Jordan Peterson: Sowing Order or Chaos? Part I

Image: Wikipedia

This multi-part series, conceived in collaboration with my friend and fellow writer Octavian, will be an in depth examination of Dr. Jordan Peterson, the former clinical psychologist and professor who has become a polarizing cultural figure as an outspoken critic of postmodern political correctness and a champion of traditional notions of gender. 
  

In these tribalistic times, with Alt-Righters, far left antifascists, and every gradient in between seeking to control the cultural narrative, one voice has emerged above the din, stoking both admiration and revulsion. Jordan B. Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and academic described as "the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now", first shot to Internet stardom for his impassioned resistance to Bill C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to grant protection to"individuals from discrimination... and from being the target of hate propaganda as a consequence of their gender identity or their gender expression." 

Believing the Bill to be a Pandora's box, letting loose the evil of censored speech and enforced compliance (despite legal authorities pointing out otherwise), Peterson decried it as the latest assault of "cultural Marxists" on Western values; a trend he claims is part of a broader effort, starting in the late 1960's, to clandestinely introduce failed Marxist principles under the postmodernist guise of tolerance, inclusivity, and moral relativism (evocative of Glenn Beck's chalkboard conspiracy days). According to Peterson,  this Communist Trojan Horse has worked its insidious way into the halls of academia and government with spectacular success, using the pluralistic ruse of "identity politics" to propagate an us versus them, oppressor and oppressed ideology in the minds of the masses. 

“I don’t think its [postmodernism's] dangers can be overstated... And I also don’t think the degree to which it’s already infiltrated our culture can be overstated.”

Peterson has made it his mission to expose this cancerous strain, using his YouTube channel, books (including the best-selling 12 Rules for Life, which will be reviewed in a later installment), and public talks to extol the virtues of what he deems the order sustaining values of Western thought, which provide individual and collective stability against nihilistic chaos. Affecting the wizened air of a Gandalf/Obi-Wan Kenobi with an at times manic delivery (which some have aptly compared to Kermit the Frog) Peterson, utilizing a wide array of mediums including mythology, theology, Jungian psychology, philosophy, literature, with a sprinkling of evolutionary biology, exhorts his audiences to "grow the hell up, accept some responsibility, live an honorable life." 

Life, Peterson asserts, is ultimately tragic and rooted in suffering. It should be spent in the quest for transcendent meaning, rather than fleeting happiness and pleasure. Humanity is inherently weak, ignorant, and far more evil than we care to admit. If we deny this part of our nature and blame other people and groups for the evil in the world, it will manifest in destructive ways, even give birth to authoritarian ideologies like Nazism and Communism. 

After all, Peterson says, it wasn't psycho-paths who enabled atrocities like the Holocaust or Stalin and Mao's mass killings,  but everyday "normal" citizens. It is only by facing our dark side (that part of the psyche which Jung termed the Shadow) and, like Jesus, taking on our portion of "the sins of the world" that we redeem ourselves and society. 

Very heady stuff which has nonetheless resonated with many folks, especially younger men, whom Peterson feels are being emasculated and marginalized by political correctness. Rather than wallow in their sense of victim-hood, he declares men must re-assume the mantle of virility outlined in the great hero myths of old and exert order over the chaos of their lives.

I didn't learn about Peterson's social views until after I first discovered him on YouTube. As a student of comparative mythology, religion, philosophy, and self-help I was interested to hear his takes on these subjects. His offerings in the first few brief clips I watched came off as rather sensible: accept responsibility for your life, cease blaming, work on getting yourself together before criticizing others, etc. All perfectly sound maxims, but also rather standard verbiage in the self-help world. Looking to go deeper, I took the plunge into his formidably long lectures (each a little over two hours give or take) of his recorded "Maps of Meaning" college course and some of his Biblical symbolism series. 

