008 Maps of Meaning: 8 Dwelling on Paradise (TVO) 

You are right on ...thats not rambling, just pure logic, they know not what they are doing. Most modern politicians are in it for the power and money, not because they want to better society anymore. If the few smart ones don't get us back on track we are in for some kind of a revolution and it wont be pretty.

Your comment is excellent and accurate, I totally agree.

these will get more views... i'm here one year after your comment at 18,560 views at present.

that is pretty gay, notin wrong with it though

I'm sure knowledge is the only thing you want a sip of...

No homo

No kidding mate

Shows that the mainstream society is ignorant.

Yeah totally agree. I appreciate what he's been doing recently. But this is definitely the kind of JP content that interests and fascinates me most.

@@travisbruceleepre 2018 Peterson = gold Peterson 🌀(wise Peterson- my favorite type of Peterson) Post 2018 Peterson = resentful political propaganda Peterson (whiny group ideologue)

maybe. some people never have that gilded cage childhood (troubled family life, lack of parenting, lack of resources, etc.) and are forced to grow up at an early age. some people appear to reach spiritual/mental maturity as soon as their early 20s (some artists are like this), while others might not get there until they're much older. if we go by many of the classic religions, it seems that most people generally get there in their early 30s.

That's certainly the perspective of the good outcome of that seclusion, on the other hand what you've got is their standard being the low of mediocrity at which they have been sheltered, the parents spare themselves loss at the cost of the nurturing of their child's development.

thats exactly why I came in here. have u gotten any wiser in that context? (i´ll stumbled over peterson around half a year ago so i only know him, well, as the guy that he now looks/conveys as. in the thumbnail he almost looks adolescent in comparison :o

2004, tvo.org/programs/maps-of-meaning

Your comment here is the proof that air and punjabis can be found anywhere

@@ritikthakur6261 haha 😂 good to see you too !

good observation! A nice idea, but I think it's unlikely because it's too literal an interpretation even if it did have something to do with it. When you have a metaphor or allegory it always ruins it if you assume parts of it are literal, which is why literalist Christians miss all the important wisdom of the Bible by insisting it's a history book. To imagine the truth in Genesis is in assuming it's a literal description makes it childish nonsense. Why did God 6 days to create the earth and universe? Why did God need 1 day to rest? How did God see his creation was "good" unless he knew what "bad" meant? Why was paradise a garden? Why was it a snake that tempted Eve? Why was it a tree that they were forbidden to eat the fruit of? Why did eating of this fruit cause suffering to enter the "world" Adam and Eve inhabited? It's meaningless if what's important about the story is the literal representation It's like reading something like George Orwell's Animal Farm and thinking the important thing is the literal story being told and the literal characters in that story, rather than realising the deeper meaning in what it represents. It's like thinking the story of the boy who cried wolf is either a historical account, or that the important thing is the situation and story of the boy and not a parable we know as "crying wolf". So what I'm saying is to decide "the tree" and the "snake" represent literally the ayahuasca vine means... 1. You lose any deeper abstract metaphorical/allegorical understanding of what the tree and snake could represent. 2. Fails to explain why the tree and a snake have similar symbolic significance in many cultures which didn't have the ayahuasca vine. It's useful to ask what these myths and legends might have been referring to literally or not. And whatever the Garden of Eden story meant to people certainly some of it was intended to be of metaphorical significance rather than literal. For example, even if they really believed in a literal tree, calling it the "tree of knowledge" shows on some level that the issue of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit of the tree was always intended to be understood as symbolically important, rather than as a story about a literal magical apple tree. What part of the story was intended to move from literal to allegory we dont know, and probably it would be understood differently throughout the ages. The most literal meaningful interpretation is one where everything that happens is understood to be a factual historical account but at the same time from Gods perspective everything was done so in a way that it all has metaphorical/allegorical significance. So regardless of what the writers meant originally (which btw doesn't make a lot of sense to say with a story that came from a long period of evolving oral tradition) what they thought they meant is almost irrelevant. If they thought God literally created the world and everything in it in 6 days and rested on the 7th, why did they think that made the most sense? They wrote it that way for a reason. Even if there was meant to be a literal tree with literal fruit it was still created by God to serve a symbolic representation of something. No matter how you look at it the truth is in looking at these things in terms of allegory and metaphor. Otherwise it's like trying to understand the meaning in an emotion by means of the mechanics of chemistry, which is like trying to understand a video game by looking at the code, or trying to understand music by scientifically deconstructing the wave form. A doctor might be able to tell you what's going on mechanically when you open and close your hand, yet that knowledge doesn't enable him to do it any better than you can. A neurologist might be able to describe the brain chemistry involved when you take MDMA but will be completely unable to know what that "means" unless he experiences it himself.

Thanks for this. I do respect Peterson in some respects, but approach his theories with some reticence. I think it's important to cross reference with other scholarly takes on these beliefs and then make up one's own mind.

Which part of it is distorted? I was raised as a buddhist and what he said is pretty much same with what i was taught and read

I don't believe so. If you listen to the 30 seconds before, he talks about how people have traded things like work and food for information -> information allows us to transform ourselves. Eating the forbidden fruit -> allows the body to transform. That being said, at no point in the lead up did he mention the case of partaking in forbidden actions specifically for transformation in a negative context. For example, Buddha leaving the walls was forbidden but lead to his enlightenment, Adam and Eve lost their innocence but gained morality. Note, he also mentioned how humans are drawn to the forbidden. I think the basic idea is that humans partake in forbidden actions whether or not it's right or wrong, but in all cases that leads to a transformation of some sort. E.g. "Hang on a second maybe I really shouldn't do that" or "hmm that's not so bad I was missing out before". Hope that helps

@@bingbong2179 Appreciate these insights. Feels kind of like confronting the dragon in a sense.

@@francisemv1788 Glad it helped. The dragon thing sounds like a reference to another of his lectures. This was randomly recommended to me by youtube so I'm not all too familiar with the rest of his stuff. Do you mean to say that like fighting a dragon or a demon, forbidden actions are like adventures in that they change you?

@@bingbong2179 Can't believe you're new to the material and still understand it so well :]

@@francisemv1788 I don't know if I reallly do understand it that well. It is after all, one portion of one lecture. Sometimes I wonder why I chose to major in maths...

..... GET HIIIIIM! haha :p

D. Love so well put!

Hahahaha!

word. now imagine that english isnt your native tounge and all-fuckin-righty-then, enjoy !

Duuude, bro... man! :p