Ken is quickly becoming my favourite modern thinker. He articles what I instinctively know, but don't have the skill or confidence to articulate myself. His reflections on Peterson and Harris were exactly the thoughts I had within half an hour of their first discussion about truth on Sam's podcast.
Coming here and hearing Wilber speak after having just listened to the petty, divisive and manipulative MSM is like a cool refreshing shower. He articulates ideas in a way that recognises and transcends them. There were moments when I found myself smiling as concepts clicked into place with that sense of aha. Peterson has also talked about this alignment clicking into place and he has helped me do that, but Wilber seems to do it with more grace and less anger. Not that that is a criticism of Peterson, just an observation. Thank you so much for these interviews, I will seek out more Wilber.
You should check out his integral life theory then mate, the way it combines the collective wisdom of different cultures throughout history is truly genius. The spiritual element is one greatly needed in the modern world too.
@@QED_ I'm not sure what to make of your comment. Maybe you think I am criticising Peterson, which I'm definitely not as I love his ideas. I think Peterson talks about being 'formidable' and you can see him switch into that mode in interviews. This can come across as confrontational, but I don't think it is wrong. As to the answer vs process point, my take from Wilber was that there are different answers, all of which have valid truth claims, but they all end up being paradoxical unless seen from the ground of being, which cannot be articulated since it is not a 'thing'. It is no-thing and everything. I took from his comment that it must be experienced to mean that the process IS the answer, which resonates with many mystical teachings throughout history.
GGTutor1 ‘a brief history of everything’; and ‘a theory of everything’. Both are great starters to the integral journey, give a good clear overview and a taste for more. Once you’re hooked you can tackle some of his more daunting works.
@Teri Murphy: True. But it's also true that our cave men ancestors could have saved a lot of time if they'd just picked up a box of matches on the way home from work . . .
"Everybody is right". Our concept of truth is moving in this direction, there is no proof for anything, only what is accepted as proof, and you would have trouble finding unanimous acceptance of these proofs.
@@bradmodd7856 Brad, you are right that there is no final proof for anything. I should have been more specific. It's not Wilber's definition of "truth" that is time saving, but his delineation of where to draw the lines between truth, beauty, and goodness--as well as which types of tools are useful for measuring each. Those who agree to his set of definitions can cut to the chase to identify where their real disagreements are.
Lesley Fuller I have tickets to the summit! It’s Brett & Heather, Iain McGilchrist and Jordan Greenhall no? Is there a planned discussion between Jordan and Ken? Or Sam?
Holy shit I needed this so badly and I didn't even know it it. I've seriously struggled to conceptualise my thoughts on the debate between peterson and harris other then knowing they were both arguing on two separate planes. This man has alleviated that burden. Thank you Ken.
He’s getting old he didn’t use to sound like that.. I remember listening to a sounds true with him.. man he opened my mind to become who I am.. forever grateful .. f
I think Peterson's truth is more akin to a verdict in a court trial, Harris's truth is more like the evidence presented in a courtroom. Harris's assumes the evidence speaks for itself, Peterson understands truth has a socially constructed element to it.
The reason I have enjoy and pay attention when I read/listen to Ken Wilber is A) he gets IT! and it shows in his ability to communicate it. Secondly, the fact that he spent many years and decades out of the spotlight just focusing on his development and developing the Integral Model. "Along the path when you stop to turn around and 'talk' about the progress you can sometimes stop moving on the path" That is a paraphrasing of what I read from a realized individual and it stuck with me. I'm glad he is getting exposed more and more now as we are transitioning to a new mode of seeing and thinking the world
Wilber is such a patient translation service, if he was replicated as AI and dispersed throughout the known world it would almost certainly be more 'on the same page'
This is easily the most important media at this time. Please keep doing what you are doing and Ken was excellent, beyond what I hoped to understand, but he's on the ball which current society isn't, nor am I
Thank you for bringing on Ken. I appreciate that both Jordan and Sam have gotten a part of the truth and that makes them appealing but it is also evident that their view was not complete and it seemed like they were unwilling to expand it to a full(er) understanding. Ken on the other hand is interesed in truth primarily and is willing to go all the way.
I appreciate Wilbur’s conceptualisations and I agree on his non-dualistic, unspeakable ‘oneness’ concept that can’t be communicated. I still can’t see a way around Harris’s free will argument. I just can’t conceptualise any mode where a decision I make is not based on prior cause. If anyone wants to try and talk me round I am more than open. I don’t think this mode of thinking is actually beneficial, but I can’t comprehend otherwise.
We should always be suspicious of those that say either always or never. It goes without saying that there are arenas in which subjective and perspective dependent truth are very appropriate considerations such as in the areas of morality and ethics. But in Sam’s defence I believe it is objective truth and the notion of deterministic reality that is sorely lacking in most discourse today. The post-modernist take on subjectivism has its place but it is being unfolded out across almost everything. Of course subjective reality is a thing but I don’t think there is any shortage of that narrative today. I believe there is a chronic shortage of discussion of objective reality.
I think it's a ring with a cord attached to it. It's a compromise between still wearing a ring and having a bit of help getting said ring off at the end of the day with poor grip or if the finger in question is a bit more swollen (both might happen with age / poorer health).
As a Peterson follower, why not set up a two hour discussion between Wilber and him, post it on RUclips? Jordan has done and is continuing to do an amazing amount of lectures and interviews with all types of people of varying political and psychological, his forte, persuasion. Two brilliant minds would be as the Bible refers to as "iron sharpening iron". Better yet, do it live on stage, post it on RUclips, see how it goes, maybe do a small tour in the U.S.
To be clear - I am in the limited free will camp that Ken describes and align to a degree, but not entirely aligned with anyone else I've met or heard. All structure requires boundaries for differentiation, and we are very complex structure, demanding many levels of boundary to give us the form we have. So we are not free in the sense of do anything, and we do seem to have degrees of freedom which we can develop. In that sense, I align with much of what Ken says. I agree that we have our personal experiences, and we can create shared experiences to some degree. It seems clear that reality is sufficiently complex that all can can ever experience of it is some sort of simplified model; there does not appear to even potentially be sufficient computational capacity in reality to model even a single human as accurately as possible at anything near real time (not even allowing for converting all matter to computronium - the first principles QM equations are that complex). So there is a real sense in which we are unknowable, but may be approximated with degrees of utility in some contexts. 18:19 Ken says "That is real, that is there, and that cannot be reduced to objective science." That statement poses difficulties. It seems to be sort of true, and also sort of false. It seems to be too hard a boundary, and seems to imply something about reality that doesn't actually seem to be there. There are many aspects of reality that are fundamentally and eternally unknowable, Heisenberg uncertainty, irrational numbers, maximal computational complexity, and many more. It seems entirely possible that reality is uncertain in an even more fundamental way, a probabilistically constrained randomness, that very closely approximates hard causality in many contexts at our macroscopic level. At 24:56 Ken says "What Peterson is doing is arguing from these interior subjective and inter-subjective dimensions that are also very real, and cannot be determined according to merely objective exterior realism categories. So they really are, in that sense, even though they do find that if they push into each other there is some real sort of core agreements, they really are differentiating, in large measure, according to these different quadrants, these different perspectives, that they are taking as most fundamentally real." Which I can kind of agree with, but not really. Sure, sometimes there are aspects of that present, but I wouldn't characterise that as the issue. As I see it, most of the issue between Jordan and Sam is that Jordan sees (with some quite good evidence, and quite accurately in some cases) that there is wisdom embodied in religion that is deeper and more valuable than the surface level failure of the fables, and we put our society into existential level risk if we ignore that. Undoubtedly some levels of truth in that, probably far more than Sam has yet acknowledged (and he has acknowledged some). 25:50 "In part it does come down to that mystical notion that ultimately all of these concepts are based on opposites, and ultimate reality isn't an opposite." That to me just seems false. And I can see how it might appear to be so, but that doesn't seem to be what is actually going on. Reality seems, for the most part, to be capable of existence in spectra that in some instances appear potentially infinite, and in many others are sufficiently large that they may as well be infinite from a human perspective, as no human could possibly experience all the possible states in any normal lifetime. So it is not about opposites, and sometimes there really are polarities present. Why things seem to be composed of opposites, is that a binary is the simplest possible distinction, and the one we must all first make in most instances. It takes a lot of time and experience to flesh out our distinctions into something that more reasonably approximates the degrees of complexity that actually seem to exist in reality. Evolution has been dealing with this issue since life began, and particularly so since brains started evolving. Reality is really complex, far beyond the capacity of any brain to deal with in anything even remotely approaching real time. Survival is often time bound. You only have a limited number of seconds or milliseconds to get out of the way of a bus or a charging predator. So all that complexity of reality has to be chunked down to a simple model and the important things need to be drawn to attention. Thus what any of us experience as reality cannot be it. The only possible option is that our personal experience of reality (which I agree with Ken we all have), is a relatively simplistic, subconsciously created model of reality. We then proceed to make our intellectual distinctions based on this model. So intellectually we have a model of a model. Mathematics and logic are great modelling tools, and in some contexts and to some degrees, allow us to build very accurate and useful models of reality, that often work within the limits of accuracy available to us. Does that mean that reality always follows mathematical and logical rules? No, that isn't required. It is entirely possible to assemble such accurate alignment from very tiny units that are random within probability constraints. So Sam can be right, that maths and logic are great tools, and allow us to do some amazing things at our level, and still be wrong about reality necessarily being constrained to hard causality at all levels and in all instances. As Ken points out, Heisenberg uncertainty, if taken at face value, seems to point to just such a fundamental mix of the lawful and the random at the basis of this existence we find ourselves in.
