The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 127. Biblical Series: A Wrestling with God

Episode Date: July 12, 2020

We continue our biblical series with another Jordan B. Peterson lecture. Thanks to our sponsors: https://www.ancestry.com/jordan http://trybasis.com/jordan/

Welcome to season 3 episode 14 of the Jordan B Peterson podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson, Jordan's daughter. I hope you enjoy this episode. It's called A Restling with God. Yesterday dad released the podcast he and I did on his YouTube channel. It was originally released on my podcast, but he thought it was a good idea to release it on his channel so it would be more widespread. Yesterday was also World Benzoda Azapino Awareness Day, and so this seemed like an appropriate

day to bring some awareness to the medication that nearly cost my dad his life. If you haven't seen the video yet, it's uploaded on his YouTube channel, or the audio version is on my podcast, the Michaela Peterson podcast. We'll be doing another health update in podcast forum in a few weeks. For now, Dad's still doing very well. He's finishing up his book, swimming, getting stronger, and everything's still going well.

I hope you enjoy this episode. It's fantastic to have my dad returning to health and you guys know how long of a journey it's been. Part of that journey is involved taking NAD supplements, which meant we had to be hooked up to machines for hours at a time. It was worth it, because NAD improves your long-term health by working at the cellular level, but it was definitely a sacrifice in the short-term. That's why I'm glad to have found a supplement called Basis, made by the company Elysium.

Basis is the first and only NAD dietary supplement based on 25 years of research in the science of aging. It works by activating what scientists call our longevity genes and changing the way you age. Many of the benefits have increased NAD are things you won't feel right away, like enhanced mitochondrial function, active longevity genes, and improved DNA repair, but many people also report increased energy levels, better sleep, and more satisfying workouts. Plus it's easy.

Just take two capsules a day to improve the way you age. Listeners can get 10% off of a monthly subscription to basis by visiting tribasis.com-jordan and using the promo code Jordan10. That's tribasis.com-jordan and the promo code Jordan10. That's a great deal on a groundbreaking supplement. It's been more than 75 years since many courageous soldiers, maybe even your grandfather, left home to fight in World War II. I didn't have any relatives that fought in World War II or World War I. My great-great-grandma actually went and got my 16-year-old great-grandfather and brought

him home when he tried to go fight in World War I. You know my obsession with digging up details like this in my family history, and that's why I use Ancestry.com. In honor of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, Ancestry.com has released a US draft card collection with over 36 million draft cards completed by fighting age men in the United States, whether they ended up serving or not. There's a great chance that your relatives are among them.

You can find things like their home address, physical description, and other details about their lives. It's pretty interesting. Discover your untold stories and more. Head to my URL at ancestry.com slash Jordan to start discovering your story today. That's ancestry.com slash Jordan to start discovering your story today. That's Ancestry.com slash Jordan. Season three, episode 14, a wrestling with God, a Jordan B. Peterson lecture. All right, so the last time I was here, many of you were as well. We got halfway through the story of Jacob and I've been digging underneath the story sporadically

since then to try to find out what other themes are being developed. And I've got some things that I think are really interesting to talk about. So we'll get right into it. So I'm gonna review a little bit first. So we were talking about Jacob and I'll re-update his biography a little bit so that we can place ourselves in the proper context before we go on.

So his mother, Rebecca, gave birth to twins, and the twins, even in her womb, were struggling for, well, they were struggling. And of course, the story is that they were struggling for dominance. The older, or the younger against the older, really, because Jacob means usurper. And Rebecca had a, what would you call a vision from God

I had a, what would you call a vision from God that said that Jacob would supplant Esau. And so even before her twins were born, they were in a state of competition. And that's a recapitulation of the motif of the hostile brothers, right? It's a very, very, very common mythological motif. And we already saw that really well developed in the story of Cain and Abel, right? And Cain and Abel were essentially the first two human beings, the first two natural born human beings, and they were instantly

locked in a state of enmity, which is symbolic of first the enmity that exists within people's psyche. Between the part of them, you might say, that's aiming at the light and the part of them that's aiming at the darkness. And I think that's a reasonable way of portraying it. Obviously, it's a way that's sort of rife with symbolism.

But my experience of people, especially when you get to know them seriously or when they're dealing with serious issues, is that there is quite clearly a part of them that's striving to do well in the world or even to do good. And another part that's deeply cynical and embittered that says to hell with it and is self-destructive and lashes out and really aims at making things worse. And so that seems to be a natural part of the human psyche and that's also reflected in the idea of the fall.

And so those ideas are not easily cast away. They're associated with the rise of self-consciousness, right, in the story of the Garden of Eden. And I think that's right because I do think that our self- I do think that our self-consciousness produces that division within us because more than any other creature were intensely aware of our finitude and suffering and that tends to turn us at least to some degree against being itself. You know, I was watching a bunch of protesters in the US last week,

scream at the sky about Trump, you know. And it was interesting, like I thought it was an extraordinarily narcissistic display. But despite that, there was something symbolically appropriate about it. Also, there's a movie I really like, sadly enough, called Fubar. I don't know how many of you have seen that. Yeah, you know that movie. I take it. Yeah, it's about the people I grew up with. So, yeah, that's true, man. I'm telling you, that's true. So the guy, the main actor in Fubar, who's quite bright, but completely uncivilized, gets

to stick it or cancer, and there's one great scene where he gets far too drunk and he's stumbling around the street, you know, in a virtually comatose state, and of course, he's not very thrilled with what's happened to him, and he's shaking his fist at the sky, it's pouring rain in his cursing god,ing God. And it's like, well, you can kind of understand his position. So that kind of reminded me of these people who were yelling at the sky. They were basically, they were act dramatizing the idea of, they were enraged at, well, you could say God, of course most of them wouldn't say that, but they were the ones yelling at the damn sky.

So you got to look at what they're doing rather than what they say. And they were outraged that being was constructed such that Trump could have arisen as president. And so, well, so this idea, you know, that we can be easily turned against being and work for its destruction is a really, it's a really common, common, common theme.

It never goes away. You see it echoed in stories like with the new Marvel series, for example. You see the enmity between Thor and Loki. That's a good example of the same thing, or between Batman and the Joker. There's Superman and Lex Luthor. There's these pairs of hero against villain. That's a really dramatic and easily, what everyone can understand, that dynamic, right?

It's a basic plot. And the reason it's a basic plot is because it's true of the battle within our spirits, our own individual spirits. It's true within families because sibling rivalry can be unbelievably brutal. It's true between human because sibling rivalry can be unbelievably brutal. It's true between human beings who are strangers, it's true between groups of people. It's true at every level of analysis. And then, in some sense, it's archetypally true, at least with regards to deep religious symbolism.

