Looking back, what would you say were your struggles and what were some examples and reasons to your aggressiveness? I ask only so that I may understand the atheist worldview better.
@@redpilledtrooper7523 I didn't know any christians (I'm Dutch) and so my view of them was solely made by dumb caricatures I saw in movies. I thought they were stupid and to soothe my own ego I had to believe I was better than them and therefore not believe what they believed. So it had nothing to do with logic at all, in fact I had never even thought about the idea of God. But once I hear JBP's lectures and ideas I had no choice but to think about it. So then after a year of hearing from him and others like Jonathan Pageau and what christianity does to people in their testimonies I started praying for something I desperately needed at the time and God delivered. There was no going back after that.
Jordan Peterson seems to be on the verge of accepting the grace to not resist Christianity. This is difficult for him, being the thinker that he is. He did not know it but he always had a yearning for something. It had put him on a lifetime search through study. The experience of God’s grace, recognizing it for what it is and acknowledging it requires still more grace. Trust in one’s intuition and one’s own experience of the truth and love of Christ.
Hardly. Lobsterman is the farcical version of King Leer. Being under the domination of his crazy daughter with her life-threatening diets. And her crazier husband who claims to be possessed by a demon named Igor.
Kathy Newman, is that you? Or at least you must be a writer for the cusmption of the mainstream culture. "So what you're saying is..." Lobsterman..fractal version of; under domination of...his crazy daughter...life-threatening diets...her crazier husband possessed by a demon.. At least provide criticism that is based on our experience of the situation.
Half a year ago I got convinced that Orthodoxy is true, and yesterday I was officially accepted as a catechumen. One of the things I'm slowly beginning to understand is how important group identity is, and that the people in my parish are not simply fellow attendees, but that I need to learn to understand that we fundamentally share our lives in a way that extends our earthly reality. I am quite excited about this, coming out of several decades of fundamentalist individualism, and having found no answers there, because as an individual I am nothing more than a speck of dust which is barely even there and that, as an individual, will never be remembered. It would be like never having existed. I could not understand why to live while inside that world view. It wasn't even that I was suicidal (although it could've ended up there eventually), it's that I just could not understand anything about being alive. It made no sense. Now I'm beginning to understand that my life is a part of Christ's life. And not just my own life, but that of everyone I share my life with. The ramifications are huge, still too much for me to understand, which just emphasizes that there's so much substance there! Before this I had nothing! Praise be to God, Who saves.
The persistent opposition of the individual and the group is a consequence of forgetting the transcendent. It is not that the individual participates in the group, he participates in the transcendent and becomes part of the group which is united around the same identity. Christ served his community by serving that which transcends the community. In following his example, we become both more individual (i.e. fuller persons with virtues not conditioned on the rest of the community) and more united to the community which is also growing up, individually, "into the head." The church, for example, has this "fractal" structure in which each member has an immediate access to the "indwelling" spirit that also binds each member intimately with those also indwelt. Christ, as an individual, contains the fullness of God, and those who serve God are the members of his body. There is no other solution. Forgetting the transcendent results in tribalism or social atomism.
It’s funny to me that you told Jordan he was bringing back Christianity. For me, he literally did. His biblical lectures were what brought me back to Christ and the Bible. I’ve gone beyond merely appreciating the psychological significance of the stories as he does-the mystical and practical aspects of Christianity are just as important to me, though my views on it are far from orthodox.
It might not hold as it is, but before listening to JP I was calling myself a Christian agnostic, and afterwards a Christian. (Many other things happened in between and after)
1:48 Joseph Cambpbell. Hero's journey is an interesting way to manifest a pattern, that is universal. I think it can't be limited in the way he presented it. I think the U shaped pattern is something which is manifested in everything, from breathing to your hertbeat to narrative to struck all kinds of family structure. • Hero's Journey: This classic framework sees a protagonist go on an adventure, face challenges, and transform. Think of myths, fantasy, and coming-of- age stories.
Weirdly, Hindu & Buddhist teachings were the source that first taught me that individualism AND group identity are both absolutely necessary, but they need to have their proper place in the hierarchy for it to be right. I guess my point is there seem to be multiple bridges towards Christianity. Maybe all bridges, over time, lead to Christianity; the length of the path may vary with which bridge we use ^^
God is truth, therefore any path that you may take will lead you to Christ if you are seeking for truth. Sparks of it may be found in many places but you will eventually come to realize their errors and limitations if you are earnestly seeking for the one truth that is only fulfilled in Christ.
This is why I think Vervaeke has articulated a more balanced view of things. He gets that we to need a dynamic relationship between radical individualism and radical collectivism.
radical collectivism on whose terms? the problem with collectivism is that it forces outliers to comply. you can't have both of these forces operating simultaneously. either you empower the individual or you empower the group and repress the individual. take your shot, but there is only one functional answer.. this has been tried already.
@@notloki3377 Incorrect, you can have both of those forces operating simultaneously. The tension between opposites is pretty much what gives humans and culture its identity. Masculine and feminine being a big one. The big five personality traits being another. You don't have to suppress one or the other you can ride the balance.
@@notloki3377 Incorrect. You are born to a father and mother. From day one the individual and the collective are in harmony. Don't get caught up in false dialectics. Radical individualism is just as destructive as radical collectivism, if not more so. It leads to a complete destruction of Truth, and relativism becomes the norm.
Jordan stands outside the door, unwilling to go through it himself, but pointing to it for others outside and says, look here, there is something worth thinking about.
Yeah but in the past year or so i feel he is chaging he may not have entered the door fully but he definitly is half way there, you can see that he his way more open to the idea of a truly metaphysical divine being (God) ever since he got better from his sickness. God
1:00 I don't follow the reason why Jung gives Jonathan a bad vibe. I can guess that Jonathan doesn't like Freud very much, but Jung worked with Freud only for a relatively short time (6 years) earlier in his life. They never met again after 1913 and Jung went into a very different, far more mystical direction until his death in 1961. All the work he is best known for today happened after his break with Freud. I would find it much more understandable if Jonathan said that he doesn't like Jung's take on Christianity or the rumors that Jung may have dabbled in occult practices, but Freud had nothing to do with any of that.
>[Jung]...to reduce symbolism to psychological forces There. Christians don't like the Real World nor the Synthesis of it with the "Spirit" world. They like it separated.
Moreover Psychoanalisis, like Philosophy seeks to leave behind "belief", something paramount to Abrahamics, for Gnosis/ Knowledge. Carl Jung's quest is one of Self Knowledge, to comprehend; "Know Thyself" something that is missing from Christianity, that is based on Religion.
@@sonofnike2800 What phenomenological difference is there between psychological and spiritual forces? Neither are material, yet they obviously interact with the material world.
Jordan Peterson changed my life dramatically when I heard him teach about the rule "Tell the truth - or at least don't lie." Interestingly enough, unlike many others, I went from Christianity to agnostic atheism sort of "against my will" because I applied that rule to my faith. Since then, I've found much inspiration and instruction from Buddhism and now I'm exploring Stoicism. I became more independent and honest with my convictions, and no longer was satisfied with taking things merely by faith coupled with smart rationalisations.
