Though he famously dismisses Christianity as a slave morality, his bigger questions are: What are values as such? How do we come by them? How do they show up in our behavior, and our science, our art, and in the way we do philosophy itself. Which values might we get beyond and no longer believe in, and what might we replace them with?
Such questions have been asked by many philosopher’s, but Nietzshe takes things a lot further: Is suffering really bad? Is compassion really good? Is self-denial a form of seeking power? Is seeking power bad? Is truth good? Are truths always a kind of error?
The book is also about human possibility and potential. When we go beyond morality and modernity, where does that leave the individual? We’ll find out why why Nietzsche’s philosophy of the ‘will to power’ might fuel success, yet also be dangerous if in the wrong hands.Christopher Janaway
I know Jordan Peterson’s philosophy has been highly influenced by Carl Jung and that this isn’t an exclusive Peterson thought. This Jung quote just reminded me of what Peterson regularly expounds, that, “having one foot in chaos and one foot in order” is necessary to living a healthy and constructive life.
It has become abundantly clear to me that life can flow forward only along the path of the gradient. But there is no energy unless there is a tension of opposites; hence it is necessary to discover the opposite to the attitude of the conscious mind. It is interesting to see how this compensation by opposites also plays its part in the historical theories of neurosis: Freud’s theory espoused Eros, Adler’s the will to power. Logically, the opposite of love is hate, and of Eros, Phobos (fear); but psychologically it is the will to power. Where love reins, there is no will To power, and where the will to power is paramount, love is lacking. The one is but the shadow of the other…
Seen from the one-sided point of view of the conscious attitude, the shadow is an inferior component of the personality and is consequently repressed through intensive resistance. But the repressed content must be made conscious so as to produce a tension of opposites, without which no forward movement is possible. The conscious mind is on top, the shadow underneath, and just as high always longs for low and hot for cold, so all consciousness, perhaps without being aware of it, seeks its unconscious opposite, lacking which it is doomed to stagnation, congestion, and ossification. Life is born only of the spark of opposites.
…every process is a phenomenon of energy, and that all energy can proceed only from the tension of opposites.Carl Jung
The mere extrapolation and expression of factoids is far from Truth.
People do not keep a consistent logic. By and large, they will adapt their logic to each situation. They use “logic” to confirm personal biases and to convey to others they are just. This is a flimsy foundation for moral ethic. It creates a confused individual that isn’t at all confused. It splits the psyche and facilitates a unconscious war between the subconscious and conciousness, ultimately manifesting into despotism if left un checked.
The Occult, what is it? The only time I ever hear the term is in conspiracy videos when someone is referencing Satan/demon worship, human sacrifice, demonic rituals, and lately pedophilia. Or in the mainstream to talk about vampires or, again, satan worship. The term Occult is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented words that people with zero knowledge of the Occult like to throw around to any ritualistic practice they deem evil. The Christian church has worked for millennia to distance themselves from the term, by using it to label anything spiritual they deem heretic and claiming none of their practices are of the occult, or have any occult origins. Their smear campaign has been so effective it is embedded into all of western thought in both religous and atheistic cirlcles.
The term is a bit vague so it can mean alot of different things, sort of like the term religion. So in simplist terms the occult as a noun is defined as: supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena and/or matters regarded as involving the action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge of them. It is also used as an adjective, simply meaning: not revealed/secret, not easily apprehended/understood, not manifest or detectable by clinical methods alone, and used in astronomy/astrology to mean: hidden from view/concealed.
In none of that is occult defined as Satan worship, pedophilia, or blood rituals. If you were to define Christianity as Occult is being defined now, then Christianity would mean Jim Jones and kool-aid. Now to briefly address the word “magic”. Again, another totally loaded word that I could make another lengthy post out of, so I’ll define it as simply as possible (doing the word injustice) to not detract from this post. Magic for me is defined as: the means of infulencing/manipulating the subjective and objective world through the act of intention and concentrated will power.
So with these definitions in mind you can see how the Eucharist ritual (Christianity’s communion) is an Occult magic ritual. Many aspects of Christian belief, prayer and ritual/ceremony are of occult narure, utilizing ritual magic. So indeed many of your own beliefs are occult beliefs – whether you practice any religion or not – and are of occult nature/origin.
Native American (or any indigenous people) Shamans, Christian priests, Buddhist, Hindu, and the like prcatice occult arts.
Practically all of the philosophy I profess and all of the books I read are of the “occult”. Any spiritual leader prcatices occult arts. Tarot is occult, meditation and prayer can be ritualistic magic, anything from personal/private, all the way through to Freemason, and on up to Christian rituals are occult rituals.
