Peterson, J. B. (1999). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. Routledge.
Disclaimer: I first read this book in 2020. In the time that has passed since in first read this book, it is more apparent that Peterson does not believe in the personal God described in the Christian Bible. For him, “God” is just an idealized representation of the highest ideal that a person can aspire to. Does this mean that everything in this book is nonsense? No, there are a lot of valuable lessons that can be gleaned from the book. In particular, I’m impressed by the nomological network supporting the ideas in the book, with Peterson using ideas from psychology, anthropology, biology, sociology, mythology and religion to make his case. That said, it is still important to explicitly point out that this isn’t a Christian book.
Notes from Chapter 1: Maps of Experience: Object and Meaning
Summary: A lot of conflict arises when, on one hand, people with a predominantly mythological worldview describe their stories as empirical fact, while on the other hand, people with a scientific view separate object from subject and consequently miss out on a huge chunk of reality captured in a mythological worldview.
When you see a mentor in action, you are not really seeing your mentor ‘objectively’ (with his full flaws, imperfections and character defects), rather, you are seeing the embodiment of your own ideals (a reality from the subjective perspective of value where what the mentor does is at or close to the top of that hierarchy of value). An abstraction he/she may, or may not have contributed to through their persona (p. 3).
The way to know how one values something is to look out for how the individual acts in the presence of that thing. One’s choice (an act) reveals one’s hierarchy of preference (p. 10).
It appears that top-down social engineering based on rational, scientific principles ignores an aspect of reality that bottom-up cultural belief systems successfully capture in myths, narratives and stories. (p. 11)
Every ideology or belief system attempts to answer three deceptively simple questions: (a) What is the nature or significance of the current state of experience, (b) What desirable state should one pursue, (c) How should one act/behave in order to attain (b) (p. 13).
An encounter with the unknown inspires the manifestation of the fear response (startle, fight or flight) in some shape or form. Culture and its adherent ideologies and belief systems enforces a similitude of predictability that tames some aspect of the unknown. For most cultured people (any kind of culture, not necessarily traditional), any challenge to their ideologies and belief systems is seen as a threat towards established order and a return to the fear-inspiring unknown. The result is a manifestation of behavior to ensure that the known order is retained at any cost (p. 18).
Notes from Chapter 2: Maps of Meaning: Three Levels of Analysis
Summary: We have models of the current state of affairs (here, now), as well as a desired state of affairs (there, future). When our movement from the status quo to the desired haven goes according to plan, we remain in the domain of the known. However, sometimes, the journey does not play out the way we think it should. In this case, we enter the unknown. (p. 19). When facing the unknown, the dominating attitude is caution expressed as either fear, then curiosity, which may eventually lead to creative exploration. Creative exploration is an important process involved in increasing the boundaries of the known into the unknown (p. 20).
In our interactions with the world, we don’t only deal with what things are, but also with what they signify. We assign value to what things signify to us (p. 22).
Sokolov discovered the orienting reflexes which occur in response to signals of discrepancy, which in turn occurs in response to new signals different from the familiar ones. Sokolov’s discovery is that that animals have an innate response to the unknown (p. 22-23).
Sokolov’s discovery, put another way implies that the unknown can serve as unconditioned stimulus, i.e., it could cause the emission of a response even if it had never been encountered before (p. 26).
The absence of an expected reward is often experienced as a punishment (negative punishment, in behavioral terms). The organism’s model fails because whatever response/behavior that was punished did not lead it from the status quo to its desired haven. In other words, the organism enters the domain of the unknown and responds emotionally with fear. (p. 26)
The goal we are pursuing (i.e., the idealized, desired haven) determines the meaning of our experiences. This reminds me of an aspect of the theory of Identity-Based Motivation, where people could interpret the difficulty of a task, as meaning that it was important for getting to their ‘desired haven’, or as meaning that their desired haven was impossible to attain (p. 33)
The different instincts we have (e.g., thirst, hunger, joy, lust, anger, etc.) do not grab hold of our bodies to make us behave in ways that serve their ends. Rather, they influence the picture of the desired haven we strive for. The interesting thing is that each instinct has its own picture of what that desired haven should look like (p. 38). Different instincts (Peterson calls them psychic subsystems) have different conflicting goals at times. This leads to an intrapsychic conflict which is uncomfortable for us. To resolve these conflicts, we change our beliefs and environment (p. 39). Our higher systems which preside over our instincts (hierarchically-speaking) strive towards a desired haven when our needs, as well as the needs of others are met at the same time (p. 39).
