimes regressive. I agree that western culture has done more good than bad, but it certainly is not perfect and that should be acknowledged. Nevertheless I am very glad I read it and appreciate John setting up this discussion forum and appreciate reading everyone else’s thoughts. I hope that we can do it again and that I can participate at an early stage rather than dumping all my thoughts at the end.
On last thing. I finished the book and was very moved by the story of his daughter. I would be interested to know how that experience informed his thoughts. I also wonder if he is Christian. I’ve been vacillating between yes and no. But I think yes.
Here are my answers to Jon’s last set of questions and a few parting comments on rule 7.
I’m not an atheist. So I won’t take on Jon’s last question.
How motivating do you personally find this chapter, in terms of finding a reason to make the world a better place?
I completely intellectually buy into the concept prioritizing meaning over expediency. But that is not the question. The question is, is it motivating? That is, does it compel me to action / to change / to improve / to align my behavior? I would say, rather than motivate me it would reinforce my commitment to continue strive to align my behavior with the teachings of Christ. Following Jesus gives meaning and reading this rule is hearing someone else say, “that’s a smart way to go. Keep grinding.”
Let's say you're a Christian, did this chapter feel like a scolding, or did it confirm your feelings of who you are and what your role is here in this life?
It did not feel like a scolding. It did feel like a confirmation of a lot of what I believe as noted above.
I think I already mentioned that I don’t think JP is a Christian. However, as I alluded to earlier, I think he thinks more deeply about Christian scripture than many Christians. I’m not certain he gets it correct all the time but we could learn something from his approach.
Some other random thoughts.
On page 163 JP indicates that we don’t understand our own myths very well. That seems odd to me as they have been around for so long and they are our myths.
170 “It might even be time to sacrifice what you love best, so that you can become who you might become, instead of staying who you are.” I take this as follows. For most of us there is a better us out there for the taking but to discover it, live it, become it, we have to take a huge risk of giving up things that we have grown comfortable with, have worked for us, but are suboptimal. When you walk away from your current patterns and behaviors to adopt new ones it impacts everyone around you. Some things we are used to will be lost and there is no guarantee that everything or even most things we experience in the new world created by the new behaviors and patterns will be better that the old. There is risk and it’s hard and scary but necessary if you are to move forward and aim higher. I had some interesting thoughts (at least to me) citing game theory here but another day. I also had some interesting thoughts (at least to me) related to the woman taken in adultery, Gospel of John chapter 8, but again another day.
177 “…a truly vicious circle takes hold: begrudging sacrifice, half-heartedly undertaken; rejection of that sacrifice by god… angry resentment, generated by that rejection; descent into bitterness and the desire for revenge; sacrifice undertake even more begrudgingly, or refused altogether.”
I feel this is an insightful warning of the negative spiral of bitterness and resentment.
It is a trap that Christians can and often do fall into. “I do everything right and yet things often don’t go well for me.” Then the bitterness sets in. Perhaps this is why Christians have a reputation of being angry, stern and intolerant. Perhaps many are suffering from bitterness and resentment. They are taught to aim high and they do but then personal success doesn’t come. They can’t get pregnant, they can’t find a spouse, their career stagnates as they watch others less devote flourish. They retain their “Christian” beliefs at least nominally but become bitter and angry at the world and God because things haven’t gone well. Perhaps this is why in our culture Christians are more known for their judgmentalism and intolerance than they are for love. It is interesting that from the beginning Able does what God prescribes and still gets murdered. Doing what is right. Aiming higher does not protect you from the evil of others and suffering. And this can raise bitterness in any of us. But bitterness is the path to the decent into hell, to aiming low, to evil. Aiming high, pursuing meaning will almost always require overcoming the temptation of bitterness because there will almost always be a reason to be bitter no matter how well and high you aim. Christians have some work to do here.
Thoughts from page 187. Science solves the problem of the world imposing suffering on man.