Because you see that echoed in many stories as well. So I think the clearest representation is probably Christ in Satan. That's the closest to a pure archetype. Although there's in the old Egyptian stories, there's Ossiris and Seth or Horus and Seth and Seth is a precursor to Satan etymologically. So it's a very, very common motif. And so that's what happens again in Rebecca's womb is that this thing, this idea is played out right away. And the two twins are actually, what would you call it there? They have a superordinate destiny because one of them is destined to become the father of Israel. And of course, that's a pinnacle moment

in the Old Testament, obviously. And arguably, a pinnacle moment in human history. Now, you know, it's degree to which the stories in the Old Testament actually constitute what we would consider empirical history as a matter of debate. But it doesn't matter in some sense, because, as I mentioned, I think before in this lecture series, there are forms of fiction that are meta-true, which

means that they're not necessarily about a specific individual, although I generally think they are based on the life of specific individuals. It's the simplest theory, but who knows, right? But they're more real than reality itself because they abstract out the most relevant elements of reality and present them to you. And that's why you watch fiction. You know, you want your fiction boiled down, right? You want it boiled down to the essence. That's what makes good fiction. And that essence is something that's truer than plain old truth if it's handled well. And so, you know, if you watch a Shakespeare play, half a lifetime of events can go by in a Shakespeare play. And it covers, you know, wide range of scenes and so on. And so it's cut and edited and compressed all at once.

But because of that, it blasts you with a kind of emotional and ethical force that just the mirror videotaping of someone's daily life wouldn't even come close to approximating. So in this motif of the hostile brothers, that's a deep, deep archetypal truth. And God says to Rachel, two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels,

and one people shall be stronger than the other. And the elder shall serve the younger. And so there's an inversion there, right, because as we've discussed, historically speaking and traditionally speaking, it's the elder son that to whom the disproportionate blessings flow. There's some truth in that, too, even more, what would you say, more empirically, IQ tends to decrease as the number of children in the family increase. The youngest is the smartest, generally speaking.

It isn't clear why that is, but it might be that they get more attention. But who knows. So those of you who are younger can be very unhappy about that fact. Now Jacob, okay, so there's another plot line here too, because Abraham and Rebecca are at odds, sorry, Isaac and Rebecca are at odds about the children, right? So there's an eatable twist to a two because, well, Isaac is allied with Esau, who turns out to be the hunter type. So he's your basic rough and tumble character, you know,

and he's kind of a wild-looking guy, he'll hairy, and he likes to be outside. He lives in tents, he likes to hunt. He's a man's man, that's one he likes to be outside. He lives in tents. He likes to hunt. He's a man's man. That's one way of thinking about it. Whereas Jacob dwells in tents. He doesn't go outside much. He's well, maybe he's more introverted, but he's certainly the sort of kid, Adolescent, say, who hangs around home. And there's some intimation that he's as much, well, he's clearly as mother's favorite. And with all the advantages, and I suppose disadvantage says go along with that.

And Isaac and Rebecca don't see eye to eye about who should have predominance among the sons. And Rebecca is quite complicit with Jacob in inverting the social order. So the first thing that happens that's crooked is that Esau comes in from hunting and he's, you know, maybe he's been out for a number of days and he's ravenous and he's kind of an impulsive guy,

doesn't really seem to think about the long term very much. And Jacob was cooking some lentil stew and Esau wants some of it and Jacob was cooking some lentils stew, and Esau wants some of it, and Jacob refuses, and then says that he'll trade his birthright for it. And Esau agrees, which is a bad deal, right? It's a bad deal. And so you could say that Esau actually deserves what's coming to him, although at minimum, you'd have to think of them both as being equally culpable. It's a nasty trick. And so that's Jacob's first trick.

And then the second trick is that it's later, and Isaac is old and blind, and close to death, and it's time for him to bestow a blessing on his sons, which is a very important event to apparently among these ancient people. And Esau again is out hunting, and Rachel dresses Jacob up in a hairy, puts a goat skin on his arm, so he's kind of hairy like Esau and dresses him in Esau's clothes, so he smells like

Esau. And Isaac tells Esau to go out and hunt him up some venison, I think it is, which is a favorite of his. And Rebecca has Jacob cook up a couple of goat kids, and serve that to Isaac, and play the role of Esau. And so he does that. It's pretty damn nasty, really. All things considered, to play a trick like that, both on your

brother and on your blind father, and the inclusion with your mother. It's not the sort of thing that's really designed to promote a lot of familial harmony. And so, especially because you've already screwed him over in a big way once. You know, you'd think that would be sufficient. So, anyways, he's successful, and Esau loses his father's blessing. And so that Jacob ends up really in the position of the first born. And it's quite interesting because God tells Rachel

that Jacob is going to be the dominant twin. And you'd think again with God's blessing, or at least the prophecy, that Jacob would end up being a good guy. But he certainly not presented that way to begin with, which is also quite interesting, given that he's the eventual founder of Israel. And it's another indication of the realism of these old stories.

And it's quite amazing to me. It's always been quite amazing to me how unpridified these stories have remained. Because you'd think that if you're even the least bit cynical, especially if you had the kind of Marxist religion as the opiate of the masses kind of viewpoint, which is a credible viewpoint, you know, although it's wrong, but it's credible. I think it's a shallow interpretation, and not part of the reason I think it's a shallow interpretation is because the stories would be a lot prettier if that was the case. These characters wouldn't have this strange, realistic moral ambiguity about them. If you're going to feed people a fantasy, then you want it to be like a Harlequin novel

or a greeting card or something like that. You don't want it to be a story that's full of betrayal and deceit and murder and mayhem and genocide and all of that. That just doesn't seem all that. What would you say? Call me, I guess, would be the right answer. So anyways, Jacob gets away with this, but Esau is not happy and Jacob is quite convinced that he might kill him.

And I think that was a reasonable fear because Esau was a tough guy and he was used to being outside and he knew how to hunt and he was used to being outside, and he knew how to hunt, and he knew how to kill. And he actually wasn't very happy about getting seriously screwed over by his, you know, stay at home younger brother twice. And so Jacob runs off and goes to visit his uncle. And on the way, and this is a very interesting part

of the story, he stops and to sleep and he takes a stone for a pillow, and then he has this vision, it's called a dream, but the context makes it look like a vision of a ladder reaching up to heaven. And with angels moving up and down the ladder, let's say. And there's some representations of that. I showed you some of them the last time we met, but I'll read it to you first. He lighted upon a certain place and tired there all night

because the sun was set. And he took of the stones of that place and put them for his pillows and lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed and beheld 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. And behold the Lord stood above it and said,

I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father. And the God of Isaac, the land whereon thou liest to thee I will give it and to thy seed. And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth. And thou shalt spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and the south. So that lays out the canonical directions, right? So now there's a center with the canonical directions. Like the thing that you see, you know, that little symbol you see on maps,

it's the same thing that symbolically placed upon the earth. So a center has been established with radiating, well with what? with directional lines radiating from it. So it establishes as a place. And in the unised siege, shall all the families of the earth be blessed. So that's pretty good news for Jacob. And it's not self-evident why God is rewarding him for running away after screwing over his brother. But that seems to be what happens.