When in a situation where our instincts cause intrapsychic conflict, we can resolve this by: (a) changing our behavior, so that they can no longer lead to undesired consequences, (b) changing our models (frames of reference) for interpreting that situation (p. 41). The unknown is pregnant with the worst that could ever be imagined, the best that could ever be imagined, as well as every other thing in between (p. 42). I remember in my undergraduate days when a friend wanted to use a gender-neutral bathroom that had a possibility of being locked. Her psychic subsystems were subject to the plan of the higher systems, which was: At this point in time, going to the bathroom is beneficial for you and your social circle. However, I had jokingly told her that the bathroom was locked. From her point of view, this meant that the plans of her higher systems were no longer valid. She then did something interesting – she doubled over and froze in that position. In other words, she had entered the “unknown” where she had no model. As a consequence, she started experiencing the chaotic intrapsychic conflict that accompanies delving into the unknown. Seeing her state, I told her I was joking and the bathroom was not locked. From her perspective, this meant that her previous map (frame of reference) that would take her from her undesired state to her desired state was still valid. Naturally, she ran in the direction of the bathroom to fulfil the plan set out by her higher systems.
Since the environment contains both the familiar “known” where there is order, and the non-familiar “unknown” where there is chaos, emotion serves as an initial guide in the face of the unknown, while cognition serves as the guide for maintaining order in “known” and keeping the “unknown” out. (p. 48 – 49)
Consciousness plays a role in creating order from chaos. This makes sense, as without an aware observer to identify and extract patterns (ordered information), everything is just noise (unordered information). (p. 52)
In the first encounter with the unknown, no learning has occurred. As a result, the subject perceives unknown chaos, as well as the attendant emotions (fear, startle, flight) that accompanies it. This emotional response is not learned, which implies that at the biological level, organisms can attribute some kind of value/meaning to the “unknown” that warrants the emotion it produces. Nothing is irrelevant in itself; they are only rendered irrelevant after transformed to the category of the “known” from the “unknown” (p. 54)
Fear is the biologically-hardwired initial response to anything that is unknown. Maybe that explains the Biblical statement, “the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom”. Phenomenologically, God is in the category of the “Unknown”. At worst, an encounter with Him can kill you; at best, an encounter with Him is filled with untold blessings. The only thing that reduces that fear is a “faith-inspired” exploration of that Unknown. If successful, the result is the endowment of the wisdom which expands the bounds of the “known”. (p. 56 – 57)
The process of “respondent conditioning” does not create new emotional responses. Rather, it allows new stimuli (that fall into the category of the unknown) to serve as triggers for the release of biologically, hardwired emotions. The fear response is innate; security is learned (p. 57)
Education is often a process of bringing an individual from the “unknown” to the “known”. Usually, the social system doing the educating already has its definitions of what constitutes the known and the unknown at the societal level. That is, it has its stable, predictable, and orderly culture. As a result, the educated, socialized individual adopts his societal model (frame of reference/map) for the appropriate way to journey from an undesired “here” to a desired haven. The educated, socialized person in the context of his culture will not encounter the unknown as frequently as he would if he were to be unsocialized. This implies that he would also have fewer episodes of the fear that arises from encountering the unknown. (p. 59)
We know the world through action, however, by virtue of man’s capacity for abstraction, he started to realize that there were times when it was better to think about acting than actually acting (p. 66)
The Word is powerful because it condenses action and creates explored territories in the minds of the listeners. This implies that the Word is constantly creating worlds (both phenomenologically, as well as objectively as is the case with people possessed by an ideology) (p. 66)
Peterson suggests that the right hemisphere clumps the present encounter with the unknown with all aspects of the “known” that are known to be dangerous. (p. 69)
How we act in the presence of something is what that thing means to us – even before we can abstractly/ “objectively” categorize it. (p. 70)
Imagining the unknown is a form of adaptation to it. (p. 71)
A story is a map of meaning (model, frame of reference) that guides how to act (behavior) and react (emotional regulation) in the world. In Peterson’s estimation, whichever interpretation (story, map, model or frame of reference) that can improve action and reaction in the real world qualifies as valid. (p. 72)
We know “how to act” (wisdom) before we know “how to describe how to act” (abstracted, declarative knowledge). That is why a child can act appropriately before he can describe why he’s acting appropriately; What adult parents are to children, society and culture is to the adult (p. 73, 75)
Myths are distilled stories about “how to act” in the social and impersonal world of experience. Man learns by watching others repeat these “how to act” stories in the shape of ritual, imagery and words (p. 75)
Playing allows one to experiment with means and ends (i.e., how to act in your journey from an undesired state to a desired haven) without experiencing the consequences of one’s actions while benefiting emotionally from the experience. In Peterson’s estimation, play transcends mere imitation because it is less context-bound. This makes sense to me, as a child does not act out just one episode of his favorite hero. I remember my kid brother as a child wearing a cape round the house, playing as “Superman”. Whenever he wore the cape, he walked round the house with his chest out and back erect, confidently confronting different situations (real and imaginative) in a way he thought Superman would do. (p. 77).