One can't meditate and receive "a mode of awareness" about something that isn't true, though. For example one can't experience-know what it's like to be Napoleon, if he or she isn't Napoleon or a female can't experience-know what it's like to be a male. No matter how much they meditate. There _is_ an objective truth and our subjective (individual and collective) thoughts and words are subordinate to it.
Its a simple case of, if u wanna play in this playground...youve got to go as hard n as deep as Ken has or go home! I just dont see anyone going that deep here. Ken isnt the endgame, but he is a checkpoint u have to reach otherwise its round n round we go. Come on guys...lets get going! Spiral out...keep going!!!
It’s absurd how Ken’s ideas are used by so many people yet he himself is reliably ignored by many more. I see him as a sort of Zarathustra... which concerns me... because I sort of understand him.
He chose this path by trying to focus on himself. Say what you will about people like Harris or Peterson, the one thing they've done right is they've focused on the problems they see, oftentimes more than they focus on themselves... and they have tried to contribute to freeing the people from those problems... you know, like Buddhists are supposed to do. Ken focused on creating a big thing centered around him. That drives people away.
@@wokenepali8376 Well in that case, then JP has come short too, because he has not been very successful with setting his house straight before taking on world problems
Rebel Wisdom would do well to investigate the differences between correspondence and coherence theories of truth....I believe this is the real crux of JP and SH concerns.
@@KRGruner 'If the thing you are doing isn't good for your life then the thing you are doing can't be true.' This is a paraphrased quote from that debate, what is true must be coherent to what is good at maintaining one's life, the whole. Individual truth claims must be coherent to the larger whole truth claim to what is good for life otherwise the claim is false. Coherence theory in a nutshell.
@@KRGruner JP appears to believe that any old statement though must be true if dosent lead to death over preserving ones life (ie if the statement in some manner coheres to the base utility claim - suataining of ones life). Eg the claims of Hitler was a Nazi or the ocean have tides are true if those proposition cohere to maintaining ones life. The truth values of these claims must cohere to the lower order claim of life maintainability. If they werent true (false) they lead to degredation of ones life. I can see how you could confuse utility here with coherence. Here JPs basis claim is a pragmatic one, yes, but all subsequent claims must *cohere* to this base pragmatic claim. The actual truth judgement or test of any claim is one reliant on coherence, not pragmaticism. The truthness of the claim is how well it coheres to the base claim. Change JPs base claim and he would be still be testing the coherence of news claims to that new base claim.
@@KRGruner I'm not saying coherence theory is the theory of truth *I* prescribe too, but it is the theory JP prescribes to, in my opinion. Sam prescribes to a correspondence theory of truth in my opinion. They didn't realise their differences during the debate, its why the debate was so side tracked by this issue. Nothing to do with me.
"Creative advance into novelty" is exactly how A.N. Whitehead's philosophy describes ultimate reality. I would be curious if Wilbur has interacted with Process philosophy or Process Theism.
Analogy for the 2 truths that helped me understand. Although it appears it does not TRULY exist. We need to take our appearance with some degree of respect and earnestness but remember ultimately it has no objective seed of truth.
What seems to be continually overlooked by essentially everybody (esp. the intellectuals) arguing about whether we have free will or not is why it's so important. It's important because any belief in libertarian free will supports the belief that people can do otherwise, which justifies continuing injustice. e.g. the poor need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, criminals should have known better (oh, and deserve to be punished for their wrongdoing). Once we see that free will can't exist (read: we couldn't have done otherwise), we can focus on addressing the causes of poverty and crime, and work on addressing them, as well as on rehabilitation over retribution.
Carl Jung's absolute first encounter with Philemon (by name) also provides a key to a solution, that is, in my own words: to just be; embrace chaos. And preferably, seek to be, while without words. The way of love and wu-wei, IMHO. I could go on and on about this, super great vid.
Jung dose not jive with what you say he dose in my very limited experience. JBP responded to my question of how ego transcendence squares with his view by referencing Jung's work on alchemy. He said to combine and dissolve the opposites. Yet I don't find any of that in Jung or JBP. Wilber on the other hand is all about that. Am I wrong?
@@michaelnice93 I wrote an essay to compete in the Cambridge Jungian Circle's 2019 essay contest on Jung, on how he is relevant to current society. So.. hope this isn't too rough but I type a lot.... The quadrants Wilber's Integral theory are at minimum a concept of two intersecting dimensions, plus three and four using colour and distance from center etc, they partly align/compare with Jung's interpretation of unique differences in individuals. Such differences that lead to different people having unique perceptions on truth. Over 100 years ago, Jung researched how multiple people can have various and conflicting truth claims and both are correct but they're incompatible, thus he sought to research it and much of the details are available in "Psychological Types", and "The Question of Psychological Types: The Correspondence of C. G. Jung and Hans Schmid-Guisan". But the point about Philemon is also reflected in Jung's final letter to Schmid-Guisan, simply that understanding isn't MORE important than non-understanding. Realizing that non-understanding is actually another thing, and in some cases non-understanding could be preferable. It can lead to the "live and let live" idea.
Now this is Ken Wilber at his best in an Integral Analysis between a Subject Centered Reason (Peterson) and an Object Centered Reason (Harris) and a potential tentative resolution via Habermas' Linguistic turn in a "Paradigm of Mutual Understanding". Final resolution: Nagarjuna's 4 points of Argumentation "Madyamika Sastra"! =)
The IDW conversation will explode when its leaders come in contact with Ken Wilber and Integral Life ideas. It’s just a matter of time- evolution will have it no other way.
It occurred to me that so many people online now are shouting about the same thing, just diffeent perspectives. If they could see this, make the effort to enter the other side's perspective, THAT is the future. Where America is going right now with nationalism and Antifa, it's heading ot a situation like in Northern Ireland and it could take decades to heal. Both sides need to mature to the understanding that they have a key but the enemy does as well. The future is amazing if we can do that, our problems are way beyond the scope of nation states alone now.
Absolutely brilliant - I watched all three debates and struggled with the fact that both were speaking 'the truth' and I couldn't understand how to reconcile this. I decided that Jordan Peterson's Truths went deeper and were more joyous, while Sam Harris' were sparse and flavourless, and settled it that way. Ken Wilbur has helped me see exactly what went on.
@@sanctious I have listened to hours of his lectures both on psychology and on the Bible so I knew him better than Sam. But I think it also depends whether one lives in the subjective quadrant or objective third person quadrant as explained by Ken Wilbur. Not only do I naturally have faith like JP but also I am a non conformist who will take nothing from anyone else unless it causes a smile to cross my face, meaning that I have heard a truth that passes into my toolbox for future use. I only look to my own informed perceptions of life. I appreciate a constructive comment - such a pleasure, and I doubt whether either of us are intrinsically wrong and we will never know in this lifetime whether anything of what we say is right!
@@sanctious I like the question. Nobody can be sure that they have discovered a subjective truth. Scientists are having to take on board that never mind what they considered to be objective truths, their very belief system is more mercurial than they would like, except for those scientists who have always allowed the mysterious to co-exist alongside science. For me personally, when I hear something and it resonates, and I truly mean vibrates through my body, and if a big one, it causes a smile to break across my face, and the deeper the truth the longer the smile stays. Personal opinions come and go, and perhaps can be seen as the groundwork. A good opinion may be affirmed though the test of time and experience, and perhaps may become a subjective truth. Where I am brings me joy, quiet ones and big ones - if I am not on the right path then I am on a comfortable one!
5:22 Charles Whitman I have a friend who, before I met her, was married to a man who, before *she* met *him*, was a student at UT Austin. He hid behind a dumpster while the shooting was going on, with another student (Farrah Fawcett).
Peterson stated that day where Harris and himself were locked in a debate on Truth was one of the worst days in his life, he apparently was having a dietary reaction.
"...about this new diet he says that he's following. He has a daughter (named Mikhaila, age 26), and she's actually the one who came up with this diet first, and he adopted it after seeing how well it worked for her. She has an autoimmune disease. The diet consists of meat, salt and water. In the case of his daughter, the meat is specifically beef only. She also says that she can drink alcohol such as vodka or bourbon. The Jordan Peterson All-Meat Diet A lot of things about this diet make me skeptical, and some claims they make seem hard to believe. Quote: In a July appearance on the comedian Joe Rogan’s podcast, Jordan Peterson explained how Mikhaila’s experience had convinced him to eliminate everything but meat and leafy greens from his diet, and that in the last two months he had gone full meat and eliminated vegetables. Since he changed his diet, his laundry list of maladies has disappeared, he told Rogan. His lifelong depression, anxiety, gastric reflux (and associated snoring), inability to wake up in the mornings, psoriasis, gingivitis, floaters in his right eye, numbness on the sides of his legs, problems with mood regulation-all of it is gone, and he attributes it to the diet. “I’m certainly intellectually at my best,” he said. “I’m stronger, I can swim better, and my gum disease is gone. It’s like, what the hell?” “Do you take any vitamins?” asked Rogan. “No. No, I eat beef and salt and water. That’s it. And I never cheat. Ever. Not even a little bit.” Well, he's only been following it for "the last two months" so it seems a little odd to claim "I never cheat. Ever. Not even a little bit." especially since he goes on do describe what happens when he "cheats": Quote: “Well, I have a negative story,” said Peterson. “Both Mikhaila and I noticed that when we restricted our diet and then ate something we weren’t supposed to, the reaction was absolutely catastrophic.” He gives the example of having had some apple cider and subsequently being incapacitated for a month by what he believes was an inflammatory response. “You were done for a month?” “Oh yeah, it took me out for a month. It was awful ...” “Apple cider? What was it doing to you?” “It produced an overwhelming sense of impending doom. I seriously mean overwhelming. There’s no way I could’ve lived like that. But see, Mikhaila knew by then that it would probably only last a month.” “A month? From ******* cider?” “I didn’t sleep that month for 25 days. I didn’t sleep at all for 25 days.” “What? How is that possible?” “I’ll tell you how it’s possible: You lay in bed frozen in something approximating terror for eight hours. And then you get up.” The longest recorded stretch of sleeplessness in a human is 11 days, witnessed by a Stanford research team. So he's been following the diet for 2 months. Two months. And he claims that he's never felt healthier and that it cured him of a laundry list of maladies ("depression, anxiety, gastric reflux (and associated snoring), inability to wake up in the mornings, psoriasis, gingivitis, floaters in his right eye, numbness on the sides of his legs, problems with mood regulation"). And he "never cheats, ever, not even a little bit" except that when he doescheat, the results are "catastrophic" and last for a month. Hmmmm? So out of these two months that he's been following this diet, one of those months was spent having a "catastrophic" reaction that prevented him from sleeping for 25 straight days. But presumably for the other month he was is superb health?? How do these claims add up? Presumably he hasn't been following it long enough for symptoms of scurvy to set in. Not sure how long his daughter has been following it..." From international skeptics website. Peterson is a little bit cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. He drinks his own kool-aid.