Christianity solves the problem of humans imposing suffering on humans. At least it is supposed to. I like this perspective.
From Thomas:
“The point being, our most distinguishing characteristic as humans is our hyper-sociability, and any ethic should reflect that.”
I propose a kind of relational-group ethic, where things that enhance and foster interpersonal and group relations are good, and those that don’t are bad, or less advantages for cohesion and advancement.”
I would like to make two comments on this.
First, on a personal note. Thomas’ perspective has been transformational in my personal / professional life. When I first started working in the business world I had a hero mentality. That is, I had to be a hero, I needed to be a hero, I was a hero and if people didn’t know it yet they would find out soon. Ultimately that didn’t work very well at all. What transformed my career was the recognition that the best thing I could do was just to help people a. k. a. “enhance and foster interpersonal…relations.” Also, to think more about what the group(s) I was working for and with needed and were ready for and help with that. Help them improve on the margins, a. k. a. “enhance and foster… group relations.” Every day I have to work to be better at this but changing to this focus has been better for me and for the people with whom and for whom I work. So, definitely AGREE!
Second, the problem. What to do when the group or your personal contacts are headed in the wrong direction. For example, your close knit group has developed a propensity to binge drink, to go to strip clubs, to sit around and gossips about others incessantly, to have racist tendencies or inclinations. To push back risks causing dissention and to not “enhance and foster interpersonal…relations.” The same issue exists on the macro level. What if you find yourself in the Deep South before the civil war or before civil rights or in communist China, or Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany? In these situations it would seem a morale imperative to push back risk destroying and degrading group relations.
I feel like JP actually tends to err on the side of accepting the conventional wisdom of the group with the idea that certain norms are in place or have evolved in society for a reason and to disrupt them creates chaos for the individual and the group. One concern I have with JP’s perspective is he doesn’t really help us figure out when to accept what is handed down to us as a tool to help make us better and when to risk chaos by rejecting the current norms and moving our self and society to a better place. I guess he would probably say that institutions and conventions that cause suffering are the ones that should be rejected. Which is a good place to start I guess.
Not fully baked but these are my thoughts on Thomas’ first big idea. In general. I liked it.
Regarding JP’s thoughts on hierarchy and drawing on lobsters for understanding how human dominance hierarchies work Thomas says “I believe he had a preconceived notion of how human society works and sought out scientific and cultural correlations to prove his point…A better analogy to present day human behavior would be to use primates which are more closely related to us or ancient hunter/gather societies. Unfortunately, those analogies don’t fit as well with his stark idea of a dominance hierarchy, while lobsters do.” I am much less cynical about JP’s approach than this. I believe JP is a hard core evolutionist and he believes that most if not all human behavior is driven by evolutionary forces. I take him at his word that he sees dominance hierarchies in all kinds of species and the fact that it is seen in lobsters indicates that it entered the mosaic of genetics driving the behavior of various species very early in the evolutionary process. Therefore, it is a very early and basic factor of behavior in virtually all species that came later including humans. Lobsters are good for illustrative purposes because their behavior in hierarchies is so simple and stark as well as ancient. I think JP would concede the human experience is a much more rich and nuanced (and perhaps similar to primates) than lobster experience but that dominance hierarchy plays a role none the less and has in all species for eons.
I 100% agree with Thomas' statement "I agree with him (JP) that life is not about happiness but about character. ... personally I find all the cultural emphasis on finding true happiness as the goal to life misguided and even dangerous. I think character, honing your character, testing your character, improving your character are much worthier aims."
Also, I was moved by Thomas' comments on how he has come to this position on character and how his view is shaping his personal life vision and actions. Our life is a journey and we must always strive to grow, learn, change and progress until the end. Thomas, I'm praying for you and the boys daily.
From Rule 10 Thomas says “’Precision specifies,’ he (JP) says at one point. I like that. The more precise and detailed you can be, the more specific and understandable and manageable the problem will be.”