Shakespeare abstracted from behavior to narrative, while Freud abstracted from implicit narrative to explicit theory (p. 77, 177)
Disembodied knowledge is knowledge you may have, but are unconscious of (Jung’s collective unconscious?), while embodied knowledge is in what you do, but do not know why you do it. (p. 78).
Through the “mythologization” of history (premodern and otherwise), we learn to imitate the patterns of action that made the heroes what they were. As opposed to “objective” history, mythologization promotes a more efficient transfer of most significant actions, pertaining to the manner in which one should react when confronting the unknown. This lends more credence to my thinking that Yoruba gods were actually historical figures who were mythologized to highlight their most significant actions worthy of emulation (p. 81)
Every single phenomenon has a limitless list of its uses and significance. As Wittgenstein pointed out in his example of a sheet of paper, different meanings are embedded within it – ranging from its number, to its color, to its shape. (p. 82)
In other words, whenever we encounter the unknown in our journey from the undesired “now” to the desired haven, we adjust our frames of reference by either focusing on the big-picture or focusing on the details (p. 83, 88)
Jung thought that the universality of religious or mythological symbols were biological and consequently heritable. He suggested that this heritability was located in the “collective unconscious” which comprised of “complexes” responsible for behavioral tendencies (action) or classification tendencies (categorization of phenomena) (p. 91)
Adult parents embody language, moral behavior and beliefs for their children to imitate. Even if their biological parents are not available, these patterns of social behaviors are embodied in “entertainment”, i.e., ritual, drama, literature and myth. This is why it’s important to pay attention to the patterns of behavior embodied in what we consider entertainment today. Peterson considers these patterns of behavior as embodied behavioral wisdom (how to act) and calls them the “collective unconscious” which is the cumulative effect of culture (the “known”) and exploration (facing the “unknown”) on behavior. (p. 93)
Humans have a tendency to ignore the similarities between two phenomena and explore the difference. This is similar to Kahneman and Tversky’s Isolation Effect, as well as an assumption in Girard’s Mimetic Theory. What unites all of mankind is that we are all bound by space and time, as well as its implication for our existence (e.g., open to possibilities, but bound by mortality and social structures) (p. 94)
Characteristics of cognitive models as enumerated by Lakoff: (i) They are embodied, i.e., implicit in action (used), without being explicit in description (cannot be explained), (ii) Phenomena most naturally nameable, communicable, manipulable are used as the basis for developing more abstract concepts, (iii) They are metonymic, i.e., a part can represent a whole, and vice versa, (iv) Things can be better or worse examples of the categories they belong to. For instance, a robin can be seen as a better example of “bird” than an ostrich, (v) Things within a category share resemblance with an abstracted, hypothetical [platonic] standard, e.g., all girls considered “beautiful” share similarities with an abstracted “ideal” beautiful girl, (vi) They give rise to polysemy, which means that they can be understood at different levels at the same time. Example of Sarah and Hagar standing for the relationship between the master and slave, while also standing for the relationship between believers and non-believers (p. 97).
