We Who Wrestle with God by Jordan B.
Peterson
Lorin Friesen, January 2025
We Who Wrestle with God by Jordan B. Peterson analyzes the Bible using a methodology similar to the used by mental symmetry: Peterson studies the biblical text with deep honesty, looking for inescapable cognitive moral principles. Peterson views the Bible metaphorically, looking for analogies in a semi-rigorous manner. Peterson recognizes that a concept of God has to be constructed and that this involves people walking a path of cognitive development, one moral step at a time. Peterson emphasizes that choices have meaning and can have massive long-term consequences—and that one constructs a concept of God by observing and examining such long-term consequences. Instead of verbally asserting that God exists, Peterson acts and thinks as if God exists. Peterson clarifies that a concept of God guides people in society by providing universal structure in Teacher thought as well as Platonic forms of perfection in Mercy thought. Peterson goes beyond assuming that following God means denying human pleasure to recognizing that not following God inevitably leads to personal and social disaster. And Peterson recognizes that the Bible contains universal moral principles that can also be found in non-biblical sources, while also recognizing that the Bible is a holy book because it describes these universal moral principles more purely than other books. Thus, Peterson assumes that when the Bible appears wrong or offensive, then the fault lies with our inadequate understanding and not with the Bible.
Apart from the Bible, We Who Wrestle with God is the first book that I have encountered by any secular or religious author which follows all of these principles. I can make this statement with some authority because I have used mental symmetry as a meta-theory to analyze a wide range of fields and topics. More specifically, I just finished interpreting the epistle of James as a detailed history of Protestantism. Thus, I am somewhat familiar with what has been written over the centuries by various authors.
But Peterson’s book is also incomplete. Peterson has extensive empirical knowledge of human behavior but he lacks a theory of human cognition. This has theological implications: Peterson talks repeatedly about reaching up in faith to the highest of God but he is missing the concept of God reaching down to assist humanity through grace. That is because understanding how God assists humanity requires a theory of human cognition within Teacher thought. He is keenly aware of the moral law and justice of God but is only beginning to discover the righteousness and love of God. That is because righteousness means being emotionally driven to behave in a manner that is consistent with a theory of how the mind works. He talks about living for the long-term, but still assumes that life ends at the grave, largely because his empirical basis does not given any rational way of exploring what life beyond death would be like. In contrast, mental symmetry builds upon a theory of cognition that extends naturally to the spiritual and the supernatural. Peterson questions the materialistic, soul-destroying results of following a theory of biological evolution, but he does not have a theory of human cognition that is sufficiently complete to take the place of evolution. Peterson stretches forward from the technical thinking of academia to include the patterns and analogies of normal thought as well as the emotional guidance of mental networks, but he does not recognize normal thought or mental networks as independent forms of thought, largely because he does not have a theory of human cognition that explains these three forms of human thought. Finally, Peterson does not fully grasp what it really means to be a Christian because he does not have a theory of human cognition that is sufficiently universal within which his personal identity can actually live and flourish. Most of the pieces are there, but the theory that ties these pieces together is incomplete.
Using theological language, Peterson presents Jesus Christ as a Son of Man rather than as a Son of God. A Son of Man builds up from human empirical evidence to form an integrated concept of incarnation. A Son of God reaches down from an integrated Teacher understanding of God to generate an integrated concept of incarnation. The content of a Son of Man may be similar to the content of the Son of God, but the basis is different. A Son of Man turns into a Son of God by going through crucifixion and resurrection, because this universal rejection and immobilization forces the content to be held together by the TMN of a concept of God rather than MMNs of human society. Peterson mentions this principle and recognizes its significance. And Peterson himself has experienced significant personal crucifixion-and-resurrection, which is why his book contains so much meaningful material. But his system as a whole is still a Son of Man.
Peterson looks at several foundational stories of the Old Testament and analyzes them analogically from a cognitive perspective. He also treats them sequentially as a path of cognitive development. This essay will look at Peterson’s analyses and examine them in the light of mental symmetry. Peterson also uses these stories as a launching point for discussing various foundational concepts. This essay will also look at these (important) rabbit trails and compare what Peterson says with what mental symmetry suggests. This thorough analysis should not be interpreted as an attack on Peterson but rather indicates that someone else is finally using an approach similar enough to that of mental symmetry to make meaningful dialogue possible.
This essay assumes a basic understanding of the theory of mental symmetry. An introduction to this theory can be found at the beginning of these papers. Mental symmetry models the mind as seven interacting cognitive modules that are wired together in the manner indicated by the diagram of mental symmetry. Mental symmetry suggests that every person has a mind with all seven cognitive modules with each cognitive style being conscious in one of the seven cognitive modules. Mental symmetry also suggests that these seven cognitive modules can function together in one of three ways referred to as technical thought, normal thought, and mental networks. If you are not familiar with these concepts, then please read an introduction to the theory. Technical thought can be divided into abstract technical thought and concrete technical thought. MMN is shorthand for Mercy mental network, while TMN refers to a Teacher mental network. A mental network is a collection of emotional memories that function as a unit. Triggering one of the memories will activate the entire mental network which will then use emotional pressure to impose its content upon the mind. The neurological basis for mental networks is discussed in an academic paper.
Whenever I use the phrase, ‘Cognitively speaking...’ or ‘Looking at this cognitively...’, this means that I agree with what Peterson is saying and am using the theory of mental symmetry to provide a cognitive explanation for Peterson’s statements.
I found about ten typos when going through Peterson’s book, which is more than what I normally encounter when reading a book like this. I know from personal experience how difficult it is to eliminate all typos, but the number of typos suggests that the proofreading could have been more careful.
This essay will be quoting extensively from Peterson’s book. I do this when analyzing some book or system to ensure that I am explaining what that book were system actually says and not just putting words into the mouth of the author. I tried very hard when writing this essay to analyze what Peterson was actually saying and not respond instinctively to what I thought at first glance that he was saying. These quotes were copied by reading from Peterson’s book into voice-recognition software, a process that generates numerous errors and typos. In addition, simply setting my coffee cup down on the table or clearing my throat will often cause the voice recognition software to insert an extraneous word. I have squashed vast quantities of these transcription errors. I apologize for the typos that remain.
Table of contents
Adam, Eve, Pride, Self-Consciousness, and the Fall
The Visitors and Sodom and Gomorrah
Leaving Egypt for the Wilderness
Korah and Moses Striking the Rock
Learning from Societal Collapse
Foreshadowing
Peterson discusses Elijah in the introduction. This reference is interesting because my previous essay interpreted the epistle of James as a detailed prophecy of Protestantism, starting with the 13th century Waldensians and finishing with the charismatic movement of the 1970s, and the epistle ends by mentioning the prayer of Elijah, which I interpret as a prayer for the correction of modern Protestantism that has gone astray. Peterson’s book can be viewed as a version of this prayer of Elijah.
Peterson emphasizes the lonely path of Elijah as well as Elijah’s new understanding of God. “Elijah expresses great frustration hopelessness, believing that his attempts to remain faithful resulted in nothing but disaster... It is at this moment that Elijah – and through him, mankind – comes to understand that God is not in the wind, no matter its ferocity, nor in the earthquake, regardless of its magnitude, but is something within; the voice of conscience itself; the internal guide to what is right and wrong... this is a discovery of unparalleled magnitude: the possibility of establishing a relationship with God by tending to conscience” (p. xxiv). Mental symmetry suggests that a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general theory in Teacher thought applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. Thus, a concept of God will naturally emerge when personal identity is affected by ferocious winds of various major forces. Teacher thought can also build a concept of God upon the deep truths that survive when existing systems are shaken by massive earthquakes. But a concept of God can also emerge within based upon an internal understanding of universal moral principles. Developing such a concept of God requires standing alone apart from society for an extended period of time and holding on to a rational, moral message. This is different than a mystical concept of God, which results from asserting for an extended period of time that God ‘transcends’ rational and moral content.
Peterson suggests that constructing the mental concept of a God of universal moral principles goes beyond arguing from design. “The divine law, then, is the rule of ethical truth, the standard of right and wrong, a sovereign, irreversible, absolute authority in the presence of men and angels... This can well be considered a more powerful and justified argument than the now much more frequently used ‘argument from design’ – the insistence that the complexity of nature necessarily indicates an active creator” (p. xxv). Arguing from design is not wrong; it suggests that the Teacher order of the universe implies the existence of a universal being who expresses Teacher order. But such an argument has no emotional staying power because it does not apply to me in Mercy thought. In contrast, a God of morality applies, by definition, to personal identity and has emotional staying power—and meaning—because it rules over personal identity.
Peterson then points out the relationship between a theory and concentration. “We elevate what we most highly regard to the utmost places supremacy or sovereignty. We aim at the upward target we deem central, however momentarily. We bring our consciousness itself to bear on what we define as worthy of the expenditure of our attention and the efforts of our action... This is an act of faith as well as one of sacrifice: faith, because the good could be elsewhere; sacrifice, because in the pursuit of any particular good we determine to forgo all others” (p. xxvii). Stated cognitively, a Teacher theory is a simple statement that summarizes the essence of many related situations. But it is also a central theme upon which one concentrates in order to interpret everything else. This interpreting of some context in the light of some central theme appears to be happening in Broca’s area in the left hemisphere. Thus, a concept of God in Teacher thought will determine what one focuses upon as valuable and what one ignores as inconsequential.
Peterson views stories as the ultimate Teacher theories. “What is a story, detailing aim and all of its consequences? A description of the structure through which we see the world. Stories reveal to us, in their various characterizations, the structures of worth within which the world makes itself manifest to our perception” (p. xxviii). Thus, Peterson is writing a book about the stories of the Bible because he regards these stories as the ultimate Teacher theories of universal cognitive principles. He knows that these stories are accurate because of his extensive empirical research and clinical experience. In Peterson’s words, “For better or worse, the story is the thing – and for better or worse, the story on which our Western psyches and cultures are now somewhat fragilely founded – however fragile they’ve become – is most fundamentally the story told in the library that makes up the biblical corpus... the biblical stories illuminate the internal path forward up the holy mountain to the heavenly city, while simultaneously warning of the apocalyptic dangers lurking in the deviant, the marginal, the monstrous, the sinful, the unholy, the serpentine, and the positively demonic” (p. xxxi).
What Peterson does is both good and necessary, but notice that he has far more adjectives for the path to disaster than he has for the path to the heavenly city. I think that this is because Peterson has learned most of his moral lessons by observing others on their way to disaster. Thus, he views heaven primarily as the opposite of hell. I know what this means, because for many years my path of exploring mental symmetry was guided primarily by the realization that every other path led to a dead-end. I did not know if the path I was walking would lead to success, but I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that other paths did not.
Peterson states this in his final chapter on Jonah. “Jonah’s story is a warning: pick up your damn cross and bear it or face the consequences. And what is worse, yet, than the cross? Hell: hell for you, for those you love, and for everyone else – and a hell that is on you, of your doing for remaining silent when you have something to say; for running away or escaping into unconsciousness when the voice of God, as the ineluctable call of conscience, makes itself known” (p. 482). I know from decades of personal experience that Peterson is speaking deep truth. But this is also a negative motivation, a desire to escape hell rather than to realize heaven. This is a good starting point that will go a long ways, especially when practiced within a society where most of the fragments of society are heading into various versions of personally-induced hell, but it is also incomplete.
Mental symmetry goes one step further by starting with a general meta-theory of cognition in Teacher thought. Peterson refers to neurological research. Mental symmetry, in contrast, can be mapped in detail onto neurology. The stories of the Bible are then interpreted allegorically using symbolism that is cognitively natural. Peterson’s methodology makes it possible to reformulate deep Christian truths as universal cognitive principles as well as throw light on God’s plan for human history. Mental symmetry goes beyond this by reformulating all Christian theology from a cognitive perspective as well as describing in detail God’s plan for Western civilization. And mental symmetry makes it possible to go beyond the negative motivation of avoiding paths that lead to destruction to the positive motivation of bringing heaven down to earth.
In the Beginning
Mysticism uses Teacher overgeneralization to construct a mental concept of God, treating God as an incomprehensible oneness who transcends the facts of human reality. Teacher thought will naturally overgeneralize unless prevented from doing so by solid facts—counterexamples—from Perceiver thought. When I have attempted to discuss mental symmetry with theologians, I have found that they will always ultimately retreat to the concept of God as mystery and use this as an excuse to reject mental symmetry. Peterson, in contrast, begins with the mental concept of a God who works within history. “How is God presented as the great book of Genesis begins? As an animated spirit – creative, mobile, and active – something that does, and is. God is, in short, a character whose personality reveals itself as the biblical story proceeds” (p.1). Stated cognitively, a concept of God in Teacher thought is related to the Server actions and sequences of humanity.
Instead of overgeneralizing directly to cosmic unity, Peterson connects God with the growing order of Teacher generalization. “God is equally that which (or who) creates not only order but, as is stressed repeatedly throughout the opening book of the Biblical corpus, the order that is good” (p.3). This focus upon ‘order that is good’ is significant because it is possible for Teacher thought to come up with order that is not good. For instance, if I say “You always make a mess”, then this statement brings order to some experiences of life, but this order is not good because unpleasant Mercy experiences are being regarded as universal. Order that is good means that both Teacher thought and Mercy thought are simultaneously happy; there is order for God in Teacher thought as well as goodness for personal identity in Mercy thought.
Mysticism creates a feeling of being one with God by combining Teacher overgeneralization with Mercy identification, combining some version of ‘all is one’ with ‘I am one with cosmos’. Incarnation, in contrast, bridges God and man by moving stepwise between Teacher universality and Mercy specifics. Peterson refers to this as Jacob’s Ladder, and mental symmetry would agree. “Life should and will manifest itself... in the constant upward spiral – from good to very good – that might serve as the definition of heaven itself. That is Jacob’s Ladder, the process that is eternally making everything as it should be but is somehow also improving, finding new pathways to higher orders of the true, the beautiful, and the good” (p. 5). True describes what is universal in Perceiver thought, beautiful expresses Teacher order, while good brings lasting pleasure to Mercy thought. Peterson recognizes that this emerges step by step as incarnation gains a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the steps that lead from earth to heaven. But notice that in Peterson’s version, humans are ascending Jacob’s Ladder in order to build heaven, while the biblical story in Genesis 28 talks about angels ascending and descending. Thus, Peterson is describing the human half of the story, which is why I refer to his thinking as a Son of Man. Cognitively speaking, when one can start with a Teacher theory of cognition, then it becomes possible for the messages of abstract understanding (the word angel means ‘messenger’) to descend from heaven. This can be seen, for instance, in modern research and development which combines descending from the abstract theories of science with ascending from the concrete plans and desires of humanity.
Peterson points out the negative implications of building a Teacher theory upon physical reality. “If nature is placed above man, such that every brook has its transcendent spirit, then man, woman, and child are by necessity placed below nature. This might mean in principle that the wonders of the environment would become brightly valued. In practice, however, it all too often means instead that human beings are given no more shrift than weeds or rats” (p. 8). In other words, the only way to value humanity is by constructing a Teacher understanding that includes humanity. But human growth needs to occur in a way that is sustainable. “The human enterprise of creation, including that of family, must be carried out in a manner that is replenishing... Man’s dominion over the earth must be, to use a word now tainted by association with ideological force, sustainable” (p. 9). Similarly, while mental symmetry is a theory of human cognition, it is also compatible with scientific thought and the structure of physical reality, and it recognizes that human minds live within physical bodies that inhabit a physical environment.
Peterson recognizes the cognitive significance of Adam being given the task of naming the animals in the Garden of Eden. “This verse implies strongly that the work of creation undertaken by the Logos, or Word of God, was somehow incomplete until differentiated further by man, whose decision in such matters appears strangely final: ‘And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” (p.10). Peterson associates incarnation with Logos, as pointed out in John 1:1. But instead of regarding this merely as some religious characteristic, Peterson connects the Logos of God with the naming by man. Stated cognitively (remember that this phrase means that I agree with Peterson’s statements and am using mental symmetry to provide a cognitive explanation), incarnation uses technical thought to bridge the universal statements of God in Teacher thought with the specific experiences of humanity in Mercy thought. On the one hand, there is a pre-existing order that was created by God in Teacher thought which is expressed by the technical structures of the Logos or Word of God. On the other hand, humans have to use abstract technical thought to understand these general laws, and the first step of developing abstract technical thought is to name things by coming up with words that have precise definitions. (Mental symmetry suggests that abstract technical thought is based upon a foundation of precise definitions while concrete technical thought is based upon a foundation of principles of cause-and-effect.)
Peterson expands the concept of name by describing a Teacher theory as a center of attention around which other concepts flow and then recognizes that theories can turn into TMNs that emotionally impose their explanation upon the mind. “Around that central idea, stake in the ground, flagpole, guiding rod, or staff develops a network of ideas, images, and behaviors. When composed of living minds, that network is no mere system of ideas. It is instead a character expressing itself in the form of a zeitgeist; a character that can and does possess an entire culture; a spirit that all too often manifests itself as the iron grip of the ideology that reduces every individual to unconscious puppet or mouthpiece. Such networks are best considered alive... This possession by a living idea is what the Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung was striving to indicate in much of his work in relationship to the idea of God” (p.17). What Peterson says is significant, but I suggest that it is conflating two related ideas that are actually distinct. (Distinguishing more carefully between related concepts is an aspect of developing abstract technical thought.) A concept of God is a theory in Teacher thought that can be described verbally, as illustrated by the laws of physics. As Peterson points out, a theory acts as a ‘central idea’ that brings order to a complexity of related ideas, images, and behaviors. A zeitgeist, or ‘spirit of the age’, is a set of images, experiences, and stories in Mercy thought that epitomizes the central theory in Teacher thought. For instance, science was epitomized in many 1950s movies by the researcher in a lab coat surrounded by numerous test tubes and beakers filled with various boiling liquids. Naming brings these two together because a name associates some verbal label in Teacher thought with some collection of experiences in Mercy thought. This initial associating is done by Perceiver thought which connects facts that come from Mercy experiences with facts that describe the meanings of words in Teacher thought.
Each of these three plays a critical role. For instance, suppose that one focuses purely upon the statistical relationship between words in Teacher thought. As Peterson points out on page 14, this is what a large language model such as Chat-GPT does. These AI programs will reveal knowledge in a structured manner. “This mathematically detectable landscape of linguistic meaning is made up not only of the relationship between words and then phrases and sentences but also of the paragraphs in chapters within which they are embedded – all the way up the hierarchy of conceptualization” (p.15). What Peterson neglects to mention is that LLMs also tend to hallucinate, making up information that has no basis in reality. A similar tendency to hallucinate is also present in the Teacher person who uses Teacher thought without showing respect for other cognitive modules.
The primary solution is to use Perceiver facts to test Teacher theories. This obviously involves checking specific facts but it also happens at a more general level. Peterson observes that “The validity of a given worldview is therefore anything but arbitrary. Instead, it is dependent on or mirrors the accuracy with which it reflects the natural, social, and psychological world” (p. 18). Mental symmetry refers to this as being consistent with ‘how things work’: consistent with how the natural world functions and with how the mind functions. Learning at an experiential level how things work is different than using words in Teacher thought to verbalize how things work. As Peterson explains, “That encounter with depth, with our deeper cultural coding, is what produces that sense in the reader of ‘I already knew that but did not have the words’... This is the sharing of a pattern of understanding and action; the simultaneous possession by the spirit of the collective. If we were not imitating one another, we could not live together” (p.19). What Peterson says is accurate, but this ‘imitating one another’ is functioning at the experiential and social level of MMNs. Shared cultural MMNs are producing a zeitgeist which is then being verbalized as a general Teacher theory.
Mathematics demonstrate that it is possible to separate the verbal Teacher aspect from the experiential Mercy aspect. Looking at a simple example, we exist within three-dimensional space. This is implicitly grasped at an experiential level by anyone who lives within physical reality, leading to a universally shared zeitgeist of humanity. Mathematics has developed word-based Teacher theories that make it possible to rigorously analyze and discuss what it means to live in three-dimensional reality. But mathematics then goes one step further by exploring higher dimensions such as four-dimensional space or n-dimensional space. This exploration cannot be done at the Mercy level of experiences but rather has to be done at the Teacher level of the words of mathematics. The resulting verbal analysis is capable of being applied to Mercy experiences in many new ways. But this expanded application only becomes possible if one distinguishes between a symbolic theory in Teacher thought and a zeitgeist in Mercy thought. And I am not certain that Peterson fully grasps this distinction.
Looking at another example, Peterson is extensively aware of the personality distinctions that are described by the Big Five classification system. But he does not have an integrated model of cognition such as mental symmetry. Peterson can make extensive meaningful statements about existing social reality but he cannot extend beyond this to make meaningful statements about the supernatural and the spiritual. Mental symmetry, in contrast, is ultimately based in a symbolic diagram of mental symmetry, allowing the theory to be theoretically expanded in non-physical directions. For instance, the supernatural is hypothesized as a realm in which the abstract messages of human words become concrete while the concrete experiences of humans become abstract. This is difficult to imagine, just as the higher dimensional spaces of mathematics are difficult to imagine. But if one uses word-based abstract thought to play this symbolic game, then one ends up with predictions that correspond to people’s descriptions of encountering aliens and angels.
LLMs, Big Five, and Peterson all illustrate that using Teacher thought at an implicit level is not enough. An LLM implicitly encodes human knowledge by noting which word is statistically most likely to follow another word when placed within some sequence of words. Similarly, Big Five started by looking for patterns in the adjectives that people use to verbally describe others. Quoting from Wikipedia, “It was defined by several independent sets of researchers who analysed words describing people’s behaviour. These researchers first studied relationships between many words related to personality traits. They made lists of these words shorter by 5–10 times and then used factor analysis to group the remaining traits.” While Big Five makes meaningful statements about personality I have suggested in an academic paper that it does rather poorly as a theory of cognition. Peterson approaches a concept of God from a similar implicit perspective. “This connection between the personal and collective unconscious helps account for the sense of revelation we experience when reading, say, a particularly profound book. That sensation is the expansion of our unconscious or implicit model of meanings as a consequence of incorporating more of the pattern or spirit that characterizes the deepest levels of the culture. In its deepest manifestation that is precisely the reflection of the image of God that is held to typify the soul of man and woman alike in the biblical corpus” (p.18). Notice that a concept of God is being equated with a set of connections acquired implicitly as a result of the experiences of living within some culture. Such a definition of a concept of God is capable of making meaningful statements, but it is incapable of using Teacher thought to extend beyond existing culture and physical reality.
Male and Female Thought
A similar combination of insight and limitation can be seen in Peterson’s analysis of Eve, the primordial woman. Peterson points out that “It is from the unconscious Adam, to say it again, that Eve is derived. Understanding this is key to understanding her role. She represents and speaks for what is not yet known to Adam” (p. 22). This is consistent with mental symmetry, which suggests that female thought emphasizes mental networks while male thought emphasizes technical thought. Mental networks function intuitively but this intuition implicitly follows mental pathways that have been constructed by technical thought. Saying this another way, male thought constructs a mental highway system while female thought travels along this highway system when dealing with people in social situations. Psychologically speaking, “Women are more agreeable – more concerned with others; more interested in people than things – as well as more prone to experience negative emotion, threat, and pain; more sensitive to the things that will endanger or hurt people and cause them distress” (p. 24). These traits are consistent with the functioning of mental networks: The mind uses mental networks to represent people; triggering some memory within a mental network will activate the entire mental network with its pattern of likes and dislikes; a mental network generates pain when experiencing input that is inconsistent with its structure.
Peterson points out a fundamental weakness of female thought. “‘I can clutch even the serpent itself... within my all-embracing arms’... This is tantamount to the insistent that the feminine capacity for empathic tolerance and inclusion is or should be the basis of the moral order itself... and simultaneously, the loud proclamation that such compassion and nothing but that compassion is the veritable hallmark of moral superiority” (p. 25). Looking at this cognitively, mental symmetry suggests that mental networks can be based either in collections of emotional Mercy experiences or in the structure of a Teacher theory: there are both MMNs and TMNs. Continuing to use some Teacher theory will turn it into a TMN that will use emotional pressure to impose its explanation upon the mind when triggered. Clutching everything ‘within my all-embracing arms’ is an example of Teacher overgeneralization in which Teacher thought brings order to complexity by asserting that the oneness of order transcends all the facts of the complexity. If this type of Teacher overgeneralization continues to be used, then it will turn into a TMN that will use emotional pressure to impose itself upon society as a universal moral obligation. And this will be viewed as a moral obligation from God because a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general Teacher theory applies to personal identity.
As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, male technical thought focuses upon technical puzzle solving, but this puzzle solving is done under the emotional umbrella of some paradigm. Peterson suggests that male technical thought can be tempted to treat a Teacher overgeneralization of female thought as a paradigm for technical thinking. “Eve pridefully embraces and incorporates too much, making a selfish show of her compassion and care, and Adam falls on his face to impress his partner, insisting that nothing she requires, wants, or demands is beyond his power” (p. 25). This is an interesting insight that is consistent with mental symmetry. However, it is not an insight that I have thought of because it is approaching the situation from the perspective of male technical thought.
Saying this more clearly, I strongly suspect that Jordan Peterson has the cognitive style of Contributor person. Contributor thought plays a central role in technical thought. Therefore, the male Contributor person, who is conscious in the core cognitive module of technical thought and is driven by gender to emphasize technical thought, tends to focus almost exclusively upon technical thought, regarding other forms of thought as inherently inferior. Thus, Jordan Peterson, as a male Contributor person, notes that female mental networks have a tendency to jump intuitively to Teacher overgeneralizations that fall far below the standards of rational thought required by technical thinking. He notes further that male technical thought functions under the emotional umbrella of some paradigm and thus can be a sucker for such Teacher overgeneralizations.
Saying this more generally, mental symmetry suggests that the mind can function in one of three primary ways of mental networks, normal thought, and technical thought. Normal thought uses analogies and patterns to maneuver through normal life. Mental symmetry uses normal thought in a semi-rigorous manner, as does the book of Peterson that we are analyzing. Technical thought uses rigorous thinking within some specialization and is especially appropriate for analyzing the physical world. Science and academia emphasize technical thought. However, I have repeatedly noticed that when technical thought breaks down, then the technical thinker will not turn to the semi-rigorous analogies of normal thought but rather jump directly from the rigorous logic of technical thought to the intuitive idiocy of overgeneralized mental networks.
Peterson uses the analogies of normal thought to analyze moral human behavior, but he still appears to leap ultimately to the Teacher overgeneralization of mystery. “Perhaps the world and everything perceptible must be founded on or centered around one central axiom, one unquestioned and central proposition of faith, one claim standing outside the issue at hand – even one miraculous occurrence. Perhaps this is true because something has to intermediate between our always flawed and incomplete knowledge and the world of infinite mystery; perhaps because we must wrap up and conceal from ourselves our extensive ignorance, so that we can act without an infinite regress of doubt” (p. 26). Stated cognitively, technical thought acquires rigorous knowledge about a few limited specializations but then finds that this knowledge is ‘flawed and incomplete’. Instead of recognizing the limitations of technical thought, the technical thinker (especially the male Contributor person) ‘wraps up and conceals from himself this extensive ignorance’ by placing everything outside of the known specializations under a Teacher overgeneralization of mysterious oneness. Thus, there is no recognition of other cognitive styles and other modes of thought. Instead, there is only the male Contributor person with his technical brilliance that outshines everyone else and incomprehensible mystery. I know that this is sweeping with a broad brush, but I keep finding this pattern appearing in different fields. This pattern is especially prominent in the male Contributor person, because the masculine focus upon technical thought is mentally reinforced by the conscious awareness of the Contributor person which lies at the heart of technical thought. The female Contributor person, in contrast, is usually forced by the feminine focus upon mental networks to recognize that other forms of thought exist.
Peterson stretches beyond typical male Contributor thought by recognizing that the analogies of normal thought are required to bridge the universal with the specific. “The Mesopotamian emperor stood in the same relationship to his people as Marduk stood to him: as ritual model for emulation, as the personality whose actions served as pattern for all actions undertaken in the kingdom – as the personality that was the state, in so far as the state defined and brought order to interpersonal interactions” (p.30). Notice that the relationship between the emperor and his people is analogically similar to the relationship between the god Marduk and the emperor. All analogies require some primary pattern that serves as the archetype. Unfortunately, Peterson only has the stories of the Bible and myth to serve as archetypes.
Mental symmetry starts with a model of cognition that summarizes human thought as the functioning and interaction of seven interconnected cognitive modules. Each cognitive module functions in a fractal manner that leads naturally to analogies. For instance, Perceiver thought comes up with facts by looking for repeated connections between Mercy experiences. This same processing is used at many different scales and in many different ways: A stone is a collection of matter that remains connected over time; a knife is a connection between a blade and a handle that remains over time; a moral principle is a connection between cause and effect the remains constant over time and space. Thus, a stone is a cognitively natural symbol for a solid fact because both stones and facts are interpreted by the same cognitive module of Perceiver thought.
Female thought emphasizes the three emotional cognitive modules of Teacher, Exhorter, and Mercy, while male thought emphasizes the three non-emotional cognitive modules of Perceiver, Contributor, and Server. (The final cognitive module of Facilitator balances the functioning of the other cognitive modules.) Thus, all human minds, regardless of gender, are capable of developing both technical thought and mental networks.
Going further, reaching mental integration requires developing the mental networks of female thought, developing the technical thinking of male thought, and then using the patterns and analogies of normal thought to mentally ‘marry’ these two together. The female mind will naturally emphasize mental networks while the male mind naturally emphasizes technical thought. This means that gender and heterosexual relationships are not just social constructions but rather are deep reflections of the core structure of the integrated mind, and questioning gender and heterosexual relations will have a major negative impact upon the ability of the mind to function. This emphasis of gender is modified by cognitive style. Thus, technical thought will be emphasized most strongly by the male Contributor person, who is motivated by gender to emphasize technical thought while having conscious awareness and control within the Contributor module which lies at the heart of technical thought. In contrast, a female Contributor person will be driven by cognitive style to emphasize technical thought well-being motivated by gender to emphasize mental networks.
In contrast, the primary division of Peterson appears to be between the structure of male technical thought and the absence of male technical thought. “What faces you when you awake? Consider, once again, what makes itself manifest in the theater of your consciousness when the new day dawns... That unfolding present is neither determined nor even constrained, ultimately, by the past – not in any simple and predictable sense, as even the most previously stable, predictable trajectory can transform in a heartbeat and turn on a dime. Consequently, we cannot apply a set of deterministic rules and make our way forward, even in principle. No algorithm allows us to unerringly compute the transforming horizon of the future – not in a world that is not, even in principle, deterministic” (p. 31). ‘Applying a set of deterministic rules’ or using some deterministic algorithm are both examples of male technical thought. As Peterson points out, the normal world contains many unpredictable situations that cannot be controlled by male technical thought. Peterson assumes that this happens within the ‘theater of every person’s consciousness’, but he is actually describing what happens within the theater of the male Contributor person’s consciousness, because cognitive style appears to reflect differences in conscious awareness. The mind does not collapse into chaos when male technical thought fails. Instead the mind normally uses the patterns and analogies of normal thought to predict what will normally happen. And most human interaction is not random but rather is emotionally guided by the mental networks of culture and identity that are being triggered by the current situation.
What Peterson suggests instead is to use the planning of male technical thought in a flexible manner that is ready to respond to the challenges to the plan. “Thus positioned, you are awake and alert; watching for trouble but prepared to move forward; ready to parry, thrust, and dance. That means you are optimally situated – if you can play with the horizon of the future, you are indeed doing well. The horizon of the future, so encountered, is equivalent to the chaos of possibility extant at the beginning of time” (p. 31). Notice the inherent dichotomy between the structure and planning of male technical thought and everything else—which is regarded as chaos. That summarizes the inherent thinking of most male Contributor persons who divide the world into the rational technical thinking that they use and the less-than-rational ‘chaos’ of everyone else.
And to a first approximation this is correct. That is because Western civilization is currently at the stage where Adam has named all the animals but Eve has not yet emerged. Science and technology have caused male technical thought to develop extensively while the mental networks of female thought still function largely at a primitive level. Postmodernism, with its focus upon power and oppression, is an example of female thought functioning at a primitive level. I have gone through two-thirds of the New Testament in the original Greek, interpreting the text from an analogical cognitive perspective and have posted over 3000 pages of analysis. One primary goal of this analysis has been to discover what happens next: Where will the God of history lead Western civilization? As far as I can tell, the next step is for God to metaphorically put the Adam of male technical thought asleep in order to withdraw from ‘his side’ an Eve of intelligent mental networks. Why does Adam have to be put to sleep? Because as long as Adam is awake, the male Contributor persons who run the world will continue to insist that female mental networks are primitive and sub-rational, which will cause many female mental networks to respond instinctively in a primitive and sub-rational manner (as illustrated by Women’s Studies), leading to a vicious circle.
Peterson uses the dichotomy between technical understanding and mystery to define what it means to be in God’s image: “What does created in the image of God mean? It means that the human spirit exists, in its essence, on the border between order and chaos” (p. 27). Peterson associates chaos with the Dragon and the ‘Great Mother’. “The Dragon of chaos is the plenitude of uncategorized or even unencountered possibility – that which forever exists outside the realm of experience... The Great Mother, by contrast, is the most primordial manifestation of that chaotic realm of possibility, within the domain of what is directly experienced” (p. 20). The goal of the successful human ruler is to bring rational structure to the ‘dangerous chaos’ of female mental networks. “A good emperor... generated the order that was good from chaos/possibility in consequence of the eternal battle with the primordial mother-dragon of the deep” (p. 28).
This is correct, but it is also incomplete. As Genesis points out, Adam was created first and then Eve was created out of Adam. Stated cognitively, the chaos of experience will cause immature Mercy mental networks (MMNs) of semi-random emotional experience to emerge within female thought, leading to the ‘Great Mother’. Male technical thought brings order out of this chaos leading to islands of technical specializations. When there is enough ‘dry land’ of rational thought, then it is possible for the more global thinking of female mental networks to start functioning at a mature level. Western civilization is currently at this transition point of Eve being created out of Adam.
When civilization is at this intermediate stage of Adam before Eve, then most progress will come from individuals using male technical thought to form and pursue plans that break free of the imposition of immature cultural and personal mental networks. Peterson recognizes that slavery is ultimately an internal, emotional submission to the dominant mental networks of such a society. “Do you oppose slavery and tyranny on the basis of your belief deeply enough to abide by the dictates of the creative Logos? Or do you instead waver, construing the responsibility as too burdensome, and therefore abandon the true adventure and meaning of your life?” (p. 35). Stated cognitively, Contributor thought is at the core of free will, because Contributor thought chooses between alternatives suggested by Exhorter thought. Each cognitive style wants—above all—for conscious thought to function. The male Contributor person wants to be his own person who chooses for himself. Thus, individuality will usually emerge within such a society as male Contributor persons choosing to decide for themselves. This will then turn into male Contributor persons blazing the cognitive path of using male technical thought to formulate and pursue plans. Going further, a mental concept of Logos or incarnation will emerge as the logical thinking of abstract technical thought becomes integrated with the rational planning of concrete technical thought, supercharging the ability of male Contributor persons to formulate and pursue plans. This will eventually lead to the specialized, hyper-technical, fragmented, inhuman world of today’s consumer society in which male Contributor persons sit at the apex of a hierarchy that attempts to simultaneously manipulate and feed the immature mental networks of the consumer ‘sheeple’.
Peterson describes what it means for the mind to be emotionally ruled by MMNs of personal status. “If I have the power, why are those who oppose me anything other than contemptible and weak? If I am rich, even by inheritance, is that not evidence, prima facie, that I am loved more by God and, therefore, entitled to special status, as the facts indicate I should be? That was certainly the presumption of the classic, pre-Judeo-Christian world, and is certainly the proclamation of the spirit possessing most individuals and societies today” (p. 35). This is an accurate and significant assessment. Saying this cognitively, the mind uses mental networks to represent people, because people can be mentally modeled as collections of emotional likes and dislikes. When several mental networks are triggered at the same time, then each will use emotional pressure to attempt to impose its structure upon the other, and the stronger mental network will succeed in imposing itself upon the weaker. Thus, those who are able to impose their mental networks upon others will naturally gain societal status and be regarded as important people. Generally speaking, only male Contributor persons will have sufficient personal willpower to be able to emerge from such a traditional society. But Western civilization is now facing a different situation in which male technical thought, spearheaded by male Contributor persons, has spread and matured to the extent of filling the world with technological gadgets and fragmenting society into technical specializations. What society now needs is for Eve to emerge from Adam.
Adam, Eve, Pride, Self-Consciousness, and the Fall
Peterson describes the Garden of Eden as the ideal environment. “The garden is the optimal human environment, represented in imaginative abstraction. It is the archetypal dwelling place where culture or order (the walls) and nature or chaos (the plants, trees, birds, animals) coexist in proper balance. It is both origin and eternal perfect destination: the walled garden (for that is what the word paradise—pairi daiza—means)” (p. 41). Notice that Peterson connects order with walls, consistent with the fact that every system of technical thought only applies within the walls of some specialization. In contrast, normal thought constructs order by building bridges of similarity between specializations, bridges that lead between the various walled gardens of technical specialization. Notice also that Peterson associates chaos with the life of plants, trees, birds, and animals. However, the mind uses the mental networks of female thought to represent living beings. Thus, living beings may represent chaos as far as male technical thought is concerned, but they represent the epitome of order to the mental networks of female thought.
Mental symmetry suggests that a Garden of Eden represents an ideal starting environment. The walls allow male technical thought to focus upon developing expertise within the specialization of living within the walls. The animals and plants provide female mental networks with living examples to program mental networks. And the interaction between the various elements of the garden encourages normal thought to interconnect mental networks and technical thought with bridges of analogy.
Peterson then jumps from walls to stake. “This pegging down of the shifting snake that underlies everything, no matter how invisibly, is the planting of the rod of custom or flagstaff in the center, to stabilize and orient ourselves in the community... We want and need our walled garden to be delimited; we want it to be ours... hence the walls. We invite nature to express herself within the confines of those constraints” (p. 42). When studying cognitive styles, my brother and I discovered that three styles have an innate ability to concentrate: Teacher thought can concentrate upon the ‘stake’ of some general theory, interpreting everything that flows around in terms of this simple explanation. Mercy thought can fixate upon some goal, ignoring everything that is not related to the goal. And Contributor thought can restrict thinking to the walls of some specialization. Thus, the stake represents the Teacher theory that provides the paradigm for technical thought while the walls represent the boundaries within which technical thought performs its technical puzzle solving. These are related, but they are not the same.
The Garden of Eden is described in Genesis 2:9 as having two potential stakes in its center. One is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the other is the tree of life. Peterson interprets the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in terms of mystery. “Humanity is also called upon while attending and acting to leave the very moral foundations of the world in place, unchallenged – or even untouched, entirely, in the rejection of the forbidden fruit. Something is therefore deemed to remain necessarily forever beyond human judgment, with regard to the nature of good and evil; something is to be set immovably at the base, or elevated, permanently, to the highest place; something is to be regarded as transcendentally untouchable or ineffable. Is this not precisely the set of moral principles already established and insisted upon?” (p. 44). Peterson is describing a fundamental weakness of technical thought, which is that every system of technical thought is based upon a set of fundamental axioms that cannot be proven but rather have to be assumed. Any technical specialization that insists upon submitting its axioms to the standards of technical rigor will eat itself up and self-destruct. Therefore, these axioms must be regarded as ‘transcendentally untouchable or ineffable’.
But I suggest that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is referring to something else which relates to relationship between the TMNs of Teacher thought and the MMNs of Mercy thought. Mental networks are at the center of the garden because the mind is held together by core mental networks. Teacher thought wants theories to apply everywhere and feels bad when there is an exception to the general rule. Mercy thought distinguishes between pain and pleasure and wants to focus upon mental networks that contain pleasant experiences while ignoring mental networks that contain painful experiences. A tree of life respects this distinction because it seeks to gain an understanding of everything in Teacher thought while limiting personal experiences in Mercy thought to what is pleasant. This is not possible to do in the big bad world, but it is possible within the walls of some garden. And if one chooses to eat from the tree of life when living within the garden, then one can move beyond the garden in a way that preserves this focus upon life.
The common word knowing (יָדַע) first occurs in Genesis 3. The first uses of ‘knowing’ are: 3:5 ‘for God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened’ and ‘he will be like God, knowing good and evil’; 3:7 ‘And they knew that they were naked’; 3:22 ‘The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil’; 4:1 ‘Now the man had relations with his wife’. Notice that are the same word is used to describe knowing good and evil, knowing that one is naked, and having sex. This describes deep personal experiential knowing and not some ‘transcendentally untouchable or ineffable’ axiom of thought. Thus, knowing good and evil means acquiring core MMNs composed of both pleasant experiences and painful experiences. Thinking that starts from such a mixed basis of pleasure and survival will build twisted theories in Teacher thought: Learning how to build a civilization will become mixed with learning how to build an empire; learning how to raise a family will become mixed with learning how to avoid being killed by enemies. This has nothing to do with ineffability but rather has to do with life and death.
Peterson suggests that the primary lesson is “Do not touch was must necessarily remain sacred. Otherwise, the center cannot hold, and things fall apart. Something has to be the unmovable object, the sacred staff, the unshakable pillar, and even, perhaps, the tree for the serpent” (p. 45). This describes the fundamental axioms that provide the foundation for any system of technical thought. They must not be touched.
Peterson again makes a distinction between the specialized knowledge of technical thought and everything else. “The finite and known is surrounded by the infinite and unknown. The former cannot subsume the latter; if it tries, overextending itself, it risks perishing” (p.46). This statement is true if only technical thought exists. But it is possible to form TMNs upon an ever-growing understanding of the infinite. For instance, even though the universe is incomprehensibly large, it appears that the entire universe is composed of the same fundamental particles, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Looking at this scripturally, mystery in the New Testament does not refer to what is forever unknowable but rather to that which is unknowable and is then revealed by God. Quoting from Biblehub, “In the Bible, a ‘mystery’ is not something unknowable. Rather, it is what can only be known through revelation, i.e. because God reveals it.” Cognitively speaking, revealed by God means that it comes from a Teacher theory and not directly from Mercy experiences. This principle was discussed earlier using the example of multidimensional space. Expressing an understanding of human three-dimensional space in terms of the Teacher words of mathematics makes it possible to reveal previously hidden mysteries of multidimensional space. Looking at a more practical example, the Teacher equations of quantum mechanics have revealed the previously hidden mysteries of quantum tunneling which make it possible to build computers and other electronic devices.
Peterson adds that the fringe should not be allowed to take over the center. “The peripheral or experimental has a more fragile grip on identity than the center and can therefore be destabilized with greater ease... The extreme outliers are monsters would devour and destroy everything, including the avant-garde... Centering the margin would eliminate whatever hedonic utility the marginal in fact possesses... Novelty itself is a form of incentive reward... Thus, the movement of the marginal to the position of norm or ideal undermines even the pathologically immature exacerbation of pleasure that is the goal of so many marginal practices—and threatens even the more genuine and valid pleasure that is to be experienced as a consequence of participation in the true and even redemptive avant-garde” (p.47). This quote describes several significant cognitive principles. Exhorter thought (related to dopamine) provides motivation for the mind and becomes bored by repetition and excited by novelty. Something that is only attractive because it is novel loses its attraction when it becomes commonplace. Going further, cultural MMNs emotionally impose the status quo upon the members of the society. It takes mental effort to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with the dominant cultural MMNs of one’s society. Thus, the peripheral typically ‘has a more fragile grip on identity than the center’.
Extreme outliers are guided by TMNs based upon the destruction of societal MMNs. For instance, the premise of queer theory is that all social conventions are artificial constructions imposed by MMNs of societal power and thus need to be ‘deconstructed’ by antisocial behavior. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Queer theory and politics necessarily celebrate transgression in the form of visible difference from norms. These ‘Norms’ are then exposed to be norms, not natures or inevitabilities. Gender and sexual identities are seen, in much of this work, to be demonstrably defiant definitions and configurations.” In other words, Teacher thought has built a universal theory upon the destruction of social MMNs and this universal theory has turned into a TMN that emotionally imposes itself upon behavior and society. Such a mindset destroys everything including the avant-garde. This is illustrated by the fact that queer theory rebels even from attempts to define queer theory. Wikipedia explains, “Queer theory remains difficult to objectively define as academics from various disciplines have contributed varying understanding of the term. At its core, queer theory relates to queer people, their lived experience and how their lived experience is culturally or politically perceived, specifically referring to the marginalization of queer people. This thinking is then applied to various fields of thinking.” Queer theory is an example of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because Teacher thought is building a universal theory upon the ‘evil’ personal experiences of being rejected by society. Thus, the core of queer theory is ‘the marginalization of queer people’.
Turning now to the subject of Eve, Peterson describes female thought from the experiential perspective of MMNs. “The fundamental driving force behind the differentiation of women from men in personality and interest is likely the need for heightened responsivity to threat and for close relationships that aid in care for dependent others... It makes more sense to consider the heightened anxiety and self-consciousness of women and negotiated solution to the joint problems of the mother infant dyad. The depth of such proclivity for self-sacrifice should not be underestimated” (p. 52). Notice that this definition is influenced by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A ‘heightened responsivity to threat’ means constructing one’s thinking upon the experiential knowledge of potential evil. Similarly, ‘caring for dependent others’ means being mentally preoccupied with avoiding potentially threatening experiences. Self-sacrifice means being willing to embrace evil in order to protect others from evil.
The Temptation of Eve
Peterson then says that the essence of female thought is protecting the vulnerable from evil. “It is no coincidence, perhaps, that the sacred image of woman is not so much woman as it is woman and infant. What is a woman, alone? A target of short-term sexual gratification, made so by the venality of men oriented toward such a pursuit, although enticed into such things by the possession of her own hedonism? A pawn in the patriarchal order, just as a man might be” (p.52).
No, no, and no! Female thought is more than a protector from evil. The mental networks of female thought are composed of both MMNs of human sensitivity and vulnerability and of TMNs of understanding, grace, beauty, and integration. Male sexual gratification is a physical caricature of the deep emotional male longing for what makes woman woman, which is a combination of TMNs of beauty and understanding and MMNs of sensitivity and vulnerability. Developing these TMNs of understanding requires education: Teacher emotion comes from order-within-complexity, which means that one must learn complexity before becoming able to order this complexity. That is why Eve comes out of Adam. Adam uses technical thought to learn about the complexity while Eve uses Teacher thought to integrate this complexity.
It should be added that nurturing vulnerable mental networks of life is an aspect of female thought. The immature MMNs of childish thought are best educated by the mental networks of mature female thought. Stated simply, the young child is incapable of using male technical thought but can be emotionally guided by mental networks. In addition, living beings have a multiplicity of needs which the narrow-mindedness of male thought finds exhausting to fulfill, while female thought can naturally jump from one mental network to another as they are triggered by childish needs and desires. But female thought is potentially much more than the nurturing of infants and is capable of going beyond male thought in the intuitive expert.
Peterson describes the ability of female thought to go beyond male thought as a negative trait. “The female proclivity for increased experience of negative emotion and heightened sensitivity to interpersonal interaction and conflict means that they are also more likely to highlight, by inference and direct action, the perennial inadequacy of men” (p. 53). This describes the immature female mind which may have a physical body that expresses Teacher order, grace, and beauty, but is functioning mentally at the level of painful MMNs based in ‘increased experience of negative emotion’. Male behavior triggers these painful MMNs, causing the woman to respond with ‘stop doing that’. In contrast, the female mind that has developed TMNs of rational understanding uses her ‘heightened sensitivity’ to encourage the male mind to function with greater integration, order, and wholeness. This order and wholeness is expressed by both the Hebrew and Greek words for peace that are used in the Bible. will
Peterson adds that “Men will bend over backward to provide – or, in the case of pathological men, appear to provide – whatsoever is desired by a potential mate” (p. 53). Appearing to provide is a pathological trait. But a man providing what is desired by a woman is not pathological—when female thought is governed by TMNs of intelligent understanding, because then the woman is pushing the man to reach his highest potential, a positive goal that Peterson keeps referring to throughout his book.
Peterson suggests that the primary weakness of woman is Teacher overgeneralization. “The temptation that eternally confronts the woman, therefore, is the idea that maternal benevolence can be pridefully extended to the entire world, to even the most poisonous snakes, and the associated temptation to make much of that, on the social front – to use her compassion, however ill-placed and false, to claim unearned moral virtue and ability” (p. 57). This is an accurate assessment but it is also only part of the story. The easy way to construct a general Teacher theory is by ignoring the facts and overgeneralizing some statement. The hard way to construct a general Teacher theory is by assembling the facts into a general statement. The woman who ‘extends maternal benevolence to the entire world’ is using a form of Teacher overgeneralization that ignores facts of reality and facts of human personality. But this is totally different than a mature woman applying a rational Teacher theory to its legitimate area of application. This mature female application of rational Teacher understanding is compatible with male technical thought, but it functions intuitively and is not performing technical puzzle solving within some paradigm. This type of intuitive, rational thinking can be seen in the expert who functions most of the time at an intuitive level while descending to the more rigorous thinking of technical thought when required. Going further, developing such rational Teacher understanding requires building upon the factual knowledge of male thought. Thus, woman needs to submit to man not because woman is inferior to man but because woman builds upon man. And when woman successfully builds upon man, then man needs to look towards woman.
Teacher overgeneralization is directly related to the serpent and mysticism. Mysticism combines Teacher overgeneralization with Mercy identification: Some version of ‘All is one’ is followed by ‘I am one with everything’. Symbolically speaking, this describes a snake because a verbal theory is a string of words and the simplest possible string of a theory (All is one) is being given the internal life of a mental network. In the same way that mysticism abhors factual details, so a snake lacks the arms and legs that make it possible to perform detailed manipulation. Thus, the immature woman who uses Teacher overgeneralization is vulnerable to being tempted by the snake.
Peterson then describes the fundamental flaw of Adam. “‘I can incorporate, master, name and subdue, and put into proper order anything that you bring before me, no matter how overreaching, preposterous, or even outright deadly the presumption that it be included.’ All to impress Eve, as men do so often to impress women. One terrible reality of this destructive dance is how closely it resembles the deepest moral striving and ability, when genuine” (p. 57). Mastering, naming and subduing, and putting into proper order are aspects of technical thought. The problem that Peterson describes is that this is being guided by inadequate theories in Teacher thought. Stated more carefully, male technical thought is naturally objective and specialized, which means that it is naturally motivated by the subjective MMNs and universal TMNs of female thought. As Peterson points out, this emotional guidance is not inherently wrong because ‘it resembles the deepest moral striving and ability, when genuine’. However, when female thought becomes reduced to the nurturing of mother and child, then such genuine interaction becomes defined out of existence.
Satan, as Peterson points out, means ‘adversary’. Peterson summarizes, “Satan as the essence of the predatory, parasitical, and reptilian is the spirit of murderous resentment, the Prince of lies and darkness – the adversary of being, the shameless accuser, the essence of malevolence” (p. 60). This type of satanic adversarialism naturally becomes dominant when people and society are emotionally ruled by MMNs rather than TMNs. That is because MMNs are based in specific experiences and people. When competing MMNs are activated, then each will attempt to emotionally impose its structure upon the other. This expresses itself as zero-sum adversarialism, in which stronger MMNs rule over weaker MMNs. As postmodernism concludes, lifting up one person or culture automatically denigrates competing people and cultures. This is also a ‘Prince of lies’ because Perceiver thought, the module that determines facts and truths, can be emotionally overwhelmed by strong emotions. Therefore, as postmodernism also states, ‘truth’ becomes determined by the MMN that has sufficient emotional power to impose itself upon the population. In contrast, Teacher thought feels good when the same theory applies to more specific situations. This leads naturally to positive-sum cooperation. For instance, MMN-driven interaction feels bad if my neighbor has a nicer house than I do, while TMN-driven interaction feels good if everyone in the neighborhood has a nice house.
The mind uses MMNs to represent people. Thus, imposing my MMNs upon other people is ultimately pride against God. In Peterson’s words, “This is the taking to self not merely the ability to revalue all values, in the sense meant and recommended by Nietzsche, but the ability to create values – to serve as the veritable source of value itself: the capability of God Himself” (p. 61). ‘Revaluing values’ uses personal and cultural MMNs to overwhelm Perceiver thought in others. ‘Creating values’ jumps intuitively from Mercy experience to Teacher universality, treating the MMNs of some person or culture as universal. This intuitive jumping from specific to universal is a core aspect of ideology, and ideology creates alternate mental concepts of God. In contrast, using Perceiver thought to look for repeated connections searches for the universal truths that express the universal character of God in Teacher thought.
Peterson points out the fallacy of jumping from specific to universal. “This is the elevation of narrow self-will to the highest conceivable place, in the guise of ultimate freedom... This is simultaneously the presumption of subjective omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence... The appropriate response to that question is simple: do you live, successfully, as of now, in Paradise? If not, does that mean that the cosmic order itself is of questionable validity, or that your perspective is dreadfully flawed?” (p. 62). Notice the intuitive leap from MMNs of ‘narrow self-will’ to TMNs of universality. The solution is to appeal to the facts of reality: ‘Are you actually living in paradise?’ This sounds obvious but Perceiver thought can only determine the facts if it is functioning and not being emotionally overwhelmed. And a fundamental assumption of postmodernism is that independent Perceiver thought does not exist because Perceiver thought is always being emotionally overwhelmed. This is proclaimed as a universal theory which continues to be used until it turns into a TMN that emotionally imposes itself upon the mind. How can Perceiver thought function when it is being emotionally attacked by both MMNs of personal status and the TMN of ‘universal’ theory?
Peterson adds that “It is in the admirable nature of the feminine to call the attention of the masculine to that which is vulnerable and not being properly served” (p.63). This is an accurate statement because MMNs of female thought are being triggered by need and vulnerability, and dealing effectively with such situations requires the technical thinking of male thought. But this is still only half the picture. Mature female thought can also call the attention of the masculine to that which is beautiful, wholesome, and uplifting, guided by intelligent TMNs of female thought.
Peterson then addresses the Christian doctrine that suffering is a consequence of the sin of Eve and Adam. He defines personal fulfillment from the perspective of Contributor thought. “We search for an optimized challenge, not infantile dependency; for adventure, confrontation, and combat. We hope to find dragons of precisely the size we can slay – the size matched to or even slightly exceeding our levels of confidence and ability. That is the zone of proximal development, the place we play most effectively, the place we are most or at least optimally conscious” (p.66). This is psychologically and cognitively accurate, as described by the concept of psychological flow. But it is also an accurate description of male technical thought, epitomized by the male Contributor person. Exhorter thought is like a horse that is attracted to novelty and excitement while Contributor thought is like the rider on the horse. The Contributor person wants the horse to have excitement but does not want to be thrown from the horse.