This is excellent. I noticed in all their talks that Jordan is capable of understanding and accepting Sam's version of what "truth" or "real" means and Sam is able but unwilling to accept Jordan's. I actually think Sam's vision of human behavior and cognition is dangerous. In the end if everything is deterministic and can be "proven" then why wouldn't you feel like you have the right to exert top down control on all human activities?
Because human subjective experience is the most valuable thing we know. No rational sane individual would risk constraining consciousness.. unless we do it as we already do: restricting certain behaviours, puting dangerous individuals in jail, etc., with the purpose of protecting human experiemce. But, apart from these neccessary actions, Sam also wants to open society to another level of action, because it looks like its very likely that in a mere 50-100 years well have an unimaginable technological ability to change a person's mind. Right now nobody wants to hear such a thing but we'll slowly change our minds, just like we always did throughout history. There's immense possibility in us (or in Nature in general), deep cosmic time will unleash that irrespective how many conservative governments and atavistic thinkers oppose it. The Creation was not made for humas, certainly not as they are now. Between conservationism and openness the second will always win considering 1) the immense possibilities for change, and 2) cosmic time. The only thing left to be decided is how well these two mentalities will work with one anothet, because a wise course of action will only emerge out of cooperation. Saddly, today we have radical leaders of oppinion and their respective taliban camps.
One thing to point out is that Peterson always says that yes there is the world of facts but Sam just dismiss the wolrd of action. That there is this world we live in and act in and its rules doesent alwys fit with absolute objectivity. So I wold not say that Peterson is particularly one eyed in this debate.
@danthefrst: I think Wilber agrees with you that Peterson is more Integral than Harris. But Harris is so close (because of his Buddhist training) . . . that he could flip at any moment. That's what I've been hoping to see. Wilber, Harris, and Peterson with a common agenda . . . would be culturally awesome.
Jordan doesn't argue for cultural truth over scientific truth he has never argued cultural truth to the exclusion a scientific truth... All he has ever done it said that science is not necessarily producing absolute truth, and that the fact that these are types I repeat through mythology and religious texts from basically the beginning of time at least that we know of any ways that they contain truth that is arguably Superior to any truth that we have discovered in modern history through advanced science.
I don't think Ken Wilber is being constructive. He is just saying that his model includes all the other models... Well the whole point of creating a model is so we can end up with a ethic/meaning that helps us live better lives/write better policy. I don't see how Ken aids in this effort. At least Jordan and Sam's views are debatable, useful and actionable. Ken needs to have a conversation with Sam Harris. He is way too dismissive of Sam's thoery. Objective truth doesn't just mean quarks and photons, there can be objective facts about your subjective reality. Its okay to knock it, but you need to understand it before you comment on it Ken
@Angus Cameron: Yes . . . it's a virtue to be full-out in a given direction once you've decided on that direction. But it's also a virtue to ponder the direction you decide on -- be it before or after or (as a third party) in the middle of it. Unlike what you imply . . . both are constructive. You need different types of people to do each at different times. And in fact . . . that's what you inevitably get (even if "inevitably" is a long time).
Are you tending to over-deterministic outlook in thinking this? As I was listening I paused and wrote down...'freewill exists within a framework of diminishing limits'. Integral theory for me aids erosion of conditioning just that notch more in my determination of myself. It gives a framework to consider as a kind of thoughtful holistic entity to weave with in deciding who I am, where I stand, how I am to act. I thus can have it in mind as an inspiring 'check and balance' moderator as I find my way. Ken would surely like us to dance with his model, but to be finding our own moves in relation to this mindful music?
@@hominidsteve Perhaps I just need to research integral a bit, it just seems like integral doesn't have any meat on it. Sam Harris' views on truth, well being and free will have consequence. If you could objectively say that an action is morally wrong, that would be a hell of a thing! Similarly, Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein talk about Symbolic/metaphic truth, which have great consequence by providing an evo biology argument for a religious life over non-religious. I ask you, what does integral give us? Its just a snack compared to the big boys. I personally find Ken a bit patronising, particularly when I feel that he is not steel manning Sam's views Having said that, life is tough and everyone is different, so whatever motivates you and gets you through is cool. Ill keep my mind open to integral
@@anguscameron8152 I think the integral model is just acknowledging how we are indeed all different in the way we perceive our inner and outer lives. And it helps us see where we are standing in relation to the 4 quadrants. Like, for me, I am inclined to JP outlook, and the way he comes across, as I dont believe absolute objectivity is possible...all is ultimately each individual's subjectivity. JP, to my understanding, is of the opinion that it is what we dont know at any time that is important...thus we are forever moving towards some kind of idea of objectivity which will always be beyond grasp. You cant reduce down what you haven't learnt/dont 'know'. Here is where the liminal comes in. We are always in transition. From what I have heard from Sam Harris he is too fixed of mind, but I am pleased that Integral model has helped me see and be aware of how (and perhaps why) I relate less to him. So thanks to Ken Wilber for that. Not sure about your term 'big boys'! I do thoroughly appreciate these guys for their rigour in thinking, and trying to join up the dots, and sharing themselves, but they aint bigger than any of us. There are many tools to help us to find our own truth. We are all in this together!
Words like 'free' and 'determinism' are often problematic in these discussions. They cause people to miss the point. The word 'free' as used in 'degrees of freedom' of a system doesn't bare the same meaning as in 'free will' as used colloquially. The word 'determinism' doesn't mean the same in physics as in moral philosophy. The difference between the steel and straw man versions of an argument depends many times on a precise deffinition of critical terms like those. Nevertheless, this video was enriching
also, it never hurts to remind: causal determinism plus randomness doesn't give us free will (colloquially defined). Emergence of novelty means more degrees of freedom in the physical sense only. At no point it opens the posibility for controlling those variables, which is what is meant or imply by free will (except by compatibilists like Dan Dennett)
Sorry guys, I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood Peterson's notion of truth. It doesn't really map onto this model. JP is not describing an objective/subjective perspective, he is describing a different notion of truth as can be found in American Pragmatism and also points to the evolutionary pressure generating these kind of metaphorical truths, making them *true* by virtue of their selection by reality. The kind of intersubjective view presented by Ken leads only to good old cultural relativism and would not help at all with the Peterson-Harris discussion..
That's an interesting point. It's very similar Brett Weinsteins claim (vs Dawkins) that faith itself is a form of selective advantage that adapts to change and not merely a mind virus 'meme', linking this to Darwinist principles of evolution, and paradoxically Dawkins theory of the extended phenotype. I would argue that both accounts identify the legitimacy and importance of the Lower Left (relational cultural) and the relationship with the Upper Right (physiological) Quadrants and how both form true but partial truths about the phenomena we experience.
But isn't the whole point that both are true? As Ken pointed out, during the debates both of them were constantly conceding that the other had a point but would then protest that important facts and ideas were not being included. This points to a disagreement about emphasis rather than a battle between two mutually exclusive views on truth which is exactly what the integral framework is being used to point out. Also the framework would not promote cultural relativism but only include it within itself i.e. in the intersubjective lower left quadrant (cultural relativism certainly wouldn't survive the critique of the upper right).
@@neththom999 @grejx1 The Harris/Peterson disagreement was on which truth is the top one in a nested hierarchy. There was no disagreement from Peterson that there is objective truth (in the sense of science) and Harris agreed (reluctantly) that there is truth in narrative structures but he would not allow the possibility that this kind of truth can supersede objective truth. The integral view as presented here is simply acknowledging the subjective space and the interaction of individual subjective spaces in cultural space which is kind of a description of the obvious as far as I can tell. It is kind of concerning that people think Wilber's framework simplifies Peterson's argument as what Peterson is trying to do is actually a valid way of understanding the 'ought from an is' issue among other things. Peterson's ideas are presented in 'Maps of Meaning' and we should be careful, in my opinion, on this kind of 'interpretation' through a completely different but ultimately unrelated framework.
@@analysisparalysis7595 Okay, well a certain kind of tempered cultural relativism is indeed obvious since there is very often no way to differentiate between each cultures truth claims due to their nature as inter-subjective, relative "truths". As far as the peterson/harris discussion goes, the truth-types mentioned would be hard to fit into a nested hierarchy. For the answer to the question "what to do next?" the pragmatic approach which can yield an "ought" would take the top spot in the hierarchy whereas the answer to the question "what is the most true regardless of any personal interest?" the other approach would need to take priority. There's no way to say which should permanently occupy the top of the hierarchy which is why a lateral relationship between the two makes the most sense.