We think we categorize things based on their inherent characteristics. Rather, how we characterize things is dependent on their value, usefulness (or potential for usefulness) to us (p. 97)
Habituation usually occurs as a result of successful creative exploration of the unknown, such that the boundaries of the known are more expanded and what was previously unknown has been rendered positive at best, or neutral (inconsequential) at worst. The first time I came across “habituation” was in my studies of addiction. This explanation seems to make sense. Initial exposure to what would eventually become an addictive behavior (porn, drugs, alcohol, etc) is usually a trip to the unknown filled with its attendant emotions. However, each subsequent episode becomes more and more normalized. (p. 101)
Peterson suggests that to the premodern man, emotions and motivative drives were not perceived as internal to the subject. Rather, they were part and parcel of the event that gave rise to them. What we refer to as “stimulus” was the “power” in the event/object that gave rise to the emotion. In other words, a god, from the perspective of the premodern man was an object/event (or a class of objects/events), as well as their effect on the emotions and motives of the man (p. 113)
Progress is uniting the hard-won wisdom of the past (i.e., the dead) with the adaptive capacity of the present (i.e., the living) (p. 131)
In the absence of a frame of reference (i.e., no model, no map, no story or narrative…no consciousness at its extreme), an object is everything. This is because of its limitless uses and potential significance to the subject. However, this limited potential is overwhelmingly chaotic and consequently is indistinguishable from nothing. To borrow from quantum mechanics, this is like the particle that is everywhere but nowhere before it is observed (p. 139)
Whitehead A. N (1958) opined that “Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them”. (p. 150)
When a child imitates his father, he is embodying the father. Metaphorically speaking, the child is possessed by the spirit of the father (p. 153)
Expectation and faith determine the response of the Unknown. With expectation, the unknown becomes valuable, while with faith, anxiety is eliminated. In modern treatments of anxiety, something similar plays out in desensitization, where the individual is “ritualistically” (i.e., in a predictable/orderly situation, e.g., psychologist’s office) exposed to a novel/threatening situation (i.e., the unknown), while the authority figure (i.e., the hero) models behavior (p. 166, 170)
Unhappiness is a result of overvaluing phenomena that are trivial while undervaluing processes, opportunities and ideas that would be freeing. The act of sacrifice entails giving up “that which is loved” (i.e., the pathological hierarchy of values) with the expectation and faith that the benevolent aspect of the Unknown would return with blessings (p. 172)
Incorporation of the hero (either literally in ritual cannibalism, or symbolically) implied the willingness to embody the hero, particularly his willingness to expand the realm of the known by confronting the unknown (p. 176)
Willful confrontation with the unknown entails the destruction of old models, as well as the construction of new models from parts of the old models and creative exploration of the unknown. This reminds me of John Boyd’s OODA process (p. 178)
Adaptation to the unknown implies a resolution of the intrapsychic conflict for dominance over action (i.e., resolving the “fight among gods” according to mythological stories). The hero, therefore, is a peacemaker; hence the maxim in Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God”. (p. 179)
Since the “optimal desired state in the future” is not cast in stone and varies from one time and context to the other, what should be the focus of emulation is the Word and its willfulness to extract order from chaos. A focus on a specific “optimal desired future state” is tantamount to making idols out of fixed frames of reference. A focus on the Word, on the other hand, regulates emotion and makes action possible, regardless of the time or context (p. 186)
Sometimes, intrapsychic conflict emerges when what is considered “the desired state” in the present can interfere with what will be considered “the desired state” in the future. To resolve this conflict, there needs to be an abstract moral system powerful enough to allow future significance of an event/occurrence influence reaction to its present significance. (p. 188)
Through abstraction, the properly socialized individual has learnt to consider “the other” (i.e., either the “future self” and/or “other people”) alongside the presently experienced “self” when contemplating his actions, as well as their consequences in the present and the future. (p. 188)
There is a way to act that caters to both intrapsychic demands, as well as the social context. This “way to act” is what informs the “moral viewpoint” (p. 189)
Conflicts in relationships occur as a result of a “war of implicit gods” (i.e., each individual’s resolution of his intrapsychic conflicts might not work for his partner). The way this is resolved at the interpersonal level is by engaging the Word – voluntarily confronting the unknown and its attendant emotions with the faith and expectation of getting something valuable from the process (p. 190)
Humans can lose faith, rather than lose life because of their increased capacity for abstraction. They can construct territories abstractly and make beliefs out of them, only abandoning them when they are no longer tenable. Animals, which are unable to abstract like humans, can lose face, rather than lose life. For instance, the beta-animal in a social animal group submits to the alpha. Just as the alpha animal holds on to its territory in the face of threat and fear, the capacity to hold on to an abstracted territory in the face of threat is an indication of how strongly one’s intrapsychic state is subject to a personality integrated to the significance of that territory. Humans perceive this as charisma (p. 190)
The value of an object in a social context is dependent on the frame of reference (map, model) of the dominating “personality” that had resolved the “war of implicit gods” (p. 195, 196, 198)
