2016 Lecture 08 Maps of Meaning: Part I: Hierarchies and chaos
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 бер 2016
- A value hierarchy is (1) the manner in which mind meets world; (2) a story, or a story of stories; (3) explored territory; (4) an interiorized cognitive structure based in motivation, that determines perception and emotion; (4) a collaboration between the individual, nature and culture; (5) the mechanism that regulates hope and anxiety.
-- SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL --
Direct Support: www.jordanbpeterson.com/donate
Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/jordanbp...
-- BOOKS --
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
-- LINKS --
Website: jordanbpeterson.com/
12 Rules for Life Tour: jordanbpeterson.com/events/
Blog: jordanbpeterson.com/blog/
Podcast: jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/
Reading List: jordanbpeterson.com/great-books/
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
-- PRODUCTS --
Personality Course: www.jordanbpeterson.com/perso...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com/
Understand Myself personality test: understandmyself.com/
Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/jordanbp...
He has one of the most brilliant minds in modern era.
Wow. This lecture was one helluva ride. Makes you kind of envious of the students, but also grateful for Peterson to make these public.
The idea that people who went through chaos need to start getting back into the feeling of being in control of their life got to be the most amazing thing I heard this year.
It also explains why people fall into procrastination. Procrastination in itself is focusing on getting pleasure NOW instead of caring about LATER. So they do try to focus on what they can affect right this moment, but as an attempt to mitigate negative feelings they crank the self-indulgence up to 11.
This is exactly the sort of discussion that needs to be had about how we manage government and economics.
This lessons really does change your own life in some ways. REally thank you for your generosity prof. Peterson! I wish every courses that exist would be free to watch like this.
Over recent months I must have watched scores of hours of Dr Peterson, including going to one of his personal appearances locally, and yet these lectures still stun me all the time, with undiscovered and previously unappreciated (by me) aspects of what it means to be a biological entity interacting with the world. They're just wonderful.
Very intrigued by your lectures. Please re-upload the second part of Lecture 8.
This series is probably my favorite
what you're talking about with the "alternate futures" in the job interview sounds exactly like the 4th dimensional vision in the book Dune. It called something like a job interview a "nexus point" and they had the annoying property of obscuring the 4th dimensional future vision because too much depended on their outcome so you couldn't see anything past them.
Wow - I've watched so much of what you do, and this episode simply had some poignant and profound statements that just reach into the core of my being and understanding. Continued thanks for opening up the world of life to me.
Where is the second part? I need it! Just baked some cinnamon cake and hoped it magically appears.
Very enlightening point -It's not that you learn how to be unafraid of the things that frighten you, you learn you are tougher than you think you are.
the segment about the positive illusion theory was really stimulating, thanks for sharing
The only bad thing about this lecture are the adverts that manifest themselves half way through an example or thought concept
Thank you for posting this. Excellent
The Burns poem is, "To a Louse, On Seeing one on a Lady’s Bonnet at Church".
Thank you! Great to know that there are poetry savvy folks among JBP's listeners.
I really, REALLY need the 2nd part of this lecutre. Pretty please?
Thanks in advance. Have a wonderful year, professor!
So thankful to Dr Peterson. His videos helped me get through my divorce.
He has helped me think more deeply and has helped me to see more clearly the reasons why I act how I do in the world.
This in turn has helped me to change my behavior in positive ways. I have developed my capability to be someone to contend with when people cross certain boundaries. This has made a huge difference in my life. I used to think that being a peacemaker was the best way to behave in all circumstances. But sometimes life calls for bravery and toughness. I would point to Jesus turning over the tables at the temple.
I believe that you are a force for good in the world, Dr Peterson. Thank you.
45:46. Damn! Mind blown!
reminds me of a line from Leonard Cohen's song "last years man" --
And when we fell together all our flesh was like a veil
that I had to draw aside to see
the serpent eat its tail.
Could you republish part II? Also what is the autobiography assignment? Everyone writes an anonymous autobiography and then others comment on it?