While Peterson rehashed the work of thinkers like Jung, Freud, and Joseph Campbell, the more I watched the more I became perturbed by his fixation with the theme of "Order vs. Chaos". Citing the Taoist concept of ying - yang as an example, Peterson says life is the result of two conflicting energies: the yang or masculine, representing order, pattern, and authority, and the ying or feminine representing darkness and chaos. This is nothing new; indeed the motif of male/female/light/dark is a very old one, permeating almost every major world religion and spiritual philosophy. Peterson, however, often interprets the duality as more adversarial than harmonious. It is the role, he believes, of the masculine to tame and bring order to the dark unknown represented by feminine chaos, both within the individual and without in the wider world. He cites dragon slaying tales in Western mythology as the prime archetypal codification of this dynamic. 

The problem lies in Peterson's monolithic interpretation of archetypes and mythic narratives (which Campbell in particular cautioned against). For example, his instance that all men strive to adhere to the active Hero archetype, and that all women, despite postmodern/feminist claims to the contrary, are inescapably wired to be passive mothers and nurturers in keeping with the Great Mother archetype. This view is a narrow one mythologically, psychologically, and biologically: one need look no further than the Classical Greek Goddess pantheon to see that, while representative of the universal feminine, each Goddess also possessed her own special personality. Demeter was the Earth Mother; Artemis the virgin Goddess of the hunt; Athena the patron of wisdom and war; Aphrodite of love and sensuality, etc. 

The same is true for men: for every Achilles there is an Orpheus, a lover of music and poetry, for every King Arthur a Merlin, the contemplative sage who explores the workings of nature, or for every Zeus a Vulcan, the master craftsman and artisan.  If psychologist James Hillman's suggestion that "mythology is psychology in ancient dress" is true, than the manifold gods and goddesses (including androgynous and gay ones) are representative of numberless - or, to use that hated word, fluid - personal and sexual traits. It is interesting to note that Peterson, like many conservative champions of strength and aggression, never felt compelled to serve in a uniform himself whether as a solider or police officer. 

It is also ironic that he has misgivings about transgender people wanting to serve in the military. While admitting he's "not exactly an expert" in that area, Peterson says his traditionalism makes him "afraid of the unintended consequences" of such "radical change". Quite a departure for a normally unapologetic advocate of heroic courage, as well as a man who prides himself on being factually minded: all the major chiefs of the US Armed Forces, along with civilian physicians and researchers, have roundly debunked the notion that transgender troops (of which there are roughly 2,000 - 11,000 in the 1.3 million members of the Armed Forces) are less combat efficient than their fellow soldiers. I humbly submit that trans-soldiers like Kristin Beck, a former Navy Seal, are more inspirational and worthy exemplars of the heroic spirit than Mr. Peterson. 

Additionally, Peterson's insinuation that a childless life for both men and women is a less meaningful one is laughable. Is the life of a scientist who forgoes parenthood to devote their energies to cancer research a less noble one? Is a parent who abuses their child inherently superior to a monk or nun who has taken a vow of chastity to dedicate their lives to serving the poor, sick, and underprivileged?  To take Peterson's absurd premise to its (ill)logical conclusion, Jesus' celibate life as portrayed in the Gospels would be a pathetic one. To insist that all men or women conform to a broad archetype or cultural model is both unscientific and against the idea of individual liberty, which Peterson claims to champion as a classical liberal. 

This, along with his assertion that “the idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory" has led to him, not surprisingly, being labelled sexist.  

Peterson's fans object to this, saying that he is not literally calling women personifications of chaos, or men the sole agents of order. Furthermore, they say, he is simply pointing out undeniable psychological and biological differences between the sexes, and to insinuate that he holds misogynist views is a smear. 

If that is indeed the case, Peterson puts his foot in his mouth repeatedly. There is his disturbing statement, made during an interview with Camille Paglia, in which he laments "men can't control crazy women" because "the same parameters for my resistance [against a man], which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical.... that's forbidden in discourse with women." Since Peterson and his ilk are "defenseless against that kind of female insanity" it is the job of "sane" women to put their "crazy sisters" in line by speaking up: "Look, enough of that. Enough man hating. Enough pathology. Enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender."  His dead serious claim that the threat of physical violence underscores any "real conversation" between men is very telling, as is his statement that "If you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you're talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect".   