Problems arise, for instance in a tyranny, where the “patriarchal” state seeks to eliminate individual variability and enforce sameness. By doing this, the “patriarchal” state is implying that the past contains everything that needs to be known about present-day living. This is an example of the Luciferian pride (p. 202, 203)
Smith H. (1991), “Stated abstractly, the Prophetic Principle can be put as follows: The prerequisite of political stability is social justice, for it is the nature of things that injustice will not endure. Stated theologically, this point reads: God has high standards. Divinity will not put up forever with exploitation, corruption, and mediocrity” (p. 211)
By enforcing the standards of the past in every situation, the tyrant is responsible for adolescent rebellion (which kicks against enforced order), as well as ideologies that blame society for the evil in man (since an anachronistic culture appears to be only evil to people rebelling against the system) (p. 213)
Notes from Chapter 3: Apprenticeship and Enculturation: Adoption of a Shared Map
Ideologies tell a part of a story, but tell that part as though it were a complete representation of reality. First, the ignore vast domains of the world; Second, they ignore second-order thinking (p. 217)
In the eyes of the undisciplined man (generally speaking, more specifically, one who refuses to be educated by the society), whatever feelings of worthlessness he has in the current moment is not a function of his “innate” goodness (Rousseau’s philosophy) but a function of someone else, usually the society (p. 218)
Nietzsche opined that enforced adherence to Catholic dogma created a discipline and mental strength which humans then applied to other fields of endeavor in the natural world (e.g., physics). In the absence of obedience, there is a good chance that nothing would have been achieved scientifically (p. 220)
Personal identification with the group implies socialization, as well as education by the group. In addition, as Howard Rachlin suggested in Science of Self-Control, group membership makes the individual see the group as an extension of his “self”. Peterson terms this “individual embodiment of the valuations of the group” (p. 221)
Humans also act as though they were motivated by an integrated set of universal moral values (p. 229)
Killing culture (the Great Father) without understanding the need for his resuscitation (appreciating the wisdom of the past) will lead to chaos. The solution to this situation is to treat the relationship with culture as the relationship of an apprentice with his master. The goal of the apprentice of culture is the construction of a personality that transcends the restrictions of culture. An example that comes to mind is the difference between the Old Covenant (Law) and the New Covenant (Spirit). The former was a codified set of instructions that gave the Israelites their social identity – even as it prevented them from being overwhelmed by the unknown; the latter transcends the codified set of instructions because of the supernatural endowment of a personality that can navigate the different aspects of the unknown it will encounter, while still not ignoring the standards the codified law aspired to attain (p. 231)
Notes from Chapter 4: The Apprentice of Anomaly: Challenge to the Shared Map
Summary: The ability to abstract has facilitated better communication and understanding of behavior. However, this ability also comes with the ability to disrupt the unconscious, as well as the stability that arises when intrapsychic conflict has been made subject to a personality capable of confronting the unknown. This leads to an undermining of moral tradition, as well as weakness, and a susceptibility to simplistic ideologies that do not hold water in the face of threat. In essence, an increased level of abstraction also increases the probabilities of committing the “sin of presumptuousness” (p. 234). The idea of “self-consciousness” is related to man’s awareness of the temporal boundaries of his life, as well as an understanding that death and the possibility of death was a part of the unknown (p. 234)
Wittgenstein, L. (1950), “…we fail to be struck by what, once seen, is most striking and powerful”. We tend to look for the supernatural in the spectacular. But when we eventually find it in the mundane, it is impossible to unsee. (p. 235)
Kurt Godel’s “Incompleteness Theorem” demonstrated a feature that all systems had in common: Any logical systems of propositions cannot be predicated on assumptions within that system. (p. 235)
Michael Polyani (1958) argued that most of a scientist’s success depended on “tacit” knowledge acquired through practice and may not be explicitly articulated. In other words, scientific knowledge is embodied. (p. 237)
In simple terms, there is a hierarchy composed of the actions and valuations of past heroes (i.e., the intrapsychic gods) organized by other heroes (i.e., a persona[lity]) into a stable social character (i.e., cultural practices) shared by all members of the same culture. This “hierarchy of motivation” is the personality everyone in a culture seeks to imitate – consciously or unconsciously (p. 239)
The modern educated man “acts out”, but does not “belief”. This leads to a return to the chaos that arises during intrapsychic conflict. Through modern education, the personality from the stories, narratives and myths from the past – capable of both brokering peace among the “intrapsychic gods”, as well as boldly confronting the unknown – is rejected. Instead, a personality developed either through simple ideologies or through rational, abstracted thinking about “what should be” is embraced in its place. However, since these personalities either assume they know all there is to be known (simple ideologies) or build models from abstracted simplifications comprising of only a small slice of reality (rationality), they lead to existential angst in those who pursue them (p. 242)
When you react the same way to different things, there is a level of classification where they belong to the same category. From the perspective of people who have “sold their souls to the group”, since the Word does not necessarily conform to the conditions for stability, order and predictability within the group, He engenders the same reaction as though it were the unknown.
