For me as former Peterson "fanboy" he slowly started to grow cold: i much rather follow mythic stories in all their multitude instead of simplification, listen to Hillman and others to tackle with much more humbly/openly these issues, let the myths speak instead of fit them into some model. When i listen to actual Jungians such as Beebe, Hillman, Von Franz, Jung, Eddinger and compare them to Peterson they are on whole different realms. Not to talk about Manly P Hall and others much more escoteric and mystic people than what Jungians are (with excepetion of perhaps Jung and von Franz). Or read philosophers of old such as Plato or Plotinus. Peterson simplifies things too much. I haven't read Erich Neumann's work 'The origins and history of consciousness' completely but enough to get gist of it, and Peterson's main frame comes from there which he thinks he managed to update with neuroscience and behavioural stuff. And when Peterson wonders why Neumann's work hasn't had the influence it should have the answer is simple: It's too reductive and simplistic and empirically not correct when patterns of ancient religions are beign studied. Neumann is Jungian and in their circles he has been dropped into sidelines, while more living and interpretative methods have been taking over. And from what i've gathered Peterson reduces Neumann's work to purely masculine egoistic hero-pattern of 'slay the dragon, get the gold, get the woman', proven or "proven" by statistical and neuroscientific stuff (which i as reader of philosophy take statistics with grain of salt. Proverb: "Lie, major lie, statistics" comes to mind). Comming in from a Jungian side Peterson's understandment on feminine and Anima in particular seems very limited: it took him months to figure out that militant feminists are Animus posessed (=possessed by their inner male), which is like Jungian 101 stuff and which for me as amateur Jungian was clear right from start. His understandment of archetypes have been criticized and doubted, and i can't help but to agree to a degree... It seems that he has read jung, but doesn't live in Jungian way. Thou there is atleast one big reason: He's is very extraverted, and these kind of people just can't get into contact with archetypes like Introverts gets and Peterson showcases that he doesn't get introversion, to him it's just non-social, while in Jungian thinking it's much more that that. This is why Peterson loves behavioral stuff with his patients, it's going out to the world, instead inside one's psyche. Peterson wants simplicity, and perhaps that also is needed. Myths in their multitude are gruelling task to tackle, but issue is that Peterson seems to think that he has all what one needs, instead of pointing out that 'this is what i have to offer, but there's plenty more to chew on out there'. This in my opnion makes him non-existentialist (as opposed to what he claims). Thou he has many things right as well: Pepe the frog as indicator of rising times of Chaos, Milo as trickster and so on. Thou people like Angela Nagle have been much more keensighted with this phenomena Peterons has been sucked into as well, reading 'kill all normies' was blast and seeing what archetypal stuff she manages to touch upon without knowing it was interesting. Peterson would do well to read it.
you said: I haven't read Erich Neumann's work 'The origins and history of consciousness' completely but enough to get gist of it, Ken Wilber said: that is maybe his favorite book ... he has reread it many times, full of notes etc etc etc and it was mentioned in a video where KW discusses the work of JP. And you did have much to say however I can test your level of archetypal awareness with ONE quote by Jung ... if you like?
This is absolutely bonkers! I just started reading Manly P. Hall's 'Lost Keys of Freemasonry' yesterday. Thank you on the book club recommendation as well, definitely looking to dive deeper into the occult lately.
You voiced each one of my concerns about Peterson almost word for word, especially that his followers don’t read to learn for themselves whether Peterson’s words carry any weight. I’ve read each of the books you’ve listed and I have a great deal of respect for Manly P. Hall and Dion Fortune, especially her work on The Mystical Kabbalah. I’m currently reading Greer’s translation of the Picatrix. Hot stuff! It’s very comforting to know that like minded individuals are speaking up about these matters. I’ve often thought of making my own video challenging Peterson’s narrow view, specifically from a Jungian standpoint. Peterson’s followers have no idea of Jung’s foray into Theosophy, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Astrology, the Tarot, and Yi Jing. One Peterson fanboy argued with me that Jung was not a mystic. I explained that Jung had dialogue with a daemon he called Philemon, and I encouraged this fellow to do some reading . I never heard from him again. Ha ha!