I'm sorry,you have misunderstood Wilbers model that transcends cultural relativism (green) .I suggest absorbing his A brief history of everything where he lays it out very clearly..
I really don't think Harris, considering his offensive anti-theistic RQ reductionism history, is part of this discussion other than to be an example of what 2nd tier isn't.
Here's an unfortunate fact: Wilber will never be taken seriously by the establishment if he doesn't change his views on evolution. Sam Harris will certainly never listen to the man if he doesn't.
I think Sam is saying that if we look from a 3rd person objective point of view there is no free will BUT he also argues more that even if we look at from a subjective 1st person perspective there is no free will. That's his main argument which I have to agree. After all as you know thoughts and emotions are coming out of nowhere, you are not generating them. Well, you can say, God, the void, or consciousness has free will and that's okay but that is simply not what people mean when they argue for free will. They are trying to argue that "I" have free will which a rock does not have. Doesn't that make Sam right on this issue?
Wonder if Ken has that rose tint to his glasses to symbolically remind himself that at long as he has any ego in him at all, that he's looking at life through rose colored glasses
Ken Wilber MIGHT be smarter/more insightful than Peterson or Harris, but I'm not convinced. I just finished reading Wilber's "A Brief History Of Everything", and it seems weak historically speaking. Wiber ties everything together and sees history as progress toward integration of thoughts and behaviours at higher and more virtuous levels. I think Wiber's world view borders on religion. W.B. Yeats warned us to consider carefully: the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Yes, the subjective dimensions exist, but their beliefs are either true or not - agreement doesn't make them true. Secondly, I'm not sure how closely Ken listened to Peterson, but Peterson basically said that if a nuke goes off, it's not true because it doesn't serve humankind, so that's just nonsense. Thirdly, we can't ignore motivations. Peterson's motivation is to cling to order because he's in a panic about chaos, so his seeming greater wholeness (subjective + objective) is really just clinging to fear, not an example of wholeness.
Peterson has said many times that we should have one foot in order and the other in chaos. It is when they get out of balance that problems start. His focus on order is because he thinks we are currently tilting too far into chaos, at least in the academic world. He doesn't 'cling' to order, I think.
@Ev MIles Shared _experience_ is real, but the _beliefs_ about a shared experience aren't made true by the fact that they are shared. For example, Muslim radicals might have shared _enjoyment_ of 9/11, but their shared _belief_ that 9/11 was a good thing isn't made true by the fact that it is shared.
The reason Peterson and Harris don't agree on the definition of truth is the same reason why they don't agree on whether God exists (since, after all, God IS Truth itself).
Under MBTI model: I think Harris is ISTJ (introverted, sensorial, thinker and judger). 'Si' types cognition are aimed at personal(i) perspective of absolute reality(s). They often disconsider relative perspectives and metaphoric approximations. 'J' types are good at judging but are not very perceptive. People I consider ISTJ sounds sceptic of anything spiritual or mystic related. This type is nicknamed "The Pragmatist" or "The Inspector". Other people I think are ISTJ are : Peter Thiel, Richard Dawkins and Jair Bolsonaro. Peterson I think is ENTP (extraverted, intuitive, thinker, perceptive). 'Ne' types cognition are aimed at community(e) perspectives of relative(n) reality. They often lack in pragmatism. 'P' types are good at perceiving stuff, but are not very good at judging. ENTP are natural brainstormers (see Dr. Nardi EEG brain readings of types) sometimes playing devils advocate too much . This type is nicknamed "The Debater" or "The Visionary". Other people I think are ENTP are : Obama, John Cleese and Anthony Bourdain. According to Socionics, their relationship would be called Supervision in which Peterson (ENTp) is supervisor of Harris (ISTj) having some advantage on seeing flaws. Married couple statistic shows this to be one of the least frequent couples, explained under Socionics theory by lack of common values and unpleasant information metabolism. (disclaimer for the MBTI/Socionics enthusiast: bare in mind that the J/P switch suggested as a method of translating MBTI to Socionics is not a consensus amongst serious researchers and academics, although it was popularized on the internet. Many, including me, consider that J/P Switch does not occur. How come if the cognitive functions are different, you may ask. The argument is that cognitions are described very different from one system to the other to the point that the MBTI description of TI or NI is very very different from Socionics description of LI and II, making it a inconsistent claim that notations are describing the same cognition on both models. )
Regarding free will, Wilber did not really understand Sam's position at 14-sh minute here. Sam does accept degrees of freedom, go listen his conversation with Dennett on Sam's podcast. What he does not accept is the idea that we are somehow capable of libertarian free will - causless actualisation, magic, in other words. Neither does Dennett, but he'd rather not popularize that disbelief, because people built functioning civilization basing on that magic thinking.
ok, at 23sh minute Wilber clarifies his view and makes some good points about different perspectives. Still a bit off, because he repeatedly ties Sam to determinism, and that's kinda straw man. There's no disagreement between Jordan and Sam regarding value of stories and validity of individual perspective. They have disagreement about the terminology (truth != fitness), and about supernatural claims of religions (Jordan uses his redefined terms to satisfy religious bs)
Great! I agree with almost everything Ken says here, but do have a few issues. First of all, while as filters these quadrants are equally valid, the fact is that reality is not about filters. In reality, they are not equally valid. The upper left quadrant is 100% of reality for a given human, and the other 3 quadrants are interpretations, not reality. This can be seen as the upper left being much more (if not infinitely more) valid than that other interpretations. At the very least, the upper left is the primary quadrant for a given humans, and all each of us is is a given human! The second point is that while truth was one topic, the bigger topic between Sam and Jordan was about religion. The result of that topic is that they both agreed that religious teachings has good stuff in it and garbage in it. What neither of them agreed about or really even discussed was how to tell the difference. I'd suggest that the _main discussion here_ is now about how to tell the difference. I do agree with Ken that a large portion of being able to tell the difference comes down to inner experience rather than reading about something, which takes us right back to the upper left quadrant and its importance. Finally, the lower right quadrant has an important distinction that means it may or may not even be a filter at all. If you are talking about voluntary interactions on the social level, then it is indeed an interpretative filter and valid. If you are talking about forced rules (your own presumably) being imposed on others, then this is no longer a filter, and becomes an authoritarian ideology and excuse for abuse and violence. Let's be clear that such a thing is in no way a filter and in no way equally valid.
Just read his map A brief history of everything..Yes everybody is right ,just not equally right.Those 4 quadrants describe how you can experience reality integrally, I,we,it,and its..Ignore any perspective you are ignoring reality..Within each perspective there are indeed differing degrees of value.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Ken is quickly becoming my favourite modern thinker. He articles what I instinctively know, but don't have the skill or confidence to articulate myself. His reflections on Peterson and Harris were exactly the thoughts I had within half an hour of their first discussion about truth on Sam's podcast.
Coming here and hearing Wilber speak after having just listened to the petty, divisive and manipulative MSM is like a cool refreshing shower. He articulates ideas in a way that recognises and transcends them. There were moments when I found myself smiling as concepts clicked into place with that sense of aha. Peterson has also talked about this alignment clicking into place and he has helped me do that, but Wilber seems to do it with more grace and less anger. Not that that is a criticism of Peterson, just an observation. Thank you so much for these interviews, I will seek out more Wilber.
@GGTutor1: Nah, it's just a personality difference. You like the answer more than the process of getting it. Peterson . . . is the reverse.
You should check out his integral life theory then mate, the way it combines the collective wisdom of different cultures throughout history is truly genius. The spiritual element is one greatly needed in the modern world too.
@@QED_ I'm not sure what to make of your comment. Maybe you think I am criticising Peterson, which I'm definitely not as I love his ideas. I think Peterson talks about being 'formidable' and you can see him switch into that mode in interviews. This can come across as confrontational, but I don't think it is wrong. As to the answer vs process point, my take from Wilber was that there are different answers, all of which have valid truth claims, but they all end up being paradoxical unless seen from the ground of being, which cannot be articulated since it is not a 'thing'. It is no-thing and everything. I took from his comment that it must be experienced to mean that the process IS the answer, which resonates with many mystical teachings throughout history.
@@josh802 Thanks. Can you recommend a book to start with for a newcomer to his theories?
GGTutor1 ‘a brief history of everything’; and ‘a theory of everything’. Both are great starters to the integral journey, give a good clear overview and a taste for more. Once you’re hooked you can tackle some of his more daunting works.
Ken Willber just knows how to translate and untangle so much in my head.Thank you!
We’re so blessed to have this Wilber content. Thank you.
(Really this is invaluable!)
but was it _in_evitable
Why wilbUr?
Praw oh yeah
Ken Wilber changed my life
Yes! Peterson and Harris could have saved three hours if they'd started with Wilber's Integral definition of truth.
@Teri Murphy: True. But it's also true that our cave men ancestors could have saved a lot of time if they'd just picked up a box of matches on the way home from work . . .
Harris can't do that. That's why the argument lasted as long as it did and got nowhere
"Everybody is right". Our concept of truth is moving in this direction, there is no proof for anything, only what is accepted as proof, and you would have trouble finding unanimous acceptance of these proofs.
@@bradmodd7856 Brad, you are right that there is no final proof for anything. I should have been more specific. It's not Wilber's definition of "truth" that is time saving, but his delineation of where to draw the lines between truth, beauty, and goodness--as well as which types of tools are useful for measuring each. Those who agree to his set of definitions can cut to the chase to identify where their real disagreements are.