Disaster is averted when a community is prepared to appropriately respond to it. On the other hand, when a society (the Great Father, culture) becomes so authoritarian and resistant to change, minor changes in the natural world can prove to be devastating. (p. 247)
Abstraction increases the self-understanding, as well as the prediction of the behavior of others. It also enables the easier communication of morality. For instance, a drama is a representation of behavior in behavior and image and it makes us see the interplay of issues with moral consequences without actors suffering that consequence. When this capacity for abstraction is used by those with nefarious aims, they can undermine moral principles that took a long time to create for valid, but invisible/inaccessible reasons (p. 251)
Douglas Hofstader (1979) presents a discussion between Achilles and a tortoise (of Zeno’s paradox fame): When you say a statement such as “29 * 1 = 29”, implicit in that statement is an infinite number of other statements, such as “5 * 6 IS NOT EQUAL TO 29”, as well as “2 * 2 IS NOT EQUAL TO 29” (p. 254)
Kuhn (1970) said, “A paradigm is prerequisite to perception itself. What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see. In the absence of such training, there can only be, in William James’s phrase, “a bloomin’, buzzin’ confusion” (p. 257)
Unfortunately, the capacity to think abstractly has made the modern man undermine the fundamental a priori presumptions that his premodern counterpart implicitly understand the concept of a “right” in the first place. For instance, Western morality is premised on the fact that every individual is sacred, i.e., there is something about human life that is precious. It is this premise (religious in its roots) that serves as the cornerstone of Western law and civilization. Any attempt to undermine this fundamental assumption through rational abstraction will cause the entire concept of “rights” to crumble – even as the social and psychological structures built upon that fundamental premise. (p. 260-61)
The nihilist, through his highly-developed capacity for critical abstraction, fails to identify with the hero (the Word) as well as His ability to willfully confront the unknown to extract order from it. As a result, the nihilist, through his disillusion with the Great Father (culture) and his rejection of the Word, is embraced by the Unknown, as well as the attendant emotions and angst that come with her. (p. 265)
The reason why science, empiricism and rationality alone cannot make the world a better place is because of the low value it places on feelings and emotions in determining wisdom. If you place a low value on feelings, you can never arrive at the conclusion that “what causes me and others pain is wrong”. In spite of all the usefulness of accumulating knowledge of “what is”, it is still limited in providing answers to the questions of “what should be” and “how do we get there”. (p. 269)
For the average individual, social education (initiation, in more tribal cultures) signifies the end of childhood and the integration into the societal structure. For the revolutionary hero (the shaman in tribal cultures), his “initiation” takes the form of voluntary disintegration of the socially determined personality (consequently confronting the Unknown) and reintegration at the level of unique individuality. In essence, he must become a child again. This reminds me of Jesus’ quote (Matthew 18:3), “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (p. 272)
The shaman (revolutionary hero) who embarks on a voluntary journey into the unknown must realize that his journey is valueless if he fails to return to his society, else his journey will be perceived from the society’s viewpoint as a descent into madness. Despite being valuable, past wisdom is not sufficient to face the challenges of present potentiality. The revolutionary hero becomes both an author and an editor of history. He masters the known, and restructures it with his findings from his voluntary confrontation of the unknown (“the descent to the underworld”). (p. 278-9)
In essence, by faith, the hero walks in the Spirit and transcends the limitations of the law (p. 282)
The mother and her unborn child represent a state of being where they are simultaneously “one thing” and “more than one thing”. In the same vein, this metaphor can be used to describe a pretemporal state where “everything that could ever be still existed” as “one thing” (p. 286)
To be unaware of one’s nakedness is a metaphor for the absence of “self-consciousness”. As a result, the world as perceived by the child is vastly different from the world of an adult. There are aspects of being that the child is unaware of, and as a result, the child is not encumbered by these things. However, at the same time, the child is extremely vulnerable. In essence, the phenomenological world as perceived by a child is both incomplete and threatening (p. 288)
