Maps of Meaning

this

>What is this book about?

the neurobiology and phenomenology of mythos and religion

>And is it the best of it's kind?

there is nothing quite like it

>contemporary
Do you mean published within the decade?
Douglas and Levi-Strauss are fine, and they sort of are contemporary (50 years old isn't bad).

This is super short: libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=BE10D0FB2DF8F560FA12F8F003219E5C

read the book, but in general: the method for meaningful existence

>meaningful existence
Stop posting.

Honestly, it reminds me of my schizophrenic episodes, although I'm never that coherent and calm in my writing during such an episode.

He linked religion to all sorts of already existing knowledge and discovered new archetypes.

I think for many people, including myself, the significance of Peterson is that he overcomes shitty pop-psychology explanations of religion.

Many young people have problems with that.

Are you alright user? I was trying to write in my psychosis but it was really hard. I was trying to squeeze out all the creativity but I found it doesn't really work like that.

Exactly. Go back to high school, or read Camus or something, rather than shit up this board with Patreon Daddy.

Should i read it or watch his lectures?

Jordan "I'm too retarded to understand Godel's theorems but I like to (mis)use them anyway and then accuse others of being unscientific ideologues" Peterson

Sometimes I have episodes that resemble mania more, and then I can be highly productive.
But psychosis is a mess and gets occult. I'm fine, not a severe case. You?

You have to read it. If you just watch the lectures, you're not gonna get it. The lectures are from the class where it's assigned reading.

I'm good now. Think it was drug-induced. First psych diagnosed me with schizophrenia though, and I got pretty depressed because I thought life would be shit. Met someone who actually had it at a party while I still thought I had it (I was being medicated too) and he was a pleasant dude, showing me it wouldn't be bad. Then went to another psych who cleared me after a bulk bill. Waste of money and time, but I'm glad I saw someone because I was becoming a vocal anti-semite and got shunned by people lol, also tried to fuck all my friends lmao. I heard lots of drug-induced psychosis makes people do a lot of shit.

What you write?

Used to be just in word, my thoughts. Think of them as amateurish essays.
I also draw and that's mostly what I did when productive.

>the method for meaningful existence
let me guess, he does a shitty synthesis/rebranding of stoicism with maybe some Nietzsche and christianity mixed in, ultimately finishing with a contradictory frankenstein's monster of a creation

What do you mean by explanation of religion and in what way is his approach different to past philosophers?

one of the few posts itt i agree with

You don't like Levi-Strauss?

he lived a hundred years, probably made a pact with the devil
so no

>shitty pop-psychology explanations of religion.
Name a few

it's an ELIA5 of jung philosophy for intellectual midgets

dualistic monism approach to the phenomenology of ideology and religion

jung, eliade, neumann, frye + the neurobiologists and behavioralists

Should i have a good understanding of mythology before i read it?

no. he quotes and sources from original texts in addition to commentary from frye/eliade that is topical

it can help but it's absolutely not mandatory, especially since he deals with some of the oldest ones (enuma elish, the book of genesis)

>dualistic monism
explain how this is not an oxymoron

God is in us, dumbie, but he also make the natural world.

>monism
>a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in a particular sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world

for a full understanding of peterson's oeuvre you need to read jung, campbell and the most important authors of analytical philosophy first

>jung, eliade + the neurobiologists and behavioralists

Reading these names and words together gets me harder than any girl ever could.

But if you read Jung then you don't need to read Peterson. Hence Peterson is useless.

Listen to his lectures on mythology. They are all on YouTube.

the existential, metaphysical world is a monad but manifests to us/we interact with it in terms of sets of dualities

prime example: daoism

it's a piagetian and jungian argument for why exactly you need Jesus in your life

but if you're admitting there can be a distinction made between matter and spirit then it can't be monism, it's simply contradictory

it can only be experienced in terms of opposite and ordered pairs by the subjective individual, but the world is a monad

>you youths needs to free yourselves of the spell of Lacan and those bloody post-modernists!
>does a matheme

it makes sense at the base level of abstraction of metaphysics, which conjugates coherently into actual physics (if you don't buy Quantum Mechanics as an *explanation* - not description- of everything we see)
There is only one fundamental principle in physics/field theory and that is Pressure Mediation. The conjugate nature of force and motion always manifests in bipoles but the "dualistic" interpretation is valid on a pragmatic level because of proportionality of action/reaction

addendum: this has nothing to do with Peterson's writing but it matches up on a metaphysical level which leads me to believe that he is a clear and coherent thinker. I came to this understanding through Faraday, Steinmetz, Tesla, Dollard with a foundation of Plato and the neoplatonists

>What is this book about?
YOUTUBE
> And is it the best of it's kind?
Depends on your preference really.

Some get down with the yanqwi way.
Some like tony robbins
Some go the way of the peaceful warrior.
Hes the new pop psychology.
He uses anything any other therapist could do. Hes just had more exposure. I hope he doesn't jump the shark. He does somewhat decent representation of the field of psychology.

>let me guess, he does a shitty synthesis/rebranding of stoicism with maybe some Nietzsche and christianity mixed in, ultimately finishing with a contradictory frankenstein's monster of a creation
Thanks for guessing now go read the book.

By then you will have no reason to read Peterson lol

Campbell was retarded, "follow your bliss," how the fuck do you extract that from the myths that are mostly tragic? The poor guy thought his silly life was an exemplary one, so instead of trying to come up with a summary from the myths, he put his own sedentary journey on pedestal.

>The poor guy thought his silly life was an exemplary one, so instead of trying to come up with a summary from the myths, he put his own sedentary journey on pedestal.

A lot of silly projecting going on here. Try reading 'Occidental Mythology'.

He says how he followed his bliss by not working when young and just went about reading books instead. There is no other way to look at it, read The Power of Myth. A very sad account on a life lived vicariously through books, do not be this man Veeky Forums.

>He says how he followed his bliss by not working when young and just went about reading books instead.

And?

>There is no other way to look at it, read The Power of Myth

Yes there is; and I have. Lose the binary discernment and try reading more than one book of his. You're like that overly sophomoric reader who thinks he's too "grown" for Campbell now, but you'll eventually see what a solid scholar he was in time. If you ever stop being a try hard, that is.

i like how Joe C was against the nogs and yids

And you're the one talking about projection.

To you? Absolutely.

>A very sad account on a life lived vicariously

Top projection on Veeky Forums btw.

>tfw find Peterson and his ideas appealing
>refuse to really read him or actualize what he says because I refuse to be saved by another, I will NOT owe my redemption to anyone but myself
>no redemption in sight

>thinking others bring you to knowledge and it's not already inside you
learn to plato man

If you seriously will be "redeemed" by fucking Peterson you could be redeemed by a friendly slap on the back and your mom forcing you to clean your room.

>wishy-washy post-freudian pop-psych for incel YouTubers who aren't into feminism
Unfortunatley this is the future

Peterson outlines the tenets for 21st century conservatism, roughly speaking, man:
youtube.com/watch?v=Nyw4rTywyY0&t=1080s

Those who don't like him, please offer critique (something more substantial than just calling him a pseud, please watch the video)

>you will never be so disappointed in your plumber that you create a political movement

90% of people who don't like him are leftists, homos and other degenerates.

is Peterson just another Buckley-tier CIA goon? Would be pretty funny to be honest.

hardly.
you'd need Satan-tier levels of cuntishness to even approach the bucko Buckley.
(have you read the son's recent memoirs or articles, btw? do, they're buttclenchingly cringing)

>the absolute state of the left

funny b8 :D

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Maps of Meaning. The points are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical philosophy most of the points will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Peterson’s Christian outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Thomas Aquinas, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these points, to realise that they’re not just insightful- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the meaningfulness in Peterson’s existential catchphrase “CLEAN YOUR ROOM,” which itself is a cryptic reference to The Bible. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Peterson's genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a Peterson tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid.

>perennialism
no
even though he always rambles about postmodernists, he's actually mad about the idiotic use of critical theory as argumentative basis for a political agenda in which he identifies parallels to the one in marxist russia.
he likes nietzsche and mainly critizises him for generalizing his hate towards religion even though as peterson says he only hated the contemporary influence of religion on society. religion itself should be interpreted so it can translate into microactions, his theory is basically every abstract thought or concept can be broken down in a number of microactions which brings you one step closer to understanding (as in neurological responses, meaning you get a better feel of what works for you and what doesn't) the abstract concept you are acting out.
also perennialism doesn't really fit here because his definition of truth is not embedded mythology as most ppl here seem to believe, he just acknowledges the possible psychological significance of how the people saw the world before science was a thing (as in neurological significance) and people didn't divide the world in subjective emotions and objective fact (hence his interest in jungs works on alchemy).
truth in his eyes, like postmodernism implies, doesn't really exist but for the sake of definition he says what has been true for the longest amount of time can be seen as "true", which implies that there is no objective truth but rather some form of "most useful truth". this form of truth can change over time but to change it and make it better he says we first have to articulate it.
also he doesn't believe in the christian god imo, he believes god to be some kind of manifestation of abstract concept about the future of the individual iirc.

this is a broad oversight of his thoughts as i remembered them and I think even though I don't agree with everything he says, some points are really interesting.

gr8 b8 m8

tl:dr psychological problems are no more intense than what ur mum can deliver with a backhand.

t. furious tranny

>"peterson created conservative stance in politics"
>the absolute state of room cleaning cultists

>>"peterson created conservative stance in politics"

this is just a shit comment. it's not even an argument. nobody is claiming peterson invented conversativism in politics.

just that he made his own movement.

not hard to say, off the proven effectiveness of demagoguery (if you want to actually criticize op).

Veeky Forums is fucking hole where the successful attempt at bullying wins, rather than saying shit that makes sense.

no wonder this place is full of edgy 15 yr olds.