He's only upped the ante from there. In the recent New York Times profile by Nellie Bowles, Peterson - among other proclamations - said that the cure for sexual violence generated by so-called incel males "is enforced monogamy". Peterson eventually clarified his position, saying that enforced monogamy should be instituted through "social convention" rather than state edict as alleged by his critics. 

Again, Peterson's slipperiness leaves him open to deserved criticism. What cultural organ does he believe should be the arbiter of this "social convention"? Given his professed admiration of Christianity (despite being quite evasive on his belief in God, which we'll address in detail in a later piece), one can make a not too far fetched inference that Peterson would want to see the Church be the propagator of this social convention.  Though he voices support for separation of church and state, Peterson's idea that "social convention" should establish relationship dynamics ignores the fact that social institutions such as churches, as history has shown, will try to use the state to enforce their preferred "convention". 

As a brief example, there is the much skirted issue of the Roman Catholic Church's support for Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime in Italy. The Church, which had been decreasing in influence since Italian unification in the 19th century, latched on to the fascist platform. Mussolini, knowing that having the Church's blessing would consolidate his power, formally codified the Catholic Faith as the recognized religion of the Italian people in the Lateran Treaty (which also created the present day Vatican), and promoted the traditional family as the backbone of Italian society.  Women were to be dutiful mothers, raising their boys to be strong fascist warriors for Mussolini's vision of a new Roman Empire, with girls resuming their "proper" roles as homemakers. This was buttressed with Pope Pius XI's papal encyclical Casti connubii, which reinforced the Church's view on the nuclear family. A more recent instance is the efforts of religious conservatives to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, effectively codifying their belief in traditional marriage being the bedrock of society.    

I can imagine legions of "lobsters" (a nickname for Peterson's fans, the concept behind which we'll address later) screaming "You're just a liberal schill, MacCormack, using the tired fascist smear!"

I am not calling Peterson a dyed in the wool fascist, though as we proceed through this series we will discover some startling overlaps between his thought and that espoused by avowed fascists (and Marxists too, ironically enough. Perhaps there is more truth to the adage that we hate in others what we see in ourselves than we realize). Furthermore the whole purpose of this series is not to mock or denigrate the man Jordan Peterson, who I think misguidedly believes that he is performing a social good, but rather to show the fallacy of his throwing the cultural baby out with the bathwater when it comes to societal trends that upset our preconceived notions (both individually and collectively) of how the world works. 

I agree that there is much that is extreme with postmodern philosophy, but reverting back to the casual factors that gave rise to it (like patriarchal hierarchies and outmoded religious beliefs) will not solve the problem. We must engage with those ideas, examine them, cull the best and discard the worst. Let us find the Aristotelian "Golden Mean", which is lost in the conspiratorial style of jeremiads utilized by the likes of Peterson, Alex Jones, and Glenn Beck. I do this from a place of empathy, not contempt, for those with whom Peterson's message resonates. As I will write about in detail I too was once among their ranks: disillusioned, angst ridden, and angry over my place in the world, and the players who I wrongly believed were keeping me there. I became an ardent "self-reliant" libertarian and "Info-Warrior", caught in a web of paranoia and disillusion, socially inept and obnoxious, labeling all who disagreed with me as shallow suckers who didn't understand the seriousness of the threat posed by the "New World Order". Once the initial seduction of libertarian empowerment faded, I found myself at the edge of the abyss of despondent existentialism from which, as I will describe, I thankfully emerged sane. It is not my aim to sway the minds of avowed Peterson acolytes, but to appeal to those young men (or women for that matter) who, having been drawn in by his seemingly rational appeals, to soberly investigate and discern the roots of his thought. 

In Part II we will resume analyzing Peterson's views on religion, which on close examination are quite muddled.

I AM THAT I AM

Moses and the Burning Bush by William Blake
Source: biblioklept.org

Below is the second chapter from my metaphysical primer, Take Away The Stone: Resurrecting The God Within, recently republished on Amazon with updated content. 