I completely agree. In my experience it takes work to be specific and precise. I think sometimes we don’t really even want to solve our problems. We are happy to remain the why we are. One way to just stay in our status quo comfort zone of pain and sorry is to pretend to try to “solve” problems but be lazy about it and in that laziness never really define and therefore fail to be able to even begin to solve it. But we can tell ourselves, “Well I tried to figure this out but it just can’t be solved. Oh well.” To make life better you have to think hard and sometimes introspectively to discover the true root and go on from there to address it. I see times in my work life and my personal life where I need to do this. I also often find that just accurately naming the problem brings peace and a sense of relief and it looks less insurmountable as Thomas alludes to above.
Rule 9: Assume that the Person you are Listening to Might Know Something you Don’t.
The top of page 238 was very controversial. I am not going to take time to comment on it but would be interested in other’s takes on JPs ideas there.
I liked what JP said about memory on the top of page 239 and again at the top of page 247. We don’t have memory so that we can perfectly recall exact facts. It is a tool to help us avoid repeating mistakes. I think there is some truth in that. I think it does more for us that that but in many ways it is a tool and that is a good way to think about memory.
I think what I liked best about this Rule was JPs discussion on the bottom of page 240 and top of 241 where he talks about how thinking works. In thinking we create a fictitious world for ourselves and we place or selves in that world and we can try things out and see how they go. If we discover they don’t go well in our imaginary world we know not to try them in the real world and it saves us grief. I like this this view point and I think it explains at least in part what consciousness is. And I think that might get at what the human soul is. Perhaps the soul is that made up world that is always running in our mind and helping plan out our life and reflecting on the things that had given joy and pain.
I used to not believe in the human soul but now I am not so sure about that.
If you are interested in more of my thoughts on the soul, I typed them up some time ago here.
https://dot5baked.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Soul
Best to start at the bottom.
I liked what JP said on page 246 on the value of summarizing and repeating back. JP cites Carl Rogers on this technique and I try to use this a lot at work. I could always do it more.
He talks about types of conversations and his discussion on humor on pages 252 and 253 very interesting. He kind of wrapped up the chapter by talking about conversations of group discovery. I feel like I experience a lot of this at work and find that on the whole people are pretty good at it. It works best when everyone is listening and contributing and there is not just one person who is trying to drive their point of view.
Rule 12: Pet a Cat When You Encounter One on the Street
I found JP’s discussion on his daughter very compelling and it shows he puts his money where his mouth is.
Along with that, JP talks a lot about existence/being, limitation, suffering and becoming. He contends that the beauty and wonderfulness that comes from limitation, overcoming limitations and becoming is inextricably linked to existence. If existence is to have meaning.
Along with that, JP asks the question is the suffering worth it? Is God cruel in allowing the suffering? Does the cruelty of allowing suffering in the world outweigh the benefits / joy of overcoming and becoming? You can NOT have the beauty of overcoming and becoming if you don’t also have the cruelty of limitation and suffering. But is it worth it? These are challenging questions and people have struggled with them for millennia. I think it is worth it but of course relative to most I have had a fairly cushy life.
What do others think?
Regardless of how you answer these questions JP has some thoughts on how to deal with suffering which I thought were really helpful and this is where we weaved in his experience with his own daughter.
Here is one of the things I liked best on this discussion. “The parts of your brain that generate anxiety are more interested in the fact that there is a plan than in the details of the plan.” I have seen that acted out in my own experience many times and one of my favorite life quotes from Joan Biez goes right along with this. “Action is the antidote for anxiety.”
In the Coda JP summarizes his thoughts and there is actually a lot of good stuff there. One of many that could be cited is “…the best way to fix the world – a handyman’s dream, if there ever was one – is to fix yourself.” Like this saying, I found this whole book compelling. Definitely one of the top 10 I have ever read.
Post a Comment