Harris's apriori truth claims are VERY quasi religious and Jordan's pragmatism is quite..ahem..postmodern
Is there any way in the world you could get Harris, Peterson and Wilber together!!? Ken should have moderated instead of Brett or Douglas.
It's happening!
Check out the the Rebel Wisdom site and Summit.
Lesley Fuller I have tickets to the summit! It’s Brett & Heather, Iain McGilchrist and Jordan Greenhall no? Is there a planned discussion between Jordan and Ken? Or Sam?
Omg that would be amazing
@@lesleyfuller6845 hmm, really?
Brett did a great job but hell yea I hear ya
Holy shit I needed this so badly and I didn't even know it it. I've seriously struggled to conceptualise my thoughts on the debate between peterson and harris other then knowing they were both arguing on two separate planes. This man has alleviated that burden. Thank you Ken.
Is it a coincidence that this dude sounds like Yoda? ... I think not.
I can't help it.
He’s getting old he didn’t use to sound like that.. I remember listening to a sounds true with him.. man he opened my mind to become who I am.. forever grateful .. f
@@stomachhurts2044 He is physically ill. It is aging him.
This comment is pure GOLD
I think Peterson's truth is more akin to a verdict in a court trial, Harris's truth is more like the evidence presented in a courtroom. Harris's assumes the evidence speaks for itself, Peterson understands truth has a socially constructed element to it.
An incredible analysis, Ken. This issue of free will vs determinism has been difficult for me. Your erudition on this subject has given me relief.
this is like watching a well spoken E.T
I'll probably have to listen to this one a couple of times again.
I listen to them all a few times 👍
I just feel blessed to be able to listen to this guy! What a genius to synthesize All that exists!
Nondualism for the win.
Yes! Thanks you for bringing all this commentary to us from Wilber! Great stuff!
Finally. First video where someone draws the lines between all 3 great thinkers! Great work
The reason I have enjoy and pay attention when I read/listen to Ken Wilber is A) he gets IT! and it shows in his ability to communicate it. Secondly, the fact that he spent many years and decades out of the spotlight just focusing on his development and developing the Integral Model. "Along the path when you stop to turn around and 'talk' about the progress you can sometimes stop moving on the path" That is a paraphrasing of what I read from a realized individual and it stuck with me. I'm glad he is getting exposed more and more now as we are transitioning to a new mode of seeing and thinking the world
Ken, you’re a pleasure to listen to! Engulfed by winds; running, traveling, singing, and seeing everything ... :)
It is thrilling to realize that new is always unfolding. 🙂
Brilliant!!! Thank you Ken Wilber.
Ken Wilber, the master of comprehensive understanding expressed with pure graciousness and ease.
Wow, yes.
This integral thinking is what the world really needs.
And there we have it folks!
Wilber is such a patient translation service, if he was replicated as AI and dispersed throughout the known world it would almost certainly be more 'on the same page'
Stunning!!.......
I cant imaggine, how mind blowing could be, krishnamurti vs ken wilber
This is easily the most important media at this time. Please keep doing what you are doing and Ken was excellent, beyond what I hoped to understand, but he's on the ball which current society isn't, nor am I
Thank you for bringing on Ken. I appreciate that both Jordan and Sam have gotten a part of the truth and that makes them appealing but it is also evident that their view was not complete and it seemed like they were unwilling to expand it to a full(er) understanding.
Ken on the other hand is interesed in truth primarily and is willing to go all the way.
Anybody know which watch is Ken using ? I loved it.
I appreciate Wilbur’s conceptualisations and I agree on his non-dualistic, unspeakable ‘oneness’ concept that can’t be communicated. I still can’t see a way around Harris’s free will argument. I just can’t conceptualise any mode where a decision I make is not based on prior cause. If anyone wants to try and talk me round I am more than open. I don’t think this mode of thinking is actually beneficial, but I can’t comprehend otherwise.
Practice zen... Or sufim.. Practice not read and you may expirence
We should always be suspicious of those that say either always or never. It goes without saying that there are arenas in which subjective and perspective dependent truth are very appropriate considerations such as in the areas of morality and ethics. But in Sam’s defence I believe it is objective truth and the notion of deterministic reality that is sorely lacking in most discourse today. The post-modernist take on subjectivism has its place but it is being unfolded out across almost everything. Of course subjective reality is a thing but I don’t think there is any shortage of that narrative today. I believe there is a chronic shortage of discussion of objective reality.
Excellent - again! Very interesting view on the free will-question.
All my answers!!!
You need to interview Graham Priest on his 7 valued logic & his gluon concept. It’s the glue between all of these three & their logic’s
And even Sam Harris has 6 novel Ideas before breakfast. Piu piu.
Brilliant moment! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Clearly a very very intelligent man. Fascinating but I feel like a lot of it is going over my head
so good.
Serious question: what is on Wilber's right hand ring finger?
I think it's a ring with a cord attached to it. It's a compromise between still wearing a ring and having a bit of help getting said ring off at the end of the day with poor grip or if the finger in question is a bit more swollen (both might happen with age / poorer health).
Impossibly distracting. Looks like a bandage
gratitude
What he mean by "that pure grat" ?
... making all truths true and free of opposition ;)
Very Nice job Mr. Wilber!
As a Peterson follower, why not set up a two hour discussion between Wilber and him, post it on RUclips? Jordan has done and is continuing to do an amazing amount of lectures and interviews with all types of people of varying political and psychological, his forte, persuasion. Two brilliant minds would be as the Bible refers to as "iron sharpening iron". Better yet, do it live on stage, post it on RUclips, see how it goes, maybe do a small tour in the U.S.
Truth is living truth in totality and lives in no quarters.
Truth is a personal journey and collective journey.
To be clear - I am in the limited free will camp that Ken describes and align to a degree, but not entirely aligned with anyone else I've met or heard.
All structure requires boundaries for differentiation, and we are very complex structure, demanding many levels of boundary to give us the form we have. So we are not free in the sense of do anything, and we do seem to have degrees of freedom which we can develop.
In that sense, I align with much of what Ken says.
I agree that we have our personal experiences, and we can create shared experiences to some degree.
It seems clear that reality is sufficiently complex that all can can ever experience of it is some sort of simplified model; there does not appear to even potentially be sufficient computational capacity in reality to model even a single human as accurately as possible at anything near real time (not even allowing for converting all matter to computronium - the first principles QM equations are that complex).
So there is a real sense in which we are unknowable, but may be approximated with degrees of utility in some contexts.
18:19 Ken says "That is real, that is there, and that cannot be reduced to objective science."
That statement poses difficulties.
It seems to be sort of true, and also sort of false.
It seems to be too hard a boundary, and seems to imply something about reality that doesn't actually seem to be there.
There are many aspects of reality that are fundamentally and eternally unknowable, Heisenberg uncertainty, irrational numbers, maximal computational complexity, and many more.
It seems entirely possible that reality is uncertain in an even more fundamental way, a probabilistically constrained randomness, that very closely approximates hard causality in many contexts at our macroscopic level.
At 24:56 Ken says "What Peterson is doing is arguing from these interior subjective and inter-subjective dimensions that are also very real, and cannot be determined according to merely objective exterior realism categories. So they really are, in that sense, even though they do find that if they push into each other there is some real sort of core agreements, they really are differentiating, in large measure, according to these different quadrants, these different perspectives, that they are taking as most fundamentally real."
Which I can kind of agree with, but not really. Sure, sometimes there are aspects of that present, but I wouldn't characterise that as the issue.
As I see it, most of the issue between Jordan and Sam is that Jordan sees (with some quite good evidence, and quite accurately in some cases) that there is wisdom embodied in religion that is deeper and more valuable than the surface level failure of the fables, and we put our society into existential level risk if we ignore that. Undoubtedly some levels of truth in that, probably far more than Sam has yet acknowledged (and he has acknowledged some).
25:50 "In part it does come down to that mystical notion that ultimately all of these concepts are based on opposites, and ultimate reality isn't an opposite."
That to me just seems false. And I can see how it might appear to be so, but that doesn't seem to be what is actually going on.
Reality seems, for the most part, to be capable of existence in spectra that in some instances appear potentially infinite, and in many others are sufficiently large that they may as well be infinite from a human perspective, as no human could possibly experience all the possible states in any normal lifetime.
So it is not about opposites, and sometimes there really are polarities present.
Why things seem to be composed of opposites, is that a binary is the simplest possible distinction, and the one we must all first make in most instances. It takes a lot of time and experience to flesh out our distinctions into something that more reasonably approximates the degrees of complexity that actually seem to exist in reality.
Evolution has been dealing with this issue since life began, and particularly so since brains started evolving.
Reality is really complex, far beyond the capacity of any brain to deal with in anything even remotely approaching real time.
Survival is often time bound. You only have a limited number of seconds or milliseconds to get out of the way of a bus or a charging predator. So all that complexity of reality has to be chunked down to a simple model and the important things need to be drawn to attention.
Thus what any of us experience as reality cannot be it. The only possible option is that our personal experience of reality (which I agree with Ken we all have), is a relatively simplistic, subconsciously created model of reality.
We then proceed to make our intellectual distinctions based on this model.
So intellectually we have a model of a model.
Mathematics and logic are great modelling tools, and in some contexts and to some degrees, allow us to build very accurate and useful models of reality, that often work within the limits of accuracy available to us. Does that mean that reality always follows mathematical and logical rules? No, that isn't required. It is entirely possible to assemble such accurate alignment from very tiny units that are random within probability constraints.