“I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God… I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” Isaiah 45: 5,7

“Before anything else the One must exist eternally; from his power derives everything that always is or will ever be.” Giordano Bruno, Italian Renaissance philosopher

“God said to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM… this is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation.” Exodus 3:14,15

Just what is this I AM, the Power which keeps the planets in their courses, spurs the tiny acorn to morph into the towering oak, and regulates the beating of our hearts? Though the germ of personality exists in It as an avenue for expression, It isn’t a personal Deity with the fickle temperament of a human being as popularly depicted.  Jesus emphasized this point when he said, “God is spirit.” (John 4:24) The dictionary defines spirit as “an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms.”

In an effort to convey the nurturing nature of this Universal impersonal – yet intimately indwelling - principle the ancient shamans, priests, and philosophers presented it in relatable names to the people, i.e. Father, Great Mother, and the holy host of titles used by the various religious systems down the ages.

In all languages, a name is indicative of the nature or character of a person, place, or thing. The Name of God in Hebrew – variously translated as Yahweh or Jehovah, represented with the four characters of YOD HE VAU HE – is therefore an attempt to describe within the limits of human understanding the nature of this formless, faceless, and ageless Presence, dwelling in the depths of all manifested forms. In the words of the Tao Te Ching: “Since before time and space were, the Tao is. It is beyond is and is not.”

It is that Life, spoken of in the Hindu Bhagavad Gita:

“Flame burns it not, waters cannot o’erwhelm,

Nor dry winds wither it. Impenetrable,

Unentered, unassailed, unharmed, untouched,

Immortal, all-arriving, stable, sure,

Invisible, ineffable.”

It is the energy of science, interchangeable with matter, which can neither be created nor destroyed. While the countless forms, great and small, it inhabits for a brief span wither away as the grass it endures forever in a state of continual evolution and expansion, moving from “glory to glory.”

As far as we yet know, this Presence finds its highest form of expression on this three dimensional plane in humanity. We have unfolded to the greatest capacity the two gifts, as they were termed by the Hermetic philosophers, of “mind and speech”: the creative ability to conceive a state of being through the faculties of thought, feeling, and imagination, and the kinetic action to “speak” or bring that state into objective manifestation. This is the implanted Word – also known as the Logos or Om – that “in the beginning was with God and was God” and through which “all things were made.” (John 1: 1, 3)

We are all individual inlets and outlets of focalized expression of the One I AM, as the language of our everyday conversations show. When a family member, friend, loved one or coworker asks us how we’re doing, what do we preface our response with? “I am” or in its contracted form, “I’m”.

When we’re happy, how do we express it? “I’m happy!” When we’re sad we declare, “I’m heartbroken.”

In each of those instances it is I AM – “the Christ in us” – expressing a state of being, according to our level of conscious awareness. We unceasingly create and perpetuate our moods and experiences with this Power morning, noon, and night, more often than not completely unaware of what we’re doing.

To illustrate with a common example, let’s suppose we’re at work. We hear several of our co-workers coughing and sneezing loudly. We’re immediately struck with a sense of dread and begin thinking to ourselves, “I’m going to come down with a cold; I just know it!” “I’m going to have to call out of work”; “I’ll be miserable”, etc. 

Lo and behold, the next morning we wake up with a stuffy nose and a fever, our self-fulfilling prophecy having come full circle. We can lament with Job, “What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me.” (Job 3:25)

While most of us would chock up coming down with the cold to purely bacterial causes, findings in medical science are increasingly demonstrating the powerful connection between our mental and emotional states and our physical health, known in medical circles as the mind – body connection. One study conducted by Dr. Richard Davidson, a leading research psychologist, represents “some of the best evidence” demonstrating the connection between negative emotions and lowered immune system response. The research, according to Dr. Davidson, “…begins to suggest a mechanism for why subjects with a more positive emotional disposition may be healthier.”

It holds true also for our psychological, social, financial, and creative well-being as well. That is why the ancients strongly emphasized the creative power of our words and the concepts they express:

“So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11

“Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee.” Job 22:28

“As within, so without.” Hermes Trismegistus

“For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of… By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:34, 37

“The Word became flesh.” John 1:14

It is the outworking of the law of cause and effect, which is no respecter of persons, moving neither to the right hand or the left, acting as a mirror reflecting objectively our embedded subjective patterns of thought, emotion, and belief, conscious and unconscious.

“To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show yourself blameless, to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious you show yourself shrewd.” (Psalm 18: 25 – 26)

How can we avoid falling victim to the dice toss of Fate and unfold our divine Destinies? By learning how to bring the conscious and subconscious mind into accord, symbolized in the mystical marriage of the active (which the old writers called the male) and receptive (or female) principles: the head (representative of intellect) and the heart (emotional nature). That is why we are instructed to “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.” (Proverbs 4:23)

We Are One With God

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Below is the first chapter from my metaphysical primer, Take Away The Stone: Resurrecting The God Within, recently republished on Amazon with updated content. 

“I and the Father are one.” John 10:30

“Now that which is that subtile essence (the root of all), in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.” Khandoyga Upanishad

“And indeed We have created man, and We know whatever thoughts his inner self develops, and We are closer to him than (his) jugular vein.” Quran 50:10

To the average religious person – reared in the traditions of orthodox belief – the idea that Divinity dwells in the human heart reeks of heresy. Having been brought up with a picture of the Infinite as an angry old man in the sky, dispensing rewards and punishments as he pleases, they regard with dogmatic suspicion the notion that Deity is “closer than breathing, nearer than hands and feet.” This sectarian attitude is personified vividly in the Gospel of John as the group who sought to stone Jesus for uttering the above quoted truth.

“Because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:33)

To which the Master replied:

““Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’?” (John 10:34)

Referring to the sixth verse of the 82nd Psalm:

“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’”

This is only a reiteration of the truth given in the first chapter of Genesis:

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

When we see through our eyes, not merely with them, we discover the true spirit of the Scriptures stretched in smiling repose, behind the stumbling block of the literal letter which kills true understanding; in this instance the lesson being that, despite the seeming differences of race, language, and religion, we are the progeny of “One God and Father… who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6) whether we know this Power as Allah, Jehovah, Brahma, Tao, the All, the Absolute, Reality, Nature, or Life.

Science reinforces this idea, showing us that the myriad forms of life share the same fundamental building blocks biologically, chemically, and molecularly. “We are all one” as Nikola Tesla observed, conduits of the same vital energy in which we “live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28)

Beyond the bounds of biology, on every link of the Great Chain of Being, each form of manifested Life – from the smallest pebble to the human genius embodied in an Einstein or Shakespeare – possesses some form of consciousness; which modern science is increasingly identifying as perhaps the fundamental factor in our perception and experience of the physical world. It is that innate awareness animating the vibrational orbit of the smallest particle, guiding the plant towards the nourishing sunlight, serving as the instincts of our animal brethren, and spurring humanity on to greater heights of creativity and ingenuity.

This intangible but potent power has been called Cosmic Consciousness, Universal Mind, Buddha Nature, Atman, the Superconscious, the subconscious, and the Oversoul among other names, but was known to the ancient Hebrews as the great I AM or Yahweh, translated as Jehovah and rendered as the Lord and God in subsequent English translations of the Bible. The name most famously appears in Chapter 3 of the Book of Exodus, when Moses sees the essence of God in the burning bush in the wilderness and, being tasked with liberating the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt, asks, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

“God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” (Exodus 3:13-14)

Throughout the Gospels Jesus expressed his understanding of and relationship with this power, which he called “the Father within” and has been dubbed Christ Consciousness by some spiritual schools, to differentiate the man Jesus from the illumined state of consciousness he attained (Christ being a title rather than a surname, derived from the Greek Christos, meaning “anointed one”):

“Before Abraham was, I am!” (John 8:58)

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples… “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:13, 15)

As shown in the first example at the beginning of this chapter Jesus didn’t claim to have a monopoly on access to this Power:

“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me (the I AM or Christ consciousness) will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these.” (John 14:12)