However, the sin of Eve and Adam involves something deeper which involves the very moral and cultural landscape upon which both horse and rider are traveling. As Peterson points out later when looking at Cain, Cain kills his brother and the descendants of Cain invent warfare. One can only live within a garden of paradise as long as one finds evil abhorrent in Mercy thought. This requires accepting that there are certain Mercy experiences that one will avoid because they lead to pain and death. Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil personally embraces these evil experiences leading to a fundamental twisting of culture and identity.
Looking more specifically at the sin of Cain, living in the garden recoils in horror at the very thought of killing a fellow human being. Being cast from the garden ultimately corrupts the entire inhabited world with systems of government and society built upon the fundamental premise of kill or be killed, enslave or be enslaved. This is why the theory of evolution is so morally abhorrent, because it takes this deep knowledge of evil and elevates it to the highest level of universal Teacher theory, treating ‘survival of the fittest’ as a universal meta-theory of biological existence. And social Darwinism was at least partially responsible for the hell-on-earth of World War I.
This lasting legacy of the sin of Eve and Adam goes far deeper than ‘the zone of proximal development’, because it totally altered the entire landscape of human society and history. I am not suggesting that there would have been no war and no killing if Adam and Eve had not fallen. But it is possible that the positive path of following God in Teacher thought could have become sufficiently robust to provide the emotional basis for the primary stream of human society. This may be paradise, but it is not just an overextending of immature female compassion, because I come from a Mennonite background, and my ancestors have attempted for half a millennium to follow such a positive path of blessing rather than cursing, helping rather than slaying. (Unfortunately, some modern liberal Mennonites have reduced this costly but effective path to an overextending of immature female compassion.)
(The theory of biological evolution is discussed in another essay. I suggest that a distinction needs to be made between the Big Bang theory and the theory of biological evolution. The Big Bang theory is mathematically plausible but does have major problems. The theory of biological evolution, in contrast, is utterly implausible. I am not suggesting that one should merely assert that God created everything because that leaves no room for human thought. Instead, I suggest a more nuanced explanation which is consistent with both scripture and biological structure. I have not seen this hypothesis mentioned anywhere else. In brief, I suggest that God initially created simplistic primal beings who function at the level of strings of information and interact with the primal energy of God in Teacher thought. These primal beings then designed the DNA of biological life outside of physical space and time and this biological life was then assembled in physical reality within a short span of human time. This hypothesis is explored elsewhere. This may sound like a crazy idea but it is literally the only idea I can come up with that does not appear to be either crazy or mindless.)
This innate bias towards death and destruction can even be seen in the phrase ‘slaying dragons’. Similarly, Peterson refers to “The serpent-slaying saints George and Patrick, and the archangel Michael, at the end or culmination of time” (p.60) and follows this by quoting Revelation 12:7-9. However, the New Testament never mentions killing a dragon. Instead, the dragon is cast down from heaven to earth in Revelation 12. Stated symbolically, it is removed from the heaven of Teacher generality and cast down to the earth of physical reality. In other words, people stop treating ‘survival of the fittest’ with its ‘red in tooth and claw’ as a Teacher meta-theory and start recognizing that living this way is damn painful. And ‘damn’ is precisely the correct word for this situation. However, anyone who dares question the theory of evolution is currently blasphemed by academia as an ignoramus. This demonstrates that we are still suffering the consequences of the sin of Eve and Adam; we are still eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; we still regard kill or be killed, damn or be damned, as the fundamental principles of human society.
Peterson describes this polluting of Teacher understanding by Mercy feelings of domination. “Pride of this nature is allied symbolically, traditionally, and in the literary realm with the arrogance of intellect” (p. 62). Posed more simply, “Is it knowledge or power that Faust more truly seeks, with all that intellectual inquiry only serving as a disguise?” (p. 63). In other words, the stated goal is to gain rational understanding in Teacher thought while the ultimate motivation is to use this understanding to gain personal status and power in Mercy thought.
Even worse, death and destruction often clothes itself as kindness and help. Peterson explains, “This means that we can put ourselves forward (and this is a typically masculine temptation) as productive and generous, when we are in fact neither. This is precisely the ploy of the so-called Dark Tetrad personalities – the narcissists, manipulators, psychopaths, and sadists, who manifest the very worst of masculine pride” (p. 66). Looking at this cognitively, theory of mind uses mental networks within my mind to try to guess what another person is thinking and feeling. This makes it possible to fool theory of mind by behaving in a manner that triggers mental networks of compassion and assistance within the mind of a potential victim. Peterson’s analysis is accurate, but the very fact that Peterson and others are studying narcissists, manipulators, psychopaths, and sadists means that we as a society are still eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
But Peterson also observes that the Bible presents a better way. “I suspect that the entire biblical narrative is in some sense precisely that attempt: How do we progress forward, eternally, with hope intact and a minimum of catastrophe?” (p. 68). Amen! However, following a better way means building upon TMNs of universal understanding, which is only possible if one has a universal Teacher theory of cognition, such as mental symmetry.
When Adam and Eve fell they became conscious of their nakedness. Peterson equates this with self-consciousness. “I have long read the enhancement of vision as the loss of childhood innocence and the beginning of true self-consciousness: that man and woman alike became aware at some point in the distant past of the temporal limits of human existence; of the fact that suffering, death, and malevolence were part and parcel of life. Read in this manner, self-consciousness and knowledge of nakedness are the same thing... People abandon their childish naivety – not without pain – as they come to confront the bedrock realities of life: the harshness of the natural world; the tyranny of the social world; the sinful impulsive and hedonistic proclivities of the tempted individual” (p. 68). This is an accurate assessment, but notice that it is also dripping with a deep personal knowledge of good and evil. Is such suffering ‘the bedrock realities of life’ or are we still suffering the perversity of Adam and Eve setting history on the wrong course by eating from the wrong tree?
Mental symmetry has given me a totally different perspective. Studying each of the seven cognitive styles allowed me to comprehend how each of the seven cognitive modules could function. For instance, I can study how Contributor thought functions by examining the behavior of successful Contributor persons. Putting these seven different fragments of mental wholeness together leads to a composite picture of how the whole mind could function if all seven cognitive modules were working in harmony. This is a tree of life, because it is driven by a Teacher theory of mental and societal wholeness. Going further, instead of merely suspecting that the biblical narrative presents a better way, I have found that both the biblical narrative and Christian theology emerge naturally from this understanding and pursuit of mental wholeness. I should add that this is not a matter of imposing human thought upon divine revelation because the seven cognitive styles originally came from a list of seven spiritual gifts in Romans 12. And I have found over many decades that there is something about this system of seven cognitive styles that causes the average person to run away and hide. Curiously, the one who runs away the fastest from cognitive styles and insists with the greatest vehemence that it is wrong is the male Contributor person. This may be because the typical male Contributor person so obviously exhibits the traits of the Contributor person. Using the language of Genesis, mental symmetry causes people to be self-conscious of their nakedness.
Peterson regards such self-consciousness as negative. “To become self-conscious is to know nakedness, limitation, and mortality... to feel alienated from intimate partner or other family member, from the broader culture, from nature, from the cosmos, and from God” (p. 68).
No, no, and no! This may describe what self-consciousness feels like in the short term, but in the long term this brutal personal honesty transforms the mind into an inner realm of light and joy. When I recognized several decades ago that my mind was composed of seven interacting cognitive modules and that I was only conscious in one of them, then instead of responding by running from the light of God in Teacher thought, I made a mental covenant with my cognitive modules declaring that I would not shut them down but rather give them the right to exist and function. This has become the universal Teacher theory of wholeness that rules my mind, rather than the ‘survival of the fittest’ of evolution. I now have mental conversations with my subconscious cognitive modules. I like them and they like me, and together we have been walking a path of reconstructing my mind—and hopefully reconstructing society. When such a theory of mental wholeness turns into a TMN that imposes itself emotionally upon the mind, then what also emerges is a blindingly brilliant and utterly beautiful concept of female thought functioning at the highest level of rational intuitive expertise. This includes Peterson’s concept of mother-and-child but goes far beyond it.
Peterson quotes on page 60 from Revelation 12:7-9 which describes the dragon being cast out of heaven. But he skips the beginning of the chapter which describes who the dragon is opposing. “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth” (Rev. 12:1-2). A great sign in heaven refers to a meta-theory within the heavenly realm of theories. This great sign is a woman, and not just any woman but rather one clothed with a sun of global light, with the moon of society under her feet, and crowned with twelve stars of cosmic light. ‘Clothed with the sun’ implies fully embracing the light of self-consciousness. Yes, this woman is giving birth to a child, but the chapter devotes one verse to the child (v.5) while spending six verses (v. 6, 13-17) on the woman without mentioning the child. And this heavenly paradigm of a woman does not nurture her child, violating Peterson’s archetype of woman and child. Instead, the child is taken from the woman in verse 5 to be nurtured in heaven while the woman flees into the wilderness in verse 6.
In contrast, Peterson equates self-consciousness with being estranged from God and kicked out of the garden. “Why, finally, the expulsion from Paradise? Because self-consciousness – an inevitable consequence of overweening pride – is indistinguishable from suffering and alienation from the divine” (p. 75). This may apply to the typical male Contributor person, because truly facing the strengths and limitations of Contributor-controlled technical thought would dethrone male Contributor persons and male technical thought from its current ‘overweening pride’ of controlling the world and regarding technical thought as the only valid form of human thought. But I have discovered through decades of personal experience that embracing the self-consciousness of who I am cognitively has caused me to become deep friends with the God of the Bible and to comprehend what it means to live within paradise.
Science and Prayer
Peterson mentions this alternative. “There can be nothing allowed in heaven is not heavenly; nothing in paradise that is not truly paradisal. Everything unworthy must therefore be cut or burned away... Might it not be the case that the damned are damned in so far as they have established a terrifying distance between themselves and God?” (p. 75). Yes, exactly. But while Peterson presents this as a hypothetical, I have found that living with the self-consciousness of being only one among seven in my mind has been causing ‘everything unworthy to be cut or burned away’. I increasingly know experientially what it means to be mentally ‘clothed with the sun’. This does not mean that I am some perfect saint who never sins, but rather that I am learning the blessed joy, freedom, and lasting innocence of living internally under the rule of law.
Peterson describes true science as an illustration of learning to live internally under the rule of law in order to ‘cause everything unworthy to be cut or burned away’ and he compares this with prayer. Peterson’s reference to science parallels my experience, because I keep finding that science and technology provide better (but incomplete) illustrations of the Christian message than theology and the church. “The identity of exploratory thought, even its most stringent, scientific manifestation, with humble openness to (religious) revelation is not the only place of parallel between prayer and secularized thought. First, there is admission of insufficiency. This differs little from confession or humility... Before individuals think, they must have something to think about. They must be beset by a problem that is intriguing or distressing; a problem that calls, or that appeals to conscience... Finally, they must as well be characterized by faith in the creative revelatory process... Such faith is something like the belief that if you have a question... that thinking up an answer is both possible and worthwhile or valuable, at least in principle” (p. 78). Stated cognitively, the honest researcher recognizes at the level of personal MMNs that current understanding is inadequate. The researcher also believes that rational thought will lead to more adequate understanding.
The honest researcher then turns to God in Teacher thought for enlightenment. “The scientist gets down on his knees, in all humility, and admits to himself, his field, and God the utter depths of his ignorance... After this admission, the searcher opens himself up to insight – something that appears indistinguishable, conceptually and ontologically, from revelation” (p. 79). Stated cognitively, the researcher recognizes that his thinking is fatally twisted by MMNs of fallen human existence and then looks to Teacher thought for understanding. Peterson is describing a deep cognitive parallel. I learned about this parallel in the following way: As a child, I was taught to follow the religious path of contrition and humility before God. Developing the theory of mental symmetry taught me the scientific version of humble prayer, because I often reached dead ends where I had to admit my ignorance—often down on my literal knees—and ask for help. As I used mental symmetry to reformulate Christian doctrine and praxis, I gradually realized that the religious and scientific versions of humble prayer were one and the same.
The theologian or Christian believer should be following such a strategy, but usually avoids the humility of admitting ignorance by appealing to absolute truth (I already know all important truth because it was revealed to me and my church in the Bible) while avoiding the difficult path of careful thinking by appealing to divine mystery (Who am I to pretend to understand the ways of God?). However, while the honest scientific researcher usually applies a more valid version of prayer to God, this prayer is generally limited to the realm of the objective within some specialization. The typical scientist is usually utterly unwilling to sincerely pray ‘God save me a sinner’ but instead limits his or her prayer to ‘May abstract understanding give me insight within my specialization’. Peterson is stretching beyond the typical scientist by actually praying ‘God save me a sinner’. However, praying such a prayer is itself a growing process as one develops a more adequate concept of God and acquires a more accurate concept of sin.
Peterson recognizes that this is a growing process. “There is the lengthy apprenticeship of the thinker, a practice derived not from the rationalist or empiricist tradition but from the practice of monasticism, which was in turn a manifestation of the desire to unify aim upward. This is the training of scientists to doubt even their own presumptions and to search diligently for the truth” (p. 79). Saying this another way, escaping the all-pervasive impact of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil requires rethinking and reshaping all of the mental networks of society, religion, and history in the light of fact-based Teacher understanding, one painful layer at a time. And because personal identity is composed of mental networks, this will be experienced as personal death and rebirth. “This is tantamount, as well, to accepting the necessity of ‘death and rebirth’ as a precondition for scientific progress... There is little difference between such acceptance and ‘subordination of the self’ to ‘divine will’” (p. 79). Following such a process leads to Teacher joy as well as emotional reconciliation between MMNs of personal identity and the TMN of a concept of God. “This self-sacrificial and humble service is the offering most pleasing to God, so to speak: the wholehearted, a priori commitment to the truth, which is to be followed no matter where it leads” (p. 80). Notice that TMNs of growing rational understanding are leading while personal identity in Mercy thought is following, no matter what the cost. Stated another way, when the TMN of a concept of God comes into contact with MMNs of personal identity, then the TMN is allowed to impose its structure upon MMNs of identity, regardless of how this makes personal identity feel. This emotional hierarchy of mental networks will be discussed further when looking at Moses.
Looking at this further, it was mentioned earlier that MMNs of personal status will naturally overwhelm Perceiver thought in its pursuit of truth. Blind faith that uses Mercy emotions to overwhelm Perceiver thought becomes threatened when Perceiver thought emerges from this hypnosis and starts to think. Similarly, Teacher thought overgeneralizes by overriding Perceiver facts. In contrast, the process of building rational Teacher understanding that Peterson is describing and comparing with prayer involves a cooperation between Teacher understanding and Perceiver honesty.
In contrast to a God of overgeneralization, a God of universal understanding in Teacher thought is happy when Perceiver thought is used to discover universal truths—connections that appear everywhere and everywhen. Teacher thought experiences deep pain if theories fall apart because they are built upon inadequate or inaccurate facts that are not truly universal. Thus, “The seeking scientist, explorer, and thinker is also called upon to evaluate the newly revealed notions, making their appearance in the theater of his imagination... This is the subjugation of the received insight or revelation to critical thinking” (p. 80). Stated cognitively, the cognitive module that comes up with theories is different than the cognitive module that checks theories. As we saw earlier when looking at Large Language Models, pure verbal Teacher thought is prone to hallucination and fabrication. I know that this is true from deep personal experience, because the theory of mental symmetry was initially developed by my older brother, a Teacher person, and the role that I initially played as a Perceiver person was to error-check his theories.
Going further, Teacher thought functions emotionally, and Teacher emotion feels like Mercy emotion. Therefore, Teacher theorizing will be influenced by MMNs of the spirit. “If the reasons for investigation and the request for revelation are self-serving, resentful, deceitful, and arrogant, then the spirit that comprises the essence of those impulses is what will answer. Separating the answers of the former from the falsehoods of the latter requires a painful discernment and discrimination – the willingness to separate chaff from wheat and sheep from goats. That is subjugation to the terrible flaming sword that stands at the gates of Paradise” (p.80). Self-serving, resentful, deceitful, and arrogant all refer to childish MMNs based in emotional experiences. Learning to use Teacher thought effectively requires separating the ‘chaff’ of such MMNs from the ‘wheat’ of actually using Teacher understanding to assemble Perceiver facts. This sifting process is essential if one is to recover from the long-term impact of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and re-enter paradise, because living within paradise means submitting all of the mind to the all-consuming light of a sufficiently adequate concept of God in Teacher thought. Teacher thought feels bad whenever there is an exception to the rule, which means that any aspect of the mind that either contradicts—or is held back—from growing universal Teacher understanding will emotionally cloud one’s relationship with one’s concept of God and limit one’s ability to think clearly.
Going still further, building an accurate understanding of ‘how things work’ in Teacher thought makes it possible to avoid physical pain by mentally predicting that this pain will happen. “Thought enables us to navigate in abstraction before embarking on our real-world adventures. What makes itself manifest to us when we question and receive a correspondent revelation are therefore the abstract equivalents of orienting, directional perceptions” (p. 81). This turns conscience from ‘the little voice that stops me from having fun’ into ‘the little voice that protects me from encountering painful Mercy experiences’. Notice that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is gradually being supplanted by eating from the tree of life. One gains more universal understanding in Teacher thought in order to avoid painful experiences in Mercy thought. Instead of experiencing painful MMNs and then attempting to build a Teacher understanding upon avoiding further pain, one is submitting to the TMN of universal understanding in order to avoid forming painful MMNs. Instead of being corrected by the concrete experience of pain, one is being guided by the abstract prediction of pain.
Peterson recognizes that this struggle involves the mental networks of life, including TMNs of abstract theory that have become mentally alive. “Every idea that is alive expresses itself not as a mere description but as a personality with an aim, a viewpoint, a world gathered around it, and a full panoply of emotional responses and associated ideas. Dialogue is the battle between the personality of various ideas... This process of warring idea-personality within is no different than the war of the gods in heaven, played out on the broader, communal scale... It is in this manner that the Logos of the individual – the process of his consciousness – establishes and revitalizes the cosmic order” (p. 83). Stated cognitively, triggering some mental network will mentally activate the ‘full panoply of emotional responses and associated ideas’ of that mental network. This turns internal dialogue into a ‘battle between the personality of various ideas’ as mental networks that are triggered simultaneously attempt to impose their structures emotionally upon one another. Saying this another way, most so-called social interaction is actually happening within people’s minds as mental networks become triggered by events and people and internally attempt to impose their structures upon one another.
Going further, saving society requires internally facing the twisted mental networks that have been acquired through the lasting legacy of the fall of Adam and Eve. More generally, society can only be saved to the extent that individuals construct a more adequate internal concept of God in Teacher thought and the Logos of incarnation in technical thought. The greatest salvation happens when individuals to confront and rethink the most fundamental mental networks of self and society. “The greatest challenge to what is and what should be, by consensus and tradition, is always to be found in what is least familiar and most frightening. Residing as it does at our weakness psychological point, it is also very likely contaminated with willful blindness: we are likely to leave unfamiliar that which is most daunting” (p. 83). An area that is ‘least familiar and most frightening’ contains a minimum of Perceiver facts and a maximum of emotional mental networks. ‘Willful blindness’ means choosing not to think about this topic because the strong emotions make it more difficult to apply technical thought in a rational manner.
Overcoming such willful blindness usually requires the painful paradigm shift of allowing existing TMNs of understanding to die and become reborn. “The death of a guiding idea produces disorientation on the way to enlightenment. It is apprehension of the reality and inevitability of that desert state that makes us approach enlightenment or its messengers with trepidation, resistance, or outright hostility” (p. 84). Questioning some personal or cultural MMN in the light of the TMN of some rational understanding can be painful but is usually not devastating or disorienting. Questioning the TMN of some ‘guiding idea’ as inadequate is far more painful and, by definition, disorienting. Thomas Kuhn said that a scientist will only let go of an existing paradigm if given an alternative paradigm. Embracing a more adequate paradigm will be felt as ‘enlightenment’. This rethinking of paradigms happens more easily in a ‘desert’ that is free of emotional distraction from triggered MMNs.
Summarizing this chapter on Adam and Eve, I suggest that Peterson’s concepts of masculine, feminine, temptation, and the fall are incomplete. However, when it comes to the process of recovering from the long-term impact of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then Peterson really, really gets it. And understanding the process is more important than having a complete answer, because the answer will naturally become more complete if one continues to follow the right process.
Cain, Abel, and Sacrifice
Peterson summarizes that work is one byproduct of the fall. “Man and woman, unwilling to walk with God, are fated to labor, and often bitterly. Why? At least in part for philosophical, spiritual, or religious reasons, as those who reject the upward-spiraling path of the Logos must instead grapple counterproductively and bitterly with intransigent fate” (p. 90). Cognitively speaking, there are at least three aspects to this. First, if ‘how things work’ can be described by general laws in Teacher thought, then a mind that lacks the light of Teacher understanding will naturally tend to function in a way that fights how things work, making progress more difficult. This is like the technophobe who is all thumbs when it comes to using gadgets. Second, a mind that is avoiding a concept of God in Teacher thought will not be emotionally driven to discover general laws in Teacher thought. Thus, the typical technophobe is not just ignorant when it comes to using gadgets but does not want to learn about how gadgets work. Third, if a mind has a Teacher understanding of ‘how things work’ and this understanding turns into a TMN, then this mental network will generate an emotional drive to behave in a manner that is consistent with this understanding. This third effect describes righteousness, in which one naturally behaves in a manner that is consistent with the character of God. The mind that lacks such a TMN will find it effortful to follow universal laws of ‘how things work’, causing this behavior to be viewed as ‘work’.
Peterson defines work as ‘the delay of gratification, and a sacrifice made in the service of others. It is an investment to best ensure the beneficence of the future, whose price must be paid in the present” (p. 90). John Stuart Mill uses a similar definition of work in his 19th century textbook on economics. It makes sense that Peterson would use an economic definition, because economics is an example of concrete technical thought, and basic economics as well as the economics of John Stuart Mill have been analyzed from a cognitive perspective in academic papers. According to economics, the person who stays home and raises a child without getting paid is not performing work. And according to Peterson, the essence of femininity is mother and child. However, 1 Timothy 2:15 says that child-raising can be a saving process for feminine thought, and this statement is made within the context of discussing the sin of Adam and Eve. Stated cognitively, mental networks of culture and identity normally preserve the status quo and the goal-oriented reward-deferring behavior of concrete technical thought makes it possible to go beyond the status quo. However, mental networks can also become saved through child-raising—the process of guiding immature mental networks of childish thought to maturity. 1 Timothy clarifies that this personal salvation does not happen automatically but has certain prerequisites. This emotional side to personal salvation is reflected in the extensive emotional words that Peterson used when comparing prayer to scientific research.
Peterson describes the ability to the work as the ultimate expression of humanity. “Is there any purpose more profound for the great brains that characterize our species and require such lengthy socialization to develop than to transcend the instinctual and directed toward the concerns of others and the future?” (p. 91). The ability to work for the future rather than consume in the present is a significant aspect of being human, but regarding this as the ‘most profound purpose for the great brains of our species’ is also an example of male technical thought instinctively regarding itself as the epitome of human intelligence.
However, Peterson also refers obliquely to an aspect of humanity that is even more profound than the ability to work. “We formulated dramatic stories about our sacrificial efforts and then attempted to analyze the stories, to make the representations they had already distilled through abstraction ever more explicit, comprehensible, and memorable” (p. 91). This describes the human ability to move from concrete to abstract, from specific to general. But notice that Peterson’s foundation is still story and not general theory. And, as Peterson points out, this involves mental work. “We learned how to make psychological sacrifices, instead or in addition to the concrete offerings made on altars and in temples: to identify outdated or otherwise counterproductive ideas... There is little or no difference between such psychological sacrifice and what we now consider, rather bloodlessly, ‘critical thinking’” (p. 90). What is being sacrificed here is existing inadequate MMNs and TMNs of mental structure. It takes effort to question and rebuild these emotional structures.
And Peterson recognizes the essential role played by Teacher order-within-complexity. “If you serve a multiplicity, instead of a unity, you are confused, anxious, aimless, and hopeless. But if you serve a unity, what unity do – and should – you serve? The most comprehensive unity would unite psychologically; would make of the tremendous hierarchical complexity of our neural architecture something singular, at the pinnacle of order or process. It would furthermore and simultaneously place that singular integrated individuality into congruence with the social world and the surrounding natural order” (p. 92). This is precisely what mental symmetry does. It unites all seven cognitive modules with the common goal of working together in harmony, and it expresses this cooperation in the form of a general theory of cognition which maps in detail onto the brain. Going further, mental symmetry recognizes that such cooperation is better for every cognitive module: Exhorter thought can increase excitement and avoid frustration by cooperating with other cognitive modules; Teacher thought can construct far more satisfying structures of order-within-complexity by cooperating with other cognitive modules, and so on. Finally, mental symmetry also observes that an integrated mind will function in a manner that is consistent with how the natural world works. Thus, mental symmetry actually delivers what Peterson hypothesizes as the optimal. And this essay is showing that mental symmetry can also place Peterson’s collection of principles within the unity of the cognitive model of mental symmetry.
But Peterson thinks that such unity cannot be achieved individually but must be achieved socially. “If all that is within a person has united in service to the same transcendent unity, he or she will be pulled apart with doubt and spiral into misery and hopelessness. If two people serve the same unity, they can work together, sacrifice together, navigate treacherous and difficult terrain together; can cooperate and compete together, and can do so voluntarily, productively, and peacefully” (p. 93). It is true that each cognitive style has a unique window into observing and controlling the function of one cognitive module. Thus, for instance, if I as a Perceiver person want to learn how Mercy thought should function, then I need to learn from a Mercy person how to get Mercy thought within my mind to function. But the ultimate unity is happening within my mind as Mercy thought within my mind develops and learns to cooperate with Perceiver thought within my mind, and so on. This does not mean that one can avoid all social interaction and turn to a hermit. Some social interaction is essential for maintaining sanity and balance. But it is possible to satisfy most of the requirements for social interaction with internal dialogue between cognitive modules.
Thus, mental symmetry strongly disagrees with the assertion that becoming united within ‘in service to the same transcendent unity’ will ‘spiral into misery and hopelessness’. In total contrast, I have found that seeking internal unity actually ascends into joy and hope, even when one is surrounded by a social environment that is spiraling into many fragmented forms of misery and hopelessness. However, I could see that a single-minded pursuit of some goal might lead to hopelessness if one uses conscious thought as a mental tyrant to rule over subconscious modules. The male Contributor person is especially prone to this, and has a natural tendency to treat other cognitive modules and other cognitive styles as pawns within his plan—pawns that are expected to stay put when moved and are not supposed to develop independent lives of their own.
Peterson recognizes that searching for unity means heading upward in the direction of heavenly Teacher order. Using the example of music, “Toward what does music aim? Toward an ever-elaborating, upward-spiraling pattern of harmony. Toward a state where something already compelling and harmonious and great is replaced by something still better. Up Jacob’s eternal ladder to heaven” (p. 94). This describes greater Teacher order-within-complexity because existing order-within-complexity is being increased by placing more complexity within refined order. What is missing from this description is the emotional guidance that enlightened female thought can provide by shining down from the TMN of an existing understanding. For instance, the initial framework of the theory of mental symmetry was developed in the 1980s and the TMN of this theory has been emotionally guiding my research since then. This is not a Teacher overgeneralization because I have tested this theory extensively by using it to explain a wide variety of supposedly unrelated specializations and systems. Each encounter has added to the Teacher order-within-complexity of mental symmetry. Thus, I have experienced what Peterson describes, but I also know what it is like to experience the growing internal light of a general theory—the kind of emotional light that mature female thought is capable of expressing.
Recognizing that one is a small aspect of some larger system of Teacher order leads to feelings of awe. And a feeling of awe can turn into a TMN that attracts personal identity to greater Teacher order. In Peterson’s words, “You may feel small or insignificant in comparison, but only because you confront something greater, and there is in that very act of encountering what is greater the realization that greater itself exists, and that it can and should be strived toward. This the paradoxical consequence, it might be said, of falling to your knees: it is simultaneously an act of humility and a revelation of what could yet be, even ‘within’. It is very difficult to unpack such experience, to make its nature explicit” (p. 95). Peterson is describing what it feels like to encounter Teacher emotion without having an accompanying verbal Teacher theory, because he finds it ‘very difficult to unpack such experience, to make its nature explicit’. In contrast, I have found for over four decades that the theory of mental symmetry continues to unpack such experiences and make their nature explicit. The personal desire to strive toward this Teacher order still exists and continues to grow, but mental symmetry also allows me to verbalize this desire. In other words, the angels in my internal Jacob’s Ladder are both ascending and descending.
Peterson points out that “Cain and Abel are also the first two real humans beings – as Adam and Eve are made directly by God, and in the garden before the fall, rather than being born in the profane world of history” (p.98). Stated cognitively, they are the first to follow the typical human path of building childish minds upon MMNs of emotional experience acquired from physical reality—a path described by Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. In contrast, Adam and Eve came into existence in an environment of Teacher order and interacted verbally with the Teacher order of God. I suspect that Adam and Eve also had an ability to physically sense Teacher order that was lost after the fall.
Peterson summarizes that “God is the ultimate up in the upward aim. The work that truly redeem; the work that is truly pleasing to God – that is the complete sacrifice of all for what is truly highest” (p. 98). Looking at this cognitively, one is being guided by TMNs of order, understanding, and beauty within Teacher thought even if this causes MMNs of culture and identity to fall apart in Mercy thought. This describes righteousness, in which one is being emotionally driven to behave in a manner that is consistent with one’s TMN of God.
Before continuing, it should be clarified that heading upward is related to, but cognitively distinct from, aiming toward the best. Heading upward means moving in the direction of Teacher order, integration, beauty, elegance, structure, and simplicity. Aiming toward the best means being guided by Platonic forms of ideal perfection within Mercy thought. A Platonic form is an imaginary image within Mercy thought that forms as a result of Teacher understanding. For instance, when one imagines a circle, one thinks of the Platonic form of an imaginary circle that is more perfect than any real circle. This internal Mercy image of a perfect circle is formed as a result of Teacher thought working out the essential essence of circle-ness. Platonic forms can turn into MMNs that provide an alternate goal to the experiential MMNs acquired from growing up as a child in the physical world, transforming the idolatry of pursuing specific items and experiences from the physical world into being internally driven to aim towards the best.
Peterson mentions the topic of power politics. “Once the world is divided, such that those unfairly on top have been segregated conceptually from those unfairly suffering on the bottom, the pathway to messianic status is magically revealed: moral effort becomes nothing but allyship with the victims, however hypothetical, merely emotional, purely conceptual, or self-serving – even psychopathic – that allyship might be” (p. 105). This type of twisted thinking emerges naturally through cognitive mechanisms.
Looking first at the path to success, if the world and the mind are governed by inescapable principles of cause-and-effect, then those who violate these principles will experience painful results in Mercy thought. Discovering such principles requires sufficient Perceiver confidence to assert facts in the face of emotional distress and it also requires concrete technical thought, because concrete technical thought is based upon cause-and-effect. Stated more carefully, Contributor combines Perceiver and Server. Perceiver looks for solid connections while Server performs actions and sequences. A principle of cause-and-effect is a solid connection that links some action with its result.
Looking now at the typical emotional response to success, a childish mind that is ruled by MMNs of identity and culture will lack the ability to use the factual thinking that is needed to discover principles of cause-and-effect. Thus, such a mind will experience failure because of being ignorant of cause-and-effect while interpreting that failure as experiencing emotional oppression from MMNs of powerful people.
Notice that this type of thinking emerges naturally from the normal human existence of Cain and Abel, because every child grows up with a mind that is governed by experiential MMNs which interprets reality in terms of MMNs imposing themselves upon reality. This type of thinking, and how the typical child emerges from it, is described by Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. Peterson summarizes this childish mindset based upon experiential MMNs. “All the successful contenders in such pathological contests win because they hoard and deprive, and all those who fail – and on any dimension whatsoever – do so unfairly, through no fault of their own” (p. 106). As Peterson points out, there is some truth to this type of thinking. “Some of those who are rich are narcissists and manipulative psychopaths, even in the highly functional and generally honest and productive societies of the West” (p. 105).
Peterson compares this with the caring of the shepherd, pointing out that this caring has to be intrinsically motivated. “The classic shepherd is in some real sense the ideal man... someone monstrous enough to confront and master the beasts that lurk in the night yet productive, kind, and generous enough to provide and share. Such men are the true target of... women’s inner desire... This admirable dual proclivity has to come from the heart, as well, and cannot be purchased or faked” (p. 109). Stated cognitively, Peterson’s shepherd is kind to friends while ferocious to enemies. This type of thinking naturally emerges from a mind that is ruled by MMNs, because those who behave in a manner that is consistent with my personal and cultural MMNs will be regarded as good while those who behave in a manner that is inconsistent with these mental networks will be regarded as alien, strange, and evil. Peterson points out the inadequacy of this definition. “If I find the right man, he will keep away the monsters, but if I get one who is too monstrous himself, then I am in trouble... I need to find someone who is half-monster and half-kind” (p. 109).
This is a clear example of woman eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then handing the fruit to man and telling him to eat as well. She has a knowledge of good because she knows about being ‘generous enough to provide and share’ but she also has a knowledge of evil because she knows ‘the beasts that lurk in the night’. This is a deep experiential knowledge because it expresses the ‘true target of women’s inner desire. She wants him to have a knowledge of good that allows him to be kind to her while also having a knowledge of evil that allows him to be a monster to enemies. And this is also supposed to be a deep experiential knowledge that is not ‘purchased or faked’ but comes ‘from the heart’. Curiously, Peterson does not point out this obvious connection, but he does conclude, “Best of luck locating – or being – him” (p. 110). I also initially missed this connection and my subconscious mind caught it while I was editing this essay because the idea came to me overnight while I was sleeping.
Peterson suggests that the solution can be found in covenant. “There is a very deep connection between this idea of contract or covenant and the idea that man should exist in relationship with what is to be properly placed at the pinnacle or serve as proper foundation” (p. 111). Stated cognitively, covenant places personal and social MNNs within a mental framework of Perceiver rules and Server procedures that apply equally to everyone, which can be stated—and thus emotionally guided—by TMNs of universal theory. But a person who is ‘half-monster and half-kind’ is actually being driven by two contradictory TMNs of behavior—two different covenants, following a paradigm of kindness with one group and a paradigm of monstrosity with another group. Such a mind is attempting to simultaneously serve the two masters of God and Satan, for Satan means adversary and anyone who behaves in the adversarial manner of being a monster to ‘them’ falls within the Teacher domain of Satan. Jesus says in Matthew 6:24 that it is not possible to serve two masters. The solution is to view evil as the absence of the Teacher order, structure, and wholeness of God, because then all behavior becomes viewed as an expression of a universal covenant with a universal God.
Peterson then relates this to social interaction. “We face the world as personalities... personalities cannot exist, except in relationship... relationship with what—or who? The answer, at minimum: with the future, toward those whose improvement we eternally work; to whose betterment we sacrifice. With those around us: parents, children, wives and husbands, friends, coworkers; fellow citizens and souls. With the order of the natural world, balanced with that of the community. More deeply, with the spirit of the Creator itself” (p. 112). There is truth here, especially since this interaction includes both mental and social, present and future, physical and spiritual, but it is also missing the most fundamental elements. We are personalities because each cognitive style has a limited consciousness that views the mind and the world from a different perspective. And we acquire personalities because we are driven internally by mental networks that emotionally impose a collection of likes and dislikes upon the mind when triggered.
Thus, the ultimate covenant is within one’s own mind when one chooses to give subconscious modules the right to exist. Similarly, most social interaction is happening within people’s minds as external events and people trigger internal mental networks which then collide emotionally within the mind. For instance, when a parent gives a child ‘the look’, then very little information is being transmitted externally between one person and another. Instead, the glance is triggering pre-existing mental networks within the recipient’s mind leading to internal social interaction. And internal social interaction between imaginary people leads to brain activation within the ventromedial prefrontal cortex that is similar to the brain activation caused by external social interaction between real people. This point needs to be made because it is the mind that ultimately needs to be saved and reprogrammed, and the current focus upon the ‘social mind’ is a deflection away from personal responsibility and morality.
Peterson recognizes this to some extent, pointing out that the hedonist has neither an integrated mind nor a personal identity but rather is internally ruled by the mental network that is currently being triggered by the environment. “This makes every hedonist a polytheist, willing to invite in and to celebrate or worship the diverse range of spirits corresponding to his or her momentary impulses and drives... someone possessed by lust, anger, hunger, or envy is not the master of that ancient motivation or hierarchy of motivation but its slave” (p. 113).
The Sin of Cain
Peterson interprets God’s rejection of Cain’s sacrifice primarily in terms of quality. “What does Abel do, in comparison and contrast with his unhappy brother? He works honestly and hard, sacrificing most diligently and completely, offering what is both firstborn and of the highest quality” (p. 114). Peterson adds, “Of course what is most likely to work is the wholehearted offering of what is best. Of course what is best should be devoted to the highest imaginable purpose” (p. 116). This statement is accurate, and as Peterson points out, the Mosaic law forbids offering flawed animals to God.
Peterson also suggests that “This is a variant of the vain using of God’s name” (p. 115). Looking at this cognitively, the Hebrew word vain means ‘emptiness, vanity’. Such emptying can happen in several ways. It happens to some extent when one swears, but it happens to a much greater extent when a concept of God in Teacher thought is associated with inferior Mercy experiences, as Peterson points out. However, it is the mystic who is most guilty of using God’s name in vain, because mysticism associates God with a Teacher overgeneralization of cosmic unity that is empty of all factual content. When one states that God is a mystery, then one is asserting that is it is impossible to fill the name of God with any content.
However, I suggest that Peterson is missing the deepest aspect of why God accepts Abel’s sacrifice while rejecting Cain’s. Peterson mentions these aspects obliquely when referring to ‘sacrificing’ and ‘firstborn’. Cain’s sacrifice of grain and fruit involves natural development and the growth of understanding, the type of development that is characteristic of male technical thought which takes something and improves it. Saying this another way, technical thought optimizes, and offering the best to God means that one is allowing Contributor-guided optimization to be motivated by Teacher understanding and/or Mercy Platonic forms. Pursuing the best is a form of sacrifice but it is not acceptable to God because it uses male technical thought to optimize existing mental networks while avoiding the deeper struggle of transforming these mental networks. Abel’s sacrifice is acceptable to God because animals involve the subjective realm of mental networks. Thus, sacrificing an animal to God means being emotionally ruled by the TMN of a concept of God to the extent of allowing existing MMNs of emotional experience to fall apart and die. Death-and-rebirth goes beyond offering one’s best. Peterson mentions this concept later but does not focus on it when discussing Cain and Abel.
There is also the principle of the firstborn, which Peterson also mentions later but not here. Stated cognitively, mental networks take ownership of any behavior that they motivate. This principle is recognized legally when attempting to determine the motive for some crime. This mental ownership will be transferred if behavior is motivated by some new mental network and not by the existing mental network. The childish mind is naturally motivated by MMNs of experience and childish identity. The maturing mind can acquire a new motivation by performing behavior that is guided by the TMN of a concept of God and not rewarded by any MMNs of personal benefit or societal approval. Jesus describes this principle in Matthew 6:1-4. This principle also corresponds to Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative. Offering one’s firstborn to God means that whenever one starts to experience results within some context, one establishes a mental framework by initially being motivated by a TMN of God rather than MMNs of personal reward. This ensures that the TMN of a concept of God will shape and ultimately rule over MMNs of culture and identity, rather than the other way around.
Peterson emphasizes Cain’s choice when responding to God’s reprimand. “Instead of confessing, repenting, and atoning, it might be said – Cain instead opens the door to something that both justifies and amplifies his rebellion and resentment” (p. 118). The cognitive principle here is that free will becomes maximal when a person is forced to choose between radically different mental networks. On the one hand, Cain’s mind contains mental networks of being excluded from the holiness of God because of sin. These mental networks obviously existed, because Cain felt it necessary to offer a sacrifice to God. On the other hand, Cain’s mind also contains mental networks acquired from personally growing and harvesting grain and fruit. God’s rejection of Cain’s sacrifice indicates that these two collections of mental networks are incompatible. This incompatibility enables free will within Cain’s mind. The sin comes from choosing the wrong mental network. By choosing the mental network of objective improvement and optimization, Cain becomes mentally owned by this mental network. Peterson describes the resulting emotional ownership. “We have the picture of the sin, that was thought of as crouching at the sinner’s door like a wild beast, now, as it were, wedded to him. He is mated to it now, and it has a kind of tigerish, murderous desire after him” (p. 119).
I suggest that Peterson emphasizes the choice of Cain because Contributor thought is the part of the mind that lies at the heart of free will. Contributor thought chooses between alternatives that are suggested by Exhorter thought. Choice is important, but it is not the most fundamental, because the choices that Contributor thought is faced with ultimately come from mental networks. That is because Exhorter combines Teacher and Mercy and finds its sources of excitement primarily in the mental networks of Teacher and Mercy thought. As mentioned before, the Contributor ‘rider’ on the Exhorter ‘horse’ can choose to go left or right, but the landscape that causes these choices to emerge is determined by mental networks as well as the Perceiver connections and Server sequences that interconnect these mental networks. Choices are real and significant, because mental networks take ownership of the behavior that they motivate. Thus, choosing to follow one mental network rather than another will cause the chosen mental network to grow in emotional power and extent.
Peterson describes the mental networks that grow and develop as a result of choices. “Someone victimized, however unfairly, could well and should conclude from their experience not that such hurt should be paid forward, or extended in its application even to God himself, but that such acts are wrong, and to reject their furtherance instead of identifying with and mimicking the perpetrator. If this were not true, every family would rapidly become a horror show” (p. 122). Notice that two different mental networks are struggling to gain control of the mind. One is an MMN of personal hurt: I was hurt, I am hurting. I will inflict hurt on others. I will allow my mental network of personal hurt to rule my mind. This describes a mindset of bitterness. The other is a TMN of universality: It is wrong to hurt others the way that I was hurt. This is a universal principle that applies to everyone. I will submit to this universal principle.
But instead of starting with universality in Teacher thought and then descending to specific experiences in Mercy thought, Peterson starts with concrete experience in Mercy thought and then uses analogy to ascend to Teacher thought. “The imagery used to define the method of communication with the divine in the ancient story at hand is very concrete and archaic, according to the conventions of modern sensibility, and relies on a series of implicit metaphorical conventions or presumptions. Up is good compared with down... heaven is up, and the unity of all integrated upward aim. The ultimate up is skyward; thus, heaven is skyward. God is the ultimate good. The ultimate good, God, therefore must reside in heaven” (p. 124). Mental symmetry uses the same kind of analogical reasoning, but instead of starting with the Mercy experiences of ancient stories, it starts with a Teacher theory of cognition. The mind functions analogically because each cognitive module applies a similar form of processing to a wide range of situations and experiences. For instance, Teacher thought looks for simple statements that bring order to a complexity of experiences. Teacher thought also notices that the sky contains an order and structure of celestial movement that is not present within the fragmented experiences of human existence on earth and is also beyond the reach of humans living on earth. These two are analogically related because in both cases Teacher thought is noticing the presence of order-within-complexity. (This symbolic connection is less obvious to today’s city dweller who is both physically and metaphysically blinded by the light of modern civilization.) Peterson mentions this connection. “Why does God reside in heaven? Because the awe that enters and inspires us when we gaze upward at the sun or moon or the starry realm of the night sky” (p. 126). But describing is not the same as explaining. Peterson describes the analogies. Mental symmetry explains the analogical processing.
Peterson’s conclusion illustrates the incompleteness of his thinking. “What, then, is the moral of the story?... The insistence that life more abundant requires a complete and total commitment, with every glance, with every word, with every action. We are called upon, in the face of life’s overwhelming difficulties and opportunities, to offer no less than absolutely everything we have” (p. 129). It sounds as if Peterson is saying that the answer is to use Contributor concentration to use male technical thought to focus more fully on the plan without being distracted by anything else. That is not the moral of the story. Instead, the moral is that the existing plan has to fail because it is being motivated by inadequate goals and values.
Peterson recognizes this to some extent, because he observes that Cain kills his brother because he is unwilling to die internally to inadequate motivation. “Rather than changing, therefore, as God suggests – a very early manifestation of the idea of an inner voice of conscience – Cain kills his brother and, in doing so, turns against being and becoming itself; deeper yet, against God Himself” (p. 132). ‘Turning against being and becoming’ means being unwilling to allow existing mental networks to fall apart and be reborn. Turning ‘against God Himself’ means imposing these inadequate mental networks upon the TMN of a concept of God. ‘Killing his brother’ stops unpleasant mental networks from being triggered by preventing the environment from triggering these mental networks, as opposed to dealing internally with the mental networks. The Muslim man does something similar when forcing women to cover up in order to prevent male mental networks of lust from being triggered, as opposed to looking inside and addressing male mental networks of lust.
The ultimate reason that one submits MMNs of personal desire to the TMN of a concept of God is because it is futile to impose personal emotions upon ‘how things work’. “Man is simply in no position to question the fundamental order of reality – not at its deepest levels. To do so is rebellion, and not of the heroic sort, no matter how it is dressed up or justified. To do so is the sin of pride” (p. 134).
Job
Peterson then looks at the suffering of Job, pointing out that “God nonetheless puts his faithful son, so to speak, to a severe test, handing him over to Satan to torture, wagering with the devil that Job will not lose faith. This is a decision that at least seems profoundly unfair, to say the least” (p. 136). This can be explained cognitively using the principle of mental ownership described earlier. All humans begin life with a childish mind that is based upon MMNs of personal experience. If God intervened with miraculous power, then this would merely reinforce the childish mind by imposing MMNs of traumatic personal experience. Instead, people have to be internally driven by the TMN of a concept of God and then choose to be motivated by this TMN even when experiencing painful and disapproval in Mercy thought. That is why a ‘faithful son’ has to be put to the test, and God makes a wager with the devil to ensure that this is a test case that will have an impact upon core mental networks.
Peterson explains that this leads in Job’s case to free will at the level of Teacher generality. “It is the case, at least arguably, that the God within can be called on to defend against the God without against the vagaries of fate” (p. 136). Notice that Job is not just choosing between MMNs of culture or personal desire but rather between embracing contrasting TMNs of God. On the one hand, there is the externally imposed concept of God that generalizes from societal experiences of approval and disapproval. On the other hand, there is the internal concept of God based in universal principles of conscience. Unlike Cain, Job chooses to be motivated by his internal concept of God rather than his externally, culturally imposed, concept of God. And because this is a test case, Job’s choice transfers some of the ownership of humanity from Satan to God. Cognitively speaking, one is choosing to be guided by the TMN of an internally generated concept of God rather than MMNs of suffering and conflict (the name Satan means adversary). By choosing not to embrace an adversarial mindset, Job is undoing some of the long-term implications of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I know from personal experience what this feels like, because I have pursued mental wholeness to the point of constructing a concept of God based in mental wholeness, while receiving societal rejection to the extent of instinctively universalizing in Teacher thought that ‘God hates me and will never reward me’. More than once, I have explicitly chosen to call upon my cognitively-generated concept of a God who saves as opposed to my societally-generated concept of a God who damns.
Peterson does not fully understand this principle, but he does recognize that the alternative is mental and spiritual suicide. “The fact that God raises Job to heights beyond what he had previously attained does not mean that it is somehow magically acceptable for the Absolute to have killed his children, destroyed his possessions, compromised his health, and undermined his reputation: not at least if we are applying human standards of evaluation... The alternative – paralyzing subjugation to terror, catastrophic loss of all hope, possession by rage, vengeful obsession, and descent into madness – is worse, inconceivably worse” (p. 138). Peterson’s statement is not totally accurate. The Absolute did not do the killing, the destroying, and the undermining. Instead, God praises Job in Job 1:8, Satan tells God to harm Job in 1:11, and God then gives Satan permission to harm Job in 1:12 while placing limits upon this permission. This same scenario is then repeated in Job 2:1-6. The real lesson here is not that God is evil but rather that human choice is real. Humans chose to belong to Satan in the Garden of Eden, and this choice can only be undone by humans such as Job choosing to follow God rather than Satan.
Going further, if human life ends at death, then, as Peterson suggests, God’s blessing of Job at the end of the book may feel like an insufficient payback for Job’s suffering. But if life continues after death, then God’s blessing of Job also extends beyond the grave. This is different than the traditional Christian response of saying that God will eventually make things right after we die, which can lead to fatalism down here on earth. Instead, God’s reward for those who follow him is presented as a both/and in Matthew 19:27-30 which includes both a partial reward now on earth as well as a more long-term eternal reward.
It should be clarified that there is a huge, huge difference between the typical Christian believer asserting that there is life after death and actually behaving at the core of one’s being as if life continues after death. The average Christian boldly proclaims and sings on Sunday that he is going to heaven after he dies, while acting and thinking the rest of the week as if God is dead and heaven does not exist. Peterson struggles on p. 428 with the concept of life after death without coming to any definite conclusions, but he spends the entire book exploring what it means cognitively, spiritually, and behaviorally to think and behave as if life continues after death. Peterson agrees. “Modern people are obsessed with the idea of believing in God, as if that decision is one of positing, or refusing to posit, some material existence or absence thereof or some mere description, like the description of an object... To believe is much more truly and usefully to commit to; to sacrifice everything to; to be voluntarily possessed by” (p. 171). In other words, acting and thinking as if God exists is more significant than verbally asserting that God exists.
I have learned through many decades of asking similar questions that exploring what it means for life to continue after death—and becoming the sort of person who is capable of continuing to live after physical death—is far more meaningful than verbally asserting that life continues after death. Jesus states something similar in Matthew 21:28-32 where he says that the son who says he will not obey and yet ends up obeying does the will of his father while the son who says he will obey and yet disobeys does not do the will of his father. The typical Christian says yes to God but does no. Peterson may be saying maybe to God in this book but he is doing yes.
The Punishment of Cain
Peterson observes that when Cain kills Abel, then Cain is also killing the Platonic forms of perfection within his own mind that Abel represents. “When he slays his brother, therefore, Cain demolishes all that is holding him together; everything that protects him from despair; all that offers him guidance and hope when lost; everything that enables him to progress forward, upward, to the eternal promised land” (p. 141). Platonic forms of ideal perfection will make personal identity feel inadequate, but they also provide higher goals to which identity can strive. Platonic forms also act as internally generated sources of hope that make it possible to emotionally endure the painful Mercy experiences of reality. And they bring unity to Mercy thought because they are based in simple Teacher theories that bring order to complexity. By killing Abel, Cain creates, and becomes emotionally ruled by, a new MMN of personally choosing to destroy MMNs of goodness.
Peterson describes the cognitive impact. “Nothing the now-damned brother works toward will ever come about. He will wander and hide forever. Such is the fate of the individual who murders his own highest aspirations” (p. 142). Saying this in terms of mental networks, when competing mental networks are triggered, then one will impose its structure upon the other. By killing Abel, Cain has given greater emotional power to his mental network of destroying Platonic forms than any emotional power wielded by Platonic forms. This is a profound observation, but it is also an observation that comes to those who have studied and learned from a society that eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Peterson points out another reason for the wandering. “All those who pattern themselves after Cain become alienated from everyone: they deceive, and cheat, and offer what is second-best. The people around them catch on... In consequence, the bitter and the voluntarily second-rate have to seek out new territories to despoil, new hosts to parasitize, new innocents to corrupt” (p. 143). One primary reason for this behavior is that mental networks impose their structure emotionally upon the mind when triggered. When a ‘Cain’ sees behavior being motivated by Platonic forms of idealism, then this will trigger the mental network of killing such behavior. Innocent idealists who experience such destruction will lose their innocence by acquiring new MMNs of trauma and destruction, forcing the Cains to be more sophisticated in their plans of destruction and find new innocent victims to destroy.
As Peterson mentions, this is one major way in which the fall of Adam and Eve propagates throughout society and generations. “This is only the beginning of the ensuing, spiraling, multiplying hell. Cain’s children and their children walk in their father’s dread footsteps, and worse” (p. 143). This downward spiral continues into professional warfare. “The descendants of Cain, carrying the spirit of his sin, degenerate into an accelerating murderousness– a tendency that culminates... [in] the first makers of weapons of war” (p. 144). Building and using weapons of war is an extreme example of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because one is acquiring knowledge directly from the experiential knowledge of kill or be killed.
Peterson notes that setting up states makes it possible to at least partially escape this downward cycle. “Civilized societies, with their monopoly on power, take to themselves the scale and sword of justice. In so doing, they lift the moral burden off the targets of criminality and benevolence, allowing them to return to their lives, free of the demands of just punishment” (p. 147). This puts a totally different spin upon the postmodern interpretation of states as impositions of power in Mercy thought: A civilized state replaces one person imposing MMNs upon others with the TMN of the rule of law. Personal revenge responds to you hurting me with me hurting you. State revenge punishes you because you have violated the law. Obviously, this solution only works if the powerful who have Mercy status are also subject to the TMN of the rule of law. When the rich and powerful are above the law, then the state simply becomes a more efficient means of imposing power in Mercy thought.
Peterson compares two different concepts of evil. There is the “moral claim that evil is a consequence of remoteness from God, rather than something in and of itself. C. G. Jung objected to this characterization, to some degree, indicating that such a notion of evil risks underestimating its autonomous nature, capability to possess, and the threat that it posed” (p. 149). Looking at this cognitively, evil is ultimately a rejection of the TMNs of order, beauty, wholeness, and God. Thus, evil implies distance from God. However, repeating and experiencing evil behavior will cause mental networks of evil to form and these mental networks will give the evil a life of its own that causes it to perpetuate and reproduce. Fighting evil in an adversarial manner merely creates new mental networks of painful experience, perpetuating evil. Thus, evil has to be defeated by recognizing that all evil contains fundamental contradictions that are a result of rejecting the inherent order of God in Teacher thought. But because we are all born in sin as a result of Adam’s fall, the person who wishes to defeat evil must first overcome evil within his own mind by allowing the Teacher light and integrity of God to transform personal MMNs of contradiction. As Matthew 7:1-5 says, one must remove the log in one’s own eye before one can see clearly to remove the speck in one’s brothers eye. Thus, mental symmetry suggests that Jung is correct but not at the deepest level.