So as you can see the “Occult” isn’t what you think it is and it is likely you have occult beliefs and practices. The people who throw the term around to call something foreign to them evil have, I’m sure, never truly investigated the occult, or the word wouldn’t be so stigmatized. Please use this to see the term occult as it truly is, just a loaded word that describes a “hidden” magical practice/belief that isn’t at all evil or sinister.
This is a bit long and I really just wanted to share the last few points but I had to quote everything leading up to them so there would be a better understanding. If you know Peterson you know how he expands on things to an almost painful extent. This was taken from a lecture I’ll link to below.
Part of the reason we have political discussion, or, discussion at all is to separate the wheat from the chaff. The reason that free speech is so important, as far as I’m concerned, well I don’t even really think about it as free speech, I think about it, as what; respect for the manifestation of the Logos or something like that. Thats the proper way of conceptualizing it, is that it keeps the balance between those two tendencies (tendencies between the – Left, pathological chaos – and the – Right, pathological order).
You need the questioning and you need the order. And so you think, well how much of each? And the answer is: the recipe changes day to day. And so you think, if it changes day today then how do we keep up? And the answer is: by keeping up, here we are, we’re alive, we can keep up – but we do that by thinking, and we think by talking, and we think and talk by disagreeing. We better disagree, conceptually, because then we don’t have to act out stupid ideas that would kill us.
The abstract territory of conceptual dispute is a substitute for war and death. And it can be a brutal substitute because conceptual disagreement can be very intense, but compared to war and death it’s hardly intense at all. So you keep the landscape open for serious dispute, including dispute that’s offensive, obviously, because if you’re ever going to talk about anything that’s difficult – and why talk otherwise – then you’re going to talk about things that are offensive to people and you’re going do it badly.
You’re going to stumble around when you’re formulating your thoughts, and that’s horrible, it makes people anxious, it alienates them, but it’s better than pain and death, and that’s the alternative.Jordan Peterson
In his book “How the Mind Works”, Steven Pinker uses the computational theory of mind to explain how the mind works, which states that the mind operates like a computer. This coupled with Darwinian thought explains how we developed an intrinsic morality. It appears that Jung also agrees morality is intrinsic to us humans, not requiring some religous doctrine for morality.
It should never be forgotten that morality was not brought down on tablets of stone from Sinai and imposed upon the people, but is a function of the human soul, as old as humanity itself. Morality is not imposed from the outside; we have it in ourselves from the start – not the law, but our moral nature without which the collective life of human society would be impossible. This is why morality is found at all levels of society. It is the instinctive regulator of action which also governs the collective life of the herd.Carl Jung
Using the Tarot is a way of communicating with the unconscious. The more one learns about the psyche and unconscious, the better tuned his/her intuition will be, and will have a more complete understanding / interpretation of the Tarot.
The main reason I am reading this book is for the second essay “The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious”. This essay is about the danger of what Jung calls ego inflation. This at times is a consequence after someone has a revelatory experience. “Ego inflation” is to erase the relationship / the boundary between the specific consciousness of the ego and the more generalized consciousness as such, which is a dangerous thing to do, something I feel I currently need help with. So this is a document that tells you how to avoid that if one is playing in these realms.
Written in 1951 but is painfully more relevant now. Paragraph 2 perfectly describes social media. Goes to show no matter what tools we have available to us, we humans constantly make the same mistakes.
With conflict the dominant keynote in modern human relationships, the peacemaker is given slight consideration. He may be branded politically as a pacifist or accused of cowardice. We have long held that it is proper to maintain belligerently and aggressively both our principles and our opinions. Failure to do so is diagnosed as a deficiency of character. In spite of this, however, the long memory of the world still honors the men of peace and those kindly sages who courageously lived and died in defense of the right to be kind.
Living as we do in a social system becoming more intense and confused everyday, we are constantly tempted to become involved in the conflicts of those around us. We are expected to take sides, to defend and offend, to argue and debate, and most of all to appear appropriately disturbed. It is a social error to be composed when others are exhausting their resources in pointless agitation. To such contestants, the peacemaker is not blessed, for he reveals a measure of self-control, which is itself disquieting to the uncontrolled.
Peacemaking is not a profession; it is an instinct, and only succeeds when it is sustained by other gentle and kindly traits of character. When calmness pervades the atmosphere, radiating from a relaxed, well poised person, it is a force to be reckoned with, but when it is demanded or required by some moralizer who knows not whereof he speaks, it has no calming influence.Manly P. Hall