Jordan B Peterson Lectures on the Bible

Spirit: definition- "the heading that a purpose has"; or said another way- the latent 'metaphysical' direction within the purpose (thus when the doctrinal discussion in the bible starts getting heavy, you can start to relate "spirit of man" = spirit of the vessel (a.k.a the fleshly thought) vs. the "spirit of God"= the spirit of truth, these are generally synonymous in the bible, although they are referred to by different grammar to make the issue being explored more directly accessible: it is my contention that much of the 'literal' inconsistency of the bible is due to lacking proper understanding of what's being communicated, if you are reading an inconsistency, your filter of interpretation is what is generating apparent error, because it stopping you from moving into a deeper consideration of the 'spiritual dynamic' being described, and you've not put in enough work to arrive at the meaning that's worth considering).

(cont.)

God: I often don't focus on this concept too much, especially because its an atheist triggering-word, but its important to note that the bible refers to the word God very-very differently and uses it quite differently also. Sometimes when God is mentioned, the focus is on the understanding of god from a purely philosophical (semi-objective framework, God-the ultimate, in relation to itself), this is kindof important to distinguish between what is being said about the actions of God relative to it-self, and then relative to the subjective perspective of the proper vessel of God (man) renders quite a different confusing account if these matters aren't investigated as separate and but inter-related subjects. It is my contention that properly understood, the word "God" simply means: authority;— the word God is even used in the bible to name the devil (i.e "God of the world"- is the title given to Satan in the scriptures, "god of the world"/"spirit of 'the vessel' (the vessel being "man"/flesh), is the best way to conceive of the deepest and most essential nature of deception), and describes the limited authority that 'the devil' obtains (so already, one should understand the doctrine includes a massive distinction between 'the world' and the 'earth'— which contains important layers of analysis when understanding the relationship between Christ and Christ-consciousness to 'the world', and how the 'world is overcome'; and what the Kingdom of God properly entails: and how little it means to the world in general, and how vastly important to is in the subjective experience).

(cont.)

The major style of contribution in form of parable: parables make an illustration of internal considerations; this is why so many parables are overlooked and sorely misunderstood grievously, because they are 'mined' for literal significance, when its only the composition of the considerations that's being codified. [the woman who feeds the dogs the scraps of food, because the dogs are hungry also... and implicitly a starving dog can also become like a wolf].

If anyone would like to join a discussion group on these and related matters, centering around psychology and philosophy, please join me on: https://discord.gg/NGbusjR The focus is much in vein of Jordan Peterson's discussion with Sam Harris (so atheists welcome), but also the psychological grammar of religious systems, (including alchemy) and other related philosophical matters. I just started this discord server, so I'm hoping it will start up successfully.

Interesting thoughts. I for one want to get the basics of German idealism before I get into Jung, because it laid out the philosophical framework for the discussion of the unconscious. Phenomenology too. Peterson often styles himself a phenomenologist. You can't understand phenomenology without having a basic reading of Hegel. God, so many things to read, so very little time.

I have nothing to add to this thread but appreciate OP's effort. have a bump.

>>2851464
with German Idealism you should start with Hume. Kant then responds to Hume. This leads to Fichte and Schelling responding to Kant, and then Hegel is essentially the synthesis of Fichte and Schelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

OP here... thanks for some of that discussion, its worth delving into at some point, and think I shall..

Just wanted to point out, that a lot of my own theory of mind, with its philosophical implication, has to do with the conceptual treatment of time; which I believe clearly roots the metaphysical structure of free will, and answers to many other essential frame-work in the realm and intersection between the ontology of philosophy, and the epistemology of psychology.

Just wanted to offer this low hanging fruit, still no-one has dared join my discord (one brief visitor who had left before I had even returned to attend to their presence . __ . ;; )

>>2852312
I'm pleading for someone to listen and give me critical debate over these ideas . __ . ; , perhaps even start up a fora of some kind, if consensus looks promising... perhaps a podcast on far ranging issues; but that might be long term, I'm just looking for some intellectual experience so that I can work out a good angle and tone to take with writing a book on my theory... (it draws on many traditions, but most Christianity and alchemical thinking, although I do have strict theoretical rigor in developing an axiomatic-informed metaphysical model of consciousness). Augmenting grammar theory to generate a categorization of axiomatic operations, that correspond to cognitive functions, made conceptually accessible because of language-thinking; and therefore self-aware (conscious).

(cont.)

One of the simplistic exercises of this, is how the 1 John verses "in the beginning) can be used to both ground an understanding of how time relates to conscious 'space'; which can further elucidate the proper interpretation of quantum mechanics (which Science is unable to confirm, without 'empirical' sophistication by process of an elaborate philosophical edification). The Scientific Method itself is, strictly speaking, has been debunked, by the evidence that time and nature of reality is not in accord with deterministic features. The philosophical gambit of shifting the burden on the field of statistics, and mathematics, is a untenable ponsy scheme: the understanding of truth cannot be represented by a statistic, and substituting understanding for mere descriptions , is the symptom of an atrophied endevour, that can only mount more and more blind-faith into sustaining its path to vindicating its conceited posturing, for remaining obtuse and beyond understanding (allegorically: Science can only be satisfied, after it has created an A.I more intelligent that humans, so that the A.I can consider scientific matters and assure humanity that science is in-fact perfect and clear, only its just being beyond humanity to fathom and reconcile in our deficient understanding, that we cannot gleam the ideological magnificence of the math symmetry, or some other such asthetic fudging; after such a computer has already been dreamed up already, by the makers of the Superman comic books, this figure is easy enough to fathom and understand, its Brainiac.)


Was gonna make a parallel that in some minor form, perhaps some version of brainiac already exists, because of those trading severs that use algorithms that have some influence over financial conditions, and thereby perhaps influence financial decision making over some long-term trends that cannot be correctly strictly to human understanding and human-creative-agency.

>>2852454
edit:

"correctly", should of been "correlated"

not going to deal with my other editing mistakes... hopefully its all just about-roughly clear enough !