Peterson prefers the deeper interpretation of evil as distance from the Teacher order of God, and I would agree. “Every element of order... has an ideal at its center, surrounded by a margin. That margin is not its opposite... It is instead the infinitely graduated plurality of difference or opposition that surrounds anything identifiable” (p. 150). However, I suggest that Peterson is also interpreting Teacher order from the perspective of male technical thought. “Someone who lies steps away from his own judgment. This occurs first in the edge cases, where careful discrimination is most difficult, where the lie is therefore most easily engaged in and rationalized” (p.151). Abstract technical thought is based upon careful definitions. Every system of abstract technical thought applies to some limited area and becomes increasingly inaccurate as one moves away from its area of legitimate application. This leads to edge cases where the precise definitions of the specialization only partially apply. This type of evil violates the letter of the law.
But there is also violating the spirit of the law in which one fails to be guided emotionally by the Platonic forms that internally represent the essence of Teacher order. I suggest that violating the spirit of law is more evil than violating the letter of the law, because it is possible to follow the precise definitions of careful discrimination while being very far from God in spirit. Peterson describes this deeper evil. “With practice, the lie becomes not so much the deviation from the proper and truthful mode of being but the lens through which the world itself is increasingly viewed... Those who lie come to value the wrong things” (p. 151). Notice that behavior is becoming motivated by impure and inaccurate mental networks that are inconsistent with the TMN of a concept of God. The deepest form of evil is the ideology of using Teacher thought to extrapolate from inadequate personal MMNs. When that happens then “The world is now subdued in a false order, named with the wrong names, such that nothing ends up in its proper place, and that things of less value are given priority over those greater” (p. 151). A genuine Teacher theory puts everything in the appropriate place; a false Teacher theory misplaces everything. Recovering from a false Teacher theory means rethinking everything in order to put it in the appropriate place. This is a deeply emotional struggle, because Teacher emotion is related to generality. Therefore, rearranging everything in the light of a new paradigm or understanding means altering the generality—and thus Teacher emotion—of many items.
When a false Teacher theory puts everything in the wrong place and assigns to it the wrong generality, then one will be emotionally driven by one’s concept of God to continue behaving in a manner that fights ‘how things work’, resulting in repeated failure. “When the world is subdued in improper order, no plans can possibly work. Lies render the presumptions that would otherwise support functional plans unreliable and invalid. This means that the liar is doomed to continual failure” (p. 152). Thus, the agony of rethinking an inadequate concept of God in Teacher thought may be deeply painful, but the incessant failure of following an inadequate concept of God in Teacher thought is even more painful.
Peterson concludes by observing that technology does not solve the problem but actually makes it worse. “Cain’s descendants are also the builders, the engineers, the makers of cities, musical instruments, tools, and implements of war. This is not to say that building or engineering is something wrong in itself; only that the fundamental problem of ethical conduct is not amenable to a technological solution... Better tools when the aim is wrong merely means more rapid movement down the wrong road” (p. 153). This summarizes the fundamental inadequacy of assuming that male technical thought is the only valid form of thought. Male technical thought is the best strategy for understanding the laws of nature, developing technology, and constructing useful tools. But as Peterson asks, “Technological development, in the service of what god?” (p. 153). Answering that question means entering the female realm of mental networks, and answering that question adequately means defining the feminine as more than just mother-and-child, but rather as personal expression of order and beauty.
This does not mean submitting to postmodern feminist theory, because that is composed primarily of screaming childish MMNs that lack any TMNs of wholeness, integration, or rational thought. This screaming is legitimate, because female thought is instinctively responding to the assumption that male technical thought is the only valid form of human thought by screaming, ‘I am also a human being’. But screaming and throwing temper tantrums of wokeness is something that is done by children and not by adults. The solution is for childish female thought to learn from the rational thinking of male technical thought in order to go beyond male technical thought by living within a realm of order and beauty to which male technical thought can only aspire.
Noah
Peterson explains away the story of the Nephilim at the beginning of Genesis 6 as historic hyperbole. However, if one interprets biblical references to angels as referring to actual beings who live within an abstract realm of messages (the name angel means messenger and in most biblical stories angels are delivering messages to humans) then a simple explanation emerges. Human life begins when a male sperm injects a message of DNA into a female ovum. Genesis 6:4 says that the ‘sons of God’ had sex with human women leading to hybrids with heroic abilities. Presumably, it would be straightforward for an angelic messenger to implant a message of supercharged DNA into a female ovum. All that would be required is a single supernatural encounter. (A similar logic would apply to the virgin birth of Mary, but in that case the Holy Spirit was overshadowing Mary in order to provide Jesus with DNA that was more compatible with being the Word of God made flesh. More generally, the process of protein formation shows that biological tissue is literally the word of DNA made flesh.) Going further, Noah is described in Genesis 6:9 as ‘blameless in his generations’, which could be interpreted as having DNA that had not been corrupted by angelic visitation. And if most of the human population had ‘foreign DNA’, then getting rid of this foreign DNA would require wiping out most of the human population. This is speculation, but it is also rational speculation that is consistent with both the biblical text and the mechanisms of DNA.
Peterson interprets the flood of Noah as human order descending into chaos. “We subvert the spirit of proper order at our peril. When we do so, or threaten to do so, harbingers of doom emerge and announce themselves to the profound, wise, and attentive – as in the case of Noah” (p. 163). Stated cognitively, the MMNs of culture and religion may stand in the way of growth driven by the plans of technical thought by preserving the status quo, but they also prevent society from descending into chaos by preserving the status quo. Mental networks of society can be directly attacked or they can be belittled implicitly by focusing upon male technical thought. For instance, modern science and technology is objective and specialized. Objective activity minimizes Mercy emotions while specialized activity minimizes Teacher emotions. The result of pursuing science and technology in an objective and specialized manner is the amoral technology that Peterson warned against at the end of the previous section.
Peterson describes two other cognitive ways of destroying the mental networks of society. One is the Teacher overgeneralization of universal equality. Peterson quotes Nietzsche, “They always talk in terms of ‘equal rights’ and ‘equal obligation’: The rights of the herd! They want to be herded together with safety in numbers... Their ‘good conscience’ is indeed a bad conscience, an incapacity for standing alone” (p. 164). ‘Equal rights’ and ‘equal obligation’ both describe Teacher overgeneralizations that bring order to human complexity by asserting a global equality that transcends all factual differences. This may be an un-theory, but if it continues to be used, it will turn into a TMN that imposes its explanation upon the mind. Any and all personal differences will then be morally condemned as violating universal tolerance. The end result is a mental and societal grayness that destroys any ‘capacity for standing alone’.
Another way is the method of envy, in which anything and anyone that has greater status in Mercy thought than I do is viewed as a moral threat that must be eliminated because it makes me feel bad for daring to be better. Peterson describes the societal poison of envy. “What values... truly dominated, under such circumstances? Was it desire for brotherhood, dignity, and freedom from want? Not in the least – not given the outcome. It was instead and obviously the murderous rage of hundreds of thousands of biblical Cains, each looking to torture, destroy and sacrifice their own private Abels” (p. 165).
In the case of Noah, Genesis 6:4-5 describes mighty men turning into amoral, evil men. This would happen if children with superhuman bodies and childish minds concluded that their physical abilities meant that they were now above the law and not subject to normal human morality. In other words, who cares if the way back to the Garden of Eden is blocked by angels with flaming swords if other angels have come down and given superhuman abilities to humans.
Peterson then mentions a principle of public performance that is accurate but contains an incomplete concept of self-consciousness. “Imagine being on stage... in consequence, you are worrying... Will the audience find me interesting and impressive? What are people thinking of me?... Suffering self-consciousness will necessarily and inevitably ensue. What is the alternative to such strategizing? Onstage, it is simple: strive to address the issue under consideration as honestly and clearly as possible. Then the event is no longer about you, so there is no reason for self-consciousness” (p. 167). I play violin professionally and I learned a similar lesson performing on stage in front of an audience. One option is to focus upon MMNs of approval: What will people think? In this case the emotion is being generated by the audience. The other option is to focus upon the music, the ‘issue under consideration’. In this case the emotion is being generated by the music. As Peterson points out, I have learned that focusing upon emotions of the task, such as explaining a topic or making beautiful music, will take one’s attention away from worrying about what people think.
However, I suggest that the individual who is continually worried about what others will think is not suffering from self-consciousness but rather from an inadequate concept of self. What he regards as ‘self’ is merely the likes and dislikes being projected upon his mind by the mental networks of expectation being triggered by his audience. Male technical thought views focusing upon the task as escaping self-consciousness because technical thought is being used rather than the fragmented mental networks of subjective thought. Technical thought can use concentration to focus upon the context of the task, which will automatically prevent the mind from digressing into other topics, such as what the audience is thinking. Thus, the method of focusing upon the task works not by solving the problem but by avoiding the problem.
When one is performing artistically, then the method of spontaneous activity will generate superior results. Instead of using male technical thought to analyze what one is doing or saying, one is intuitively using female mental networks to move internally along the mental highway system that was constructed using male technical thought. For instance, during orchestra rehearsals, a conductor will stop and rehearse passages in order to optimize and correct. But during the performance, the orchestra will be told to let go and play the music freely. This will feel like going beyond self-consciousness because one is going past the technical perfecting of technical thought to the intuitive expression of technical skills; one is going past the stage of being merely a technician to being an intuitive expert. But as the mind becomes integrated, one increasingly views one’s knowledge and skills as facets of deep personal longing. Instead of losing consciousness of self when performing, one views performance as a way of expressing the desires of self. That is why I suggest that Peterson’s reference to a lack of self-consciousness is incomplete.
Peterson mentions a principle that was discussed earlier when looking at Job. “In the story of Noah and the flood, the entire weight of the world’s renewal comes to rest on the shoulders of one man... This is a truth constantly echoed in the biblical corpus. Each prophet is, typically, a lone voice ‘crying in the wilderness’” (p. 168). The cognitive principle is that individuals have to undo the cumulative societal impact of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by internally constructing and following a concept of God in Teacher thought that rules over cultural and personal MMNs, which requires following God despite receiving disapproval from others. Peterson describes this conflict. “What is the idea being put forth here? That truth is such a potent force that even the tyranny of the overwhelming majority cannot prevail against it... A society that retains enough of the proper covenant so that a few or even one still dare speak freely within its confines can be protected from utter cataclysm by that faith and courage” (p. 169). On the one hand, the individual is following universal truth emotionally backed up by the TMN of a mental concept of God. On the other hand, the society at large is following a different path guided by the MMNs of that society. There is still hope for a society if some individuals are mentally able to follow the TMN of an internal concept of God without being emotionally overcome by MMNs of society.
I think that this need for individuals to acquire and follow an internal concept of God goes beyond the fall and is a byproduct of creation itself. God faces the problem of the legislator: If a legislator who creates the law wants to live in a society that is ruled by this law, then this law has to be internalized by other individuals who then set up a society ruled by this law, which then makes it possible for the legislator to become a fellow citizen. Without this independent thinking, the rule of law collapses back into the tyranny of the legislator. In practical terms, this means that the rule of law usually becomes societally established by individuals who hold onto truth in the face of tyrants. Of course, this logic assumes that the ultimate starting point is the order of God, the ultimate legislator, in Teacher thought and not the chaos of evolution in Mercy thought. And, unlike what evolution claims, the starting point for biological matter really is the legislation of the Teacher words of DNA, which are transcribed into strings of RNA messages, and then translated into corresponding strings of amino acids that fold in upon themselves to create biological matter.
Peterson asks, “Why the prima facie absurd insistence that Noah is responsible not only for the survival of his family and the human race but for all the animals that inhabit the antediluvian world? Recall for a moment the fact that Adam is called on to serve as steward of the Garden of Eden. This is a description of an inevitability. The cognitive, psychological, or spiritual advantage that human beings have over all other creatures make it eternally the case that the very existence of other creatures is increasingly dependent on the quality of our moral choices” (p. 176). This is a good question but the answer sounds like the sort of answer that male technical thought would give: First, ‘Why should I care about anything outside my specialization?’ Second, ‘I know that I am much smarter than everyone else around me’. Third, ‘I will do it because it is part of my plan.’
But there is a deeper reason that involves the nature of Teacher thought. A concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general Teacher theory applies to personal identity. A concept of God becomes more adequate when it applies more universally to more subjective experiences. Saying this another way, a mental concept of incarnation is based in male technical thought. But incarnation goes beyond some specialization to be guided by a universal Teacher theory and it goes beyond improving things to saving people. Thus, a legitimate concept of incarnation builds a universal ark that saves all living beings. For instance, mental symmetry began as a cognitive theory which I applied personally in order to save my mind. But for the last fifteen years, I have been using mental symmetry as a meta-theory to provide a cognitive ‘ark’ for a wide range of topics.
Noah’s Ark
Building an ark is cognitively related to providing a covering from the wrath of God. When a new general theory is adopted, then everything changes. Saying this another way, God is a universal being. Therefore, when God moves then everything shifts. This universality is illustrated by communism and Nazism which were both ideologies governed by supposedly universal Teacher theories. When these ideologies gained power, then everything ultimately shifted, because Teacher thought feels bad whenever there is an exception to the rule. Hence the need for an ark to protect what is valuable from the wrath of God, because protection from wrath that expresses itself universally requires a shelter that is similarly universal.
It is interesting that the New Testament uses the same Greek word for Noah’s Ark and for the Ark of the covenant. The six times that this word ‘box’ is used, the context is a major shift in the relationship between God and humanity. Covering from the wrath of God is known theologically as the doctrine of justification by faith, which mental symmetry explains using the analogy of enrolling in school. As mentioned previously, the childish human mind is governed by fragmented MMNs. Teacher thought finds such mental chaos to be emotionally repulsive. However, if a child enrolls in a school, then the child acquires the Teacher name of being ‘a student in the school’. Teacher thought will now view the child as an example of the general Teacher structure of a system of education rather than as a chaotic bundle of exceptions to the rule. The child who has just enrolled is still an annoying bundle of mental chaos, but is now being emotionally covered from the wrath of God in Teacher thought by having acquiring the name of being a student. If the student continues to take and pass classes in the school, then the mental chaos of the student will gradually become replaced by rational understanding.
Peterson mentioned the danger of using technical thought to develop science and technology when one lacks the overall direction of a concept of God in Teacher thought. This will eventually lead to major disaster, with technology amplifying the ability of fallen human minds to generate evil. When the inevitable flood of chaos eventually comes to sweep everything away, then the natural tendency will be to reject the science and technology that amplified the evil as evil. This can be seen in the anti-science mindset of the typical American Trump supporter. But these specializations of knowledge are valid and need to be saved. Thus, they need to be ‘justified’ by placing them within an Ark of Noah, because when the flood comes then this Ark of Noah will act as an Ark of the Covenant that protects them from the global shift in Teacher thought. This is illustrated by the role of the Christian church after the fall of the Roman Empire. When the Western Roman Empire fell then the entire Teacher order of society shifted. The only Roman organization that remained was the structure of the Roman Catholic Church. The church acted as an ark for Roman learning by preserving many Greek and Latin manuscripts through the time of chaos.
Peterson describes Noah starting a new societal order based upon Teacher understanding when he emerges from the Ark. “Noah initiates the habitation of this new cosmos with an approved sacrifice, repeating the proper actions of Abel and foreswearing the temptations of Cain. This means that the first prophet reconsecrates the world to God, establishing the upward aim as paramount, in contrast to the disorientation, confusion, self-serving hedonism, and mad power-striving that characterized the descendants of the fratricidal, arrogant, and resentful brother” (p. 180). Notice that Noah is starting from a new foundation of focusing upon God in Teacher thought. But Teacher emotion comes from order-within-complexity; a general theory is a simple explanation that applies to many specific items. These specific items cannot be gathered after the flood because the flood has swept them all away. Instead, Noah has to go through the long process of placing all the specific items within the ark of a general Teacher theory before the flood comes, during a time of growing societal chaos when no one else appreciates the general Teacher theory that will become the basis for a new society after the flood.
Peterson then discusses the story of Ham seeing his father Noah lying naked and drunk in a tent. In contrast, “Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father... It is a great error to judge someone solely on their behavior at their weakest moments” (p. 186). This is a valid conclusion, but why is Noah at a weak moment? Looking at this cognitively, when a major societal shift happens and a new Teacher order starts to emerge, then there will be major confusion during the initial rebuilding, resulting in significant ‘behavior at its weakest moment’. This ‘naked’ behavior needs a covering similar to the way that the child who has just started school needs the ‘covering’ of being regarded as a student. And just as Shem and Japheth covered their father with a literal garment, so the school student is often covered with the literal garment of a school uniform.
Peterson relates this more generally to the idea of giving respect to parents. “Children of those who lack all respect for their parents will be ruled over both inevitably and justly by the offspring of those who properly honor and revere their mothers and fathers, ancestors, and traditions” (p. 185). This is one of the Ten Commandments and the cognitive principle is that one should not act like the rebellious teenager and reject the mental networks that one acquired as a child but rather treat these mental networks with respect and think them through carefully. That is because mental networks that are suppressed still remain intact under the surface waiting to be triggered.
Looking at this more carefully, children are instructed in both Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16 to honor their parents, a word that conveys the idea of weightiness or heaviness’ and are not told to obey their parents. Obeying parents means submitting personal behavior to MMNs of parental authority and example, which merely transfers existing behavior to the next generation. Honoring parents means recognizing that one’s mind is governed by MMNs of parental authority and example which need to be treated as emotionally weighty. Moving beyond parental example requires carefully sifting through these weighty mental networks to separate the wheat from the chaff. The rebellious teenager, in contrast, tries to take the shortcut of blocking off parental mental networks so that they are not triggered.
This type of blocking off happens in magnified form when a major shift happens in society and the default will be to play the role of the rebellious teenager. The external manifestations of the old may have been swept away by the flood, but the mental networks that drove this behavior still remain intact within people’s minds, ready to be triggered. This explains why revolutionaries tend to condemn those who remind them of the old regime. This is illustrated by the Soviet regime, which attempted to wipe out the entire class of kulaks who behaved in a way that reminded Soviet revolutionaries of the old regime of property ownership. Quoting from Wikipedia, “The kulaks were a group of affluent peasants who owned land and had workers working for them. They posed a danger to Stalin’s collectivization efforts, which sought to end private land ownership and centralize agricultural production under state supervision. In order to do this, Stalin took a number of harsh actions against the kulaks. Many of them were imprisoned, deported, and forced to work in prison camps. Others perished in executions or while traveling to the camps. Millions of kulaks and their families are thought to have been affected by these measures.”
The underlying problem was that the theory of Marxism only had room within its ark for the proletariat, the factory worker, and the factories, while condemning the bourgeoisie and private property to the fate of being swept away by the flood. In other words, the more animals that are placed within the ark before the flood, the greater the chance that people after the flood will act like Shem and Japheth rather than like Ham, illustrating the cognitive relationship between an Ark of Noah and an Ark of the Covenant.
The Tower of Babel
Peterson observes that “The Bible’s first builders of cities, fabricators of musical instruments, and weapons of war – the individuals who pursue technological solutions – are, significantly, the children of Cain... They are the engineers, builders, and inhabitants of the eternal Babylon, the city of the prideful and presumptuous” (p. 192). Peterson is equating the Tower of Babel with the city of Babylon, and this appears to be biblically legitimate because the same Hebrew word is used to describe both of these. As Peterson points out on page 194, these two words probably come from different roots, but the fact that they are both spelled the same way in Hebrew suggests that they are symbolically related, similar to the relationship between the Ark of Noah and the Ark of the Covenant.
Looking at Peterson’s statement cognitively, male technical thought develops science and technology. Technical thought naturally specializes, and when people specialize, then they have to cooperate by living within some city. When technical thought emerges, then it has to contend with the emotional conservatism imposed by female mental networks: ‘We have always done things this way, why should we do it differently?’ Thus, warfare can provide a strong motivation for developing technical thought because war and invasion threaten existing societal MMNs, motivating people to use technical thought to develop new technologies that will enable them to protect their MMNs from destruction. As for musical instruments, living within technical thought is dehumanizing, because it reduces the individual to an impersonal cog within the machine of the city (or the army). Music, and entertainment in general, allows these human cogs to temporarily feel human by triggering and expressing mental networks in creative ways.
Music, entertainment, culture, and religion fill in the subjective Mercy vacuum created by pursuing technical thought in an objective manner. A Tower of Babel fills in the Teacher vacuum created by pursuing technical thought in a specialized manner by providing a source of unity in Teacher thought for the complexities of society. Looking at history, “The Egyptians devoted tremendous resources to the construction of their pyramids, similar in design and purpose to the ziggurats, in the similar attempt to elevate the status of their pharaohs to near-godly levels” (p.192). A pyramid or ziggurat provides the external substitute for an integrated Teacher understanding. “The ziggurat was literally a cosmic mountain; the seven stories represented the seven planetary heavens; by ascending them, the priest reached the summit of the universe” (p. 192). Building such a pyramid in the midst of one’s city will generate the feeling that the fragmented specializations of the city are all held together by a universal Teacher understanding. Consistent with this, references to mountains in the Bible are interpreted symbolically as pragmatic general theories because they provide a general overview of the surrounding landscape.
But a Tower of Babel is a false Teacher order because unlike a genuine Teacher meta-theory that puts subsidiary theories in their appropriate places, a tower only gives the external impression of bringing unity to everything. The only way to turn this impression into reality is by associating the tower with some dictator who will impose unity upon the population. Going the other way, a dictator who is imposing his personal MMNs upon the population can associate himself mentally with the TMN of societal order by building a tower. Peterson describes this relationship, “To the degree that the efforts of the whole society were devoted instead toward the celebration of the ego of a given ruler or people, however, the construction of a ziggurat or pyramid could devolve pathologically into the worship of a false god – putting in the place of the functional and truly integrating divine ideal something proximate, self-serving, arrogant, power-mad, and prideful” (p. 192). Cognitively speaking, this combination describes an ideology, because the MMNs of some person or group are being emotionally expanded by Teacher thought to give an impression of universality. Saying this another way, Teacher thought is using overgeneralization to exaggerate the qualities of some specific person or group in Mercy thought.
Notice that the Tower of Babel happens after the flood. The rebuilding after the flood established a new foundation of starting from a concept of God in Teacher thought. The Tower of Babel assumes that society needs to be held together by a concept of God in Teacher thought, but it replaces an internal concept of God with visible, external Teacher order.
Peterson explains why building such a tower leads to the confusion of multiple languages. “The arrogant belief in the power of technology, and, more deeply, the presumption that the technical intellect can and should rule even over divinity corrupts the entirety of psyche and states so completely that words themselves in such a state lose their meaning – a meaning that only exists if it is shared; that only exists in relationship to a universal point of reference” (p. 196). This emerges naturally from the very nature of technical thought. First, technical thought naturally specializes. On the one hand, Contributor concentration will limit technical thought to the walls of some specialization. On the other hand, the physical universe is organized in such a way that every technical theory has only some limited realm to which it applies. (The standard model of physics may technically be a theory of almost everything, but in practice it is only applicable to the realm of particle physics and becomes useless when dealing with normal human reality.) Thus, dealing effectively with all of reality requires coming up with many technical theories, each applicable to some limited realm. Second, every system within abstract technical thought begins by developing precise definitions. The end result is that each system becomes ruled by its own collection of technical terms. Thus, moving from one specialization to another requires learning a new vocabulary. Third, technical thought works with facts that are known with sufficient certainty. Information or communication that does not meet the accepted standard of a technical specialization will be rejected and ignored. Putting this together, technical specializations will eventually become incapable of communicating with one another and most attempts at interdisciplinary communication will be rejected as being insufficiently rigorous. I know what this means from personal experience, because developing the theory of mental symmetry has required becoming proficient in a number of technical fields.
Giving a simple example, Hebrew is written from right to left. This is a basic fact of Hebrew grammar that is known by even beginning students of Hebrew. But Peterson’s book writes Hebrew words from left to right. For instance on page 194, the Hebrew word balal should be written בָּלַל. Instead, the Hebrew letters are reversed and the Hebrew vowels are treated as separate characters rather than placed below or within the consonants. This is probably a computer typesetting issue, but it also illustrates the type of beginner’s mistake that causes technical experts in one field to instinctively reject suggestions from other fields.
The Whore of Babylon
Peterson expands on this topic by looking at the whore of Babylon. He asks, “What happens when the patriarchal degenerates, and loses its unity; when it cheapens itself, and become sinful? The matriarchal loses its higher purposes, as well, fracturing and regressing, making itself subject to the twin forces of power and hedonism that inevitably rise up when the God who properly reigns above dies, however temporarily” (p. 198). This is an accurate description of current society, but I am not certain that it is an accurate analysis. The patriarchal thinking of male technical thought is incapable of generating unity but instead will naturally fragment into isolated specializations, because that is the nature of technical thought. Going further, I can state from repeated personal experience that male technical thought will reject attempts to restore unity to the fragments of technical specialization. Instead, Teacher unity comes from mature female thought that goes beyond technical specializations by being willing to learn from male technical thought. Similarly, male technical thought naturally cheapens itself because it replaces the personal value of Mercy identity and the global value of Teacher unity with the encyclopedic knowledge of technical details, causing the significant to become buried in infoglut. The matriarchal does lose its higher purposes, but this higher purpose is to bring Teacher unity to human existence through integration, beauty, wholeness, simplicity, and elegance. As Peterson observes, when this Teacher unity is missing, then female mental networks collapse into the power of imposing one MMN upon another as well as the hedonism of pursuing MMNs of sensory pleasure.
Peterson compares the Whore of Babylon with the Virgin and the Child. “A society that worships the former and forgoes the latter understands femininity only in terms of the undeniable raw sexual power of women (as well as the labor that... makes them not exactly women, but honorary men). A society that venerates the virgin, by contrast, elevates the status of women who voluntarily forgo manipulative and self-serving deployment of the power of their sexual attractiveness. One that extends this celebration to the sacred duo of woman and child (a truly mature attitude) orients itself to the long-term, aiming at the stable communal relationships that best suit children and also most effectively and maturely satisfy the deepest needs of men and women” (p. 199). Peterson is to be applauded for making such a bold statement in today’s social climate. But I suggest that it needs fine-tuning.
Peterson’s reference to ‘honorary men’ is perceptive because when male technical thought is viewed by society as the only valid form of thinking, then the only way that female thought can acquire social value is by developing and simulating technical thought, which it will obviously do in an inferior manner because it is attempting to function in an unnatural way. Raw sexual power is possible because a beautiful female body can be inhabited by an immature female mind. The physical beauty illustrates what it means to be personally guided by Teacher structure while remaining sensitive in Mercy thought, while the mental immaturity means that the mind is driven by childish MMNs. Male technical thought that is objective and specialized will be emotionally entranced by the physical beauty and sensitivity while ignoring the internal ugliness and domination.
The solution is for beautiful woman to develop an internal beauty that matches the external beauty, and for male technical thought to become guided internally by TMNs of universal beauty and motivated internally to save MMNs of personal identity. (This statement is neurologically valid because mathematical beauty, visual beauty, musical beauty, and moral beauty all activate similar regions within the medial orbitofrontal cortex.) This will naturally lead to long-term relationships because a truly universal Teacher theory is based upon Perceiver connections that do not change. It will also satisfy the deepest needs by both being and expressing universal Teacher theories that truly bring unity and meaning to personal existence.
The word prostitute in Greek comes from a root that means ‘to sell’. The idea is that one is selling the fundamental wealth of personal character in order to gain the peripheral wealth of money. This will happen naturally when objective beauty is combined with internal idiocy and childishness because the emotional value of the physical body will be traded for objective wealth in a manner that fills the mind with the emotional baggage of fragmented MMNs of sexual experience, making it almost impossible to use Teacher thought to integrate the female mind.
Peterson’s archetype of the Virgin and Child avoids this problem by suppressing the idea of sex itself: the ideal woman is the virgin who never has sex. This is a more refined version of the Muslim demand that women cover themselves up in order to prevent their physical beauty from triggering lustful thoughts within men. Somehow, magically, the virgin is also the mother who caringly transmits MMNs of culture to the next generation. Recognizing that the ideal woman combines TMNs of understanding with MMNs of culture removes this inherent contradiction. The male attraction to female beauty should neither be pursued in a hedonistic manner nor suppressed. Instead, this male desire needs to be internalized; the fragmented thinking of male technical thought needs to admire, appreciate, and be guided by the internal beauty of mature female thought. Going further, a truly universal Teacher meta-theory is capable of interacting at a deep level with other systems of thought without becoming fragmented. I know that this is the case because every time I use mental symmetry to evaluate some system, such as Peterson’s book on scriptural typology, mental symmetry ends up more elegant, more complete, and more beautiful. Thus, the ideal woman does not have to remain a virgin in order to avoid becoming a whore.
Peterson adds that “The understanding of femininity as relational (Understanding of woman as inseparable in some fundamental sense from infant – and, therefore, from husband) is a crucial element of a functional society” (p. 200). This may be accurate but I suggest that the logic is backwards. The primary relationship is between ideal woman and husband—between some system of male technical thought and the Teacher understanding that gives emotional unity to this system. This is relational primarily because Teacher understanding brings unity to a complexity of items, and both husband and child need this Teacher unity. The infant mind, in contrast, is driven by childish MMNs. Therefore, focusing upon the relationship between mother and infant reduces female thought down to the level of childish MMNs. The screaming idiocy perpetrated by Womens’ Studies and related disciplines illustrates what happens when woman suppresses Teacher feelings of beauty and order and focuses upon childish Mercy mental networks of power and oppression. Thus, a beautiful woman may be scary and tempting, but a woman without internal beauty is an emotional parasite that sucks the life out of anyone who dares to come close. Saying this another way, the ‘reaching for the highest’ that Peterson recommends should also include learning how to handle female beauty without falling into either worship or hedonism. This applies to both the women who have the beauty and the men who admire the beauty.
Peterson uses the Internet to illustrate the relationship between technology and pornography. “It was the possibility of broad access to pornographic material that was even one of the driving factor for both the development and widespread instantaneous and enthusiastic adoption of the world wide web” (p. 201). One article estimates that about 13% of current web searches involve pornography while suggesting that probably 40% of web searches back in the 1990s involved pornography. Peterson recognizes that attempting to abolish pornography is a futile quest. “As Sigmund Freud so necessarily insisted: never underestimate the role sexual motivation plays in the determination of human behavior, no matter how apparently complex” (p. 201). The long-term solution is for both the male and female mind to recognize that the ultimate ideal is the internal, personal beauty of a mental concept of God in Teacher thought that rules over personal identity and expresses itself through personal identity.
The cognitive problem is that male technical thought by itself is inherently whoring, because it finds it easiest to develop rational thinking in non-emotional areas that are objective and specialized, leaving itself emotionally vulnerable to be driven by immature Mercy and Teacher emotions. The theological problem is that the theory of evolution replaces the order of God in Teacher thought with the chaos of mutations. The person who submits to a concept of God in Teacher thought finds it natural to believe that such a God would create humans with an internal desire to pursue and express Teacher order and would place these humans within physical containers that generated matching physical desires to pursue and express Teacher order. Evolution, in contrast, disregards any correspondence between mind and body as a fluke. And if the correspondence between mind and body is discussed, then evolution treats the mind as an expression of the body and the environment. This explains nothing while encouraging humans to become mental slaves of their physical urges.
Peterson then devote some pages to describing what happens when the technology of male technical thought is united with the city of Babylon. This accurately describes the fundamental flaw of today’s consumer society because advanced technology is being used to satisfy primarily the childish whims of ignorant consumers. This is a vicious circle because technology has to continue developing in complexity in order to satisfy the consumer need for novelty and excitement. And a dumb consumer is preferable because the childish MMNs of the dumb consumer can be emotionally manipulated by marketing to sell more technological gadgets. These modern methods of using technical thought to manipulate childish mental networks were initially development by Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud.
Peterson summarizes, “What is the full meaning... First, that the technological/industrial enterprise itself can be driven by a false pride and mechanical mastery; second, that such pride is likely to ally itself with the spirit of domination, conquest, and power; third, that the subjugation of the feminine to that ally is inevitable; fourth, and even more deeply, that the whole Tower of Babel enterprise is associated with the kind of Luciferian pride that goes before the most profound and devastating of falls” (p. 203). Looking cognitively at these four points, false pride and mechanical mastery mean that male technical thought is regarding itself as inherently superior to other forms of thought because of its ability to control the natural world. A spirit of domination means that the emotional vacuum created by focusing upon objective, specialized technical thought will naturally be filled by MMNs of power and TMNs of ideology. Third, the subjugation of the feminine means that the female mindset which should be filling this emotional vacuum with TMNs of order and beauty combined with MMNs of sensitivity and care is instead refusing to learn from male technical thought and/or being belittled by male technical thought. Fourth, the profound fall happens because the ever-increasing technical brilliance of the producer is accompanied by an ever-growing stupidity of the consumer. In earlier eras, consumers had to learn some common sense by interacting with the real world of natural consequences. All of the modern technical gadgets that now protect us from the harmful effects of violating the laws of nature make it possible for today’s consumer to remain profoundly ignorant, while the incessant marketing of technical gadgets to idiotic consumers leaves these consumers emotionally vulnerable to being manipulated by stupid conspiracy theories. Ultimately, technology replaces so much of reality with the artificial reality of civilization, and marketing becomes so effective at manipulating people emotionally, that the average consumer becomes unable to distinguish between truth and error, between freedom and tyranny. This is when the stupendous fall begins. I am writing this six days before the inauguration of Donald Trump. (I am editing this eight days after the inauguration of Donald Trump and the stupendous fall has begun.)
Communist China is heading towards a similar destination from a different direction. Peterson describes, “These are the orcs who inhabit the tower raising the all-seeing eye of Sauron to the sky... That Skynet system, consisting now of some 700 million closed-circuit TV cameras, is apparently fast enough to scan every citizen of the People’s Republic of China in less than a second and has an accuracy rate with regard to individual identification of more than 99 percent” (p. 208). Most of today’s technological gadgets are made in Chinese factories. But Chinese society is ultimately controlled by the Chinese communist party under the façade of the theory of communism. Here too, Chinese expertise in using technical thought to design and construct gadgets is combined with an emotional vacuum that is filled by the TMNs of the theory of communism and the MMNs of the communist party. The Western elite controls the population through the emotional manipulation of marketing. The Chinese elite also uses propaganda but combines this with ubiquitous, computer-controlled, surveillance. Chinese control of society is largely driven by a deep fear of the chaos that would ensue if the government stopped imposing Teacher order upon society and gave free expression to personal Mercy feelings. And this is a legitimate fear when the average communist citizen views contractual honesty and laws of physical and intellectual property primarily as impediments to be clambered over.
Peterson mentions the Greek myth of Daedalus and concludes, “A warning to the engineers: do not presume to fly so high that God himself feels the necessity to intervene” (p. 210). This is a valid warning, but I suggest that it is possible to make the wrong conclusion. It was mentioned earlier that technical thought has a natural tendency to split between peripheral technical expertise and core mystery. Thus, male technical thought typically concludes that technical expertise should leave room in the subjective for the mystery of God, the underlying assumption being that if technical thought is not appropriate, then nothing is appropriate because technical thought is the only valid form of human thought. This assumption is backed up by the fact that every system of technical thought is based upon a foundation of axioms that must be assumed and cannot be proven. (The Wikipedia article points out that “Appeals and analogies are sometimes made to the incompleteness of theorems in support of arguments that go beyond mathematics and logic. Several authors have commented negatively on such extensions and interpretations.” Hence, my statement that every system of technical thought is based upon unprovable axioms.) A more valid conclusion is that one must use mental networks when dealing with the realm of God in Teacher thought and a concept of God can be made rational by using normal thought to look for patterns and connections that are universally repeated. For instance, Peterson is exploring the universal realm of God by looking for repeated patterns in the mental networks of myth and story. Mental symmetry takes this one further by looking for repeated patterns guided by the meta-theory of mental symmetry.
Peterson warns that “God, in the story of the Tower of Babel, is the transcendent being who is the absolute antithesis of presumptuous authority. He is the Being who eternally warns: ‘Do not replace me with the worship of your own pride and power – because all hell is bound to break loose if you do.’ God is therefore reliably portrayed as what must be placed properly atop both the psychological and social hierarchy” (p. 217). Stated cognitively, a mental concept of God provides the universal Teacher theories that lie at the pinnacle of Teacher order. This concept of God needs to be based in universal principles of ‘how things work’. Using Teacher thought to extrapolate from the MMNs of some person or group in an ideological manner will not just lead to normal failure but rather to amplified failure. For instance, Nazism extrapolated from the MMN of having an Aryan body with blonde hair and blue eyes to the TMN of a universal theory of society. The result was the holocaust. Similarly, communism extrapolated from the MMN of the worker to the TMN of a universal theory of society. The result was the genocide of the bourgeoisie. In both cases, Teacher thought was used to universalize from the MMNs of some racial or economic group, magnifying the normal prejudices of society.
Language and Commonality
Peterson describes what is required for communication between various groups. “To understand actually means to translate from the semantic to the imaginative and then to the embodied... This indicates profoundly that full ‘understanding’ requires shared embodiment: similar emotion, motivation, and possibility for perception and action... We need a shared rock of certainty under our feet so that we can all stand upon it while we talk” (p. 219). Stated cognitively, we saw earlier that technical thought divides speech into different technical languages that both cannot and will not communicate with each other. Normal thought translates from one language to another by looking for similar patterns of meaning within different languages. As Peterson states, one primary source of common pattern comes from living as humans within similar bodies on the same planet. Thus, for instance, if I point to my mouth and my stomach and say ‘I am hungry’, then the listener from a different culture who speaks a different language will comprehend what I am saying because we share similar physical patterns of hunger and eating.
Mental symmetry suggests that communication is also possible because all humans have similar minds with the same seven interacting cognitive modules. Each cognitive style may be conscious in a different cognitive module, but the cognitive module that is conscious in one cognitive style still exists in subconscious forms in other cognitive styles. For instance, Peterson refers to similar emotion, but emotion is generated by Teacher and Mercy thought along with associated mental networks. Similarly, motivation comes from Exhorter thought. These are cognitive similarities and not just merely physical, because the mind is capable of assigning emotional labels that are quite different than physical labels of pain and pleasure. For instance, children typically say ‘You do the dishes! No, you do the dishes.’ In contrast, adults typically say, ‘I will do the dishes. No, I will do the dishes.’ Both of these statements are emotionally motivated but they come to opposite conclusions. That is because mental networks of social expectation are much more prominent in the mind of the adult.
This distinction between similar minds and similar bodies plays a fundamental role when thinking about communicating with angels and/or aliens. Mental symmetry hypothesizes that humans, aliens, and angels all have similar minds with the same cognitive modules and cognitive structure. This hypothesis cannot be empirically proven, but I have read widely about stories of aliens and angels and this hypothesis is consistent with those stories. One common feature of most of these stories is that aliens/angels have the ability to communicate telepathically with humans. According to the principle of commonality, an ability to communicate mentally strongly implies that humans, aliens, and angels all have similar minds. In contrast, angels and aliens obviously inhabit radically different ‘bodies’ than humans, meaning that a basis for communication cannot be found in common embodiment. The theory of evolution would view such a hypothesis of mental similarity as absurd, though some evolutionists argue that the common environment of the physical universe might lead to physical similarities between humans and aliens. However, the materialistic bias of evolution regards the very concept of mental structure to be absurd, insisting that the mind is nothing more than the brain and that there is no such thing as a non-physical being. But if all intelligent beings were created by the same God, then it is reasonable to assume that all intelligent beings have similar minds.
More generally, it was pointed out earlier on that the theory of evolution by its very nature eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I keep mentioning the implications of the theory of evolution to show that building a meta-theory upon the tree of the knowledge of good and evil leads to rotten theories. If one really truly wishes to stop eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then one really truly has to find a replacement for the theory of evolution. And I suggest that mental symmetry has now become sufficiently developed to be a valid candidate.
Peterson concludes, “The pathway to peace is therefore always initiated by something approximating ‘What, if anything, do we agree upon (hold constant; regarded as sacred; consider mutually indisputable) even in the midst of our disagreement? Can we therefore expand the domain of shared territory that we already jointly inhabit?” (p. 219). Stated cognitively, communication begins by using normal thought to find common patterns and then extends from there. Commonality can be found in Server actions. For instance, it is possible to drive a car in a foreign country without knowing the local language because everyone knows (approximately) what Server actions need to be done to control a car and what Server actions are permissible when driving on a road. For verbal communication, Perceiver thought is needed because Perceiver thought compares the meanings of various words to uncover similar patterns. But Perceiver thought can only uncover similar patterns if Perceiver thought is functioning. ‘Holding constant’ means that Perceiver thought is functioning in both the talker and the listener and discovering similar repeated patterns. ‘Mutually indisputable’ means that abstract technical thought is functioning in both talker and listener leading to similar solid conclusions in Perceiver thought. ‘Regarded as sacred’, in contrast, means that Perceiver thought in both talker and listener are being emotionally overwhelmed by similar Mercy experiences. Thus, for instance, Catholic adherents from different languages and cultures can find common ground in their common religious rituals. ‘Mutually indisputable’ is cognitively not the same as ‘regarded as sacred’.
Peterson looks further at this topic of commonality by observing, “We find ourselves presently at war over the most basic of issues: that of sex... Failure to differentiate on the basis of sex means failure to propagate, and failure to propagate means more than mere death: it means true extinction. Thus, the ability to differentiate man from woman is equivalent to the ability and willingness to circumvent nonbeing itself” (p. 220). Mental symmetry agrees with this conclusion. Peterson bases his statement ultimately in physical differences between male and female bodies. This is a valid basis because less than 0.05% of humans are born with ambiguous genitals. The social sciences normally regard an uncertainty of less than 5% as statistically significant. 0.05% is 100 times more certain. Therefore, if one rejects physical gender differences as irrelevant (which is commonly done today) then statistical analysis demands that one reject most of the social sciences as irrelevant.
However, mental symmetry suggests that it is more useful to regard the distinction between male and female thought as fundamental. Suppose that a male person develops the mental networks of female thought. For instance, I use female thought when playing the violin. If gender is viewed primarily as something physical, then developing the thinking of the opposite gender may lead to gender confusion; the man who develops female thought within his mind may feel that he is a woman and not really a man. Mental symmetry recognizes that both men and women can and should develop both male and female thought, while at the same time also recognizing that refusing to recognize one’s physical gender or attempting to change one’s physical gender is asking for deep psychological issues and problems. This confusion is exacerbated by cognitive style. For instance, a male Mercy person will naturally develop the mental networks of female thought. If gender is defined physically, then this may lead again confusion about gender, leading to the conclusion that if my cognitive style causes me to emphasize female thought, then I need to be in a female body. In contrast, if the ultimate goal is to achieve mental wholeness, then such ambiguities can be viewed as opportunities for becoming mentally whole. For instance, the male Mercy person is encouraged by gender to develop technical thought while encouraged by cognitive style to develop mental networks. Such a person has a cognitive advantage compared to, for instance, the male Contributor person who may have no confusions about gender but finds it very difficult to go beyond using technical thought because of the mutually reinforcing effects of gender and cognitive style. Finally, I have read several times in stories of alien encounters about humans being unable to visually determine the gender of some alien being while still mentally sensing that the being was either male or female. This suggests that the distinction between male and female is deeper than the physical distinction between male and female gender.
Peterson recognizes that the distinction between male and female goes beyond the physical to involve the cognitive. “It is for this reason, among many others, that sexual differentiation itself is employed with utter universality as a metaphor for the binary relationship between many other phenomena, or even between the most basic classes of phenomena themselves” (p. 221). However, Peterson is also afraid that letting go of physical gender will lead to mental confusion. “We can be whomever we want to be in our online forms – or so we think. The more time we spend there, the more uncertain we become of who we are... the lines between fiction, fantasy, and fact blur in the online world... Abstraction allows for the thought that can die instead of us; it also gives rise to the possibility of possession by delusion when what is improper grows, cancer-like, instead of being pruned by judgment” (p. 224).
What Peterson states is significant. Mental symmetry defines personal identity as the mental networks that continually come to mind, a definition that is consistent with neurology. Thus, being imprisoned within some physical body means that the appearance, gender, abilities, and limitations of that physical body will have a profound effect upon determining personal identity. Personal identity expands as one acquires skills, expertise, and experiences. For instance, playing violin forms a basic part of my identity because I started playing at the age of three and I have acquired the ability to pick up a violin and make music with it. By a similar token, it is possible to construct an alternate personal identity by sitting in front of a computer and spending hours interacting on that computer in some predictable manner. Peterson points out that this can be used positively to explore some alternate identity in theory without having to experience this in reality. This is a very important point and I treat computer games, science fiction, and fantasy as simulations of alternate realities that allow me to simulate what it would feel like to be within such a reality. Mental symmetry encourages me to take such a positive approach, because it points out situations in different specializations that involve similar interactions between cognitive modules. Thus, one situation can be mentally simulated by another situation that uses the same cognitive modules in a similar manner. The theory of evolution, in contrast, encourages people to regard any mental similarities as either products of chance or the result of similar environments.
The Theory of Evolution
Peterson quotes Richard Dawkins stating that physical bodies are a product of the physical environment. “I began by saying, not that an animal’s brain contains a simulated model of its world... but that an animal is a model of its world... A good zoologist, presented with an animal and allowed to examine and dissect its body in sufficient detail, should be able to reconstruct almost everything about the world in which the animal lived. To be more precise, she would be reconstructing the worlds in which the animal’s ancestors lived. That claim, of course, rests upon the Darwinian assumption that animal bodies are largely shaped by natural selection” (p. 363). Notice that the brain is mentioned once (the mind is ignored) and then the focus turns to the body and how it is determined by the environment. There is obviously a relationship between body and environment; a fish, for instance, cannot live out of water, and when the environment changes then animals must either leave the environment or adapt. But notice that the direction from environment to physical body is a ‘Darwinian assumption’. This assumption contradicts the basic premise of Peterson’s book, which is that developing the mind is not just important but rather is essential for developing and maintaining the external environment of civilization. Evolution, in contrast, does not even talk about the mind. Instead, the logic of evolution is like saying that automobiles are a product of roads. There is a relationship between a car and the road it drives on. For instance, a race car drives on a racing track. But saying that the automobile is a product of the road does not explain how an automobile functions, while completely ignoring the computers and software that control how a modern automobile functions.
One of Peterson’s basic premises is that one can avoid much physical pain by internally constructing an honest ‘simulated model of its world’. Dawkins starts by assuming that this is false. Teacher thought feels bad when there is an exception to the rule; Teacher thought feels threatened with a general theory contradicts the existing established meta-theory. Therefore, one ultimately has to choose between following Peterson’s advice of reaching internally for the highest in Teacher thought or accepting the general theory of biological evolution. One cannot do both because they are fundamentally at odds with one another. As Jesus pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount, one cannot serve two masters. Anyone who denies the theory of biological evolution in today’s academic environment will be denigrated as a nonscientific idiot. But Peterson also states in his book that one must be willing to follow the truth even if it leads to societal rejection. And Jesus also points out in the Sermon on the Mount that righteousness means being willing to obey God even when one does not receive approval from society.
Peterson follows his quote of Dawkins by asking “How can the instinct that compels and guides development... be anything other than a true reflection of the structure of being and becoming itself; be anything less than the image of God in man and woman alike?” (p. 363). Peterson is describing the implicit God of Nature with a capital ‘N’, the concept of God to which the evolutionary biologist continually refers but will repudiate when it is pointed out that this is a concept of God. Peterson quotes Dawkins making precisely this mistake. “And once natural selection had built brains capable of simulating slight departures from reality into the imagined future, a further emergent capacity automatically flowered... an escape from mundane reality that has no obvious limits” (p. 365). That is like saying that the road built the car and the computer emerged from the car; Dawkins is attributing attributes of the divine to natural selection, saying that natural selection ‘built brains’. No. Natural selection may select but natural selection does not build brains just as cars are not emergent properties of roads and computers are not emergent properties of cars. Saying that this ‘capacity automatically flowered’ is pure magical thinking; it is myth that needs to be cognitively analyzed rather than quoted as something authoritative.
Peterson finds Dawkin’s logic inadequate because he protests, “Perhaps not an escape, Dr. Dawkins, as adaptation itself is what is being portrayed and described. Perhaps instead a voyage precisely paralleling that of Abraham, following the call of the spirit of adventure, or of Jacob, climbing the ladder heavenward... What about mathematics, sir, or the eternal world of the Platonic forms?” (p. 365). Yes, what about them? One can tell that Peterson is struggling to use Perceiver thought in the face of Mercy status because he squeaks out two ‘perhaps’ and refers to ‘Dr. Dawkins’ and ‘sir’.
Peterson asks further probing questions. “Why would we presume that the spirit giving rise to being and becoming itself is something dead, unconscious, pointless, and lacking identity when adaptation to that reality has required consciousness, teleology and purpose, and personality? Is it merely chance, or even the arbitrary requirements of human society, that has organized the world... If the concept of God’s personality works, so to speak... why is that model not aptly regarded as the most accurate?” (p. 366). Stated cognitively, if human minds are driven by MMNs of life and purpose and if the mind uses MMNs to represent living beings, then why not treat the TMN of a general theory as a living being with purpose? If history makes sense when one interprets it as being guided by a living being in Teacher thought, then why not treat this as a legitimate theory?
At this point, Peterson stumbles into Teacher overgeneralization. “The God of the biblical corpus is, as is constantly insisted on in the text and the tradition, ineffable and, finally, incomprehensible – outside even of nature; even of time and space” (p. 366). Stated cognitively, Peterson assumes that the alternative to a rational materialistic scientific view is an intuitive leap into the Teacher overgeneralization of incomprehensible mystery. But here too Peterson attempts to use Perceiver thought. “What seems to be true is something very much akin to or even identical with the axiomatic Judeo-Christian assumption in the subsequent and derivative scientific insistence that the cosmic order is characterized by its Logos – its intelligibility – and that the human mind and soul can and should investigate, comprehend, and ally itself with that intrinsic order” (p. 366). Exactly!!! In other words, it is possible to use rational thought to examine these deepest questions, and one primary conclusion is that scientific thought itself emerged out of the assumptions of a Judeo-Christian mindset.
Saying this more carefully, the Judeo-Christian mindset was initially taught as blind faith in the words of the Bible. During the Middle Ages, Perceiver thought gradually acquired the ability to function in the periphery while still remaining mesmerized when dealing with core issues. The scientific revolution resulted from the combination of rational empirical analysis at the periphery combined with the implicit core assumptions formed by blind faith in the Bible. The end result is the objective, specialized science of today which has an extensive understanding of physical reality. But the extensive success of science and technology has also emotionally belittled the religious fervor that was the source of blind faith in the Bible and Christianity. Thus, today’s science is physically successful but has no metaphysical reason to exist, instinctively speaking of the design of Nature while belittling the idea of Nature as God. Authors such as Peterson are using rational cognitive analysis to examine these metaphysical questions and coming to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian mindset makes sense.
Here too, Peterson struggles. “Why is there such great insistence on the fact that reality itself is dead and blind, in some final sense, when the organisms that inhabit it live and see? Is this not more likely a consequence of our ignorance, with regard to the final nature of the material” (p. 367). Stated cognitively, if science insists on being objective and specialized, this does not prove that reality itself is purely material and lacks universal order. Instead, it means that modern science is ignorant about the subjective and the universal.
Going further, Peterson wonders, “Perhaps, our reductive materialism is a reflection of something worse than mere ignorance: maybe we insist on the deadness and intrinsic meaningless of the world to rationalize our unwillingness to accept the immense burden of opportunity and obligation that a true understanding of our place in a true meaningful world would necessitate. Perhaps it is not religion that is the opiate of the masses. Perhaps it is instead that a rationalist, materialist atheism is the camouflage of the irresponsible” (p. 367). Exactly! Stated cognitively, technical thought requires information that is known with sufficient certainty. Building such confidence requires holding onto Perceiver facts and Server sequences despite emotional pressure. Modern science sidesteps the problem of dealing with Mercy emotions by being objective while avoiding the problem of dealing with Teacher emotions by being specialized. The original pioneers of science had to develop some Perceiver and Server confidence because they formulated science within a society dominated by Mercy emotions of papal and princely power. The postmodern scientist of today is starting to recognize the need for Perceiver and Server confidence because of being assaulted by Mercy emotions of wokeism combined with Teacher emotions of ideology and alternate knowing. Generally speaking, the social sciences have responded to this emotional pressure by abandoning rational thought without a struggle, indicating that their academic prowess is merely a ‘camouflage of the irresponsible’.
That leads to the following question: If the Bible describes the mindset that is required to think scientifically, then who initially wrote the Bible? It was not written by medieval scholars because they placed blind faith in the Bible and blind faith is incompatible with a scientific mindset. It was not written by the human authors who originally penned the words back in the Roman era because Roman society practiced polytheism and Emperor worship. The only remaining alternative is to postulate that the Bible was revealed to humanity by a supernatural source who is based in rational Teacher thought that is compatible with the structure of the universe. This implies that the analogy of a school used earlier is more than just an analogy. Humanity really has been enrolled in a school of character development headed by God in Teacher thought and the Bible is the primary textbook.
Among other things, this has profound implications for those who declare that the Bible has no place in the school. The Bible taught as blind faith may be inappropriate for the classroom, but the continued existence of science itself demands that the Bible taught as universal cognitive truth needs to be given a central place in the classroom. Going further, if the Bible taught as blind faith has no place in the school, then the ‘alternate knowing’ of aboriginal wisdom definitely has no place in the school. Peterson demonstrates that one can learn principles from aboriginal myth and aboriginals have legitimate expertise about ecology. But it is the height of insanity to treat aboriginal knowing as a meta-theory. This is currently the situation in my province of British Columbia because the government has mandated that every single subject in every grade be taught in the light of aboriginal wisdom.
But then Peterson replaces religious Teacher overgeneralization with secular Teacher overgeneralization. “The dust out of which we all emerge is unimaginable in its central aspect. The mysteries of the quantum world have assured of that; whatever is at the bottom of things appears no less incomprehensible than any spirit” (p. 367). Quantum mechanics may be unimaginable at the concrete level of Mercy experiences, but it is totally rational at the abstract Teacher level of mathematical equations. This combination has led to a popular school of quantum mechanics known colloquially as ‘shut up and calculate’. The point is that quantum reality can be rationally described at the verbal level of Teacher theories. One does not have to appeal to incomprehensible mystery if one is willing to start at the level of a rational concept of God in Teacher thought. But that means allowing the ‘angels of God’ to descend Jacob’s Ladder, instead of interpreting Jacob’s Ladder merely as humans climbing up towards God.