So Sam can be right, that maths and logic are great tools, and allow us to do some amazing things at our level, and still be wrong about reality necessarily being constrained to hard causality at all levels and in all instances. As Ken points out, Heisenberg uncertainty, if taken at face value, seems to point to just such a fundamental mix of the lawful and the random at the basis of this existence we find ourselves in.
One can't meditate and receive "a mode of awareness" about something that isn't true, though. For example one can't experience-know what it's like to be Napoleon, if he or she isn't Napoleon or a female can't experience-know what it's like to be a male. No matter how much they meditate. There _is_ an objective truth and our subjective (individual and collective) thoughts and words are subordinate to it.
Uhhhhh, wow. Thank you
Its a simple case of, if u wanna play in this playground...youve got to go as hard n as deep as Ken has or go home! I just dont see anyone going that deep here. Ken isnt the endgame, but he is a checkpoint u have to reach otherwise its round n round we go. Come on guys...lets get going! Spiral out...keep going!!!
It’s absurd how Ken’s ideas are used by so many people yet he himself is reliably ignored by many more. I see him as a sort of Zarathustra... which concerns me... because I sort of understand him.
He chose this path by trying to focus on himself.
Say what you will about people like Harris or Peterson, the one thing they've done right is they've focused on the problems they see, oftentimes more than they focus on themselves... and they have tried to contribute to freeing the people from those problems... you know, like Buddhists are supposed to do.
Ken focused on creating a big thing centered around him. That drives people away.
@@wokenepali8376 Well in that case, then JP has come short too, because he has not been very successful with setting his house straight before taking on world problems
@@wokenepali8376 Absurd.
Rebel Wisdom would do well to investigate the differences between correspondence and coherence theories of truth....I believe this is the real crux of JP and SH concerns.
@@KRGruner 'If the thing you are doing isn't good for your life then the thing you are doing can't be true.' This is a paraphrased quote from that debate, what is true must be coherent to what is good at maintaining one's life, the whole. Individual truth claims must be coherent to the larger whole truth claim to what is good for life otherwise the claim is false. Coherence theory in a nutshell.
@@KRGruner JP appears to believe that any old statement though must be true if dosent lead to death over preserving ones life (ie if the statement in some manner coheres to the base utility claim - suataining of ones life). Eg the claims of Hitler was a Nazi or the ocean have tides are true if those proposition cohere to maintaining ones life. The truth values of these claims must cohere to the lower order claim of life maintainability. If they werent true (false) they lead to degredation of ones life.
I can see how you could confuse utility here with coherence. Here JPs basis claim is a pragmatic one, yes, but all subsequent claims must *cohere* to this base pragmatic claim. The actual truth judgement or test of any claim is one reliant on coherence, not pragmaticism. The truthness of the claim is how well it coheres to the base claim. Change JPs base claim and he would be still be testing the coherence of news claims to that new base claim.
@@KRGruner I'm not saying coherence theory is the theory of truth *I* prescribe too, but it is the theory JP prescribes to, in my opinion. Sam prescribes to a correspondence theory of truth in my opinion. They didn't realise their differences during the debate, its why the debate was so side tracked by this issue.
Nothing to do with me.
loving this videos man. keep up the good work
Wow, where has this guy been?
Right there in his books since the 70s man. Welcome✌
Where have you been ...? ;)
"Creative advance into novelty" is exactly how A.N. Whitehead's philosophy describes ultimate reality. I would be curious if Wilbur has interacted with Process philosophy or Process Theism.
Brilliant
Awesomesauce.
Analogy for the 2 truths that helped me understand. Although it appears it does not TRULY exist. We need to take our appearance with some degree of respect and earnestness but remember ultimately it has no objective seed of truth.
what ?
I'm curious if Jordan or Sam would be moved in watching this.
What seems to be continually overlooked by essentially everybody (esp. the intellectuals) arguing about whether we have free will or not is why it's so important. It's important because any belief in libertarian free will supports the belief that people can do otherwise, which justifies continuing injustice. e.g. the poor need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, criminals should have known better (oh, and deserve to be punished for their wrongdoing). Once we see that free will can't exist (read: we couldn't have done otherwise), we can focus on addressing the causes of poverty and crime, and work on addressing them, as well as on rehabilitation over retribution.
Carl Jung's absolute first encounter with Philemon (by name) also provides a key to a solution, that is, in my own words: to just be; embrace chaos. And preferably, seek to be, while without words. The way of love and wu-wei, IMHO. I could go on and on about this, super great vid.
Jung dose not jive with what you say he dose in my very limited experience. JBP responded to my question of how ego transcendence squares with his view by referencing Jung's work on alchemy. He said to combine and dissolve the opposites. Yet I don't find any of that in Jung or JBP. Wilber on the other hand is all about that. Am I wrong?
@@michaelnice93 are you saying you don't find any notion of combining (dissolving?) the opposites in Jung?
@@michaelnice93 I wrote an essay to compete in the Cambridge Jungian Circle's 2019 essay contest on Jung, on how he is relevant to current society. So.. hope this isn't too rough but I type a lot....
The quadrants Wilber's Integral theory are at minimum a concept of two intersecting dimensions, plus three and four using colour and distance from center etc, they partly align/compare with Jung's interpretation of unique differences in individuals. Such differences that lead to different people having unique perceptions on truth. Over 100 years ago, Jung researched how multiple people can have various and conflicting truth claims and both are correct but they're incompatible, thus he sought to research it and much of the details are available in "Psychological Types", and "The Question of Psychological Types: The Correspondence of C. G. Jung and Hans Schmid-Guisan".
But the point about Philemon is also reflected in Jung's final letter to Schmid-Guisan, simply that understanding isn't MORE important than non-understanding. Realizing that non-understanding is actually another thing, and in some cases non-understanding could be preferable. It can lead to the "live and let live" idea.
@@edgeofthought I always thought that this was at the core of Jung teachings. Self as the unity of opposites
Now this is Ken Wilber at his best in an Integral Analysis between a Subject Centered Reason (Peterson) and an Object Centered Reason (Harris) and a potential tentative resolution via Habermas' Linguistic turn in a "Paradigm of Mutual Understanding". Final resolution: Nagarjuna's 4 points of Argumentation "Madyamika Sastra"! =)
The IDW conversation will explode when its leaders come in contact with Ken Wilber and Integral Life ideas. It’s just a matter of time- evolution will have it no other way.
...he refers to the Good the True and the Beautiful... does anyone know where this comes from as a phrase? It's history... when first used etc
integrallife.com/good-true-beautiful/
Plato
@@daviddeida ...Thanks except that, in Plato, across the dialogues he continually refers to the Good, the Beautiful and the Just ...
Can we take a moment to appreciate the fact that Ken isn't just the smartest guy in the room, but the most well-dressed also?
It occurred to me that so many people online now are shouting about the same thing, just diffeent perspectives. If they could see this, make the effort to enter the other side's perspective, THAT is the future. Where America is going right now with nationalism and Antifa, it's heading ot a situation like in Northern Ireland and it could take decades to heal. Both sides need to mature to the understanding that they have a key but the enemy does as well. The future is amazing if we can do that, our problems are way beyond the scope of nation states alone now.
Q: Isn't this where psychology becomes philosophy?
James Cross they’re basically the same thing. Be sure not to confuse psychology with psychiatry.
and becomes historical interpretation/understanding......Wilber seems to be implying this
Set up a conversation with JP now!
David: can we look forward to seeing Sam and Ken in dialogue?
Absolutely brilliant - I watched all three debates and struggled with the fact that both were speaking 'the truth' and I couldn't understand how to reconcile this. I decided that Jordan Peterson's Truths went deeper and were more joyous, while Sam Harris' were sparse and flavourless, and settled it that way. Ken Wilbur has helped me see exactly what went on.
Interesting. I found JP's truth strained and defensive and Sam's clear and to the point.
@@sanctious I have listened to hours of his lectures both on psychology and on the Bible so I knew him better than Sam. But I think it also depends whether one lives in the subjective quadrant or objective third person quadrant as explained by Ken Wilbur. Not only do I naturally have faith like JP but also I am a non conformist who will take nothing from anyone else unless it causes a smile to cross my face, meaning that I have heard a truth that passes into my toolbox for future use. I only look to my own informed perceptions of life. I appreciate a constructive comment - such a pleasure, and I doubt whether either of us are intrinsically wrong and we will never know in this lifetime whether anything of what we say is right!
@@jenniferbuckle1 What's the difference between subjective truth and personal opinion?
@@sanctious I like the question. Nobody can be sure that they have discovered a subjective truth. Scientists are having to take on board that never mind what they considered to be objective truths, their very belief system is more mercurial than they would like, except for those scientists who have always allowed the mysterious to co-exist alongside science. For me personally, when I hear something and it resonates, and I truly mean vibrates through my body, and if a big one, it causes a smile to break across my face, and the deeper the truth the longer the smile stays. Personal opinions come and go, and perhaps can be seen as the groundwork. A good opinion may be affirmed though the test of time and experience, and perhaps may become a subjective truth. Where I am brings me joy, quiet ones and big ones - if I am not on the right path then I am on a comfortable one!
@@jenniferbuckle1 It doesn't sound useful or practical for everyone to have their own truth.
5:22 Charles Whitman
I have a friend who, before I met her, was married to a man who, before *she* met *him*, was a student at UT Austin. He hid behind a dumpster while the shooting was going on, with another student (Farrah Fawcett).
Peterson stated that day where Harris and himself were locked in a debate on Truth was one of the worst days in his life, he apparently was having a dietary reaction.
Wow :/ these debates can be really draining, especially when the audience is expecting an entertaining performance
probably all the meat was catching up to him
That debate was before he started the all meat diet.
