Nilsi

My god, this was hard to watch. Dawkins desperately tries to enforce a naive realist distinction between what is "real" and what is "imaginary," while Jordan is attempting to collapse these distinctions within his conception of an implicit order of reality, as portrayed in biblical texts. The core idea here is to be understood by archaeologically tracing human moral systems back through natural evolution, which is conditioned by cultural influences - stretching back through human civilization, pre-homo sapiens "societies," and even to the "origin of the universe." This interplay between evolution and culture gives rise to archetypal structures, or a logos to reality, as seen, for example, in the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis, which reflects the adverse relationship between historical agents, or something along those lines. This "story," by the way, is very much "scientific" and could be likened to something more formal like Game Theory. Dawkins, however, takes issue with the fact that an archetype like Cain’s can’t be proven to be "real" (whatever that even means). This stance is just one step away from dismissing Game Theory as "not real," which is particularly ironic given that Dawkins’ fame rests on ideas from his book The Selfish Gene (which is essentially a book on Game Theory). This whole debate, in essence, is just a trivial language game that distracts from the genuinely contentious positions Jordan holds. Jordan fundamentally wants to advocate for an archetypal order that reflects the most universal patterns of human existence, from which he derives a moralistic structure. Yet, intrinsic to the notion of order is chaos. Jordan’s goal is for us to "confront" this chaos, by subordinating it to the moral order most archetypically represented in the biblical text. This idea is most evident in his treatment of Nietzsche, whom he one hands concedes is an absolute genius, but who, according to Jordan, made a grave mistake: the idea of the "Übermensch," the individual creating their own values. This notion is, of course, antithetical to an eternal moral order, to which the individual must subordinate himself so as not to "upset the Gods." Ironically, Jordan’s own philosophy is extremely eclectic and Promethean. It weaves together depth psychology, postmodernism, comparative theology, systems theory, and numerous other disciplines to create a unique worldview. There’s nothing in the Bible that suggests one should study Foucault, Psychoanalysis, Neuroscience, etc., and yet Jordan does, relying heavily on these influences to construct his worldview. My point is this: Jordan seems to overlook the deeper dialectic between order and chaos that underpins and shapes his idea of the absolute goodness of the archetypal order. This, I believe, is where a serious conversation with him could actually begin.

Which "self" is reflecting here?

Whatever, I was just free associating. "Brahman" is ultimately a construct of your imagination; there's no "Being" beyond your human-being, if you're honest. Even Peterson gets this. I actually took the time to start reading his books, and in the overture to 12 Rules for Life, he explicitly names Heidegger's "Dasein" as a significant influence on his concept of "Being" - which is surprisingly insightful.

This is precisely the kind of dirty Platonist game that Ken Wilber loves to play, where everything is just a different name for some ideal, eternal image. But of course, it’s not - as you correctly pointed out, each of these are completely distinct discourses dealing with entirely different realities. And the idea that this is sufficiently acknowledged in Wilber’s work by distinguishing between some silly quadrants and colors is absolutely laughable. This is where I think the critiques of Foucault, Derrida, Butler, etc. are properly applied, as much as I usually find them to be a pain in the ass.

Or in Freudian terms: Unconscious-Thanatos-Eros. Again, it's a stretch - I get it.

I understand the Brahman-Shiva-Shakti dynamic as follows: Brahman (Chaos) represents the nondual and undifferentiated ground of existence, the pure essence beyond distinction. Shiva (Complicatedness) embodies this ground as perceived through logic and intellect - the realm of the virtual, encompassing ideas and concepts. Shakti (Complexity) represents this same ground as experienced through the senses - the tangible, natural world of complex phenomena. Obviously, this is a conceptual stretch, and I wouldn't usually discuss metaphysics in either of these terms.

Or the Cynefin framework (Chaotic, Complicated, Complex).

Lovely.

It's precisely unlimited only when it's difference; something that might be grasped conceptually as a substance, but even that finite conception keeps changing with each repetition and is always inadequate at capturing the fundamental dynamism of reality.

I must admit, it’s my favorite Radiohead album as well (which really isn’t saying much). There’s just something about its harshness that gives it a timeless quality, while other Radiohead albums, for me, seem to be trying too hard to please the critics.

This really hits the spot.

My reality is absolutely limitless and infinitely heterogenous.

I’m not saying the metaphor doesn’t work. I’m just saying it’s a particular flavor of experience, and probably contingent on what you did to come to your self-realization.

There are plenty of indie chicks out there who’d love to cuddle up with you and listen to some In Rainbows, or whatever. But Kid A - now that really puts you in a tough spot, I have to admit.

I get it, but still, the fact that you’re using a dream as an analogy says something about how you experience reality. I would never describe it that way. Again, why is it an "illusion"? I’m happy to talk aesthetics with you; I just want to make sure we’re on the same page about this.

Fair enough. But I would argue that if it feels like a "lucid dream," that probably says more about your psychology, and I have my theories on what that might be. If you’re fully into it and have cleansed yourself of all the fantasies and repression (even the very subtle kinds), life could also feel very raw and deeply consequential - like the fundamental instinct of life waking up to itself in you and realizing itself hic et nunc. I think that's why I'm an atheist, though I'm not entirely sure how the causality works in this case.

Exhibit A: “The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Fair enough. I still don't get why you would say something like this: You can "let go" and immerse yourself in a deep meditation, staring into the void while the void stares back, basking in the bottomlessness of reality, and then suddenly, some hot chick walks by, and your desire kicks in, completely taking over your experience. This has nothing to do with "ego." And it extends far beyond basic biological drives. You will still be compelled to pursue the things you’re good at, to enact your "will to power," to speak with Nietzsche. That’s just a fundamental fact of life. It’s not something you’re ever going to get rid of, nor would you want to.

Probably because you're listening to too much Radiohead.

The fundamental issue with the Democrats is that they just suck at marketing themselves. You could have all the "right" policies, but if you can't persuade people of that, it won’t matter at all. This is what people who genuinely want to change things in the world need to understand and focus their efforts on more than anything else.

You’d be surprised at the kinds of fantasies people are spinning around the idea of awakening.

This is a feature, not a bug. Unless, of course, your definition of awakening is getting hit in the face with a football. I won’t judge either way - if you’re some kind of perverted masochist, I'm all for it.

Pure beauty.