Continuing now with Peterson’s discussion of the Tower of Babel, Peterson complains that “Perhaps it is, finally, because we have abandoned respect for tradition, ancestry, and the paternal/maternal authority on which the desire to mature, as well as maturation itself, necessarily depends” (p. 225). No! MMNs of culture and tradition can be wrong and conflict in major ways with universal principles of ‘how things work’. One must respect cultural MMNs, treat them honorably, and think them through carefully, but in many ways our ancestors were desperately and deeply wrong. A far more helpful alternative would be to replace the damn theory of evolution (and damn is not too strong a word because it accurately describes what treating evolution as a meta-theory does morally to both the individual and society) with a rational theory of cognition that is consistent with how the mind works, as opposed to evolution which makes hypothetical, childish statements about the mind while not even being a theory about the mind.
For instance, I realized about the cognitive significance of mental networks from the concept of the hyperactive agency detector device proposed by the cognitive science of religion. The mental network provides a cognitive mechanism that explains how an agency detector device could function within the mind and become hyperactive. The cognitive science of religion, in contrast, suggests that the agency detector device evolved as a result of proto-humans fleeing being eaten by wild animals. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Scientists believe that the belief in acting gods is an evolutionary by-product of agent detection... The psychological trait in question is if you hear a twig snap in the forest, some sentient force is probably behind it, leading to primates avoiding potential predators seeking to eat or murder them. Hypothetically, this trait could remain in modern humans in the form of hypersensitivity agency detection.” First, this is pure conjecture without any empirical evidence—as indicated by the double ‘believe’. Second, this does not explain how an agency detector device functions. Third, it utterly violates Peterson’s primary concept of aiming for the highest, because it reduces aiming for the highest level of God in Teacher thought to a random byproduct of being driven by the lowest level of animal survival in Mercy thought. Using the language of Peterson, this is an example of placing human obscenity at the top of the Tower of Babel.
So why is academia so insistent upon embracing the theory of biological evolution? Because it matches a mindset of objective, specialized, locally rational, male technical thought. Abstract technical thought uses precise definitions to bring order to complexity. The biological system of genus and species names all of the animals and places them within the structure of an evolutionary tree. Concrete technical thought heads toward some goal; concrete technical thought that is motivated by a Platonic forms heads towards the highest. The basic premise of evolution is that life itself is heading towards the highest goal of continuing to evolve into ever greater order-within-complexity. But the theory of evolution also contains two implicit taboos. The first taboo is that Nature must not be treated as a concept of God. One may focus in a specialized manner upon various aspects of the Teacher order of life but it is forbidden to suggest that this Teacher order is held together by the TMN of a concept of God. The second taboo is that one must not talk about teleology. One may focus in an objective manner upon life heading toward some goal, but one must not say that any physical or behavioral trait evolved in order to meet some specific goal. But male technical thought is naturally guided by the mental networks of female thought. Thus, the evolutionist will continually slip into the language of treating Nature as if it is a concept of God and treating mutations as if they are heading in the direction of some specific goal. Going further, male technical thought views itself as the only valid form of intelligent thought. Similarly, anyone who does not accept the theory of biological evolution is automatically disregarded as failing to meet the accepted standards of rigorous academic thought. Biological research guided by the theory of evolution is locally rational, doing careful research to examine specific aspects of evolution, but when it comes to the larger picture, then this locally rational thought turns into myth and fantasy.
Peterson is caught in the middle. On the one hand, he is explicitly extending technical thought beyond specialization to talk about a concept of God in Teacher thought and beyond the objective to talk about subjective identity and character development. This causes him to question the usefulness of the theory of evolution. But on the other hand, Peterson still implicitly holds to the academic assumption that technical thought is the only valid form of thought. This implicit connection causes him to treat the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. This places Peterson within the difficult situation of attempting to serve two different masters.
Returning to Peterson’s discussion of the Tower of Babel, Peterson appears to be at least partially stuck at the level of dividing intelligent thought into male technical thought and other. “The moral of the story, once again? Do not ascribe to yourself the right to question the minimal necessary preconditions for harmonious being established by what is truly transcendent – or all is lost. Certain axioms must be held as sacred for the game itself to proceed without degenerating into a fallen, self-conscious, prideful hell” (p. 230). This describes a fundamental limitation of technical thought. As mentioned previously, Gödel showed mathematically that every system of technical thought is based upon fundamental axioms that cannot be proven but rather must be assumed. Questioning these axioms will destroy the technical system. Thus, as far as male technical thought is concerned, the division is between technical thought and transcendent other. But normal thought can be used to rationally explore what technical thought regards as ‘other’ by looking for patterns that are repeated.
I keep repeating this because of the inherent contradiction between what Peterson is explicitly stating and what he is implicitly assuming. On the one hand, Peterson is explicitly stating that it is possible to make meaningful statements about the sacred by using the analogies of normal thought. That is the premise of his book. But on the other hand, Peterson keeps reiterating the fundamental assumptions of academia, which assumes that male technical thought is the only valid form of thought and that fundamental axioms need to be regarded as mystery. This is like an English speaker recognizing that the French language exists and writing an entire book about the French language, while simultaneously insisting that one must use English to discuss the French language. Mental symmetry takes this one step further by using French to discuss the French language. But my experience is that academia regards this as an unforgivable sin. It is academically permissible to use technical thought to discuss analogical reasoning and even emphasize the necessity for using analogical reasoning. But it is not academically permissible to use analogical reasoning to discuss analogical reasoning; it is not permissible to discuss French in French.
Peterson accurately describes the problem. “If morality is relative, then no true distinction can be drawn between Stalin and Churchill; between model and Lincoln; between the mass murderer and sadist Carl Panzram and the rescuing hero Oskar Schindler” (p. 231). Peterson adds, “If a Soviet citizen in the time of Stalin dared complain even of his own pain, he was immediately and irrevocably deemed an enemy of the state and made liable to brutal punishment. You know you are truly in hell when you cannot even admit to the reality of your own suffering” (p. 235). Amen, preach it! Thus, the postmodern insistence that it is not possible to make any solid statements in Perceiver thought is not just absurd but leads to hell on earth—and then follows this by forbidding anyone from describing this as hell on earth. But the solution is not to accept the cultural assumptions of the past, because these are not necessarily accurate. Instead, the solution is to use Perceiver thought to look for solid, repeatable connections of moral cause-and-effect. Using the language analogy, one needs to use French to discuss the French language.
Abraham
Peterson begins the chapter by pointing out that the story of Abraham indicates a shift in the biblical narrative. “By the time we encounter Abraham, we have met God in various ways... Genesis 12 shifts the focus. God Supreme now makes himself known as the voice of inspired adventure” (p. 241). The cognitive principle is that the path of personal transformation begins by constructing a concept of God which is then followed by following this concept of God. Saying this another way, the economic pursuit of wealth requires a system of law and order within which individuals can pursue wealth. I recently examined the requirements for economic activity in a paper on The Principles of Political Economy by John Stuart Mill.
Notice that calling Abram out of his culture in order to live in a strange land became possible as a result of the language fragmentation of the Tower of Babel. Before the Tower of Babel there was only one language and one culture. A multiplicity of languages and cultures makes it possible to leave one’s culture and have a cross-cultural experience. More generally, it appears that God usually manipulates people and societies by playing one cultural group against another. This makes cognitive sense, because free will becomes maximized when a person must choose between differing sets of mental networks. The historian Arnold Toynbee stated something similar, concluding that diversity is a symptom of societal growth while uniformity is a symptom of societal decay.
Peterson concludes, “The source of the impetus to develop, personally, is to be regarded as identical to the monotheistic Hebrew God, and that the manifestation of that divine spirit is what inspires us to admire and imitate true and genuine success... What could be more wonderful than the existence of a true harmony between the instinct to integrate, share, master, and mature, and the operation of the process that establishes productive, generous, stable, and sheltering social order?” (p. 243). I discovered a similar principle when pursuing mental symmetry. My research began in the 1980s when I helped my older brother develop a system of cognitive styles based in Romans 12 spiritual gifts. He had analyzed about 200 biographies and together we spent endless hours discussing the resulting lists of cognitive traits, resulting in the diagram of mental symmetry. This diagram has, with some modifications and additions, acted as a meta-theory to guide my research ever since. This research involved simultaneously pursuing two different goals. The first goal was to gain a more accurate Teacher understanding of how the mind functions. The second goal was to follow a path of personal transformation in Mercy thought guided by the goal of mental wholeness. As I continued to pursue this dual path, I found that theological concepts started falling out as implications of my research, including a rational understanding of the Trinitarian God of Christianity. More recently, I found that mental symmetry could also be used as a meta-theory to analyze many topics. In other words, like Peterson, I found that there is a ‘true harmony’ that involves gaining an understanding of the Christian God, ‘the instinct to integrate and mature’, pursuing ‘genuine success’, and ‘sheltering social order’.
Peterson adds, “There is possibly nothing more optimistic than the idea that the path indicated by the spirit of adventure... is the same path whose walking is most pleasing to and, simultaneously, encouraged by the good father” (p. 243). This is an important insight which is different than the attitude of the Christian fundamentalist who places blind faith in the Bible. Looking cognitively at the mindset of blind faith, strong Mercy emotions of religious fervor are overwhelming Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ that the Bible is ‘true’. This means that the content of the Bible will be approached with the feeling that I am nothing compared to God, resulting in a mindset of religious self-denial which assumes that following God means denying self. The first step in following God is to recognize that childish MMNs need to be transformed by the TMN of a concept of God. Thus, religious self-denial can start on the path to personal transformation. Peterson is describing a further step on this path in which one realizes at the core of one’s being that the ultimate goal is not to deny self in the face of God but rather to cooperate personally with God in order to gain greater understanding and more lasting personal success.
Making the transition to cooperating with God means mentally and emotionally ‘wrestling with God’, which relates to the title of Peterson’s book. At each step, one has to examine cultural and personal assumptions about God and see if they legitimately describe a Universal Being who is the creator and ruler of everything. As Peterson’s book illustrates, this level of deep critical thinking does not lead away from the Bible but rather leads back to the Bible. But instead of viewing the Bible in a childish manner as the only source of absolute truth, one views the Bible in an adult manner as the most accurate description of universal truth. I know from personal experience the ‘wrestling with God’ that is involved in making such a mental transition. This struggle was mentioned earlier when looking at Job holding onto his internal concept of God rather than the concept of God of his society.
Peterson adds that following God requires pursuing truth. “We have already encountered God as the Word of truth... That portrayal is part of the monotheistic insistence that the adventure beckoning to Abram is another characterization of the spirit of truth” (p.244). Similarly, mental symmetry suggests that the path of personal transformation begins with constructing a concept of God based upon personal honesty. One accepts the facts in Perceiver thought no matter how bad they make personal identity feel. This is emotionally possible because the growing understanding that results from acknowledging the facts will generate Teacher pleasure that balances the Mercy pain of acknowledging the facts. Going further, the same rational understanding that accurately points out that I am in a bad place can also act as a map to lead me to a better place. And if Perceiver thought is looking for universal truth—connections that do not change, then this map of understanding will indicate which locations really, truly are better places.
Peterson describes what happens to the individual who does not build upon honesty and truth. “He substitutes for all that the false adventure of the lie – false, because whatever happens in consequence of a lie is neither real, by definition, nor genuinely his, as it is not the manifestation of his true character but of the lie” (p. 245). In other words, rejecting the facts of Perceiver thought has major implications because these facts define where I am, they define what I own, and they define who I am. This can be seen in postmodernism, which states that there is no such thing as a solid Perceiver fact. Postmodernism fails at helping people out of their trouble because it has no concept of where people are within the map of mental maturity, it fails at redistributing wealth because it has no concept of ownership, and it leads ultimately to confusion over identity, because it is unable to define who I am.
Peterson summarizes, “In establishing a covenant with the One True God, Abraham swears, in essence, to live by the truth... Living in truth – acting truthfully; seeing truthfully; speaking truthfully – means accepting whatever happens in consequence, instead of aiming at the target of delusion motivated by the spirit of the lie” (p. 245). Notice that accepting truth in Perceiver thought extends beyond acknowledging specific facts to defining personal identity, defining the landscape within which personal identity lives, defining the current location of personal identity within the landscape, and defining the possible locations to which personal identity could move.
Perceiver thought has to acquire sufficient confidence to function in the presence of emotional pressure. This is illustrated by the student who knows a topic when studying at home but has a mental blank when attempting to remember these facts under the emotional pressure of an exam. Perceiver confidence in some fact grows as Perceiver thought notices connections being repeated and it also grows as one holds onto the facts in the midst of emotional pressure. This means that my mental concept of who I am and where I am in the landscape will turn into mental mud when faced with emotional pressure that exceeds my current level of Perceiver confidence within that context. But these emotional areas are precisely where an accurate map of self and reality is most vital. Peterson observes, “Who could have possibly guessed that willingly accepted responsibility to bear the heaviest of loads is precisely what gives to life its sustaining purpose, creates the world, and sets it straight when it has deviated in its orbit?... The essence of man and God is the will to take on the heaviest possible burden of life? How could it be any other way?” (p. 247). In other words, if one wants to address the deepest emotional problems, then one has to gain sufficient Perceiver confidence to construct an accurate map of self, reality, and God within this emotional context. Peterson’s comment ‘How could it be any other way?’ indicates what it feels like to acquire such Perceiver confidence. One is not exerting emotional effort to attempt to believe some fact. Instead one recognizes that the Perceiver facts are independent of the Mercy feelings. One may feel miserable or ecstatic, but that does not change the facts because ‘it could not be any other way’.
Peterson notes that the primary problem is not comprehending the facts but rather having sufficient Perceiver confidence to hold on to the facts when faced with emotional pressure. “All this seems obvious, once explicitly considered... No one believes or even claims to believe that running away and lying is equivalent to what is admirable and good” (p. 248). In other words, the facts are obvious when discussed in an objective manner—when one is studying the material at home, but holding on to these facts when one is in the emotional situation is much more difficult—when this knowledge is being tested within some stressful situation.
And anyone who attempts to honestly pursue a path of personal growth will face emotional situations. “What does it mean that God calls Abram to journey there? It means that every sojourner called forth by the spirit of adventure will suffer exposure to the full gamut of human sin and cruelty, and that such exposure must somehow be managed – even turned into part of the adventure” (p. 249). Stated cognitively, Perceiver confidence grows as one holds on to the facts despite how one feels, which means that emotional ‘exposure must somehow be managed’. Part of this management involves holding onto the right paradigm or theory in Teacher thought. Instead of viewing emotional challenge as attack on personal identity in mercy thought, one treats them as opportunities to gain rational understanding in Teacher thought. Saying this another way, one views one’s personal adventure as a calling by God to follow a path of growing maturity. Going further, when one goes on an adventure, one will encounter similar situations within different environments, leading to growing Perceiver confidence in underlying cognitive and moral principles.
However, notice that Peterson equates emotional exposure with ‘the full gamut of human sin and cruelty’. This describes the negative path of learning through suffering, in which one acknowledges the facts in Perceiver thought despite the painful feelings in Mercy thought. It was a revelation to me when I realized that these same cognitive lessons could be learned by following a path of patience. Learning through suffering acknowledges the facts of my current situation even when my current situation is painful. Learning through patience acknowledges the facts of my current situation even when I want desperately to be in another place that is more pleasant. The goal when suffering is to stop suffering and return to normal. The goal when practicing patience is to leave normality and start experiencing something better than normal. Bitterness prevents learning through suffering, because bitterness treats my current painful MMNs as the emotional filter for interpreting everything, including my concept of God. Bitterness clings to my current pain and refuses to let go. Worship prevents learning through patience, because worship identifies emotionally with some pleasant MMN that is not me. Worship pretends that I am already at my destination. Learning through patience does not mean that one ignores what is pleasant, desirable, and beautiful. Instead, it means acknowledging the positive emotions of a potential object of worship while simultaneously recognizing that these emotions do not change the location of either me or my potential object of worship; the facts are independent of the feelings.
Peterson then struggles with the incompleteness of a materialistic mindset. “If the cost of reality is death, how might reality manifest itself, to justify the price? That is the ultimate question, with the paradisal dream providing the impossible answer... The reward is limitless: a life well-lived... Is that sufficient to pay for death? There is no a priori answer. That is the curse of the true existential dilemma. Is it worth it? You are fated to find out along the way” (p. 249). Stated bluntly, what is the point of building a solid internal map of self and reality if everything comes to an end at physical death? My conclusion is that if my personal life becomes extinguished at physical death then everything I do and think is a cosmic farce. It might make sense to gain some mental maturity and avoid the obvious traumas of life, but there is no point in following the path that Peterson describes because as far as I am concerned, everything will eventually turn to dust in a few decades.
But notice that Peterson’s book talks as if there is an eternal God who is guiding human history along the plan that extends far beyond the lifespan of any individual. The cognitive principle is that building a rational Teacher understanding upon universal Perceiver facts will cause one to implicitly think and act as if personal life extends beyond the grave. For instance, the typical scientist instinctively lapses into talking about Nature doing this or that, and the attributes that are implicitly ascribed to Nature are attributes that can only be possessed by a divine being. However, when it is pointed out that the scientist is treating Nature as God, then the scientist will declare in no uncertain terms that Nature is not God.
The end result is a very deep lie of self-deception. Studying science honestly will create a concept of Nature, and this Teacher understanding that transcends human finite existence will give emotional comfort to the scientist, making it emotionally possible for the scientist to look you in the eye and declare in a comforting way that ‘You and I will both face personal extinction when we die’. This is pure self-deception because personal extinction is the most horrific, possible endpoint. The underlying cognitive principle is that universal Teacher theories must be treated with extreme care because they have the emotional power to deceive me at the level of existence itself.
Peterson warns that the game of reality deals with existence itself. “Why is this all necessary? Because the world is fallen. Because the world is real. Because man has something genuine to do. Where there is no challenge and no limits there is no impetus upward, no growth, no development – even nothing real” (p. 249). This is a very true statement, which is related to the frightening principle that human free will is real. But I have also learned that a universal Teacher theory (whether genuine or fake) that turns into a TMN has the emotional power to make people and groups utterly blind to the very nature of existence itself. Stated simply, the universal Teacher theory that I develop will eventually turn into my prison; the concept of God that I construct will eventually become my master and my God. This means that human free will is also temporary. The choices that I make will eventually form the TMN of some concept of God within my mind—explicit or implicit—which will grow in emotional power to the point where I can no longer use human free will to rebel from this concept of God. My concept of God has now turned into my prison.
The only solution I know of is to construct the best possible prison—while I mentally can—and then explicitly place my identity within that prison. The materialistic scientist constructs a good prison that includes most of physical reality, but neglects to place self within that prison. Thus, he can cheerfully talk about the divine attributes of Nature, while equally cheerfully discussing his impending personal annihilation. That is the end result of constructing a mental prison in an objective manner that does not include self. Peterson describes a better alternative, which is constructing a mental prison of reality and then placing self within this mental prison in order to travel, like Abram, to the promised land. I have been following a similar path with mental symmetry. I do not know for certain if there is life after death. However, there is extensive anecdotal evidence. One source of anecdotal evidence is a thread on a nursing website that discusses people’s personal experiences with spirits and dead people. This thread has been going on for well over a decade, contains over 2600 comments and has had over 5 million reads. Nursing is probably the profession that has the most extensive interaction with the dying and the dead. The common thread in this extensive thread is that human personality continues after death.
Peterson observes that following a path of personal transformation means overcoming increasingly emotional challenges. The end result is that one acquires a new personal label in Teacher thought. “Abram’s life is therefore portrayed as a sequence of sacrifices, each more exacting than the last, in keeping with the existential fact that each vista of increased opportunity and responsibility requires a sojourner whose aim is ever more precise, culminating in a transformation so complete that it requires a new name for its proper signification” (p. 252). Peterson describes this using the language of concrete technical thought, which pursues some goal using a plan that becomes more technical over time. This is a valid interpretation if the plan is guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought and the plan involves saving personal identity in Mercy thought. This extension beyond specialization to Teacher universality and beyond objectivity to Mercy identity transforms male technical thought into a legitimate concept of incarnation. Peterson includes personal identity in his plan. “As our domains of mastery grow, we must increasingly let go of who we were so that we can become who we could more completely be” (p. 252). Notice that Peterson is going beyond the sacrifice of Cain that involves gradual improvement to the sacrifice of Abel which involves the death and rebirth of inadequate MMNs of personal identity.
It was suggested earlier that the Christian doctrine of justification can be compared to enrolling in a school and acquiring the verbal label of student. The Christian doctrine of sanctification can be compared to taking and passing increasingly difficult courses within the school. Eventually, the label of ‘student’ that one acquired vicariously by enrolling in the school turns into a label of ‘scholar’ that legitimately describes personal identity. Using Christian language, being verbally declared righteous by God is followed by a process of sanctification that leads to acquiring the personal character of being righteous.
Sarah and Lot
Peterson discusses the story in Genesis 12 of Pharaoh trying to take Abram’s wife Sarai to be his wife as well as the similar story in Genesis 20 of King Abimelech trying to take Abraham’s wife. Peterson is not sure what to conclude from these stories other than the assertion that the rules of God must not be questioned. “There is a divine pattern that stabilizes and encourages individual and community alike. Deviations from that pattern have deadly consequences. No one is exempt from that iron law, least of all stiff-necked tyrants. And all tyrants are stiff-necked” (p. 255). This may be an accurate statement but it does not explain the story.
It is possible to come up with a possible explanation by looking at the relationship between male technical thought and female mental networks. When technical thought goes beyond objective specialization to save personal identity guided by a concept of God then this will lead to attractive mental networks which others will find desirable. However, a mind that is split between objective and subjective will tend to appreciate the mental networks while rejecting the male technical thought that is responsible for these mental networks. For instance, I attend a small church and play violin in church most Sundays. People love to hear me play violin but these same people are not interested in learning about mental symmetry. But when I play violin I am expressing my technical understanding through the emotional medium of music. However, this intrinsic relationship remains even if it is not acknowledged. Thus, when the secular realm of Egypt (Egypt is traditionally interpreted as representing the secular world) attempts to embrace the mental networks of someone who is following a path of personal transformation, this will lead to various plagues of guilt and inferiority because these mental networks make the mistake of being too good, too pure, and too holy. This may explain why entertainment keeps getting darker, bleaker, more fragmented, and more hopeless. The more cheery entertainment of the past is regarded as unrealistic. The temptation of Abram is to treat these attractive mental networks as his half-sister rather than as his wife, viewing them in an objective manner that does not threaten Perceiver and Server confidence.
Peterson suggests that “Admiration compels imitation, and there is no higher form of belief in than imitation” (p. 257). I think that Peterson is reacting against the standard fundamentalist view of treating belief as verbal assent. I also think that Peterson’s concept of belief as imitation is an inadequate concept resulting from viewing narrative and myth as the highest form of truth. The Greek word for belief and faith in the New Testament actually means to ‘be persuaded’. This is neither verbal assent nor imitation. Instead one is being convinced in rational thought to the extent of personally applying this understanding.
Peterson’s focus upon narrative and myth does contain a critical element that is usually missing in most Christian belief, which is a concept of time and sequence. Scientific laws describe natural processes and not just static facts. That is why I continually refer to ‘how things work’ and ‘how the mind works’. Narrative and myth contain this aspect of time and sequence because a narrative describes how events unfold over time. Imitation of the ideal is a good start but one needs to go beyond copying the Server actions of others to be guided in a righteous manner by a Teacher understanding of how things work. I learned this distinction when living in Korea. Asian society emphasizes imitation and is talented at copying systems but it does not necessarily comprehend the Teacher understanding that lies behind a system. The resulting behavior flows smoothly and efficiently but is also brittle and tends to crumble when faced with the unfamiliar or the unforeseen.
Peterson discusses Abraham rescuing his nephew Lot in a military raid in Genesis 14, describing the inherent struggle between pursuing God in Teacher thought and protecting from enemies in Mercy thought that arises when attempting to follow a path of Abram. “Peace may well be the proper goal of those who are truly upward-aiming and wise – the productive peace of a well-tended garden – but submission to tyranny or participation in hedonistic chaos is not thereby to be abided. Sometimes trusting in God means preparing for and engaging in battle. Are we not morally obliged in some circumstances to rescue our lost brothers, for example, when the tyrants have come for them?” (p. 265). I have thought about this question often as a pacifist Mennonite. For instance, my father did alternative service as a conscientious objector in World War II rather than fight as a soldier. I do not think that there is a definitive short-term answer, but there may be a more definitive medium-term answer. The underlying problem is that following God in this world means attempting to eat from the tree of life in a society that has been thoroughly corrupted through eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I am currently trying to follow a dual path. At the corporate level, I support those who are standing up against tyranny. For instance, I support the effort of Ukraine to resist Russian tyranny. At the individual level, I am pursuing the path of personal transformation as completely as I know how with the hope of breaking through to some form of spiritual power that would have sufficient potency to provide an alternative to physical weapons. I do not know if this is possible, but I do know that I want to avoid the path of warfare if at all possible and I also know that mental wholeness is a prerequisite for spiritual power. This is not just an irrational hope for magic because mental symmetry indicates that it is possible and reasonable while my cognitive analysis of Scripture indicates that something like this will eventually happen. Applying this to the story of Abram, one knows that one is on the right track to developing effective weapons of light with others find your ‘wife’ attractive but get hit with some plague when they attempt to take your ‘wife’. This means that when people like my violin playing but do not like the theory of mental symmetry that gives rise to my beautiful violin playing, then I should view this as a sign that I am developing an effective alternative to the weapons of warfare.
Peterson mentions an important principle to follow when having to use warfare to defend against evil. “Abraham wants nothing whatsoever to do with gains that might be illgotten. He is no war profiteer. Furthermore, he has no interest whatsoever in being beholden in reality or in reputation to the king of the corrupt state” (p. 266). This relates to the principle of mental ownership. If one has to stoop to using the method of warfare, then one must be motivated by TMNs of order and goodness and not by MMNs of personal benefit. Saying that one is fighting an altruistic war is not enough. Instead, one must choose not to profit personally from fighting such a war, because when one is fighting, then actions trump words. In fact, the very reason that one fights is because words no longer work and actions are necessary.
In a related vein, I am now halfway through analyzing Peterson’s book. Trump’s inauguration is in five days. The emotional flavor that I currently have from this volume is a lot of Perceiver truth, not much Teacher joy—despite talking about Teacher joy, Mercy pity but not Mercy love, painful Server paths, Exhorter repulsion from trauma and evil, and a whole heap of Contributor trying. There is also some Facilitator expressed as an attempt to synthesize Christian doctrine with psychological research. This describes the archetype Old Testament God of wrath and judgment and not the New Testament God of grace and mercy. Such a God is needed because modern evangelical Christianity has turned grace and mercy into unconditional love (for us) combined with a Trumpian ‘damn you’ for them. As Peterson repeatedly points out, Perceiver truth means that breaking God’s law damns everyone regardless of privilege or status. And this point desperately needs to be made. But where is the life? Where is the tree of life? What is missing is the divine grace of being drawn emotionally by the beauty of mature TMNs of female thought. Peterson talks about reaching for the highest, but what is even higher, is being drawn by a deep love of the highest. Peterson talks about avoiding the wrath of God, but there is also the positive pull of the love of God. Peterson mentions this to some extent as the desire to return to the holy innocence of lost Paradise. But that too is primarily a desire to restore what has been lost. What is missing is a desire to push forward to the Holy City of the New Jerusalem.
Peterson describes Abram’s growth as maturing technical thought. “The choices laid before Abram improve as his adventure proceeds. His judgment improves in lockstep as his experience accumulates. This makes him ever more proficient at discrimination, judgment, and evaluation – at separating the wheat from the chaff... This means that he becomes a forever-polished reflection of the Logos as he develops” (p. 267). Contributor thought makes choices and is at the heart of technical thought. Abstract technical thought is based upon precise definitions, and one of the characteristics of developing abstract technical thought is refining these definitions, a process known philosophically as explication. Related to this, the Greek word for wisdom actually means clarity. And mental symmetry suggests that the Logos of incarnation is related to abstract technical thought. Thus, Peterson’s description is technically correct, which is precisely the problem, because it conveys the feeling that male technical thought is the only valid form of thought.
Peterson does add personal emotions. “Walking the proper path is both the best possible strategy of defense, keeping the terrors of life and the negative emotion associated with catastrophe most effectively at bay, but also the golden road itself, leading to the eternal land of milk and honey” (p. 267). Thus, Peterson goes beyond economics. The typical economics textbook begins by stating that value is a subjective emotion and then proceeds for the rest of the textbook to pretend that value is a number. That type of economic thinking leads straight to the whore of Babylon because the true value of personal desire and character is being replaced by the peripheral value of monetary wealth. Peterson recognizes that we as humans are playing a spiritual game of cosmic economics with the real poverty of personal catastrophe on the one hand and the real wealth of an ‘eternal land of milk and honey’ on the other. This is a huge step up, but male technical thought is still choosing to follow this higher path as a lonely hero.
Peterson interprets interaction with God as economic deals. “Why is the relationship with the source of Being itself conceptualized as contractual? The answer is found in the nature of work itself... Work is therefore a bargain with the future – a promissory note offered by God” (p.268). Concrete technical thought thinks in terms of cause-and-effect making it possible to conclude: If I perform this Server action then I will reach that Mercy goal. Making a contract with God extends the Server path to include a detour through abstract technical thought: If my Server sequence includes using abstract technical thought guided by Teacher understanding, then I will reach a much, much better Mercy goal. This describes the modern path of research and development, because companies will perform the detour of doing abstract research in order to be able to develop superior products. This is a far more honest and realistic view of covenant than the typical Christian interpretation of ‘God has chosen me and will take me to heaven. God has rejected you and will send you to hell.’
It is possible to deal with God in a contractual manner. But I have also learned over the years that one achieves even better results by becoming emotionally driven by a TMN of understanding of ‘how things work’. Instead of making a deal with God, one says, ‘You know my needs and desires. I will follow you in righteousness because following you gives me joy in Teacher thought and because my Teacher understanding of your character gives me Platonic forms to reach for in Mercy thought that are more perfect and more lovely than anything that I could come up with on my own.’ Related to this, the Greek word for prayer means an ‘exchange of wishes’. When personal MMNs come into contact with one another, then the result is usually domination and submission, with one MMN imposing its structure upon the other. A TMN of God can coexist with MMNs of personal identity because Teacher thought deals with general laws and universal principles while personal identity in Mercy thought involves specific experiences. This means that it is possible to simultaneously follow general principles of character that please God in Teacher thought while also pursuing specific goals in Mercy thought that make me happy. However, this symbiotic relationship, this prayerful exchange of wishes, is only possible to the extent that Perceiver truth is used to build a concept of God upon universal principles of how things work and Perceiver truth is also used to determine honestly what really brings me long-term happiness. Thus, brutal Perceiver honesty is required, as Peterson declares. But the ultimate goal of this honesty is not to remain at the level of contract, but rather to become a true friend of God who is capable of exchanging wishes with God. Such a relationship includes contract but goes beyond it.
Similarly, Peterson points out that female thought needs male thought. Women “are attracted, first and foremost, by competence and confidence. Competence is best marked by... the intelligence that is generative and sacrificial... [and] the willingness to abide by contractual obligation or covenant” (p. 271). Stated cognitively, competence means the ability to use male technical thought to follow some path or plan in a truthful manner. Going further, “Confidence, for its part, appears primarily marked by the trait markers most tightly associated with masculinity... low neuroticism... [and] the ability to disagree with social convention and to stand one’s own ground” (p. 271). Stated cognitively, confidence means the ability to use male technical thought to follow a plan without succumbing to emotional pressure or being deflected by emotional pressure. This is an accurate description, but what does mature female thought contribute to this relationship?
Immature Female Thought
Peterson describes the fundamental contradiction of immature female thought, which demands “two simultaneously impossible outcomes: full sexual ‘freedom’ and complete predictability and security in the course of short-term sexual endeavors. These are impossible goals to jointly fulfill, because women who make themselves easily available for short-term sexual access will inevitably fall prey to the worst sort of men” (p. 273). A similar kind of simultaneous outcome was discussed when looking at prayer. God in Teacher thought provides ‘predictability and security’ through universal principles and laws. But humans in Mercy thought also have substantial freedom to choose specific Mercy goals within this framework of universal Teacher understanding. The woman who truly grasps this at the emotional level of mental networks becomes internally beautiful, and these internal mental networks of spontaneous internal beauty provide an emotional framework upon which to hang the physical desires of sexual attraction. Instead of bringing love down to the level of an exchange of bodily fluids, this brings physical sex up to the level of loving God and others in a meaningful manner.
Peterson, in contrast, drags in the theory of evolution which pulls everything down to the level of physical survival. “Sex itself literally evolved to protect life against parasites... To repeat, therefore: parasitism is such a severe problem that sex itself involved in no small part to solve it – and sexual exploitation of women on the part of psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic men is the human equivalent of parasitism” (p. 274). What is the point of talking about reaching upward for the highest goal when this is followed by using the theory of evolution to stoop down to the lowest level? Sex is far far more than just being protected against parasites. Instead, it is a physical picture of the most intimate exchange of wishes. Going further, where does Peterson’s analogical reasoning lead? To the psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic man. Peterson’s words are accurate, but they are also eating deeply from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
And Peterson belittles the male attraction to female beauty as pure fantasy. “The widespread acceptance of sexual licentiousness in our culture – more accurately, its avid promotion, often commercial – has turned young men into online sex addicts, pathetically mating with Tinkerbell, the porn fairy, often unable to perform with real men” (p. 277). This is an accurate statement, because men are focusing upon physical beauty, leading to the Platonic form of ‘Tinkerbell, the porn fairy’. However, what is worse, using the Internet to fixate upon the Platonic form of physical beauty or using the theory of evolution to focus upon physical parasites and ‘psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic men’? The young male in his parent’s basement may be fixating upon the ‘Tinkerbell’ of ideal physical beauty, but at least he is fixating upon a Platonic form, rather than bringing sex down to the level of parasites and psychopaths. He is attempting, in his pathetic way, to reach for something higher.
More generally, I suggest that the solution is to swallow up the Platonic form of physical beauty with a far deeper and more profound Platonic form of the internal and eternal beauty of character. When I see a pretty girl, I ache inside, because her beauty is a picture of my internal image of living in the beauty of mental, spiritual, and societal wholeness. I then turn away, because I know with almost total certainty that the person who lives within that beautiful female body probably has no concept of wholeness of being, is not interested in learning anything about wholeness of being, and is probably being mentally driven by some infantile Teacher overgeneralization of universal tolerance.
Peterson suggests that the alternative is “to adopt, promote and celebrate the long-term monogamous mating ‘strategies’ that are in the true best interest of children, women, men, and the social order like; to oppose the celebration and the spread of the ethos of the hedonists, especially of the sexual variety” (p. 276). This is accurate advice because the Teacher order of internal beauty is built upon Perceiver facts that do not change over time. Short-term sexual hedonism merely fills the mind with incompatible, fragmented MMNs of sexual experience that make it emotionally impossible to become internally ruled by an integrated Teacher understanding. Instead of internal beauty, there is only emotional baggage to trip over.
Peterson says this to some extent. “If sex is devoted to God, then all shame and fear thereof vanishes, and the spirit of true play can emerge with full and enthusiastic enjoyment. This... is also the pathway that best unites the demands of individual desire with the wants and needs that characterize not only individual life in its totality but also the balance between those who live now and those who are yet to come in the future” (p. 278). Notice the exchange of wishes between ‘the demands of individual desire’ in Mercy thought and ‘life in its totality’ in Teacher thought. Notice also the joyful mental networks of ‘the spirit of true play’.
The problem is that Peterson cannot decide whether he wants to lift up sex and regard it as ‘devoted to God’ or drag down sex by regarding it as ‘literally evolved to protect life against parasites’. Peterson states the logical conclusion. “Why would anyone with any sense not want their sexual relationship consecrated? Why would you not most devoutly desire to elevate the act of physical intimacy with a loving, willing, and playful partner to the highest of all possible standards?” (p. 277). Amen! Preach it brother! But one cannot simultaneously follow this advice and state categorically that ‘parasitism is such a severe problem that sex itself involved in no small part to solve it’. Make up your mind Peterson! Are you really going to build your mind around a concept of God in Teacher thought or only go part of the way? As suggested earlier, I suggest that the underlying problem is that Peterson is explicitly extending technical thought to include the subjective and the universal while still implicitly assuming that technical thought is the only valid form of thought. At least Peterson is wrestling with his concept of God, which is far more than the average person is doing. And I know from personal experience that rethinking a concept of God takes decades of honest soul-searching.
Sanctification was discussed earlier. Peterson describes what it means to shift from being guided by fragmented and childish MMNs to being guided by the TMN of an integrated understanding. “That utter prostration in the face of what is eternally right means comprehensive voluntary subordination of what is narrowly self-serving and instrumental – impulsive, hedonistic, and deceptive – to what is properly highest; to what unifies, gives direction, quells anxiety, and provides the eternal wellspring of hope. This change is so complete that it requires signification with a new name” (p. 281). ‘What is eternally right’ refers to universal connections in Perceiver thought that are independent of time and space. ‘Narrow self-serving’ describes specific MMNs of personal identity. Impulsive means that they are triggered by the environment, hedonistic means that they are based upon physical experiences of pleasure, and deceptive means that these Mercy emotions overwhelm Perceiver thought. Going the other way, a Teacher theory unifies, Teacher feelings of understanding quell anxiety, the resulting Platonic forms in Mercy thought give direction, and these internally generated TMNs of understanding and MMNs of Platonic forms provide a lasting, stable source of excitement for Exhorter thought. Teacher thought looks at the lasting order and structure of personal identity and gives it a name.
Peterson points out that “Abram’s original name means high father; his new and transformed identity, father of a multitude” (p. 281). Cognitively speaking, a high father has emotional status in Mercy thought while a father of a multitude is an example of Teacher order-within-complexity.
This is followed by the covenant of circumcision. Peterson interprets this generically as vulnerability. “The designated and apparently requisite operation takes place on the most vulnerable part of the body – leaving it, if anything, even more vulnerable” (p. 282). However, I suggest that it is possible to say something more meaningful. Male technical thought formulates plans and pursues goals. Female thought takes these fragments of male thought and turns them into the mental networks of life. Circumcision adds sensitivity to the process of moving from male to female thought. Male technical thought normally does not care where its plans lead. Stated crudely, immature male thought just wants to have sex and does not care if this traumatizes the woman or gets her pregnant. Abraham’s new name means that he is now functioning under the emotional umbrella of Teacher understanding. Teacher thought wants order and feels bad when there is an exception to the rule. This emotionally drives male technical thought to give ordered content to female thought, content that builds up and does not destroy, content that is integrated rather than fragmented, content that adds to the beauty of mature female thought.
Peterson says something similar, but describes it at a social level rather than a personal level. “The extension of this requirement to everyone who is kin, or partnered or subordinate to the true devotees of God, indicates the hierarchical organization of the entire social structure under a single, monotheistic animating spirit” (p. 283). A hierarchical organization describes Teacher order-within-complexity while an animating spirit suggests that this is functioning emotionally as a mental network.
Peterson adds, “Sarai (my princess) gains a new identity, as well, becoming Sarah – princess, as such. Her progeny are also promised to be numerous beyond count.... marked by God’s promise to bless her, despite her advanced years, with a son... she is now therefore mother, as such, just as Abraham is now father in the same manner” (p. 282). Peterson’s interpretation is consistent with his feminine ideal of mother-and-child. But the word ‘mother’ is not explicitly stated in Genesis 17:16. Instead, the Hebrew says that ‘to nations: kings, peoples, from her shall come’ without mentioning the word mother. Similarly, the name Sarah comes from a root that means ‘to rule or to have dominion’. What is being described here is not motherhood in Mercy thought but rather generality and beauty in Teacher thought. ‘My princess’ indicates that this Teacher elegance and beauty is regarded as a personal possession of Abram in Mercy thought, implying that female mental networks are subservient to male technical thought. ‘Princess’ (this is the feminine form of the normal Hebrew word for prince or commander) suggests that Sarah now has a Teacher elegance and beauty that stands on its own and is independent of Abraham. This is the cognitive result of submitting male technical thought to a universal Teacher understanding that is independent of personal identity and rules over personal identity.
The Visitors and Sodom and Gomorrah
Peterson skips ahead in his book to the story of Jacob and Esau before returning to the stories of the three visitors to Abraham in Genesis 18 and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. The visitors and Sodom and Gomorrah will be discussed first to preserve the biblical sequence.
Peterson interprets the visit generically. “Each encountered person is made in the image of God and is therefore a lurking angel – an avatar of the transcendent animating unity. This makes each meeting even between strangers an opportunity and a call; an opportunity for whatever might result from reciprocal exchange” (p. 294). This is a valid principle and much of my research, including this essay, has been guided by someone handing me a book and telling me to read it. However, this visit comes directly after Abraham and Sarah acquired new names as a result of submitting to the guidance of Teacher understanding.
The visit is followed by Abraham bargaining with God over the destruction of Sodom, asking God not to judge Sodom if it still contains some righteous people. Peterson concludes, “If a community steps off the path, journeying toward a totalitarian madness, a collective impulsive hedonism... It might still be salvageable if the moral catastrophe has not engulfed everyone who could yet think and speak” (p. 296). This is true but I think that there is more to the story. First, Abraham acquires the ability to reason with God after he and his wife personally submit to the lordship of Teacher thought. Second, Abraham’s arguments use the language of Teacher thought. Abraham points out that there might be righteous people in Sodom. Righteousness means behaving in a manner that reflects a Teacher understanding of God. Similarly, Abraham asks God to refrain from destroying the order-within-complexity of the city of Sodom. Third, God decides to judge Sodom after Abraham and Sarah reach the level of being guided righteously by Teacher thought. Thus, God is postponing judgment until an alternative exists. Finally, Abraham is an outsider to Sodom. Similarly, when corruption is too extensive, then it is no longer possible to fix the system as an insider. Instead, a new system needs to be imposed from the outside.
The angelic visitors then visit Lot in the city of Sodom. Peterson summarizes, “The sodomites ‘welcome’ their guest in the worst possible way, violating their integrity... Lot then does something that runs absolutely contrary to the mores of the modern world... Abraham’s nephew offers his two virginal daughters to the mob, insisting that his duty to hospitality means that he must above all protect his guests. This does nothing, however, but further tempt and enrage the mob” (p. 297). Before looking at this story, it should be pointed out that Abraham recognized that the visitors were not just normal humans. Similarly, if the inhabitants of Sodom also recognized that the visitors were not just normal humans, then this provides a partial explanation for both their extreme behavior and the extreme response of Lot.
This bizarre story makes cognitive sense if one thinks in terms of male technical thought, and it can be illustrated by the Scientific Revolution. What happened when European society discovered that the natural world was ruled by the Teacher order of natural law? This was followed by the intense male technical thought to male technical thought interaction of the Enlightenment. Wikipedia summarizes, “The Age of Enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that occurred in Europe in the 17th and the 18th centuries... Some date the beginning of the Enlightenment to the publication of René Descartes... with his method of systematically disbelieving everything unless there was a well-founded reason for accepting it... others cite the publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica as the culmination of the Scientific Revolution in the beginning of the Enlightenment.” Systematic disbelieving everything that lacks a well-founded reason describes the approach of technical thought. Similarly, Newton’s mathematical analysis of physical movement indicates the supremacy of male technical thought. Wikipedia goes on to describe the extensive interaction of male technical thought. “Philosophers and scientists of the period widely circulated their ideas through meetings at scientific academies, Masonic lodges, literary salons, coffeehouses and in printed books, journals, and pamphlets.” Going further, belief in God was replaced by the abstract technical thinking of Deism. Quoting again from Wikipedia, “Deism is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe.” Notice the extensive emphasis upon male technical thought as well as the almost frantic interaction of male technical thought with male technical thought. Symbolically speaking, this resembles the response of the men of Sodom to the angelic visitors.
And instead of using Teacher understanding to transform existing MMNs of power, many monarchs used the Enlightenment to enhance their power and status, leading to an age of Enlightenment absolutism. Wikipedia explains, “The concept originated during the Enlightenment period in the 18th and into the early 19th centuries. An enlightened absolutist is a non-democratic or authoritarian leader who exercises their political power based upon the principles of the Enlightenment.” This usually involved using technical thought to rule an empire more effectively. “Centralized control necessitated centralized systematic information on the nation. A major renovation was the collection, use and interpretation of numerical and statistical data, ranging from trade statistics, harvest reports, death notices to population censuses. Starting in the 1760s, officials in France and Germany began increasingly to rely on quantitative data for systematic planning.” Peterson describes the behavior of the men of Sodom as ‘violently gang-rape’. Similarly, when the Scientific Revolution happened, then the primary historical response to the divine messengers of Teacher order was a ‘gang-rape’ by male technical thought.
And like the men of Sodom who spurned the daughters of Lot, much of the Enlightenment was not interested in actually transforming and improving the mental networks of human existence. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Historians debate the actual implementation of enlightened absolutism. They distinguish between the ‘enlightenment’ of the ruler personally, versus that of his regime. For example, Frederick the Great was tutored in the ideas of the French Enlightenment in his youth, and maintained those ideas in his private life as an adult, but in many ways was unable or unwilling to effect enlightened reforms in practice. Other rulers such as the Marquis of Pombal, prime minister of Portugal, used the ideas and practices of the Enlightenment not only to achieve reforms but also to enhance autocracy, crush opposition, suppress criticism, advance colonial economic exploitation, and consolidate personal control and profit.”
Peterson concludes that “It is forever the case that those called to account in the midst of their iniquity will turn their full fury on the messenger, rather than attending to their own willful blindness... It is also the case that such fury is likely to be amplified if it is someone foreign who presumes to point out sin” (p. 298). These are accurate statements, because a mindset that bases Perceiver truth in the Mercy status of some individual will naturally think that unpleasant truth can be suppressed by silencing the source of this truth. And truth that is spoken by those who come from MMNs of different cultures will naturally be regarded with suspicion. However, the biblical story of Sodom is describing something quite different which is the instinctive response of male technical thought to the appearance of rational Teacher understanding.
The men of Sodom are struck with blindness by the angelic messengers. Peterson concludes, “Those who have rejected the true and humility-predicated asking, seeking, and knocking, and are blinded instead by narrow lust and rage, will find themselves unable even to find the way forward to fulfill their own self-defeating desires” (p. 302). Stated cognitively, using rational Teacher understanding to enhance existing MMNs of status and power will warp the ability to use rational Teacher thought because Mercy emotion will become confused with Teacher emotion; Mercy status will be interpreted as Teacher generality; the ability to make a universal statement as an absolute monarch will be confused with discovering a universal principle as a scientist. Historically speaking, the blindness of absolute monarchy eventually led to the French Revolution, which ended up overturning the traditional order of all of continental Europe.
Peterson comments about Lot’s wife looking back when they flee from Sodom. “When a tyrannical state collapses, a false nostalgia for the hypothetical certainties of the former totalitarian condition will invariably arise” (p. 303). Looking at this cognitively, the emotion generated by a mental network is different than the emotional labels of the memories within a mental network. Specific memories have emotional labels of pain and pleasure. A mental network generates an emotion based upon consistence. A tyranny is mentally supported by potent mental networks of power imposed upon the minds of the people by their leaders. When the regime falls, then the specific Mercy experiences will be more pleasurable but they will also feel strange because they are different than the mental networks that used to guide society. The outside observer who lacks these mental networks will find this nostalgia for the past bizarre. Notice that it is Lot’s wife who looks back, indicating that this is an emotional reaction prompted by the mental networks of female thought.
Such thinking also violates the principles of moral cause-and-effect that drive intelligent technical thought. “The moral of the story? Do not look back at what you have left behind once you have learned to look forward in a better direction. Do not return to a road you have once trod when you have learned that it leads in a downward direction. Do not long for what you now recognize as evil. Or pay the price” (p. 305). This is wise advice. When female thought longs for the MMNs of a previous sick society, then male technical thought needs to insist that laws of moral cause-and-effect still apply.
In Genesis 20, Abraham lives for a time in Gerar, calls Sarah his sister, and Abimelech, the local king, tries to take Sarah as his wife before being warned by God in a dream. This is a repeat of the story of Genesis 12, except in Genesis 20 the king pleads ignorance to the voice of God and is told that Abraham is a prophet, whereas in chapter 12 Abram went to Egypt because of famine and the Egyptians received no message from God.
Abimelech means ‘father is king’. On the one hand, Abraham is a prophet who gets understanding directly from a concept of God in Teacher thought. On the other hand, Abimelech gets his information indirectly from the previous source of male technical thought. Saying this another way, Abraham is an intellectual ‘giant’, while Abimelech is ‘standing on the shoulder of giants’. Those who originally developed some paradigm are capable of interacting intimately with this paradigm of female thought. But as Thomas Kuhn points out, the average scientist uses technical thought to do technical puzzle solving within some paradigm and is no better than the amateur when it comes to evaluating paradigms. The temptation for Abraham is to get dragged away from his status as the founder of some paradigm to the more objective mindset of solving technical puzzles within some academic system.
Peterson interprets this by saying that “Transgression against the proper rules of physical intimacy, even when accidental or done in ignorance, are capable of destabilizing and destroying everything... [These] according to the biblical tradition, are rules against fornication, adultery, prostitution, incest, bestiality, and intra-sexual congress” (p. 307). Notice in passing that Peterson uses the euphemism intra-sexual congress as opposed to the politically condemned term homosexuality. Mental symmetry suggests that these prohibitions come from the deep cognitive parallel between the structure of the mind and the relation between the sexes. Reaching mental wholeness means developing male technical thought, developing female mental networks, and then using normal thought to ‘marry’ these two within the mind. The end result is an integrated soul in which all seven cognitive modules function together in harmony. Sex is a physical experience with exceptionally strong emotions that will lead to the formation of potent MMNs. Monogamous sex between man and woman forms MMNs of sexual experience that are consistent with mental wholeness. In contrast, the sexual relations that are prohibited will form MMNs of sexual experience that are inconsistent with mental wholeness. Sexual deviance is especially significant because humans spend their lives trapped within a physical body that has a specific gender and shape. Thus, if I have sex with both Susie and Sally, then it is impossible to reconcile the resulting MMNs because Susie has a different physical body with a different shape than Sally.
Abraham offering Isaac
Peterson then addresses the story of Abraham being told to offer his son Isaac on an altar to God. He offers the following explanation, “How can a God who purports to stand for what is highest – to be, more accurately, that which is highest – demand such an apparently unholy thing? It is for this reason, and it makes perfect sense, once properly explicated: all things, no matter how valuable, must be offered up to God” (p. 308). Looking at this cognitively, an emotional hierarchy of mental networks is being established. Which mental network will take precedence, the TMN of a concept of God or MMNs that result from following a concept of God? Looking at a personal example, will I continue to develop mental symmetry even if it is not well known or will I focus upon marketing my theory? Marketing the theory places mental networks of personal reward at the top, while continuing to develop the theory places my mental ‘child’ under the TMN of my concept of God. I have concluded that I am ultimately doing my research for God and angels. Similarly, will I write an essay such as this even though logic and experience tell me that Peterson as a famous male Contributor person who was a professor at Canada’s top university will never read this essay? The answer is that I am primarily doing this for God in Teacher thought.
One can tell that what really matters is the emotional priority because God eventually stops Abraham from carrying out the act. This also relates to the concept of being tested by God. Standard Christian theology asserts that God already knew what Abraham would do because ‘God is sovereign and God knows everything’. That doctrine makes a mockery of human moral choice. Quantum mechanics has revealed that the laws of physics can be stated with mathematical certainty while what happens to individual atoms and molecules is a matter of probability and cannot be determined with any certainty. Assuming that God deals with people similarly to the way that he deals with the physical world, because God has a knowable, universal character, God can remain totally sovereign at the abstract level of general theories while giving humans significant freedom at the personal level of Mercy experiences. This implies that when God is testing someone, this is not a charade but an actual test. God is seeing which of a competing set of mental networks a human will choose when in an emotional crisis. The set of mental networks that is chosen will then become the dominant mental networks that drive the mind, especially if the choice involves core mental networks, such as Abraham’s child of promise.
Offering one’s son as a sacrifice is barbaric, but it would have sounded reasonable to Abraham because this type of thing was common practice in the city of Ur in which Abraham was raised. Several royal tombs of Ur have been unearthed and these tombs contain the bodies of numerous servants who were slain during the funeral ceremony. Thus, when God told Abraham to offer his son, he was triggering potent cultural MMNs that existed within the mind of Abraham.
Peterson states that what really matters is emotional priority. “This pragmatic assertion can be regarded as a simple matter of priority: what is first must come first, no matter what and no matter who” (p. 311). Peterson applies this principle to a mother being willing to let go of her child, and I think that this is a valid and significant application. “The best way to truly obtain and to keep the beloved child, long promised by God, is to offer him or her up to the spirit that calls to the adventure of life; that is eternal counsel to the wise, that is the Logos that eternally broods over the potential that is endlessly deep” (p. 310).
More generally, Peterson suggests that “the eventual reward is directly proportional to the sacrifice” (p. 310). This is true but the converse is not necessarily true. Making a big sacrifice does not guarantee receiving a big reward. Stated cognitively, a sacrifice changes mental ownership, because a mental network will take ownership of any behavior that it motivates. Peterson mentions this principle. “The spirit we most truly call upon is inevitably the spirit that emerges to guide us. This is true technically as well as metaphysically” (p. 369). Going further, mental symmetry also hypothesizes that there is an actual spiritual realm populated by actual spiritual beings who interact with humans by inhabiting and empowering mental networks. This spiritual empowerment is described negatively in the Bible as being possessed by an evil spirit and positively as being filled with the Holy Spirit.
A reward results when mental ownership is transferred from a less adequate mental network to a more adequate mental network, which means that ‘the eventual reward is directly proportional to the sacrifice’. Abraham actually made two sacrifices. The first sacrifice placed the TMN of his concept of God above the MMN of love for his son. The second sacrifice happened when he was in the process of killing his son and God told him to stop. In this case he was placing the TMN of his concept of God above the MMNs of religious ritual that he had acquired growing up in the murderous city of Ur.
Peterson says that “It is the garnering of this abstract, transcendent, or ‘heavenly’, form of treasure that is of course the aim of the great prophets – and all those who live by the highest standards – and the truly imperishable and incorruptible gold” (p. 312). Stated cognitively, the most valuable treasure is to have a mind that is emotionally driven by a TMN of understanding universal principles of how things work, because one will then become emotionally driven to behave in a manner that is compatible with how the mind and the world function. Gathering such understanding by distilling universal principles from timeless myths is valuable; predicting these universal principles from a cognitive meta-theory is even more valuable.