1:15 Yet when I point out that the soul possesses by nature a religious function, and when I stipulate that it is the prime task of all education (of adults) to convey the archetype of the God-image, or its emanations and effects, to the conscious mind, then it is precisely the theologian who seizes me by the arm and accuses me of "psychologism." But were it not a fact of experience that supreme values reside in the soul, psychology would not interest me in the least, for the soul would then be nothing but a miserable vapour. I know, however, from hundredfold experience that it is nothing of the sort, but on the contrary contains the equivalents of everything that has been formulated in dogma and a good deal more, which is just what enables it to be an eye destined to behold the light. This requires limitless range and unfathomable depth of vision. I have been accused of "deifying the soul." Not I but God himself has deified it! I did not attribute a religious function to the soul, I merely produced the facts which prove that the soul is naturaliter religiosa, i.e., possesses a religious function. I did not invent or insinuate this function, it produces itself of its own accord without being prompted thereto by any opinions or suggestions of mine. With a truly tragic delusion these theologians fail to see that it is not a matter of proving the existence of the light, but of blind people who do not know that their eyes could see. It is high time we realized that it is pointless to praise the light and preach it if nobody can see it. It is much more needful to teach people the art of seeing. For it is obvious that far too many people are incapable of establishing a connection between the sacred figures and their own psyche: they cannot see to what extent the equivalent images are lying dormant in their own unconscious. ~ CG Jung CW12 pp 14
@@user-tp7wi4lt2b That doesn't mean that the above observation of his is inaccurate. Even the greatest of minds have their blind spots. We are all human.
JBP was a pipeline or a catalyst, so to speak, for me to return to the Catholic Church. Mr. Pageau has been incredibly helpful, as well, since JBP hasn't completed his journey, himself.
@@alvareo92 Well i feel like apostolic Christianity is where it's at and everything else feels very incomplete, whether it's Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy (or any other Orthodox Church) though that's a whole other conversation for yourself to have
@@panokostouros7609 Not crediting it to him, just pointing out that he seems to have ultimately not believed that God is reducible to mere psychological phenomenon, although I haven't read him myself either
Jung was a Platonist, but also a Kantian. Kant's formulation of the transcendent is agnostic, as he thought no knowledge of the "noumenal" could be obtained, whereas the Platonic "forms" can be seen as organizational principles of experience. Which is to say, Jungian "archetypes" are only nominally Platonic by virtue of being reduced to the structure of human consciousness, as opposed to Being itself. We see "the gods" in our experience of the world, not because they are really "in" or even "above" the world, but because of the manner in which we perceive, i.e. with our finite minds. We inherited the term "worldview" from Kant. This is why Kant is one of the fathers of modernity and phenomenology: since we can not know the "substances" which underlie and organize phenomena, we can only have access to the data patterns concerning the phenomena we perceive. Hence the heavy stress on the physical sciences and the emergence of "evolutionary psychology." Dr. Peterson falls somewhere in this modernist tradition.
I could be wrong but I think Joseph Campbell isn't nearly on the same level as Jung. I don't think anyone was except for Nietschze. Jung dives very deep into Christian theology on many occasions and takes it very seriously.
No I completely agree. Campbell had some great work too, but Jung is Jung. Absolutely on a whole other level. I’ve only touched on Man and His Symbols, Archetypes and the Collective Unconsciousness, and Aion and that has showed me how tiny we are compared to his enormous presence.
If you think Jung "reduced symbolism to psychological forces" then you don't know Jung. Get your hands on a copy of The Red Book (Liber Novus) and enjoy.
Amazing observation, the participatory patterns are something like the conception of Parabolic knowledge in my mind, this was outlined by Mary Kochan and I have been doing some work on the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis discord server on this topic. Fascinating that this seems to be an important and understudied aspect of our ability as humans which we may have lost touch with.
I've never heard JP say that group identities don't exist, I've only heard him say that it's very stupid to order the material world, our legal systems, etc upon them. The problem is, in the fullness of time we exist and operate in the domain of the divine but that is comprised of a series of now moments that only exist in the material realm and in the material realm we are only our individual selves, so our institutions which operate primarily in the material realm should treat us as we primarily appear in the material realm, which is an individual. That's how I understand his position anyway. Use the same body metaphor. If you go to a doctor with a broken hand, you aren't interested in the doctor psychoanalyzing you as to why your hand is broken, you want him to fix the bones. While it is obviously true that your hand exists as a constituent portion of the super-ordinate you; it's not relevant to the now, because in the now, your hand hurts like buggery and you want it fixed. That doesn't change the existence of a greater you however. That was always how I understood JP's position on the matter.
In my head I can hear his voice complaining when "group identity is paramount". That seems to be his objection, for that being the highest thing to look for when forming oneself as a human being. But his liberal capitalist worldview oftentimes views individual identity as paramount, instead of working towards transcendence, as shotinthedark says in this comment section
@12:00mins this is very troublesome; the "higher identities", and how they are argued, in conjunction with the "body of Christ", is a mis-reading of the function of the communion, and a mislabeling over the process of communion itself; which does not have a worldly impact or expression. There are many details to go into here, but, this reliance on "higher identity", is a perennialist corruption of the doctrine, and convolutes spiritual life, within the drama that the world is embroiled in: it is to live within the narrative of the world, foremost, and thereby, to be governed by the God of the World. Fear driven, security seeking worldly power, is just the same as any other worldly dominion, and principality of the air.
I’m not sure if Pageau disagrees with Peterson as much as he thinks on the individual vs collective issue (at least from my perspective). Peterson mentions doing not only what is good for you but also others and community, now and in the long term. He just sees change happening fundamentally at the individual level. I think this lines up quite nicely with the Christian conception that Jonathan was mentioning of individual salvation and then being brought into the unity of Christ.
Jonathan, These are great clips, but I just don’t understand why you keep the answer so vague? You talk about group identity and cosmic patterns but that also lends itself to mystical spiritualism for many. What people need to know clearly is the conclusion, the cosmic reality is the logos manifested in the flesh in Jesus Christ, and the way to participate in the divine nature and be a saint is to join the church and be transformed together with the believers of all times. It’s divisive and challenging language that can be alienating, but I think it’s necessary.
Most people are not well versed in the Bible…. and because the ‘technological or science’ based western world has exited the spiritual world, the Bible goes with it, right out the door. I ONLY started going to Bible studies because my husband was Catholic and interested. The instructor was a literature professor from UCLA, Dr. Bill Creasy (LOGOS Bible Study)…he started teaching and explaining the Old Testament. The fact that Dr. Creasy was a smart academic professor ( and ex marine) made me listen more carefully. I was drawn into the Bible that way. It is a start and a journey into faith and the belief in God….for some it’s not a bolt of lightning. Peterson speaks to those types of people, like me. And then once those parables are loaded into the brain… consciously and unconsciously… they start a thinking process that starts leading many on the path to believing in God. Peterson perfectly fits that niche. He doesn’t have to do more than that. Moses gets the slaves to the Promised Land….but stops there. Then Joshua enters the story! God knows us, and calls us for different jobs!!