Dani Vela-Perez ive alwaya said this. Peterson doesnt actually do Jung justice. If you read any of Jungs works, you will feel his beautiful genius emanate from the text. He was miles more profound than even Peterson can portray him. Peterson for me is too 'rational' in mental alignment to feel the genius of Jung. Peterson has not once mentioned Gnosticism or Alchemy in any significant manner save for referencing that Jung ventured into it. I personally think, for all his 'slay the dragon (of which Peterson gives a very simple and rational interpretation of these hero myths) and 'face your shadow' talk, he's afraid to delve into alchemy or the like, because it would obliterate his Darwinian, rationalistic and material worldview.
Oi Mug - Absolutely! Jung’s magnum opus, Answer To Job blew my mind like no other book I’ve read. To hear Peterson speak of the god head in such dogmatic and dualist terms while praising Jung through the other side of his mouth is both confusing and suspicious. Is Peterson doing a bit of intellectual name dropping in order to have his audience believe he knows what he is talking about? It’s clear to me that Peterson struggles with the non dual nature of the Absolute as he only addresses the very basics of Jungian depth psychology and is unable to extrapolate from those points. How can any who lauds Jung’s work as brilliant then turn around and say something as, “truth is what helps you survive.” There goes baby, bath water, and the kitchen sink!
Dani Vela-Perez exactly. I want to ask. Do you find that a lot of this seems to be traced to Pythagoras? Or is it just me. Seems to me to that the Greek is the axis around which the esoteric spins.
@@ThineLesser I changed it because my address was actually doxxed on Facebook over someone’s rabid disagreement with me, so I’m much more careful now. Although I’m not a nihilist, choosing a cultural icon that is...well, it has its purpose.
Also, it’s very interesting/coincidental, only a couple hours ago, I commented to someone that 99% if these Peterson devotees have little to no understanding of Jungian psychology, primary bc they don’t or won’t read the source material, and take JP’s word as gospel, instead. Nice to see you, and others here see what’s going on in that world. Imo, the singular reason any of these people have interest at all in Jung, is because a smart person came along, and validated their anti-PC and/or anti-SJW feelings. That’s the starting point for the overwhelming majority of their interest in JP, and bc he’s an intelligent guy, they’ll gladly listen to and eat up anything else he has to say, typically without thinking twice to research what he’s talking about, and/or fact check his statements. It’s sad, really, bc I think some of what he has to say is useful and even true, but it’s largely spoiled (for me) by his politics. So it goes.. Anyway, keep doing what you’re doing. I’m not a Jungian, nor am I religious, but I do have quite a lot of interest in mythology, and separately, (bc to me, it’s a separate issue) in the luminous/transcendent/spiritual. I should probably read some of the material you recommend, bc I really have little to know knowledge on “the” occult, and mythology, outside of what I studied in anthology, and what little of Jung I studied in psychology (I don’t really consider his work psychology at all.. it’s mythology and philosophy imo). Anyway, I digress.. ✌🏼
I have not read any Jung either. But I'm familiar with a lot of the concepts in Jung second hand and because in many ways Jung snuck a lot of occult ideas that I am familiar with into psychology (as you seem to have noticed). Discursive meditation is when you try to keep you mind on something. As opposed to mindfulness meditation where you try to clear your mind of thought. Probably an over simplification, but that's how I see it.
Even though I still like peterson to a reasonable degree, I very much enjoy your criticisms of him. I was not aware of his misunderstandment of bill c-16. I love the way you adress peterson and people like me who are his fans in such a respectful manner. Plaudits to you brother
my opinion, peterson hits nail on the head woth mythology and archetypes. study hinduism- shiva amd shatki. taosim- yin and yang. christianity judiasm and islam god is the father. mother is nature the feminine. egypt built pyramids to resemble hierarchies. feminine has always beem associated with chaos and beauty ...
I'm going to sound extremely biased, but all this occultism sounds like woo woo nonsense. Also, "progress" is with respect to an arbitrary terminal goal. ALL terminal goals are arbitrary, but the instrumental goals are not. Humans typically have shared terminal goals, so when people mean progress, they mean we accomplished instrumental goals with respect to that shared terminal goal. There's not ultimate underlining progress, because theres no ultimate underlining purpose. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
For me as former Peterson "fanboy" he slowly started to grow cold: i much rather follow mythic stories in all their multitude instead of simplification, listen to Hillman and others to tackle with much more humbly/openly these issues, let the myths speak instead of fit them into some model. When i listen to actual Jungians such as Beebe, Hillman, Von Franz, Jung, Eddinger and compare them to Peterson they are on whole different realms. Not to talk about Manly P Hall and others much more escoteric and mystic people than what Jungians are (with excepetion of perhaps Jung and von Franz). Or read philosophers of old such as Plato or Plotinus.
