A friend recently gave me a copy of We Who Wrestle with God by Jordan B. Peterson. This 505 page book goes from the Garden of Eden through the patriarchs to the Israelites approaching the promised land, with a bonus chapter on Jonah.
There is a substantial overlap between Peterson’s analogical myth-based interpretation of the Bible and the cognitive-symbolic method used by mental symmetry. In fact, this is the first book I have encountered with such extensive overlap. Peterson also discusses many important topics that I have examined using mental symmetry. Thus, I have written a 160 page essay that takes a detailed look at what Peterson says in his book.
I suggest that Peterson’s book suffers from two systemic limitations: 1) He lacks the starting point of a cognitive theory and thus must begin with the less rigorous and more concrete foundation of myth and psychological experience. One byproduct is that he respects the biblical text but occasionally lacks precision in his treatment of the text. 2) He uses the analogies of normal thought to stretch forward from technical thought to include the subjective and universal realm of mental networks, but he does not recognize normal thought and mental networks as independent modes of thought. One byproduct of this is an inadequate concept of the ideal woman as mother-and-child. Mental symmetry, in contrast, views the ideal woman as the integration of TMNs of universal beauty and order with MMNs of sensitivity and nurture.
The 160 page essay can be found here.
FYI: I’m not sure if I have just read too much of your brother’s theories, thus explaining my internal state by those terms partly.
But here is a commentary on male vs female thought in your interpretation on Peterson.
I started to study your theories over ten years ago. In a way I’m of the opinion that your theories as well as your brother’s have saved my life.
Commentary:
“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.”
-This should be also, in a way, compatible with the MBNI Circuits. The one operating in Unipolar/Female is kind of an empress, she reigns over an EMPIRE instead of a NATION, which is defined by its borders, which are defined by the neighboring ”not-us”. The Multipolar/Male (operating in the sequential Male memory) is probably not conscious of MMN-associativity in a way that the Unipolar is.
-Since Unipolar is BASED in a FIXED understanding, I suspect the ’within my all-embracing arms’ part is kind of a statement in which there is kind of an extreme Unipolar being. The Unipolar is a center of an empire, and in here, her reign will, in a way, reach every corner of the earth. In that reign is based in her fixed understanding.
-The Unipolar/Female can easily interpret the phenomenons of experience by using different understandings, however this is based in compulsion in the associative sphere of being. In Multipolar thought the intentionality goal may be a kind of an (”imaginary”) abstract image in the distance, and there is a linear path there (like a saga in programming). This constitutes obsession based drive to go forth.
-The human will can be used in the associative memory, as well as in the sequential. Also self-monitoring seems to be done differently in the two memory-variants. The Unipolar associativity will look for something by having a fixed understanding. The Multipolar cannot ”see” inside him by will so easily, since the Multipolar memory is abstract and sequential. There seems to be a tension between these modes, such that the Multipolar may interpret introspection and feeling emotions as ”losing control” or otherwise may fear associativity in him. Thus it is plausible that the female thought is more adept in introspection. However the sequential male thought in more ”organized” way can do that which you describe as technical thought.
“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.”
-In this story, Adam seems to operate in Multipolar and thus seems to be operating also in the mode that your brother calls Individualism. That is, he offers things for sale, because that is what the Multipolar does. Peterson seems to have the experience that this doesn’t work on women. I suspect this is in general is, because of the technical thought (which has become synonymous with male thought in our culture) that doesn’t know shit about MMNs or women’s likes or dislikes or priorities. And the inability of Multipolars in reaching the associative MMN core where they could actually experience more what the Unipolar sees/experiences. The Unipolar operates in the buying mode of Rebellion. As you said, from contributor thought, Peterson has probably seen the Facilitator ”empress” ”looking at herself” doing great deeds of compassion, instinctively waiting for her to ”buy” him. But Peterson seems to think in ”incel” terms of technical thought (Perceiver principles of a wrong sphere, which do not ACCEPT the Feeling Mercy core of the world) and seems to get upset when these do not work. He somehow sees this selling/buying mechanism and generalizes and declares that the essence of the female is to be irrational and selfish.
-Because of the divisive forces of Understanding, at least as Multipolar beings, outside we may see things that are the opposite to our understanding. But if we integrate ourselves, we have internal peace. I have the hypothesis that the integration is optimally not done by the forces of rebellion, but by facing the Mercy/Server Intentionality in ourselves, from the sequential understanding mode.
-The Unipolar cannot escape the weight of the associative MMNs, and seems to be more peaceful because of being sensitive to MMN pain and approval. Ideally, she may ”rebel”, but she doesn’t DESTROY the other so easily.