@@ryansutherland750 Well not really, it was just a thought of mine when I saw @mutedplum response. But I think I could easily argue that. Jesus identified him as a Jew and exposed the Pharisees who thought of themselves as the purest of the pure Jews as hypocrites. They formed their identity around the Temple, doing the Torah and doing every thing right. But they didn't form relationship with living God and thus neither with the common people. They were in a way a political party that bet all on the religion and traditions because of traditions sake, but not having a real relationship to those traditions.
@@pu3he yeah man, the most interesting part of that story is that they killed him (jesus) for it. Jesus had the ability to fight or run, but he accepted his fate (according to God's will, whatever that means lol) and committed the ultimate sacrifice
Jordan made a great case for the importance and depth of the Bible. As crazy as the modern west has gotten if we could at least agree to not throw the Bible away. That's huge.
How does one come to know ontological Archetypes when they manifest? What you say sounds a lot like the Logoi doctrine or even Plato's theory of forms.
@@aramkaizer7903 that is an intresting idea. I do not know if it works because i have not read Plato enough, but what i can say about ontological archetypes is that they have a divine origin like: hierophany, cratophany, teophanie (i am not sure about the spelling). So, they are the manifestation or direct apperance of the divine.
It would display incredible hubris on my part to think i could offer you a new perspective on carl jungs viewpoint on symbolism etc given your close relationship with JBP but I doubt you'll see this so here i go. I would say yes, i think Jung did regard symbolism, religious experience and the like as psychic manifestations. Saying that is I dont think a false assumption of his ideas, but i would say it is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what he believed the psyche is, which is not just localised in each individual human brain, but all pervasive and fundamental to the cosmos. This is sort of the basis for his ideas around synchronicity. I think this is where you and Jung might agree as the conclusion of this is that symbols, patterns and all the way up to god are psychic factors inextricable from nature.
I find it really strange that Pageau says that “you can’t be a Harry Potter character”... I mean, if we look at it like the rationalist-materialists yeah, but I’m not entranced by movies for their makeup, I am for their characters and cosmic patterns. I don’t see how someone imagining “Be like Thor” isn’t obviously claiming “be courageous” etc etc I don’t see the real difference between that and “Be Christlike” -unless you go as far as to accept bodily resurrection...... Like Peterson, denying it isn’t great, but outright accepting isn’t perfect either
I'm not so sure there is a disagreement. I've struggled to find a church that embodies the principles of Christianity with any consistency. The closest to my way of thinking was the small parish represented in the book "The Cross and the switchblade". Other than that the tribal approach shatters into a myriad of fractured disjointed and bewildering selection of sub optimal choices. Whatever the church is I hope it's built on individuals like Peterson who in spite of his failings embodies the principles that at least draws us in to those deep actions of worshipping truth and beauty... "Fisher of men" and "you will know them by their works" comes to mind. In the face of the many choices we have from Catholics to Jahovas Witnesses their is only confusion in the attempt to embrace a recognizable body of Christ however there are individuals from all walks that encapsulate the spirit of the words written in our most sacred texts. For me Peterson is one of them. Not to be worshipped himself but like John the Baptist pointing to a higher authority and being. I've had my fill of a number of churches who claim ownership of the "truth" with only disappointment by what I see is a lack of embodiment. Peterson is not alone and I think many of us are being transformed by his example and his "belief". I really don't see any of the churches achieving broad softening of hearts to the scale Jordan has.
Since humans are flawed there is no Church of flawless people nor is there supposed to be. We believe the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Universal Apostolic Church not because it's members are flawless but because it keeps the fullness of the faith and thus gives us the full means needed for the lifelong quest of sanctity. I recall someone having quipped: "the Church is like Noah's ark, it's crowded and noisy and probably not the best smell, but it saves you".
@@noianul The "Orthodox Church"? Doesn't compute for me. "You will know them by their works". There's plenty of churches that follow the principles of Christ without as much deep hypocrisy that manifests in those stale institutions that breed pedophilia. The frustration is that "Jehovah's Witnesses" as a group display a better more convincing type of Christianity but just like them you're drawing a line around dead things. Sparks of life perhaps but a place nevertheless of corruption and evil. No wonder it's dying...
@@grantfrith9589 I think you are confusing the Orthodox church with the Catholic church in your accusation. I meant the Eastern Orthodox Church which Jonathan Pageau is part of.
@@noianul No I'm including all the major denominations of which the Catholics are part. Orthodoxy does not appeal as a place to encapsulate a spirit. The different manifestations of it are as confusing as the claim that there is such a thing.
@@grantfrith9589 May I inquire, have you experienced the Orthodox church and found some heavy fault, or what is it that provoqued this sweeping statement? What are its different manifestations that you mention, do you mean the different autonomous churches? For that is only a difference of jurisdiction, the doctrine is the same.
Ah man you have to check out Carl Jung. Youre already insanely gifted when it comes to symbol but Jung is also a symbolic juggernaut. I think you would have alot to gain and build upon
Jung is like seeing colours. Just as its hard to understand colour without seeing colour, its like impossible to judge Jung without reading him. Reading and understanding Jung is itself quite a feat.
Ryan Sutherland Same here, brother. It’s a shame because, at the very least, Jung is insightful and brilliant. Even if he’s brilliantly wrong, I say people should understand his work and point out where he’s wrong. Compared to Freud who was dogmatic, Jung was aware of his own fallibilities and would try to find the holes in his theories for the sake of figuring out whether or not he was right. This, in itself, is something that we could all learn from Jung.
Ryan Sutherland Jung was nothing short of an empirical scientist studying psychological phenomena observed and historical occurrences recorded. He stands somewhat alone in his approach of using scientific methods to study non-physical phenomena. That is why I am so impressed by what he has done.
@@KizaWittaker Yes it does. It just exists. It need not have a mind to project its meaning onto. Symbolism and patterns have inherent artistic value, an inherent beauty. This beauty can be seen by its Creator, without ever being projected onto his mind. Not that altering the mind of God is possible, given that time itself (and hence change) were invented by Him. I am trying to say that reality itself is not relative to our observation.
JBP is a bridge, and he's leading far more people to the church than he is leading away. He's building individuals up to the point that they can participate in the group activities. You are being too sensitive to the potential negative to your doctrine and discounting the actual good he is doing the world
As I was coming into Christianity I came into it from a philosophical angle and the problem I noticed is that as time went on so many intellectuals began to presume an understanding of Christian that’s inherently gnostic. The problem with that is that it isn’t accurate Christianity, it’s dishonest but presumes a causality because it’s more “I n t e l l e c t u a l” but it isn’t. The truth of Christianity is that the depth of it isn’t out of the faith in atheists and agnostics (hehe a gnostic). The truth is in the depth of the faith itself, from the Scriptures to so much from the Patristic Fathers, the Scholastics, and the mystics from both East and Western traditions. That to me is the problem of Peterson, he comes from and presents a view of Christianity that’s just completely false
I'll be blunt and or honest for those obsessed with semantics.. Peterson respected Jung as well as a series of other thinkers from all creeds, philosophical view points and modalities. This is essentially it in terms of the big picture. The blockbuster, the story. Move away from this, and you miss the mark. The mark is just the center. That's it. For those who move beyond this, and assume a superstitious layer of psychological forces, is aesthetically pleasurable, but is otherwise faulty in the final analysis. Yet still, the mob goes witch hunting and seeks the grand mysteries, only to end in misery. For mystery loves company and the group almost always, without proper understanding of self, leads to instinctual automated acts. This is what is the great danger if the self isn't cultivated first. But now we speak of limitations. Hard and painful truths. Complications arising in the environment. Movements beyond our control. Here, the devil will play you a dirty trick. And lead you to hamster wheel. At this point, transcendence is key, aka, phenomenology, the method in which one can begin reflecting and formulating his or her own worldview. What is, the subjective. But also universal when taking into account archetypes. This is empowering and essential. Good and beautiful. The soul. I am puzzled at the intense projections to refuse such great gifts. To believe that it is better to destroy someone who sacraficed the proper way. As if sacrafice was truly still an act of cannibalism. This is not only grotesque, but beyond strange. A game gone too far. Active imagination at it's peek cynicism & corruption. That is what must be transcended, in order to be truly free. Except, once that's transcendent, you have to start over which ofcourse, offends ,disenchants and humbles the sjw. It is so sad to me. So insurmountably sad. Instead of family tables they join brotherhoods that act like gangs. They do everything backwards. Personally, it seems this will be the death of me. But I'm staying in Chicago, because I refuse to have tribalism infect progress. I suppose that means I am a witch now. Or a white man. Or a Eurepean. Or a christian with mystical powers. Or I'm funded by a political party or establishment. The consequence of the lack self-reflection, leads to Pandemonium. Which not only sickens the spine but harnesses the power of evil, which is just the return back to a slavery that is mental intentionally on grounds soly on aesthetical pleasure. But the process is so absurd and ridiculous. To justify yourself due to the perception someone else is doing it, is like falling off a bridge created FOR YOU. It is heart sickness to me. A rash on the cheek. It is pure embarrassment and shame. But I am less and less afraid and more and more bitter. Which will lead me to stay inside and fortify. While these punks attempt to ravage the city. I'm a death metal guy but dont trip about it. Luis Armstrong was on my playlist and so were rappers who you seem to be cosplaying to no ends. (You know who you are dear reader) Therefore I will cosplay the philosopher and become one, so as to match you formerly and properly. We will see who comes out a savage, and who comes out the disheartened captain of a ship which was sunk by pirates masquerading as activists.
If “it” is not “in” the Bible, the question for me is the wisdom or reality of “it” present in creation, whether it’s pointed to directly, indirectly, or not at all. If something is revealed as a true reality does it necessarily have to be in scripture to be “true”?...
It is in the Bible. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. our english translation often uses the word “Word” instead of the original greek Logos.
"i haven't read jung, but i read some joseph campbell in college, but i don't fully understand jung" quoth everyone who doesn't understand jung. in other news, i played t-ball in elementary school so i don't fully understand baseball. how could i? i've only played t-ball.
Rather than be possessive of jung, and stung by anyone who doesn’t put him on a pedestal, why dont you actually interact with the meat of what he’s saying. Splitting hairs much. Mine for the value in things. There’s a wealth of interesting information in this regardless of if he’s a bit dismissive of jung.
@@cicerogsuphoesdown7723 i'm not posessive of jung. i'm posessive of wisdom, and i don't like people who are "a bit dismissive" of people who they clearly don't understand. of course there is a lot of wisdom here, otherwise i wouldn't be here. that doesn't mean i shouldn't criticize dismissive bullshit when i see it. oh, and i'll interact with the meat when i want to and the hairs when i want to. in this case, i think the meat is mostly good, but the hair is rank. your comment however, is neither appropriate, intelligent, nor welcome. fuck off.
Psychedelics should stay a secular practice in a Christian context. The main problem with psychedelics is the high probability of one falling under prelest or delusion. Or at worst demonic attack.
I did the psychedelics. As an american protestant looking for something deeper. Shrooms, acid, ayahuasca and lots of weed. It took me on an adventure through, esoteric alchemy, egyptian magic, the Golden Dawn, shamanism, hinduism, buddhism, Reiki, and finally landed me in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which also happens to be the oldest and original Christian practice, and which is something to be experienced in person more so than read about. I’ve noticed it gives each individual the rightly proportioned dose of mystical experience they need for where they are at but without the drugs.
JBP was most definitely a pipeline to christianity for me, a former (aggressive) atheist!
Right on!
Me too 😁
Looking back, what would you say were your struggles and what were some examples and reasons to your aggressiveness?
I ask only so that I may understand the atheist worldview better.
@@redpilledtrooper7523 I didn't know any christians (I'm Dutch) and so my view of them was solely made by dumb caricatures I saw in movies. I thought they were stupid and to soothe my own ego I had to believe I was better than them and therefore not believe what they believed.
So it had nothing to do with logic at all, in fact I had never even thought about the idea of God. But once I hear JBP's lectures and ideas I had no choice but to think about it. So then after a year of hearing from him and others like Jonathan Pageau and what christianity does to people in their testimonies I started praying for something I desperately needed at the time and God delivered. There was no going back after that.
same
Jordan Peterson seems to be on the verge of accepting the grace to not resist Christianity. This is difficult for him, being the thinker that he is. He did not know it but he always had a yearning for something. It had put him on a lifetime search through study. The experience of God’s grace, recognizing it for what it is and acknowledging it requires still more grace. Trust in one’s intuition and one’s own experience of the truth and love of Christ.
I convinced myself that I was an atheist until I found Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Pageau and 'The Bible project'.
Good luck on the new road !
7:08 King Cyrus, for anyone wondering; he's referenced him before in the same context.
Hardly. Lobsterman is the farcical version of King Leer. Being under the domination of his crazy daughter with her life-threatening diets. And her crazier husband who claims to be possessed by a demon named Igor.
Thanks! Was about to Google it.
Kathy Newman, is that you? Or at least you must be a writer for the cusmption of the mainstream culture.
"So what you're saying is..."
Lobsterman..fractal version of; under domination of...his crazy daughter...life-threatening diets...her crazier husband possessed by a demon..
At least provide criticism that is based on our experience of the situation.
Thanks, was about to say.
The first man do let the Jews resettle the Holy land.
Half a year ago I got convinced that Orthodoxy is true, and yesterday I was officially accepted as a catechumen. One of the things I'm slowly beginning to understand is how important group identity is, and that the people in my parish are not simply fellow attendees, but that I need to learn to understand that we fundamentally share our lives in a way that extends our earthly reality. I am quite excited about this, coming out of several decades of fundamentalist individualism, and having found no answers there, because as an individual I am nothing more than a speck of dust which is barely even there and that, as an individual, will never be remembered. It would be like never having existed. I could not understand why to live while inside that world view. It wasn't even that I was suicidal (although it could've ended up there eventually), it's that I just could not understand anything about being alive. It made no sense. Now I'm beginning to understand that my life is a part of Christ's life. And not just my own life, but that of everyone I share my life with. The ramifications are huge, still too much for me to understand, which just emphasizes that there's so much substance there! Before this I had nothing! Praise be to God, Who saves.
Thank you for this thought! I certainly have lacked this
I’m on a similar journey. Thanks for sharing
And now, 7 months later, Jordan is right on the edge of conversion.
All paths lead to Christ
The persistent opposition of the individual and the group is a consequence of forgetting the transcendent. It is not that the individual participates in the group, he participates in the transcendent and becomes part of the group which is united around the same identity. Christ served his community by serving that which transcends the community. In following his example, we become both more individual (i.e. fuller persons with virtues not conditioned on the rest of the community) and more united to the community which is also growing up, individually, "into the head." The church, for example, has this "fractal" structure in which each member has an immediate access to the "indwelling" spirit that also binds each member intimately with those also indwelt. Christ, as an individual, contains the fullness of God, and those who serve God are the members of his body. There is no other solution. Forgetting the transcendent results in tribalism or social atomism.
shotinthedark90 Yes. And Jesus is Lord and head of both Body and the individual members.
That last sentence is quite prescient. We seem to be spiraling into the abyss.
Well put sir
It’s funny to me that you told Jordan he was bringing back Christianity. For me, he literally did. His biblical lectures were what brought me back to Christ and the Bible. I’ve gone beyond merely appreciating the psychological significance of the stories as he does-the mystical and practical aspects of Christianity are just as important to me, though my views on it are far from orthodox.
Jordan Petersons biblical series brought me out of Atheism and into Christianity.
Pageau, thank you for sharing your insights.
It really did put a lot of pieces in a better order
It might not hold as it is, but before listening to JP I was calling myself a Christian agnostic, and afterwards a Christian. (Many other things happened in between and after)
1:48
Joseph Cambpbell. Hero's journey is an interesting way to manifest a pattern, that is universal. I think it can't be limited in the way he presented it. I think the U shaped pattern is something which is manifested in everything, from breathing to your hertbeat to narrative to struck all kinds of family structure.
• Hero's Journey: This classic framework sees a protagonist go on an adventure, face challenges, and transform. Think of myths, fantasy, and coming-of- age stories.
Weirdly, Hindu & Buddhist teachings were the source that first taught me that individualism AND group identity are both absolutely necessary, but they need to have their proper place in the hierarchy for it to be right.
I guess my point is there seem to be multiple bridges towards Christianity.
Maybe all bridges, over time, lead to Christianity; the length of the path may vary with which bridge we use ^^
God is truth, therefore any path that you may take will lead you to Christ if you are seeking for truth. Sparks of it may be found in many places but you will eventually come to realize their errors and limitations if you are earnestly seeking for the one truth that is only fulfilled in Christ.
@@user-tp7wi4lt2b Makes sense to me; as much as any words can properly describe God & all his greatness.
This is why I think Vervaeke has articulated a more balanced view of things. He gets that we to need a dynamic relationship between radical individualism and radical collectivism.
radical collectivism on whose terms?
the problem with collectivism is that it forces outliers to comply. you can't have both of these forces operating simultaneously. either you empower the individual or you empower the group and repress the individual. take your shot, but there is only one functional answer.. this has been tried already.
@@notloki3377 Incorrect, you can have both of those forces operating simultaneously.
The tension between opposites is pretty much what gives humans and culture its identity. Masculine and feminine being a big one. The big five personality traits being another.
You don't have to suppress one or the other you can ride the balance.
@@notloki3377 Incorrect. You are born to a father and mother. From day one the individual and the collective are in harmony. Don't get caught up in false dialectics. Radical individualism is just as destructive as radical collectivism, if not more so. It leads to a complete destruction of Truth, and relativism becomes the norm.
Thanks as always for your insights!
Thanks for tuning in on this one David!
This is absolute gold. It places so many things in context
Jordan stands outside the door, unwilling to go through it himself, but pointing to it for others outside and says, look here, there is something worth thinking about.
Yeah but in the past year or so i feel he is chaging he may not have entered the door fully but he definitly is half way there, you can see that he his way more open to the idea of a truly metaphysical divine being (God) ever since he got better from his sickness. God
1:00 I don't follow the reason why Jung gives Jonathan a bad vibe. I can guess that Jonathan doesn't like Freud very much, but Jung worked with Freud only for a relatively short time (6 years) earlier in his life. They never met again after 1913 and Jung went into a very different, far more mystical direction until his death in 1961. All the work he is best known for today happened after his break with Freud.
I would find it much more understandable if Jonathan said that he doesn't like Jung's take on Christianity or the rumors that Jung may have dabbled in occult practices, but Freud had nothing to do with any of that.
>[Jung]...to reduce symbolism to psychological forces
There.
Christians don't like the Real World nor the Synthesis of it with the "Spirit" world.
They like it separated.
Moreover Psychoanalisis, like Philosophy seeks to leave behind "belief", something paramount to Abrahamics, for Gnosis/ Knowledge.
Carl Jung's quest is one of Self Knowledge, to comprehend; "Know Thyself" something that is missing from Christianity, that is based on Religion.
@@sonofnike2800 What phenomenological difference is there between psychological and spiritual forces? Neither are material, yet they obviously interact with the material world.
@@jay_13875
Genetic---->Social--->cultural----->spirtual
@@jay_13875
None.
Jordan Peterson changed my life dramatically when I heard him teach about the rule "Tell the truth - or at least don't lie."
Interestingly enough, unlike many others, I went from Christianity to agnostic atheism sort of "against my will" because I applied that rule to my faith. Since then, I've found much inspiration and instruction from Buddhism and now I'm exploring Stoicism.
I became more independent and honest with my convictions, and no longer was satisfied with taking things merely by faith coupled with smart rationalisations.
1:15 Yet when I point out that the soul possesses by nature a religious function, and when I stipulate that it is the prime task of all education (of adults) to convey the archetype of the God-image, or its emanations and effects, to the conscious mind, then it is precisely the theologian who seizes me by the arm and accuses me of "psychologism." But were it not a fact of experience that supreme values reside in the soul, psychology would not interest me in the least, for the soul would then be nothing but a miserable vapour. I know, however, from hundredfold experience that it is nothing of the sort, but on the contrary contains the equivalents of everything that has been formulated in dogma and a good deal more, which is just what enables it to be an eye destined to behold the light. This requires limitless range and unfathomable depth of vision. I have been accused of "deifying the soul." Not I but God himself has deified it! I did not attribute a religious function to the soul, I merely produced the facts which prove that the soul is naturaliter religiosa, i.e., possesses a religious function. I did not invent or insinuate this function, it produces itself of its own accord without being prompted thereto by any opinions or suggestions of mine. With a truly tragic delusion these theologians fail to see that it is not a matter of proving the existence of the light, but of blind people who do not know that their eyes could see. It is high time we realized that it is pointless to praise the light and preach it if nobody can see it. It is much more needful to teach people the art of seeing. For it is obvious that far too many people are incapable of establishing a connection between the sacred figures and their own psyche: they cannot see to what extent the equivalent images are lying dormant in their own unconscious. ~ CG Jung CW12 pp 14
Yet Jung´s concept of God never exceeded the domain of the human psyche, he never claimed the existence of God independent of man.
@@user-tp7wi4lt2b That doesn't mean that the above observation of his is inaccurate.
Even the greatest of minds have their blind spots. We are all human.
@@punchforpound2808 Jung was an evolutionist
JBP was a pipeline or a catalyst, so to speak, for me to return to the Catholic Church. Mr. Pageau has been incredibly helpful, as well, since JBP hasn't completed his journey, himself.
Same here! Though more Christianity than Catholicism per se
@@alvareo92 Well i feel like apostolic Christianity is where it's at and everything else feels very incomplete, whether it's Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy (or any other Orthodox Church) though that's a whole other conversation for yourself to have
"Man is the microcosm of the macrocosm; the God on earth is built on the pattern of the God in nature." - Carl Jung
This was originally from Plato, dude. Jung wasn't innovative on this point.
@@panokostouros7609 Not crediting it to him, just pointing out that he seems to have ultimately not believed that God is reducible to mere psychological phenomenon, although I haven't read him myself either
Jung was a Platonist, but also a Kantian. Kant's formulation of the transcendent is agnostic, as he thought no knowledge of the "noumenal" could be obtained, whereas the Platonic "forms" can be seen as organizational principles of experience. Which is to say, Jungian "archetypes" are only nominally Platonic by virtue of being reduced to the structure of human consciousness, as opposed to Being itself. We see "the gods" in our experience of the world, not because they are really "in" or even "above" the world, but because of the manner in which we perceive, i.e. with our finite minds. We inherited the term "worldview" from Kant. This is why Kant is one of the fathers of modernity and phenomenology: since we can not know the "substances" which underlie and organize phenomena, we can only have access to the data patterns concerning the phenomena we perceive. Hence the heavy stress on the physical sciences and the emergence of "evolutionary psychology." Dr. Peterson falls somewhere in this modernist tradition.
This sounds hermetical
This is found in many ancient traditions, including ancient Christianity.
I could be wrong but I think Joseph Campbell isn't nearly on the same level as Jung. I don't think anyone was except for Nietschze. Jung dives very deep into Christian theology on many occasions and takes it very seriously.
No I completely agree. Campbell had some great work too, but Jung is Jung. Absolutely on a whole other level. I’ve only touched on Man and His Symbols, Archetypes and the Collective Unconsciousness, and Aion and that has showed me how tiny we are compared to his enormous presence.
If you think Jung "reduced symbolism to psychological forces" then you don't know Jung. Get your hands on a copy of The Red Book (Liber Novus) and enjoy.
9:12 - good point
Jung and Campbell are powerhouses in my opinion.treasures of the 20th century.
Amazing observation, the participatory patterns are something like the conception of Parabolic knowledge in my mind, this was outlined by Mary Kochan and I have been doing some work on the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis discord server on this topic. Fascinating that this seems to be an important and understudied aspect of our ability as humans which we may have lost touch with.
Keep up the good work mates!
I've never heard JP say that group identities don't exist, I've only heard him say that it's very stupid to order the material world, our legal systems, etc upon them. The problem is, in the fullness of time we exist and operate in the domain of the divine but that is comprised of a series of now moments that only exist in the material realm and in the material realm we are only our individual selves, so our institutions which operate primarily in the material realm should treat us as we primarily appear in the material realm, which is an individual.
That's how I understand his position anyway. Use the same body metaphor. If you go to a doctor with a broken hand, you aren't interested in the doctor psychoanalyzing you as to why your hand is broken, you want him to fix the bones. While it is obviously true that your hand exists as a constituent portion of the super-ordinate you; it's not relevant to the now, because in the now, your hand hurts like buggery and you want it fixed. That doesn't change the existence of a greater you however. That was always how I understood JP's position on the matter.
In my head I can hear his voice complaining when "group identity is paramount". That seems to be his objection, for that being the highest thing to look for when forming oneself as a human being. But his liberal capitalist worldview oftentimes views individual identity as paramount, instead of working towards transcendence, as shotinthedark says in this comment section
@12:00mins this is very troublesome; the "higher identities", and how they are argued, in conjunction with the "body of Christ", is a mis-reading of the function of the communion, and a mislabeling over the process of communion itself; which does not have a worldly impact or expression.
There are many details to go into here, but, this reliance on "higher identity", is a perennialist corruption of the doctrine, and convolutes spiritual life, within the drama that the world is embroiled in: it is to live within the narrative of the world, foremost, and thereby, to be governed by the God of the World. Fear driven, security seeking worldly power, is just the same as any other worldly dominion, and principality of the air.
I’m not sure if Pageau disagrees with Peterson as much as he thinks on the individual vs collective issue (at least from my perspective). Peterson mentions doing not only what is good for you but also others and community, now and in the long term. He just sees change happening fundamentally at the individual level. I think this lines up quite nicely with the Christian conception that Jonathan was mentioning of individual salvation and then being brought into the unity of Christ.
The wheat and the tares must be separated at some point. Maybe now.
Ya, by Christ. Not us, our job is to try and be wheat.
I think Jordan definitely accounts for group identity, but he just draws the line and argues whether group or individual identity is more important.
Is he secularizing, or explicit-izing...
Jonathan, These are great clips, but I just don’t understand why you keep the answer so vague? You talk about group identity and cosmic patterns but that also lends itself to mystical spiritualism for many. What people need to know clearly is the conclusion, the cosmic reality is the logos manifested in the flesh in Jesus Christ, and the way to participate in the divine nature and be a saint is to join the church and be transformed together with the believers of all times. It’s divisive and challenging language that can be alienating, but I think it’s necessary.
Most people are not well versed in the Bible…. and because the ‘technological or science’ based western world has exited the spiritual world, the Bible goes with it, right out the door. I ONLY started going to Bible studies because my husband was Catholic and interested. The instructor was a literature professor from UCLA, Dr. Bill Creasy (LOGOS Bible Study)…he started teaching and explaining the Old Testament. The fact that Dr. Creasy was a smart academic professor ( and ex marine) made me listen more carefully. I was drawn into the Bible that way. It is a start and a journey into faith and the belief in God….for some it’s not a bolt of lightning. Peterson speaks to those types of people, like me. And then once those parables are loaded into the brain… consciously and unconsciously… they start a thinking process that starts leading many on the path to believing in God. Peterson perfectly fits that niche. He doesn’t have to do more than that. Moses gets the slaves to the Promised Land….but stops there. Then Joshua enters the story! God knows us, and calls us for different jobs!!
12:43 wasn't Jesus a radical individual that prevailed against the group identity of the time?
Yep. He protested peacefully and was killed
Actually no, he collided with the identitarians of the time, the Pharisees.
@@pu3he interesting. Could you please source this? As it sounds educational
@@ryansutherland750 Well not really, it was just a thought of mine when I saw @mutedplum response. But I think I could easily argue that. Jesus identified him as a Jew and exposed the Pharisees who thought of themselves as the purest of the pure Jews as hypocrites. They formed their identity around the Temple, doing the Torah and doing every thing right. But they didn't form relationship with living God and thus neither with the common people. They were in a way a political party that bet all on the religion and traditions because of traditions sake, but not having a real relationship to those traditions.
@@pu3he yeah man, the most interesting part of that story is that they killed him (jesus) for it. Jesus had the ability to fight or run, but he accepted his fate (according to God's will, whatever that means lol) and committed the ultimate sacrifice
Jordan made a great case for the importance and depth of the Bible. As crazy as the modern west has gotten if we could at least agree to not throw the Bible away. That's huge.
J.p was talking about these things in the 80s
You shouldn’t judge Carl Jung without reading him. Carl Jung stands alone.
I have read a good amount of Jung. I don’t find him all that helpful. Reading and understanding the Bible is what has produced good fruit in my life
1:40 there are psychological archetypes and there are ontological archetypes. I recomand reading Mircea Eliade
How does one come to know ontological Archetypes when they manifest? What you say sounds a lot like the Logoi doctrine or even Plato's theory of forms.
@@aramkaizer7903 that is an intresting idea. I do not know if it works because i have not read Plato enough, but what i can say about ontological archetypes is that they have a divine origin like: hierophany, cratophany, teophanie (i am not sure about the spelling). So, they are the manifestation or direct apperance of the divine.
It would display incredible hubris on my part to think i could offer you a new perspective on carl jungs viewpoint on symbolism etc given your close relationship with JBP but I doubt you'll see this so here i go. I would say yes, i think Jung did regard symbolism, religious experience and the like as psychic manifestations. Saying that is I dont think a false assumption of his ideas, but i would say it is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what he believed the psyche is, which is not just localised in each individual human brain, but all pervasive and fundamental to the cosmos. This is sort of the basis for his ideas around synchronicity. I think this is where you and Jung might agree as the conclusion of this is that symbols, patterns and all the way up to god are psychic factors inextricable from nature.
What is secular Christianity?
An attempt to intellectualise the mystery that Is Christ. Its a stumbling block to true life changing faith
He should really really read carl jung he would be pleasantly surprised
I find it really strange that Pageau says that “you can’t be a Harry Potter character”... I mean, if we look at it like the rationalist-materialists yeah, but I’m not entranced by movies for their makeup, I am for their characters and cosmic patterns. I don’t see how someone imagining “Be like Thor” isn’t obviously claiming “be courageous” etc etc I don’t see the real difference between that and “Be Christlike” -unless you go as far as to accept bodily resurrection...... Like Peterson, denying it isn’t great, but outright accepting isn’t perfect either
I appreciate your reasoning here
Cyrus?
I'm not so sure there is a disagreement. I've struggled to find a church that embodies the principles of Christianity with any consistency. The closest to my way of thinking was the small parish represented in the book "The Cross and the switchblade". Other than that the tribal approach shatters into a myriad of fractured disjointed and bewildering selection of sub optimal choices.
Whatever the church is I hope it's built on individuals like Peterson who in spite of his failings embodies the principles that at least draws us in to those deep actions of worshipping truth and beauty... "Fisher of men" and "you will know them by their works" comes to mind.
In the face of the many choices we have from Catholics to Jahovas Witnesses their is only confusion in the attempt to embrace a recognizable body of Christ however there are individuals from all walks that encapsulate the spirit of the words written in our most sacred texts. For me Peterson is one of them. Not to be worshipped himself but like John the Baptist pointing to a higher authority and being.
I've had my fill of a number of churches who claim ownership of the "truth" with only disappointment by what I see is a lack of embodiment. Peterson is not alone and I think many of us are being transformed by his example and his "belief".
I really don't see any of the churches achieving broad softening of hearts to the scale Jordan has.
Since humans are flawed there is no Church of flawless people nor is there supposed to be. We believe the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Universal Apostolic Church not because it's members are flawless but because it keeps the fullness of the faith and thus gives us the full means needed for the lifelong quest of sanctity. I recall someone having quipped: "the Church is like Noah's ark, it's crowded and noisy and probably not the best smell, but it saves you".
@@noianul The "Orthodox Church"?
Doesn't compute for me. "You will know them by their works".
There's plenty of churches that follow the principles of Christ without as much deep hypocrisy that manifests in those stale institutions that breed pedophilia. The frustration is that "Jehovah's Witnesses" as a group display a better more convincing type of Christianity but just like them you're drawing a line around dead things. Sparks of life perhaps but a place nevertheless of corruption and evil. No wonder it's dying...
@@grantfrith9589 I think you are confusing the Orthodox church with the Catholic church in your accusation. I meant the Eastern Orthodox Church which Jonathan Pageau is part of.
@@noianul No I'm including all the major denominations of which the Catholics are part. Orthodoxy does not appeal as a place to encapsulate a spirit. The different manifestations of it are as confusing as the claim that there is such a thing.
@@grantfrith9589 May I inquire, have you experienced the Orthodox church and found some heavy fault, or what is it that provoqued this sweeping statement? What are its different manifestations that you mention, do you mean the different autonomous churches? For that is only a difference of jurisdiction, the doctrine is the same.
Peterson reduced religion to merely the best tool that helps explain the human condition.
Ah man you have to check out Carl Jung. Youre already insanely gifted when it comes to symbol but Jung is also a symbolic juggernaut. I think you would have alot to gain and build upon
This guys should probably confront Jung. It would radically improve his conceptualization, as Jung is THE GUY for symbolism
Jung is like seeing colours. Just as its hard to understand colour without seeing colour, its like impossible to judge Jung without reading him. Reading and understanding Jung is itself quite a feat.
@@nickbosman5 I agree. All the people i hear who are skeptical and overtly critical seem to not have read much if any of his works
Ryan Sutherland Same here, brother. It’s a shame because, at the very least, Jung is insightful and brilliant. Even if he’s brilliantly wrong, I say people should understand his work and point out where he’s wrong. Compared to Freud who was dogmatic, Jung was aware of his own fallibilities and would try to find the holes in his theories for the sake of figuring out whether or not he was right. This, in itself, is something that we could all learn from Jung.
Hmm, my hope is that all the ideas of science and of spirit can combine, properly
Ryan Sutherland Jung was nothing short of an empirical scientist studying psychological phenomena observed and historical occurrences recorded. He stands somewhat alone in his approach of using scientific methods to study non-physical phenomena. That is why I am so impressed by what he has done.