The Apostle Paul expounded upon this same point in his letters:

“God has chosen to make known… the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (Colossians 1:27, emphasis added)

“Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you?” (2 Corinthians 13:5, emphasis added)

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20, emphasis added)

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 2:5 King James Version, emphasis added)

Both Jesus and Paul are talking about an impersonal spiritual power (Christ), rather than an individual human personality (the historical man called Jesus of Nazareth). Taking the above literally (that the physical man Jesus is dwelling in us) would leave us in the darkness of confusion, but thankfully “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” (1 Corinthians 14:33, King James Version)

We’ll discover further how the Biblical writers, using the story of Jesus, were trying to illustrate how every person could attain conscious contact with the indwelling I AM to realize “the freedom and glory of the children of God.” (Romans 8:21) Let us begin this eye opening process by delving deeper into the nature of this eternal, omnipresent principle.

#MeToo: A New Thought Perspective

Source: The Daily Beast

Out of the trying year that was 2017, there was arguably no greater seismic cultural watershed than the #MeToo movement. Heralded as a long overdue reckoning of the institutionalized misogyny in entertainment, politics, business, academia, and just about every walk of life, it has led to the ouster or repudiation of figures once esteemed in their respective fields, including: Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., Bill O'Reilly, former Senator Al Franken, Mario Batali, and perhaps most infamously Donald Trump, who now occupies the White House. Response to the visceral revelations of predatory behavior, and the subsequent calling out of the patriarchal attitude which sired it, has gone one of two ways. 

Conservative leaning men (and women for that matter) have been violently defensive and suspicious of the aims of the movement, with some viewing it as the latest incarnation of an vast ultra - feminist conspiracy to further advance an all-consuming male hating agenda. Others have followed the lead of President Trump - who has loudly denounced his own accusers as liars with a political ax to grind - and one time Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who denied knowing any of the women who accused him of misconduct - in dismissing the veracity of claims put forward by the movement, citing sensationalized examples like the discredited 2014 Rolling Stone UVA rape story and the 2006 Duke University Lacrosse scandal.

Conversely others have gone to the other extreme, becoming ardently gung-ho in denouncing and crusading against such egregious behavior, only to be called onto the carpet for their own misdeeds (as in the case of ex-Senator Franken, who made it his zealous mission to expose "the depravity of Republicans"). Whether born out of paranoid fear of a feminist witch hunt, a sense of self-righteous superiority, or from a guilt driven attempt to overcompensate for past failures, such knee-jerk responses only serve to perpetuate the problem, adding to the noxious din of sound and fury that pollutes all attempts at real resolution, not to mention trivializing the all too real experiences of victims.

This begs the question: Does New Thought and mental metaphysical philosophy offer a mature middle path to thoughtfully navigate, reflect, and respond to this volatile issue, one that doesn't further fan the flames of the partisan fire, along with respecting the experiences of victims? I submit that it does.

"But," some may say, "doesn't New Thought claim that we bring our circumstances on ourselves through our thoughts and feelings? Won't that reinforce an attitude of victim blaming toward accusers?"

A most valid point, and one that any student or practitioner of mind metaphysics must consider.  While the central premise of New Thought - which is a syncretic blend of Western and Eastern spiritual/metaphysical philosophies - is that our mental states are causative of individual and collective experience, its primary emphasis is on the up-building and refinement of individual character, rather than the divisive "us vs. them" moral judgmentalism of traditional religion. Though, unfortunately, some New Thought teachers have issued dogmatic statements more in keeping with the latter mode (like the claim of Rhonda Byrne, author of The Secret, that victims found themselves a part of tragedies like the Holocaust "because their dominant thoughts were on the same frequency of such events"), a more nuanced view lies at the heart of the philosophy.  As metaphysical historian and author Mitch Horowitz writes:

"Spiritual insight arrives through self-observation—not in analyzing, or justifying, the suffering experienced by others. To judge others is to work without any self-verification, which is the one pragmatic tool of the spiritual search. The private person who can maturely and persuasively claim self-responsibility for his own suffering, or who can endure it as an inner obligation, shines a light for others. The person who justifies someone else’s suffering, in this case through collective fault, only casts a stone."


This ethic of radical, or transcendental, self accountability, stands in stark contrast to the deflecting projection engaged in by the sides mentioned above, who continue to insist that groups of nefarious "others" are orchestrating a modern day Inquisition against men; or that it's only those "conservative hypocrites" and "sexist dinosaurs" who are perpetrating such offenses. Rather than viewing it as an opportunity to take stock of our own attitudes as men toward sex, dating, and gender dynamics - and if said attitudes are contributing either consciously or unconsciously to the larger problem - we: A. Cry "conspiracy!", circle the wagons, and try to paint ourselves as the true victims or B. Insist that we would never engage in such vile sexist behavior.  

If I sound like I'm speaking from experience, you'd be right. As a former high school "jock" I absorbed through osmosis the old "boys will be boys" attitude, which viewed forceful come-ons, pick up lines, and the "No really means yes" concept as perfectly natural behavior, reinforced by affirmations of "Atta boy!" and "That's how a real man scores!" This dovetailed into my college years when I made the 180 into conservative Christianity, simmering over how women always picked 'assholes'  over 'good' guys like me, who would never treat them like that (all while mentally condemning them as sluts, of course). It was much easier to blame the deceptive 'wiles' of the opposite sex (Eve had tempted Adam after all: and yes, that was a real thought I had) than to look inward and see how my domineering, obnoxious, and close minded attitude was a major turnoff, which I was able to finally do at long last a few years later.

It is this aggressive, primal, and hostile side of the psyche that Carl Jung aptly described as the Shadow. If not addressed and incorporated into conscious awareness by the individual, the ignored or neglected Shadow is projected outward on other individuals and groups who are labeled threats or enemies. And as history has shown, the collective shadow of a nation, race, or religion can be channeled and directed toward the most hideous ends, ending in genocide, religious persecution, war, and other atrocities. Indeed, it has been suggested that the election of President Trump and the subsequent rise of the "Alt-Right" is a direct reflection of the repressed contents of the Shadow of the American psyche.    

To make any lasting headway politically and socially when it comes to the issue of sexual assault and abuse, the reactive attitude of projection must end. If the mantra of "We, the People" is to evolve past a cheap platitude, we must cease blaming everything and everyone - Feminists, liberals, the Russians, the Illuminati, and the whole roster of bogeymen - and realize that all of us men in some way, shape, or form, have laid the cobblestones of thought and belief that constitute the road of our present course. The following injunction of Jesus has never been more relevant:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." (Matthew 7:3 - 5)


And as Jung wrote in his "Psychology and Religion":

"If you imagine someone who is brave enough to withdraw all his projections, then you get an individual who is conscious of a pretty thick shadow. Such a man has saddled himself with new problems and conflicts. He has become a serious problem to himself, as he is now unable to say that they do this or that, they are wrong, and they must be fought against… Such a man knows that whatever is wrong in the world is in himself, and if he only learns to deal with his own shadow he has done something real for the world. He has succeeded in shouldering at least an infinitesimal part of the gigantic, unsolved social problems of our day."

Such a unsparing process of self-inventory and examination may not generate headlines or make for quick soundbites, but it is the time tested Middle Way through which genuine progress is possible.  

  

New Year, New Projects

Source: connectsavannah.com

A belated Happy New Year, dear readers! After a bit of a meditative hiatus during the last few months of 2017, I'm back with a charged creative battery and a new slew of projects in the works for 2018, including:

- A wide-ranging weekly feature to be posted on this blog, covering the intersection of metaphysics, the paranormal, spirituality, current events, and pop culture.

- A continuing collaboration with paranormal researcher, author, and musician Joe Cetrone, including a soon to be launched podcast and a forthcoming collection of supernatural/horror short stories, tentatively titled Suspicions of Destiny: Frightening Tales from Beyond. Updates and information on both will be posted here, so stay tuned!

- A companion volume to my metaphysical primer, Take Away The Stone, titled The Art and Science of Prayer, which will examine the principles and mechanics behind effective prayer techniques and how to apply them for practical, concrete results.

- New article contributions to the popular New Thought blog, HarvBishop.com, which ran two of my posts last year. 

- And a couple of other surprises to look out for!

I'm aiming to have my first post of the New Year up by next week. Until then: onward, upward, and God-ward!

Metaphysical Bible Meditations - 9/12/17

The Pharisees question Jesus. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Welcome back, readers! In today's post we will be examining verses 37-52 of Luke Chapter 11, which as we will see serve to expound on some of the points explored in our last post. 

"And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.

And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?"

Jesus, or illumined reason, enters the house (mental dwelling place or atmosphere) of the Pharisee (belief in the supremacy of outward conformity to creed or dogma), to elucidate further on the discourse he began in previous verses regarding the importance of internal belief in and conviction of Divine principle over slavish performance of hollow, man-made ritualism. The Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers present are all personifications of the various concepts comprising the holier than thou attitude of religious dogmatism which, despite its incessant confessions of belief in the power of God, places emphasis on secondary material effects, theoretical philosophies and sectarian theologies. They foolishly champion adherence to the letter of the law (outside of the cup or physical effects) while neglecting the animating spirit of the law (inside of cup or internal I AM shaping all physical circumstance and experience). 

"But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them."

We are called to "give alms of such things" as we have, i.e. giving up those prejudices, predilections, and proclivities of thought and belief, which lead us to criticize and condemn as "unclean" the ideas and actions of others with whom we disagree, as well as placing ourselves in limitation of expression, for of fear of engaging in an "unclean" act. Once this log of ignorance is removed from our mind's eye we will see with St. Paul that "there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that regardeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Romans 14:14) And as Shakespeare said through Hamlet, "For there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Once more Jesus refers to the Pharisaical mind's misguided emphasis on external conditions and rituals (illustrated in the form of the sacrificial herbs) over the judgment and love of God (knowledge and application of psycho - spiritual principles and the vitalizing constructive element of love and respect toward God in all forms) demonstrated by their egoistic pleasure in receiving the perks of their religious office, while neglecting the finer points of the Law of God. Through their assumed air and appearance of being holy, wise, and pious on the surface, the Pharisee thoughts and beliefs are "as graves which appear not", leading unsuspecting seekers down into the pit of soul killing superstition, fear, shame, guilt, etc. 

"Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."

The lawyers, which represent the unyielding legalistic attitude, give utmost primacy to obeying the exact letter of the law, lay heavy burdens by forcing all to meet every one of their narrow edicts. In laying too much stress on the oppressive mechanistic power of the law they eschew the guiding principle of which the law is the medium, i.e. mercy, equity, justice, and harmony. "For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Cor. 3:6) In elevating the isolated operation of their part over the integrated function of the whole, they sow the seeds of disharmony, confusion, and ultimately chaos, individually and collectively.

"Hear, O Israel (awakened and illumined consciousness): The LORD our God (Universal Spirit) is one LORD (in nature, essence, and function)." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

It is adherence to this attitude which results in the killing (through denial and neglect) of the prophets (Divine archetypes and ideas of God's inherent Goodness and Wholeness, looking to bring the spiritual system back into balance).  The "lawyer" consciousness has reared its head countless times through the ages whether in the collective form of inquisitions, dictatorships, oligarchies, tyrannical households, and in the minds of individuals as various complexes and neuroses, persecuting those who dare to speak out and dissent from their superstitious, limiting beliefs. "The blood of the prophets" (the effects of the misapplied and abused Divine Power/Energy) is required of "this generation", who continue to dwell in the same state of ignorant cruelty  as their fathers (destructive concepts and beliefs). Unwilling to transcend the bounds of their own prejudiced limitations, they seek to deny others the knowledge to do likewise, in the collective forms of religious edict, civil oppression, familial tyranny as well as individual psychological complexes, neuroses, and phobias.

I hope you enjoyed today's post! Until next time, keep on keeping onward, upward, and God-ward.