And so here's a couple of representations, classic representations. The one on the right is William Blake, it's one I particularly like. And Blake assimilates God with the sun, when with light, right? So that's quite a common mythological idea that God is associated with light and the day.

Behold, I am with thee and will keep thee in all places whether thou goest and will bring thee again into this land, for I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. And Jacob awaked out of his sleep and he said, surely the Lord is in this place and I knew it not, and he was afraid, which is exactly the right response. And said, how dreadful is this place? It is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. And Jacob rose up early in the morning and took the stone that he had put for his pillows and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the top of it.

And that's a more important thing than you think. And we'll go into that a little bit more deeply because up to this point in this story there isn't anything really, there isn't anything that's really emerged to mark a sacred space, right? There's no cathedral, there's no church, there's nothing like that. But here's this idea that emerges that you can mark the center of something that and that's important and you mark it with a stone. And a stone is a good way to mark things that are important and you mark it with a stone. And stones are a good way to mark things that are important because the stone is permanent, right? And we mark things with stones now, like we mark graves

with stones, for example, because we want to make a memory and to carve something into stone, to carve a stone, and then to carve something into stone, is to make a memory and to use stone is to make a memory because stone is permanent. And to set it upright is to indicate a center. And so that's what happens in poor oil on the top of it, which is kind of offering.

And he called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was called Luz at the first. And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, if God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and reyment to put on, then a tenth of what I earn I will give him. I missed that. That's interesting too because now there's a transformation of sacrifice, right? Because until that point, sacrifices have been pretty concretized.

It was the burning of something. Whereas here all of a sudden it's the offering of productive labor per se, like a tithe, because a tithe is a form of sacrifice. And so there's an abstraction of the idea of sacrifice. So sacrifice, it's really important that the idea of sacrifice gets abstracted, right? Because it should be abstracted to the point where it's used the way that we use it today, which is, you know, we make sacrifices to get ahead and everyone understands what that means. But the sacrifices are generally some combination of psychological and practical.

So we're not acting them out. We're precisely, we're not dramatizing them or ritualizing and we actually act them out in the covenant that we make with the future. And we do that, well, unless we're extraordinarily impulsive and aimless in our lives and have really no conception whatsoever of the future, and are likely to sacrifice the future for the present,

which is what he saw does, right? Then we make sacrifices. And you got to think like the idea of making sacrifices to make the future better is an extraordinarily difficult lesson to learn. It took people, God only knows how long to learn that, you know? Like we have no idea. It's not something that animals do easily. Championsesansese don't store leftover meat. You know, they just, and neither do wolves. They just, a wolf can eat about 30 pounds of meat in one sitting.

And that's where the idea of wolfing it down comes from. They're not hiding it, saving it for later. You know, they can't do that. So they can't sacrifice the present for the future. So this is a big deal that this happens. Now, I want to tell you a little bit about the idea of the pillar, because it's it's unbelievably deep idea and it orients us in ways that we still don't, it's still orients us in ways that we don't understand. In fact, it's actually the mechanism

by which we're oriented, or and if it's lacking, then we become disoriented. And so I'll show you some pictures and describe them first. Okay, so first of all, there's a walled city. So let me tell you that you could think about that as an archetypal human habitation. Maybe it's a reflection of something like a fire in the middle of the plane or the forest or the jungle for that matter, although it's kind of hard to get a fire going there. Imagine a fire ringed around with logs and perhaps ringed around with dwellings, right? So the fire is in the center and the fire defines the center and then as you move away from

the fire, you move out into the darkness, right? So the fire is light and communion and safety and as you move away from the fire, you move out into the darkness, right? So the fire is light and communion and safety, and as you move away from the fire, you move out into the darkness and what's terrifying out beyond the perimeter. So what's beyond the perimeter is terrifying. You can feel that if you go camping somewhere that's wild. You know, you're pretty damn happy, especially if the wolves are hailing. You're pretty damn happy to be sitting by the fire because you can see there the fire keeps the animals away and You know if you do wander into the bush into the darkness then you're on alert and you know your predator detection systems are on alert And so you could think about the classical human

Habitation as two places one where your predator detection system isn't on alert and another where your predator detection system isn't on alert, and another where your predator detection system is alert on alert. And you could think about that roughly as the distinction between explored territory and unexplored territory. And really the founding of a place is precisely, this is a lot of this I got from Reading Merchay,

Elia, the founding of a place is precisely the definition of an explored center set against the unexplored periphery. And you know what's interesting about that, so you can kind of think about that with regards to the walled city, right? Everything in the wall is cosmos, and everything outside the wall is chaos. But it also extends to the conceptual realm, because imagine that you're the master of a field of study. And so that's an interesting metaphor, because a field is a geographical metaphor, right? And if in the center of the field are those things that everyone knows really well, the axioms that everyone abides by in the field are those things that everyone knows really well, the axioms that everyone abides by in the field. And then as you move towards the fringes, you get towards the unknown, towards the frontier of the discipline. And as you become expert, you move from the center to

the frontier. And so then you're on the border when you're a scholar, a competent scholar, you're on the border between the unexplored or the explored and unexplored, and you're trying to further that border. So even if you're just doing this abstractly, it's the same thing. And it's a reflection of the fact that every human environment, concrete or abstract, it makes no difference, recapitulates the cosmos chaos dichotomy or the order chaos dichotomy. And that's why in Taoism, for example, it's the union of chaos and order that constitutes being itself,

and that you stand on the border between chaos and order, because that's the proper place to be. Too orderly, too much in the explored, you're not learning anything. Too much out there where the predators lurk, then you're frozen with terror. And neither of those positions are desirable. So, and that's what, you know, and so you think,

and this is a concrete reality, obviously, as well as a psychological reality, there were reasons for those walls, right? Because inside the walls were all the people like us. And so that begs the question, what does it mean for people to be like us? And then outside the wall there was all those people because they were the worst forms of predators, because people are actually the worst forms of predators who aren't like us. And the wall is there of predators who aren't like us. And the wall is there to draw a distinction between

like us and not like us. And so, and that was a matter of life and death. You can tell that because, I mean, look at those walls. They had to build those by hand. And you know, you do see walled cities that have three rings of walls. So, these people were terrified, but not so terrified as the people who built three walls. They were really terrified, and they had their reasons.

So, okay, so now, there's an idea that's reflected in the Jacob's Ladder story, that the center where you put the pillar is also the place where heaven and earth touch. And so that's a complicated idea. I think that you can, you know, I'm trying to look at these stories from a psychological perspective. And so then you could say that that's a symbolic place

where the lowest and the highest come together. And so it's a place where earthly being stretches up to the highest possible ethical abstraction. And that's the center because one of the things that defines us, say as opposed to them, is that we're all united within a certain ethic. That's what makes us the same. This is a complicated line of reasoning, but I'll go back to it after I show you some more pictures. So that's the first idea, is that the center is the place where the lowest and the highest touch simultaneously. And so you could say that in some sense,

it specifies the aim of a group of people. That's another way. You know, if you get together with people to make a group, even at work, you group yourself around a project and that unites you, and it unites you because you all have the same aim. You're all pointing to the same thing. And that makes you the same in some ways,

because if you're after the same thing I am, then the same things are going to be important to you that are important to me, and the same things are going to be negative to you that are negative to me, because our emotions work out that way. And that means I can instantly predict you. I know how you're going to behave, and so our aim, which is basically our ethical aim, it's because we're aiming at something better, at least in principle, we're aiming at something better. So our ethical aim that unites our perceptions and that's what aligns our emotions. And so that sort of begs the question,

if you're going to build a community, around what aim should the community congregate? Okay, so the idea here is that the center of the community is the pillar that unites heaven and earth, so unites the lowest with the highest. So there's some intimation of the idea that it's the highest that unites the community. Okay, and so keep that in mind.

And that's a very old idea as well. That's the idea of the Axis Mundi, which is the center pole that unites heaven and earth. It's an unbelievably old idea, tens of thousands of years old. It might even stretch back to whatever our archaic memories, quasi-memories. I don't know what you would describe them.

Archetypal memories of our excessively old ancestry and trees, when the tree itself was, in fact, the center of the world, and that it was ringed by snakes and chaos. And so, well, we have no idea how old these ideas are, but they're very, very old. And evolution is a conservative business. Once it builds a gadget, then it builds new things

on top of that gadget. It's like a medieval town, right? The center of the town is really old, and new areas of the town get built around it, but the center is still really old. And that's what we're like, you know, our platforms like our basic physiological structure, this skeletal body is some tens of millions of years older, older than that. If you think about vertebrates, it's much older than that, and that's all conserved. So everything's built on top of everything else. All right, so there's

kind of a classic town. And there's the idea, I showed you this is Scandinavian world tree, same idea at Unites Heaven and Earth, and around the roots of that tree are snakes that eat this tree constantly. So that's the idea that there's stability, but there's constant transformation around that stability. And at the same time, the snakes are knowing in the roots. There's streams that are nourishing it. So it's sort of an echo of the idea that life depends on death and renewal constantly,

because your cells are dying and being renewed constantly, right? If they are just proliferating, then you have cancer. If they're just dying, then you die. You have to get the balance between death and life exactly right so that you can actually live, which is also a very strange thing. And that tree is something that reaches from the bottom layers of being, maybe the microcosm, all the way to the macrocosm. That's the idea, anyways. So, then there's, okay, so there's Jacob and his pillar.

He's got this idea that you can mark the center with this stone. Like, it sort of symbolizes what he was laying on when he dream, but now he's got this idea. You put something erect, and it marks the center, and it symbolizes his vision of the highest good, something like that, and the promise that's been made to him. And then this is an Egyptian obelisk, pyramid on top of it, that's in Paris. It was taken from Luxor, and it put in Paris. And so that's a much more sophisticated instance of the same idea. OK, and there was a stone age cultures across Eurasia

that put up these huge obelisks everywhere. These huge, like the stone hench, is a good example of that, although it's very sophisticated. And there are also markers of places. We don't know exactly what their function is, but they're very much akin to this, some permanent marker of place. There's a good one, so that's in St. Peter's.

And I really like this one, because you can see the echoes of Jacob's vision for the establishment of a territory there, right? You've got the obelisk in the middle, Jacob's vision for the establishment of a territory there, right? You've got the obelisk in the middle, and then you've got the directions radiating from the center. And of course, St. Peter's, this is the St. Peter's Basilica and Rome, which is an absolutely unbelievable place.

It's just jaw dropping. And so there's the cathedral at the back of it, and then there's this circle of pillars that surrounds it. You can just see them a little bit on the middle left there. That goes all the way around that entire enclosure. And a very large number of people can gather there. And then, so that pillar marks the center, and that would be the center of Catholicism, essentially.

That's what that represents, right? The symbolic center of Catholicism, although, that's what that represents, right? The symbolic center of Catholicism, although you could make the case that the cathedral is the center, it doesn't really matter. They're very close together, and it's half a dozen of one and six of the other. And then here's another representation of the same idea, right? Is that this is why people don't like the flag

to be burned, you know. Because conservative people see the flag as the sacred thing that binds people together. And so they're not happy when that sacred thing is destroyed, even if it's destroyed in the name of protest, whereas the people who burn flags think, well, there are times to dramatize the idea that the center has been corrupt. And you can demonstrate that by putting it to the torch,

as a representation that the corrupt center now has to be burned and transformed. And the thing is they're both right, they're both right all the time, because the center is absolutely necessary and is sacred and is almost always also corrupt and in need of reparation. That's also an archetypal idea. And that's a useful thing to know because you know, it's easy for young people in particular to think that, well, the world's going to

hell in a hand basket and it's the fault of the last generation. They've left us this terrible mess and, you know, we've feeling pretty betrayed about that. Now we have to clean it up. It's like, yeah, yeah, people have been thinking that for like 35,000 years. It's not new. And the reason it's not new is because it's always true. What you're handed is a sacred center with flaws, always, always. And it's partly because it's the creation of the dead.

And the dead can't see and they can't communicate. And so they're not in touch with the present. And so what they've bequeathed to you, apart from the fact that it might actually be corrupt, which is a slightly different thing, is at least blind and dead. And so what the hell can you expect from something that's blind and dead? You're lucky if it just doesn't stomp you out of existence.

So that's a lovely photograph, obviously, and that's the establishment of a new center. Then the center can be a cathedral too, and often is, of course, in classic towns, European towns, in particular, although it's not only European towns that are like this, there's a center that's made out of stone, so that would be the cathedral.