“Self-consciousness” is associated with the Fall (i.e., the point where object began to be perceived as different from subject). “Consciousness”, on the other hand, is the way to experience the world of primal “matter” (where matter and spirit are perceived as united) (p. 291)
Neuman, E. (1954), “Conscious realization is “acted out” in the elementary scheme of nutritive assimilation, and the ritual act of concrete eating is the first form of assimilation known to man….” (p. 299)
The conscious individual is not privy to the experiences of others and consequently, cannot develop the idea of “self”. On the other hand, the self-conscious individual lives in history and has access to the experiences of others through language, narratives, rituals etc. (p. 304)
Notes from Chapter 5: The Hostile Brothers: Archetypes of Response to the Unknown
To know “what is good?”, you need to examine the process by which you know what “good” is in different contexts. (p. 310)
Embracing of the purely rational spirit will bring you in direct confrontation with the Word (p. 316)
To lie [to yourself] means to voluntarily adhere to an old model (frame of reference/map) in situations where a new experience/desire clearly does not fit into that model. The liar chooses his own game, sets his own rules and then cheats…As a result, the liar actively suppresses any behavioral patterns or experiences that do not fit into the Great Father’s (culture) system. Identifying with the “lying spirit” renders everything unknown to be categorized as a threat – forgetting that the Unknown also contains the promise of hope and beneficial knowledge that expands the boundaries of the known. Since the unknown is vastly greater than the known, identification with the “lying spirit” shrinks the realm of acceptable action to the point where the liar has nowhere else to turn except himself. Unfortunately, at this point, his personality (“the hero” that brokers peace among the “intrapsychic gods”) is so underdeveloped that the liar simply shrinks into “weakness, resentment, hatred and fear” (p. 327-330)
The fascist is afraid of the chaos, so he fanatically hugs order; the decadent undermines order, and as a consequence remains underdeveloped like the undifferentiated child vulnerable to chaos. (p. 339)
The thinking of the decadent is this: Since this experience or phenomenon does not fit in with what is socially/culturally prescribed, what else are these systems getting wrong? (p. 341a)
In essence, confronting the unknown is “spiritual food” for the personality. A personality that is protected from the unknown leads to the development of a weak character (p. 341b – 342)
Carl Jung quote: “…any internal state of contradiction, unrecognized, will be played out in the world as fate”. In other words, until the unconscious is made conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate. (p. 342)
Moral uncertainty in the contemporary world operates at the highest level of abstraction (thoughts). Since people believe they are right and will not follow the pattern of The Word and willingly confront unknown territory to increase the bounds of order, nothing is resolved at the “thought” level of abstraction. As a result, people strive to resolve at lower and lower levels of abstraction (books, entertainment, art). When this is still not resolved, matters must be settled at the level of behavior. This leads to wars when societies are considered. Hence Peterson’s thought: “…those who will not let their outdated identities and beliefs die, when they must, kill themselves instead” (p. 342)
An underdeveloped individual and/or social ideal who strives for material and social security (the Great Father) will have no respect for Truth (The Word; the process mediating between order and chaos) and will consequently suffer an incomplete adaptation to the unknown when it inevitably arises. A man who puts faith in what he has (material/social security) rather than what he could be will never sacrifice what he has for what he could be (p. 361b – 362b)
If one’s goal is pathologically restricted (due to personal underdevelopment, or societal standards), aspects of behavior that do not conform with the attainment of that goal will be seen as “evil” and consequently unavailable for use when the time arises to confront the unknown. (p. 363)
The act of metanoia is adaptation itself. It means that one is willing to admit error, and discard identities, beliefs and behaviors founded on that error. It encapsulates the faith to accept and tolerate the implications of that upheaval with the unwavering belief that it would lead to a restoration of intrapsychic and interpersonal integrity (p. 365)
Failure to transcend group identification is similar to a failure to leave childhood. This reminds me of St. Paul’s analogy of the child heir trying to attain righteousness by the law is no less than a slave (Galatians 4:1) (p. 369a)
When historical wisdom (“a ring of ancestral wisdom”) is abstracted and critically evaluated, that knowledge loses its context and the known reverts to the unknown.
