Esoteric

Jordan B Peterson On Mindfulness

30 posts in this topic

Jordan Peterson is one of the least close minded people you will come across. It's worth paying attention to his ideas. He discovers them through academics, but the irony is he's a perfect compliment to many of the ideas you see here. 

He's all about explaining mystical experiences, religion, the hero's journey, etc. in a way that makes a lot of sense. He argues these concepts are built into our humanity and nature. For example, we don't murder not because the ten commandments tells us to, but that the ten commandments contain not to murder because it is an intrinsic moral that is part of our human nature. He suggests all religions are just an expression of our innate nature and humanity. He is a spiritual person and understands the amazing power of psychedelics.

This dovetails very well with many of Leo's teachings. 

His approach for how to live life is different though, but in many ways similar. He advocates radical personal development as the hero's journey. It seems for him reaching your maximum potential is the spiritual journey. I believe Leo agrees, but for Leo your maximum potential is losing yourself in absolute infinity and becoming egoless. 

I don't think it's fair to lump all of his ideas into "cold rational non spiritual academics" - it's just not the case. Follow your own teachings, and explore another perspective. 

It's not clear the path forward for all of us is to meditate in a cave for eternity. But maybe it is, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I was writing the above post, it dawned on me that each time I used the word "concept" or "idea" it would be met with disdain. Such is the power of language, labels, and pointers. Replace those words with "teachings" and the content remains the same, but your biases don't :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Edita Did he actually have a breakthrough experience himself? Or is he just talking about it academically?

There is an infinite gap between those two.

Of course it's nice to see awareness of psychedelics spreading through universities. But that alone does not really mean that people understand the full existential significance of them. Not even close.

People like Sam Harris, who've done psychedelics, still do not talk about them properly, and have never really gone deep with them. And still do not understand the ultimate nature of reality.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura Despite being very bright, I don't think Peterson is high-consciousness so to speak. In his debate with Sam Harris on the nature of truth, Peterson argued for redefining the meaning of truth as something that serves human survival/ the Darwinian imperative as a means for combating unethical motives in science/ pursuits of knowledge. I take this to mean that he was arguing that if some insight poses a threat to our collective self-agenda/ evolutionary imperatives, it should not be regarded as true, even if it is "correct", which is the polar opposite attitude to have with consciousness work.

I'm not super knowledgeable about him, but nothing I've seen suggests he has any mystical direct experiences whatsoever or even sees direct consciousness as a means of pursuing truth.

I still enjoy his free lectures as they are very educational, but as far as I can tell, he's very much an ideologue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Outer I'm very much open to the possibility that I misconstrued Peterson, but what do you mean I have bought into what is "true'' ? You mean the insights I got from consciousness work? Those are all self-verified.

As for more advanced non-dual teachings, I only take them on as subjects to investigate through my own direct experience.

Meaning is a projection. You create meaning.

I don't care whether I like something or not. I'm very interested in what's true regardless of how I feel about it, but I don't see what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peterson has some good ideas. He's one of the better academics out there in the zeitgeist and worth studying.

And his mystical experience is a good step in the right direction.

But he didn't go past the barrier of insanity.

So, understand the Ultimate Absolute he does not.

The Absolute is beyond any mortal's puny notions of meaning. It's so meaningless it explodes with infinite being!


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2017 at 5:05 PM, Leo Gura said:

@Steph1988 Yes, I'm sure it looks that way from your POV.

I just can't communicate to you how I come to these conclusions. They integrate hundreds of sources and 1000s of hours of practice. The only way for you to really understand is to walk the path yourself.

I have made a career out of personal development, but the difference is, I understand that all my words are not the Truth. And my career in personal development will be short-lived.

I am not kidding about the black hole effect. It's very real. And it is already happening to me. At some point, you may just find me sitting alone in a cave in silence. Come say Hi, but don't expect any answers.

When you get far enough down the rabbit hole, you'll understand why it must be this way.

That might be a good reason to back off the spirituality stuff for a while.  Give it a breather.  Too much of a good thing sometimes turns into a bad thing.  

Edited by Joseph Maynor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joseph Maynor  What is this black hole effect he is talking about ?


  1. Only ONE path is true. Rest is noise
  2. God is beauty, rest is Ugly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Loreena I don't know.  My guess is it's the result of a lot of spirituality work.  

Edited by Joseph Maynor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Outer Peterson was the one who has meditated with his wife 25 years; the writer is the one who claimed to have increased his attention after four years. At least that what the article says grammatically, since it switches tenses and doesn't quote that line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now