Dr Peterson psychological significance of biblical stories

[mgggb]

Does anyone have any thoughts about the lecture series Dr Peterson is giving on the Bible? I had written it off for a long time as a bunch of nonsense fairytales, but his insight is absolutely astounding. It's definitely helping me bridge the gap to the "noble lie" perspective. Part of me wishes I could unlearn the logical arguments against religion, but since that is impossible,  understanding religion from a psychological perspective seems to be the next best thing. 

[Wuzzums]

There are parts of christianity which take the Bible as fact and in those cases the atheist arguments against the book still hold true. However I have never considered the Bible stories as fact, my state mandated religious indoctrination made me look at them as a metaphor rather than a historical metaphor. I remember the priest that taught religion class how he explained to us that in Genesis one day did not mean 24 hours, one day for God could mean 1 billion years, or 1 minute, so we mustn't look at the literary meaning but at the symbolic meaning.

Looking back at all of it know I know recognize some aspects of my orthodox upbringing that I took for granted. Jordan Peterson is a prime example of an orthodox christian, even though he may not know it. In orthodox christianity there is a clear separation between religion and everything else. It's like masturbation, it's faux pas to talk about it and flaunt it, to be state-mandated, to make your children do it, etc. However we all assume everyone else is doing it, and when someone's not doing it they're just considered either (a) lying or (b) weird.

I'm wondering now where the whole christian-bashing phenomenon came from. Like they way you had to prove yourself of being an atheist was by attacking christians, and no other religion. Like for instance, Dawkins is a cultural christian, he goes to church and celebrates Christmas and most of his "atheist books" are a response to creationism not christianity, him being a professor and all. Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali both attacked islam, christianity being caught in the crossfire. Dennet had a beard. Sam Harris is the only figure of that time that attacked christianity specifically. So how did we end up in a world that vilifies christians and worships muslims?

But anyways...

The Bible stories are by no means unique. The stories are ancient and have survived for so long specifically because they have something valuable to teach. Fairy tales are the same. They may have been watered down for kids by Disney but in their original forms they're gruesome cautionary tales. My favorite thing Peterson said was that people laugh these stories off as nonsense yet they pay billion of dollars to see a modernized version of them on a movie screen.

[mgggb]

17 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

I'm wondering now where the whole christian-bashing phenomenon came from. 

Probably because Christians are more likely to be pro small government. 

[ofd]

The lectures are a great introduction to Jungian psychology, but Peterson doesn't offer a critical analysis of the Biblical text. The most commonly accepted thesis on the origion of the Pentateuch is that two sources were put together. Those have specific goals and tell the stories (or don't tell the stories at all in some instances) in a very specific, unique qay. If you read the Biblical text in a naive way you will miss out on those perspectives and come to a wrong interpretation.

[Jsbrads]

If you wish to change your mind, it isn't that hard. Klavan encourages people to pray everyday for 60 days (I don't know where he gets that time scale) but he says it is effective to make a believer. I haven't tested this myself, being a monotheist. 

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎30‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 4:14 PM, Wuzzums said:

I'm wondering now where the whole christian-bashing phenomenon came from.

From moral people who saw the evil that Christianity has always been, and who recognize the truth in the old adage that for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.

 

Both Christianity and Islam have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

 

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

 

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

 

If you are not trying to kill of Christianity and Islam, both evil religions, why not? 

 

Regards

DL

[Jsbrads]

Homophobia, intolerance and other negative traits are natural impulses from evolution.

Abraham innovated the acceptance of the other.

Moses married a Black woman (for non-PC reasons).

Im not confused about Jesus being perfect, but I think he had some good ideas too.

trying to teach those ideas to murderous Germans really didn't take until 62 yrs ago. Blaming that on modern religion? I'm guessing you prefer the ancient child burning religions or something... huh?

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎24‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:33 AM, Jsbrads said:

Homophobia, intolerance and other negative traits are natural impulses from evolution.

Abraham innovated the acceptance of the other.

Moses married a Black woman (for non-PC reasons).

Im not confused about Jesus being perfect, but I think he had some good ideas too.

trying to teach those ideas to murderous Germans really didn't take until 62 yrs ago. Blaming that on modern religion? I'm guessing you prefer the ancient child burning religions or something... huh?

If homophobia is natural, I must be un-natural..

In the wild, many species have gay members and you do not see them abused just for being gay.

I do not like the idea of burning children.

I do see the need in communities where finite resources would cause it though as a new young mouth might cause an older worker to die.

Don't you?

Regards

DL

[Jsbrads]

From an evolutionary point of view probably. I'm guessing you went through all sorts of educational interventions throughout your young adult life.  You aren't a natural human by any stretch of the imagination.

[barn]

Hi mgggb,

On 07/30/2017 at 8:27 PM, mgggb said:

I had written it off for a long time as a bunch of nonsense fairytales, but his insight is absolutely astounding.

In my humble opinion it can be summed up as verbalising what we all know at an unconscious level, using archetypical stories supplemented with objectively aimed analytical narration that leaves the listener contemplate and derive further conclusions.

Plus it's well aligned with the current zeitgeist, giving people the much desired substances for the rediscovery of virtues.

He's, among other things, helping us get a better grip at understanding the story of humanity.

Anyone who watches him will feel often enough, such stories are within all of us, have been.

Regards,

Barnsley

[Gnostic Bishop]

11 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

From an evolutionary point of view probably. I'm guessing you went through all sorts of educational interventions throughout your young adult life.  You aren't a natural human by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks for the compliment.

Look around at the status quo.

I hope you are correct given the natural state of man that I see.

Regards

DL

 

[Fashus Maximus]

On 9/18/2017 at 5:42 PM, Gnostic Bishop said:

From moral people who saw the evil that Christianity has always been [snip] Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways

what in god's name are you referring to?

[Gnostic Bishop]

18 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

what in god's name are you referring to?

The fact that Christianity and Islam are not learning the better moral position and lessons being taught to them by secular law as compared to their theistic laws.

Regards

DL

[Fashus Maximus]

@Gnostic Bishop I get that, but what I'm asking is which theistic laws of Christianity are you referring to? And which war are you referring to when you say Christianity was spread by the sword?

[lorry]

Jordan Peterson has no idea what information is, but he talks about information all the time. "The flow of information across boundaries" justifies "The flow of people across boarders". Boomer-tier silo-ed intellectualism.

 

>Talk about information

>Never define information

>Never discuss information theory

 

Dropped.

[barn]

Hi @lorry

I'm sure you 'just forgot' to provide source or proof to an otherwise non opinion based claim.

Or

I'm at amiss and it's only an opinion with little or no backing, empty words regarding intellectual value.

7 minutes ago, lorry said:

Jordan Peterson has no idea what information is, but he talks about information all the time. "The flow of information across boundaries" justifies "The flow of people across boarders". Boomer-tier silo-ed intellectualism.

 

>Talk about information

>Never define information

>Never discuss information theory

 

Dropped.

In which case, surely you can state/think whatever you fancy, feel free to do so.

The reason I'm saying this, while I had noticed he isn't all-knowing, omni-potent and certainly not more handsome as I... he does seem to approach topics i.e.: statistics (which according to him at first was a great deal of effort to conquer) with humility and plenty of clarifiers.

Still, I could be wrong and certainly you'll show us what 'pushed your button', I'd hate to come to realise you had an emotional tantrum.

All the best,

Barnsley

p. s. : How many lectures of him have you seen? I did watch 20+,not once has it occurred to me he'd be even superficial or willingly ignorant... sorry, but I don't see what you are putting forward.

[RichardY]

Earth and Water.

[lorry]

6 hours ago, barn said:

Hi @lorry

I'm sure you 'just forgot' to provide source or proof to an otherwise non opinion based claim.

Or

I'm at amiss and it's only an opinion with little or no backing, empty words regarding intellectual value.

In which case, surely you can state/think whatever you fancy, feel free to do so.

The reason I'm saying this, while I had noticed he isn't all-knowing, omni-potent and certainly not more handsome as I... he does seem to approach topics i.e.: statistics (which according to him at first was a great deal of effort to conquer) with humility and plenty of clarifiers.

Still, I could be wrong and certainly you'll show us what 'pushed your button', I'd hate to come to realise you had an emotional tantrum.

All the best,

Barnsley

p. s. : How many lectures of him have you seen? I did watch 20+,not once has it occurred to me he'd be even superficial or willingly ignorant... sorry, but I don't see what you are putting forward.

Both lecture series, appearance 1 on FDR (not 2 about DaMore), Sam Harris 1 and 2, Joe Rogan + Rogan and Weinstein, some interviews with some guys (I don't recall anything interesting about them). Enough, I think. I didn't have a negative emotional response to JP until I read up on epistemology, now I have pretty strong emotional responses. O yeah, interview with Camilia Pagiea.

 

Using information flow across boundary to entail flow of people? Latest video with J. Haidt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA&t=2128s

Somewhere between 20:00 and 35:00. I don't recall when exactly.

 

Introduces the literal concept of maximum information without even understanding he just used the concept of maximum information?

Appearance with Bret Weinstein on the Joe Rogan podcast. I don't recall where in the timeline. But the definition occurs wherein they discuss the correct interpretation of a story as, and I paraphrase, "the interpretation which maximizes your ability to make the correct decision now, and across time".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI

 

The definition of 1 bit of information? You can just wiki this, or YouTube information theory.

Information is the reduction of uncertainty. 1 bit of information is the amount required to correctly choose between two equally likely outcomes.

 

How does that relate to above?

The correct interpretation of stories, and thus the solution to the post modern "crisis of infinite interpretation" being "the interpretation which maximizes your ability to make the correct decision now, and across time" is, literally, the interpretation that maximizes information.

 

So, JP doesn't know what information is, whilst using the concept of information to rationalize some boomer-tier horse shit about information flow across boundary entailing people flowing across borders.

 

Silo-ed (intellectual silo) boomer (the era to which the horse shit belongs, I mean FFS! we need a flow of people across boarders for information flow...... BEING SAID ON THE INTERNET!) intellectualism (in the pejorative sense). I really mean a post-hoc rationalization (see below) of boomer liberalism.

 

This isn't to say he isn't fantastic in other contexts or that his content isn't of tremendous value in other contexts. But, I'm an exceptionally disagreeable person (so, for me, into the underworld he goes).

[barn]

Thanks @lorry

You certainly gave me a constructive and detailed response, now I'm off to do the next reasonable thing and try to understand you and the propositions you are putting forward.

Still, if I might highlight something. The way you are characterising him and what you think he lacks (given his track record) is rather harmful to you.

Be back to this topic as soon as I have any learned response or further clarifiers to ask/add.

Barnsley

[barn]

Hi @lorry

I hit a wall during making sense, luckily it's something you can help to neutralise and would have been better to appear from the start precisely rather than an approximation...but like I said it could be corrected with ease.

Would you like to provide a direct quote of which is intrinsically relevant to the discussion we're having?

13 hours ago, lorry said:

Appearance with Bret Weinstein on the Joe Rogan podcast. I don't recall where in the timeline. But the definition occurs wherein they discuss the correct interpretation of a story as, and I paraphrase, "the interpretation which maximizes your ability to make the correct decision now, and across time".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI

Be back soon I guess. Nice.

Barnsley

[lorry]

@barn

No worries.

Give me a shout if there is anything I can do to help you grok information.

JP has a great track record, and JP doing objectively good things. And, by virtue of my previous consumption of content, this must be true in my context too. None of this is lost on me.

I wouldn't assume that my characterization is necessarily harmful to me though. I think my characterization is a function of something (I think) I have identified. Predicated upon the truth of my identification I think my characterization is a way on burning this into my values. Then, with this new information burned into my values, I should (unconsciously) react differently to JP.

That is a bit floatey. Basically, I think I have identified something, which, if true, would entail that I should treat everything JP says with a lot more caution than I previously did. So as to effect this caution, I characterize JP in a certain light (as something somewhat more harmful, thus more dangerous), recasting him in my hierarchy of values. As my emotions and motivations are outside of my immediate volitional control (being that I think my emotions are an automated response to my environment, filtered through my values), by characterizing JP as such I change my values, and thereby change my emotional and motivation state in response to JP.

[meetjoeblack]

On 7/30/2017 at 1:27 PM, mgggb said:

Does anyone have any thoughts about the lecture series Dr Peterson is giving on the Bible? I had written it off for a long time as a bunch of nonsense fairytales, but his insight is absolutely astounding. It's definitely helping me bridge the gap to the "noble lie" perspective. Part of me wishes I could unlearn the logical arguments against religion, but since that is impossible,  understanding religion from a psychological perspective seems to be the next best thing. 

People are retarded. Allegory goes over their head. People are more interested in their social media feed, internet dating, and following social conditioning. The amount of women with IG ass pics online, girls piled into gyms in stretchy pants several sizes too small, and the back of their shirt tucked into their pants to show off sexual markets. There is a lack of respect for the patriarchy, for God, for religion, and a promo on living in sin; missing the mark.

My favorite of the series was his depiction of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word is God." Being a doctor, a psychologist, and prof, he extrapolates the meaning behind this; as if to relate this back to consciousness, something we still know very little about. He speaks of the people in the biblical stories as being flawed and far from perfect. He also speaks of the mindset of sacrificing a animal and then evolving as sentient; eating from the tree of knowledge, eyes opening, and knowing of good and evil. Knowing that there is a past, present, and future. That one could sacrifice the present for a better future. That destiny or fate could be bargained with.

 

This is man is fucking incredible. I would love see a series or just be at one of his TedTalks. I see a infinite amount of insight from these. I will continue to watch them as time goes on. I've taken a lot away from these. Peterson is really well articulate and the way he interprets the stories is profound. I have searched for meaning in this life like the rest of us. It seems chaotic at times. Hearing him read the story of Noah amount a variety of others, you come to really understand the depths of this darkness, the chaos, and what its like walking the tight rope of ying and yang; harmony and chaos. I've lost a lot of people to death from a very young age. Similarly, I can relate to Nihilism and to that Aussie philosopher he spoke of several times throughout these biblical series; that because there is so much suffering through 'being,' the ability to fathom bringing a child into the world is hard to comprehend. When i see people and the way society is, I see blissful ignorance. Eyes closed. I realize time and time again especially here that, there is something to be said of bearing your cross, transcending one's suffering somehow, and living a life worth remembering.

Since coming across Peterson, I have invested in his book, Maps of Meaning which I am working my way through (shocking he wrote that at 25). I also am in the process of going through Past Authoring Suite to work out some of my demons seeing the value in a variety of the things Peterson has put forward. I will work on Present Authoring and Future Authoring thereafter. I highly recommend it to anybody in search of self-knowledge. The insights are incredible as has this series.

[meetjoeblack]

On 11/17/2017 at 12:46 PM, lorry said:

Jordan Peterson has no idea what information is, but he talks about information all the time. "The flow of information across boundaries" justifies "The flow of people across boarders". Boomer-tier silo-ed intellectualism.

 

>Talk about information

>Never define information

>Never discuss information theory

 

Dropped.

No. A clinical psychologist has no idea of info? The man had Timothy Leary's (Tibetan Book of the dead Manual) job at Harvard. I repeat, he is a psychologist. You offer nothing of insight, sources, content, and logical reasoning behind said stupidity. This is the equivalent of a screaming feminist "rape culture" or "misogyny." You've digressed into SJW level of stupidity. Congrats.

[lorry]

On 11/19/2017 at 1:21 AM, meetjoeblack said:

No. A clinical psychologist has no idea of info? The man had Timothy Leary's (Tibetan Book of the dead Manual) job at Harvard. I repeat, he is a psychologist. You offer nothing of insight, sources, content, and logical reasoning behind said stupidity. This is the equivalent of a screaming feminist "rape culture" or "misogyny." You've digressed into SJW level of stupidity. Congrats.

 

Read my second post.

 

p.s.

MUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRDDDDD!

(that is my impression of you).

[meetjoeblack]

48 minutes ago, lorry said:

 

Read my second post.

 

p.s.

MUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRDDDDD!

(that is my impression of you).

My impression of you is really low testosterone and soon to be cucked. Good luck with that.

[lorry]

Just now, meetjoeblack said:

My impression of you is really low testosterone and soon to be cucked. Good luck with that.

 

Do you want to take my bants on the chin and read my second post? Or is that your final answer?

[meetjoeblack]

11 minutes ago, lorry said:

 

Do you want to take my bants on the chin and read my second post? Or is that your final answer?

I just fired back at your nonsensical post.

 

If you called into FDR/Stefan and accused him of saying something but, did not time stamp it, he would laugh in your face. Time stamp sources.

[lorry]

51 minutes ago, meetjoeblack said:

I just fired back at your nonsensical post.

 

If you called into FDR/Stefan and accused him of saying something but, did not time stamp it, he would laugh in your face. Time stamp sources.

 

Nonsensical.... for you (do the voice). Perhaps read my third post?