Esau and Jacob
We will now skip back a few pages to look at Peterson’s analysis of Esau and Jacob. Peterson interprets this relationship primarily in terms of the deception of Jacob. Looking at one episode, “Esau is ravenous and requests something to eat. Jacob provides food, but at great cost: he convinces his elder brother to give up his rights as firstborn... The elder brother, however, cannot be given all the blame: this offer to ‘trade’ is a very conniving act on the part of Jacob” (p. 285). We just saw that both Abraham and Sarah acquired new names as a result of submitting to Teacher thought. The emotional pleasure of Teacher thought is implied by the name Isaac given to their son, which means ‘he shall laugh’.
Mental symmetry suggests that Esau and Jacob represent two ways of approaching Teacher understanding. Jacob is born holding on to the heel of Esau, and the name Jacob means ‘heel or supplanter’. Esau focuses upon the food of Teacher understanding, which describes pure research. Jacob describes the applied research that comes later, which focuses upon the birthright of having the double blessing of both theory and application, which wrestles with the ‘angel’ of abstract messages for a concrete blessing, and which ultimately supplants pure research by replacing it with research and development.
This interplay of Teacher theory and Mercy application can be seen in the vision of Jacob’s Ladder, which is described in the next chapter of Genesis. Peterson quotes the biblical passage. “And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it” (p. 286). This ladder is set up on the earth of human existence and reaches the heaven of Teacher understanding. In other words, Jacob’s Ladder succeeds in doing what the Tower of Babel attempted to accomplish. The Tower of Babel was a physical structure while Jacob’s Ladder is an imaginary structure that Jacob dreams. This suggests that bridging heaven and earth has to be done internally using technical thought rather than externally through organizational or societal structure. Going further, the Tower of Babel was constructed by humans while the angels of God are on Jacob’s Ladder. Angel means messenger and ‘of God’ means that these messages are expressions of an integrated Teacher understanding. Thus, one must use the messages of abstract technical thought to internally bridge the heaven of Teacher theory with the earth of Mercy application. Finally, notice that the angels are both ascending and descending, indicating a continual interplay between theory and application. These various attributes are expressed in modern research and development, a form of applied research that has largely supplanted the theoretical research of Esau.
Peterson gives a more limited interpretation. “Jacob dreams of the upward spiraling aim that connects earth with the divine... The idea of expanding opportunity and sacrificial progression is thereby revealed to him in the form of his heavenly vision, which presents an archetypal image of the succession of upward choice. Instead of living a life of deceit and treachery, conniving with his mother, he could aim up, striving toward the good that at its pinnacle is identical with God” (p. 287). Peterson’s interpretation has no angels, it is striving upward toward God, there is no downward movement from the angels of God, and mother is conniving with her son. This corresponds with what Peterson is doing in his book, which is striving upward from myth and narrative at great personal cost to construct a more adequate concept of God. What Peterson is doing is good, but Jacob’s Ladder represents something that goes further.
Peterson then discusses Jacob working seven years to get Rachel as his bride, finding that he has married Rachel’s older sister Leah, and then working another seven years to get the hand of Rachel. Peterson interprets this as karma. “Jacob might not be regarded by a perspicacious reader as deserving of any real sympathy. What befalls Laban’s nephew seems more in the vein of poetic justice, or karma” (p. 289). However, it is also possible to interpret this in terms of the first-born. As Peterson mentions, the first-born in Jewish culture received a double inheritance. This is appropriate because the firstborn plays a dual role of being a child and helping to raise the younger children. In addition, the firstborn goes through childhood when the parents are inexperienced and probably not that wealthy. Jacob thinks that he will only work seven years to achieve his goal but ends up working twice that, implying that if he wants the blessings of the first-born then he also has to perform the double duty of the first-born. Rachel means ‘ewe or female sheep’ while Leah means ‘weary or tired’. After his first seven years, Jacob thinks that he has married his ‘little lamb’ but he ends up with weariness and tiredness and has to work another seven years to achieve his goal. The cognitive principle is that research and development has to satisfy the dual goals of being theoretically possible in Teacher thought as well as constructable and useful in Mercy thought. The inventor often thinks that his struggle is finished once he has come up with a prototype. But turning a prototype into a mass-produced item is also a major struggle.
Peterson next mentions Jacob going to meet Esau, sending gifts of possessions on ahead to appease Esau, wrestling with a ‘man’, receiving a dislocated hip from the ‘man’ when it becomes apparent that Jacob is not giving up, and then finally being given the name of Israel as a blessing.
Peterson interprets this as wrestling with God, which is related to the title of this book, and the name Israel means ‘God contends or he struggles with God’. “Who are the truly chosen people, according to this account? All those who wrestle with God honestly and forthright and prevail. Jacob sustained some genuine damage in the contest, as we are all likely to do when the most difficult decisions of our life present themselves, but he comes out of the battle firm in his conviction to do right. He fords the river, faces his estranged brother, atones for his past, and makes productive and united peace” (p. 292). This interpretation is consistent with Peterson’s idea of ascending Jacob’s Ladder in order to follow a higher path.
But a deeper meaning becomes apparent when one compares theoretical and applied research, and this deeper meaning also applies to what Peterson is doing in writing his book. Teacher emotion comes from order-within-complexity. Theoretical research appears to have generality because it uses general words to examine general topics. But applied research actually leads to greater order-within-complexity because the order of general scientific laws is expressing itself through the complexity of many technological gadgets. Looking at a personal example, mental symmetry began as a verbal theory of cognition, based in abstract manipulation of the diagram of mental symmetry. But applying mental symmetry led to emergence of seven cognitive modules functioning and interacting within my mind. That leads to the question: Which is the most general representation of mental symmetry? Is it the verbal theory of mental symmetry, or is it the cognitive modules within my mind that embody this theory? The verbal theory is more abstract but the cognitive interaction contains more order-within-complexity. Thus, these two will struggle for generality. When this struggle continues, then verbal theory will weaken application, because application will lose the strength to function independently of Teacher understanding. But applied theory will also acquire the name of ‘wrestling with God’.
As the name Israel suggests, this wrestling involves one’s concept of God. For instance, which is the real God? Is it the verbal and theoretical God of the Bible and theology, or is it the concept of God that emerges from the cognitive principles of the theory of mental symmetry? I have had to wrestle extensively with this question. Similarly, is it theologically valid for Peterson as a secular researcher of personality to write a book on the Bible? This is not a matter of religious belief versus secular skepticism. Mental symmetry respects the words of the Bible and the doctrines of theology. Similarly, Peterson is treating the Bible as a legitimate source of deep cognitive principles. This wrestling leads to two conclusions. On the one hand, cognitive theories and narrative analysis need to respect the biblical text. If one does not understand what the Bible is saying, then one must assume that the problem lies with inadequate understanding and not with the biblical text. This will naturally happen when one continues to analyze the biblical text and finds that it is unusually accurate. This is my attitude, and I notice a similar respect for the biblical text with Peterson. This does not mean placing blind faith in the Bible. One is using extensive critical thinking. But when push comes to shove, then one loses the strength to disregard the biblical text, because wrestling with these words has led too often to the conclusion that the Bible is a special book. On the other hand, one also acquires a personal name in Teacher thought of being able to interpret the Bible—being able to wrestle with God.
Jacob sends ahead gifts of wealth in a piecemeal fashion to give to Esau. Similarly, technology emerges gradually as expressions of the Teacher order of science. It is the accumulation of a succession of technology—or other form of application—that results in the struggle involving one’s concept of God. For instance, it took many years of interacting with my cognitive modules as independent entities guided by the theory of mental symmetry before I faced this question of which expression of mental symmetry was more general. Similarly, I studied cognitive mechanisms for many years before realizing that mental symmetry provided an alternative to biblical systematic theology. Likewise, Peterson has done decades of cognitive research before daring to write his book on wrestling with God.
Moses I, The Burning Bush
Peterson connects Mount Sinai, where Moses probably saw the burning bush, with Jacob’s Ladder. “This Horeb is also Mount Sinai, which is the eternal place of Jacob’s Ladder, the place where heaven reaches down and earth extends upward to meet it” (p. 322). Physically speaking, these are two different locations. Genesis 28:19 says that Jacob had his dream of the ladder at Bethel while Mount Sinai is either in the Sinai desert or the Arabian desert. Peterson explains that “The connection between Jacob’s Ladder and Mount Sinai was made explicit in certain medieval midrashim in two ways: first, conceptually, as the ladder is in fact the structure that connects the spiritual world, or heaven, to the material world, or earth... second, from the perspective of neurology, as the number of the letters of the word ladder are equivalent to those of Sinai and were therefore deemed equivalent in meaning” (p. 323).
I am very suspicious of medieval Jewish midrashim because this was when Jewish mysticism and Kabbalah were developed. I have written an essay on kabbalah and its ‘tree of life’. In brief, the tree of life attempts to build a system of psychology upon the fundamental premise that God in Teacher thought is incomprehensible to humanity. Using Teacher overgeneralization to come up with a concept of an incomprehensible, transcendent God is the essence of the temptation of Eve by the serpent in the garden. Consistent with this, Peterson suggests that the fundamental weakness of Eve is the tendency to overgeneralize the efficacy of feminine care. Going further, my hypothesis is that it was God’s original plan for the Jews and Greeks to discover science in Alexandria before the time of Christ, but this failed to happen largely because Jewish thinking headed in the direction of mysticism and nationalism. That hypothesis is explored extensively elsewhere. As for numerology, there may be something there, but focusing upon biblical numbers rather than personal character is a clear case of substituting male technical thought for female mental networks and this inappropriate focus upon numbers seems to lead inevitably to rabbit trails and dead ends.
The cognitive reason for distinguishing Mount Sinai from Jacob’s Ladder is that the former describes something physical that happens to a group of people while the latter (ladder?) describes what happens internally to an individual. The previous chapters have focused upon the personal journeys of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Esau. The story of Moses has a personal element but it is primarily the story of a group of people. Saying this as clearly as possible, it is common in current academic circles to talk about the embodied mind—which equates the mind with the social environment. But these are not the same. The mind is different than the social environment. It is true that the mind acquires its initial content from the physical body and its initial mental networks from the environment, but most social interaction is happening within people’s minds as mental networks get triggered and interact. One can tell that this is the case because an outsider who lacks these mental networks will respond to the same social environment in a totally different manner. Stated more personally, I have followed a path of mental transformation for decades in which I have being a social outsider. My mind functions totally differently than those who have matured and developed within a social system. Thus, I know from deep personal experience that Mount Sinai is vastly different than Jacob’s Ladder.
Peterson interprets the burning bush. “A burning bush is therefore an amalgam of three things: being, particularly the being that is living; the becoming associated with transformation; and the phenomena which can be ignored only a great peril and with great effort” (p. 325). This sounds good, but it does not correspond to the biblical description—which Peterson also quotes. ‘Being’ makes sense, because the voice of God speaks from the bush. Thus, it makes sense to connect the burning bush with the mental networks of life. But what attracts the attention of Moses is the fact that the bush is not being transformed from bush into ash. Quoting from Exodus 3:2, “The bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not being consumed”. As for ignoring the bush at great peril, Moses is initially attracted by curiosity. “I must turn aside and see this marvelous sight” (v. 3). It is when Moses turns his attention to the bush that God speaks and Moses gets scared. “When the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him” (v. 4). “Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God” (v. 6).
Peterson’s interpretation describes what it feels like to encounter a threatening MMN. A mental network is alive, and personal MMNs are vulnerable to being consumed by more powerful MMNs. Responding adequately to threatening MMNs usually requires transforming existing MMNs. The biblical narrative, in contrast, describes what it feels like to encounter a new TMN. The primary characteristic of a general theory is that it provides a stable and unchanging interpretation of the changing experiences of life. But an unchanging theory can continue to grow as more complexity is added to the existing order. For instance, I have continued to use the same diagram of mental symmetry for about 40 years, but the theory of mental symmetry has developed and matured massively during this time. Going further, a general theory will initially attract Teacher emotions of curiosity, but if one turns aside and spends time working with a theory, then it will turn into a TMN and one will start to hear the voice of God speaking from this TMN. This is when a theory becomes threatening and frightening. For instance, the standard response that I have received over the decades to mental symmetry is initial enthusiasm and curiosity followed by a slamming of the door as the theory threatens to turn into a TMN that becomes alive and starts to generate moral pressure.
Peterson describe something similar happening to the scientific researcher. “Such an individual frequently finds himself irresistibly fascinated by some domain of inquiry... The pursuit begins, inquiry by inquiry, conversation by conversation, book by book. That interest typically converges on a single point, a specialization, as the now entranced investigator begins legitimately training in the scientific enterprise. The doctoral degree signifying expertise in a given field of sufficient quality... is the conventional marker of such study... and the beginning of the narrow but deep pursuit that will characterize the life of the persistent seeker” (p. 325). Stated cognitively, there is the starting point of Teacher thought being attracted by some question or theory. This is followed by working with the Teacher theory, causing the theory to eventually turn into a TMN that emotionally entrances the investigator. This TMN then acts as a paradigm to encourage the development of technical thought through ‘legitimate training’. Getting a PhD ensures that one is capable of using technical thought within some specialization at a sufficient level of rigor. The technical specialist then becomes mentally locked within the ‘narrow but deep pursuit’ of some technical specialization. Notice that the mind is jumping directly from mental networks to technical thought without pausing to use the analogies of normal thought.
I have a Master’s degree in engineering but not a PhD. One of the reasons that I have not got a PhD is because the process of getting a PhD is specifically designed to create a mind that regards technical thought as the only valid form of thought. In contrast, mental symmetry uses a semi-rigorous form of the analogies of normal thought. This is also the approach being taken by Peterson in this book. Peterson is also analyzing analogies in a semi-rigorous manner.
Peterson claims that using technical thought within some specialization will eventually be broadened by the patterns of normal thought. “Those who attend assiduously to their focal ‘narrow’ concerns will first journey deeper and deeper into the narrowly defined unknown at hand, learning first the details directly relevant to those concerns, but soon after coming to understand the broader web of associations and causal pathways that are inevitably part of the phenomenon in question. Nothing exists in isolation” (p. 327). I wish that this were true, but my extended experience is that most individuals with PhDs are locally rational experts who know their field while tending to be at best semi-ignorant and at worst dismissive fools outside of their area of expertise. Even those such as Dr. Peterson who do gain a more general understanding still tend to be emotionally colored by a deep prejudice against non-technical thought.
Unlike the typical locally rational expert, Peterson understands the nature of a general Teacher theory. “That is precisely what defines depth in the psychological and practical sense: the deeper an idea, the more other ideas depend on it” (p. 329). However, a distinction needs to be made between a feeling of deepness and actual depth. Peterson says that “We therefore all approach sacred territory when we descend deeply (or ascend profoundly) into what calls to us. The sacred is that which moves us when we encounter it: that which produces awe in its apprehension” (p. 329). Looking at this cognitively, Teacher emotion comes from order-within-complexity. Therefore, if I learn many details about some fragment of knowledge, then my specialized learning will feel like deep Teacher understanding because my specialized theory now contains many even more specialized details. But ‘descending deeply’ into some specialization is different than ‘ascending profoundly’ into general understanding. However, because these two feel the same within Teacher thought, there will be a natural tendency to treat my descending deeply as a profound ascending, leading to the error known as Maslow’s hammer: ‘It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail’.
It is possible to ascend from specialization to generality because the mind is fractal and reality also seems to function in a fractal manner. In other words, each cognitive module uses the same kind of processing on many different kinds of information at many different scales, and similar principles pop up in many different disciplines. But no field is exactly like another. Instead, each specialization has its own peculiarities. Therefore, jumping directly from one specialization to generalization will result in twisted conclusions that may be close but inaccurate. In other words, if one only has a hammer, then it is possible to treat many things as if they are nails and have some success. But eventually one has to recognize that not everything is a nail.
Saying this more simply, I may feel that I am ‘approaching sacred territory’ as I descend into the depths of some specialization, but I am actually creating the mental prison of a small concept of God that is giving me the feeling of being within sacred territory. Peterson states that “The willingness to drop all pretensions to knowledge and moral wisdom in pursuit of the truth is the precondition for further enlightenment” (p. 330). This is a deep principle, because discovering universal Perceiver connections means contending with many mental networks of bias and moral prejudice. But this ‘dropping of pretension to knowledge and moral wisdom’ needs to include the pretension that male technical thought is the primary source of knowledge as well as the ‘moral wisdom’ that being a specialist in some field gives me the right to make moral pronouncements outside of this field.
The True Leader
Peterson suggests that “The true leader must ally himself with the leading spirits of the past. He must come to embody – to stand for and speak for – the same principles that guided those who made the world, in the beginning, whether God or man. Otherwise he becomes the idiot puppet of his own desires or weakness, or... the careless whims of the people” (p. 332). Looking at this cognitively, a leader needs internal content that is not emotionally swayed by childish MMNs of ‘desire or weakness’ or subject to social MMNs of ‘the careless whims of the people’. But allying oneself with the leading spirits of the past describes a mindset of absolute truth: When the Mercy sources that are the source of absolute truth lose their emotional status, then the standard, instinctive response is to turn to earlier, more authoritative sources of truth in Mercy thought. For instance, the evangelical Christian who experiences religious doubt may turn to Orthodox Christianity, which claims to be the original and thus authoritative version of Christianity. But the underlying problem of Perceiver thought being mesmerized by Mercy emotion remains unaddressed.
Looking at this more carefully, absolute truth usually takes several generations to form. The truth is initially developed and/or revealed within some climate of Mercy trauma. For instance, imagine living as a Jew in a tribal society and standing before a Mount Sinai covered with thunder and lightning. This truth is then written down and acquires stability over time as these written words are copied and spread. The believer in absolute truth is studying the words of a holy book that was written long ago, a book that is emotionally backed up by the mental networks of centuries of religious culture and fervor. The person who lived ‘in the beginning’ when this book was revealed had no book to study but rather was personally facing the raw experiences being described in the book. This means that attempting to adopt the attitude of the original leaders or creators is not necessarily an optimal strategy. Instead, one needs to use Perceiver thought to look for universal connections that apply to both the past and the present and then use Teacher thought to come up with general principles that summarize these universal connections.
Similarly, Peterson says that “God presents himself, arguably, as the spirit behind both being and becoming; as the spirit of divine creativity itself; as the ultimate ground of reality; as that which is behind mere appearance; is that which is immutable across the flow of time” (p. 334). Being means focusing upon mental networks of existence. Becoming means looking past static facts to processes and sequences. Divine creativity means looking for general laws that lead to Platonic forms of how things could be. Reality means looking for universal principles of how things work as opposed to how people think that things work or say that things work. Beyond mere appearance means going beyond appearance and social interaction to the internal and cognitive principles. Immutable means going beyond existing social mental networks to cross-cultural principles that apply to many societies.
Looking at the bigger picture, Peterson makes profound statements but then continues to retreat back to traditional thinking. This type of inconsistency indicates the lack of an integrated Teacher understanding, because Teacher thought feels bad when there is an exception to the general rule. Peterson recognizes this principle, saying that “The cosmos, likewise, unfolds according to a set of principles that... reflect an Ultimate Principle. The intuition of this idea drives the continual scientific striving for a grand unified theory, free of internal contradictions. Such aim also defines the cultural endeavor” (p. 335). Amen! Preach it! But Peterson is not practicing what he preaches. He says that the cultural endeavor is defined by a striving for a unified theory that is free of internal contradictions. But Peterson’s book contains numerous internal contradictions. This is not Peterson’s fault. He goes far, far beyond the average author. But Peterson is still functioning at the level of ‘striving for a grand unified theory’ while mental symmetry is functioning at the level of being guided by a unified theory. And becoming truly guided by a unified theory requires decades of going through the desert while longing for the metaphorical leeks and garlics of Egypt. Thus, I empathize with Peterson’s quest. But I also know that the monsters of deception and tyranny being unleashed on our world are so powerful that the partial answer of Peterson is not enough. Thus, I am writing this essay not to attack Peterson but rather to help his readers and followers break through to a more complete answer that is capable of tackling the emerging monsters of deception and tyranny. I am writing these words three days before the inauguration of Donald Trump.
Peterson says that “The true leader is also not a revolutionary. He is instead someone who reestablishes the genuine covenant, or contract, that has always guided mankind” (p. 333). This is true in the sense that one must honor one’s father and mother; one must give respect to existing mental networks of society and not simply block them off. But I am not convinced that the same contract ‘has always guided mankind’. A tribal society ruled by MMNs is guided by a different social contract than a modern democracy in which people are mentally ruled by TMNs of universal understanding. And if people in a modern democracy lose the ability to be mentally ruled by rational TMNs, then they will demand to be ruled by a tribal social contract of power and submission. Instead, one needs to distinguish between the various contracts that have historically guided mankind and an eternal contract that satisfies what is truly required by mankind for wholeness and flourishing.
This distinction is implicitly stated by Peterson who adds that the genuine leader “is also the man who leads his people from tyranny and slavery – albeit through the desert – to the promised land. Such tyranny and slavery can and does exist at every level of the psychological and social hierarchy” (p. 333). In other words, one cannot go directly from tyranny to the promised land. Instead, one has to journey through a desert during which all of the myriad MMNs of tyranny and slavery become mentally digested and reformed.
Peterson points out both a negative and a positive aspect of a tyranny. On the negative side, “God warns Moses that the Pharaoh will not easily accede to the demand for freedom. He will instead double down, as is the wont of tyrants” (p. 336). This is because two contradictory methods of determining Perceiver truth are fighting. The method of tyranny is to use Mercy emotions of power and status to overwhelm Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ what is true. This type of mindset thinks in terms of who is right rather than what is right. The method of freedom uses Perceiver thought to come up with universal facts that apply to all personal MMNs. When the Mercy emotions that determine truth become belittled, then the standard response is to restore mental certainty by increasing the Mercy emotions. This happens in a religious revival, which typically stirs up Mercy emotions of religious fervor in order to re-mesmerize Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ absolute truth. The tyrant uses the same approach, responding to demands for independent Perceiver thought by increasing Mercy feelings of power and status.
On the positive side, “When a society becomes tyrannical and turns to evil, it will leave all of its true treasures on the table, available for those who determine no longer to be slaves to take to themselves... when the state has given itself over entirely to the lie, what is left for the faithful is self-evidently all that is true and good” (p. 337). This is a profound principle which I have also observed through several decades of watching Western society embrace various lies. The key is to focus upon domain in Teacher thought rather than personal status and power in Mercy thought. When a tyrannical society abandons what is true and good in some area of its domain, then it is possible to gain and apply rational understanding in this area, as long as one does so quietly, off in a corner. One will have to contend with the feeling of being ignored and belittled by society, but being disregarded by a tyrant as inconsequential is much better than being attacked by a tyrant as a rebel. This approach makes it possible to quietly take ownership of the true treasures that are being left on the table because they are being regarded as worthless by the tyrannical society.
The moral of the story is that the longer one can silently gather true treasure and build Teacher understanding off in a corner the greater will be one’s chance of success when the inevitable confrontation with the tyrant eventually happens. That is because building Teacher order will turn the attention away from Mercy feelings of personal status and power to Teacher feelings of order and understanding. In addition, building understanding upon the facts of reality will demonstrate to the average person the fakeness of their lies.
The Staff of Moses
Peterson then looks at the staff of Moses. God “grants to Moses the ability to perform magic, most notably with the crook, rod, or pointer his servant has heretofore used to guide his flocks. He instructs Moses to cast that trusty walking stick to the ground, where ‘it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it’” (p. 337). A serpent was interpreted earlier as the Teacher overgeneralization of mysticism. The mind that lacks factual knowledge will naturally overgeneralize because of lacking the Perceiver knowledge that is required to act as counterexamples to overgeneralization. For instance, children naturally overgeneralize rules of grammar, saying things like ‘I goed to the store’. Therefore, when Moses speaks to the crowd, then they will tend to view his rod of authority that is based in rational understanding as a serpent of overgeneralization. Peterson says that God ‘grants to Moses the ability to perform magic’. Mental symmetry suggests a more subtle interpretation. God in Teacher thought grants Moses the ability to apply universal laws in new ways which the average uneducated consumer will view as magic and approach with an attitude of overgeneralization. This attitude will especially become apparent when the staff becomes disconnected from Moses and his ability to impose rational thought upon the discussion.
Peterson adds that “He is commanded to seize the serpent not by the head, which is clearly the safe thing to do, but by the tail” (p. 338). Literally speaking, it is safer to grab a serpent by the head. But if one interprets the head as the beginning and the tail as the end, then grabbing a serpent by the head means attempting to control the emotions that generate the feeling of overgeneralization. That is a futile quest because rational thinking is most difficult when strong emotions are present. Grabbing a serpent by the tail means waiting until the initial emotion of excitement has faded and the consequences of moral cause-and-effect are starting to emerge. The audience will be more receptive and the facts will be more apparent.
Peterson suggests that “This staff, or rod, that defines the center is another representation of Jacob’s Ladder or the holy mountain that unites heaven and earth. It is the tree that the ancient shamans climbed in their ritual attempts to obtain the wisdom of the gods” (p. 339). I suggest that Peterson is equating three distinct entities that need to be kept distinct. Notice in passing that I am using a form of technical thinking by attempting to explicate Peterson’s explanation. This is what it means to do analogical thinking in a semi-rigorous manner. One does not simply state that A is B is C. Instead, one compares the details of A with B and C to see if this similarity still holds when looking at the details. Teacher overgeneralization, in contrast, proclaims that A is B is C and when it is challenged, it responds ‘I am the expert’ and/or ‘don’t bother me with details’. As Peterson suggests, interpreting some context in the light of a central staff or rod is a fundamental characteristic of Teacher thought. That is how a Teacher theory functions within the mind. Jacob’s Ladder connects Mercy specific with Teacher generality through a conceptual ladder of increasing theoretical generality. These steps involve various technical specializations and the ladder is ultimately given shape by the Logos of incarnation. A mountain is a pragmatic rational understanding that attempts to go from the empirical data of human experience up to Teacher generality. For instance, Peterson’s book would qualify as a mountain. The ‘tree of the ancient shamans’, in contrast, is a Teacher overgeneralization in which one attempts to jump intuitively from specific to universal through a combination of Mercy identification and Teacher overgeneralization. These three may all involve Teacher thought and Teacher theories, but they are not the same, and it is imperative to be able to distinguish between these different forms of Teacher theory if one wishes to pick up a snake and have it turn back into a rod.
Moses is also given the ability to stick his hand into his bosom and pull it out leprous, and then stick it in again and pull it out healthy. The Hebrew word bosom comes from a root meaning ‘to enclose’. Peterson interprets this as “the ability to play at the interface between sickness and health” (p. 340). Mental symmetry suggests a more precise definition. Hands are interpreted as the application of technical thought because hands are used to perform technical manipulation. The skin is a primary source of emotional experiences for Mercy thought. Thus, skin is interpreted as the emotional experiences that Mercy thought acquires from the environment. Technology can be used for either good or evil, and Peterson discussed this problem earlier in the book. Stated symbolically, the hands of technical thought can be either leprous or healthy. Moses has the ability to alter the societal impact of technology. This ability makes sense if Moses represents an integrated rational understanding. Notice that this is not an objective ability. Instead, Moses has to embrace the technology by ‘enclosing it’ in some way within his person. In other words, learning accurately what makes some technology helpful or harmful requires working with that technology for a period of time.
Peterson quotes Exodus referring to the third ability of Moses. “If they will not believe also these two signs... Thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land” (p. 341). Peterson concludes that “Moses has been given compelling proof of the magic he might wield if he chooses the path of the leader” (p. 341). But Peterson has been saying throughout his book that the path to maturity is not a path of magic. Thus, a leader who wants to lead people to maturity cannot use magic. On the other hand is also true that ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Thus, the audience may think that Moses is performing magic, but Moses knows that he is not.
The historical Moses who exhibited these signs probably thought that he was performing magic, but the eternal God behind the supposed magic was violating the laws of physics in a way that was consistent with the universal rational principles of existence. Saying this more clearly, when one interprets the miracles of the Bible from the cognitive perspective of mental symmetry, then they make rational sense. This also relates to the principle that one cannot always look to the original authors for inspiration, because they often did not understand what they were doing or saying. The underlying assumption is that there is an eternal God who uses rational Teacher thought to convey a message that is compatible with rational understanding even if the conveyors of this message do not understand what they are saying, a concept that is stated in 1 Peter 1:10-12.
Looking now at the specific sign, water is interpreted as the liquid of normal Mercy experience—experiences that lack the Perceiver connections that are required to turn them into solid matter. Pouring the water onto dry land means evaluating these Mercy experiences in the light of the solid ground of solid facts. Blood is the liquid of human life, especially as it is spilled, which is interpreted as personal MMNs, especially as they fall apart. Moses has the ability to take the normal Mercy experiences of culture, evaluate them in the light of rational facts, and cause MMNs of personal identity to fall apart. In other words, Moses has the ability to apply principles of morality to normal life. Notice that Moses is not turning the entire sea into blood (that happens later in one of the plagues) but rather applying morality to some specific set of Mercy experiences by evaluating them in a rational manner. This is precisely the opposite of magical thinking.
Moses complains to God that he cannot speak publicly and God responds by appointing his brother Aaron to be his mouthpiece. Peterson concludes, “Aaron, who becomes the political arm of Moses and his mission, has his place... Thus, all would-be saviors must realize that every other person also has a cross to bear and world to redeem” (p. 343). The recognition that others have legitimate crosses to bear flows from the fact that truth is fractal, which means the same universal principles can be learned in many different specific contexts and fields. What matters more than how much truth one knows in Perceiver thought is how much Perceiver truth one has sufficient confidence in to be able to continue knowing when faced with emotional pressure. Bearing one’s cross is the primary way by which most people acquire such Perceiver confidence.
There is a good side and a bad side to Moses having a mouthpiece. The good side is that Moses is less tempted to turn into a tyrant who is the personal source of truth. The bad side is that the mouthpiece can set up an alternate system of worship based upon MMNs of emotional respect for Moses, especially if Moses is not around to ensure that this does not happen. Precisely this happens when Moses delays on top of the Mount Sinai and Aaron responds by setting up a golden calf. As we shall see later, God regards this as a sufficiently egregious problem that he wants to start again with Moses as an individual. This ambiguity may explain why God does not try too hard to convince Moses when Moses complains that he cannot speak.
Peterson points out that “There is thus more than enough for everyone to do while journeying together toward the promised land. To put it another way: the great adventure of any one person does not interfere with equally great potential adventure of all others” (p. 343). Looking at this cognitively, people have finite attention. Thus, if I give more attention to one person or group in Mercy thought, then that means less attention for other people and other groups. In contrast, a Teacher theory is universal, which means that the same theory can be applied by many people, and the order-within-complexity of a theory increases as more people apply the same theory. Similarly, a Platonic form in Mercy thought is more perfect than any specific object, person or experience in Mercy thought, because it comes from the Teacher idealization of specific objects, persons, and experiences. Thus, no specific object, person, or experience can claim to be the ultimate standard in Mercy thought. Peterson mentions this aspect of heavenly focus in Teacher thought. “‘In my Father’s house are many mansions’, Christ tells his disciples, indicating with deadly precision the inexhaustible quality of the properly established heavenly order” (p. 343).
Peterson suggests that delegated authority is the alternative to tyranny. “This sharing by Aaron of the burden of Moses is our first indication of the principle of subsidiarity. That is the distribution of responsibility down the social hierarchy to every level of community... That is the only genuine viable alternative to the stony prison of tyranny” (p. 344). Delegated authority or subsidiarity is an example of Jacob’s Ladder because one descends from general to specific by stepping down rungs of delegated authority. It is also an expression of Teacher emotion, because each theory is expressed in general terms that leave freedom for the entities under this theory to themselves behave as theories with entities under them. Moving up the ladder of generality adds order to the complexity while moving down the ladder of generality places more complexity within the order. Thus, every rung of the ladder generates Teacher feelings of order-within-complexity.
Peterson says that subsidiarity is the only genuine alternative to tyranny, but I suggest that the beauty of mature female mental networks can lead to an even higher genuine alternative, which could be described as fractal emulation. Instead of having an official hierarchy, the TMN of a concept of God combined with MMNs of Platonic perfection provide an example for everyone to emulate and this standard is internally enforced by the emotional pressure generated by mental networks of God and Platonic forms. The group or person that takes charge in any specific situation is the entity that most closely resembles the internal mental networks of order and perfection in that situation. Technical thought is then used to organize a structure of subsidiarity for meeting that specific goal or need. Thus, pockets of male technical thought acquire temporary authority to pursue projects within an overall emotional authority of mature female mental networks.
Peterson mentions a similar principle. “It is even better yet to aim up and tell the truth than it is to plan to cooperate and compete productively and generously – not least because planning requires for its success a concrete and defined outcome rather than the higher faith that love and honest conduct will bring about what is best, regardless of evident consequence” (p. 371). The planning, cooperation, and competitive production of technical thought are described as good. But what is even better is being guided by a love of honest conduct in Teacher thought even when one does not know exactly where this will lead in Mercy thought.
The Ten Plagues
Turning now to the showdown between Moses and Pharaoh, Peterson suggests that “It is of course paradoxical that the very God who is commanding Moses to confront the pharaoh and lead his enslaved people to freedom is the same force that is simultaneously hardening the heart of the tyrant. The authors of this account refused to shy away from the complex oppositions inherent in life: a monotheistic and all-powerful God is behind everything that happens. The mere fact that this omnipresence is not always comprehensible to human beings, given their limited scope of apprehension, does not eliminate the necessity of attributing to God all authority, including that which seems to run counter to his character, as currently understood” (p. 345). Technical thought finds it ‘of course paradoxical’ that some entity would pursue both A and Not A. That is because technical thought requires answers that are certain, as illustrated by the principle taught in high school math that every mathematical function has to have one and only one answer for each possible input. And because technical thought finds it paradoxical, technical thought assumes that it must be an incomprehensible mystery, because everyone ‘knows’ that technical thought is the only valid form of thought.
However, a simple cognitive explanation emerges if one recognizes that Perceiver and Server thought have to gain confidence to function in the presence of emotional pressure, and that gaining confidence is like a weightlifting program in which one becomes stronger by successfully lifting increasingly heavy weights. Peterson mentioned this principle when discussing Abraham. Thus, God faces the Hebrew slaves with a succession of emotional crises that will hopefully build the confidence that is required to act and think for themselves. Technical thought sidesteps the problem of Perceiver and Server confidence by treating confidence in a digital manner: If some fact or sequence passes some threshold of certainty then it is treated as digitally true. If it fails this threshold of certainty, then it is treated as digitally false. This type of thinking is illustrated by statistical analysis and also by the process of peer review.
That brings us to the morally thorny issue of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. The key here is to recognize that Contributor thought decides between competing mental networks. On the one hand, free choice becomes maximal when one is forced to choose between mental networks that are vastly different. On the other hand, free choice becomes minimal or essentially nonexistent when all possible mental networks point in the same direction. This is illustrated by the typical Soviet election in which one had the ‘freedom’ to choose between comrade A and comrade B. Pharaoh exerted his free will back in Exodus 1 when he chose to respond to Hebrew success by enslaving the Israelites (v. 11), using violence against them (v. 12), condemning them to hard labor (v. 14), killing male babies (v. 16), and then declaring genocide against all male Hebrew children (v. 22). Carrying out such a sequence of violence will eventually remove free will by causing all mental networks to point in the same direction. One can tell that Pharaoh has become irresistibly driven by mental networks of hatred against the Israelites because his final command is that male Israelites have no right to exist. Thus, God is hardening the heart of a Pharaoh whose heart was already irrevocably set in a certain direction as a result of his repeated choices.
Peterson presents a similar possible explanation. “Those who have persisted in their malfeasance... are also of their own accord more prone to stick stubbornly to their misbehavior when challenged, or even to further instantiate that very stubbornness in the face of challenge, rather than to admit error and change” (p. 345). Stated cognitively, a mental network takes ownership of behavior that it motivates. Thus, if one continues to choose to be motivated by some mental network, then that mental network will eventually become so strong that one loses the ability to choose not to follow that mental network.
This same principle applied in the positive direction provides a pragmatic alternative to the theological doctrine of eternal security, otherwise known as ‘once saved, always saved’. If one continues to choose to be guided by the TMN of a concept of God, then one eventually reaches the point where it becomes emotionally impossible to choose not to follow God. One may temporarily choose to rebel against God but eventually the emotional pressure of behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with one’s TMN of a concept of God will force one to give up and return to following God. One has then reached a point of functional eternal security. A similar logic can be used to explain God choosing certain individuals from birth. Suppose that some person develops a collection of childish mental networks from their family, physical surroundings, and social environment that will inevitably push them emotionally in the direction of choosing to follow God. God can then optimize the environment of such an individual without violating the free will of that individual, because God knows how that individual would decide. This transforms the theological overgeneralization of ‘God knows how everyone will decide’ into the more specific cognitive statement of ‘God can see the mental networks of every person and knows which people will be irresistibly driven by their mental networks to make certain choices’.
Peterson points out that Moses does not just demand freedom for the Israelites but rather asks for the freedom to hold a festival for God in the wilderness. “The clarion call of Moses to freedom – eternally away from tyranny and slavery – is most decidedly not a call to anarchy or hedonism, but an invitation to the voluntary disciplined striving upward” (p. 347). Stated cognitively, Moses is not attacking the emotional status of Pharaoh in Mercy thought or threatening the Teacher order of Egypt. Instead, he wants the Israelites to be guided by the TMN of a concept of God. Going further, Moses is calling Pharaoh’s bluff by presenting a solution that deals with ‘the Jewish problem’ by removing the Israelites from the Egyptian kingdom. The principle here is that God often seems to judge people by answering their prayers. For instance, the inauguration of Donald Trump is in two days and he has promised to do many things in his first day of office. Christian evangelicals have prayed to gain political power. I fear that God is judging American evangelical Christendom by answering their prayers.
Pharaoh responds to the challenge of Moses by making things harder for the Israelites. Peterson observes, “The revelation of the truth often makes things worse, however temporarily, as what is not right but has previously escaped attention is perceived, and as the powers that be, psychological or social, refuse to budge, punish the messenger, and double down” (p. 349). Stated cognitively, when Perceiver thought starts to emerge from being overwhelmed by Mercy thought, then the standard response is to re-hypnotize Perceiver thought by increasing the emotional pressure from Mercy thought.
Peterson notes that God then instructs Moses “to organize his people into ancestral groups as a prerequisite to their new organization as a free state” (p. 349). This organization is described in Exodus 6. Stated cognitively, the Israelites are responding to increased Mercy pressure by building Teacher order. This response makes emotional sense, because rational Teacher thought supports Perceiver thought, while positive emotions of Teacher order provide an alternative to Mercy oppression. Stated more specifically, the Israelites replace the tyranny of submitting to the Mercy domination of their Egyptian masters with the subsidiarity societal organization in Teacher thought. This relates to the point made earlier that one can prepare for a showdown with tyranny by developing Teacher order based upon universal value beforehand, silently off in a corner.
In contrast, “The pharaoh wants his own way. He elevates his narrowly defined self-interest to the highest place. Consequently, he comes to worship not just himself but his most immature and impulsive self” (p. 350). This describes the essence of ideology in which MMNs of personal desire are being amplified by Teacher thought and being portrayed as universal principles. Using the language of Louis XIV, L’État, c’est moi. This universalization of the immature self was literally the case with the ‘Sun king’, because government officials acquired power by participating in Louis XIV’s personal routines of dressing in the morning, going to the toilet, and eating meals.
Exodus 7:1 mentions a significant transition that Peterson misses. “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.’” In other words, this struggle has now changed from a battle for domination in Mercy thought to a struggle for universality in Teacher thought, because Pharaoh is now viewing Moses as God. Aaron is told in verse 9 to throw down his staff and have it turn into a serpent, and the plagues of Egypt start in verse 14. God points out in verse 3 that his purpose is to “multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt”. In other words, the purpose of the miracles is not to do magic that violates Teacher order but rather to perform supernatural deeds that demonstrate the higher Teacher order of God. And these miracles only start as the battle shifts from people in Mercy thought to God in Teacher thought.
When Moses throws down his rod at the burning bush in Exodus 4, the word ‘serpent’ is the same word used in Genesis 3 to describe the temptation of Eve. It means ‘serpent, snake’ and comes from a root that means ‘to practice divination or to observe signs’. In Exodus 7:15 Moses is told during the first plague to use the staff that was turned into a serpent but nowhere in the biblical story does it mention Moses throwing down his staff in front of pharaoh. (Exodus 4:30 describes performing the signs in front of the Israelites.) Instead, Aaron throws down his staff in Exodus 7:8-13 and a different word for snake is used in this passage which means ‘dragon, serpent, sea monster’. The snake of mysticism is a personal snake that tempts individuals. A dragon is a much larger, public snake that has grown ‘legs’ of corporate organization. Thus, by making Aaron his mouthpiece, Moses also enables the personal snake of mysticism to turn into a public dragon, which magnifies the scope of the conflict.
I only noticed that it was Aaron who actually threw down his snake when writing this essay, and Peterson missed this distinction because he states incorrectly, “The second time Moses appears before the Pharaoh, he cast down the staff of his authority. It transforms again into the serpent” (p. 351). As Peterson points out, “The magicians of Egypt duplicate the demonstration, but the serpent of Moses’s [actually Aaron’s] staff devours their lesser snakes... The fakers, psychopaths, and narcissists can imitate the authority of God” (p. 351). This imitation is possible because what is actually being imitated is not a rational Teacher understanding of God but rather the dragon that emerges when the staff of legitimate Teacher understanding becomes thrown down from Teacher generality in order to express itself upon the ground of materialistic physical reality. What is being imitated is not a legitimate concept of God but rather a misinterpreted, public reflection of a legitimate concept of God.
The first plague is turning the waters of Egypt into blood. In Exodus 4:9, Moses was told to take some water from the Nile and pour it on the ground. Moses never does this before Pharaoh. Instead, he turns all the Egyptian water into blood by extending his staff over the water. (He is told to extend his staff in verse 19 and told in verse 17 that God will strike the water but he actually strikes the water in verse 20, thus foreshadowing the striking of the rock in Numbers 20:11 for which he is punished.) In verse 22, “The magicians of Egypt did the same with their secret arts”. The cognitive principle here is that a fake Teacher theory that is treated as an incomprehensible mystery in Teacher thought is just as effective emotionally as a genuine Teacher theory that is treated as an incomprehensible mystery. In both cases, the Teacher overgeneralization can turn into a TMN that has the emotional power to ‘spill the blood’ of personal and cultural MMNs with feelings of personal inadequacy. Peterson points out that “The main source of the Egyptians’ water, the Nile, was central or even sacred to the Egyptians; its transmutation or pollution is thus a blow struck at the foundation of Egyptian culture” (p. 352). This is an accurate statement. However, Moses is not turning one sacred experience into another. Instead, he is transforming the non-emotional water of normal experience into the blood of threatened MMNs.
The second plague is a plague of frogs which is triggered by Aaron extending his hand over the waters of Egypt in Exodus 8:6. Peterson suggests, “Symbolically, the frog is a psychopomp: a mediator between the divine that harbors itself in the depths and the upper or airy world... a plague of such frogs indicates nothing less than that the God who is the terrible and eternal judge is about to make himself manifest” (p. 352). Wikipedia explains that psychopomps (I had to look up the word) “are creatures, spirits, angels, demons, or deities in many religions whose responsibility is to escort newly deceased souls from Earth to the afterlife.” The Wikipedia page on psychopomp does not mention frogs, neither does the website psychopomps.org. Instead, googling the symbolism of frogs points out that frogs begin life as tadpoles within the water before turning into adult frogs that live on the land. This transition from water to land is emphasized in Exodus 8, with Moses extending his hand and staff over the waters, and the frogs then coming up and covering the land of Egypt and ending up everywhere in people’s houses. In verse 7, the magicians of Egypt are able to duplicate his feat.
Cognitively speaking, a frog is a living creature which is mentally represented by mental networks. Frogs appearing everywhere on land suggests that the mental networks of subjective thought are invading the dry land of rational thinking. The current invasion of scientific thought by mental networks of political correctness, wokeness, ‘alternate knowing’, and ‘acknowledgment of the oppressed’ is an illustration of frogs emerging from the water of Mercy experiences to plague the land of rational thought. This current plague of frogs is driven by the TMN of universal tolerance, which is based in the Teacher overgeneralization of universal tolerance and universal quality, which illustrates that the fakery of secular Egyptian magic is capable of creating a plague of frogs.
Peterson describes the third plague as a plague of lice and flies, and the NASB uses the terms gnats and lice. However, this word is only interpreted as ‘lice’ six times in the Old Testament, five times in this passage and once in Psalm 105:31. The word is actually כֵּן, which is the standard Hebrew word for ‘yes’. Thus, the third plague can accurately be described as a plague of ‘yes’. Exodus 8:17-18 explains, “There were gnats on every person and animal. All the dust of the earth turned into gnats through all the land of Egypt. he soothsayer priests tried with their secret arts to produce gnats, but they could not; so there were gnats on every person and animal.” Looking at this cognitively, a fake general theory uses Teacher overgeneralization to transcend Perceiver facts, whereas a genuine theory uses Teacher generalization to explain Perceiver facts. Solid ground is interpreted as solid Perceiver truth; dust can be interpreted as specific Perceiver facts. Dust of the earth turning into ‘yes’ implies that specific Perceiver facts are becoming a source of truth and knowledge. The magicians cannot accomplish this because a Teacher overgeneralization is incapable of actually dealing with the facts. Instead, the failure of the magicians makes the problem worse, indicating that using a fake theory to try to explain the facts merely points out the fakeness of the theory.
Peterson interprets this as “the inevitable subjugation of the tyrants to the parasites; the endlessly predictable susceptibility of those who arbitrarily deem themselves highest to invasion by the lowest of the low” (p. 353). Peterson’s statement may be accurate, but it also describes tyranny collapsing in on itself as opposed to tyranny coming face-to-face with the facts—the ‘yes’ of reality. Peterson describes tyranny collapsing under the pervasiveness of ‘no’, while Exodus describes tyranny meeting a pervasiveness of ‘yes’. The Hebrew region of Goshen is mentioned for the first time in Exodus in 8:22 where God says that he will set it apart. The cognitive principle is that factual truth makes it possible to build a new society upon the principle of honesty. More specifically, a capitalist economy is based upon many different kinds of honesty at a specific factual level, such as honest contracts, accurate descriptions of products, accurate weights and measures, honest payment, and so on.
Pharaoh responds in 8:25 by giving permission to sacrifice to God within the land, but Moses points out in verse 26 that the Egyptians will regard this sacrifice as an abomination. Interpreted cognitively, the secular world of Egypt is willing to recognize empirical facts that do not go beyond the secular realm of materialism. But following God in Teacher thought means being willing to consider the existence of Perceiver facts that go beyond the realm of the physical and the empirical, an extension that materialistic science finds abhorrent. One can see this response in Peterson’s book which uses myth and narrative to stretch tentatively beyond the realm of the material while hesitating to place a solid foot of ‘yes’ upon the non-material. Mental symmetry, in contrast, builds upon the non-material realm of cognition which lies outside of material realm of Egypt. Mental symmetry uses empirical facts to error-check and expand its theories, but it does not build upon a foundation of empirical facts.
The third plague appears to be traditionally divided into two separate plagues of lice emerging and then flies harming Egyptians and their livestock, leading to a total of ten plagues. But I do not see a sharp distinction between these two plagues in the biblical story.
The fourth plague is a plague upon livestock. In Exodus 9:6 all the Egyptian livestock die but none of the Hebrew livestock. Peterson interprets this as “a partial intimation of the destruction not only of the present but also the future, as such animals are literally food not just for now but for later” (p. 354). mental symmetry interprets livestock as representing human thinking that is locally rational. A domesticated animal performs useful work upon the dry land of rational existence, but lacks a rational understanding in Teacher thought and needs to be guided by humans in Mercy thought. Killing livestock goes beyond eliminating food for the future to removing the beasts of burden of society, because animals were the labor-saving machines of ancient society. This dying of livestock is illustrated by a communist proverb that Peterson mentions several times in his book: ‘We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us’. In other words, when it becomes evident at a factual level that the tyranny of society is based upon a pervasive falsehood that extends to the realm of specific facts, then even the realm of specific facts occupied by the behavior of skilled laborers turns into falsehood, with work being replaced by pretend work and pay by pretend pay. In contrast, work that is guided by a genuine Teacher understanding can survive factual honesty, because real workers are performing real work for real pay.
The fifth plague is a plague of boils. In Peterson’s words, “This is an illness simultaneously painful, disgusting, and shameful, thereby combining the worst of the revenge of the natural and social worlds alike. Devastated, the pharaoh’s magicians find themselves no longer able to duplicate Moses’s actions” (p. 354). This statement is slightly inaccurate because is with a previous plague of gnats that the magicians become unable to replicate the plague in 8:18.
This plague begins in Exodus 9:10 with soot from a kiln being tossed into the sky and turning into boils. Soot is only mentioned in the Old Testament in this passage and comes from a word that means to ‘breathe, blow’, and blowing is interpreted as moving through the ‘air’ of Teacher thought. In 9:11 the magicians are unable to stand before Moses because they are also affected with boils. This is also the first plague where it specifically says (9:12) that the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart. The skin was interpreted previously as emotional experiences acquired from the environment. Breaking out in boils means that these experiences have become intrinsically painful. A possible interpretation arises from the Communist attitude of ‘we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us’. When such an attitude spread through the ‘air’ of communist society, then every social and economic exchange became personally painful: buying some item meant standing in line, requiring an inside connection, getting on a list and waiting ten years, or dealing with bureaucracy, all for the sake of getting an inferior product. As Peterson suggests, this combines ‘the worst of the revenge of the natural and social worlds’. The fact that even the magicians are affected suggests that this lack of quality affects even the elite of society. This principle is illustrated by the 1981 crash of a Russian plane which killed 28 high-ranking Soviet military personnel. The plane crashed because the officers from Vladivostok had overfilled the plane with groceries and supplies purchased in the more prosperous Soviet center of Leningrad. The officers doomed themselves by using their military rank to overrule any concerns by the flight crew.
The sixth plague is a plague of hail that kills animals and flattens crops. In this plague, Egyptians who ‘fear God’ put their animals and servants under shelter and are spared (9:20). This is described as a very heavy hail, such as has not been seen in Egypt from the day it was pounded until now” (v. 18). Hail means getting hit by solid objects falling from the sky. Stated symbolically, solid Perceiver facts are falling from the sky of general Teacher theory and impacting people and situations in Mercy thought. This happens because the existing tyrannical regime has been using various mental tricks to avoid facing morality and honesty. The previous plague revealed the entire regime to be a painful fraud. The cognitive ‘hail’ comes from recognizing theoretically how much better a system of honesty is. Using the Soviet example, the Soviet system is realizing that capitalism is a superior system to communism, because true capitalism is based upon honesty in Perceiver thought, while a basic premise of communism is that Perceiver thought is worthless (Communism begins by denying all Perceiver facts of ownership and then extends from there.) The hail happens when the fundamental superiority of honesty becomes apparent at a theoretical level and this hail is bigger than anything that has occurred before because all of the previous lies become revealed at once.
The seventh plague is a plague of locusts. Peterson deals with the seventh and eighth plagues generically as spreading universal chaos, but it is possible to make more specific symbolic interpretations. In Exodus 10:5 locusts eat everything that has survived the hail and in verse 6 they fill the houses. In verse 7, the Egyptians plead with Pharaoh to let the Israelites go because Egypt is now destroyed. Pharaoh gives the men permission to leave in verse 11 but not their families and their livestock. Locusts are small mental networks of life. Continuing with the analogy of the fall of communism, once the average comrade realized that the entire system of communism was a fraud, then what happened next was not the establishment of capitalism. Instead, the locusts of corrupt officials and Russian mafia consumed all remaining Soviet wealth. The failed regime was willing to consider new methods of technical thought, but wanted to hold onto the symbols and icons of Soviet culture as well as the ‘livestock’ of Soviet wealth. The average Soviet citizen, in contrast, recognized that the Soviet Union was now a destroyed state and wanted to move on. (This describes the Soviet Union in the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast, Russia is currently trying to revive the Soviet Empire.) Similarly, in verse 20 Pharaoh changes his mind about letting the Israelites go as soon as the immediate crisis passes
The eighth plague is a plague of darkness. A sun is interpreted symbolically as a Teacher understanding that brings light to society. Darkness means that there is no light of understanding. The empire of tyranny that was driven by ideology becomes replaced by the amoral, chaotic wasteland of failed empire. No one cares about anything beyond themselves; no one is guided by the light of any universal principles. Pharaoh responds in verse 28 by declaring that he will now kill Moses on sight, and Moses responds in verse 29 by saying that he will never see the face of Pharaoh again. Stated cognitively, when everything is darkness then words themselves lose their meanings, making communication between opposing parties impossible.
The final plague is the death of the firstborn. Peterson summarizes, “God tells Moses first to ask the Egyptians for their treasure and second that all the firstborn of the land of Egypt shall be put to death” (p. 354). This is not quite accurate because in 11:2 Moses tells the men and women to each ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold.” The Israelites have been exploited as slaves for an extended period. Asking their Egyptian neighbors for silver and gold gives individuals an opportunity to respond to this guilt at an individual level. This is different than demanding compensation from the government or stealing from the oppressors. Instead, individual members of the oppressed class are going to their neighbors and asking for compensation.
Looking now at the death of the firstborn, Peterson comments that “The death of the firstborn means the eradication of the future, or at least of the best of the future for the Egyptians... The sacrifice that eternally protects... is the willingness to offer up everything, so that the tyrant can be defeated” (p. 355). Peterson is still thinking in terms of the classic economic contrast of postponing consumption in the present in order to save for the future. But the firstborn was discussed earlier and the principle that is involved is which mental network will take precedence when one first experiences results. This principle is discussed in Exodus 13 which states that the firstborn belongs to God. Saying this more carefully, when one applies some Teacher understanding and starts to experience positive results in Mercy thought, then these first results should be devoted to building the Teacher order of God rather than accumulating personal wealth and prestige in Mercy thought.