Haven't yet completely watched the video, but I have to say something that keeps popping up in my head through the first 20 minutes of the video. This can be applied to the interview, car, fire, etc. scenarios. Your picture of what is going on mentally here for the human being I think is, you assume its objective. Now, I can already intuit that you might say that, of course, this is all going on at a subconscious level. Naturally we wouldnt conduct these kinds of anxious analyses on the spot. In any case, they would be running like a movie reel somewhere in the back of our minds, while our outer self is focused on taking in detail from the present. This I think refers to what you were leaning at particularly in the fire example, our two modes of being: the parasympathetic and the sympathetic. While there are some who would balk at all of the possibilities present in a critical scenario, there are those who, when presented with such a situation actually close on all of those possibilities- instead focusing on the most intense form of solution, seizing on the opportunity of being presented with a challenge out in the open. Ah- maybe you get this- there are people for whom this is not just possible but also their preferred mode of living, and source of adrenalizing happiness. I might lump firefighters, paramedics and soldiers into these categories. The operating principle here is to not see any of the possibilities of failure by seizing the moment and creating the best possible solution. Insofar as one can be confident here, the possibilities are not warranted. It's actually a feedback loop where adrenaline and confidence make possible a critical solution, which makes one even more confident and adrenalized going forward, such that fear may be effectively eliminated. The negative possibilities in these crisis scenarios over time may become virtually impossibilities, when the powers of fearlessness, determination and heightened awareness of present details are put into action. Just some food for thought. I appreciate your deep analysis of the underlying subconscious going on behind these moments, just thought I would offer this other point of view, which as you might imagine is possibly even more useful by evolutionary standards, one that I see not perceived mentioned either by you or any in academia I have encountered. Dostoeyevsky reflects on it momentarily in Notes on Underground in any event.
Immense gratitude for this lecture and your work in general, Dr. Peterson, I cannot thank you enough.
I have one request...can you please upload Part 2?
5:19 ...articulate your structure... keep listening, go back and start over, CHANGE YOUR LIFE!
THANK YOU
Very interesting lecture, Is there a link to the rest of this video ? I notice it is labeled part 1, I'd really like to hear the rest of what you were talking about.
Hi Dr. Peterson, is part two available anywhere? Thank you for sharing your lectures publicly!
did you ever find part 2?
The titles are confusing. I just go to his channel and watch the playlists he has created. Maps of Meaning 2016. I assume he has them in the correct order.
Here is the complete list from this series as available from Dr Petersons UA-cam channel, enjoy and dont forget to play it LOUD so that other people can hear it and change their life! ua-cam.com/play/PLszMERlBjeO460aJvusYAHbBjJ44FDfmz.html
@thoreau poe that got me cracking up :'D
49:00 3 years later it's looking like we're using the "nuclear fusion" timeline approach for such technology changes - always 5 years away
Does anybody know if the content of part 2 can be found in a different video, maybe from a different year? I want full context before moving onto the next lesson.
Comment section your going about this the wrong way.
Please Don't upload the second part to this lecture
You gotta use reverse psychology when dealing with a psychologist.
Are you a reverse psychologist? Impressed
Hi Dr. Peterson, thank you for the insightful videos. What books do you recommend to complement, or dive deeper into the lecture topics? Or rather, what are some of your favorite books?
have you been through the personality lectures? Buy all the texts from that to start
go to jordanbpeterson.com, he has a list of recommended books :)
It's so weird, mythological symbolism and all of it, after having learned all JPs core material and the meaning of myths, feels like I've known it my whole life like it's so obvious now that I just think mythologically automatically sometimes.
I believe it's the same amount of years of higher education (uni) to become a psychologist as it is to become a kiropractor. How much time did you spend in school Dr.Peterson? Amazing, thank you!
Hi there Professor Peterson, I am slowly but surely working my way through the 2016 course and wanted to know if there is somewhere to download the course materials? Thanks for all your great work, it is profoundly helpful.
Seconded. I would love the slides used in class, if available.
37:24 Listen , go back and listen, then go forth and listen...
"So I was thinking about it ..."
Jordan Peterson
I wish I had a class where we write our autobiographies and then read our peers work.
Is there a place to find the symbols and graphics that Jordan discusses?
I started from the Lesson 1 and reached 'till here and.. can't help but think: THIS COULD'VE BEEN JUST DONE WITHOUT A CAMERA AND NOT AVAILABLE ON YT. Damn, such a waste it would've been! That's why, among other reasons, I went and supported this channel on Patreon. I have a question for ya'all.. should I see 2015 or is there 2017 also, Maps of Meaning series of lectures, before diving into the book itself, or one series (this one) would be a fair intro to it? Thanks :)
Is it possible to rise from the very bottom of a dominance hierarchy ? Does everyone above you not try to stop you for fear of their position becoming under threat and you rising above them?