And it's got the highest tower on top of the tower. There's often a cross. And that's the symbolic center. So people are drawn together around whatever the cross represents. Now, the cross obviously represents a center, because it's an X, right? X marks the spot.

So the center of the cross is the center. And then the cathedral's often in a cross shape, which also marks the center. And then in the cathedral, there's a dome often and that's the sky and that's that ladder that reaches from earth to heaven. So it's a recapitulation of the same idea. So, and people are drawn to that center. and the center is the symbol of what unites

them, and what unites them is the faith that the cathedral is the embodiment of. And you think, well, what does the faith mean? And again, we're approaching this psychologically, and what it means is that everyone who's a member of that group accepts the transcendent ideal of the group. Now, the thing is, if you're the member of that group accepts the transcendent ideal of the group. Now the thing is if you're the member of a group, you accept the transcendent ideal of the group. That's what it means to be a member of a group. So if you're in a work team and you're all working on a project, what you've essentially

done is decided that you're going to make the goal unquestionable, right? I mean, you might argue about the details, but if you're tasked with something, here's a job for you 10 people, organize yourself around the job. You can argue about how you're going to do the job, but you can't argue about the job, then the group falls apart. And so there's an active faith in some sense.

The reason that the active faith is necessary is because it's very, very difficult to specify without error what that central aim should be, given that there's any number of aims, right? And it's a very, very difficult thing to figure out, and this is something we're going to do a little bit tonight, is like, what should the aim be around which a group would congregate? You know, so, so, especially if it's a large group, and it's a large group that has to stay together across very large swathes of time, and the group is incredibly diverse. What possible kind of ideal could unite a large group of diverse people across a very large

stretch of time? That's a really, really hard question. And I think part of the way that question has been answered is it's been answered symbolically and in images, because it's so damn complicated that it's almost impossible to articulate. So, but obviously you need to have a center around which everyone can unite, because if you don't, then everyone's at odds with one another.

Like, if I don't know what you're up to and you don't know what he's up to, we have no, we're just strangers. And we don't know that our ethics match at all. Then the probability that we're going to be able to exist harmoniously decreases rapidly to zero. And that's obviously just no good. That's a state of total chaos.

So we can't have that. It's not possible to exist without a central ideal. It's not possible. And it's deeper than that. It's deeper than that, partly because I'll try to get this right. This is the sort of thing that I was arguing with Sam Harris about. You see, your category system is a product of your aims.

That's the thing. Like, if you have a set of facts at hand, the facts don't tell you how to categorize the facts, because there's two damn many facts. There's a trillion facts. And there's no way, without imposing some a priority order on them, of determining how it is that you should order them. So how do you order them?

Well, that's easy. You decide what you're aiming at.. So how do you order them? Well, that's easy. You decide what you're aiming at. Now, how do you do that? Well, I'm not answering that question at the moment. I'm just saying that in order to organize those facts, you need an aim. And then the aim instantly organizes the facts into those things relevant to the aim, tools, let's say.

Those things that get in the way and a very large number of things that you don't have to pay attention to at all, right? It excludes, like if you're working on an engineering problem, you don't have to worry about practicing medicine in your neighborhood. You know, there's a bunch of, like if you're focusing on a particular, what would you say? Any job, any set of skills implies that you're good at a small set of things, and then not good at an incredibly large number of other skills. It simplifies things, and so you can use your aim as the basis of a category structure

And so you also have to keep that in mind because what it means is as far as I can tell that what it means is that Your category system itself, which is what structures your perceptions is actually dependent on the ethics of your aim It's directly it's a moral thing. It's directly dependent on your aim. And that's a stunning idea if it happens to be true. It's not how people think about thinking. We don't think that way. We think that we think deterministically, let's say, or that we think empirically or that we think rationally.

And none of that appears to be the case. What we do is we posit a valid aim, and then we organize the world around the aim. And there's plenty of evidence from that in psychological studies of perception, right? That does look like how the perceptual systems work. Mostly they ignore because the world's too complicated. They focus on a small set of phenomena deemed relevant to whatever the aim is. And then of course the aim is. And then, of course, the aim is problematic.

Again, it's complex, because the aim I have has to be an aim that some of you at share or at least don't object to, because otherwise, I'm not going to get anywhere with my damn aim. It has to actually be implementable in the world. It has to be sustainable across at least some amount of time. It can't kill me. It's really hedged in this aim.

It isn't any old thing. There's hardly any things that it can be. So, you know, Jacob's aim, for example, in undermining Esau, almost gets him killed. And you can understand why. That's the other thing. You think, well, that was a nasty bit of work. You can understand Jesus's rage.

It's even though we're separated from the people in these stories by what, 4,000 years, 3,000 years, something like that. You know, immediately, why everyone feels the way they do. At least once you understand the context of the story, that none of that's mysterious in the least. So there is the church, and the church is underneath the cross. So that's St. Peter's Basilica, and so there's the cross on the globe, on top of the Basilica,

and then there's the cross on the obelisk as well. And so what that means is that, and this is where things get insanely complicated, is that the center is defined by whatever the cross represents. Now the cross represents a crossing point geographically, it's certainly that. The cross probably represents the body to some degree. But then the cross also represents the place of suffering, obviously, and more importantly, it represents the place of voluntary suffering transcended. I'm speaking psychologically, right?

Not theologically, that's what it represents. And so you might say, so here's the idea behind putting down the obelisk with the cross and saying that that's the center. So that's the thing that everyone's aiming at. And so the idea would be, well, if you're going to be a member of the group defined by this obelisk, then what you do is accept your position at the center of suffering voluntarily and therefore transcend it.

That's the idea. And that is one hell of an idea. It really is, man. that is a killer idea. Because it's actually a signal, it's a really clear signal of psychological health. Because one of the things you do if you're a clinical psychologist and someone is paralyzed by fear

is what you do is you break their fears down into relatively manageable bits. And then you have them voluntarily confront their fears. And it might also be things that they're disgusted by, say, if they have obsessive compulsive disorder, but it produces very strong negative emotion, whatever it is. And then you have them voluntarily confront whatever it is that produces that overwhelming negative emotion,

and that makes them stronger. That's what happens. It doesn't make them less afraid. It makes them more courageous and stronger, and that is not the same thing. It's seriously not, it doesn't decrease the fear. It increases the courage. And so that's a mind-boggling idea. And it's deeper, you know, one of the things that's really interesting about these archetypal ideas is that and maybe it's partly because of the hyperlink nature of the Bible, that's part of it, but it's not the whole thing. Is it no matter how deep you dig into them, you'll never get to the bottom.