"...about this new diet he says that he's following. He has a daughter (named Mikhaila, age 26), and she's actually the one who came up with this diet first, and he adopted it after seeing how well it worked for her. She has an autoimmune disease. The diet consists of meat, salt and water. In the case of his daughter, the meat is specifically beef only. She also says that she can drink alcohol such as vodka or bourbon.
The Jordan Peterson All-Meat Diet
A lot of things about this diet make me skeptical, and some claims they make seem hard to believe.
Quote:
In a July appearance on the comedian Joe Rogan’s podcast, Jordan Peterson explained how Mikhaila’s experience had convinced him to eliminate everything but meat and leafy greens from his diet, and that in the last two months he had gone full meat and eliminated vegetables. Since he changed his diet, his laundry list of maladies has disappeared, he told Rogan. His lifelong depression, anxiety, gastric reflux (and associated snoring), inability to wake up in the mornings, psoriasis, gingivitis, floaters in his right eye, numbness on the sides of his legs, problems with mood regulation-all of it is gone, and he attributes it to the diet.
“I’m certainly intellectually at my best,” he said. “I’m stronger, I can swim better, and my gum disease is gone. It’s like, what the hell?”
“Do you take any vitamins?” asked Rogan.
“No. No, I eat beef and salt and water. That’s it. And I never cheat. Ever. Not even a little bit.”
Well, he's only been following it for "the last two months" so it seems a little odd to claim "I never cheat. Ever. Not even a little bit." especially since he goes on do describe what happens when he "cheats":
Quote:
“Well, I have a negative story,” said Peterson. “Both Mikhaila and I noticed that when we restricted our diet and then ate something we weren’t supposed to, the reaction was absolutely catastrophic.” He gives the example of having had some apple cider and subsequently being incapacitated for a month by what he believes was an inflammatory response.
“You were done for a month?”
“Oh yeah, it took me out for a month. It was awful ...”
“Apple cider? What was it doing to you?”
“It produced an overwhelming sense of impending doom. I seriously mean overwhelming. There’s no way I could’ve lived like that. But see, Mikhaila knew by then that it would probably only last a month.”
“A month? From ******* cider?”
“I didn’t sleep that month for 25 days. I didn’t sleep at all for 25 days.”
“What? How is that possible?”
“I’ll tell you how it’s possible: You lay in bed frozen in something approximating terror for eight hours. And then you get up.”
The longest recorded stretch of sleeplessness in a human is 11 days, witnessed by a Stanford research team.
So he's been following the diet for 2 months. Two months. And he claims that he's never felt healthier and that it cured him of a laundry list of maladies ("depression, anxiety, gastric reflux (and associated snoring), inability to wake up in the mornings, psoriasis, gingivitis, floaters in his right eye, numbness on the sides of his legs, problems with mood regulation"). And he "never cheats, ever, not even a little bit" except that when he doescheat, the results are "catastrophic" and last for a month. Hmmmm?
So out of these two months that he's been following this diet, one of those months was spent having a "catastrophic" reaction that prevented him from sleeping for 25 straight days. But presumably for the other month he was is superb health?? How do these claims add up?
Presumably he hasn't been following it long enough for symptoms of scurvy to set in. Not sure how long his daughter has been following it..."
From international skeptics website. Peterson is a little bit cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. He drinks his own kool-aid.
This is excellent. I noticed in all their talks that Jordan is capable of understanding and accepting Sam's version of what "truth" or "real" means and Sam is able but unwilling to accept Jordan's.
I actually think Sam's vision of human behavior and cognition is dangerous. In the end if everything is deterministic and can be "proven" then why wouldn't you feel like you have the right to exert top down control on all human activities?
Because human subjective experience is the most valuable thing we know. No rational sane individual would risk constraining consciousness.. unless we do it as we already do: restricting certain behaviours, puting dangerous individuals in jail, etc., with the purpose of protecting human experiemce. But, apart from these neccessary actions, Sam also wants to open society to another level of action, because it looks like its very likely that in a mere 50-100 years well have an unimaginable technological ability to change a person's mind. Right now nobody wants to hear such a thing but we'll slowly change our minds, just like we always did throughout history. There's immense possibility in us (or in Nature in general), deep cosmic time will unleash that irrespective how many conservative governments and atavistic thinkers oppose it. The Creation was not made for humas, certainly not as they are now. Between conservationism and openness the second will always win considering 1) the immense possibilities for change, and 2) cosmic time. The only thing left to be decided is how well these two mentalities will work with one anothet, because a wise course of action will only emerge out of cooperation. Saddly, today we have radical leaders of oppinion and their respective taliban camps.
Wilber giving us the is-ness bizness
One thing to point out is that Peterson always says that yes there is the world of facts but Sam just dismiss the wolrd of action. That there is this world we live in and act in and its rules doesent alwys fit with absolute objectivity.
So I wold not say that Peterson is particularly one eyed in this debate.
@danthefrst: I think Wilber agrees with you that Peterson is more Integral than Harris. But Harris is so close (because of his Buddhist training) . . . that he could flip at any moment. That's what I've been hoping to see. Wilber, Harris, and Peterson with a common agenda . . . would be culturally awesome.
Jordan doesn't argue for cultural truth over scientific truth he has never argued cultural truth to the exclusion a scientific truth... All he has ever done it said that science is not necessarily producing absolute truth, and that the fact that these are types I repeat through mythology and religious texts from basically the beginning of time at least that we know of any ways that they contain truth that is arguably Superior to any truth that we have discovered in modern history through advanced science.
Please have Prof Peter Heusser on.
I don't think Ken Wilber is being constructive. He is just saying that his model includes all the other models... Well the whole point of creating a model is so we can end up with a ethic/meaning that helps us live better lives/write better policy. I don't see how Ken aids in this effort. At least Jordan and Sam's views are debatable, useful and actionable.
Ken needs to have a conversation with Sam Harris. He is way too dismissive of Sam's thoery. Objective truth doesn't just mean quarks and photons, there can be objective facts about your subjective reality. Its okay to knock it, but you need to understand it before you comment on it Ken
@Angus Cameron: Yes . . . it's a virtue to be full-out in a given direction once you've decided on that direction. But it's also a virtue to ponder the direction you decide on -- be it before or after or (as a third party) in the middle of it. Unlike what you imply . . . both are constructive. You need different types of people to do each at different times. And in fact . . . that's what you inevitably get (even if "inevitably" is a long time).
Are you tending to over-deterministic outlook in thinking this? As I was listening I paused and wrote down...'freewill exists within a framework of diminishing limits'. Integral theory for me aids erosion of conditioning just that notch more in my determination of myself. It gives a framework to consider as a kind of thoughtful holistic entity to weave with in deciding who I am, where I stand, how I am to act. I thus can have it in mind as an inspiring 'check and balance' moderator as I find my way. Ken would surely like us to dance with his model, but to be finding our own moves in relation to this mindful music?
@@hominidsteve Perhaps I just need to research integral a bit, it just seems like integral doesn't have any meat on it.
Sam Harris' views on truth, well being and free will have consequence. If you could objectively say that an action is morally wrong, that would be a hell of a thing! Similarly, Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein talk about Symbolic/metaphic truth, which have great consequence by providing an evo biology argument for a religious life over non-religious.
I ask you, what does integral give us? Its just a snack compared to the big boys. I personally find Ken a bit patronising, particularly when I feel that he is not steel manning Sam's views
Having said that, life is tough and everyone is different, so whatever motivates you and gets you through is cool. Ill keep my mind open to integral
@@anguscameron8152 I think the integral model is just acknowledging how we are indeed all different in the way we perceive our inner and outer lives. And it helps us see where we are standing in relation to the 4 quadrants. Like, for me, I am inclined to JP outlook, and the way he comes across, as I dont believe absolute objectivity is possible...all is ultimately each individual's subjectivity.
JP, to my understanding, is of the opinion that it is what we dont know at any time that is important...thus we are forever moving towards some kind of idea of objectivity which will always be beyond grasp. You cant reduce down what you haven't learnt/dont 'know'. Here is where the liminal comes in. We are always in transition. From what I have heard from Sam Harris he is too fixed of mind, but I am pleased that Integral model has helped me see and be aware of how (and perhaps why) I relate less to him. So thanks to Ken Wilber for that.
Not sure about your term 'big boys'! I do thoroughly appreciate these guys for their rigour in thinking, and trying to join up the dots, and sharing themselves, but they aint bigger than any of us. There are many tools to help us to find our own truth. We are all in this together!
Someone forward this to Sam and Jordan; that should clear up a lot of things for them.
Words like 'free' and 'determinism' are often problematic in these discussions. They cause people to miss the point. The word 'free' as used in 'degrees of freedom' of a system doesn't bare the same meaning as in 'free will' as used colloquially. The word 'determinism' doesn't mean the same in physics as in moral philosophy. The difference between the steel and straw man versions of an argument depends many times on a precise deffinition of critical terms like those. Nevertheless, this video was enriching
also, it never hurts to remind: causal determinism plus randomness doesn't give us free will (colloquially defined). Emergence of novelty means more degrees of freedom in the physical sense only. At no point it opens the posibility for controlling those variables, which is what is meant or imply by free will (except by compatibilists like Dan Dennett)
Sorry guys, I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood Peterson's notion of truth. It doesn't really map onto this model. JP is not describing an objective/subjective perspective, he is describing a different notion of truth as can be found in American Pragmatism and also points to the evolutionary pressure generating these kind of metaphorical truths, making them *true* by virtue of their selection by reality. The kind of intersubjective view presented by Ken leads only to good old cultural relativism and would not help at all with the Peterson-Harris discussion..
That's an interesting point. It's very similar Brett Weinsteins claim (vs Dawkins) that faith itself is a form of selective advantage that adapts to change and not merely a mind virus 'meme', linking this to Darwinist principles of evolution, and paradoxically Dawkins theory of the extended phenotype.
I would argue that both accounts identify the legitimacy and importance of the Lower Left (relational cultural) and the relationship with the Upper Right (physiological) Quadrants and how both form true but partial truths about the phenomena we experience.
But isn't the whole point that both are true? As Ken pointed out, during the debates both of them were constantly conceding that the other had a point but would then protest that important facts and ideas were not being included. This points to a disagreement about emphasis rather than a battle between two mutually exclusive views on truth which is exactly what the integral framework is being used to point out. Also the framework would not promote cultural relativism but only include it within itself i.e. in the intersubjective lower left quadrant (cultural relativism certainly wouldn't survive the critique of the upper right).
@@neththom999 @grejx1 The Harris/Peterson disagreement was on which truth is the top one in a nested hierarchy. There was no disagreement from Peterson that there is objective truth (in the sense of science) and Harris agreed (reluctantly) that there is truth in narrative structures but he would not allow the possibility that this kind of truth can supersede objective truth. The integral view as presented here is simply acknowledging the subjective space and the interaction of individual subjective spaces in cultural space which is kind of a description of the obvious as far as I can tell.
It is kind of concerning that people think Wilber's framework simplifies Peterson's argument as what Peterson is trying to do is actually a valid way of understanding the 'ought from an is' issue among other things. Peterson's ideas are presented in 'Maps of Meaning' and we should be careful, in my opinion, on this kind of 'interpretation' through a completely different but ultimately unrelated framework.
@@analysisparalysis7595 Okay, well a certain kind of tempered cultural relativism is indeed obvious since there is very often no way to differentiate between each cultures truth claims due to their nature as inter-subjective, relative "truths". As far as the peterson/harris discussion goes, the truth-types mentioned would be hard to fit into a nested hierarchy. For the answer to the question "what to do next?" the pragmatic approach which can yield an "ought" would take the top spot in the hierarchy whereas the answer to the question "what is the most true regardless of any personal interest?" the other approach would need to take priority. There's no way to say which should permanently occupy the top of the hierarchy which is why a lateral relationship between the two makes the most sense.
I'm sorry,you have misunderstood Wilbers model that transcends cultural relativism (green) .I suggest absorbing his A brief history of everything where he lays it out very clearly..
Luckey stars of jp and sam, ken wilber is talking about them, time for them to rejoice.
I really don't think Harris, considering his offensive anti-theistic RQ reductionism history, is part of this discussion other than to be an example of what 2nd tier isn't.
Here's an unfortunate fact: Wilber will never be taken seriously by the establishment if he doesn't change his views on evolution. Sam Harris will certainly never listen to the man if he doesn't.
Sam Harris cant listen to anyone but himself..He is a petulant child compared to the likes of Wilber.
I think Sam is saying that if we look from a 3rd person objective point of view there is no free will BUT he also argues more that even if we look at from a subjective 1st person perspective there is no free will. That's his main argument which I have to agree. After all as you know thoughts and emotions are coming out of nowhere, you are not generating them. Well, you can say, God, the void, or consciousness has free will and that's okay but that is simply not what people mean when they argue for free will. They are trying to argue that "I" have free will which a rock does not have. Doesn't that make Sam right on this issue?
Wonder if Ken has that rose tint to his glasses to symbolically remind himself that at long as he has any ego in him at all, that he's looking at life through rose colored glasses
12:11 - he sounds like Yoda
Ken Wilber MIGHT be smarter/more insightful than Peterson or Harris, but I'm not convinced. I just finished reading Wilber's "A Brief History Of Everything", and it seems weak historically speaking. Wiber ties everything together and sees history as progress toward integration of thoughts and behaviours at higher and more virtuous levels. I think Wiber's world view borders on religion. W.B. Yeats warned us to consider carefully: the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Yes, the subjective dimensions exist, but their beliefs are either true or not - agreement doesn't make them true. Secondly, I'm not sure how closely Ken listened to Peterson, but Peterson basically said that if a nuke goes off, it's not true because it doesn't serve humankind, so that's just nonsense. Thirdly, we can't ignore motivations. Peterson's motivation is to cling to order because he's in a panic about chaos, so his seeming greater wholeness (subjective + objective) is really just clinging to fear, not an example of wholeness.
Peterson has said many times that we should have one foot in order and the other in chaos. It is when they get out of balance that problems start. His focus on order is because he thinks we are currently tilting too far into chaos, at least in the academic world. He doesn't 'cling' to order, I think.
@Ev MIles Shared _experience_ is real, but the _beliefs_ about a shared experience aren't made true by the fact that they are shared. For example, Muslim radicals might have shared _enjoyment_ of 9/11, but their shared _belief_ that 9/11 was a good thing isn't made true by the fact that it is shared.
Atheism is a not a belief.
The reason Peterson and Harris don't agree on the definition of truth is the same reason why they don't agree on whether God exists (since, after all, God IS Truth itself).
there is matter, mind and manipulation. not dualism but trinity?
Under MBTI model:
I think Harris is ISTJ (introverted, sensorial, thinker and judger). 'Si' types cognition are aimed at personal(i) perspective of absolute reality(s). They often disconsider relative perspectives and metaphoric approximations. 'J' types are good at judging but are not very perceptive. People I consider ISTJ sounds sceptic of anything spiritual or mystic related. This type is nicknamed "The Pragmatist" or "The Inspector". Other people I think are ISTJ are : Peter Thiel, Richard Dawkins and Jair Bolsonaro.
Peterson I think is ENTP (extraverted, intuitive, thinker, perceptive). 'Ne' types cognition are aimed at community(e) perspectives of relative(n) reality. They often lack in pragmatism. 'P' types are good at perceiving stuff, but are not very good at judging. ENTP are natural brainstormers (see Dr. Nardi EEG brain readings of types) sometimes playing devils advocate too much . This type is nicknamed "The Debater" or "The Visionary". Other people I think are ENTP are : Obama, John Cleese and Anthony Bourdain.
According to Socionics, their relationship would be called Supervision in which Peterson (ENTp) is supervisor of Harris (ISTj) having some advantage on seeing flaws. Married couple statistic shows this to be one of the least frequent couples, explained under Socionics theory by lack of common values and unpleasant information metabolism.
(disclaimer for the MBTI/Socionics enthusiast: bare in mind that the J/P switch suggested as a method of translating MBTI to Socionics is not a consensus amongst serious researchers and academics, although it was popularized on the internet. Many, including me, consider that J/P Switch does not occur. How come if the cognitive functions are different, you may ask. The argument is that cognitions are described very different from one system to the other to the point that the MBTI description of TI or NI is very very different from Socionics description of LI and II, making it a inconsistent claim that notations are describing the same cognition on both models. )
beautiful.
Regarding free will, Wilber did not really understand Sam's position at 14-sh minute here. Sam does accept degrees of freedom, go listen his conversation with Dennett on Sam's podcast. What he does not accept is the idea that we are somehow capable of libertarian free will - causless actualisation, magic, in other words. Neither does Dennett, but he'd rather not popularize that disbelief, because people built functioning civilization basing on that magic thinking.
ok, at 23sh minute Wilber clarifies his view and makes some good points about different perspectives. Still a bit off, because he repeatedly ties Sam to determinism, and that's kinda straw man.
There's no disagreement between Jordan and Sam regarding value of stories and validity of individual perspective. They have disagreement about the terminology (truth != fitness), and about supernatural claims of religions (Jordan uses his redefined terms to satisfy religious bs)
Do any Academics take Wilber's notions all that seriously?
Great! I agree with almost everything Ken says here, but do have a few issues. First of all, while as filters these quadrants are equally valid, the fact is that reality is not about filters. In reality, they are not equally valid. The upper left quadrant is 100% of reality for a given human, and the other 3 quadrants are interpretations, not reality. This can be seen as the upper left being much more (if not infinitely more) valid than that other interpretations. At the very least, the upper left is the primary quadrant for a given humans, and all each of us is is a given human!
The second point is that while truth was one topic, the bigger topic between Sam and Jordan was about religion. The result of that topic is that they both agreed that religious teachings has good stuff in it and garbage in it. What neither of them agreed about or really even discussed was how to tell the difference. I'd suggest that the _main discussion here_ is now about how to tell the difference. I do agree with Ken that a large portion of being able to tell the difference comes down to inner experience rather than reading about something, which takes us right back to the upper left quadrant and its importance.
Finally, the lower right quadrant has an important distinction that means it may or may not even be a filter at all. If you are talking about voluntary interactions on the social level, then it is indeed an interpretative filter and valid. If you are talking about forced rules (your own presumably) being imposed on others, then this is no longer a filter, and becomes an authoritarian ideology and excuse for abuse and violence. Let's be clear that such a thing is in no way a filter and in no way equally valid.
Just read his map A brief history of everything..Yes everybody is right ,just not equally right.Those 4 quadrants describe how you can experience reality integrally, I,we,it,and its..Ignore any perspective you are ignoring reality..Within each perspective there are indeed differing degrees of value.
@Ev MIles Nothing can change the fact that subjective experience is primary and the other quadrants are secondary.
hey, i would like to invite you to trip with me
sure, when?
This video should have been tittled, Peterson was my role model, Harris popped my peterson bubble, oh, Ken has been here all along. damn u JP
insant hit
Žižek needs to debate or better, dialogue, with Ken rather than with peterson