– Dr. Hans-Joachim Rudolph (MD), Microvita Research e.V.
In September a major event staging Jordan B. Peterson took place in Berlin. Well shielded by the police, several hundred counter-demonstrators had gathered outside. They loudly demanded a ban on Peterson’s performance. Slogans such as “Abort patriarchy” and “No show for sexists and racists” could be read on their banners. Over megaphones it was said shrilly that he arouses hatred and is especially against people of colour, leftists, women, gays, lesbians and transgender people; furthermore, he was a stooge for the American Alt-Right movement as well as for the Identitarians, who are observed by the Federal Office for the Protection of our Constitution.
The mood had already been stirred up beforehand to the event by several newspaper articles.
But what is it actually all about? At its core, it is about identity politics, namely its right- and left-wing variants. But what is identity politics and what does this division into right and left mean?
Identity politics is a form of political action that focuses on the needs of a particular group of people with common identity-forming characteristics. The aim is to achieve higher recognition, an improved social position and an increase in social influence of the respective group.
Although, that’s old hat, the term ‘identity politics’ is relatively new and goes back to the “Combahee River Collective“, a group of lesbian, black, US-American women who wrote in a programmatic statement in 1977 that the most profound and potentially radical politics comes directly from one’s own identity.
However, for the last decade or so, it has been observed that “whiteness” got transformed from an unmarked category that occupied the centre of society as a matter of course, to a special category, whose members can be purposefully mobilised to achieve an improvement in their political and social position. Identity politics has thus become not only a matter for African Americans, Latinos, women and LGBTs, but also for white, heterosexual men who are trying to regain their lost place in the social centre.
With “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” and his new book “Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life”, Peterson now addresses precisely this population group and gives its members advice on how they can improve themselves and their chances in the upcoming clash of civilisations.
In his Berlin lecture, he made an interesting philosophical point. Namely, he stated: “Your identity is not what you feel, your identity is the story, which you are telling to yourself about yourself.“ And then he gave an advice: “Make your story straight”. Chaos and fear are indicators that our self-talk is contradictory. So, to resolve these contradictions you might ask for professional help, e.g. through his new online-tutorial @ https://www.selfauthoring.com/get-self-authoring.
However, the fact is that this is not only about personal life stories, but also about how they are embedded in the societies, in nature, and even in the entire universe. And in this respect, he recommends to refer to the Bible and the Egyptian mythology.
Nevertheless, he seems to forget that the biblical stories, not to mention Egyptian mythology, are anything but “straight”. Moreover, it is this recommendation that gives rise to the accusation that he is a reactionary. And finally, this results in an undeniable incompatibility with the principles of natural sciences, which evolved from painful disputes with the religious belief systems. One only has to think of Nicolaus Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin and many others; although the disputes are no longer as fierce as they used to be, they continue, even though they have shifted to other areas of concern, such as questions of genetics, artificial insemination and stem cell research.
Now, one might think, let’s just drop the metaphysical references and settle for the narratives of modernity instead. But that would lead to our narratives becoming self-contradictory: As metaphysical beings, we would not be able to recognize ourselves in stories without metaphysical references.
On the other hand, he could avoid these allegations by referring to the Indian ‘Bhedā-Abhedā Vedānta’ and the European ‘Dual-Aspect Monism’ respectively:
After all, the problem with the religions of the Middle East is not so much about their ambiguities as about their decidedly non-monistic traditions. Creator and creation, God’s and human nature, God’s and human spirit, redeemer and redeemed were always distinguished, pantheism and panentheism were always rejected; God was always to be conceived as a transcendent being, absolutely distinct from the world.* In contrast, modern natural sciences advocate a stringent material monism; causes other than material and efficient are declared irrelevant. A compromise between these positions seemed impossible.
In India, the country with the longest philosophical tradition, a similar dispute was fought out between the representatives of Advaita-Vedanta and Dvaita-Vedanta.** While the latter conceded an inherent autonomy to worldly things (non-monistic position), the former placed importance to the thoroughly spiritual nature of the whole world (idealistic-monistic position). A mediation could only be achieved through the ‘Bhedā-Abhedā Vedānta’, which declared that material things were both dependent on and independent of the spiritual worlds, which was logically absurd (Achintya), but nevertheless had to be accepted as a given (which leads to the narrative losing some of its „straightness” of course).***
In Europe, a similar development occurred with a time lag: starting from material monism, physical things were also attributed with spiritual dimensions, which led to the formulation of a paradoxical monism with dual aspects (which also impairs the “straightness” of the story).
Today, these two developments appear as the only possibilities to get out of the centuries-old dilemma and to tell a coherent story of our existence, in which we can recognize both ourselves and the world around us. By the way, the said paradoxes can be resolved, if one is prepared to supplement physical space with imaginary dimensions, with which it is then possible to represent a coexistence of the spiritual and material world without contradictions (see the publications of the Microvita Research Institute).
One must admit, however, that Peterson would possibly overtax his clientele thereby. So what else can be expected but that the Theatrum mundi will enter into another round of its absurd ado.
* Willigis Jägers spiritueller Monismus – Analysen zum Mystik-Verständnis eines umstrittenen Theologen und Zen-Meisters
** The Dvaita Vedanta school of Indian philosophy advocates a dualism between God and the world by assuming the existence of two separate realities. The first and more important reality is the independent reality of God. The second reality is that of the dependent but equally real universe, which exists with its own essence. All that is composed of the second reality, such as the individual soul (jiva), matter, etc., exists with its own reality. Because the existence of individuals is grounded in the Divine, they are presented as reflections, images or even shadows of the Divine, but they are never identified with the Divine in any way.
*** Accordingly, the spiritual master and social reformer Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar described his philosophy as ‘advaita-dvaita-advaita-vada’, i.e. as a doctrine according to which everything develops from unity, but then falls into a partial duality (dvaita), in order to finally merge again into the original unity = non-duality = advaita. The paradox mentioned above is avoided by focusing on temporal succession instead of spatial simultaneity.
In this context, I had put a few questions to the AI-system ChatGPT, and it might be interesting to see the answers:
Is it true that Jordan Peterson refers to biblical scriptures and Egyptian mythology when it comes to fundamental questions of morality?
ChatGPT: Yes, it is true that Jordan Peterson frequently references biblical scriptures and Egyptian mythology when discussing questions of morality. In fact, Peterson is known for his use of religious and mythological imagery and language when discussing deep philosophical and psychological concepts. He often uses these references to illustrate his ideas and to provide a cultural and historical context for his discussions.
But isn’t it that this brings him in opposition to any scientific approach?
ChatGPT: Jordan Peterson’s work often incorporates both scientific and philosophical ideas, and he frequently references research from a variety of fields, including psychology, biology, and sociology. However, his work also incorporates elements of religion and mythology, and he has stated that these sources can provide valuable insights and perspectives on fundamental questions of human existence. While some may view the combination of scientific and religious ideas as being in opposition, Peterson argues that they can be complementary and that both types of knowledge can be useful in understanding the human experience.
On the one side, he’s using the slogan “make your story straight”; but on the other side he recommends to consult both scientific and religious ideas. So, isn’t it that he places a contradiction at the very root of his own story?
ChatGPT: Jordan Peterson’s emphasis on the importance of having a “straight” or coherent narrative in one’s life is a central theme in his work. He believes that this involves taking ownership of one’s own story and being responsible for the direction of one’s life. In this sense, incorporating both scientific and religious ideas into one’s narrative could be seen as a way of creating a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the world and one’s place in it. While some may view this as a contradiction, Peterson argues that the integration of different sources of knowledge can enrich and deepen one’s understanding of the world and one’s own life.
In Egyptian mythology, for example, it is fundamental that the soul, after death, is able to recognize and reawaken the deceased body. However, this is incompatible with scientific views. Therefore I don’t understand how you can take this as complementary, rather than contradictory.
ChatGPT: It is true that the concept of the soul in Egyptian mythology, which is believed to be able to recognize and reawaken the deceased body after death, is incompatible with scientific views of the human body and consciousness. However, it is important to note that Jordan Peterson is not necessarily advocating for the literal truth of these mythological beliefs, but rather using them as a way to understand and explore deeper psychological and philosophical questions. In this sense, the use of mythological concepts can be seen as a way of using imaginative and metaphorical language to shed light on fundamental human experiences and concerns, rather than as a literal description of reality.