You know, you hit a bottom, you think, God, that's so unbelievably profound. And then if you excavate a little underneath that, you find something else that's even more profound, and you think, wow, that's God to be the bottom. And then you dig under that. It's like there's no bottom. You can just keep digging down. Well, as far as I can tell, you can keep digging down layer after layer. And we'll talk a little bit about more, a little more about what the cross signifies as the center.

Because you see what people were trying to figure out is what is it that we need to unite under, right? What's the proper thing to unite under? I can give you another example. So in the Mesopotamian societies, the emperor, who was more or less an absolute monarch, he lived inside what was essentially a walled city. And the god of the Mesopotamians was Mardek.

And Mardek was the figure who had eyes all the way around his head and he spoke magic words. So he was very attentive and very articulate. And it was Mardek who went out and confronted the goddess of chaos, the dragon of chaos, and cut her into pieces and made up the world. Okay, so you can kind of understand what that means. So Mardek goes beyond the frontier into the place of predatory chaos and encounters the thing that's terrifying

and then makes something productive out of it. So it's a hero myth. And Mardek is elected to the position of preeminent God by all the other Mesopotamian gods because he manages that. So the Mardek idea emerges up the holy dominance hierarchy and hits the pinnacle. And God only knows how long that took.

It would be the amalgamation of many tribes and then the distillation of all the tribal myths to produce this emergent story of what constitutes top god. And then the job of emperor was to act out Marduk. That's what gave him sovereignty. So the reason that he was the center around which people organized themselves wasn't because he was, when he was being a proper emperor, wasn't because there was something super special about him. Like the power didn't exactly reside in him,

which is a really useful thing to separate, right? You want the power, which is why it's kind of nice to have a symbolic monarch. You get the symbolic power separated from the personality power, right? Because otherwise they get conflated. That's what happened in Rome. It's a very, you can see it tending to happen now and then in the US, like with the Kennedy Dynasties and that sort of thing. So the idea was the emperor had sovereignty

as long as he was acting out martyck properly and going out into the chaos and cutting it into pieces and making order. That was his job. They used to take about the city on the New Year's festival and strip him of all his emperor garments and humiliate him and then force him to confess all the ways that year he hadn't been a good martyck.

So he wasn't a good ruler. And so that was supposed to clue him in and wake him up, right? And then they would ritually reenact the battle of martyck against Tyumat, the chaos monster, using statues. And then if that all went well, then the emperor would go back in, and the city would be renewed for another year. And we still have echoes of that in our New Year's celebration, right?

It's the same idea that's echoed down all those centuries, thousands of years. So it's such a staggeringly brilliant idea, right? Because so part of the idea is that the thing that sovereign, so that's the pillar at the center, that everyone gathers around, is at least in part the thing that courageously goes out into the unknown and makes something useful out of it for the community.

So that's very, very smart. It's very smart. So this is another example of a center. So this is the flag. This is the Union Jack. And so it's made up of a bunch of crosses, right? And so the first cross, the English cross, that's the flag of St. George. That's the flag of England.

What does St. George do? Slays the dragon exactly. Same idea, right? So St. George, patron saint of England, goes out and Slaves the dragon exactly, same idea, right? So Saint George, patron saint of England, goes out and slaves the dragon and frees the virgin from the grip of the dragon. Same idea, right? So that's the center.

And then the second cross is called a saltier, but it's another crucifix. So it's the cross on which Saint Andrew was crucified. So it's the cross on which St. Andrew was crucified. So it's the same idea. The center is the center of suffering voluntarily undertaken because St. Andrew was a martyr. And then St. Patrick is the third cross. What did St. Patrick do in Ireland? Chased out all the snakes. Right. So it's the same thing. Right. And so the flag of Great Britain is the

combination of all of these three crosses that defines the center, and that's what the flag is. So that symbolizes all of that. So that's, you know, completely mind-boggling. So there's more about St. Patrick, too. So he banishes this NAICS after a 40-day fast, and so that's an illusion to the 40 years that Moses spends in the desert, and also the 40 days that Christ fasts in the New Testament, and his walking stick when he plants it grows into a tree, so that echoes all of the ideas about the center that we just described. And he also speaks with the ancient Irish ancestors, which if you remember is a characteristic of the shamanic rituals where, so in the typical shamanic ritual, which seems to be elicited

by psychedelic use, the shaman dissolve, down past their bones, and then they go up into heaven and speak with the ancestors, and then they go up into heaven and speak with the ancestors and then they're Introduced into the heavenly kingdom and then the Flesh is put back on their bones and they come back and tell everybody what happened and that's a repeatable experience right the Shamanic tradition is unbelievably widespread so all over Europe ancient Europe and Asia and perhaps as far down as South America, right? It's highly conserved, and it's out of that tradition, you know,

likelihood that our religious ideation emerged. So, and you can see echoes of that here. So back to the story of Jacob and his latter, so that I can come again to my father's house in peace, then shall the Lord be my God. And this stone which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house. And of all that that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the 10th unto thee. So that's also an echo, I would say,

of the obligation of those who climb the power hierarchy, to attend to those who are at the bottom, right? Because if you think about the tithing as a form of wealth distribution, which is essentially what it is, the part of the ethic that defines the proper moral endeavor that's related to that center is not to advance yourself at the expense of the entire community. So if you're fortunate enough so that you can rise in authority and power and competence within the confines of a community, you still have a obligation to maintain the structure,

maintain and further the structure of the community within which you rose. And that's obvious, right? Because if people didn't do that after a couple of generations, the whole thing would fall apart. So, you know, it's not reasonable to destroy the game that you're winning. It's reasonable to strengthen the game that you're winning. And so that's another thing because that also describes the ethic that should allow you to be an active member of the community around which that that gathers around that center.

So so so one of the things I've learned about the hero mythology that I really really like is so you see this pretty clearly in the figure of Christ but because two things are conjoined in that story. But Christ is also, there's two kinds of heroes. There's the hero that goes out into chaos and confronts the dragon of chaos and gathers the treasure as a consequence and then shares it with the community. That's one. The other form of hero is the hero

who stands up against the corrupt state and rattles the foundation of the state, has it collapse and then reconstructs it, right? So because the two great dangers to human beings are unprotected exposure to the catastrophes of the natural world and subjugation to tyranny, right? Those are the two major dangers. And so a hero is, the ultimate hero is the person who reconstructs the structure of the state by using the information that he gathered by going out into the unknown, that unites them both.

And so what that means, here's the rub, as far as I can tell, so a structure, a center, has two risks associated with it. One is that it will degenerate into chaos, and the other is it will rigidify into tyranny, and it'll degenerate into chaos, even if it just stays doing what it's doing. So if it just does exactly what it's doing, and it doesn't change, it will degenerate, because things change, and if it doesn't change to keep up, then it gives farther and farther away from the environment and it will precipitously collapse.