Peterson simplifies things too much. I haven't read Erich Neumann's work 'The origins and history of consciousness' completely but enough to get gist of it, and Peterson's main frame comes from there which he thinks he managed to update with neuroscience and behavioural stuff. And when Peterson wonders why Neumann's work hasn't had the influence it should have the answer is simple: It's too reductive and simplistic and empirically not correct when patterns of ancient religions are beign studied. Neumann is Jungian and in their circles he has been dropped into sidelines, while more living and interpretative methods have been taking over. And from what i've gathered Peterson reduces Neumann's work to purely masculine egoistic hero-pattern of 'slay the dragon, get the gold, get the woman', proven or "proven" by statistical and neuroscientific stuff (which i as reader of philosophy take statistics with grain of salt. Proverb: "Lie, major lie, statistics" comes to mind).
Comming in from a Jungian side Peterson's understandment on feminine and Anima in particular seems very limited: it took him months to figure out that militant feminists are Animus posessed (=possessed by their inner male), which is like Jungian 101 stuff and which for me as amateur Jungian was clear right from start. His understandment of archetypes have been criticized and doubted, and i can't help but to agree to a degree... It seems that he has read jung, but doesn't live in Jungian way. Thou there is atleast one big reason: He's is very extraverted, and these kind of people just can't get into contact with archetypes like Introverts gets and Peterson showcases that he doesn't get introversion, to him it's just non-social, while in Jungian thinking it's much more that that. This is why Peterson loves behavioral stuff with his patients, it's going out to the world, instead inside one's psyche.
Peterson wants simplicity, and perhaps that also is needed. Myths in their multitude are gruelling task to tackle, but issue is that Peterson seems to think that he has all what one needs, instead of pointing out that 'this is what i have to offer, but there's plenty more to chew on out there'. This in my opnion makes him non-existentialist (as opposed to what he claims).
Thou he has many things right as well: Pepe the frog as indicator of rising times of Chaos, Milo as trickster and so on. Thou people like Angela Nagle have been much more keensighted with this phenomena Peterons has been sucked into as well, reading 'kill all normies' was blast and seeing what archetypal stuff she manages to touch upon without knowing it was interesting. Peterson would do well to read it.
could you please start doing videos where you lift while explaining this kind of stuff in great detail?
you said: I haven't read Erich Neumann's work 'The origins and history of consciousness' completely but enough to get gist of it,
Ken Wilber said: that is maybe his favorite book ... he has reread it many times, full of notes etc etc etc and it was mentioned in a video where KW discusses the work of JP.
And you did have much to say however I can test your level of archetypal awareness with ONE quote by Jung ... if you like?
EXACTLY. Peterson could potentially be much more than he currently is if he just knew more about these traditions
This is absolutely bonkers! I just started reading Manly P. Hall's 'Lost Keys of Freemasonry' yesterday. Thank you on the book club recommendation as well, definitely looking to dive deeper into the occult lately.
You voiced each one of my concerns about Peterson almost word for word, especially that his followers don’t read to learn for themselves whether Peterson’s words carry any weight. I’ve read each of the books you’ve listed and I have a great deal of respect for Manly P. Hall and Dion Fortune, especially her work on The Mystical Kabbalah. I’m currently reading Greer’s translation of the Picatrix. Hot stuff! It’s very comforting to know that like minded individuals are speaking up about these matters. I’ve often thought of making my own video challenging Peterson’s narrow view, specifically from a Jungian standpoint. Peterson’s followers have no idea of Jung’s foray into Theosophy, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Astrology, the Tarot, and Yi Jing. One Peterson fanboy argued with me that Jung was not a mystic. I explained that Jung had dialogue with a daemon he called Philemon, and I encouraged this fellow to do some reading . I never heard from him again. Ha ha!
Dani Vela-Perez ive alwaya said this. Peterson doesnt actually do Jung justice. If you read any of Jungs works, you will feel his beautiful genius emanate from the text. He was miles more profound than even Peterson can portray him. Peterson for me is too 'rational' in mental alignment to feel the genius of Jung. Peterson has not once mentioned Gnosticism or Alchemy in any significant manner save for referencing that Jung ventured into it. I personally think, for all his 'slay the dragon (of which Peterson gives a very simple and rational interpretation of these hero myths) and 'face your shadow' talk, he's afraid to delve into alchemy or the like, because it would obliterate his Darwinian, rationalistic and material worldview.