Territory - I like the ide of comfort zone. Another good example is the cucumber cat scaring stunt that went viral a couple off years ago
36:18 Was this the inspiration for your book title?
1:06:20...yep.
You should really put the link to your Patreon site to the information section on your videos. It's difficult to copy in the text call out box in the video player.
Thanks for uploads!
It is interesting that Dr Peterson engages in amateur chiropraxy.
Cool!
Question for Jordan- Do you think the smallest micropersonality unit would be a neuron? I'm think about this in terms of computers- seeing as a neuron is essentially a transistor switching from 0 to 1 and back, it seems possible to me that a micropersonality is the "addresses" of all given neurons that operate in a network to create that micropersonality's reality, or bring it into reality as these neurons fire up accordingly.
That would be the sinapse (on/off switch). Each neuron is more like a network node, or a switch box, which is also an oversimplification.
42:00 How to keep protect yourself against the dragons
where is part two if anyone know
Fully functional automatic robots... Don't have them yet
Praise "BOB"
What's the story of the paralyzed guy that rescues a drowning person
so do people go to the media, watch phenomena and take in the opinion of it from the media as they address it. therefore making it their model of reality. causing bias??
Love the lecture series. However, this one seemed to just say "It's really complicated" and "________eat you" over and over and was not as substantive as other lectures.
A king snake "acts out" the self-consuming behavior, by swallowing its own tail - often up to half its own body's length. This is factual and relies not on mythological explanations; why is this notion subverted at the expense of granting the creature wings and teeth?
I just finished the video and I got a question regarding positive illusions. One of the things my friends advise me when I approach girls or go for a job interview is to maintain "abundance mentality". What that means is that if I am aware that there are more fish in the pond, I won't take rejection as a personal failure because frankly I did what I believe that represents me and it didn't work.
My question is, do you feel like the idea that the world is abundant of sexual partners or/and job opportunities is also a positive illusion? Because I feel like there are scenarios where it might be, like for instance a fictional island where only men exist and suddenly a woman arrives makes abundance a mental trick. So is the idea that there are more jobs out there if your country has 20% unemployment rates. But does that justifies getting depressed about failing those? I'm in an impasse.
Surely your belief about the existence or non existence of something (eg partner, job) will not affect the actual number of those actual correlating people or jobs that the world contains. What your frind are saying is that you are more or less likey to attain one of your golas depending on your attitude towards those real existing opportunities.
haha do you mean TYLER?
I'm familiar with the abundance mentality trick. I believe its effectiveness comes from embodying an energy of enjoying a wealth of things of a similar vein in your life, both right now and THUS FAR; an imaginative exercise to 'prepare' the body to accept the goal we are striving for. Rather than as a consolation to yourself, because it is after all something you actually want - the job, the girl - it's a preparatory process of experiencing - as bodily and as if 'real' as possible - the thing imaginatively before the 'real' thing is offered, so that accepting it is less of a jump, less of psychological question of worthiness, etc.
no robots, nope.
So, I got this far. The first couple, wondering what it's all about, then we're getting into Newtonian and evolutionary , pragmatic, phenomenological, archtypal, and I started to slip off the rails around 'whether anger is real'.
Anger is a real emotion but I don't think that was the sense of 'real' that Jordan was aiming at.
How about:- Anger is as real as any other process?
But Jordan didn't get into processes and how real they are and all the ins and outs of that. Chemical, biological, physical, electrical, although, since he bringing in evolution, you'd imagine there'd be at least an hour and a half or three hours on how life itself is a bunch(technical word) of nested processes.
"Is anger real?"
Well it certainly can be broken down into component processes, e.g. hormonal, i.e. chemical ergo physical.
The question seems to be being asked, at one point, if these archtypal stories are really, what is it, connected?, integrated?, stories of humanity boiled down to their essence kind of thing? Or is it just that those who are looking for this connection are more or less bound to wring this 'truth' from any story?
Perhaps Jordan B. Peterson is simply concocting a meta-narrative using, at least at times, imagined reflections through that glass darkly?
well I think its a metaphysics that believes truth and value are not found by breakdowns to granular component processes but rather through big picture functional significances and meanings.
That is to say that reality and the insights of value are discovered, not by extracting and reducing the mechanisms to their fundamental properties, but by abstracting up towards larger significance and utility.
Instead of the objective and material mechanisms, the metaphoric and behavioral subjectivity of your experience is what you should be examining.
Are centuries of empirically "true" human behavior patterns embodied in the archetypes of both old and new literature or is it simply a coincidence?