Christ pushes morality beyond strict reliance on codified tradition – the explicit Law of Moses – not because such tradition was unnecessary, but because it was (and is) necessarily and eternally insufficient” (p. 385)
The Kingdom of Heaven was open to all – prostitutes, tax collectors, diseased, etc. This does not imply a Kingdom where everything goes. Rather, this implies a Kingdom where your past life did not limit one’s value in the present, or future. A kingdom where one’s conditions of birth did not limit identification with the Hero. (p. 393)
Christ’s Message was a transition of morality from a reliance on tradition to a reliance on spiritual consciousness. It was a call to morality based on the attribution of the same value accorded to self to the other. (p. 395)
Life without the Law is chaotic; Life with only the Law is sterile (p. 397)
For the alchemist, the more poorly something has been explored, the broader the category used to describe it. When something is classified, its value is restricted to a particular domain (p. 408, 409b)
For the alchemist, “matter” was “information”, in the sense of “what is the matter?”. Through exploratory behavior, “information” (i.e., “matter”) is the hitherto unknown to create the subject and the phenomenological experience of the world by that subject. (p. 409a)
Like the alchemists of medieval times, we are all aiming at an ideal. However, in spite of our developed capacities for abstraction, modern man has only been able to define the “not ideal”. All rational efforts to explicitly define the “ideal man” will inevitably lead to Christ! (p. 416)
A precondition for character development is to realize that one is capable of being capable of the vilest of all evil (p. 432 – 433, 435)
The Unknown also comprises everything we do not know about ourselves (good and bad). By willingly confronting the chaos of the unknown, we gain access to behavioral potentialities available for conscious use. This comprises of aspects of personal experience suppressed by cultural pressure or personal choice. Within every experience that cries out for denial might be information necessary for life (p. 436 – 437)
Information obtained by the confrontation of the unknown is useless at the level of abstraction (Stage I; mental union of new + old information). It must be realized at the level of behavior. This happens through the subjection of the “intrapsychic gods” to the authority of the developed “personality” (Stage II; ordered intrapsychic structure). However, individual behavior is not the end of this process. Establishing the “Kingdom of God” on earth is the final stage, where subject and object (social environment) are all equal aspects of experience (Stage III; embodied union of philosophical knowledge and intrapsychic structure is extended to the world) (p. 442 – 443)
Notes from Conclusion: The Divinity of Interest
Human vulnerability (the fact that humans are mortal) is not the cause for human cruelty. J. B. Russell’s argument, on the contrary, puts the blame for evil at the feet of God and His creation, not regarding human’s capacity for evil. Human vulnerability and human cruelty do not belong to the same category. One is the function of “a fallen world under the bondage of corruption”, while the other is a function of “willfully undertaken harm”. Encounter with former may increase character (e.g., Disciples persecution), while the latter destroys character. Natural disasters, “acts of God” and human mortality are not what makes life miserable. If anything, humanity has developed the ability to adapt to, and even become better after, these terrible events whenever they happen. Evil is more of a function of the pointless suffering that humans are able to inflict on each other (p. 448b, 452, 454)
Because it is more difficult to rule oneself than to rule a city, people keep trying to rule the city. They keep trying to take religion away from public places; they keep trying to engage in public protests supposedly in a bid to lend their voices to the voiceless and downtrodden. However, for some, it is just virtue-signalling and selfishness, whereas, for others, it is just intellectual pride masquerading as love; good works that do not work. (p. 455b)
It is not so much that the pursuit of empirical truth wreaked havoc on the Christian worldview, but rather the confusion of empirical fact with moral truth. Rejection of moral truth leads to the rationalization of destructive, self-indulgent behavior. This increases the motivation to lie to others, and more devastatingly, to oneself. At the root of every social and individual psychopathology is the lie to oneself, which is the unwillingness to take personal responsibility and confront the unknown. (p. 466)
Meaning is man’s adaptation for confronting the unknown. Too much exposure to the unknown leads to the madness that accompanies chaos. Too little exposure leads to stagnation and then degeneration. Balance produces an individual capable of dealing with nature (the Great Mother) and society (the Great Father) (p. 468)