“Reduce symbolism to psychological forces”
What the heck else could they be?
Narrative reality, Logos made manifest. In Christianity, symbolism is real, and reality exists independent of the mind.
@@Jupiter__001_ Symbolism does not exist without a pysche to project the meaning onto it.
@@KizaWittaker Yes it does. It just exists. It need not have a mind to project its meaning onto. Symbolism and patterns have inherent artistic value, an inherent beauty. This beauty can be seen by its Creator, without ever being projected onto his mind.
Not that altering the mind of God is possible, given that time itself (and hence change) were invented by Him.
I am trying to say that reality itself is not relative to our observation.
@@Jupiter__001_ Those are patterns, not symbols.
@@KizaWittaker The distinction is irrelevant.
JBP is a bridge, and he's leading far more people to the church than he is leading away. He's building individuals up to the point that they can participate in the group activities. You are being too sensitive to the potential negative to your doctrine and discounting the actual good he is doing the world
As I was coming into Christianity I came into it from a philosophical angle and the problem I noticed is that as time went on so many intellectuals began to presume an understanding of Christian that’s inherently gnostic. The problem with that is that it isn’t accurate Christianity, it’s dishonest but presumes a causality because it’s more “I n t e l l e c t u a l” but it isn’t. The truth of Christianity is that the depth of it isn’t out of the faith in atheists and agnostics (hehe a gnostic). The truth is in the depth of the faith itself, from the Scriptures to so much from the Patristic Fathers, the Scholastics, and the mystics from both East and Western traditions. That to me is the problem of Peterson, he comes from and presents a view of Christianity that’s just completely false
👀
I'll be blunt and or honest for those obsessed with semantics..
Peterson respected Jung as well as a series of other thinkers from all creeds, philosophical view points and modalities.
This is essentially it in terms of the big picture. The blockbuster, the story.
Move away from this, and you miss the mark.
The mark is just the center.
That's it.
For those who move beyond this, and assume a superstitious layer of psychological forces, is aesthetically pleasurable, but is otherwise faulty in the final analysis.
Yet still, the mob goes witch hunting and seeks the grand mysteries, only to end in misery.
For mystery loves company and the group almost always, without proper understanding of self, leads to instinctual automated acts. This is what is the great danger if the self isn't cultivated first.
But now we speak of limitations. Hard and painful truths. Complications arising in the environment. Movements beyond our control. Here, the devil will play you a dirty trick. And lead you to hamster wheel. At this point, transcendence is key, aka, phenomenology, the method in which one can begin reflecting and formulating his or her own worldview.
What is, the subjective. But also universal when taking into account archetypes.
This is empowering and essential. Good and beautiful. The soul.
I am puzzled at the intense projections to refuse such great gifts. To believe that it is better to destroy someone who sacraficed the proper way.
As if sacrafice was truly still an act of cannibalism.
This is not only grotesque, but beyond strange. A game gone too far. Active imagination at it's peek cynicism & corruption.
That is what must be transcended, in order to be truly free.
Except, once that's transcendent, you have to start over which ofcourse, offends ,disenchants and humbles the sjw.
It is so sad to me. So insurmountably sad. Instead of family tables they join brotherhoods that act like gangs. They do everything backwards.
Personally, it seems this will be the death of me. But I'm staying in Chicago, because I refuse to have tribalism infect progress.
I suppose that means I am a witch now. Or a white man. Or a Eurepean. Or a christian with mystical powers.
Or I'm funded by a political party or establishment.
The consequence of the lack self-reflection, leads to Pandemonium. Which not only sickens the spine but harnesses the power of evil, which is just the return back to a slavery that is mental intentionally on grounds soly on aesthetical pleasure.
But the process is so absurd and ridiculous. To justify yourself due to the perception someone else is doing it, is like falling off a bridge created FOR YOU.
It is heart sickness to me. A rash on the cheek. It is pure embarrassment and shame.
But I am less and less afraid and more and more bitter.
Which will lead me to stay inside and fortify. While these punks attempt to ravage the city.
I'm a death metal guy but dont trip about it. Luis Armstrong was on my playlist and so were rappers who you seem to be cosplaying to no ends. (You know who you are dear reader)
Therefore I will cosplay the philosopher and become one, so as to match you formerly and properly.
We will see who comes out a savage, and who comes out the disheartened captain of a ship which was sunk by pirates masquerading as activists.
I am trying to understand how jonathan always brings up logos. It is not in the Bible so how does he justify using this spiritual concept
If “it” is not “in” the Bible, the question for me is the wisdom or reality of “it” present in creation, whether it’s pointed to directly, indirectly, or not at all. If something is revealed as a true reality does it necessarily have to be in scripture to be “true”?...
It's not in the Bible? Are you sure about that? Have you read John 1:1?
@@bradleyheissmann4538
Lmao. Yeah the main comment makes little sense. The Bible always implied that Christ is present in all things as the Word.
@@bradleyheissmann4538
Lmao. Yeah the main comment makes little sense. The Bible always implied that Christ was present in all things as the Word.
It is in the Bible. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
our english translation often uses the word “Word” instead of the original greek Logos.
"i haven't read jung, but i read some joseph campbell in college, but i don't fully understand jung"
quoth everyone who doesn't understand jung.
in other news, i played t-ball in elementary school so i don't fully understand baseball. how could i? i've only played t-ball.
Rather than be possessive of jung, and stung by anyone who doesn’t put him on a pedestal, why dont you actually interact with the meat of what he’s saying.
Splitting hairs much. Mine for the value in things. There’s a wealth of interesting information in this regardless of if he’s a bit dismissive of jung.
@@cicerogsuphoesdown7723 i'm not posessive of jung. i'm posessive of wisdom, and i don't like people who are "a bit dismissive" of people who they clearly don't understand.
of course there is a lot of wisdom here, otherwise i wouldn't be here. that doesn't mean i shouldn't criticize dismissive bullshit when i see it.
oh, and i'll interact with the meat when i want to and the hairs when i want to. in this case, i think the meat is mostly good, but the hair is rank. your comment however, is neither appropriate, intelligent, nor welcome. fuck off.
Bring psychedelics into Christianity. I'm dead serious. It would be a hit!
Psychedelics should stay a secular practice in a Christian context. The main problem with psychedelics is the high probability of one falling under prelest or delusion. Or at worst demonic attack.
@@aramkaizer7903 Yeah you gotta be cautious. Maybe Christians should instead do them a little bit here and there and just never tell each other.
I did the psychedelics. As an american protestant looking for something deeper. Shrooms, acid, ayahuasca and lots of weed. It took me on an adventure through, esoteric alchemy, egyptian magic, the Golden Dawn, shamanism, hinduism, buddhism, Reiki, and finally landed me in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which also happens to be the oldest and original Christian practice, and which is something to be experienced in person more so than read about. I’ve noticed it gives each individual the rightly proportioned dose of mystical experience they need for where they are at but without the drugs.
Hit and run...over.