Oi Mug - Absolutely! Jung’s magnum opus, Answer To Job blew my mind like no other book I’ve read. To hear Peterson speak of the god head in such dogmatic and dualist terms while praising Jung through the other side of his mouth is both confusing and suspicious. Is Peterson doing a bit of intellectual name dropping in order to have his audience believe he knows what he is talking about? It’s clear to me that Peterson struggles with the non dual nature of the Absolute as he only addresses the very basics of Jungian depth psychology and is unable to extrapolate from those points. How can any who lauds Jung’s work as brilliant then turn around and say something as, “truth is what helps you survive.” There goes baby, bath water, and the kitchen sink!
Dani Vela-Perez exactly. I want to ask. Do you find that a lot of this seems to be traced to Pythagoras? Or is it just me. Seems to me to that the Greek is the axis around which the esoteric spins.
the pickle rick profile picture LOL
@@ThineLesser I changed it because my address was actually doxxed on Facebook over someone’s rabid disagreement with me, so I’m much more careful now. Although I’m not a nihilist, choosing a cultural icon that is...well, it has its purpose.
The Lyta Gold article is great, thanks!
Thanks alot going to check Manly's work.
Also, it’s very interesting/coincidental, only a couple hours ago, I commented to someone that 99% if these Peterson devotees have little to no understanding of Jungian psychology, primary bc they don’t or won’t read the source material, and take JP’s word as gospel, instead. Nice to see you, and others here see what’s going on in that world. Imo, the singular reason any of these people have interest at all in Jung, is because a smart person came along, and validated their anti-PC and/or anti-SJW feelings. That’s the starting point for the overwhelming majority of their interest in JP, and bc he’s an intelligent guy, they’ll gladly listen to and eat up anything else he has to say, typically without thinking twice to research what he’s talking about, and/or fact check his statements. It’s sad, really, bc I think some of what he has to say is useful and even true, but it’s largely spoiled (for me) by his politics. So it goes..
Anyway, keep doing what you’re doing. I’m not a Jungian, nor am I religious, but I do have quite a lot of interest in mythology, and separately, (bc to me, it’s a separate issue) in the luminous/transcendent/spiritual. I should probably read some of the material you recommend, bc I really have little to know knowledge on “the” occult, and mythology, outside of what I studied in anthology, and what little of Jung I studied in psychology (I don’t really consider his work psychology at all.. it’s mythology and philosophy imo). Anyway, I digress.. ✌🏼
I have not read any Jung either. But I'm familiar with a lot of the concepts in Jung second hand and because in many ways Jung snuck a lot of occult ideas that I am familiar with into psychology (as you seem to have noticed).
Discursive meditation is when you try to keep you mind on something. As opposed to mindfulness meditation where you try to clear your mind of thought. Probably an over simplification, but that's how I see it.
Even though I still like peterson to a reasonable degree, I very much enjoy your criticisms of him. I was not aware of his misunderstandment of bill c-16. I love the way you adress peterson and people like me who are his fans in such a respectful manner. Plaudits to you brother
With Peterson, the bar for greatness has reached an all time low.
you're brilliant!
my opinion, peterson hits nail on the head woth mythology and archetypes. study hinduism- shiva amd shatki. taosim- yin and yang. christianity judiasm and islam god is the father. mother is nature the feminine. egypt built pyramids to resemble hierarchies. feminine has always beem associated with chaos and beauty ...
i knew this much before i came across peterson
What is discursive meditation?
He stopped filming himself speaking to the camera head on, equalized his voice, and added hip guitar riff. (Lol) good form, good form.
Wow you described symbology good job. Of course things mean many things to many people.
I'm going to sound extremely biased, but all this occultism sounds like woo woo nonsense.
Also, "progress" is with respect to an arbitrary terminal goal. ALL terminal goals are arbitrary, but the instrumental goals are not.
Humans typically have shared terminal goals, so when people mean progress, they mean we accomplished instrumental goals with respect to that shared terminal goal.
There's not ultimate underlining progress, because theres no ultimate underlining purpose.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise.