Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

There's also this:

Session 28 October 1994 said:
Q: (L) Did the Christ spirit descend into the body of Jesus in his 30th year?

A: No.

Q: (L) What happened?

A: Formed within him. And it could do thusly in anyone who reaches such levels of service to others plus faith and supreme levels of pure thought.


Since I'm currently reading Peterson's new book "12 rules for life", here are some small excerpts.

On faith:

If existence is good, then the clearest and cleanest and most correct relationship with it is also good. If existence is not good, by contrast, you're lost. Nothing will save you - certainly not the petty rebellions, murky thinking and obscurantist blindness that constitute deceit. Is existence good? You have to take a terrible risk to find out. Live in truth, or live in deceit, face the consequences, and draw your conclusions.

This is the "act of faith" whose necessity was insisted upon by the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard. You cannot know ahead of time. Even a good example is insufficent for proof, given the differences between individuals. The success of a goof example can always be attributed to luck. Thus, you have to risk your particular, individual life to find out. It is this risk that the ancients described as the sacrifice of personal will to the will of God. It is not an act of submission (at least as submission is currently understood). It is an act o courage. It is faith that the wind will blow your ship to a new and better port. It is the faith that Being can be corrected by becoming. It is the spirit of exploration itself.

On thinking:

People think they think, but it's not true. It's mostly self-criticism that passes for thinking. True thinking is rare - just like true listening. Thinking is listening to yourself. It's difficult. To think, you have to be at least two people at the same time. Then you have to let those people disagree. Thinking is an internal dialogue between two or more different views of the world. Viewpoint One is an avatar in a simulated world. It has its own representations of past, present and future, and its own ideas about how to act. So do Viewpoints Two, and Three, and For. Thinking is the process by which these internal avatars imagine and articulate their worlds to one another. You can't set straw men against one another when your're thinking, either, because then you're not thinking. You're rationalizing, post-hoc. You're matching what you want against a weak opponent so that you don't have to change your mind. You're propagandizing. You're using double-speak. You're using your conclusions to justify your proofs. You're hiding from the truth.

True Thinking is complex and demanding. It requires you to be articulate speaker and careful, judicious listener, at the same time. It involves conflict. So, you have to tolerate conflict. Conflict involves negotiation and compromise. So, you hve to learn to give and take and to modify your premises and adjust your thoughts - even your perceptions of the world. Sometimes it results in the defeat and elimination of one or more internl avatar. They don't like to be defeated or eliminated, either. They like to stay alive. They'll fight to stay alive. You better listen to them. If you don't they'll go underground and turn into devils and torture you. In consequence, thinking is emotionally painful, as well as physiologically demanding; more so than anything else - except not thinking.

At some point, he also talks about Being vs. Non-Being (couldn't find it right now), and the duality of these two paths becomes apparent throughout the book. It's a good read, and I think it gets better from chapter to chapter. There are certainly tons of things in there that remind me of Gurdjieff and the Cs and things talked about on the forum.

So, here He comes? :P
 
T.C. said:
So maybe there's cognitive dissonance on the part of JP in terms of his understanding of psychopathy - which would mostly stem from his steadfast belief in the inherent good contained in any and every person. And then, that cognitive dissonance would obviously act as a barrier to his being able to extrapolate out to the concept of ponerogenesis and ponerisation on a macrosocial scale.

I'm not too sure about this...

Maybe his problem is that he knows too much, in a certain sense. Like, he knows that we're all capable of doing despicable things - things that we'd say were impossible for us, but only because we'd never been put in the scenario before.

So he just projects that onto everyone else. To him, anyone is a psychopath in the making, given the right circumstances.

He fails to apply his own thesis: that for the corruption of being and the loss of paradise to occur, the snake has to present itself. The snake isn't a human being, it's an anomaly. He understands ponerogenesis, as well as Lobaczewski or Solzhenitsyn perhaps, but only from the perspective of the potentially corruptible; not from the perspective of the impossibly irredeemable.
 
This guy was on Joe Rogan a little while ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI
Joe Rogan Experience #1070 - Jordan Peterson
117,513 views
Streamed live 4 hours ago
Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.
 
T.C. said:
T.C. said:
So maybe there's cognitive dissonance on the part of JP in terms of his understanding of psychopathy - which would mostly stem from his steadfast belief in the inherent good contained in any and every person. And then, that cognitive dissonance would obviously act as a barrier to his being able to extrapolate out to the concept of ponerogenesis and ponerisation on a macrosocial scale.

I'm not too sure about this...

Maybe his problem is that he knows too much, in a certain sense. Like, he knows that we're all capable of doing despicable things - things that we'd say were impossible for us, but only because we'd never been put in the scenario before.

So he just projects that onto everyone else. To him, anyone is a psychopath in the making, given the right circumstances.

He fails to apply his own thesis: that for the corruption of being and the loss of paradise to occur, the snake has to present itself. The snake isn't a human being, it's an anomaly. He understands ponerogenesis, as well as Lobaczewski or Solzhenitsyn perhaps, but only from the perspective of the potentially corruptible; not from the perspective of the impossibly irredeemable.

I've been thinking about this for some time since the thread started - what is it exactly that stops him from going there?
Is it projection (trying to redeem himself)? Was it one of his friends who committed suicide that he feels he could have saved? Is it from having had a clinical practice where he always assumes the client is redeemable?
He talked about joining a local native tribe, what do they have to say about evil spirits? What does the bible say about demons? Can everything and everyone be 'redeemed'?

Rather than framing any discussion in technical terms, I'd be inclined to ask him what he thought about the story of the Scorpion and the Frog (the symbolism is rather apt I think):

_http://www.allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
The Scorpion and the Frog
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Self destruction - "Its my Nature", said the Scorpion...

A frog can only take so many stings before it drowns.
Incidentally, I put a picture of him by my house protection crystal when he started the tour, thinking he could probably use a boost.
 
RedFox said:
T.C. said:
T.C. said:
So maybe there's cognitive dissonance on the part of JP in terms of his understanding of psychopathy - which would mostly stem from his steadfast belief in the inherent good contained in any and every person. And then, that cognitive dissonance would obviously act as a barrier to his being able to extrapolate out to the concept of ponerogenesis and ponerisation on a macrosocial scale.

I'm not too sure about this...

Maybe his problem is that he knows too much, in a certain sense. Like, he knows that we're all capable of doing despicable things - things that we'd say were impossible for us, but only because we'd never been put in the scenario before.

So he just projects that onto everyone else. To him, anyone is a psychopath in the making, given the right circumstances.

He fails to apply his own thesis: that for the corruption of being and the loss of paradise to occur, the snake has to present itself. The snake isn't a human being, it's an anomaly. He understands ponerogenesis, as well as Lobaczewski or Solzhenitsyn perhaps, but only from the perspective of the potentially corruptible; not from the perspective of the impossibly irredeemable.

I've been thinking about this for some time since the thread started - what is it exactly that stops him from going there?
Is it projection (trying to redeem himself)? Was it one of his friends who committed suicide that he feels he could have saved? Is it from having had a clinical practice where he always assumes the client is redeemable?
He talked about joining a local native tribe, what do they have to say about evil spirits? What does the bible say about demons? Can everything and everyone be 'redeemed'?

Rather than framing any discussion in technical terms, I'd be inclined to ask him what he thought about the story of the Scorpion and the Frog (the symbolism is rather apt I think):

_http://www.allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
The Scorpion and the Frog
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Self destruction - "Its my Nature", said the Scorpion...

A frog can only take so many stings before it drowns.
Incidentally, I put a picture of him by my house protection crystal when he started the tour, thinking he could probably use a boost.

I would really like to hear Jordan Peterson answer this question RedFox! I have in fact been wondering recently whether to him psychopaths are people who allowed the 'snake' side to win the battle within them?

He talks about the evil 'side' within us and this indicates a spectrum with another another side also existing: the opposite of the darkness and evil. This would be correct for 'souled' individuals as the battle is fought through them.

But I've never heard him say anything that would indicate he thinks some people may not have two sides. They only have one and that is their nature. They are the embodiment of the snake with no potential for anything else.

In the story you quoted two separate species are depicted: a frog and a scorpion. But psychopaths look exactly like other people. They are more of an evil frog, or a frog that has a nature of a scorpion, if that makes sense.
 
gdpetti said:
This guy was on Joe Rogan a little while ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI
Joe Rogan Experience #1070 - Jordan Peterson
117,513 views
Streamed live 4 hours ago
Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.

I watched this interview today. Peterson was back to his normal energy levels and performance compared to the recent CBC interview. Though at one point he gives Venezuela as an example of marxist/socialist ideology failing (at 39:20) and it was quite awkward moment, since he really isn't aware of geopolitics and the destabilization of Venezuela. But other than that he talks brilliantly about his usual topics, and also recaps how he handled the last year and half of being kind of online celebrity. Peterson also says how changing the diet helped him enormously with his autoimmune disease (at 2:13:00). He seems to be on a ketogenic diet, relying mostly on meat, green vegetables and fat. It's quite impressive that he's been able to see through the lies and corruption of food/medical industry and find a real healthy diet. I just hope he doesn't start talking more about Russia/Iran/Venezuela etc. with his current level of understanding.
 
Ant22 said:
He talks about the evil 'side' within us and this indicates a spectrum with another another side also existing: the opposite of the darkness and evil. This would be correct for 'souled' individuals as the battle is fought through them.

But I've never heard him say anything that would indicate he thinks some people may not have two sides. They only have one and that is their nature. They are the embodiment of the snake with no potential for anything else.

In the story you quoted two separate species are depicted: a frog and a scorpion. But psychopaths look exactly like other people. They are more of an evil frog, or a frog that has a nature of a scorpion, if that makes sense.

I did. In some of his lectures (two at least) he talked a bit about someone getting trapped in a very bad relationship with a psychopath due to being ignorant, too soft, too nice (paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact words), while the only thing to do in such a situation is to run as far away as possible. So I think he understands they're not 'fixable', so to say.

But while answering a listener's question about conscience and psychopathy, Peterson said:

I say this I hope not naively. Also having dealt with "psychopaths" in my clinical practice, and I'd say now and then in my life, I don't believe in psychopaths. i don't believe that we know enough to say there are people born without conscience. I don't think the psychometric measurement of psychopathy is everything that it should be.

I've been trying to model it in the Big Five domain. It's complicated...

So I'd say the classic psychopath is likely extroverted, especially assertive/?/, disagreeable, and unconscientious. And maybe extremely low in neuroticism, so you can't frighten them. So that's a rare combination, because it's extreme on many traits. But it doesn't mean that I'd believe that someone with that personality configuration is doomed from birth to a pathological existence. Because there are things about psychopathy that the classifiers -- those who claim, like Cleckley, that the psychopath is born in some sense -- can't explain. Like... what about the cruelty? It seems to be a motive there. They are passionless and they lack emotion... well, why are they cruel then? For entertainment? Then you have to explain the entertainment motivation. Like there is a failure in some sense with that classic psychopathy theorists to come to grips with the problem of malevolence. It's skirted over. And you can't do that if you are talking about "psychopathy". It's like malevolence is the bloody issue here.

The other issue with the psychopathy is that it's irredeemable. That's the idea. I don't think we know enough to make such claims. I know the psychopathy literature quite well and I have a great respect for the primary researchers in the field. I want to make that perfectly clear. But we are approaching the problem from a different level of analysis here. Something like a spiritual level of analysis. And I don't think there is an easy translation from the descriptive, psychometric, psychiatric approach to the spiritual level. They don't match. And I'm more likely to say: let's not assume the soul is doomed from birth. And I'm loath to think that there are people born irredeemable. Although I do think that there are irredeemable people.

It's Bible Series IX: The Call to Abraham; this particular part of his answer starting at 2:28:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmuzUZTJ0GA

I can see how he faces a big problem. A soul doomed from birth. The idea, or hypothesis, of existence of human-like beings not 'equipped' with souls could help - if he was able/ willing to give it a chance.
 
Possibility of Being said:
I can see how he faces a big problem. A soul doomed from birth. The idea, or hypothesis, of existence of human-like beings not 'equipped' with souls could help - if he was able/ willing to give it a chance.

I was watching the documentary on Peterson today and I think that part of the reason he is reluctant to accept that some people (psychopaths) are born irredeemable is because his own moment of redemption or 'enlightenment' came when he realized he was a 'monster' like everyone else - that is, when he faced his shadow - and then when he understood that in spite of that one can be a good, responsible person, or tame the monster. It's like his theory of personal development rests on this idea, and of course it is true - just not for everyone, cause some cannot admit there is anything wrong with them and take responsibility for it. And maybe he feels that if he accepts it doesn't apply to all, then his theory becomes somehow challenged or watered down.
 
Seppo Ilmarinen said:
I just hope he doesn't start talking more about Russia/Iran/Venezuela etc. with his current level of understanding.

Oh I do hope so. Then he'll get feedback and improve (or not) his current level of understanding.
 
JP said:
there are things about psychopathy that the classifiers -- those who claim, like Cleckley, that the psychopath is born in some sense -- can't explain. Like... what about the cruelty? It seems to be a motive there. They are passionless and they lack emotion... well, why are they cruel then? For entertainment? Then you have to explain the entertainment motivation. Like there is a failure in some sense with that classic psychopathy theorists to come to grips with the problem of malevolence. It's skirted over. And you can't do that if you are talking about "psychopathy". It's like malevolence is the bloody issue here.

I think there are two different issues here. The above one is about understanding how/why a psychopath thinks the way s/he does. We've studied it up one way and down the other, and come to the same basic conclusion as him: it's not understandable. It's so alien to the normal range of human experience that, in the acceptance that we cannot ever 'put ourselves in their shoes', we place psychopathy on a different spectrum. JP, on the other hand, seems to say 'well if I can't define it, name it, explain it, understand it, it doesn't exist - or, if it does exist, it's just another aspect of human nature - a weird one, but part of us nonetheless'.

JP said:
I'm loath to think that there are people born irredeemable. Although I do think that there are irredeemable people.

This is something else. This is more like the 'nature vs nuture' debate; it's academic and kind of besides the point, which is that 'psychopaths' (though we're not quite able to nail down exactly what they are), born or made, exist.

The gulf between us is - as we've touched on multiple times now in this thread - ponerology.

And I think I understand why JP mightn't like it.

Think back to all the pop-psychology guff that emerged about psychopathy in the decade or so after we pushed it: 'how to tell if your partner is a psycho' - 'psychos on Wall Street' - 'is Bush a psycho?' - 'are conservatives more likely to be psychos?' - psycho this, psycho that... EVERYONE began using it as a means of labelling and thus attacking their opponents, significant others, and the 'Powers That Be' as they conceived them. It's not hard to see how ponerology and the basic structure and (d)evolution of society it proposes is 'dangerous' - it inoculates certain people from harm, sure, and our network is testimony to that, but others (psychos, probably) can 'weaponize' it.

Just look at the damage 'psychopathy expert' Thomas Sheridan managed to do, encouraging people to 'spot the psycho by looking at his eye movements'.

"Puzzling People" by Thomas Sheridan - a puzzling person
 
Joe said:
From Peterson's POV where he is invested in arresting the slide towards a leftist radical utopia that would deconstruct the foundations (figuratively and then possibly literally) of Western civilization, anyone arguing against the West (regardless of their motivation) is aiding and abetting the leftist radicals. So even if he were to become convinced of the 'evil' of the West in all its exceptionalism, he would likely chose not to promote it as it would undercut one of his main points, take pride in your culture and do what you can do build it up.

I imagine this is the stance of the US deep staters, permanent bureaucracy, intel community and so on, with respect to Trump challenging the status quo; that he threatens to deconstruct the foundations of Western civilization (as they understand it). Even if they - as individuals - know full well that Russiagate is a crock, they resolutely defend the myth 'because it serves a higher purpose'. We, from the outside, can see quite clearly that they do so to defend nothing more than their own backsides, but they (prolly) firmly believe that the entire order is at risk of being upended - Bolshevik-style, leading to pure anarchy - if Trump/the GOP, and the American people through them, alter course even just a bit.

So, is it wrong to challenge them on the basis that doing so would bring detriment to society as a whole? Well, we - along with JP and the 'new right movement' as a whole - are betting that it wouldn't be destructive because we believe that US/Western society would be just fine if it were to come to light that the US establishment is corrupt rather than sacrosanct. But we could never be sure until such were to happen. Remember, it would effectively be the same as an overthrow of government, a systemic shock, a regime change. The justice the right seeks will also, inevitably, cause at least some harm for society as a whole.
 
Niall said:
Think back to all the pop-psychology guff that emerged about psychopathy in the decade or so after we pushed it: 'how to tell if your partner is a psycho' - 'psychos on Wall Street' - 'is Bush a psycho?' - 'are conservatives more likely to be psychos?' - psycho this, psycho that... EVERYONE began using it as a means of labelling and thus attacking their opponents, significant others, and the 'Powers That Be' as they conceived them. It's not hard to see how ponerology and the basic structure and (d)evolution of society it proposes is 'dangerous' - it inoculates certain people from harm, sure, and our network is testimony to that, but others (psychos, probably) can 'weaponize' it.

Just look at the damage 'psychopathy expert' Thomas Sheridan managed to do, encouraging people to 'spot the psycho by looking at his eye movements'.

"Puzzling People" by Thomas Sheridan - a puzzling person

I agree, and there's the realization we've come to after reading recent books like Samenow etc, that it is incorrect to assume there are people who are "psychopaths". Much more likely is that we're dealing with a spectrum of character disturbed people, from "saints" at one end to "psychos" on the other. Those two extremes are likely very tiny percentages of the population. The rest of us fall somewhere in between.
 
Niall said:
I imagine this is the stance of the US deep staters, permanent bureaucracy, intel community and so on, with respect to Trump challenging the status quo; that he threatens to deconstruct the foundations of Western civilization (as they understand it). Even if they - as individuals - know full well that Russiagate is a crock, they resolutely defend the myth 'because it serves a higher purpose'. We, from the outside, can see quite clearly that they do so to defend nothing more than their own backsides

Yeah, it's hard to distinguish between your own backside and the ship of state if your arse is firmly planted on the captain's chair.
 
Niall said:
So, is it wrong to challenge them on the basis that doing so would bring detriment to society as a whole? Well, we - along with JP and the 'new right movement' as a whole - are betting that it wouldn't be destructive because we believe that US/Western society would be just fine if it were to come to light that the US establishment is corrupt rather than sacrosanct. But we could never be sure until such were to happen. Remember, it would effectively be the same as an overthrow of government, a systemic shock, a regime change. The justice the right seeks will also, inevitably, cause at least some harm for society as a whole.

It might be wrong if they are possessed of a "if I can't have it, no one can" attitude.
 
Speaking about the Christ idea and that we might witness "a new Christ" phenomena in what Peterson does and how his message is received by a lot of young people, especially young man, I thought about it a bit more yesterday after finishing reading his new book "12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos".

I've listened to his audio version of the book in which he reads it personally. In one of his recent interviews he said he worked on the book for 5 years. Overall I must say that the book delivers a very powerful, touching and hopeful message that is very encouraging to start to change oneself and how one interacts with others and the environment. I can't say it otherwise. At quite a number of places while reading the book, you can hear that Jordan is almost crying. Overall the book contains a lot of religious mythological references, especially to bible verses. I would basically say that he delivers quite a number of the key concepts of the "the work" to a very large audience. His book is already number one in a number of key areas like amazon. I would say that this is the first book that talks specifically about key concepts of the work, that has reached such a big audience. And mostly a mainstream audience is reached I would say as well. As usual, Peterson words in there are very precise and very deep and you have to pay close attention at times to try to follow where he is going with what he is saying.

In regards to the Christ/religious idea, I especially noticed his Coda after the last Rule in which he talks about his "NEWFOUND PEN OF LIGHT". Which reminds me a lot on how things are written and revealed to "prophets" in the bible. In short, it sounds to me like what he has done there is somewhat of a channeling experiment of answers and questions "from above". And it doesn't sound like a word salat channel to me, but rather something authentic coming through in certain aspects.

This last chapter is called "WHAT SHALL I DO WITH MY NEWFOUND PEN OF LIGHT?" in which he shortly described how he was given a pen of light from a friend and he thought long and hard what it might mean metaphysically and what he could do with it. I skip here the story of how he got it and the story about how he and his wife struggled with each other, and come right back to the point, Peterson, then, after long deliberation and thinking about things, suddenly starts to receive answers in seconds to some of his burning questions. By the way, he also reveals that some of those questions and answers he received there were the basis of a number of the 12 rules in the book. I think Peterson channels, wheater or not he is fully aware of what is going on.

Here is almost the full channel experiment at the end of the book (SPOILER ALERT!):

12 Rules For Life; WHAT SHALL I DO WITH MY NEWFOUND PEN OF LIGHT? said:
WHAT SHALL I DO WITH MY NEWFOUND PEN OF LIGHT?

[...]

When he handed it over, I found myself inordinately pleased. Now I could write illuminated words in the darkness! Obviously, it was important to do such a thing properly. So I said to myself, in all seriousness, “What shall I do with my newfound pen of light?” There are two verses in the New Testament that pertain to such things. I’ve thought about them a lot:

Ask, and it shall be given to you; Seek, and ye shall find; Knock, and it shall be open unto you: For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened (Matthew 7:7-7:8)

At first glance, this seems like nothing but a testament to the magic of prayer, in the sense of entreating God to grant favours. But God, whatever or whoever He may be, is no simple granter of wishes. When tempted by the Devil himself, in the desert—as we saw in Rule 7 (Pursue what is meaningful [not what is expedient])—even Christ Himself was not willing to call upon his Father for a favour; furthermore, every day, the prayers of desperate people go unanswered. But maybe this is because the questions they contain are not phrased in the proper manner. Perhaps it’s not reasonable to ask God to break the rules of physics every time we fall by the wayside or make a serious error. Perhaps, in such times, you can’t put the cart before the horse and simply wish for your problem to be solved in some magical manner. Perhaps you could ask, instead, what you might have to do right now to increase your resolve, buttress your character, and find the strength to go on. Perhaps you could instead ask to see the truth.

[...]

You must be receptive to that which you do not want to hear. When you decide to learn about your faults, so that they can be rectified, you open a line of communication with the source of all revelatory thought. Maybe that’s the same thing as consulting your conscience. Maybe that’s the same thing, in some manner, as a discussion with God.

It was in that spirit, with some paper in front of me, that I asked my question: What shall I do with my newfound pen of light? I asked, as if I truly wanted the answer. I waited for a reply. I was holding a conversation between two different elements of myself. I was genuinely thinking—or listening, in the sense described in Rule 9 (Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t). That rule can apply as much to yourself as to others. It was me, of course, who asked the question—and it was me, of course, who replied. But those two me’s were not the same. I did not know what the answer would be. I was waiting for it to appear in the theatre of my imagination. I was waiting for the words to spring out of the void. How can a person think up something that surprises him? How can he already not know what he thinks? Where do new thoughts come from? Who or what thinks them?

Since I had just been given, of all things, a Pen of Light, which could write Illuminated Words in the darkness, I wanted to do the best thing I could with it. So, I asked the appropriate question—and, almost immediately, an answer revealed itself: Write down the words you want inscribed on your soul. I wrote that down. That seemed pretty good—a little on the romantic side, granted—but that was in keeping with the game. Then I upped the ante. I decided to ask myself the hardest questions I could think up, and await their answers. If you have a Pen of Light, after all, you should use it to answer Difficult Questions.

Here was the first: What shall I do tomorrow? The answer came: The most good possible in the shortest period of time.That was satisfying, as well—conjoining an ambitious aim with the demands of maximal efficiency. A worthy challenge. The second question was in the same vein: What shall I do next year? Try to ensure that the good I do then will be exceeded only by the good I do the year after that. That seemed solid, too—a nice extension of the ambitions detailed in the previous answer. I told my friend that I was trying a serious experiment in writing with the pen he had given to me. I asked if I could read aloud what I had composed so far. The questions—and the answers—struck a chord with him, too. That was good. That was impetus to continue.

The next question ended the first set: What shall I do with my life? Aim for Paradise, and concentrate on today. Hah! I knew what that meant. It’s what Geppetto does in the Disney movie Pinocchio, when he wishes upon a star. The grandfatherly woodcarver lifts up his eyes to the twinkling diamond set high above the mundane world of day-to-day human concerns and articulates his deepest desire: that the marionette he created lose the strings by which he is manipulated by others and transform himself into a real boy. It’s also the central message of the Sermon on the Mount, as we saw in Rule 4 (Compare yourself to who you were yesterday…), but which deserve repeating here:

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you (Matthew 6:28-6:33).

What does all that mean? Orient yourself properly. Then—and only then—concentrate on the day. Set your sights at the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, and then focus pointedly and carefully on the concerns of each moment. Aim continually at Heaven while you work diligently on Earth. Attend fully to the future, in that manner, while attending fully to the present. Then you have the best chance of perfecting both.

I turned, then, from the use of time to my relationships with people, and wrote down and then read these questions and answers to my friend: What shall I do with my wife? Treat her as if she is the Holy Mother of God, so that she may give birth to the world-redeeming hero. What shall I do with my daughter? Stand behind her, listen to her, guard her, train her mind, and let her know it’s OK if she wants to be a mother. What shall I do with my parents? Act such that your actions justify the suffering they endured. What shall I do with my son? Encourage him to be a true Son of God.

To honour your wife as a Mother of God is to notice and support the sacred element of her role as mother (not just of your children, but as such). A society that forgets this cannot survive. Hitler’s mother gave birth to Hitler, and Stalin’s mother to Stalin. Was something amiss in their crucial relationships? It seems likely, given the importance of the maternal role in establishing trust217—to take a single vital example. Perhaps the importance of their motherly duties, and of their relationship with their children, was not properly stressed; perhaps what the women were doing in their maternal guise was not properly regarded by husband, father and society alike. Who instead might a woman produce if she was treated properly, honourably and carefully? After all, the fate of the world rests on each new infant—tiny, fragile and threatened but, in time, capable of uttering the words and doing the deeds that maintain the eternal, delicate balance between chaos and order.

To stand behind my daughter? That’s to encourage her, in everything she wants courageously to do, but to include in that genuine appreciation the fact of her femininity: to recognize the importance of having a family and children and to forego the temptation to denigrate or devalue that in comparison to accomplishment of personal ambition or career. It’s not for nothing that the Holy Mother and Infant is a divine image—as we just discussed. Societies that cease to honour that image—that cease to see that relationship as of transcendent and fundamental importance—also cease to be.

To act to justify the suffering of your parents is to remember all the sacrifices that all the others who lived before you (not least your parents) have made for you in all the course of the terrible past, to be grateful for all the progress that has been thereby made, and then to act in accordance with that remembrance and gratitude. People sacrificed immensely to bring about what we have now. In many cases, they literally died for it—and we should act with some respect for that fact.

To encourage my son to be a true Son of God? That is to want him above all to do what is right, and to strive to have his back while he is doing so. That is, I think, part of the sacrificial message: to value and support your son’s commitment to transcendent good above all things (including his worldly progress, so to speak, and his safety—and, perhaps, even his life).

I continued asking questions. The answers came within seconds. What shall I do with the stranger? Invite him into my house, and treat him like a brother, so that he may become one. That’s to extend the hand of trust to someone so that his or her best part can step forward and reciprocate. That’s to manifest the sacred hospitality that makes life between those who do not yet know each other possible. What shall I do with a fallen soul? Offer a genuine and cautious hand, but do not join it in the mire. That’s a good summary of what we covered in Rule 3 (Make friends with people who want the best for you). That’s an injunction to refrain both from casting pearls before swine, and from camouflaging your vice with virtue. What shall I do with the world? Conduct myself as if Being is more valuable than Non-Being. Act so that you are not made bitter and corrupt by the tragedy of existence. That’s the essence of Rule 1 (Stand up straight with your shoulders back): confront the uncertainty of the world voluntarily, and with faith and courage.

How shall I educate my people? Share with them those things I regard as truly important. That’s Rule 8 (Tell the truth—or, at least, don’t lie). That is to aim for wisdom, to distill that wisdom into words, and to speak forth those words as if they matter, with true concern and care. That’s all relevant, as well, to the next question (and answer): What shall I do with a torn nation? Stitch it back together with careful words of truth. The importance of this injunction has, if anything, become clearer over the past few years: we are dividing, and polarizing, and drifting toward chaos. It is necessary, under such conditions, if we are to avoid catastrophe, for each of us to bring forward the truth, as we see it: not the arguments that justify our ideologies, not the machinations that further our ambitions, but the stark pure facts of our existence, revealed for others to see and contemplate, so that we can find common ground and proceed together.

What shall I do for God my Father? Sacrifice everything I hold dear to yet greater perfection. Let the deadwood burn off, so that new growth can prevail. That’s the terrible lesson of Cain and Abel, detailed in the discussion of meaning surrounding Rule 7. What shall I do with a lying man? Let him speak so that he may reveal himself. Rule 9 (Listen…) is once again relevant here, as is another section of the New Testament:

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them (Matthew 7:16-7:20).

The rot must be revealed before something sound can be put in its place, as was also indicated in Rule 7’s elaboration—and all of this is pertinent to understanding the following question and answer: How shall I deal with the enlightened one? Replace him with the true seeker of enlightenment. There is no enlightened one. There is only the one who is seeking further enlightenment. Proper Being is process, not a state; a journey, not a destination. It’s the continual transformation of what you know, through encounter with what you don’t know, rather than the desperate clinging to the certainty that is eternally insufficient in any case. That accounts for the importance of Rule 4 (Compare yourself…). Always place your becoming above your current being. That means it is necessary to recognize and accept your insufficiency, so that it can be continually rectified. That’s painful, certainly—but it’s a good deal.

The next few Q & A’s made another coherent group, focused this time on ingratitude: What shall I do when I despise what I have? Remember those who have nothing and strive to be grateful. Take stock of what is right in front of you. Consider Rule 12—somewhat tongue-in-cheek—(Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street). Consider, as well, that you may be blocked in your progress not because you lack opportunity, but because you have been too arrogant to make full use of what already lies in front of you. That’s Rule 6 (Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world).

I spoke recently with a young man about such things. He had barely ever left his family and never his home state—but he journeyed to Toronto to attend one of my lectures and to meet with me at my home. He had isolated himself far too severely in the short course of his life to date and was badly plagued by anxiety. When we first met, he could hardly speak. He had nonetheless determined in the last year to do something about all of that. He started by taking on the lowly job of dishwasher. He decided to do it well, when he could have treated it contemptuously. Intelligent enough to be embittered by a world that did not recognize his gifts, he decided instead to accept with the genuine humility that is the true precursor to wisdom whatever opportunity he could find. Now he lives on his own. That’s better than living at home. Now he has some money. Not much. But more than none. And he earned it. Now he is confronting the social world, and benefitting from the ensuing conflict:

Knowledge frequently results
from knowing others,
but the man who is awakened,
has seen the uncarved block.
Others might be mastered by force,
but to master one’s self
requires the Tao.
He who has many material things,
may be described as rich,
but he who knows he has enough,
and is at one with the Tao,
might have enough of material things
and have self-being as well.218

As long as my still-anxious but self-transforming and determined visitor continues down his current path, he will become far more competent and accomplished, and it won’t take long. But this will only be because he accepted his lowly state and was sufficiently grateful to take the first equally lowly step away from it. That’s far preferable to waiting, endlessly, for the magical arrival of Godot. That’s far preferable to arrogant, static, unchanging existence, while the demons of rage, resentment and unlived life gather around.

What shall I do when greed consumes me? Remember that it is truly better to give than to receive. The world is a forum of sharing and trading (that’s Rule 7, again), not a treasure-house for the plundering. To give is to do what you can to make things better. The good in people will respond to that, and support it, and imitate it, and multiply it, and return it, and foster it, so that everything improves and moves forward.

What shall I do when I ruin my rivers? Seek for the living water and let it cleanse the Earth. I found this question, as well as its answer, particularly unexpected. It seems most associated with Rule 6 (Set your house…). Perhaps our environmental problems are not best construed technically. Maybe they’re best considered psychologically. The more people sort themselves out, the more responsibility they will take for the world around them and the more problems they will solve.219 It is better, proverbially, to rule your own spirit than to rule a city. It’s easier to subdue an enemy without than one within. Maybe the environmental problem is ultimately spiritual. If we put ourselves in order, perhaps we will do the same for the world. Of course, what else would a psychologist think?

The next set were associated with proper response to crisis and exhaustion:

What shall I do when my enemy succeeds? Aim a little higher and be grateful for the lesson. Back to Matthew: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (5:43-5:45). What does this mean? Learn, from the success of your enemies; listen (Rule 9) to their critique, so that you can glean from their opposition whatever fragments of wisdom you might incorporate, to your betterment; adopt as your ambition the creation of a world in which those who work against you see the light and wake up and succeed, so that the better at which you are aiming can encompass them, too.

What shall I do when I’m tired and impatient? Gratefully accept an outstretched helping hand. This is something with a twofold meaning. It’s an injunction, first, to note the reality of the limitations of individual being and, second, to accept and be thankful for the support of others—family, friends, acquaintances and strangers alike. Exhaustion and impatience are inevitable. There is too much to be done and too little time in which to do it. But we don’t have to strive alone, and there is nothing but good in distributing the responsibilities, cooperating in the efforts, and sharing credit for the productive and meaningful work thereby undertaken.

What shall I do with the fact of aging? Replace the potential of my youth with the accomplishments of my maturity. This hearkens back to the discussion of friendship surrounding Rule 3, and the story of Socrates’ trial and death—which might be summarized, as follows: A life lived thoroughly justifies its own limitations. The young man with nothing has his possibilities to set against the accomplishments of his elders. It’s not clear that it’s necessarily a bad deal, for either. “An aged man is but a paltry thing,” wrote William Butler Yeats, “A tattered coat upon a stick, unless/Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing/For every tatter in its mortal dress….”220

What shall I do with my infant’s death? Hold my other loved ones and heal their pain. It is necessary to be strong in the face of death, because death is intrinsic to life. It is for this reason that I tell my students: aim to be the person at your father’s funeral that everyone, in their grief and misery, can rely on. There’s a worthy and noble ambition: strength in the face of adversity. That is very different from the wish for a life free of trouble.

What shall I do in the next dire moment? Focus my attention on the next right move. The flood is coming. The flood is always coming. The apocalypse is always upon us. That’s why the story of Noah is archetypal. Things fall apart—we stressed that in the discussion surrounding Rule 10 (Be precise in your speech)—and the centre cannot hold. When everything has become chaotic and uncertain, all that remains to guide you might be the character you constructed, previously, by aiming up and concentrating on the moment at hand. If you have failed in that, you will fail in the moment of crisis, and then God help you.

That last set contained what I thought were the most difficult of all the questions I asked that night. The death of a child is, perhaps, the worst of catastrophes. Many relationships fail in the aftermath of such a tragedy. But dissolution in the face of such horror is not inevitable, although it is understandable. I have seen people immensely strengthen their remaining family bonds when someone close to them has died. I have seen them turn to those who remained and redouble their efforts to connect with them and support them. Because of that, all regained at least some of what had been so terribly torn away by death. We must therefore commiserate in our grief. We must come together in the face of the tragedy of existence. Our families can be the living room with the fireplace that is cozy and welcoming and warm while the storms of winter rage outside.

The heightened knowledge of fragility and mortality produced by death can terrify, embitter and separate. It can also awaken. It can remind those who grieve not to take the people who love them for granted. Once I did some chilling calculations regarding my parents, who are in their eighties. It was an example of the hated arithmetic we encountered in the discussion of Rule 5 (Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them)—and I walked through the equations so that I would stay properly conscious. I see my Mom and Dad about twice a year. We generally spend several weeks together. We talk on the phone in the interim between visits. But the life expectancy of people in their eighties is under ten years. That means I am likely to see my parents, if I am fortunate, fewer than twenty more times. That’s a terrible thing to know. But knowing it puts a stop to my taking those opportunities for granted.

The next set of questions—and answers—had to do with the development of character. What shall I say to a faithless brother? The King of the Damned is a poor judge of Being. It is my firm belief that the best way to fix the world—a handyman’s dream, if ever there was one—is to fix yourself, as we discussed in Rule 6. Anything else is presumptuous. Anything else risks harm, stemming from your ignorance and lack of skill. But that’s OK. There’s plenty to do, right where you are. After all, your specific personal faults detrimentally affect the world. Your conscious, voluntary sins (because no other word really works) makes things worse than they have to be. Your inaction, inertia and cynicism removes from the world that part of you that could learn to quell suffering and make peace. That’s not good. There are endless reasons to despair of the world, and to become angry and resentful and to seek revenge.

Failure to make the proper sacrifices, failure to reveal yourself, failure to live and tell the truth—all that weakens you. In that weakened state, you will be unable to thrive in the world, and you will be of no benefit to yourself or to others. You will fail and suffer, stupidly. That will corrupt your soul. How could it be otherwise? Life is hard enough when it is going well. But when it’s going badly? And I have learned through painful experience that nothing is going so badly that it can’t be made worse. This is why Hell is a bottomless pit. This is why Hell is associated with that aforementioned sin. In the most awful of cases, the terrible suffering of unfortunate souls becomes attributable, by their own judgment, to mistakes they made knowingly in the past: acts of betrayal, deception, cruelty, carelessness, cowardice and, most commonly of all, willful blindness. To suffer terribly and to know yourself as the cause: that is Hell. And once in Hell it is very easy to curse Being itself. And no wonder. But it’s not justifiable. And that’s why the King of the Damned is a poor judge of Being.

How do you build yourself into someone on whom you can rely, in the best of times and the worst—in peace and in war? How do you build for yourself the kind of character that will not ally itself, in its suffering and misery, with all who dwell in Hell? The questions and answers continued, all pertinent, in one way or another, to the rules I have outlined in this book:

What shall I do to strengthen my spirit? Do not tell lies, or do what you despise.
What shall I do to ennoble my body? Use it only in the service of my soul.
What shall I do with the most difficult of questions? Consider them the gateway to the path of life.
What shall I do with the poor man’s plight? Strive through right example to lift his broken heart.
What shall I do when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths.

And that was that. I still have my Pen of Light. I haven’t written anything with it since. Maybe I will again when the mood strikes and something wells up from deep below. But, even if I don’t, it helped me find the words to properly close this book. But, even if I don’t, it helped me find the words to properly close this book.

I hope that my writing has proved useful to you. I hope it revealed things you knew that you did not know you knew. I hope the ancient wisdom I discussed rovides you with strength. I hope it brightened the spark within you. I hope you can straighten up, sort out your family, and bring peace and prosperity to your community. I hope, in accordance with Rule 11 (Do not bother children when they are skateboarding), that you strengthen and encourage those who are committed to your care instead of protecting them to the point of weakness.

I wish you all the best, and hope that you can wish the best for others.

What will you write with your pen of light?
 
Back
Top Bottom