Looking at a current example, Trump has promised that he will levy a universal 25% tariff on all American imports from my own country of Canada. This will have a huge impact because in 2024 the US imported about 30 billion USD to Canada every month while importing about 33 billion USD a month. Ford, the premier of Canada’s largest province of Ontario, has commented to other Canadian premiers, “Protect your jurisdiction but country comes first”, even though Ford is a conservative and Canada is currently being governed by the liberals. I suggest that this is an example of following Teacher order rather than Mercy wealth. Preserving the order and structure of the Canadian economy is more important than defending my political party or my province. Stated bluntly, if the Teacher order of the Canadian economy does not survive, then there will be no personal wealth to hoard.
The Israelites in Exodus 12 are dealing with an even larger issue of regime change. They are not just experiencing the first benefits of some project but being freed from slavery in order to become an independent nation in a new land. As was pointed out earlier, it is easy for such people to show nostalgia for the past, as illustrated by Russians showing nostalgia for their Stalinist past. The solution is to approach this change upfront with an attitude of sacrifice. This attitude of sacrifice to prepare for change is emphasized by Exodus 12. Verse 2 declares a change of calendar with this month being declared as the first month. In verse 7, the blood of the sacrifice is supposed to be put on the door posts and lintel of the house, framing the doorway through which one moves from one context to another. In verse 10, anything left over from the sacrifice is supposed to be burned completely, symbolizing an end to the present. And in verse 11, the sacrifice is supposed to be eaten in a hurry, ready to walk out the door. Peterson points out this focus upon impending change. “There is a necessary and tight association between the end of one event, time, or epoch and the beginning of something else... It is for such reasons that the sacrificial lamb is roasted and then eaten by people dressed for action” (p. 355).
When the regime changes, then anyone who is motivated by mental networks of the existing society and not by higher mental networks that transcend the existing society will experience a death of the firstborn because their primary motivation will be to the mental networks of a society that no longer exists. This is slightly different than Peterson’s conclusion that “The sacrifice that eternally protects is the willingness to offer up everything, so that the tyrant can be defeated” (p. 355). At this point, the tyrant has been defeated. This certainty is stated in Exodus 11:1 before the final plague. “Now the LORD said to Moses, ‘One more plague I will bring on Pharaoh and on Egypt; after that he will let you go from here. When he lets you go, he will assuredly drive you out from here completely.’” Instead, what needs to be offered up at this point is the status quo. And Peterson says something similar. “Each bit of honest communication must begin with an attitude of humility, the willingness to aim at a higher goal and, most importantly, the willingness to give something up” (p. 356).
Passing through a desert on the way to the promised land relates to the need to sacrifice mental networks of the present in order to embrace the future. In Peterson’s words, “A sojourn in the desert inevitably follows a period of subjugation to the tyrant. Because something vital – something that has been worship, however falsely; something loved, however pathologically – must be sacrificed, with the attendant cost, before true freedom can be attained” (p. 359). Stated cognitively, the emotion generated by a mental network is different than the emotions of the memories within the mental network. Even if an MMN is composed of emotional experiences of false worship and pathological love, new experiences that are inconsistent with this MMN will cause the mental network to generate negative emotions.
The plagues of Egypt have been discussed in detail because I have not yet examined them from a cognitive perspective and writing this essay gave me an opportunity to do so. This discussion also illustrates that the cognitively-driven symbolic analysis of mental symmetry is capable of going further and adding more details than the myth-driven symbolic analysis of Peterson. This kind of symbolic analysis has been applied to two thirds of the New Testament, leading to some striking results. For instance, Matthew 2-24 as well as Luke 1-12 can be interpreted as detailed prophecies of Western civilization, while the epistle of James can be interpreted as a detailed prophecy of Protestantism. This hypothesis is backed up by 650 pages of analysis on Matthew, 550 pages on Luke, and 160 pages on James.
Leaving Egypt for the Wilderness
Peterson points out that “Between disruption of tyranny and arrival in the promised land we inevitably traverse the desert... What replaces tyranny is chaos – uncertainty and directionlessness – and that is the desert” (p. 358). But the Hebrew word for desert comes from a root that means ‘to speak or to lead’. This describes being verbally guided precisely, which is precisely the opposite of directionlessness. Stated cognitively, a desert lacks pleasant Mercy experiences. (The Greek word wilderness used in the New Testament means ‘an uncultivated, unpopulated place’, consistent with the idea of an absence of Mercy experiences.) The absence of Mercy stimulation makes it possible to follow words in Teacher thought and it also provides a motivation to move beyond the desert to a more pleasant location. Chaos, uncertainty, and directionlessness provide a negative motivation for finding Teacher order, Perceiver universality, and the direction of technical thought. A desert of speaking and leading, in contrast, combines a vacuum in Mercy thought with the positive Teacher element of verbal direction.
Divine guidance in the wilderness shows itself to the Israelites as a pillar of light in the night and a cloud by day. Peterson interprets this as the yin and yang of chaos and order. “This is a manner that echoes the eternal interplay between opposites from which the world itself emerges... the invitation that is positive emotion itself... and the caution that is its negative counterpart and independent opposite... The spirit of reality itself, for the Taoists, is composed of the eternal interplay of chaos and order, each opposed to the other and each embedded deeply within the other” (p. 360). This interpretation is consistent with the distinction between male technical thought and other, but I am not convinced that it accurately interprets the pillar of light by night and the cloud by day.
The pillar and the cloud are mentioned in Exodus 13:21-22 which presents them as two alternate forms of order and direction as opposed to order versus chaos. Quoting these two verses, “And the LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, so that they might travel by day and by night. He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from the presence of the people.” The pillar and the cloud both provide direction and they are always present, making it possible for the Israelites to travel by day and by night. This is not order versus chaos.
Looking at this cognitively, daytime is illuminated by the sun of some general understanding up in the ‘sky’ of Teacher thought. A cloud is a vague shape within the sky, which is interpreted as the vague images of Platonic forms. A cloud is actually composed of water. Similarly, a Platonic form is composed of Mercy images that have been shaped by Teacher thought. Night indicates the absence of a general Teacher understanding. A pillar of fire means that one still has a local light to guide personal movement even if there is no global light to guide society. Peterson points out that “Embedded into the head of each serpent, however, is a signifier of its opposite: the white serpent has a black eye and vice versa” (p. 361). Adding this detail makes it possible to suggest a possible relationship between the cloud and the fire and yin and yang.
If one interprets yang as the light of Teacher understanding, then the pillar of fire is a beacon of local understanding, an eye of white within a black head. One may not know where society is heading, but one knows where one is heading as an individual. Going the other way, a cloud is a region of uncertainty and/or possibility within the general certainty of society. Teacher thought is attracted to regions of uncertainty because the lack of solid Perceiver facts gives Teacher thought the freedom to overgeneralize, creating Teacher emotions of generality. For instance, I am a Perceiver person while my older brother is a Teacher person. When I was working together with my older brother to develop mental symmetry, he would inevitably come up with a new theory in an area where my knowledge of facts was weakest, forcing me to error-check his theory by learning facts about some new field. Notice that this interpretation does not match well with the standard meanings of yin and yang. That is because both the standard male division between technical thought and other, and the standard female division between following cultural MMNs and having no mental networks, no longer apply when the mind becomes guided by the TMN of a general theory of cognition.
Peterson recognizes that the dichotomy of yin and yang is inadequate. “Order is best comprehended not only as order itself, already established, but as the principle that gives rise to and establishes that order. Chaos, for its part must likewise be considered in its dual element: as potential or possibility itself, as well as the spirit the challenges, nurtures, renews – or usurps” (p. 361). These are all expressions of a rational meta-theory in Teacher thought. The theory gives Teacher order to society, but it also defines the procedures by which one changes the order of society. It defines possibility by describing how things work in the most general terms possible, and it leads to Platonic forms of ideal perfection that challenge, nurture, and renew.
Peterson concludes that “This is the nature of the progress that occurs as a result of the interplay of yin and yang, the continued upward spiral around the trunk of the tree of life, up Jacob’s Ladder, toward the ever-receding heights of heaven itself” (p. 362). The cognitive reason that the heights of heaven are ever-receding is because the Platonic forms of heavenly perfection become more refined as one acquires more facts in Perceiver thought, making it possible to come up with a better theory in Teacher thought, leading to more refined internal visions of heavenly perfection. More generally, I suggest that Peterson’s description of a ‘continuing upward spiral’ will only happen if one is being guided by an adequate concept of God in Teacher thought. If this is not present, then the direction will be downward into the depths of hell, a path that Peterson describes in detail in his book.
Mental symmetry suggests that human history has been guided—and is being guided—by God in Teacher thought to head in an upward spiral. This is not just an offhand remark, but rather backed up by 1200 pages of cognitive/historic analysis of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Using the same kind of cognitive/symbolic analysis that Peterson does in his book demonstrates that there is an extensive and detailed correlation between the narrative of the biblical text and the events and progress of Western history. This goes beyond humanity spiraling up Jacob’s Ladder to God in Teacher thought reaching down Jacob’s Ladder.
Thus, when I suggest that one must choose between the premise of Peterson’s book and the theory of biological evolution, I am not suggesting replacing rational thought with blind faith in a God of magic. Instead, what emerges from this cognitive historical analysis of the Gospels (and other books) is the concept of a God who is guiding history by manipulating cognitive mechanisms guided by a meta-theory of cognition and mental wholeness in Teacher thought. This is TOTALLY different than the concept of God being promoted by the typical American evangelical supporter of Donald Trump (who is being inaugurated as I write these words).
Peterson interprets Moses parting the Red Sea as ‘mastery of the water’ (p. 368). But the only way to gain mastery over the sea of Mercy experiences is by submitting to a TMN of how things work: Teacher feelings of understanding provide an emotional alternative to the emotions of Mercy experience. Being guided by the Teacher mental network (TMN) of a theory provides an alternative to the imposition of cultural MMNs. And being guided by a theory of how things actually work means that one will be successful. Even if a real Moses was performing a real miracle guided by a real God, this was still being done in a manner that was symbolically consistent with universal principles of cognition.
Peterson suggests that “Firm ground appears magically beneath our feet as we walk forward courageously and in good faith – eyes heavenward – toward the promised and proper destination. Those who are by contrast possessed by the spirit of their own machinations will find themselves flooded, drowned and destroyed” (p. 370). This ‘magic appearance of firm ground’ can be explained cognitively. Solid ground represents solid connections in Perceiver thought. MMNs of power and status can overwhelm Perceiver thought which means that those who are ‘possessed by the spirit of their own machinations’ are incapable of using Perceiver thought to come up with solid facts but rather ‘find themselves flooded, drowned and destroyed’. ‘Eyes heavenward in good faith’ means building a Teacher understanding upon Perceiver facts. The TMN of a rational theory cooperates with Perceiver thought, because using Perceiver thought to discover universal connections increases the order-within-complexity of the theory. That is why it is imperative not to shift from rational understanding to transcendent mystery. The Teacher overgeneralization of transcendent mystery fights Perceiver thought because Perceiver facts act as counterexamples that limit Teacher overgeneralization.
Going further, when one has lived as slaves within a tyranny, then Perceiver thought has to become awakened from hypnosis in many different mental contexts, and building this Perceiver confidence takes time, accompanied by an extensive diet of Perceiver ‘manna’ from the ‘heaven’ of Teacher thought. “It is at this point that we are informed that the Israelites are destined to wander for forty years – for three generations – feeding on manna and quail before they enter the promised land (Exodus 16:35). Does it take that long to shed the habits of slaves? A transformation that comprehensive could easily be a multigenerational venture” (p. 372). Peterson’s conclusion is accurate but his quote is not. Exodus 16:35 says that the Israelites ate manna for forty years but makes no mention of quail, emphasizing the need to eat bread from the heaven of unified Teacher understanding and not just the ‘quail’ of random theories of the ‘birds of the air’.
Peterson then asks if a just God would tell the Israelites to conquer a promised land that is already occupied. “Would a just and merciful God offer land already occupied to a new people? The answer, perhaps, is this: those who organize themselves, psychologically and communally, into a hierarchy of properly divine order will inevitably and finally triumph over those who do not” (p. 372). This is true but the principle that success replaces failure is morally unsatisfying because it sounds like a version of ‘survival of the fittest’.
Genesis 15:16 provides a more satisfying reason. When God makes a covenant with Abraham he explains that “In the fourth generation they will return here, for the wrongdoing of the Amorite is not yet complete.” This relates to the principle of functional eternal security mentioned earlier. When the mental networks of society become sufficiently evil and sufficiently pervasive, then it becomes impossible for individuals to use free will to choose to break free of the path of evil. This described society as a whole before the flood of Noah and it also describes the state that Canaanite society will reach four generations after Abraham when the Israelites arrive to conquer the promised land. If the children of some culture will inevitably choose to follow a path of evil, then destroying that culture is ultimately an act of mercy. Even then, some individuals (Joshua 2:14) and groups (Joshua 9) within Canaan were capable of choosing another path and were spared by Israel.
The Amalekites and Jethro
Peterson describes the battle with the Amalekites as Moses ‘brandishing the magic staff of his divine authority’. “Moses climbs a nearby hill and brandishes the magic staff of his divine authority – the magic wand of Gandalf and Dumbledore, the shepherd’s crook of David... As long as the prophet holds the staff aloft, the Israelites prevail... This is the Platonic ideal that gives necessary and heavenly form even in the midst of the crimson chaos. When Moses tires and involuntarily lowers his staff, the marauding Amalekites gain ground... When he is incapable of holding his own arms and magic wand overhead, his brother and political arm, Aaron, and a new ally, Hur, help him to maintain his encouraging and faithful stance. Hur appears as a representative of the reliable everyman – the good citizen who upholds his responsibility” (p. 373).
A less magical cognitive interpretation emerges if one looks at the meanings of these Hebrew names. The word Amalek comes from a Hebrew root ‘meaning to toil or to labor’. In Exodus 17:7 Moses says that “I will station myself on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.” A hill represents a pragmatic Teacher theory that provides a general overview of the surroundings. A staff of God indicates authority based in a concept of God in Teacher thought. Two conflicting modes of operation are being contrasted: The ‘toil or labor’ of Amalek represents ‘salvation by works’; attempting to achieve success by applying more personal effort in Server thought. Moses lifting up the staff of God represents ‘salvation by faith’; holding on to Perceiver truth guided by Teacher understanding. As the incomplete analysis of Peterson in this book illustrates, it is difficult to continue lifting one’s hands of technical thought up to the generality of Teacher understanding when one only has a pragmatic theoretical understanding. Aaron means ‘high mountain, mountain of strength, exalted, or enlightened’ indicating that Teacher emotions of generality are providing some assistance. Hur comes from ‘a root word meaning white or hole’. White is a combination of all colors, which implies approaching the light of understanding in an integrated manner. A hole indicates an absence of solid matter that is filled with air. ‘White or hole’ suggests filling in the holes of one’s understanding with the white light of a search for integrated unity. This interpretation is consistent with Peterson’s reference to ‘the Platonic ideal that gives necessary and heavenly form’ but it places it on a more solid symbolic footing.
More generally, I have interpreted two-thirds of the New Testament from a symbolic perspective and have posted essays on this analysis. This analysis includes the definitions of all personal and place names, and I have found that the inclusion of these definitions makes cognitive sense. For instance, I did not know until writing this paragraph the meanings of Amalek and Hur. Instead, I simply assumed, based upon repeated experience, that the meanings would make cognitive sense—and they did.
Peterson then discusses the concept of subsidiarity as an alternative to tyranny. Peterson observes, “The elevation of their prophet to the status of judge is one step away from his crowning as king, the replacement of the Pharaoh, and the exposure of the Israelites to all the dangers from which they so recently escaped” (p. 376). Stated cognitively, if one acquires Teacher understanding indirectly from ‘prophets of God’ then it is very easy to take the next step of regarding a ‘prophet of God’ (or a minister of religion, or a professor of academia) as a source of truth in Mercy thought. Similarly, “Elevated above his fellow citizens by their very unwillingness to take responsibility, Moses could all too easily think proudly and highly of himself, and be tempted to wield his authority in the form of compulsion and power” (p. 376). Stated cognitively, if one pursues Teacher understanding in a social environment that is ruled by Mercy status, then it is easy to conclude that one is a special person in Mercy thought who is a source of truth.
Moses’ father-in-law suggests the subsidiarity of delegated authority. Peterson observes that “This idea of a necessary hierarchy of ordering and responsibility both inspired and is evident in the most highly functional of the communal institutions of the present day” (p. 378). As mentioned earlier, subsidiarity replaces personal status in Mercy thought with generality and domain in Teacher thought: Each leader brings Teacher order to the lower authorities who are under his domain while expressing this authority in general ways that allows subsidiary authorities to add appropriate details. For instance, this concept of subsidiarity is a key principle of a modern professional army which delegates responsibility to non-commissioned officers. Peterson describes the distinction between Teacher domain and Mercy status. “This is a hierarchy of competence and ability, rather than one of power and force” (p. 380).
Peterson observes that Moses’ father-in-law is a foreigner and not a Hebrew. An outsider is typically able to view the situation more objectively from a larger perspective, while the insider tends to be unable to ‘see the forest’ because of all the ‘trees’ of personal and cultural MMNs. Going the other way, the fact that Moses is willing to take the advice of an outsider means that he is searching for universal principles in Teacher thought even if this comes from outsiders with different cultural MMNs.
Looking further at subsidiarity, delegating authority teaches subordinates the mental maturity that is required to escape tyranny. “A people capable of self-governance must be sufficiently educated to manage the task, and that is the duty of the just and sovereign leader to ensure the provision of such education... An authentically responsible people require – and will brook – no autocrat” (p. 379). Stated cognitively, subordinates are learning to use Perceiver thought within emotional situations, building the mental confidence that is required to function rationally. Emphasizing the need to educate people’s minds to be capable of controlling their environment is consistent with history, but it directly opposes the meta-theory of evolution which declares that the mind is based upon the environment. Peterson, in contrast, thinks that understanding the mind provides the key to understanding the environment. “There is nothing more complex in all of existence than the human psyche, as far as can be determined; because a human being is a microcosm or model of the cosmic order” (p. 410).
Peterson suggests that anyone who is mentally capable of using Perceiver thought to think rationally within some context should be released from the tyranny of having Perceiver facts imposed by Mercy status and given the authority to use Perceiver thought within emotional Mercy experiences. “As much freedom and responsibility as possible should be devolved down the chain of command from highest to lowest, so that the former does not presume or take too much and the latter abdicate the responsibility that generates sustaining meaning and sacrificial maturity” (p. 380). This is good advice, but if one develops Perceiver thought and is not given freedom, then this can still be viewed from a positive light as an opportunity to build Perceiver confidence in the midst of emotional pressure as well as an opportunity to obey God in Teacher thought rather than people in Mercy thought.
Delegation of authority is also demanded by the combination of human finiteness and experiential diversity. A higher leader must give orders using the language of Teacher generality because a single human is incapable of knowing all of the details of the situation or having sufficient time to deal with all of the details. Thus, orders have to be given in general terms that make allowances for specific situations. In contrast, a lower leader can focus upon some specific context, learn detailed facts about this specific context, and give orders that are appropriate for this specific context. This is an example of Jacob’s Ladder. Similarly, Peterson observes that “Firsthand reports are more reliable than second, and second more reliable than third. As information propagates up a hierarchy of responsibility, the amount of noise to signal almost inevitably increases” (p. 382). This practical application of Jacob’s Ladder can be externally approximated by official job descriptions, but it ultimately has to be a reflection of people who are internally thinking in terms of the subsidiarity of Jacob’s Ladder.
Peterson then makes an observation which I have not noticed. “It is immediately after the establishment of the structure of subsidiarity that the Israelites travel to the base of Mount Sinai... The Israelites have now... organized themselves into a responsible hierarchy. They are thus prepared for something deeper: the revelation of the explicit principles of sustainable order themselves. It is appropriate that Moses is the one to receive the revelation” (p. 384). Stated cognitively, functioning within a delegated system of Teacher order makes it possible for individuals to develop the Perceiver confidence that is required to interpret a verbal message from a Teacher perspective of order and rational thought.
Encountering God
Peterson asks, “Why would a full encounter with God be fatal?... Nothing imperfect can exist at the highest reaches of the strait and narrow path... If the sad creatures desiring to approach what is highest have practiced to deceive, and consequently embodied much of what is not right and good, there might not be much left of them or her once the swords have done their work” (p. 385). (‘Them or her’ is grammatically both awkward and unnecessary.) Cognitively speaking, continually behaving in a deceptive manner will lead to many MMNs that are inconsistent with Perceiver truth. If these personal MMNs are triggered at the same time as the TMN of a concept of God based in universal truth, then this TMN will use the emotional might of a universal theory to impose its structure upon these deceptive personal MMNs, threatening these MMNs with annihilation. The path of personal transformation allows a growing TMN of a concept of God to annihilate and rebuild personal MMNs one at a time. The deceptive person who comes face-to-face with the universal God experiences all of this at once. A God of mysticism will not impose moral content because it is based in Teacher overgeneralization that transcends the facts of human existence. Thus, mystical experiences will not lead directly to feelings of moral inadequacy. But coming too close to the TMN of a God of overgeneralization will lead to the gut feeling that humanity has no right to exist.
Going further, coming face-to-face with the TMN of a concept of a rational God will impact core mental networks, because religion attempts to deal with the deepest issues of personal existence. In Peterson’s words, “Some things make very little difference to us one way or another, while others strike us deeply. If we are hit hard enough in the heart – if what is profoundly important and fundamental makes itself manifest to us, it is unclear that we can withstand the upset” (p. 386).
Neurologically speaking, “Those who have been exposed to violation of their assumptions sufficient to produce severe suffering in the aftermath... experience post-event growth of the amygdala, a brain area specialized in the production of negative emotion, as well as shrinkage of the hippocampus, a brain area that inhibits negative emotion by placing otherwise incomprehensible occurrences into comprehensible and familiar context” (p. 386). The theory of mental symmetry has been mapped in detail onto neurology; this 85 page paper with almost 200 references is too large to be published in any journal, but the copy uploaded to researchgate has been read almost 1400 times while the copy uploaded to psyarxiv has been read over 500 times. The two amygdalae are the emotional processors for Mercy and Teacher thought that add emotional labels (not just negative but both good and bad) to Mercy experiences and/or Teacher words. (One amygdala is buried beneath the verbal left temporal lobe while the other is within the experiential right temporal lobe.) The two hippocampi are the processors for Perceiver and Server thought, with the left hippocampus focusing upon repeated sequences and the right hippocampus focusing upon repeated connections. Growth of the amygdala combined with shrinkage of the hippocampus means that strong emotions are overwhelming the mental ability to use Perceiver and Server thought—as Peterson describes.
Peterson adds that “The thalamus – a structure key to the intensity of consciousness – becomes increasingly sensitive to sensory stimuli, a transformation that increases the general apprehension associated with virtually every experience” (p. 387). The thalamus is associated with Facilitator thought which maintains mental balance by coordinating both sensory input and the function of various cognitive modules. The Facilitator person is keenly aware of the balance between mental functioning and sensory input.
It was suggested earlier that Perceiver thought can gain confidence by learning to successfully function in the presence of emotional pressure. Such a mental ‘weight lifting program’ is known as cognitive behavior therapy. Peterson points out that “Generally speaking – with treatment or natural recovery, often through voluntary exposure – such damage can be rectified” (p. 387).
Peterson then applies this to religious rituals, mentioning that Carl Jung stated that “Organized religion provides a defense against religious experience, pointing out as well that a counterproductive narrowing can easily accompany that defensive process, strategy, or tradition” (p. 387). Looking at this cognitively, a TMN will form if Teacher thought comes up with a general theory that is composed of some sequence of words or symbols and then continues to use this theory. But a TMN will also form if Server thought continues to repeat some sequence of actions, because Teacher thought will come up with a nonverbal ‘general theory’ that summarizes the essence of the path being traveled by the repeated sequence. This explains, for instance, why graceful action feels good and why coordinated, synchronized, graceful action feels especially good. A religious ritual performs some repetitive sequence of actions that has turned into a TMN and then claims that this sequence of actions symbolically represents some primary aspect of the TMN of a concept of God. Peterson is using this cognitive similarity to analyze myths and religious narratives in order to uncover the underlying implicit concepts of God. When a group of people lack the ability to construct TMNs of rational understanding, then the only alternative is to use religious rituals to form TMNs that symbolize this rational understanding. Such ‘organized religion’ provides an emotional ‘defense against religious experience’ but it also leads to a ‘counterproductive narrowing’ because a religious ritual that represents some universal understanding is more limited than the universal understanding itself. For instance, an electrician may know how to ‘follow the code’ but does not know how to apply general principles of electricity to novel situations.
Peterson describes a path by which the limited TMNs of religious ritual can be expanded into TMNs of verbal understanding. “Habits that come to govern the interaction of a society can first be portrayed, dramatically; and then from that dramatic portrayal, represented explicitly in language” (p. 389). Thomas Kuhn refers to this as learning from exemplars. According to Kuhn, this student of science does not just learn facts and study math but carries out the Server sequences of solving characteristic problems. Learning the Server sequence, habit, or ritual of solving one scientific problem teaches a recipe to be followed which is then generalized to a problem-solving method that is capable of solving many similar problems.
Peterson concludes, “The behavioral pattern of the group is a model of the environment in which the group emerged... Since that behavioral pattern supersedes in its complexity and subtlety the understanding of any individual within the group, society is therefore complex in its totality beyond comprehension... The dream is thus the birthplace of what comes to be coded verbally” (p. 390). This describes what happens if one starts with the Server sequences of religious ritual, because these lead to non-verbal TMNs of habit that have no relationship to the explicit words of Teacher thought. Subconscious processing as well as dreaming will gradually determine patterns within these implicit non-verbal TMNs of ritual, making it possible to turn non-verbal religious ritual into verbal myth and narrative.
But this is not what happens with either science or mental symmetry. A fundamental premise of science is that the implicit Server sequences of natural processes can be described explicitly in Teacher thought using the language of mathematics. Similarly, a fundamental premise of mental symmetry is that the implicit Server sequences of universal cognitive mechanisms can be described explicitly in Teacher thought using the diagram and language of mental symmetry. This premise has been tested extensively by using mental symmetry to analyze a wide range of fields and systems, as illustrated by this essay. For instance, we are seeing in this essay that the inadequacies of Peterson’s analysis are not random. Instead, most of them emerge naturally from the two fundamental inadequacies of a) lacking the TMN of an integrated theory of cognition, and b) assuming that male technical thought is the primary form of human thought.
Another inadequacy emerges from treating Scripture as myth or narrative. The diagram of mental symmetry shows that Contributor connects Perceiver and Server. In concrete thought, Contributor thought connects Perceiver facts with Server actions, leading to the concept of cause-and-effect, and cause-and-effect is the basic building block of concrete technical thought. When subjective MMNs are added, then cause-and-effect turns into personal sowing and reaping, or moral cause-and-effect. Peterson talks extensively about moral cause-and-effect in this book. In abstract thought, Contributor thought connects Perceiver facts with Server sequences of words and symbols, leading to precise definitions. Adding Teacher emotions leads to the concept of subsidiarity, which turns the relationship between general and specific into a Jacob’s Ladder with precisely defined rungs. Thus, at the conceptual level, Peterson is using both concrete and abstract technical thought.
But myth or narrative functions at the concrete level of moral cause-and-effect and moves to abstract principles through a subconscious, implicit process. This means that it is not possible to apply precise meanings to the religious text that one is analyzing. Instead, one is forced to use normal thought to look for repeated patterns, leading to vague conclusions that A equals B equal C. For instance, Moses “brandishes the magic staff is his divine authority – the magic wand of Gandalf and Dumbledore, the shepherd’s crook of David, the light saber of Obi-Wan Kenobi, the spear of Odin that never misses the center of the target, the flag that rallies the troops” (p. 373). Similarly, Peterson’s description of biblical meanings and biblical stories is a little sloppy, which is appropriate if the Bible is a typical set of myths that have emerged subconsciously and implicitly from repeated experiences of moral cause-and-effect.
In contrast, the 3400 pages of biblical analysis that I have posted on my website have been guided by the underlying principle that every Greek word (and presumably Hebrew word) can be given a single precise symbolic interpretation based upon the official definition of that Greek word. This same symbolic definition is used everywhere that this Greek word appears in the New Testament. This type of single-minded consistency goes beyond even the most accurate biblical translations, because it is fairly common for two different Greek words in some passage to be translated using the same English word or for the same Greek word to be translated as different English words when it is repeated in some passage. I follow this principle because I know that precise definitions are the foundation for abstract technical thought, and I want to ensure that my textual analysis is consistent with abstract technical thought. After having gone through two thirds of the New Testament (and several chapters in the Old Testament) applying this principle, I have found that the results do not just make cognitive sense, but rather lead to in humanly accurate conclusions such as my previous essay which interpreted the entire epistle of James as a detailed prophecy of Protestantism.
Thus, I find myself in the strange situation of telling a male Contributor person who prides himself on careful analysis that the biblical text needs to be analyzed with greater care and rigor. Peterson is giving the biblical text the greatest rigor possible—assuming that it emerged as myth. And Peterson is treating the biblical text with greater care than the average book on the Bible which conveys vague emotional meanings by quoting random verses out of context. But I have found from extended careful analysis that it is possible to go even further and treat the Bible as a textbook of cognition.
The Ten Commandments
Peterson portrays the arrangement at Mount Sinai as an example of subsidiarity. “The mountain itself is arranged such that God is at its pinnacle. Moses, prophet of God, is next. The priests are third in line... and the common people at the base. This is another representation of Jacob’s Ladder, as well as an analog of the structure of subsidiarity” (p. 391). I suggest that it makes more sense to view this as a hierarchy of mental networks. God at the top is guided emotionally by pure TMNs of universal understanding. Moses is able to approach God because Moses has internally constructed TMNs of rational understanding that are compatible with a concept of God and has internally submitted personal and social MMNs to this concept of God. The priests are functioning at the level of religious ritual. They lack the rational understanding of Moses but they have internally constructed TMNs of religious rituals that symbolically represent a rational concept of God. The common person approaches the topic guided by cultural MMNs and approaches religion from the Mercy perspective of personal status and religious experience. As far as the common person is concerned, the priests are important people in Mercy thought who are personal sources of knowledge about God. This emotional arrangement is significantly different than the Teacher-based subsidiarity of delegated authority.
Mental symmetry suggests that the Ten Commandments summarize fundamental cognitive principles that must be maintained if one is to pursue mental wholeness guided by an understanding of how things work. In Peterson’s words, “The Ten Commandments reflect the patterns of attention and action on which many other patterns rest – or are, in other words, the rules on which many other rules rest. They are deep or fundamental because of that – by definition” (p. 392). In other words, if these commandments are not followed, then people’s minds will cease functioning properly, and if people’s minds stop functioning properly, then society will break down. Peterson adds that “Under those ten, according to later revelation, lurks something even deeper, the so-called Great Commandment, which has two separate elements that are in turn united, in their essence: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind’ and ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’... The Great Commandment is a meta-rule, describing as it does the founding principle, a pinnacle aspiration, of the ten separate explicit rules” (p. 392).
Looking at this more carefully, the word heart in Matthew 22:37 refers to ‘the affective center of our being’ and is interpreted as mental networks of personal identity. Soul is the word ‘psyche’ which is interpreted as the integrated mind. Mind combines ‘thoroughly’ with ‘mind or intellect’. Thus, the three primary ways in which the mind can function are being described: the ‘heart’ of female mental networks, the ‘mind’ of male technical thought, and the ‘soul’ of normal thought that mentally ‘marries’ these two. Love is the word agape, which ‘is often used in the New Testament to describe the love of God for humanity’ and is interpreted as emotions being generated by a concept of God in Teacher thought. Thus, using precise definitions based upon the original Greek words leads to the more detailed conclusion that all three primary modes of human thought need to be emotionally guided by an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. Neighbor means ‘near, nearby, a neighbor’. And like indicates similarity. Loving my neighbor as myself means that the same universal Teacher concept of God applies equally to me and to others. In other words, no one is above the law and everyone is equal under the law. (Equality under the law is quite different than the Teacher overgeneralization that everyone should be treated the same.) However, this is being stated emotionally rather than as a legal principle. At the Teacher level, one is making one’s concept of God more universal by allowing the general theories to apply equally to everyone. At the Mercy level, I am not just treating this as an abstract principle of equality under the law but rather applying it to the subjective Mercy experiences of me interacting with those who are nearby. The linking of these two commandments indicates that the abstract path of building universal understanding has to be combined with the concrete path of pursuing personal transformation.
In summary, ‘The Great Commandment is a meta-rule’ as Peterson states, but it is possible to state this rule more clearly using cognitive language, transforming this rule into something more rigorous than merely a ‘pinnacle aspiration’. But stating this meta-rule in emotional terms makes it possible for the average person to apply this rule at an instinctual level and experience substantial benefits, as well as making it possible for the mature person to apply this rule at the highest level of the spirit of the law.
Peterson adds, “It is a corollary of this hierarchical structure that the more peripheral laws are liable to be more culture-specific and the deeper principles more universal” (p. 393). Stated cognitively, deeper principles are based directly in the structure and functioning of the mind. More peripheral laws, in contrast, describe principles that should be applied when one is personally or socially at a specific point in the long-term path of developing the mind, or physically within a certain environment that has specific requirements. A corollary of this is that more specific Biblical rules generally need to be interpreted symbolically in order to pull them out of the culture within which they were presented.
For instance, New Testament references to men and women are interpreted cognitively as referring to male technical thought and female mental networks. Interaction between men and women was fairly limited in the Roman era, male and female roles were fairly rigid, and most labor focused upon physical desires and needs. Thus, the average man did not develop mental networks while the average female did not develop technical thought. Modern society, in contrast, both allows and encourages men to develop the emotional sensitivity of mental networks and women to develop the rigorous thinking of technical thought. This makes it possible to focus upon the more fundamental mental distinction between female mental networks and male technical thought. This internal focus is also essential because the man who develops mental networks, or focuses upon mental networks because of cognitive style, is susceptible to experiencing gender confusion if male technical thought is equated with having a male body. The Great Commandment provides a solution to such possible gender confusion by stating that everyone regardless of gender needs to be guided by a universal Teacher theory to develop the ‘heart’ of female mental networks, the ‘mind’ of male technical thought and then integrate these two with the ‘soul’ of normal thought. General theories in Teacher thought generate pleasure when applied to more situations and generate pain when there is an exception to the rule. Therefore, a mind that develops male thought, develops female thought, and then internally marries them will naturally want to live as a man or a woman within a heterosexual marriage in which mental networks of emotional experience from the physical body reinforce universal understanding in Teacher thought.
Peterson points out that “The Golden Rule... is a variant of the second part of the Great Commandment” (p. 395). This is true, but the problem with separating the second part of reciprocal action from the first part of loving God is that an accurate understanding of universal principles in Teacher thought tends to be replaced by the Teacher overgeneralization of universal equality in which everyone is supposed to be treated exactly the same. But people are not all exactly the same. Thus, the Golden Rule needs to be applied intelligently by recognizing that we are all approaching the same goal of mental and spiritual wholeness from different starting points and different vantage points.
However, the Golden Rule stated as an overgeneralization is still capable of recognizing and correcting gross violations. For instance, game theory notes that “To maintain interpersonal networks under the betrayal strategy, it is essential to continuously add new nodes to the network” (p. 395), which means that “Betrayers [need] a continual stream of new and naïve, willfully blind or otherwise unknowing victims” (p. 395). A Teacher overgeneralization of universal equality may not be able to lead towards mental wholeness, but it can point out the more egregious examples of inequality. Stated more generally, a Teacher overgeneralization can act for a while as an inspiration, but eventually it needs to be replaced by a more accurate understanding.
Returning to Mount Sinai, Peterson summarizes, “Moses convenes with God on the peak of Mount Sinai for forty days and nights in what appears as a ‘consuming fire in the eyes of the Israelites’ and receives, in consequence, the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inscribed upon them. Inscribed stone signifies permanence... After his receipt of the rules, the prophet is given detailed instructions for the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, designed to contain the stone tablets as well as the mobile tabernacle” (p. 396). This describes the process by which absolute truth forms. The original personal source of truth is accompanied by strong emotions that cause listeners to give great emotional status to this living person. The words of this special person are written down, giving them permanence and stability. These unchanging, written words are then housed within some environment of religious fervor that overwhelms Perceiver thought within the minds of ‘believers’ into ‘knowing’ that these words are absolute truth. This leads in the long-term to a mindset of absolute truth which ‘believes’ that truth was revealed to some special group of persons in the past and has been recorded for the present. The essential point is that the people who lived in the era when absolute truth was revealed were not mentally guided by a mindset of absolute truth. Similarly, attempting to instantly resurrect a lost mindset of absolute truth will instead create a mindset of tyranny.
Peterson mentions that “The Ark’s cover – the mercy seat – was held to be the place for symbol of atonement; the place of reconciliation between fragmented, anxious, and hopeless sinner and God” (p. 398). As was pointed out earlier, the same Greek word is used in the New Testament for both the Ark of the Covenant and the Ark of Noah. Peterson asks, “Is the repentance of sins equivalent to the shedding of deadwood and the cutting away of what would be inappropriate in heaven itself?” (p. 398). The verbal equating of these two arks in the New Testament suggests that reconciliation with God inevitably involves a journey of rescuing what is good while allowing what is not good to be swept away by the flood of God’s judgment. Using the school analogy, the change in personal status of being officially enrolled in a school must be accompanied by the personal path of taking the classes and passing the exams.
Peterson suggests, “To prioritize is to sacrifice, and to sacrifice properly is to atone. By definition, therefore, there is no difference between atonement and the assidious devotion of everything lower to what is higher... The necessity of sacrifice – and bloody sacrifice, at that – should really be self-evident” (p. 399). This may describe how the student in God’s school views the process of moral development. Similarly, sacrificing in the present in order to gain in the future is a fundamental principle of economics. But what is missing from this description is the positive emotional appeal of gaining a Teacher understanding of what is higher, which is reflected in the rare student who goes beyond studying for exams to being driven by a deep love of learning.
This emotional attraction is described in Hebrews 12:2 which refers to Jesus’ ‘bloody sacrifice’ on the cross. “Looking only at Jesus, the originator and perfecter of the faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame.” Looking only means ‘looking away from all else, to fix one’s gaze upon’ which describes prioritizing. Joy actually means ‘joy because of grace’ being driven by Teacher emotions. Grace describes God reaching down from Teacher thought to provide assistance. This Teacher ‘joy because of grace’ was set before Jesus indicating the positive emotional pull of Teacher order, universality, elegance, and beauty. Endure means ‘remaining under’. This recognizes that transforming mental networks is like peeling the layers of an onion; one has to remain under unpleasant pressure long enough for all the layers of the inadequate mental networks to become burned away by the TMN of divine light. Shame means ‘to dishonor or to disgrace’ which describes experiencing disapproval from social MMNs. And despise means ‘to think little of’. The typical Christian depiction of the crucifixion of Christ focuses upon the depths of his physical suffering and social rejection—the ‘necessity of sacrifice—and bloody sacrifice at that’. But Hebrews 12:2 describes something quite different which is focusing upon the desirability and brightness of Teacher joy and grace, embracing this holy fire without shrinking away, while emotionally belittling the current painful MMNs. I am not trying to minimize the physical pain of crucifixion; it was a nasty way of dying. But Scripture itself says that Jesus himself viewed the crucifixion from a positive perspective and not just as a ‘bloody sacrifice’.
Such a higher perspective is only possible if one is not just aiming for the highest, but actually has an integrated understanding of the highest in Teacher thought. Jesus had this because he began as the Logos of God who was with God and is God. (John 1:1). Similarly, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry is close enough to make it possible to reinterpret the painful process of ‘bloody sacrifice’ from the positive perspective of remaining under in order to gain personal ownership of Teacher joy.
Moses II, The Golden Calf
Peterson begins this chapter with the worship of the golden calf. “Moses is apparently a bit delayed in returning. Impatient, his slavish and fractious people demand that Aaron make them a golden calf... an offering to the gods of immediate gratification and worship of the narrow self” (p. 403). As was mentioned earlier, one disadvantage of Moses appointing a mouthpiece is that the mouthpiece is motivated by MMNs of respect for Moses and will attempt to present the message in a manner that appeals to the social MMNs of his audience. If the source of truth disappears and the audience complains, then the mouthpiece will become motivated by a desire to preserve the approval of the masses. In Peterson’s words, “Aaron as political leader falls prey to the temptation and accedes to the impulsive demands of his people as soon as the voice of the divine Himself (in the form of Moses) fall silent” (p. 404). In other words, Aaron’s ‘voice of the divine Himself’ was actually ‘in the form of Moses’.
Peterson adds that “The purely political divorced from the traditional is not only susceptible to domination by the careless momentary whim of the people but also, as it turns out, by the careless momentary whim of the worst within a small minority of people. This strongly implies that in the absence the voice of truly upward and difficult aim, the most immature and dysregulate will clamor, successfully, for control” (p. 406). Stated cognitively, making progress requires emotionally belittling MMNs of culture and the status quo. But the mind that becomes emotionally freed from the control of these MMNs also loses its stability and becomes vulnerable to emotional experiences from the physical body and/or the excitement provided by novel MMNs that violate the norms of society. That is why it is so important for personal and societal progress to be motivated by the positive pull of a growing TMN rather than the negative push of fragmenting MMNs.
This contrast is brought about by the Greek word betray which is used both in a negative sense to describe Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and also in a positive sense to describe a committing or delivering. The cognitive principle is that a major shift in society has to be triggered by some ‘betrayer’. This can happen in a negative way with the betrayer destroying what exists to the extent that one has to start anew from scratch. Aaron’s construction of the golden calf provides an illustration. But the major shift can also be triggered in a positive way with the development of something new that is so attractive and valuable that it makes the existing system seem worthless in comparison. God asked Moses to follow this positive path, but Moses refused. Moses has just spent forty days in the very presence of God but this apparently has no lasting emotional impact, because when God points out what the Israelites are doing, Moses does not say ‘Being in your presence is wonderful and I want more than anything to build upon that foundation’. Instead he says, ‘What will the Egyptians think? Why are you so angry at Israel? You promised!’
As Peterson points out, God “is sufficiently unhappy enough about this betrayal to contemplate destroying the Israelites. He then offers Moses the possibility of being the sole progenitor, like Noah or Abraham, of the future chosen people of God. Moses rejects this offer, choosing instead to set his brother straight and upbraid his people” (p. 404). Peterson’s summary skips verse 14, where “God relented of the harm”. This omission is theologically interesting because the typical theologian focuses upon addressing the theologically difficult concept of a transcendent and perfect God changing his mind. That is because the typical theologian views the perfection of God as a static Perceiver fact from which any change would be in the direction of imperfection, as opposed to a perfection or completeness of function. Jesus addresses the concept of divine perfection in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:48. “Therefore you shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The word perfect, which is used twice, is related to the word ‘telos’ and means ‘mature from going through the necessary stages to reach the end-goal’. The focus here is upon process and wholeness and humans are supposed to reach a similar state of perfection. Thus, a perfect God follows processes based upon reaching wholeness and maturity.
Applying this to the interaction between God in Moses, what really happens is not God changing his mind but rather Moses failing to demonstrate the personal characteristics that would be required for God to start again with Moses. Exodus 32:11-13 presents Moses’ arguments. In verse 12, Moses focuses upon what the Egyptians will think and say. In verse 13, he reminds God of the promise he swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Stated cognitively, Moses is unwilling to adopt the attitude taken by Jesus in Hebrews 12:2. Moses is not willing to emotionally minimize disapproval from social MMNs but rather places great emotional significance upon how the Egyptian would respond. And he is unwilling to remain within the condition of being alone where he would be forced to fixate his attention fully upon the joy and grace of God in Teacher thought.
When Moses descends from the mountain he calls for vigilante justice and about 3000 are killed. Peterson suggests that Moses’ “cardinal sin is his tendency to use compulsion and force when invitation and discussion might suffice” (p. 407). This may describe Moses’ behavior, but Moses’ final words in Deuteronomy 31-32 suggest a deeper cognitive reason. In 31:29 Moses says, “For I know that after my death you will behave very corruptly and turn from the way which I have commanded you.” Most of the following prayer by Moses in Deuteronomy 32 describes God revealing himself to Israel, Israel rejecting God because they are a rebellious people, God punishing Israel, and then God responding with forgiveness. What is missing is any concept of people being transformed by encountering God: God punishes and then forgives, but the people do not change. Moses assumed on Mount Sinai that God’s promise to bless Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob meant that God would continue to preserve the existing people with their inadequate cultural MMNs. Similarly, Moses’ extended encounter with God on Mount Sinai left Moses’ existing MMNs intact. I conclude that Moses adopted the wrong meta-theory in Teacher thought, viewing inadequate cultural MMNs as more solid and unchanging than the TMN of a concept of God. This attitude may have come from Moses’ Egyptian education because Egyptian culture remained unusually stagnant and unchanged for several millennia.
Peterson observes, “Immediately thereafter, God reiterates his desire for the Israelites to sojourn to the promised land, but withdraws his direct leadership, substituting instead the much lesser form of an angel” (p. 408). On the one hand, God must lead the Israelites to the promised land, because God is following a long-term plan to wholeness that has to work with the existing elements of existing society. If Moses is unwilling to start again from scratch, then the only remaining alternative is to continue working with the Israelites. But on the other hand, Teacher thought loathes building a structure upon a shaky foundation. For instance, when the Teacher person decides that some source of information is untrustworthy, then the Teacher person will instinctively responded by writing that source off completely and never again learning anything from that source. I know from personal experience what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this. God maintains his eternal plan—because God is sovereign—but also establishes emotional distance by leading the Israelites indirectly through an angel.
Peterson describes what happens next. “Moses pitches a temporary technical outside the camps that everyone who desires can worship there. This means that the holy center has now become marginalized – a restatement of the idea that God has been replaced by a lesser angel” (p. 409). The cognitive principle is that when encountering God in Teacher thought becomes associated with forgiving sin and maintaining the inadequate status quo, then the actual change becomes driven from the periphery of society.
Going further, Moses complains that he also needs extra emotional certainty to know that God will go with them. This emotional need of Moses is consistent with the suggestion that Moses ultimate meta-theory is based upon the unchanging and unchangeable MMNs of Israelite culture. If my deepest emotional premise is that an encounter with God does not change me, then I will obviously have problems believing that God can change me. Peterson points out this uncertainty. “Moses therefore asks God to clarify the situation, to show him the way and buttress his belief that Israel is still God’s favored nation” (p. 409). Peterson accurately describes Moses’ backward priority, because the ultimate question is not whether God will still protect Israel but rather if Israel is still capable of following God.
In Exodus 33:18 Moses wants to descend to the level of Mercy experiences “Then Moses said, ‘Please show me your glory!’” Talking with God in Teacher thought is not enough. Instead, Moses wants to see in Mercy thought. The ironic principle is that Moses would see the glory of God if God in Teacher thought was permitted to transform the existing MMNs of the Israelites in Mercy thought. This provides a cognitive explanation for why God does not show his face to Moses but rather passes by and then shows Moses his back. Instead of being guided by the TMN of a concept of God, Moses now is only capable of seeing God in retrospect. That is because what Moses now sees when he ‘comes face-to-face with God’ is no longer the real God of burning holiness but rather a fake God of tolerance and atonement.
This summarizes the typical Christian walk of faith which is characterized by following God blindly without understanding and then looking back and seeing the hand of God. This type of relationship is illustrated by the common Christian meme of the tapestry. Quoting from one Christian website, “Over the years, I’ve heard many people relate the Christian life to something like a tapestry. You see, when you examine the back of a tapestry, it looks like a messy jumble of thread. It seems to be random and all tangled, with no apparent image or meaning. But when you turn the tapestry over, you see the beautiful pattern... [Similarly] when looking back over the years, we can often see the other side: God’s miraculous hand has weaved a beautiful tapestry.”
Peterson mentions some of the ‘fake gods’ that take the place of a God of burning, universal wholeness, including ‘the great Communist delusion’, ‘the national Socialists’, the ‘self-congratulatory sadism of the Marquis de Sade’, ‘love of the planet’, and the ‘sexual revolution’ (p. 411). Peterson points out the inadequacies of these fake gods in no uncertain terms, and I appreciate his sentiment.
Peterson describes the second giving of the law to Moses as inferior to the first. “The new covenant appears to be a comparatively degenerate variant, indicating once again some permanent deterioration of the relationship between the divine and the chosen people, as the notable biblical interpreter suggests: ‘Something is always lost by sin, even when it is forgiven’” (p. 412). This happens when a person chooses to follow childish MMNs rather than the TMN of an understanding of God and then emotionally backs up this choice with emotional physical actions. Mental networks created by emotional experiences from the physical body can reinforce the TMN of a concept of God, but they can also create stable mental networks that oppose a TMN of God, because they are backed up by physical sensations from a physical body from which one cannot escape. This explains why the Bible speaks so adamantly against sexual sin.
Peterson may not fully realize the saving power of a universal rational TMN, but he definitely grasps the damning power of a flawed, childish MMN. “No warp put into the structure of reality by misaligned aim disappears of its own accord. The error must be corrected, if not by the sinner himself, then by those who follow in his wake. This is a terrible truth. But it can hardly be otherwise” (p. 412).
Mount Sinai the Second Time
Peterson makes this comment in response to God’s statement in Exodus 34:7 during Moses’ second ascent of Mt. Sinai that He will inflict the punishment of fathers on their children to the third and fourth generation. Moses replies to this divine pronouncement in verse 9 by stating his meta-theory: “Please may the Lord go along in our midst, even though the people are so obstinate, and pardon our wrongdoing and our sin, and take us as Your own possession.” Notice that Moses’ most fundamental mental network is not the holiness of God in Teacher thought but rather the unchanging obstinacy of his peoples’ MMNs. Moses is also not asking for the ability to become more holy, but rather for forgiveness from God. The word possession actually means ‘inheritance’. Children inherit from their parents. In terms of mental networks, a subsidiary mental network inherits from the parent mental network upon which it depends. But Moses has just stated that Israelite cultural MMNs bear no family resemblance to the TMN of God. In essence, Moses is saying to God, ‘I know that the Israelites are rebellious bastards and not true children. But will you leave them your inheritance anyway?’ There is no recognition here that God is a holy consuming fire who wants an inheritance of children who resemble Him in character.
God’s response in verse 10 is interesting. “Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you.” Miracle means ‘wonder, marvel’ and the previous time that this word was used was in Exodus 3:20 where God told Moses that he would strike Egypt with all his miracles. Cognitively speaking, miracles are not a healthy thing because they create powerful MMNs of supernatural experience that overwhelm Perceiver and Server thought. In verse 10, the purpose of these powerful miracles is not to save the Israelites but rather to demonstrate to the surrounding people the fear of God. The general principle is that if God cannot find an intelligent friend like Abraham to accomplish his plans, then he will use individuals and groups by manipulating their mental networks. Using the language of Peterson, this is a terrible truth. But it can hardly be otherwise.
When Moses descends from Mount Sinai for the second time, his face is shining and he has to put on a veil. As a side note, this word qaran which means ‘to shine, to emit rays’ is only used in this passage of the Bible, where it appears three times. A related word is used in Psalm 69:31 which is translated ‘horns’. Because of a medieval confusion over these two meanings, Moses was often portrayed in medieval paintings and sculptures with horns.
Peterson thinks that this shining indicates closeness to God. “Moses is so affected by his encounter with God that when he descends from the mountain and rejoins his people, his face, suffused with reflected glory, is intolerable in its sheer intensity of gaze. He must veil himself to lessen his people’s holy terror” (p. 413). However, what has just happened suggests a more sinister meaning. God is now going to lead his people with the appearance of magic, using emotional Mercy experiences to overwhelm and impose truth upon Perceiver thought. The following final six chapters of Exodus describe the construction of the tabernacle. The implication is that when people refuse to follow God, then God can still lead such a people implicitly by setting up a system of religious ritual and holiness because TMNs of ritual and habit will act as a substitute for TMNs of rational understanding.
More generally, Peterson suggests that “First, every ideal is also inescapably a judge; second, every deviation from the ideal makes the inevitable judgment harsher” (p. 414). These are accurate statements, but there is an additional cognitive factor based upon the interaction between confidence and emotions. If the ideal is too bright, then the response will shift from acquiring knowledge in Perceiver thought and gaining skills in Server thought to the non-saving emotional response of worship.
Looking at this from a different perspective, I have often wondered as a pacifistic Mennonite if there is an alternative to fighting wars. It may be possible to find an answer in some form of holiness that is too bright to bear. Peterson describes what this feels like. “Why does the face of Moses shine, when he is filled with the glory of the divine? Because whatever God might be is so much that even those who merely reflect his majesty become intimidating, even unbearable in their enlightenment and illumination; become terribly and deeply threatened to those steeped in sin” (p. 414).
Peterson points out that the Israelites construct the tabernacle with enthusiasm. “The Israelites pitch in with great enthusiasm, having perhaps at least for a time learned their lesson... This seems like a better deal than the replacement of God with a mere angel, as was threatened. It seems that the intercession of Moses, the successful negotiation of the second covenant, and the willingness of the Israelites to sacrifice for the Tabernacle have convinced God to reestablish his direct leadership” (p. 415). But has the direct leadership really been reestablished, or is God now going to interact with the Israelites at the more concrete level of religious ritual? Did Moses successfully negotiate a second covenant, or did God conclude that he would now have to interact with Moses at the level of rules and regulations rather than treat him as a friend like Abraham? Peterson does not ask this question because he is interacting with God primarily at an intermediate level of interpreted religious ritual and not at the highest level of direct interaction within Teacher thought.
Peterson concludes, “The tabernacle of the Israelites is precursor to the synagogue, the cathedral, and the church. It is what becomes the center of town and city, the place of gathering for the sacrificial offering of the united community, the establishment within which the confession, repentance, and atonement that stabilizes and recalibrates the misaligned psyche can occur, so that it once again aims in the upward direction that harmonizes individual with the hierarchy of society and the present with the future” (p. 415). This describes religion functioning at the concrete level of organized ritual. Instead of being guided by internal Mercy Platonic forms of perfection that are generated internally by Teacher understanding, the average person is driven by special rituals carried out by special people within special Mercy locations that are separated from normal Mercy actions, people, and locations by walls of holiness. And the primary purpose is not expressing internal TMNs of order through ‘the hierarchy of society’ and the possible ‘future’ of Platonic forms with the present, but rather recovering from ‘the misaligned psyche’ in order to restore the external Teacher order of ‘the hierarchy of society’. Stated simply, instead of earth expressing heaven more accurately, earth is recovering from heading for hell.