And so, and then if it just changes willy-nilly so that nobody can establish a stable centralizing game, then it degenerates into chaos immediately and no one can get along. So there's a rule for being longing to the community and the rule has to be that you have to act in a manner that sustains and that sustains the community and increases its competence. That's the fundamental moral obligation for belonging. Well, and obviously so, right? Because why would you belong to a...why would you walk into a clubhouse that was on fire? Like, that's just not smart, right? Because why would you walk into a clubhouse that was on fire?

Like that's just not smart, right? If you're going to be part of the game, if you've decided that being part of the game is worthwhile, you've also taken on the moral, you've also decided, even if you didn't notice it, that you have to work to support that game. Because by deciding to play that game, you've said that it's valuable.

And if it's valuable, then obviously you should work to sustain and expand it, because that's the definition of having a relationship with something that's valuable. And so that's the criteria for membership in the community. And that's partly why, if you regard the cross, say, as the symbol of voluntary suffering, suffering accepted voluntarily, something like that,

which is means that there's another element of that too that's worth thinking about. So, you know, the reason that Cain gets so out of hand is because he's suffering, and he won't accept it. He certainly won't accept responsibility for it. He's angry and bitter about it. And no wonder, right? I mean, we have to be realistic about these sorts of things. You guys, all of you people are going to suffer

at some point in your life, to the point where you're angry and bitter about it. I mean, there's just absolutely no doubt about that. And you're even going to think, well, it's no bloody wonder that I'm angry and bitter about it. Everyone would be, and things are so God-awful that there's no excuse for them to even exist. And that's a powerful argument, although I think it's ultimately self-defeating. Well, that's kind of what the story of Cane Enable, that's kind of what the story of Cane Enable, what would you say?

That's the moral of the story of Ken and Abel, what would you say? That's the moral of the story of Ken and Abel, essentially. So what that means instead is that even under those conditions of relatively intense suffering you have to accept it voluntarily, because otherwise it turns you against being, and then you start to act in this terrible manner that makes everything worse. And it seems to me that there's a contradiction in that. If the reason you're complaining is that things are bad, then it isn't reasonable for you to act in a manner that makes them worse, right?

I mean, even if it's no wonder that people do that, but it's a degenerating game. And so the idea, part of the idea of the cross and the suffering that it represents is that if you can accept that voluntarily, regardless of its intensity, then you won't become embittered and resentful and vengeful to the point where you pose a danger to the stability of the community. So, or to your own stability for that matter, because it might be your own stability,

the stability of your family, the stability of the community and the stability of the world. It might be all of that. And increasingly, I think it is all of that. So, okay, so... Now, Jacob, we get the second part of Jacob's story. He goes to meet his uncle, Leban, and he meets Rachel there again by a well.

He falls in love and goes to live with Leban. There are two daughters there, Lea, as well as Rachel. Lea is not a particularly attractive person. It isn't exactly clear why, but the story makes it quite clear. She's definitely the least desirable of the two daughters. And the story makes reference to her eyes, and it isn't clear if there's something wrong with her

physiologically, or if there's something wrong with her attitude. It's not obvious, but it doesn't really matter. The point is, she's the older daughter, but she's the less desirable one. Jacob stays a month, which is the limit of hospitality in that time. If you stayed for a month, you were welcome, but you had to work for your keep.

I think after about three days, something like that, which seems rather reasonable. And so, he stays a month, and then he has a chat with LeBan, and he says, he's fallen in love with Rachel by this time, and he says, I'll stay with you and work for seven years, and then all red Rachel, and LeBan says, that's a fine deal. And then the seven years passes, and there's a wedding ceremony, it's quite a long thing, and the bride is veiled,

and the bride goes into the tent with Jacob. And if I remember the story correctly, I haven't looked at it for a month or so. Rachel is outside the tent speaking, but Leah is inside the tent. And so Jacob thinks he's getting married to Rachel, but he's actually getting married to Leah. And this is, it's an inversion,

eh, because he's in the dark like Isaac was when he fooled Isaac. So now it's Jacob's turn to be in the dark, and he gets betrayed by his uncle and his bride-to-be, Rachel, and her sister, in a manner that's broadly parallel to the trick that he pulled on Isah. And so there's a karma notion there, which I like, you know, I mean, you might think of karma as a superstitious idea. But there are ways of interpreting it that

might make it the case. But I don't think that's what it is. It's that no bad deed goes unpunished. It's something like that. It's like maybe you've done something bad to someone. And therefore, there's part of you that feels quite guilty about that, hopefully. And that part is looking for punishment to set the stage right.

And you might think, well, no, but things are, yes, unless you're psychopath, that's how things work. If you're interested in that kind of thing, you should read Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, because it's the definitive study of that sort of phenomena. Right, because in that book, the main protagonist, Ryszkolnikov, gets away with murder. Like, he does it successfully, no one suspects him. And he drives himself so crazy with guilt

that he basically falls into the hands of the police. He drives himself into the hands of the police. He drives himself into the hands of the police because he can't tolerate what he did. It's very, it's amazing, it's an amazing book. But anyways, the point is here, Jacob falls prey to the same sort of crookedness that he used to ratchet himself up the ladder. And that happens far more often in life than people think. And it's really not like he can complain about it, right? Not if he has any sense, it's like he does.

He brings Leah out to see Leban, and he says, what's with this sister? You know, and Leban basically says to him, in our culture, it's the custom to marry the eldest daughter first, which is exactly right. And he said, well, it would bring, you know, he's rationalizing obviously because he's just screwed over Jacob in a major way.

But it's a little late to take it back. The marriage has been consummated and the ceremony has been complete. And all hell would break out if there was any attempt to sever the relationship. So that's how it is. So Leah's married, and Jacob has the wrong wife. So then, so this is Jacob there.

You see on the left, he's got the little flowery hat, and he's pointing to Leah, and he's saying, like, what's up here? And, and, and, and Leban, you know, Leban, he's tough old goat, and he's not really all that sad about it. In fact, you can imagine that he's going to go, so, so, okay, then he asked to work

another seven years, and he gains Rachel. But because God is a tricky character, there's another twist in this story. Rachel turns out not to be very good at having children, or Rachel and Jacob turn out not to be very good at having children, but Leah She's really good at having kids so She provides Jacob with Ruben, Simion, Levi or Levi, I believe and Judah and the names of those the meanings of those names are there Ruben means see a son, Simion means hearing.