Well if there were a meta-narrative, would it be useful?
And is there a way to arrive upon a "correct" meta-narrative rather than an incidental and concocted one?
is the hard and objective materialism of newtonian physics "more real" than some meta-narrative "truth" about the nature of anger and other human pattterns?
From a utilitarian and darwinian perspective, Peterson seems to argue that the subjective is far more real than the objective and that by focusing our attention on the objective and material realities of the world, we are missing the bigger and more relevant picture.
m1k3y~ミクト
Is Peterson telling us that there is a useful meta-narrative or no?
I'm going to try this analogy.
1)We know that any color of visible light can be concocted as a mixture of red, green and blue!
(Any old(or new) story can be broken down and viewed through that lens, the lens that it is a version of the great useful and relevant meta-narrative! )
2)There are wavelengths of light such that that light is purple or brown, pink or orange.
(There is an infinite variety of stories which are 'stand-alone' and were never meant to be attempting to convey in any way possible, anything about a meta-narrative, useful or no!)
3) It doesn't matter one titty-little-bit(technical jargon) if there are an infinite variety of colors on the visible light spectrum, because the cones in our eyes only perceive how red or green or blue the light we're seeing, is!
(if we go looking for a meta-narrative, there's no way we're not going to find it!)
Saying that of course there is a useful, relevant meta-narrative, just read and interpret the stories, is about as useful as pronouncing the existence of GOD, just go and check out all the cathedrals, mosques and temples! What would they be for if there were no GOD?
Nothing at all, that's what!
Not only that, I'm not entirely convinced that Jordan Peterson isn't conflating modern psychiatry with the etymology of the word itself:- psyche = soul, and iatry = healing, a soul healer, shaman or brujo!
All someone has to do is mention that he sounds like Kermit the frog and off he rants about how frogs just happen to be harbingers from chaos and what-do-ya-know, that seems to be a fair description of his JOB!
Well Part of what would make a meta narrative meta is that it is organically recurring even when it is not intended to.
Is finding trances of the meta narrative in purportedly unrelated texts just wishful fishing or is the fact that it can be fished up from "unrelated" stories part of the actual descriptive property of the meta narrative?
Is it foolish to identify the mixture of red green and blue that make up any color or is it useful and insightful to consciously analyze the implications and applications of the 3 dimensions through which we perceive color?
I don't see it as taking the existence of many churches as evidence of god.
You would observe that the longterm prevalence of religion as it co-exists with civilization is at-least some indicator that there is a pragmatic justification for its existence.
If you don't think souls exist, the etymology of the word psychiatry must be ignored. If you believe the soul can be saved by the great lord and savior plus a few songs and dances just because the bible says so, then you are not a psychiatrist.
So what do you say to the person who sees no distinction between "soul" and "psyche"? Can you prove them wrong? Can you prove that it even makes a difference or matters?
Note, he is a clinical psychologist, not a psychiatrist.
You say that claiming that interpreting narratives is useful is just as useful as claiming that god is real. I don't see what is similar.
Use seem to be saying, "sure those lessons or meta-narratives might exist. But what is the point in trying to claim them to be useful? The fact that they can be identified is inevitable. Thus, there cannot be true value in them."
Is your problem the idea that evidence of their existence is proof of their correctness?
Do you believe that evidence of their existence is so inevitable that said existence can not be a usable justification for anything?
It is simply darwinian to claim that IF they have thrived and recurred for so long(thousands of years), there must be SOME utilitarian justification for why they have managed to stay alive.
You seem to be saying that Peterson is foolish for seeking out what that utilitarian justification might be.
I found the frog stuff to be all in good fun. If it irked your sense of objectivism, I can understand. But I not sure that it is a serious case study for evaluating his general metaphysical perspective.
m1k3y~ミクト
The frog stuff.
I wonder if Jordan Peterson were a big, burly man with a gruff voice and the commenter had said that Jordan sounds like a bear, if Jordan could have come up with 'the bear' as an intermediate that finds order hidden in chaos and brings it out.
Goldilocks and the three bears. The bears represent order and the girl disorder and chaos creeping into the system. The bears appear forcing the chaos that appears, apparently out of nowhere, back into the greater chaos, the forest!
Kind of clunky, sure. Order is split up into 3 parts to emphasize order.
Lesson.. order is it's own antidote to chaos.
Point being that you can almost automatically pull this shit straight out of your ass, as it were.
Well its important to distinguish the end conclusion. In his lectures, he points to archetypes as vessels for human wisdom curated over centuries of storytelling. He preaches the study of these things as a guideline for "good behavior".
With the frog, he simply says, "and isn't it funny how the frog is said to be the harbinger of dangerous times". He doesn't preach that he has objective evidence to suggest that he should be treated as some vetted prophet because of this synchronicity.
Sure you can pull it out of your ass, or maybe out of your brain. Either way, sometimes it is too clunky and uninsightful and you toss it out. other times it is so fitting that you see it as being the best form through which to communicate the subjective and emotional significances that you feel.
Don't you agree that the bear metaphor which you admit to being clunky would be heavily criticized as being too much of a stretch if he were to post it on a channel?
Peterson has long been preaching for what he believes the solution to be which is some form of each individual going about and engaging in truthful self improvement. That mirrors the whole "frog turns into a prince to recover the golden ball from the darkness and free us from the bonds" in a way that both describes the situation and the supposed solution.
Does the bear story also do the same? Well the bad girl breaks into the bear house of order... and tries things out and messes them up, and then gets found and runs away.
But then peterson would hafto be the little bear who cries out that his porridge has been eaten and his chair has been broken. And supposedly, that would solve the problem, and the bad girl would run away. That would probably imply that no further action is needed? All that happens is that the girl does her thing, breaks 1/3 of the shit, and then gets noticed and chased away? and that is because there are three bears of order who all stand against the girl who is already portrayed as bad from the very beginning.
So yes, you can pull anything around to try and fit, and sometimes it fits well and spreads, and sometimes it doesn't fit and people agree that it isn't applicable.
The fact that it happened to actually be a frog which fits better and not a bear which fits worse, is why it is interesting enough to talk about altogether. It isn't used to justify some outlandish claim either. Its just a story that fits. Some people will go, "woah crazy coincidence!" and others will go "ok... i guess it fits.... but so what. Its not like I now believe in magic.."
I think those stances aren't really at odds.
The usage of infinity as you suggested is actually a dubious concept in mathematics, although widely (and blindly) accepted. Norm Wildberger has a lot to say about this throughout all of his lectures but here is one as a pointer ua-cam.com/video/XKy_VTBq0yk/v-deo.html.
I think your argument is relevant to the mathematical discussion and vice versa which is quite interesting.
Samuel Lotz I am an engineer. Whether or not it's "real" maths, it's widely used as a tool.
I took a big big poop this weekend.
The things you say are significantly more interesting when you have a beard sir.
Always zero dislikes! even the sjw's must like it
lasy rabbit They never make it this far.
Emily one of them actually did, look there is one dislike, the dedication is strong
I self-identify as a feminist and I'm here (and enjoying it!). Please remain honest and open and TRY not to fall into lazy stereotypes. That turns into lazy ideology, and finding ways to stand up to that is why we're all here. Sucks that even Peterson himself has been falling into the same traps in public talks lately. Hey, I know it's not easy, and I'm grateful to Peterson for helping me clarify my own thinking.
Remember that just because someone is a brilliant intellectual and has brilliant contributions to make, doesn't mean they're right about everything. If you doubt this, you might want to look into Heidegger.
Too dark, literally.
Oh, so you think darkness is your ally?
Lol I am a lower resulution person
"Mass shooters who are native to the US kill a lot more people than illegal Mexican immigrants. What problem are you solving?" - You are solving the problem of illegal Mexicans killing people. This is not a comparison game as the professor makes it out to be. These are two different issues that have to be dealt with individually and not by comparing one to the other. Was really surprised to see such a statement from a person who seems really aware how the world works.
If a US citizen kills somebody, that is an issue the United States needs to deal with. If a Mexican Citizen kills someone, that is an issue Mexico needs to deal with. That is the difference. Sort yourself out.
The point he's making there is that you can formulate a problem in a way that focuses on, or conversely, distracts from the heart of the problem. If the heart of the problem is "US citizens being killed" (which seems self-evident to me) then construing it as an immigration issue, or "Mexican immigrants killing US citizens" distracts from the heart of the issue, because statistically it actually isn't mexican immigrants but in fact other US citizens that kill US citizens. When you're considering how to conceptualize a problem, it is indeed a comparison game, as you're deciding which aspect of the problem is most important and deserving of attention, if you formulate the problem badly you can not only fail to solve the real problem but actually cause harm in the process as well.
That and the statistic is just plain wrong. It’s not even close.