This distinction can be seen in the process of ‘confession, repentance, and atonement’. Confession is typically interpreted as ‘I messed up’, repentance as ‘I am sorry for messing up’, and atonement as ‘please forgive me for messing up”. But the Greek word confess actually means ‘to speak the same thing’ and repent means to ‘think differently afterwards’. This describes agreeing with some verbal theory in Teacher thought and then allowing this agreement to change one’s thinking in abstract thought. Instead of the misaligned psyche being recalibrated in concrete thought, the paradigm is being changed in abstract thought. As for atonement, it may mean at-one-ment in English, but the Greek word atonement means ‘an offering to appease an angry, offended party’. This does apply to Peterson’s description of once again aiming in the upward direction, but this word is only used twice as a noun and twice as a verb in the New Testament. In contrast, forgive, which means to ‘send away, release’ is used 17 times as noun and 146 times as a verb. Sending away or releasing means that the faulty mental network is no longer present to misaligne the psyche. Stated more simply, forgiveness means breaking the bad habit instead of apologizing for having carried out the bad habit again.
In a similar vein, Peterson says that “What is taboo and unclean is what is forbidden by conscience, what contaminates, what poses a threat to the harmonious integrity of individual and community. There is a certain arbitrariness to or variation in what is forbidden, society to society” (p. 416). Taboos prevent unwanted mental networks from being triggered. A taboo is like the Muslim practice of women covering themselves up in order to avoid triggering mental networks of lust within men. Similarly, uncleanness means avoiding connecting ‘bad’ Mercy experiences with personal identity. For instance, when I grew up, I was taught that a ‘good Christian’ did not go into a movie theater and I was warned that being seen in a movie theater by others would ‘harm my Christian testimony’. This describes a conscience that focuses upon the negative of what is forbidden and what contaminates. This emphasis upon avoiding the negative is consistent with ‘recalibrating the misaligned psyche’, with the goal being to preserve the Teacher order of ‘individual and community’.
However, the Greek word clean means ‘pure because unmixed’ and unclean is the word ‘clean’ with a negative prefix. ‘Pure because unmixed’ is a positive definition where all mental networks are pointing in the same direction. Going further, the ultimate social order is the internal interaction between cognitive modules. Mental purity means that all seven cognitive modules are heading in the same direction rather than fighting each other. Mental purity becomes possible when the function of all seven cognitive modules is guided by the TMN of a cognitive theory of mental wholeness. For instance, instead of covering up women in order to avoid triggering male lust, both male and female minds are reprogrammed to head in the direction of the internal beauty of an integrated mind; a mind that is driven to seek internal beauty would not dare take advantage of external beauty.
Peterson says that taboos can be somewhat arbitrary. This arbitrariness comes from focusing upon avoiding forbidden experiences and mental networks in Mercy thought. Mercy thought lives in a world of specific experiences and the arrangement of experiences in the physical world is somewhat arbitrary. Teacher thought, in contrast, looks for order and feels bad when there is an exception to the rule. Thus, a mind that is guided by the TMN of an integrated understanding will naturally want to replace arbitrary negative taboos with positive universal principles. Peterson adds that “The attention to the niceties of taboo is at least a signal of individual acceptance of the sacrifice upon which society is necessarily predicated” (p. 417). In other words, is a person willing to submit personal MMNs to the MMNs of society when there is a conflict between these two? Seeking the Teacher order of internal purity recognizes that following semi-arbitrary MMNs is more ordered than rebelling from mental networks. But when growing Teacher understanding violates some semi-arbitrary MMN, then a person must take the lonely path that Peterson recommends in his book and choose to submit to the TMN of wholeness rather than the semi-arbitrary MMN. Stated simply, one never rebels from the law. Instead, one submits to a higher law.
Peterson recognizes that warnings that those who disobey God will be punished are backed up by reality. “If such warning reflects reality, in that there are indeed the harshest of consequences for the sins of pride, resentment, rebellion, usurpation, and deceit, why should warning against them be regarded as cruel?” (p. 419). Using a simple example, it is not cruelty to put up a sign ‘Danger high-voltage’ and warn people of the dire consequences of ignoring this warning. That is because the punishment is actually coming from violating how things work. High-voltage can kill because it can disrupt the electrical functioning of the human body. Stated cognitively, all Perceiver facts do not come from being emotionally overwhelmed by MMNs of power and status—as postmodernism asserts. Instead, it is also possible for Perceiver thought to come up with solid facts by looking for connections that are repeated. The warnings of God are describing universal repeated connections of moral cause-and-effect. If I touch the high voltage, for instance, then I will be electrocuted.
Today’s society desperately needs to listen to what Peterson is saying. But notice that Peterson is still functioning primarily at the concrete technical level of cause-and-effect rather than at the abstract technical level of defining more carefully what it means to pursue personal and societal purity. And Peterson is focusing upon the hell that breaks loose when principles of moral cause-and-effect are violated rather than the heaven that reaches down when order and purity are pursued. This negative focus is illustrated by the example that Peterson gives on page 420 of the Japanese in Nanking in 1937. This example is so horrific that I stopped reading it after the first line because I do not want to fill Mercy thought within my mind with such evil. I do not want to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; I want to be guided by the ‘carrot’ of Teacher purity rather than the ‘stick’ of Mercy abomination.
Peterson says that “The speed and angle of descent increases with persistence, and down can be a terribly long way down. This is why hell is a bottomless pit, archetypally speaking” (p. 421). I know from personal experience that this is true, because for most of my life I have watched society go downhill, and every time that I think that the bottom has been reached, some element of society manages to dig and find another basement—which then becomes the new accepted standard, guided by the Teacher overgeneralization of universal tolerance. But focusing upon the theory of mental symmetry has also made it possible for me to internally envision new levels of heaven and paradise that I did not think were possible.
Peterson observes that developing abstract technical thought is an essential aspect of emerging from Mercy-driven tribal society to modern civilization. “The book of Numbers... establish[es] the statistics on which the modern state depends... These are all major steps forward in the process enabling the emergence of a highly organized large-scale civilization, allowing as they do the process of numerical abstraction and calculation to be applied to the problem of organizing and understanding the details of communal life” (p. 421). Stated cognitively, statistical analysis ensures that Perceiver facts about reality pass the threshold of certainty required by technical thought. Numerical abstraction and calculation then analyzes this data using precise definitions and logical reasoning in abstract technical thought. (I have looked briefly at the cognitive basis for mathematical thought in a paper.) This is all fine and good, as long as technical thought does not regard its success at creating ‘a highly organized large-scale civilization’ as a justification for treating male technical thought as the only valid form of thought. Peterson adds that “Numbers also subtly portrays the division of labor that is an additional vital precondition for the communal provision of abundance” (p. 422). Specialization is a fundamental aspect of the concrete technical thinking of a modern economy as well as the abstract technical thinking of academia. This is also fine and good as long as normal thought is used to bridge these specializations guided by the TMN of a meta-theory that integrates the various fragments.
Peterson points out that “The tendency to claim victimization is a pronounced tendency of the worst of people – the very Machiavellians, manipulators, narcissists, psychopaths, parasites, and sadists studied by modern analysts of deepest and most destructive psychopathologies. Once they have defined themselves as unjustly situated and cursed, nothing is forbidden to them” (p. 423). One sees again that Peterson is more of an expert at hell than he is at heaven. This is legitimate expertise, but it also poisons one’s spirit because it is another example of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I am not an expert at such twisted modes of thought, but I suspect that the following is happening: What strikes me as how often psychological projection is being used in which perpetrators accuse others of performing the very crime that they are committing. Looking at this cognitively, suppose that a criminal treats someone else in a horrible fashion. These painful experiences will form MMNs within the minds of both the criminal and the victim. Triggering some memory within this painful mental network will activate the entire mental network which will impose the scenario upon the mind. The key principle is that the mind defines self in an indirect manner as the memories that continually come to mind. Self is initially defined by the abilities and limitations of the physical body because they are inescapable and continually come to mind and self then becomes expanded as a person acquires skills and expertise. This is examined further in a paper on mental networks and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Perceiver thought makes the concept of self more accurate by determining what mental content actually does repeatedly come to mind, leading to a self-image.
The other key principle is that it takes less mental effort to change the role that self plays within some triggered mental network than to alter the structure of the mental network itself. Thus, when an MMN of painful experiences (that the perpetrator himself created) is triggered within the mind of the perpetrator by some event or person, then victimization responds by focusing upon the experiences of the victim, fooling the mind of the perpetrator into feeling that ‘I am the victim’. This false self-image can then be reinforced by using various internal and verbal rationalizations to convince the perpetrator and others that the scenario that was triggered within his mind actually happened with him as the victim. Going further, this feeling of victimization within the mind of the perpetrator will be emotionally reinforced by the massive social disapproval that the perpetrator receives for such blatantly immoral reasoning: ‘See! Everyone really does hate me! I am a victim!’
As Peterson indicates, this type of twisted thinking is capable of rationalizing all manner of evil. The primary societal defense is unapologetic, consistent, accurate error-checking. Unfortunately, Zuckerberg declared two weeks ago that he would turn off fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram in deference to the incoming Trump administration. Fact-checking reveals that Trump told approximately 30,000 lies during his first term in office. Trump, of course, is the eternal victim.
Life after Death?
Peterson then discusses the biblical doctrine of ‘the wages of sin is death’, noting that “It seems beyond dispute that death is something built into the very structure of being, and not a consequence of moral error, no matter how extreme” (p. 426). But Peterson then questions this assertion, noting that “Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, we have radically increased the average span of life... This improvement is often attributed solely to technological progress, an accounting that fails to take into account the improvement in moral conduct that made that very technological progress possible” (p. 427).
Looking at this cognitively, technical thought requires Perceiver facts and Server sequences that passed some threshold of certainty. On the negative side, certainty can be preserved most easily by avoiding subjective Mercy feelings as well as sidestepping Teacher feelings of universality that might overwhelm Perceiver and/or Server confidence. Stated more simply, ‘People find it difficult to think rationally when subjective emotions get involved. Therefore, subjective emotions will be avoided.’ On the positive side, certainty can be acquired most easily by observing which Perceiver connections are physically repeated externally, as well as which Server sequences are repeated as natural processes. Stated more simply, ‘Seeing is believing’.
This short-term optimization leads in the long-term to the development of a materialistic, godless system of technical thought that belittles any discussion about God and/or non-material existence. Materialistic science notes that all physical bodies die and concludes that personal life ceases death, leading to Peterson’s initial statement that ‘death is something built into the very structure of being’.
But this is like the joke about the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost. When asked if that was where he had lost his keys, he replied ‘No, but it is easiest to look under the light of the lamppost’. Similarly, modern science became materialistic largely because that is where it is easiest to develop technical thought; studying physical reality is like searching under the lamppost where it is easiest to see. This implicit materialism becomes explicit when supported by a meta-theory of biological evolution, or in Peterson’s words, “the attribution of the existence of man to the same evolutionary biological processes and limitations that characterize every other living thing” (p. 426).
The positive emotion generated a Teacher meta-theory makes it possible for the evolutionist to tell you with a smile that he is going to be annihilated in a few decades, while the emotional imposition of a meta-theory-turned-TMN drives the evolutionist to look you in the eye when making his joyful statement of impending personal annihilation. Going further, a universal Teacher theory hates exceptions to the rule, and the Teacher theory of biological evolution has no place for the individual. Thus, proclaiming impending personal annihilation actually makes Teacher thought feel good within the mind of the evolutionist because it means that the impure element of self will stop imposing itself upon the ‘pure theory’ of the upward growth of biological life. Only one adjective is appropriate for such a twisted theory and that is the adjective ‘damn’.
Peterson, in contrast, is using technical thought to search for universal principles of cognitive sowing-and-reaping; he is attempting to search for his ‘missing keys’ away from the ‘lamppost’ of empirical evidence. He notices the empirical evidence that people are now living longer. His natural tendency is to regard this as a result of using the ‘superior thinking’ of male technical thought, but his TMNs of understanding cognitive mechanisms pull him further emotionally. “There would have been no technological miracle without prior development of the true humility and spirit of genuine query that made possible the scientific discovery upon which that technology depended. That in turn depended on faith” (p. 427).
Peterson then wonders which Teacher theory is more general. “How much is mortal suffering and even death itself a consequence of the inexorable effects of entropy and disorder, say, intrinsic to the existential situation of man as a material organism; and how much is it due to the moral failings that destabilize and corrupt our collective enterprises and make each of us much less than we could otherwise be?” (p.428). Thus, there is both a physical and a cognitive side to the question of life after death. The physical question is whether personal identity and personality continue to exist after physical death. This question cannot be answered empirically because the disembodied soul, by definition, leaves the realm of empirical physical reality. Stated analogically, it is not possible to determine the location—or even existence—of something that has left the light of the lamppost by searching only under the light of the lamppost. But there is also the cognitive question of whether one can conceive of life continuing after death. The evolutionist’s cheerful but driven nihilism as well as Peterson’s cautious questioning both indicate that being able to think about life after death requires a Teacher meta-theory that is capable of explaining non-material personal existence. Going further, once one becomes mentally capable of thinking about life-after-death, then one is faced with the further problem of learning how to think and behave in a cognitively and morally sustainable manner.
Mental symmetry is a meta-theory of cognition that focuses primarily upon the non-material interaction happening between the invisible lifeforms of cognitive modules. One cognitive implication is that I think a lot about life continuing after death, and mental symmetry gives me sufficient tools to be able to think intelligently about non-material personal existence. And when I use mental symmetry to study the Bible which talks about heaven and hell and life after death, I find, like Peterson, that the biblical content makes cognitive sense. Similarly, when I use mental symmetry to analyze anecdotes about angels, spirits, and non-material existence, I find that these stories also make cognitive sense. Additionally, my internal interaction with cognitive modules has grown to include internal social interaction with other imaginary friends. I do not know if these imaginary friends are actual angels or spirits but I have found that if I treat them as if they are intelligent beings, then they respond as intelligent beings. Thomas Kuhn says that a scientist can only abandon an inadequate paradigm when presented with a better paradigm. Peterson’s paradigm of cognitive improvement is sufficiently powerful to cause him to question the theory of biological evolution. Mental symmetry is sufficiently powerful to replace this theory of environmentally-driven personal damnation with a theory of cognitively-driven personal salvation.
Peterson warns, “As we move into the future, we encounter the endless spirits of opposition that dwell there. These are, all too often, the descendants of Cain: the prideful and resentful presumptions and habits of self and other that will make of that future nothing but the repetition of the sins and errors of the past. Those are the inhabitants that have to be overcome” (p. 429). Peterson has mentioned several times that growth will only continue as long as goals are placed in the right priority. Focusing upon cognitive development, as mental symmetry and Peterson do, does not mean that, in some Gnostic manner, that only the mind counts. Instead, it means that cognitive development provides an internal framework within which other goals can be placed and pursued in a manner that continues over the long-term. Thus, when one goes beyond the ‘wilderness’ of developing this internal framework to enter the ‘promised land’ of applying the internal framework, one will discover that this promised land is already occupied by many ‘descendants of Cain’ who have been pursuing these lesser goals without doing the prerequisite internal moral and cognitive homework.
Saying this another way, when one builds an Ark of Noah, then one will discover that most of the animals that need saving are surrounded by piles of manure, which means that one will have to dig through the manure in order to rescue the animal, and when one finally reaches the animal, then one will have to distinguish between what is animal and what is manure. The phrase ‘rinse and repeat’ is used to indicate repeating some process, but in this case mental and spiritual rinsing will be required between each repetition of digging out another animal buried in manure. Accurately distinguishing between animal and manure—a process that is like separating wheat from chaff with the additional element of living mental networks—requires the emotional assistance and guidance of a TMN of God based in rational understanding. Thus, the repeated digging, rinsing, and repeating will be accompanied by a deep feeling that God is actually bringing the animals to the ark.
The Ten Spies
Peterson then discusses the ten spies who report that the inhabitants of Canaan are too mighty to be defeated by the Israelites. “God has made it clear that his people, if they maintain the true covenant, will prevail even against apparently insuperable odds. The more timorous leaders nonetheless exaggerate the danger still to come, falsely and manipulatively portraying their remaining opponents as giants” (p. 430). In other words, this is ultimately a cognitive and emotional problem. Looking at this cognitively, the following emotional hierarchy exists within the minds of the pessimistic spies: At the top lies the mental networks representing the enemies in Canaan who are emotional giants. Below this lies the mental networks representing the people of Israel. At the bottom of the emotional pecking order is the Teacher mental network representing God. This emotional hierarchy is the result of decades of mentally feeding the wrong mental networks. Whenever the people, or Moses, worried about what the surrounding countries would think, they internally placed the mental networks of others above the mental networks of self within their emotional hierarchy. Similarly, whenever the people rebelled from God (or Moses regarded the people as inherently rebellious from God), then this placed the mental networks representing the people above the mental network representing God within the internal emotional hierarchy. The people—and Moses—exercised their free will repeatedly with countless little choices made while wandering through the wilderness. These little choices all added up to create an emotional hierarchy of mental networks that predetermined the response of the pessimistic spies and the people.
Peterson continues, “The demoralizing rumors spread like wildfire. The people, yet again, cry piteously... moaning even the fact that they are still alive; lamenting that they have come so far only to face defeat: “Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!” (p. 431). There is a vicious circle here that has created a powerful implicit TMN. Whenever the people rebel from God, God responds by punishing the people. Teacher thought will be motivated to come up with a general theory that explains these repeated experiences. One possible theory is that ‘God is holy and cannot tolerate sin’. An even better theory is that ‘God expresses his eternal character through universal unchanging principles. Violating these principles will lead inevitably to personal disaster because these principles are universal and unchanging.’ However, the most obvious theory to a mind that is governed by personal MMNs is the simple statement that ‘God hates me and wants me to die’. This third theory is the one proposed by the Israelites in Numbers 14:2.
I know what this means personally, because I have experienced repeated episodes of major, unjustified rejection throughout my life, usually imposed by some form of male technical thought, often personally implemented by a male Contributor person. It is easy for me to come up with the general Teacher theory that ‘God hates me!’ or ‘All male Contributor persons are evil!’ Thus, I have to continually choose to view these episodes through the Teacher lens of ‘God is leading me on a path to personal wholeness which requires burning away what is inadequate’ and ‘God is building in me the TMN of a rational meta-theory that integrates technical specializations, which means that I have to repeatedly enter a technical specialization, learn the content to the point of becoming competent, and then experience rejection that forces me to choose to follow God rather than man’. Saying this is easy. Saying this again and again whenever a new rejection happens or an old rejection comes to mind is much harder. But the end result of choosing to say this again and again is an emotional hierarchy of mental networks that makes it cognitively possible for me to enter the promised land.
(An hour before editing this paragraph, I read that President Trump has decided to implement tariffs of 25% on all Canadian imports in two days. The reasons that Trump gives are pure fabrication and Trump is violating a trade agreement that he himself signed. Trump is a prime example of the human parasite that Peterson continually warns against. I am quite certain that President Trump is a Contributor person. and I recently read that Peterson has moved to the US. Like Peterson, I loathe the wokeist policies of Justin Trudeau and the extreme political correctness of Canada. But I also believe that God is ultimately a God of Teacher order and not a God of Mercy status. Thus, I am currently having to choose again to believe that God loves me and that all male Contributor persons are not ultimately evil. This is not easy—but I am currently sensing an internal light of God’s eternal Kingdom that is even brighter than this darkness.)
Thus, in a very real sense, the social parasite discussed earlier really is an eternal victim, because such an individual is continuously experiencing the painful consequences of violating universal principles of how things work. However, instead of recognizing that universal moral principles are being repeatedly violated, the social parasite comes up with a general Teacher theory that ‘I am a victim. Everyone hates me! Even God hates me!’ This Teacher meta-theory of universal personal victimhood then turns into a TMN that emotionally imposes its interpretation upon MMNs of harmful behavior.
God decides again in Numbers 14:12 that he will wipe out the Israelites and begin again with Moses. Moses demonstrates the emotional hierarchy in his mind by taking five verses (13-17) to warn God what the surrounding nations will think, telling us that, like the people, the MMNs of the surrounding nations are at the top of the emotional hierarchy in his mind. Moses then takes two verses (18-19) to tell God that he is a God of forgiveness, indicating that his MMN representing the Israelites lies above the TMN of his concept of God, because when these two collide, then God is supposed to allow his TMN of holiness to be shaped by the Israelites’ MMNs of rebellion.
Moses’ emotional hierarchy of mental networks is also demonstrated physically by the fact that he (and Aaron) respond to the rebellion of the people in verse 5 by falling on their faces before the assembly of the Israelites. It is then Joshua and Caleb—the two positive spies—who open their mouths and tell the people that God is capable of saving them. The glory of God finally appears in verse 10 when the Israelites decide to stone their leaders.
God responds to Moses’ arguments in verses 20-21, “I have pardoned according to your word: but indeed, as I live, all the earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord.” God is not pardoning according to his word, but rather according to the word of Moses. Moses’ words demonstrate that he is mentally suffering from the same emotional hierarchy of mental networks as the rebellious Israelites. Thus, Moses lacks the internal content necessary for God to begin again with Moses. But God’s larger purpose based upon God’s personal existence (‘as I live’) will still happen, which is that the earth of human existence will be ruled by the TMN of a concept of God.
Peterson paints Moses as patient and God as tolerant but still judgmental. “Moses, who is nothing if not long-suffering, bargains with God, pleading for him to once again to forgive his sinful followers and to continue providing for them what has been promised, in spite of their faithfulness, noting that failure to do so will damage his holy reputation... God agrees to be good, so to speak—but not to completely forgo his vengeance” (p. 431). The ultimate reason that Moses is so willing to put up with the rebellious Israelites is not because he is so long-suffering but rather because they have become emotionally codependent; they are each playing different roles within the same emotional hierarchy of mental networks. Given this situation, God has no choice but to walk a thin line between tolerance and judgment.
Peterson states that “It is an eternal truth that those who practice genuine faith in the presence of the cowardice and derisive fatalism of the mob will be persecuted for their temerity rather than merely ignored” (p. 433). Looking at this cognitively, a mob is emotionally driven by the positive feedback loop of resonating childish mental networks: one member expresses some mental network, this triggers similar mental networks in neighbors, who are then emotionally driven by their triggered mental networks to behave similarly, which triggers similar mental networks in more members of the mob, and so on. The end result is a temporary culture emotionally reinforced by the currently triggered mental networks of the mob. The rational individual who resists this emotional pressure will be attacked by a mob as a cultural outsider who is refusing to submit to the ‘culture’ of the currently triggered mental networks.
Peterson points out (which I did not know) that the following chapter (Numbers 15) contains the instructions to wear tzitzit or tassels on the corner of their garments. Peterson describes this as “a seemingly minor instruction”, one of many “apparently arbitrary rules” (p. 434). Peterson interprets this as “There is to be a center and a fringe, and both are to be recognized and marked” (p. 434) which brings to mind his oft-repeated division between technical thought and other. However, the tzitzit actually make cognitive sense as a form of mob deterrent. This reason is given in Numbers 15:39 “It shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the LORD, so that you will do them and not follow your own heart and your own eyes.” The problem with a mob is that the behavior of a mob is visually triggering the mental networks of the mob which further promotes the behavior of the mob. Visual tassels that represent the law which dangle outside the clothing will interrupt this endless behavioral feedback loop by visually triggering the mental networks of the law. Moreover, the violent movement typically carried out by a mob will cause these dangling tassels to move to and fro and even get in the way of the violent mob activity, more effectively triggering the mental networks of the law within the minds of the mob. As verse 39 points out, the tassel will be something to look at which will cause people to remember the commandments of the Lord when they are acting like a mob and following their own heart and their own eyes.
Peterson applies his concept of center and fringe to the law in Leviticus 19:9-10 which instructs against reaping the corners of the fields or gathering the gleanings, instead leaving these for the poor. Cognitively speaking, the optimization of technical thought should always stop short of eliminating life for those who cannot or do not optimize. Saying this another way, technical thought should not be regarded as the only valid form of human thought. Instead, technical thought should always refrain from occupying all of human existence by leaving behind corners and gleanings for other forms of thought. Christians are often—legitimately—accused of believing in a God of the gaps in which evidence for God is found in the presence of Mercy experiences that cannot be explained by materialistic science. This constructs a concept of God by using Teacher overgeneralization to extrapolate from the ‘other’ that lies outside of technical thought. Leviticus 19 describes something else which is a ‘culture of the gaps’ in which technical thought deliberately leaves gaps that can be filled by other modes of thought. Peterson suggests that “This protects both the striving individual and society from descent into the pathological victim/victimizer dynamic represented archetypally in the account of Cain and Abel. Finally, the provision of some generous but wise allowance to the excluded or marginalized might aid in their valid incorporation or movement upward into the center” (p. 435).
Peterson’s interpretation is consistent with the suggestion of mental symmetry but it conveys the impression that the ‘excluded or marginalized’ are there because they are not using the superior mental processing of technical thought. This is probably the situation in most cases, but many people choose to become marginalized because they do not want to become faceless cogs in the machine of modern technological society, or because they do not want to submit to the cultural MMNs of the dominant culture. Peterson describes this as a ‘balance between ideal and fringe’ (p. 435) and this tends to be the case, but sometimes it is the fringe who is pursuing the ideal and not the majority, and the idealists are being excluded and marginalized precisely because they refuse to lower their standards and descend to the mob-like behavior of the majority. Peterson admits that “The margin has value, just like the center. Without a center, nothing can hold. Without the margins, however, there is no possibility for experimentation” (p. 436). This lines up with the well-known statement that ‘There is a thin line between genius and insanity’. Leaving some room for the fringe behavior of the insane also leaves room for the fringe behavior of genius. This principle is true but it does not cover the situation where the majority of society have gone insane, marginalizing those who are sane to the fringes.
Peterson connects this with the counseling advice of thinking through the implications of one’s choices. “When dealing with clinical clients unhappy in their marriage and tempted toward misbehavior such as an affair, I always counseled them to think it through... [Are they] refusing to look at the fringe and thereby forgetting the vital importance of the center?” (p. 437). This is wise advice but I suggest a different cognitive explanation. When one thinks through some possible action, one is using Perceiver thought to follow a mental chain of moral cause-and-effect: ‘If I do A then this will lead to the consequence of B which will be followed by the result of C causing me to end up at the long-term destination of D. Does it feel good or bad to be stuck at D?’ When the possibilities are uncertain or mentally unexplored, then this gives Exhorter thought, which motivates the mind, the ability to exaggerate the potentials of the situation. For instance, having an affair is exciting, novel, and unknown. Using Perceiver facts to determine what will actually happen indirectly alters the path of Exhorter thought. Exhorter thought hates to be frustrated. Therefore, if the final result of D is some sort of unpleasant dead-end, then Exhorter thought will find some other source of excitement that does not lead to frustration. Similarly, if the final result of D is not as emotional as initially imagined, then Exhorter thought will again find some other more exciting path to follow. As a Perceiver person, I have found this method of factually following a chain of cause-and-effect to be very effective for transforming conscience from ‘the little voice that stops you from having fun’ into ‘the voice that warns of impending frustration, boredom, or disaster’.
Korah and Moses Striking the Rock
Peterson then turns to the story of Korah, a member of the Levite priestly caste, challenging the rule of Moses and Aaron. Peterson suggests that “The revolutionary impulse of Korah is precisely the marginal attempting to usurp the center. The would-be rebels claim that the current structure of authority is nothing but the machinations of the will to power and self-gratification, claiming that all the work of Moses and Aaron was naked self-interest... Moses’s genuine attempt to reconcile is rejected forthwith. Why? The rebels do not want peace. They want to invert the order they attribute to nothing but power and to take all the positions of hypothetical dominance and force for themselves” (p. 439). This accurately describes the mindset of postmodernism as well as most revolutionaries. If one believes that Perceiver thought can only acquire facts by being emotionally overwhelmed, then one will conclude that the current established Perceiver facts of society are the result of some dominant group using Mercy emotions of status and power to impose ‘truth’ upon Perceiver thought. Going further, one will also conclude that the only way to change truth is by generating strong Mercy emotions through propaganda, force, or terrorism that will emotionally impose a new set of ‘facts’ upon Perceiver thought. Going further, any legitimate form of power or truth that results from functioning Perceiver thought, or any attempt to use Perceiver thought, will be rejected as the personal opinions of the powerful.
Peterson interprets this as a struggle between the center and the fringe, but this assumes that the center is using Perceiver thought while the fringe is not. This principle may apply to statistical analysis, but it does not necessarily apply to human behavior. Statistical analysis defines the center as Perceiver truth while rejecting the fringes as statistical outliers. But statistical analysis can only determine the existing facts, it cannot determine what may be, what could be, or what should be. Answering those questions requires a deeper definition of truth as well as an understanding of cognitive mechanisms.
Interpreting this rebellion in terms of Perceiver thought and Perceiver facts is backed up by the punishment experienced by Korah and his group. Numbers 16:31-33 says that the ground under them splits open, the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, and the earth then closes over them. Ground and earth represent the human realm of solid Perceiver facts as opposed to the water of Mercy experiences. When the postmodern mindset that believes that truth is based in power challenges legitimate authority that is based in truth, then the ‘ground’ of the facts of reality will themselves consume the challengers by swallowing them up within the solid facts of reality.
Peterson adds that “The proper subsidiary structure responsibility established by God, through Moses, is not to be overthrown by a false egalitarianism. Moses and Aaron... have done the genuine work and therefore acquired the authority and competence necessary to maintain order and specify the way forward” (p. 441). Stated cognitively, when all Perceiver thought is rejected as the imposition of Mercy status and power, then the absence of Perceiver thought gives Teacher thought freedom to overgeneralize. This leads to the logically inconsistent juxtaposition of promoting some disadvantaged group or attacking the dominant group in Mercy thought, while simultaneously maintaining in Teacher thought that everyone is equal. The result is a ‘false egalitarianism’ that is in practice very tribalistic. Stated more simply, universal tolerance is actually quite intolerant. This aspect is illustrated in Numbers 16:34-35 where those who are offering incense to challenge the authority of Moses and Aaron run away from being swallowed up by the earth and are then consumed by fire from the Lord in heaven. Incense is interpreted as triggering mental networks because neurologically speaking, this is what incense does. The sense of smell bypasses the thalamus and goes directly to the orbitofrontal cortex where it triggers mental networks within the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Being consumed by fire from God in heaven suggests that the vague intuitions of Teacher overgeneralization are being frustrated and rejected by legitimate rational Teacher understanding. This may involve using the logical thinking of technical thought to rip wishful musings to threads, but it also may involve using the common sense of normal thought to reject the wishful thinking. When society loses the ability to use the common sense of normal thinking, then technical thought has a tendency to turn into local rationality causing the ‘gnats’ of factual error to be filtered out while the ‘elephants’ of gross stupidity and overgeneralization are swallowed whole.
The next episode discussed by Peterson is the infamous episode where Moses strikes the rock instead of speaking to it and is banned by God from entering the promised land. Peterson describes it this way. “Moses does not employ his words... Instead, the great and erstwhile devotee of God delivers the rock two solid blows with his staff. This use of force and compulsion displeases God immensely – so much so that it is easy to regard what comes next as incomprehensibly harsh. God denies his disobedient prophet entrance into the promised land itself, despite the decades he has spent in the service of the people and the divine” (p. 442).
Peterson describes Moses’ sin as usurping God’s power. “Both he and Aaron indicate directly that it is the two of them performing the redemptive act... Moses says, directly, ‘Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock’” (p. 442). Looking at this cognitively, it was mentioned earlier that the problem with making Aaron the mouthpiece of Moses is that Aaron was getting his truth secondhand through Moses, which meant that Aaron was approaching God from the Mercy perspective of the personal status of Moses. Thus, when Moses delayed on the mountain, then Aaron turned from being emotionally guided by his Mercy feelings of respect for Moses to being emotionally guided by the MMNs of the people. In this episode, Moses descends mentally from being guided by the voice of God in Teacher thought to regarding himself as the source of truth in Mercy thought. Instead of relaying the Teacher words of God to the rock in order to evoke the power of God, Moses says nothing about God, regards himself and Aaron as the source of divine power, and imposes his personal status upon the rock by hitting it twice.
This usurping of divine authority is seen in God’s response in Numbers 20:12. “Since you did not trust in Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, for that reason you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.” The Hebrew word trust does not mean trusting in a person in Mercy thought but rather holding something solid in Perceiver thought. Thus, trusting in God means regarding the Perceiver facts of a universal Teacher theory as solid. This reflects a long-term attitude in Moses, because whenever the people rebel against God, Moses assumes that the Perceiver facts about the people will remain solid and unchanging while assuming that God will adjust his Perceiver facts of divine holiness to forgive the people. God can work with this character flaw as long as Moses behaves in a manner that causes the people to regard God as a Very Important Person in Mercy thought. This may explain why God’s forgiveness in these situations is usually followed by some plague. If the people will not follow God intelligently in Teacher thought, then God can only continue to guide the people if they regard him as Very Big in Mercy thought. This breaks down when Moses and Aaron regard themselves as the source of power in Mercy thought.
Going further, Moses begins his pronouncement to the people in verse 10 by saying, ‘Listen you rebels’. Thus, what occupies first place in Moses’ emotional hierarchy is the intransigence of the people against God. His ultimate meta-theory in Teacher thought is not the holiness of God but rather the rebellion of the people. And this rebellion is not viewed as rebellion against God but rather as rebellion against Moses and Aaron, the voices of God. God in Teacher thought is not just being rendered unimportant, he is also being removed from the scene.
Peterson attributes God’s verdict ultimately to a failure to use technical thought. “Is it so unreasonable to assume that the privilege of leadership must necessarily be attended by the requirement for the utmost care in moral conduct, particularly in matters serious enough to provoke divine intercession” (p. 443). And it is true that one small mistake can kill a person when performing hazardous tasks such as working with high-voltage or flying an airplane. But I suggest that a more accurate interpretation is to view Moses’ sin as the final nail in a coffin, a final decision that firmly establishes Moses’ wrong hierarchy of mental networks. The underlying assumption of Moses’ pronouncement is that he is following God while the people are rebels. But Moses is not following God in this situation and Moses has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unwilling to follow God totally as a person.
The next verses in Numbers 20 describe the Israelites asking the king of Edom to pass through their land, being refused with military force, and then turning aside. Esau is described in Genesis 36:43 as the father of the Edomites. Esau was discussed earlier in this essay and was interpreted as abstract research. Moses has just ignored the authority of God in Teacher thought and has been rejected by God as a result. Thus, it makes symbolic sense that Moses’ request to pass through the land of Edom would be rejected, because the Teacher person will instinctively reject those who do not respect theories in Teacher thought.
The death of Aaron happens next in Numbers 20. As Peterson points out, “Aaron is stripped of his garments of authority – his very identity as earthly leader – and dies” (p. 443). Looking at this cognitively, when the prophet of God stops listening to the words of God in Teacher thought and acts as the personal source of power in Mercy thought, then the mouthpiece of the prophet no longer has anything meaningful to market. Saying this another way, if a company stops doing honest research and development stop, then marketing will eventually lose its authority because it will have no genuine products to advertise. Aaron’s clothes are given to his son Eleazar, which means ‘God has helped’. Thus, the authority gets passed from the mouthpiece of someone who claims to represent God—but no longer does, to the mouthpiece of describing actual help from God. For instance, if the televangelist who claims to generate divine healing is revealed to be a self-promoting fraud, then general respect will be passed to the medical specialist who actually delivers healing.
Joshua eventually takes the Israelites into the promised land rather than Moses. Peterson observes that “Joshua shares a name very tightly associated with the Christian Savior himself. Both appellations are variants of Yeshua, which means salvation; the longer variant, Yehoshua, means ‘Yahweh saves’” (p. 444). This is a well-known and significant observation. This association is even closer in the New Testament because the same Greek word is used for both Jesus and Joshua and the context must be used to distinguish between these two. The Hebrew name Joshua is the longer version that means ‘Yahweh saves’. Salvation means taking a person from their current undesirable location to some better location. Moses believed in a God of forgiveness but he did not believe in a God of salvation. Instead, Moses’ ultimate meta-theory was that the people will not change but rather will remain rebels from God who will respond by forgiving the rebellious people. ‘Yahweh saves’ flips this relationship because God is solid and the people are being saved by God.
This change in perspective is seen in Joshua 5 right after the Israelites cross the Jordan River into the promised land. First, all Israelite males are circumcised because none of them were circumcised following Moses in the wilderness. Ouch. This would effectively convey the message that following God requires painful personal change. Second, Joshua sees a man with his sword in verse 13 and asks “Are you for us or for our enemies?” Notice that the emotional reference point of Joshua’s question is the MMNs of the Israelite people, similar to Moses’ emotional reference point of the Israelites as a rebellious people. The man with the sword responds in verse 14, “No; rather I have come now as captain of the army of the LORD.” In other words, the real reference point and source of power is God in Teacher thought. Joshua responds with an attitude of submission and a willingness to act. “Joshua fell on his face to the ground, and bowed down, and said to him, ‘What has my lord to say to his servant?’” Thus, the attitude shifts from ‘The people will never change but God will still forgive’ to ‘God is the source of power and the people will respect this power and follow’.
The Serpent in the Wilderness
Peterson then waxes eloquent about the symbolic correspondence between the stories of the Israelites in the Old Testament and the description of Jesus in the New Testament, referring to “a story that also foreshadows the story of Christ in a nigh-miraculously deep manner. It is impossible to imagine how the layers of concordance and cross-reference characteristic of this closing story could possibly have been drafted... How could such a thing be possible – particularly given the millennia that transpire between the narrative setup, so to speak, and the denouement of the story” (p. 445). Peterson is referring to the story of the brass serpent, which will be examined shortly. There is a striking symbolic parallel here, but the symbolic parallel that I noticed when comparing the Gospels of Matthew and Luke with Western history contains at least a hundred times as much detail. Curiously, even though I have posted an academic paper describing this parallel on researchgate, I have received zero feedback apart from comments made by a handful of friends. One would think that if someone like Peterson responds with such amazement to the symbolic parallel between the serpent in the wilderness and the crucifixion of Jesus, then there would be an even more amazing response to a symbolic parallel that is a hundred times more detailed. My temptation is to regard academia as ‘a rebellious people’ who will never change. Instead, I need to regard such detailed symbolic parallels primarily as an expression of the power and sovereignty of God and not fall into the mental trap of Moses. I empathize with Moses, because it is easy after writing thousands of difficult pages describing such symbolic parallels to become complacent with hearing the voice of God.
Looking now at the story of the serpent, the people rebel, God sends them poisonous snakes, and Moses prays for the people. God tells Moses to make a bronze serpent and put it on a pole. Peterson relates, “After the serpent is cast and set upon the rod, or staff, of tradition, he calls on his wayward people to gaze upon that conjoint presence of order and chaos, and to do so voluntarily” (p. 448). In other words, the rod represents order while the snake represents chaos. These two are being juxtaposed. The distinction between order and chaos acts as a meta-theory within Peterson’s book. This is a basic distinction but it also leads to the question of whether it is actually a restatement of the standard academic and economic division between male technical thought and other.
A pole represents a Teacher theory because Teacher thought constructs a general theory by holding on to some statement or concept and then interpreting everything around it in terms of that ‘pole’. Thus, there is a cognitive relationship between the rod and the order of a Teacher theory. A snake represents Teacher overgeneralization because a snake is the simplest possible visual life form: a single string without any added details of arms or legs. Lifting up a snake on a pole means regarding Teacher overgeneralization as a general theory. This is a juxtaposition because an overgeneralization is not a legitimate theory. But ‘gazing upon’ a Teacher overgeneralization will turn it into a TMN which will exert emotional pressure to approach situations from the Teacher perspective of order. Saying this more clearly, the snake of mysticism can act—for a while—as an inspiration for developing rational thought.
It is significant that this happens in Numbers 21 as a result of the Israelites being forced to go around the land of Edom, right after Moses is judged and Aaron dies. Cognitively speaking, Teacher thought becomes free to overgeneralize when legitimate Teacher understanding is belittled and ignored and one has to make a detour around legitimate abstract thought.
The New Testament parallel is in John 3 where Jesus has a nighttime visit with Nicodemus. Jesus says in verses 14-15, “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes will have eternal life in Him.” This is followed by John 3:16, the most famous verse in the Bible. Nicodemus is an educated member of academia. But when Jesus attempts to describe spiritual principles to him, he does not understand. Jesus concludes in verse 12, “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” In other words, if even an educated expert is incapable of using rational Teacher thought to understand ‘earthly things’, then there is no hope of trying to use rational thought to describe ‘heavenly things’. The only alternative is to treat incarnation as a form of mysticism based in Teacher overgeneralization.
And that is how Orthodox Christianity interprets incarnation to this day. Quoting from the Orthodox wiki, “The statement by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, ‘The Son of God became man, that we might become god’, [the second g is always lowercase since man can never become a God] indicates the concept beautifully.” In other words, Jesus came to earth in order to enable humans to become mystically unified with God. Wikipedia clarifies, “Byzantine theology (as historically conceived by its principal exponents) is based to a greater extent than Latin Catholic theology on the direct spiritual insights of the saints or mystics of the church rather than the often seen more as rational thought tradition of the West. Byzantine Christians consider that ‘no one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian’ in the proper sense. Thus theology in Byzantine Christianity is not treated primarily as an academic pursuit.” Notice that the ‘Latin Catholic’ approach of using rational Teacher thought to construct theology is being replaced by the mystical approach of extrapolating from the Teacher overgeneralization of mysticism. That is an example of Jesus being lifted up in the same way that Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. One of my life goals is to replace the mystical interpretation of Jesus as a serpent on a pole with a rational cognitive theory that includes God and incarnation.
Peterson appears to interpret the serpent on a pole as a form of cognitive behavior therapy. “When even neurotic, dependent, and avoidant individuals practice the countervailing strategy of approach and observe themselves doing so successfully, they master the thing or situation to which they have approached... viewing themselves increasingly as people who can rather than people who cannot” (p.448). Believing that I can is definitely an aspect of being saved because it recognizes that personal change is possible—it challenges a meta-theory of fatalism. Cognitive behavior therapy produces this change in mindset by having people repeatedly face their fears. Cognitively speaking, mental networks of fear are continually being triggered and then faced with facts that violate the content of these mental networks. This is very unpleasant, but it will eventually cause these mental networks of fear to fall apart, similar to the breaking of a bad habit. This is an effective strategy, but I am not certain that this is what the serpent on the pole represents. Peterson says that “The Israelites gaze on the snake to regain their faith, to become braver, to become less afraid and more willing to continue into the desert, despite the snakes” (p. 449). That describes the method of cognitive behavior therapy—which works.
Turning now to John 3, Peterson asks, “In what wise could the benevolent Savior be akin to the most terrible and poisonous of serpents?” (p 449). Peterson answers, “Christ similarly presents himself... as a meta-serpent; as the sum or more accurately essence, or spirit, of all the terrible things about human existence that must be looked upon voluntarily” (p. 449). This lines up with the standard Christian doctrine that Jesus became sin for us, backed up by 2 Corinthians 5:21 which says, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” But notice that the phrase to be is in italics, which means that it is not in the original Greek. A more literal translation is ‘The not having experientially known sin, for us sin he made, so that we might become righteousness of God in him.’ Looking at this cognitively, the Logos of God who has an accurate understanding of universal cognitive mechanisms should experience success. But God arranged circumstances so that applying the right cognitive mechanisms would lead to failure in order to make it possible for many people to acquire the character of being guided by the Logos of God.
Peterson has studied human failure and evil. By facing the mind of the evil person, Peterson has constructed a mental concept of sanity. Peterson interprets the snake on the pole as facing one’s deepest fears because that describes what Peterson himself has done. However, viewing Christ as ‘the spirit of all the terrible things about human existence’ is a very negative way of viewing incarnation. Instead, Christ needs to be viewed as the Logos of God who embodies the essence of all of the ways of doing things right. Saying this another way, Peterson needs to recognize that it is possible for the angels of God to descend down Jacob’s Ladder, instead of treating it as heroic humans ascending the ladder by facing their deepest fears.
Peterson interprets the crucifixion as “the most dismal and unfair fate visited on the least deserving individual imaginable. It is for this reason that the Passion of Christ constitutes the definitive redemptive catastrophe, the absolute terror lurking behind all proximal terrors; the pattern of confrontation with mortality and evil as such” (p. 450). No! The crucifixion of Christ was a ‘dismal and unfair fate visited on the least deserving individual’. It was a ‘confrontation with mortality and evil’. But if God is sovereign in Teacher thought, then this horrible injustice must—must—be viewed through the Teacher lens of a meta-theory of the holiness of God and the eternal joy of paradise. Quoting again from Hebrews 12:2, Jesus “for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Jesus was driven ultimately by joy in Teacher thought while emotionally minimizing the human injustice in order to experience the eternal benefit of sitting down at the right hand of God.
Peterson says, “There is simply no worse and then better fate than that of Christ. We have chosen to place the crucifix, the terrible symbol of all that, at the very center of the central place of our cathedrals and churches” (p. 451). Peterson recognizes that the terrible injustice done to Christ is followed by a better fate, but it is Catholicism that places the crucifix, a cross with Jesus on the cross, at the center of a church. Protestantism, in contrast, places an empty cross at the center of the church, emphasizing that Jesus is no longer on the cross.
One is dealing again with a matter of emotional hierarchy. What ultimately takes precedence? Is it the structure and wholeness of God in Teacher thought or is it the evil and chaos of humans in Mercy thought? Peterson adds that we “lift up the Son of Man so that we do not perish of desperation while bearing the burdens of our lives” (p. 451). That is precisely what happens when the Logos of incarnation is replaced by the serpent of mysticism. A Teacher overgeneralization of God can provide emotional comfort and hope for humans who are trapped within the unpleasant facts of physical reality. But a Teacher overgeneralization cannot save people because an overgeneralization, by definition, ignores the facts. Saving people requires a Logos of incarnation that uses rational thought to work with the facts.
Balaam and the Midianites
Numbers 22-25 describe Balak the King of Moab attempting to bribe Balaam the prophet of God to curse the Israelites. Peterson focuses upon the factual integrity of Balaam. “It seems quite clear that Balaam is regarded as a true man of God by moral reputation... Balaam warns the king that he will tell the truth, no matter how much he is paid” (p. 452). Peterson then briefly refers to the Israelites “stopping in Shittim, part of the Moabite kingdom of Balak, to ‘commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab” (p. 452).
I suggest that the meaning of this story emerges if one recognizes the interaction between male technical thought and female mental networks. Balaam is technically correct. He is using male technical thought properly in order to receive legitimate revelations from God in Teacher thought. But Balaam is flawed at the level of mental networks, because he is allowing himself to be hired by a king who is driven by mental networks that are opposed to Israel. Balaam means ‘to swallow the people’ and Balaam, while being technically correct, is emotionally swallowing the mental networks of the people. Moab means ‘from father’, which would represent some form of academic system in which male technical thought is being passed down from one expert to another. Balak means ‘to lay waste’. Thus, Balak hiring Balaam to curse Israel means finding some way to destroy while remaining technically correct. Balak attempts this four times by getting Balaam to prophesy from four different locations. A successful method is finally found in Numbers 25 where the Israelites marry Moabite women and sacrifice to Moabite gods. The Moabite god is Baal of Peor, which combines ‘lord or master’ with ‘a mountain or opening’. Stated cognitively, using technical thought to acquire words from God becomes its own goal, the master of the mountain of general understanding, and the lord of the opening to new knowledge. Instead of viewing technical thought as an expression of the universal Logos of God in Teacher thought, technical thought becomes viewed as something that is passed down ‘from father’ emotionally backed up by the ‘Moabite women’ of the mental networks of academic culture. This describes the form of current academia.
Going further, current academia is compatible with a mystical concept of God. Technical thought is used in a specialized manner, leading to experts who are locally rational. These pockets of technical expertise are then held together by the meta-theory of a Teacher overgeneralization of mysticism that transcends the technical expertise while giving the feeling of bringing order to the complexity of technical expertise. Saying this another way, combining technical thought with mysticism is another form of the classic division between technical thought and other. Thus, it is cognitively appropriate that this happens right after the lifting of the serpent on the pole, because the overgeneralization of the serpent on the pole provides the feeling of a Teacher unity which enables technical thought that is locally rational. Going still further, this combination can be manipulated by a Balak who wishes ‘to lay waste’, because a Balak can mouth the words of cosmic and societal unity while actually being driven by more destructive mental networks.
Peterson points out that the census in Numbers 26 “continues and extends the sociology and technical assessment of the state, detailing the division of labor and social organization among Israelites... the beginnings, as indicated previously, of the formally analytic mode of observation, description, thought, and record that we now take for granted” (p. 453). This describes the development of the specializations of technical thought which is consistent with the interpretation just given of Balak attempting to lay waste to a people who have developed technical specializations and become locally rational.
Numbers 26:64-65 adds that this second census reveals that no one from the first census is still alive except for Caleb and Joshua (and Moses). This illustrates the statement made by Thomas Kuhn that a paradigm shift typically happens as old experts die and are replaced by younger experts. That is what happens when working with a rebellious people who are unwilling to be guided by God in Teacher thought. Change usually requires replacing one generation with another.
Moses appoints Joshua to be his successor in Numbers 27, Numbers 28-30 describes various sacrifices and vows (which are probably cognitively meaningful) and in Numbers 31 God tells Israel to wipe out the Midianites. Balaam was a Midianite, and the crisis in Numbers 25 happens when an Israelite leader takes a Midianite woman. Numbers 25 finishes with God saying to Moses “Be hostile to the Midianites and attack them; for they have been hostile to you with their tricks, with which they have deceived you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the leader of Midian.” Hostile ‘primarily conveys the idea of binding or constricting’. Midian means ‘to judge or to contend’. Tricks is only used once in the Hebrew Bible and means ‘deceit, treachery’. Peor means ‘a gap’ and is the name of a mountain in Moab. Cozbi is only mentioned in this passage and means ‘to lie or to deceive’. (The Hebrew actually says ‘daughter of a leader of Midian’.) These meanings provide a context for the symbolic interpretation of Numbers 31.
There is also a reference to a plague in Numbers 25, a word that means ‘to strike, smite, injure, plague’. This word is used in Exodus to describe the plagues of Egypt, is used three times in Numbers 16 to describe a plague that happens after the rebellion of Korah, and it is used four times in Numbers 25. But Numbers 25 does not mention people dying in a plague of disease. Instead, verse 5 says, “So Moses said to the judges of Israel, ‘Each of you slay his men who have joined themselves to Baal of Peor.’” So the dying is coming from Israelites slaying other Israelites who are worshiping Baal of Peor. Verse 8 says that the plague is checked when Phineas kills Cozbi, with verse 9 adding “Those who died by the plague were 24,000.” And in verse 18, Cozbi is described as “Their sister who was slain on the day of the plague because of Peor.”
This suggests that lifting up the serpent on the pole has two long-term effects: First, God can still give the Israelites victory over their enemies, but he no longer plagues them directly. Second, the Israelites have become susceptible to the deception of Balaam at an existential level. Balaam is mentioned three times in the New Testament and all three occurrences have been cognitively analyzed. 2 Peter 2:15 and Jude 11 both appear to be referring to the future and are interpreted as applying angelic power in a manner that carefully follows the rules while being motivated by lesser human motives. Revelation 2:14, in contrast, appears to be a historical reference and corresponds to Machiavelli and his manipulative methods. Wikipedia summarizes that Machiavelli “has often been called the father of modern political philosophy and political science.” Wikipedia adds that “Machiavelli’s Prince has been surrounded by controversy since it was published. Some consider it to be a straightforward description of political reality. Others view The Prince as a manual, teaching would-be tyrants how they should seize and maintain power. Even into recent times, some scholars, such as Leo Strauss, have restated the traditional opinion that Machiavelli was a ‘teacher of evil’.” If Machiavelli has had such a corrosive, long term impact upon Western history, it makes sense that the Machiavellian tactics of Balaam would have fatally corrupted the Israelite people just before they entered the promised land.
Turning to the two long-term effects, a mystical concept of God is incapable of ‘plaguing’ worshipers with conscience. That is because a Teacher overgeneralization that transcends all human content cannot make any statements about human content. Instead, a mystical concept of God can only provide inspiration to use rational Teacher driven thought in peripheral areas. This leads naturally to the development of locally rational technical experts who are susceptible to being manipulated by malicious Machiavellian mental networks, and it provides no defense against such emotional deception. This creates an existential threat for the very existence of a promised land, because the technical thought that is required to build a modern society becomes used instead to perform evil with greater skill, technology, and efficiency—as Peterson emphasizes in his book. Groups within such a twisted society are still capable of plaguing each other, but such a state of continual deception and warfare is incompatible with a promised land.
This provides a possible explanation for the slaughter of Midian in Numbers 31. In verse 7, the Israelites kill all the males of Midian. In verse 8, the kings of Midian are killed along with Balaam. Moses then complains in verse 15 that the women have been spared, saying in verse 16, “Behold, they caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to be unfaithful to the LORD in the matter of Peor, so that the plague took place among the congregation of the LORD!” Thus, the deceiving council of Balaam is explicitly mentioned and his death is also explicitly mentioned. As a result, all of the boys are killed in verse 17, as well as all of the women who are not virgins. Looking at this cognitively, suppose that Machiavellian techniques infect some society. How much of that society has to be eliminated in order to ensure that this thinking will not come back? Male technical thought has been used to come up with a whole new set of twisted techniques for manipulating society. They have to be completely removed because any fragment of Machiavellianism that remains will take advantage of the innocent masses forcing them to descend to the same level in order to survive. Going further, any female mental networks of culture that have formed from interacting with these twisted techniques also have to be removed. All that is left is the aspects of culture that have not been touched by Machiavellinism. This is a harsh statement, but I do not know if there is any alternative when people are being guided by an overgeneralized concept of God to enter a promised land.
Peterson begins his discussion of the Midianite slaughter by quoting Richard Dawkins. “Is all this violence nothing but a clear indication of the vengefulness and jealousy of an archaic and blindly superstitious people’s God? Dr. Richard Dawkins makes that case without hesitation: ‘The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction... a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser’” (p. 454). Dawkins needs to look in the mirror. If anything is ‘a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser’, it is the theory of biological evolution. It damns inferior species to extinction, it has no mercy on the individual, it takes the highest impulses of humanity and explains them as accidental byproducts of human instincts for physical survival, and it literally makes a god out of cancer, because cancerous cells are cells that have mutated, and evolution claims that mutations created all life. Peterson responds to Dawkin’s comment by saying that “This is clearly a motivated misreading on the part of the evolutionary biologist” (p. 454), which is a nicer way of saying that Dawkins needs to look in the mirror.
Peterson asks you, “Did these captives represent a possible future fifth column and source of destabilization?” (p. 455). This is a valid question but it does not answer why this specific group is being singled out. Peterson agrees because he also rejects the “self-justifying ‘faith’ that God’s word must be followed even if the commands seem cruel and unjust, and to therefore sidestep the eternal problem of trying the spirits... to see if they are of God” (p. 455). This is perceptive, but in order to try the spirits one has to have a God of content who is capable of trying spirits, and a mystical God of overgeneralization has no content and thus is incapable of trying spirits. That is why the Midianites have to be slaughtered. They are doing the right thing at the peripheral level of technical thought; they are playing by the rules—while being driven by evil spirits.
Applying this principle, Peterson points out that “The Midianites are seen as being in league with the Moabites, who were presented in Numbers 25 as inviting the Israelite men to ‘indulge in sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab’ and to ‘sacrifice for their gods’” (p. 456). This is a more subtle answer, but it still does not address the specific question of why this group posed such a danger. Peterson observes, which I did not realize, that “Jethro – Moses’s admired and beloved father-in-law, who saved him from becoming a tyrant and saved the Israelites from reestablishing their slavery – was also a Midianite” (p. 457). But notice that Jethro was helping Israel to develop technical thought, which is precisely where Midian was doing the right thing. And Jethro then left before contaminating Israelite culture.
Peterson describes this as “another case of the paradoxical ultimate reality of treasure, in concert with dragon” (p. 457). Explaining this cognitively, the treasure comes from using technical thought successfully in the objective. Thus, this is a treasure of things rather than a treasure of character. The dragon appears when the Teacher overgeneralization of the serpent grows sufficient legs and arms to function as a tyrant within human reality that guards this treasure of things.
Peterson then looks at the more general question of just war. Peterson starts by stating as axiomatic that “Virtually everyone understands, accepts, and promotes the right to self-defense as well as the analogous and extended right and responsibility to protect kith and kin” (p. 455). I am not one of these ‘virtually everyone’, because I am a Mennonite, and Mennonites have been practicing a policy of pacifism since their founding 400 years ago, and the Mennonites are still alive. Wikipedia explains, “Mennonite pacifism is not merely a peripheral characteristic of the movement, but rather belongs to the very essence of Menno’s understanding of the gospel; this is one of the reasons that it has been a constant characteristic of all Mennonite bodies through the centuries.”
However, I do not think that pacifism was an alternative for the Israelites living in the Bronze Age. Instead, one can only abandon warfare to the extent that one has other methods of self-defense. The initial Mennonites used the weapon of conscience because their willingness to die for their Christian faith acted as a light that drew others and eventually led to an end of persecution. Mennonites then adopted a more proactive approach of leaving their country when persecution arose and moving to another country whose government would give them freedom from military obligation in exchange for being good citizens who would bring prosperity to the nation. As mentioned before, one of my primary goals is to pursue a path of developing weapons of light.
Peterson addresses this question by looking at the alternatives, pointing out that “The path chosen by the National Socialists, the Soviets, and the Maoists was one that deviated seriously, to say the least, from the injunctions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The fate that descended upon the people of those cultures as a direct result was as terrible as anything represented as the vengeance of the Old Testament’s angry God” (p. 458). In other words, society will naturally be driven by cognitive mechanisms to follow certain paths. One can choose between various possible paths, but even the best path is still a painful path because it is a real path and not just a figment of the imagination. However, choosing the best painful real path is far less painful than choosing other real paths.
Peterson asks, “How could it conceivably be any other way, in a world characterized by the existence of free will, genuine reality, and true and irreducible import of human action?” (p. 458). Exactly!
Looking at this more personally, my ultimate life goal is to see if it is possible to implement God’s sovereign plan of history in a manner that is less destructive and painful for humanity. My underlying premise is that God’s plan is like a series of general equations in which the variables can be filled in by many different kinds of specific experiences and people. This concept is expressed in Matthew 26:24, which says, “The Son of Man is going away just as it is written about Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” Thus, the general plan cannot be changed. The Son of Man has to be betrayed and go away. But who fills this plan is not predetermined. Going further, there is the theoretical possibility that a Judas is never born. That is because the word betray has a dual meaning of either betraying or handing over. The alternative to the negative betrayal by Judas would have been the positive ‘handing over’ of breaking through to something radically new. What sort of radical newness? My hypothesis is that science could have developed in Alexandria before the time of Christ but did not because the Israelites embraced Nationalism and proto-mysticism. Similarly, today’s society is at a major crossroads and could head in several directions, some pleasant and others massively unpleasant. This means responding to the violent stories in the Bible not by blaming God, but rather by taking personal responsibility in the here-and-now by becoming the sort of person through whom God could build a new and mighty nation. Moses was given this opportunity twice and turned it down. Developing the theory of mental symmetry has given me the opportunity to follow such a path and I am trying to respond in a positive manner.
As Peterson points out, Moses’ final words to the Israelites emphasize their stubborn rebellion against God. “God tells Moses that the Israelites will again lose faith in the future, break the divine covenant, and suffer dreadfully in consequence” (p. 460).
We are finally done with Peterson’s discussion of Moses. I have previously looked at fragments of the journey of the Israelites but not at the entire sequence. Thus, I have used Peterson’s discussion as a starting point for applying mental symmetry to this biblical sequence. My goal is not just to respond to Peterson but rather to gain an understanding of the underlying cognitive processes.
Jonah, Socrates’ Daimonion
Peterson asks, “Why Jonah? This is a question echoed by everyone required by circumstance to undertake a singular duty or bear a rare existential burden... Our destinies call to each of us, not least in the form of what interests us or gets under our skin, despite our wishing it might be otherwise” (p. 465). Stated cognitively, ‘what gets under our skin’ describes mental networks within our mind being triggered and then imposing their content upon the mind. When a sufficiently potent mental network gets triggered, then it will turn into ‘a destiny that calls to us’ by imposing its content upon lesser mental networks, including the mental networks that are guiding us at the current time. This becomes a calling when this triggered mental network of potential destiny is different than the mental networks of current culture, because free will becomes enabled when one must choose between different sets of mental networks. This becomes ‘a rare existential burden’ when potent mental networks of society are pushing society in a certain direction and the mental networks of destiny within our mind have sufficient emotional power to allow us to choose to follow our mental networks of destiny rather than mental networks of society.
Adding the divine dimension, it appears that God calls people to play a role in his divine plan based upon their core mental networks. Stated more simply, God usually chooses those who abe followed even if the commands seem cruel and unjust, and to therefore sidestep the eternal problem of trying the spirits... to see if they are of God” (p. 455). This is perceptive, but in order to try the spirits one has to have a God of content who is capable of trying spirits, and a mystical God of overgeneralization has no content and thus is incapable of trying spirits. That is why the Midianites have to be slaughtered. They are doing the right thing at the peripheral level of technical thought; they are playing by the rules—while being driven by evil spirits.
Applying this principle, Peterson points out that “The Midianites are seen as being in league with the Moabites, who were presented in Numbers 25 as inviting the Israelite men to ‘indulge in sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab’ and to ‘sacrifice for their gods’” (p. 456). This is a more subtle answer, but it still does not address the specific question of why this group posed such a danger. Peterson observes, which I did not realize, that “Jethro – Moses’s admired and beloved father-in-law, who saved him from becoming a tyrant and saved the Israelites from reestablishing their slavery – was also a Midianite” (p. 457). But notice that Jethro was helping Israel to develop technical thought, which is precisely where Midian was doing the right thing. And Jethro then left before contaminating Israelite culture.
Peterson describes this as “another case of the paradoxical ultimate reality of treasure, in concert with dragon” (p. 457). Explaining this cognitively, the treasure comes from using technical thought successfully in the objective. Thus, this is a treasure of things rather than a treasure of character. The dragon appears when the Teacher overgeneralization of the serpent grows sufficient legs and arms to function as a tyrant within human reality that guards this treasure of things.
Peterson then looks at the more general question of just war. Peterson starts by stating as axiomatic that “Virtually everyone understands, accepts, and promotes the right to self-defense as well as the analogous and extended right and responsibility to protect kith and kin” (p. 455). I am not one of these ‘virtually everyone’, because I am a Mennonite, and Mennonites have been practicing a policy of pacifism since their founding 400 years ago, and the Mennonites are still alive. Wikipedia explains, “Mennonite pacifism is not merely a peripheral characteristic of the movement, but rather belongs to the very essence of Menno’s understanding of the gospel; this is one of the reasons that it has been a constant characteristic of all Mennonite bodies through the centuries.”
However, I do not think that pacifism was an alternative for the Israelites living in the Bronze Age. Instead, one can only abandon warfare to the extent that one has other methods of self-defense. The initial Mennonites used the weapon of conscience because their willingness to die for their Christian faith acted as a light that drew others and eventually led to an end of persecution. Mennonites then adopted a more proactive approach of leaving their country when persecution arose and moving to another country whose government would give them freedom from military obligation in exchange for being good citizens who would bring prosperity to the nation. As mentioned before, one of my primary goals is to pursue a path of developing weapons of light.
Peterson addresses this question by looking at the alternatives, pointing out that “The path chosen by the National Socialists, the Soviets, and the Maoists was one that deviated seriously, to say the least, from the injunctions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The fate that descended upon the people of those cultures as a direct result was as terrible as anything represented as the vengeance of the Old Testament’s angry God” (p. 458). In other words, society will naturally be driven by cognitive mechanisms to follow certain paths. One can choose between various possible paths, but even the best path is still a painful path because it is a real path and not just a figment of the imagination. However, choosing the best painful real path is far less painful than choosing other real paths.
Peterson asks, “How could it conceivably be any other way, in a world characterized by the existence of free will, genuine reality, and true and irreducible import of human action?” (p. 458). Exactly!
Looking at this more personally, my ultimate life goal is to see if it is possible to implement God’s sovereign plan of history in a manner that is less destructive and painful for humanity. My underlying premise is that God’s plan is like a series of general equations in which the variables can be filled in by many different kinds of specific experiences and people. This concept is expressed in Matthew 26:24, which says, “The Son of Man is going away just as it is written about Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” Thus, the general plan cannot be changed. The Son of Man has to be betrayed and go away. But who fills this plan is not predetermined. Going further, there is the theoretical possibility that a Judas is never born. That is because the word betray has a dual meaning of either betraying or handing over. The alternative to the negative betrayal by Judas would have been the positive ‘handing over’ of breaking through to something radically new. What sort of radical newness? My hypothesis is that science could have developed in Alexandria before the time of Christ but did not because the Israelites embraced Nationalism and proto-mysticism. Similarly, today’s society is at a major crossroads and could head in several directions, some pleasant and others massively unpleasant. This means responding to the violent stories in the Bible not by blaming God, but rather by taking personal responsibility in the here-and-now by becoming the sort of person through whom God could build a new and mighty nation. Moses was given this opportunity twice and turned it down. Developing the theory of mental symmetry has given me the opportunity to follow such a path and I am trying to respond in a positive manner.
As Peterson points out, Moses’ final words to the Israelites emphasize their stubborn rebellion against God. “God tells Moses that the Israelites will again lose faith in the future, break the divine covenant, and suffer dreadfully in consequence” (p. 460).
We are finally done with Peterson’s discussion of Moses. I have previously looked at fragments of the journey of the Israelites but not at the entire sequence. Thus, I have used Peterson’s discussion as a starting point for applying mental symmetry to this biblical sequence. My goal is not just to respond to Peterson but rather to gain an understanding of the underlying cognitive processes.
Jonah, Socrates’ Daimonion
Peterson asks, “Why Jonah? This is a question echoed by everyone required by circumstance to undertake a singular duty or bear a rare existential burden... Our destinies call to each of us, not least in the form of what interests us or gets under our skin, despite our wishing it might be otherwise” (p. 465). Stated cognitively, ‘what gets under our skin’ describes mental networks within our mind being triggered and then imposing their content upon the mind. When a sufficiently potent mental network gets triggered, then it will turn into ‘a destiny that calls to us’ by imposing its content upon lesser mental networks, including the mental networks that are guiding us at the current time. This becomes a calling when this triggered mental network of potential destiny is different than the mental networks of current culture, because free will becomes enabled when one must choose between different sets of mental networks. This becomes ‘a rare existential burden’ when potent mental networks of society are pushing society in a certain direction and the mental networks of destiny within our mind have sufficient emotional power to allow us to choose to follow our mental networks of destiny rather than mental networks of society.
Adding the divine dimension, it appears that God calls people to play a role in his divine plan based upon their core mental networks. Stated more simply, God usually chooses those who are obsessed. Matthew 22:14 clarifies that “many are called, but few are chosen.” God calls people who are driven by the appropriate mental networks for dealing with the current situation and God then manipulates the circumstances of these individuals to make them more capable for the task. God then chooses between these possible candidates based upon the choices that they have made and the resulting mental structure that has emerged.
Peterson asks “Why Nineveh?... Nineveh is inhabited by the sworn enemies of Israel” (p. 465). I do not know the specific answer to this question. But I do know that societies also go through windows of opportunity when it is temporarily possible to choose between following one set of mental networks or another. I also know that following an alternative path would be encouraged if some outsider who represents this alternative path showed up and triggered the appropriate mental networks. This could be interpreted as Peterson’s concept of center and fringe, and that is how the members of such a society would probably view this. But it would be more accurate to portray this as a choice between the current mental networks of society and an alternative set of mental networks, because the alternative has to be sufficiently potent and developed to provide an alternative that people could choose to follow. Peterson points out that the Assyrians of Nineveh carried out a policy of forced resettlement which means that alternate sets of mental networks with alternate viewpoints would have existed within the Assyrian Empire.
Peterson tries to fit this into the general pattern of technical thought and other. God’s demand is placed within the mysterious realm of ‘other’. “How are we to make sense of this apparently ignorant command, particularly given God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence... Thus, the idea that God sometimes presents ridiculous demands upon us appears existentially sound” (p. 468). This may appear existentially sound to someone who thinks that technical thought is the only valid form of thought, but I have found that it is possible to make sense of God’s seemingly incomprehensible machinations by using normal thought to look for repeated patterns (which Peterson is also doing) as well as recognizing that human behavior is ultimately driven by mental networks—which can be analyzed in a rational manner even if they themselves do not function rationally. Looking at the other side, Peterson interprets the call of destiny as being able to use technical thought. “Everyone knows when it is their duty to set things right when they see them going wrong, and to risk themselves in that attempt” (p. 468). This may be true because technical thought gets involved whenever one is attempting to follow an intelligent plan, but what is missing is the mental networks that are being triggered and generating the sense of duty. The average person may see what is right or wrong but feels no burning desire or need to do anything about it. Peterson agrees. “There is something of an eternal contest to shirk responsibility, however necessary it might be – to let someone else be the sacrificial voice in the wilderness” (p. 468).
Being driven by destiny is brought out by Peterson’s illustration of Socrates. When Socrates is condemned for views, he confers “intensely with his daimonion, his muse or inner voice. He had heard and attended to this voice since childhood, according to his own testimony, and it guided him away from harm and toward the immense virtue he embodied and promoted. Terribly enough, when met with the threat of the trial, the daimonion tells Socrates not to run” (p. 467). Cognitively speaking, a daimonion is a mental network that is functioning like an invisible person. Treating this mental network as an intelligent person and choosing to follow its advice will cause this mental network to grow in both content and emotional power. Thus, Socrates eventually reached the point where he was no longer able to use free will to oppose the internal voice of the mental network of his daimonion. I know personally what this means because the theory of mental network has turned within my mind into a TMN that is too powerful for me to oppose. But then, why would I want to oppose a cognitive model that explains so much and leads me towards mental wholeness? Mental symmetry also hypothesizes that there is a spiritual realm inhabited by spirits and daimons who interact with humans by empowering mental networks. This spiritual dimension does not change the cognitive interpretation but rather adds intensity to it.
Socrates’ description of his daimonion makes it clear that it is based in a TMN of rational understanding. When given the possibility of running away, “Socrates rejects all these plans and pleas, indicating instead that a citizen owes allegiance to the laws of his state, however unjust a given application of those laws might be – a rationale in keeping with the statements of his inner voice” (p. 467). This describes the essence of Teacher thought, which wants general rules to apply without any exception. Unlike Moses, who expected the TMN of God to bend in the face of intransigence from the cultural MMNs of Israelite society, Socrates practiced a lifetime of submitting personal identity in Mercy thought to the TMN of his daimonion.
Peterson describes what it feels like to be guided by the TMN of some daimonion. “Perhaps the voice of conscience is part of the spirit that sees all; that can navigate past, present, and future simultaneously, and that unites the individual with the group” (p. 469). This describes a universal theory that extends beyond the time and space of current Mercy experiences. The implication is that Peterson himself is driven by the TMN of some daimonion that is pushing him endlessly to head in an upward spiral. This may not be a full-fledged concept of God or an integrated theory of cognition, but it is definitely pushing him in the direction of greater Teacher understanding.
Peterson also describes the inner conflict between the TMN of a daimonion of Teacher order and MMNs of personal desire. “We are often called upon by our consciences – by our higher selves... to speak or act when the most craven parts of us would rather remain silent” (p. 470).
Returning now to Jonah, Peterson asks, “Is it any wonder, then, that Jonah does what any sensible person might do, upon hearing God’s apparently far from reasonable request, making tracks as rapidly as possible, in the precisely opposite direction?” (p. 466). Cognitively speaking, this describes a contradiction between Teacher thought and Mercy thought. Cultural MMNs regard my culture as good and different cultures as evil, and this natural xenophobia will be amplified if the different culture has imposed itself painfully upon my culture. Teacher thought, in contrast, thinks about order and domain, feeling good when a Teacher theory applies more widely. Going further, the Logos of Incarnation will form and pursue plans where windows of opportunity make it possible to increase the domain of belief in God. A Mercy-based mindset will also think in terms of location, assuming that it is possible to move away from God by moving to a different location in Mercy thought.
Jonah may be running away from God, but the TMN of his concept of God has great emotional power. “The fleeing captive then makes his situation worse, if possible, by stressing the power of the God he purports to worship, describing Him in the highest possible terms” (p. 471). Jonah then offers to be thrown overboard in order to save the ship. Peterson interprets this as Jonah being a good man. “We can infer from his truthfulness and emergent willingness to sacrifice himself in the throes of a genuine crisis that Jonah was a basically good man” (p. 472). What is happening here is not so much choosing to be a good man but rather being driven by the TMN of a concept of God to respond to a situation in a way that satisfies the requirements of this TMN regardless of the cost to personal identity. Jonah has become a personal exception to the general rule of following God in Teacher thought. God is exhibiting emotional displeasure to this exception in the form of the storm. Therefore, Jonah needs to be sacrificed in order to remove the exception. A similar response was described earlier in the evolutionist who instinctively embraces his coming personal annihilation.
Peterson recognize that this is ultimately an emotional struggle between battling mental networks. “What is the moral of the story of Jonah, so far? Speak truth to the mad urban mob at your great peril, but fear even more the God who tells you to speak when you have something to say. Maintain silence when called upon to testify, and pay the price” (p. 472). I suspect that this summarizes the daimonion that drives Peterson. Mental symmetry drives me in a slightly different direction: ‘Use words to build a rational understanding but recognize that words are not enough. Therefore be willing to have your mouth shut in order to become a person who embodies your words. Following this path will ultimately lead to a combination of verbal message and personal illustration that is powerful enough to change society that will also make it possible for you to enjoy the benefits of your message.’ Peterson’s daimonion warns that hell is the price of not speaking up. “Degeneration, destruction, and death will threaten, in the aftermath of rejection of the divine call to voice, but that is not all. Such threat will be followed by a fate so terrible that death itself will be viewed as a most desirable alternative” (p. 473). Mental symmetry also predicts dire consequences of ignoring one’s calling, but it also provides an alternative to speaking up, which is applying one’s own message, and it suggests that this alternate path will lead to paradise.
Peterson says that “One who has lived truly rarely fails to understand that there are worse things than mere cessation of being” (p. 473). There is no such thing as ‘mere cessation of being’. The person who is in extreme pain may wish for cessation of being and the bystander who sees the suffering victim stop screaming and die gains the impression that cessation of being brings comfort. But the fact still remains that I am a finite being and if the finite being that is me ceases to exist, then as far as I am concerned the entire universe has ceased to exist. Thus, the cessation of my being actually means for me the cessation of the universe, God, and EVERYTHING! Nothing is less ‘mere’ than that. The error comes from mentally constructing the TMN of a universal theory and then emotionally identifying in Mercy thought with this universal theory. But I am not my theory; having a theory of universality does not give me implicit immortality. What exists within my finite mind is a mental model of universality and the finite model within my mind is utterly different than the universe that this model models. But I am a finite being who is stuck in my mind with my finite model. If I cease being, then the universe will continue existing, but the ‘me’—the finite individual—that generated this internal model is gone.
Learning from Societal Collapse
Peterson proclaims, “Those who insist that hell does not exist are either willfully blind, or so fortunate and protected by a benevolent fate that they have not visited that dread domain long enough to learn the terrible lessons that are learned there. Through the darkness however, and into the light” (p. 475). I have been ‘protected by a benevolent fate’ to avoid physical suffering but I do know about mental torment, because when I was in high school and university, my parents were attempting to take care of my schizophrenic brother (a different brother than the one with whom I collaborated on mental symmetry) and that was mental hell-on-earth. But through this darkness I came into the light of being mentally capable of developing mental symmetry. Thus, it may be true that in a world that is still suffering the consequences of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, most, if not all, paths to the light of Teacher understanding have to go through the hell of some Mercy trauma. But following mental symmetry has led to me to the conclusion that a better path is possible that leads not through hell to enlightenment but rather through patience to paradise. James 1:2-4 describes this possibility.
Peterson, in contrast, defines good as the opposite of evil. “If it is true that evil exists, and if the reality of his truth becomes self-evident, once evil has been encountered and seen for what it is, then the opposite of evil is something equally real... If there is a pathway to the abyss, our direction on that road can be reversed. Why should we assume that there is any difference between getting as far away from Satan as possible and climbing Jacob’s Ladder” (p. 475). This describes Peterson’s interpretation of the serpent on the pole, which is learning about heaven by honestly facing one’s experiences of hell. I know from personal experience what Peterson is describing, because during my initial years of research, I would often wake up in the morning, feel that I had no reason to continue going on, think about the alternatives, conclude afresh that every other path led to personal failure, and then decide that the only valid option was to continue following a path that might lead to personal success.
However, mental symmetry eventually led me to a different perspective, defining heaven as mental wholeness and hell as the mental fragmentation that results from taking cognitive shortcuts. The problem with Peterson’s approach is that Hell and Satan always have to continue existing in order to provide the reference point for defining heaven. Saying this another way, Satan and his demons must always exist as the ‘people who rebel against God’. This kind of mindset is capable of leaving Egypt in order to follow God in the wilderness but, like Moses, it is incapable of entering the promised land. Going further, this mindset makes it possible to climb Jacob’s Ladder but it has no place for the angels of God descending upon this ladder.
Peterson adds that “The terrible Leviathan of the deep is the maw of Hades, but at the same time something alive and immensely valuable” (p. 476). That is because it is possible to learn principles of universal moral cause-and-effect by observing the painful consequences of those who violate these principles, and one will learn the deepest principles of moral cause-and-effect by studying those who violate these principles in the deepest way. This is an excellent—starting point.
Peterson looks also at the MMNs of culture. “Unwise societies (think Nineveh) take the fact of their traditions and accrued resources for granted. They live unconsciously on the wealth of the past, narcissistically and destructively consuming more than they earn; even irresponsibly destroying the very spirit whose activity gave rise to the wealth in question” (p. 478). This is very true and is an apt synopsis of modern Western society. This standard path is described in the biblical book of Judges, which describes the Israelites going through cycles of taking their godly traditions for granted, losing these traditions, experiencing invasions, being rescued by God, reestablishing their godly traditions, and then taking them for granted again. The cognitive problem is that anything that is developed by one generation through internal moral, intellectual, and character development, will then be copied by the next generation as cultural MMNs enforced by social approval, which will then be rejected by the next generation as cultural impositions being made by groups in power.
One of my goals is to see if a better path is possible. I do not know the whole answer, but I have become convinced that the answer involves submitting internally to the TMN of a universal theory of cognition. Peterson present something similar as a hypothetical. “Are we not in fact the cocreators of this realm – and, perhaps, of heaven itself? We can certainly create hell alone. What could we do if we were instead aligned with the highest we could imagine?” (p. 479). I am attempting to answer this question.
Peterson asks, “Does this not mean that in developed societies and even successful micro-societies the acquisition of wealth over time is likely to enable a collapse of values... in consequence of the irresponsibility such wealth allows, however temporarily?” (p. 479). Mental symmetry provides an explanation for this progression. The initial success comes from learning how the natural world functions and behaving in a way that is consistent with natural law. This success makes it possible to shield the average person from most of the painful consequences of violating natural law. Saying this figuratively, civilization places fences in front of the cliffs of natural consequence and erects signs that say ‘do not enter’. The next generation encounters no cliffs but only fences, concluding that all painful consequences are the result of power groups erecting fences and saying ‘do not enter’. The more successful a society is at fencing off cliffs, the more convinced the next generation will be that only fences exist and not cliffs, and the more stridently the next generation will try to ‘gain freedom’ by condemning the ‘judgmental’ warning signs, climbing over all the fences, and demanding that the fences be torn down.
Peterson describes the ungrateful behavior of the next generation. “The corpses of whales, whether natural or institutional, inevitably become overwhelmed by the willfully blind, painfully unconscious, terminally ungrateful, devouring scavengers that produce nothing but can and will strip everything to its bones” (p. 479). They can produce nothing because they are thinking in terms of the cultural MMNs of fences and have no knowledge of the natural cause-and-effect of cliffs. They are terminally ungrateful because they attack the fences that were erected to protect them from painful natural consequences. They are willfully blind because they reject knowledge as merely the opinions of those in power. They are painfully unconscious because they are not internally driven but rather motivated by societal MMNs manipulated by social pressure. And they are devouring scavengers because they are convinced that freedom can be achieved by tearing down the fences.
Peterson adds, “When the wisdom of the past is forgotten or betrayed... the lost value then lurks, unconsciously, in the remnant institutions and traditions of that past” (p. 480). This is a perceptive comment made by someone who has learned that there really are inescapable universal principles of moral cause-and-effect. Saying this analogically, one can learn about the locations of dangerous cliffs by studying where previous societies have erected fences of social prohibition. Peterson adds, “Does all this not mean that the God who dies is by necessity entombed, symbolically speaking, in the corpse of a whale?” (p. 480). This is approximately correct. The past society that was governed by some set of cultural MMNs probably formed these mental networks one fence at a time without being aware of a larger picture. The outside thinker who lacks these mental networks is able to see the larger picture because his thinking is not being intuitively pre-shaped by triggering these cultural mental networks. This gives him the mental ability to discover the Teacher order-within-complexity that brings unity to the various cultural fences of past society—to discover the concept of God that is entombed in the corpse of a whale.
I say that this is approximately correct because human cultural mental networks have become deeply twisted as a result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, this principle does apply to modern Western civilization, because the previous mental networks of Western culture were based upon blind faith in the Christian Bible. Saying this more simply, the previous generations were putting up the right fences but often for the wrong reasons. By looking back it is possible to discover the right reasons for these fences.
Peterson then describes the way that the technical thinking of objective science will typically treat these mental networks of the past. “It is said, the entire arcade library should be, if not thrown out altogether, relegated to the domain reserved for children, naïve adults, and students of anachronistic methodology and replaced” (p. 481). In other words, anything that does not meet the standards required by technical thought or cannot be explained by technical theories of materialistic science should be rejected. The problem is that this questions blind faith and tradition without providing an alternative. The result is, in Peterson’s words, “Moral dwarves, equipped with hydrogen bombs” (p. 485). I refer to this combination as ‘locally rational’—experts in their technical specialization while fools when it comes to personal identity and motivation. Peterson continues, “Replaced. With what? There’s the rub” (p. 481). Peterson then points out the inadequacy of replacing traditional culture and religion with sex, power, nihilism, idiot immaturity, or hedonism. Sex uses physical feelings to create MMNs, power imposes MMNs, nihilism turns the lack of an answer into the TMN of a ‘universal theory’, idiot immaturity builds upon childish MMNs, while hedonism uses physical sensation to create MMNs.
Peterson responds to the idea that being in a whale for three days is not scientifically possible by pointing out that the truth of universal cognitive mechanisms goes beyond physical and scientific plausibility. Peterson’s response is so characteristic that I automatically hear it internally being read in his voice. “Jonah’s story is a warning: pick up your damn cross and bear it or face the consequences. And what is worse, yet, than the cross? Hell: hell for you, for those you love, and for everyone else – and a hell that is on you” (p. 482). Peterson is speaking deep truth from the heart. But it is still truth learned from being burned by hell rather than from being blinded by the light of heaven.
Peterson also recognizes that there is a stupendous difference between claiming to be moral and actually making moral choices when faced with the situation. The Perceiver facts may be the same, but Perceiver facts need to be backed up by Perceiver confidence. “And bloody well beware of presuming that in the situation facing Jonah, you would have acted differently. Jonah is everyman – even better than most” (p. 482).
Stated cognitively, Peterson is extending concrete technical thought to include personal identity. Concrete technical thought uses a knowledge of cause-and-effect to construct a mental map and then move through this map in order to reach some more desirable location. Adding personal identity recognizes that I myself reside within a map of moral cause-and-effect and that the only way to make personal progress is to emotionally ‘pick up’ my mental networks of personal identity and drag them from where I currently am to some better place. This goes beyond talking about improving self or imagining improving self. Instead, it means having sufficient Perceiver confidence to accept the current location of self—no matter how bad or condemned this makes one feel. And this awareness is bloody, because blood represents the spilling of the life of mental networks of personal identity, and personal identity will only change if there is some spilling of emotional blood.
Similarly, personal progress means walking through a moral landscape and accepting the truth in Perceiver thought. “Why are you so convinced that your wish, will, and whim should take precedence over what merely lays itself out, with ultimately irresistible force, when the truth is spoken?” (p. 483).
Peterson emphasize the need for honesty about self. “As we learned from Solzhenitsyn, everyone in a tyranny lies about absolutely everything to themselves and to everyone they purport to love all the time... It is the rare person indeed who when push comes to shove will not put his or her head in the sand” (p. 482). Saying this cognitively, it is very difficult to have sufficient Perceiver confidence to assert the facts about self when self faces painful experiences. That is because self is composed of the mental networks that continually come to mind. It may be possible to recognize the facts of self occasionally, but when the same painful mental networks keep coming to mind again and again and again and again and again, then eventually this emotional pressure will overwhelm Perceiver thought causing a person to stick their head in the sand and be dishonest about self.
Tyranny may be driven by powerful groups imposing painful mental networks upon society, but it is enabled by the average person lacking the Perceiver confidence to factually evaluate these mental networks. “How did the Nazis gain the upper hand? Because the silence of the ‘good’. How did the Soviets maintain the rule of evil for seven decades? Because the silence of the ‘good’... Ignore your conscience at the peril of hell. Really. Truly” (p. 483). Conscience ultimately is the internal voice that tells me where I am in the moral map and where I will end up if I choose to follow some path.
A mental map of morality is ultimately held together emotionally by the TMN of a concept of God, because there is a deep order to the deepest principles of morality. This means that choosing not to follow a moral map when one has a moral map is worse than making a moral mistake in the absence of a moral map. That is because rejecting an existing moral map places MMNs of personal identity above the TMN of a concept of God. In Peterson’s words, “If you err, in spite of your own true knowledge, you will be punished not only by the consequences of that error but also for the much greater crime of betraying yourself – and, worse, betraying that which eternally serves as the True Guide” (p. 484). There are universal principles of moral cause-and-effect. Thus, violating these principles will lead to painful effects even if one does not know these principles. ‘Betraying self’ means choosing to follow some faulty path even when one knows that this will lead to painful results. Following such a path creates a meta-mental network which will emotionally impose the internal pattern of using emotional pressure to overwhelm Perceiver thought when mental networks of self collide with facts in Perceiver thought. Saying this more simply, one will develop the habit of responding to blinking warning lights by unscrewing the light and continuing on. Betraying the True Guide creates a meta-mental network of responding to the moral voice of a TMN of God by asserting that MMNs of personal identity are above the TMN of God in the emotional hierarchy. Moses followed this kind of strategy when he repeatedly regarded his MMNs of the rebellious Israelites as more powerful than his TMN of the holiness of God.
Peterson then mentions what may be the deepest dishonesty. “Faith is the courage to be, instead of to not be, despite the catastrophe of existence” (p. 484). ‘Courage to be’ means having sufficient Perceiver confidence to assert the facts about self no matter what the pain. The alternative is to let go of self and allow the mental networks of society and/or painful experience to impose their structure upon mental networks of self. Stated simply, the person who lacks ‘the courage to be’ becomes a creature of his or her environment, a social chameleon whose personality is determined solely by the mental networks that are currently being triggered by the environment. The minion in a tyranny lacks the courage to be. The scientist who focuses upon objective understanding lacks the courage to be. The evolutionist who focuses upon the upward spiral of life lacks the courage to be. The hedonist lacks the courage to be. In each case, the so-called individual is allowing self to be emotionally determined by mental networks that literally do not give a damn about self. Tyranny brings order to society in a manner that treats individuals as worthless, replaceable pawns. Science studies the world in an objective manner that deliberately suppresses the subjective feelings of self. Evolution focuses upon the species while condemning the individual to futile struggle for survival. Hedonism embraces pleasurable experiences while ignoring their long-term impact upon self.
Continuing with Jonah, Jonah emerges from the whale, preaches to Nineveh, and they repent. Peterson concludes, “God is eternally willing to show his mercy to those who repent, despite their past sins – despite even their enmity with God’s chosen people themselves, the Jews. God forgives, and sheathes His sword, but man does not” (p. 487). Man does not forgive because MMNs generate negative emotions when exposed to behavior that is inconsistent with their structure. Therefore, different is wrong, and the only way to respond when some other person imposes their MMNs upon me is to impose my MMNs on others. There is no way to escape this endless cycle of domination and submission.
Teacher thought, in contrast, is driven by a desire to find order. Teacher thought feels bad when there is an exception to the rule. A limited Teacher theory can deal with such exceptions by expelling them from the domain of the theory. However, nothing lies outside the domain of a universal Teacher theory. Thus, the only alternative is to transform the exceptions into expressions of the universal Teacher theory. That is why God has to forgive. But there is a stupendous difference between the ‘forgiveness’ of a God of Teacher overgeneralization and the forgiveness of a God of true universality. Teacher overgeneralization simply extends vague feelings of universal tolerance: ‘All is forgiven. The facts do not matter.’ The forgiveness of a valid God, in contrast, takes the steps that are necessary to transform childish mental networks into a form that is compatible with the universality of God in Teacher thought. And a valid God will take advantage of windows of opportunity when people and societies are faced with competing mental networks that make it possible for them to choose to follow a higher path—such as Jonah preaching to Nineveh.
This end result of God’s focus upon universal Teacher order is described in Philippians 2:9-11. “For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” As pointed out earlier, the name Jesus means salvation. What is being given universality is not mindless ‘forgiveness’ but rather personal salvation, and this personal salvation is being placed within an integrated concept of incarnation—or Logos—that brings universal order-within-complexity to God in Teacher thought. Saying this more simply, God’s forgiveness and salvation mean using technical thought to restore universal Teacher order.
This does not mean that hell ceases to exist. But it does transform hell from a region that lies outside of the domain of God in Teacher thought to a subset within the universal domain of God in Teacher thought. This transition is described in Revelation 20:14-15 in the passage on the last judgment of the Great White Throne. “Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Hades is one of two words used in the New Testament for hell. (The other is Gehenna, which is not used in the book of Revelation.) Hades is being thrown into the ‘lake of fire’. A lake is a body of water that is surrounded by land; it is a subset of water within the general landscape of land. This principle is emphasized in the next verse. “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea” (Revelation 21:1). Notice that there is no longer a sea of raw Mercy experiences that are devoid of Teacher understanding. There is still a lake of fire but there is no longer any sea.
Jonah and Forgiveness
Jonah then has an internal struggle between his MMNs of tribal xenophobia and his TMN of a God who forgives. “Jonah has thereby done a very good deed. He does not so easily forgive himself, however, for the dreadful crime of redeeming his enemies, and he acts and speaks in a manner that indicates that he is none too happy with God for requiring him to do so” (p. 488). Stated cognitively, Jonah is struggling with the contradiction that is inherent in the concept of a ‘people chosen by God’. This is typically interpreted as God protecting the MMNs of his ‘chosen people’ while attacking the MMNs of those who threaten his chosen people. In other words, the mind is extrapolating from the MMNs of some cultural group to the TMN of a concept of God. The Christian takes a similar leap when assuming that God will always work through ‘my church’ or ‘my denomination’, leading to the conclusion that God would obviously never use a ‘secular’ person like Peterson.
If a chosen people of God applies the universal principles that have been revealed to them by God, then they will experience success. The conflict arises when God blesses ‘them’ rather than ‘us’, or when God forgives ‘them’ even when they hurt ‘us’ because this creates an emotional conflict between the TMN of a God that extrapolates from my cultural MMNs as a ‘chosen people’ and the TMN of a God that is based in universal principles that apply to everyone regardless of their culture. A more careful reading of Scripture leads to the conclusion that being a ‘chosen people’ means that one remains forcibly enrolled in God’s school of character development. Paraphrasing Peterson, a chosen people will be forced by divine providence to ‘pick up your damn cross and bear it or face the consequences’ (p. 482). Jewish history can be summarized as God forcing the Jewish people to pick up ‘one damn cross’ after another—with many of these crosses being inflicted by Christians who had crosses and crucifixes hanging in their churches and cathedrals. And such strong language is appropriate when talking about a people that have gone through numerous holocausts.
Peterson explains that “Jonah does not believe, in keeping with this attitude of contempt for the human that the Ninevites are worth saving” (p. 489). This describes the mindset that naturally emerges when some chosen people extrapolates from their cultural MMNs to the TMN of a concept of God. Those who belong to another culture are not just different, instead they are inferior in the sight of God, unworthy of being saved by God. For instance, the Tanya is an early work of Hasidic philosophy written by the founder of Chabad Hasidism. Wikipedia relates that “The Tanya states that Jewish people have two souls: the nefesh elokis (or divine soul) and the nefesh behamis (or animal soul), which is not inherently evil but basic. It states that non-Jews have only the latter.” Stated simply, Jews have a divine soul which Gentiles do not have. Ouch!
Jonah leaves the city of Nineveh, sits under the shade of a convenient gourd, and waits for divine judgment. God causes the gourd to wilt and Jonah complains. Peterson summarizes, “He is glad of the respite offered to him by nature, grateful for that mercy and care, but he remains angry at God above for the much greater respite, mercy, and care offered to the Ninevites” (p. 490). This is also a version of being locally rational. Jonah is able to think rationally when dealing with the physical world of plants, shade, and Nature. But Jonah is unable to think rationally when dealing with the subjective world of mental networks. God uses the patterns of normal thought to tie these two together. “You had compassion on the plant... Should I not also have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 people?” (Jonah 4:10-11). Notice that God does not argue logically with Jonah. Instead he first places Jonah in a situation that involves the personal MMNs of Jonah. He then uses normal thought to analogically connect Jonah’s personal MMNs with the TMN of a universal principle: ‘If I show mercy on a gourd, then I should also show mercy on a city.’ God then points out that Jonah’s behavior is an exception to this general rule. In other words, God’s reasoning with Jonah takes Jonah’s mindset of being a chosen people and turns it against Jonah.
Peterson generalizes from this story to the exaltation of Nature over humanity. “To put the natural world above mankind in the hierarchy of ultimate value is to regress to the worship of Baal, to use the archaic conceptualization, and to risk the terrible consequences thereof. To elevate nature in this manner is simultaneously to denigrate both the God Who stands outside nature, and humanity itself” (p. 491). In other words, the subjective realm of people is more significant than the objective realm of objects. It is important to get this priority straight and Peterson is taking the incredibly significant step of extending concrete technical thought to include the subjective; he is going beyond using technical thought to save things to using technical thought to save people.
However, one must not throw out the baby with the bathwater, but rather realize that the same God in Teacher thought created both people and things. The modern technological world is heading towards many kinds of environmental disaster. As Peterson points out, the answer is not to elevate Nature above humanity. But the answer is also not to assume that God will protect humanity from the painful consequences of trampling on Nature, because that is another version of mistaken ‘chosen people’ thinking. The assumption is that God will always preserve his ‘chosen people’ of humanity from experiencing excessive suffering. One can conclude that God will always preserve a remnant of humanity as well as an ‘ark’ of human civilization, and one can also conclude that God will always provide a way out of the current predicament. But this does not mean that God will preserve humanity from experiencing the painful consequences of its actions. Moral choices have moral consequences, as Peterson rightly emphasizes. But physical choices also have physical consequences, and researchers such as Peterson who focus upon human choices and human behavior can be tempted to minimize the consequences of violating the laws of nature because this does not fall within their area of technical expertise.
Saying this more personally, I have repeatedly found in my research that the most meaningful analogies do not come from religious myths, from literature, or even from theologians. Instead, I find the most meaningful analogies in physics and chemistry. I have learned from people like Peterson that is also possible to find meaningful analogies in literature and myth, but I still think that the analogies of physics and chemistry are clearer because they are explicitly derived as opposed to the analogies of literature and myth which have emerged implicitly.
Conclusion
Peterson begins by pointing out the distinction between is and ought, pointing out that “There is no simply and directly self-evident path way from what is to what ought to be” (p. 495). This distinction was originally pointed out by the Scottish philosopher David Hume.
Mental symmetry actually provides an easy way of jumping naturally from ‘is’ to ‘ought’. Studying the behavior of each cognitive style focuses upon the ‘is’ of how each cognitive style actually behaves. This turns into an ‘ought’ if one proposes that every person has a mind composed of all seven cognitive modules with each cognitive style being conscious in one of these modules. That ‘is’ of how the Perceiver person uses Perceiver thought, for instance, becomes the ‘ought’ of how everyone should use Perceiver thought within their minds.
Peterson starts with concrete technical thought, which “renders the innumerable facts of reality into something limited and makes them the focus of attention and action in the matter that makes the world habitable, welcoming, stable, opportune, and productive” (p. 495). Concrete technical thought focuses attention upon some limited area and then develops and implements plans that use Server actions to improve Mercy experiences, guided by a knowledge of cause-and-effect. Peterson then ties this in with the Logos of abstract technical thought, which is based in precise definitions. “Our kinship with the Logos comes with a set of responsibilities: to properly name and subdue; to act as foil or partner to that process, to steward the walled garden that is the eternal environment” (p. 496). Abstract technical thought is a kin to Logos because it comes up with precise definitions within some specialization by naming the animals in some walled garden, while Logos applies the same kind of thinking more universally by giving names to intelligent beings based upon the type of people that they have become and then placing these named intelligent beings within the structure of a divinely ordered plan. Thus, the naming done by humans acts ‘as foil or partner’ to the naming of humans done by Logos.
Peterson summarizes the sin of Eve. “Eve presumes the right and ability to clasp even what is truly venomous to her breast. This is the pathology of compassion, extended frightfully beyond its purview—the devouring mother, warned of by myths and psychoanalysts alike” (p. 496). This describes Teacher overgeneralization in which the Teacher mental networks of female thought are being extended beyond their valid range of application. And the deepest sin is to clasp the serpent of mysticism ‘to her breast’, because mysticism combines the ultimate Teacher overgeneralization with the ultimate identification in Mercy thought. However, it is imperative to distinguish this false version of female thought from the genuine which applies a legitimate general Teacher theory to subjective Mercy experiences. Adam’s sin is summarized as blindly assuming that he can follow Eve. “Of course I can do it; there is no limit to my competence; anything for you, dear” (p. 496). The scientist who uses technical thought in an objective specialized manner while being inspired by mysticism is falling into precisely this sin. Again, it is imperative to distinguish this false version of male following female from the genuine, in which male technical thought is guided by mature female thought that combines legitimate general theories that have turned into TMNs with subjective MMNs of actual human need and desire. Male technical thought can aspire to the higher realms of Teacher order, beauty, and elegance—a path that Peterson emphasizes repeatedly in his book. But mature female thought can go beyond this to actually embodying TMNs of order, beauty, and elegance—a possibility that Peterson overlooks repeatedly in his book.
Peterson interprets the struggle between Cain and Abel in terms of using concrete technical thought to improve and optimize. “Abel offers what is of the highest quality, keeping nothing in reserve. He accepts the responsibility that is also adventure and meaning, and it transforms him as he matures and grows. Cain, by contrast, holds back. He offers what is second-best, burying his talents, and hiding his light under a bushel” (p. 497). In other words, Abel is using concrete technical thought to focus fully upon following a plan to reach some goal, using only material that passes the standard of excellence required by technical thought. Cain, in contrast, is using the semi-rigorous methods of normal thought to achieve reasonably good result in Mercy thought (or else using concrete technical thought to optimize some other inferior goal). This is a valid distinction, but it also falls into the trap of regarding technical thought as the only valid form of thought, and I do not think that this is consistent with the biblical text. Instead, Cain’s sacrifice of fruit and grain is rejected because it does not involve the subjective life of mental networks. Abel, in contrast, offers living animals, and recognizes that the mental networks of fallen human existence need to fall apart and die in order to be acceptable to God in Teacher thought.
Peterson observes that “Instead of noting his failure, confessing his sins, repenting and atoning, Cain decides to call out God Himself for the inequity of the world” (p. 498). I think that this is an accurate interpretation because it includes mental networks. When God faces Cain with his inadequate personal mental networks, Cain responds by treating God’s mental networks in Teacher thought as inadequate. Peterson adds, “The spirit of Cain reappears in his descendants, doomed not only to become careless worshippers of technology... but increasingly genocidal agents of vengeance whose actions threaten the order” (p. 498). Stated cognitively, technical thought is being developed in an objective and specialized manner that makes people emotionally vulnerable to being motivated by childish mental networks.
Noah, in contrast, performs the long task of building an ark that places the mental networks of society within the Teacher order of an ark, based upon the structure dictated to him by God in Teacher thought. And this Teacher order provides the starting point for a new civilization. Peterson describes the ark as “The vessel that represents the psyche fortified by integrity, the marriage that is committed, the family that abides together, the community built on an unshakeable foundation, and the state that is one under God above” (p. 499). Each of these phrases describe some aspect of placing personal and societal MMNs within the larger structure of some TMN that is based in rational understanding.
The builders of the Tower of Babel recognize the need for an overarching Teacher structure, but they attempt to create this structure using an inadequate method. Peterson describes this as failing to strive upward. “When the proper foundation is carelessly destroyed; when the transcendent spirit of upward striving and truth is forgotten – everyone becomes inarticulate, and everything undefined” (p. 499). This can happen and is illustrated by the postmodern questioning of the assumed foundations of Western society. If Perceiver truth is questioned, then communication itself eventually becomes meaningless because assigning meanings to words requires solid Perceiver facts. But the Tower of Babel may be referring to something else, because the scriptural story does not talk about destroying foundations like the people before the flood, or thinking only about evil like the people before the flood. Instead the builders of Babel are attempting to build upward using solid material, being guided by Teacher feelings of order and structure. Thus, I think that a more likely interpretation is the inevitable fragmentation of technical thought. Abstract technical thought is based upon precise definitions, but technical thought inevitably specializes. Therefore, each technical specialization will develop its own precisely defined technical vocabulary while regarding language that does not use this technical vocabulary as insufficiently rigorous. The end result is the fragmentation of society at the level of speech.
Peterson interprets the calling of Abraham as the development of concrete technical thought. “This is what we all still do whenever we swear to straighten up, fly right and set our houses in order; when we determine and decide to improve instead of destroy our lives and the lives of everyone around us” (p. 500). I think that this interpretation does apply, because Abraham is called out of a city of inadequate cultural MMNs to personally follow God along a path of growing maturity.
Peterson concludes that it is possible to extrapolate from Abraham’s development of concrete technical thought to a universal concept of God in Teacher thought. “This successful covenant with God... indicates nothing less than the absolute and final alignment of the instinct that invites every child outward into the world with the implicit order of society, nature and the divine. Why would we expect anything less—anything other than this fundamental harmony of human soul and desire with the cosmos itself?” (p. 501). I suggest that this conclusion is a natural byproduct of Peterson’s method of regarding myth and narrative as the ultimate source of universal Teacher understanding. The intellectual quest to understand universal principles must be accompanied by a personal quest to follow a path of character development. And gaining a universal Teacher understanding means focusing upon processes rather than static facts. But this does not mean that one can jump directly from human narrative to universal Teacher understanding.
One of the deep mysteries of science is that the concrete ‘narratives’ of natural processes can be translated into the abstract ‘language’ of mathematics. The greatest technological achievements have been achieved by translating between the ‘narrative’ of natural processes and the ‘language’ of mathematics. Peterson’s analysis heads upward from the narrative of myth into the abstract realm of universal moral principles, making it possible for humans to ascend Jacob’s Ladder. But Peterson is lacking a cognitive equivalent to the language of mathematics that would make it possible for angels to ascend and descend upon Jacob’s Ladder.
This incompleteness is reflected in Peterson’s description of God. Peterson responds to God excluding Moses from the promise land by concluding, “This characterization of the divine makes a mockery of any claim that the Biblical God is a tyrant. Complex, yes; multifaceted, yes; beyond human comprehension, in the final analysis—but no friend whatsoever to the tyrant or the would-be slave” (p. 501). When one extrapolates upward from concrete technical thought to abstract technical thought without having an integrated Teacher theory, then knowledge will appear complex and multifaceted. And because one does not have a theory to put everything together, God will appear as ultimately ‘beyond human comprehension’; one will understand most of the pieces but not understand how these pieces fit together. However, one will know that one should not follow the thinking of the tyrant which extrapolates from personal MMNs to universal Teacher theory.
Peterson draws the following moral lesson from Jonah. “Each man is called upon to say his piece, lest the world suffer in the absence of that singular and unique truth... Every man who fails to offer his best and to hide his light and his talent leaves a hole in the world” (p. 502). I agree that there are cases where the world will suffer if some critical individual fails to follow a path of personal growth, because that individual may provide the precise mental networks required to push society in one direction rather than another during a period of societal opportunity. Thus, the right individual at the right time has the ability to promote great good, or great evil. But I think that Peterson is overgeneralizing from personal narrative to universal theory when he suggests that every personal failure will have global consequences. Instead, I think that each person must follow his or her individual path to maturity primarily because every individual is trapped within individuality. I ultimately have to live with the consequences of what I have done with me because I cannot run away from me. Thus, a more accurate statement would be ‘every man who fails to offer his best and hide his light’ leaves a hole in his personal ability to participate in the world. Others may not suffer from the hole of my absence, but I most definitely will.
Peterson emphasizes that Teacher thought is needed to construct a concept of God. “In all these stories... God is presented as the unity that exists at the foundation or stands at the pinnacle. In the absence of that unity, there is either nothing that brings together and harmonizes, in which case there is a deterioration into anarchy and chaos, or there are various replacements that immediately swoop in” (p. 504). This statement is absolutely fundamental because the average person, including the average Christian and the average theologian, regards God as some sort of Superman with great Mercy importance and status. This is backed up by experiments carried out by the cognitive science of religion which have revealed that the average religious person will verbally describe God using the universal attributes of Teacher thought while implicitly regarding God as some sort of finite superhuman being in Mercy thought.
Going further, when Teacher thought is used to construct a mental concept of God, then this will cause Platonic forms of possible perfection to emerge within Mercy thought. When concrete technical thought treats these Platonic forms as goals to pursue, then the result will not just be optimization but optimization in an upward direction of increasing order and perfection.
Peterson then addresses the question of whether God actually exists. “Does that make the divine real?... It is real in so far as its pursuit makes pain bearable, keeps anxiety at bay, and inspires the hope that springs eternal in the human breast. It is real in so far as it establishes the benevolent and intelligible cosmic order, that infinite place of sinful toil or faithful play. It is as real as the force that opposes pride and calls those who sacrifice improperly to their knees. It is as real as the further reaches of the human imagination, striving for the upward” (p. 504). Peterson is describing the emotional power exhibited internally by a concept of God that has turned into a Teacher mental network. An overgeneralized mystical concept of God that turns into a TMN has the emotional power to make pain bearable, keep anxiety of day, and inspire hope. Going further, a God of blind faith that turns into a TMN has the additional power to oppose pride and call out improper sacrifice. Going still further, a concept of God based upon universal moral principles that turns into a TMN also has the power to establish benevolent and intelligent cosmic order.
But a mental concept of God does not have the power to extend human life beyond physical death or have the power to transcend natural law.
Thus, it is possible to make considerable progress for a long time by focusing upon constructing a more adequate concept of God while postponing the question of whether such a God actually exists. This is the path taken by Peterson in his book, and Peterson goes a long way. Similarly, the theory of mental symmetry has caused me to focus upon developing a more adequate mental concept of God. Does such a God actually exist? I am not 100% certain. But, unlike a Contributor person, a Perceiver person who is using Perceiver thought is never 100% certain However, growing pervasive evidence strongly points in that direction: Mental symmetry can be used to reformulate Christian theology and praxis, and the resulting reformulation is consistent in depth with the original Greek text of the Bible, being capable even of explaining biblical passages and Christian doctrines that theologians regard as mystery. Going further, using mental symmetry to analyze biblical books has revealed an extensive correlation between the narrative of the biblical text and the course of human history. This correlation has now emerged several times with several books of the New Testament. Going still further, when mental symmetry is used to analyze people’s anecdotes about encountering angels or aliens, then these anecdotes make cognitive sense, and I have yet to come across any other theory that is capable of making sense of these stories.
Statistical analysis typically regards some fact as statistically valid if it exceeds a certainty of 95%. I do not know how to evaluate this evidence from a statistical perspective, but these three independent confirmations make it possible to assert with at least 99.99% certainty (and possibly much more) that the mental concept of God that I have constructed using mental symmetry corresponds both to a real God that actually exists as well as the Christian Trinitarian God of the Bible. I am currently attempting to confirm this hypothesis by breaking through a spiritual realm. If I break through, then this God will exist for me and this will be wonderful because I cannot escape me. And maybe my experience of the real God will make this God real for other people as well. And if enough people are affected, then the path of society itself will be changed.