 

Meh, to precise time stamps. If you have watched the source material from post 2 and didn't catch it, it is probably because you don't have a correct concept of information. If you don't have a correct concept of information you don't need time stamp sources, you need a book or kahn academy. If you are not interested in the concept of information, like, if your first response wasn't "What do I think the definition of information is, and is it true", then we can have a chat about whatever your first response was, if you like.

[meetjoeblack]

On 11/19/2017 at 10:14 PM, lorry said:

 

Nonsensical.... for you (do the voice). Perhaps read my third post?

 

Meh, to precise time stamps. If you have watched the source material from post 2 and didn't catch it, it is probably because you don't have a correct concept of information. If you don't have a correct concept of information you don't need time stamp sources, you need a book or kahn academy. If you are not interested in the concept of information, like, if your first response wasn't "What do I think the definition of information is, and is it true", then we can have a chat about whatever your first response was, if you like.

If your point isn't worth time stamping Stefan would dismiss your nonsense as would Peterson. If it was not worthy of time stamping, your post is not worthy of listening to but, I digress. I saw a link saying that Peterson is making 60K a month off social media/youtube/biz ventures but, I am sure you are doing better. Wait wut?

[lorry]

On 11/18/2017 at 2:19 PM, barn said:

Hi @lorry

I hit a wall during making sense, luckily it's something you can help to neutralise and would have been better to appear from the start precisely rather than an approximation...but like I said it could be corrected with ease.

Would you like to provide a direct quote of which is intrinsically relevant to the discussion we're having?

Be back soon I guess. Nice.

Barnsley

 

Hey, I'm English so I can't refuse such a polite request. I'm working atm, but I'll dig through the podcast tonight and I'll provide the exact time and quote it here. It'll be good for me too because I should probably outline an essay or something on the subject. I'll have it up late tonight (GMT).

[lorry]

On 11/21/2017 at 4:10 PM, meetjoeblack said:

If your point isn't worth time stamping Stefan would dismiss your nonsense as would Peterson. If it was not worthy of time stamping, your post is not worthy of listening to but, I digress. I saw a link saying that Peterson is making 60K a month off social media/youtube/biz ventures but, I am sure you are doing better. Wait wut?

 

JP is working to save the social sciences. I'm working to destroy them

[barn]

1 hour ago, lorry said:

Hey, I'm English so I can't refuse such a polite request. I'm working atm, but I'll dig through the podcast tonight and I'll provide the exact time and quote it here. It'll be good for me too because I should probably outline an essay or something on the subject. I'll have it up late tonight (GMT).

Indeed. "Good manners are oil..."

No rush, life's more important (obviously).

I like to establish levels of commitment in arguments... that's why I asked (disclosure)

Be back when there's any update.

Have a productive day,

Barnsley

[lorry]

7 hours ago, barn said:

Indeed. "Good manners are oil..."

No rush, life's more important (obviously).

I like to establish levels of commitment in arguments... that's why I asked (disclosure)

Be back when there's any update.

Have a productive day,

Barnsley

 

Cheers. Embarrassingly, it turns out I remember this podcast for a different reason (EconoPhysics). Sorry about that.

 

That said, talking about the problem on infinite interpretation of meaning really goes on between 1:00:00 and about 1:40:00-ish. Specifically, the postmodern problem on "infinite interpretation of meaning" is between 1:22:00 and about 1:30:00. You will find Peterson discussing the concept of "infinite interpretation of meaning" and that "very few interpretations of meaning actually work" (paraphrasing).

 

What isn't in that video is the " the interpretation which maximizes your ability to make the correct decision now, and across time". But I've picked that up somewhere, I think perhaps the one of the podcasts with Sam Harris, or perhaps is a biblical lecture defining the correct interpretation of biblical stories. I don't think I will be able to find it (in a reasonable amount of time). It should, if you watch JP content, pop up at some point in your viewing (presumably maps of meaning contains a definition of meaning, perhaps I got it there).

 

Sorry I can't be more precise.

[barn]

Thumbs up on the update, appreciate the effort.

(mind you, what if I won't be able to come back with anything worth.. we'll see. )

Time to pull the lever to the bat-cave.

Later,

Barnsley

[meetjoeblack]

16 hours ago, lorry said:

 

JP is working to save the social sciences. I'm working to destroy them

He backs his arguments with sources similar to FDR/Stefan. He has called out the social sciences in universities as Marxist indoctrination. I think you've missed the mark on this one. If you truly are about destroying the social sciences, link me to your social media and youtube channel. Curious is curious how many if any followers you have?