I think that was the Lord heard my prayer. I think that's what that was. Levi means joined, Judah means praise to Yahwa. And it's Judah from whose tribe Christ arises. Judah is essentially promoted to the status of first born later in the story. This is important because Ruben, Simmon, and Levy all do something reprehensible.

And so Judah gets promoted to first born. And that's partly why, in the logic of this narrative, that it's from the tribe of Judah that Christ arises. So now, well, this is going on. Rachel is like suicidal desperate for children. She's jealous of her older sister, who's rather ill-favored as we pointed out, but who seems to be damn good at producing sons. And she's really not happy with Jacob.

And so she choose him out. And Jacob basically says, like, what do you want me to do about it? I'm not God, which is a reasonable response, I would say. And so in her desperation, she gives Jacob Billa, who's her maid servant. We've seen that sort of thing happen before. And two Billa produces two children, Dan and Nath, Tully.

The reason I'm detailing out all these sons, it's important because Jacob is the founder of Israel. And his sons are the founder of the 12 tribes. So it's a pivotal moment in the story, right? It's because he's the fundamental patriarch of those who wrestle with God, because as we'll see, that's what the name Israel means. He gets the name Israel.

You'll see why in a while. But you need to know these genealogies in this situation because they play an important role in everything that happens afterwards. So, naftily is the second, and her name, or his name means, with great wrestling, I have wrestled with my sister, right, contended with her, and have prevailed.

So that gives you some indication of the tension in the household. Now, Leah is now past bearing children. She gives Jacob her, made servant too, Zilpa, to keep up with her sister, I guess. And now, Zilpa bears two children for Jacob. So he's piling up the kids left, right, and center here. One of them is named Gadd, good fortune,

and the other is named Asher, happy or blessed. So there's more rivalry going on between the sisters. This is quite an interesting little story. So Rubin, whose Leah's daughter, goes out and looks for mandrakes. Now mandrakes have Afro-Dizziac property. So that's a little odd to begin with. But it doesn't matter. That's what happens.

And Rachel wants the mandrakes because she's still interested in having some children. And so she bargains with Leah to give her a night with Jacob in exchange for the mandrakes. And more sons emerge as a consequence of that. So then Rachel finally gives birth. Joseph. And Joseph plays a key role in the last story in Genesis, which I hope we'll get to in the next lecture. And then we can close off Genesis. That's the plan, anyways. So, now, Jacob isn't really very happy about the whole arrangement because he's been there 14 years and he's got two wives, it's not too bad, but he got, the bargain wasn't exactly clean,

he doesn't really trust Laban and there's no reason for him to do so. Laban was poor before Jacob came, Jacob turns out to be a very useful person to have around. And so he tells LeBan he wants to leave and go back to his home country and that he'll take the speckled and spotted cattle, the brown sheep, and the spotted and speckled goats from the flock. And they're in the minority, so that's the idea. And so LeBan or Laban takes all those animals out of his flock. So there was an idea that the speckled goats and the brown sheep would breed true.

So if you have a male goat and a female goat, and they're both speckled, they'll have speckled kids, that's the theory, and the same with brown sheep. And so what LeBand does is he takes all the speckled animals out of the flocks, gives them to his son, and they go three days away with them, so that Jacob is left with the flock, but with none of these animals. Now the idea was that all the newborns were going to be his, and so what LeBan has basically

done is set it up so that in principle, Jacob is going to get nothing for his work. So that's another time when Jacob experiences betrayal. It's almost as if God isn't done with reminding him of the magnitude of what he did in the past. That's the moral of the story in some sense. Now, there's a weird little twist in the story here. So what Jacob does is some sympathetic magic. And so when the animals are rutting,

he puts speckled objects in front of them, speckled branches and so forth. I guess to remind them about what they're supposed to be producing, something like that. And it works. And so all these animals that LeBan left are producing spotted animals like mad. And so, I guess God's changed his mind and let Jacob off the hook slightly here. So, Sunni was very wealthy, much cattle, made servants, men servants, camels and houses. Leban's son, sons become jealous, and Leban is outraged. Well, you know, obviously there's some competition there between Jacob and the sons, which is hardly surprising. And Leban played this trick to strip Jacob of all his property.

And instead, he got far more than he was going to get to begin with. So you can imagine that's been annoying. So Jacob thinks he better get out of there. So he tells Rachel and Leah, and said unto them, I see your father's countenance that it's not toward me as before. But the God of my father has been with me. And you know with all my power, I've served your Father, and your Father has deceived me and changed my wages ten times, but God so far has suffered him not to hurt me.

If he said thus, the speckled shall be thy wages, then all the cattle bore speckled, and if he said thus, the rings strait shall be thy hire, then all the cattle bore rings strait, thus God has taken away the cattle of your father and given them to me. And they decide to sneak away. And they're unhappy with the inheritance, lack of inheritance from Lebanne. So as they sneak away, Rachel steals the idols that her father has in his house. And it's not exactly obvious why. There's a lot of contention about why she's doing that.

Some of them is to punish him, to bring with her the images of her ancestors. You know, maybe she's lo and some moving away from home just out of spite, to show them that the idols were actually powerless for protection, to stop her father from divining the root of their escape. That last one is the strangest one, because idea would be that LeBan would have used some sort of ritual with the idols that would help him infer their escape root and then could chase them. So anyways, that's the range of speculation about that. I think it sounds to me mostly like a little active revenge.

Maybe with a bit of loneliness mixed in. Leban pursues them, but God comes in to tell him to leave Jacob unharmed. Leban catches up with him and reproaches Jacob, saying that he would have thrown a great party if he would have known that they were going to leave. He didn't want them to sneak away in the night.

You can't tell from the story whether that's true or not. And these people were pretty rough and impulsive, I would say. And maybe there was a 50% chance of a slaughter and a 50% chance of a party who knows. I've been to parties like that, actually. So LeBan complains that his gods are gone and Jacob says that whoever has them, he will have them killed. And Rachel, who's really quite a sneaky character, all things consider basically claims that she's having her period and she's sitting on the carpet with all the idols underneath

and she can't move and so they search everywhere and can't find them and she's like laughing away behind her hand about that sneaky little maneuver. But she doesn't die, so that's probably a good thing. So LeBan checks everything out, checks the camp out, and he can't find anything. So they reconcile. And so that's the first reconciliation that Jacob engages in. It's sort of like the What would you say the karmic dad has been paid? That's one way of thinking about it. That's so

He got punished for his wrongdoing He's learned his lesson perhaps and it's it's That's good enough as far as he's concerned. You know, he got away good enough and they make peace. So then the next thing that happens as they're traveling is that Jacob was left alone and they're wrestled a man, man, angel, God, it's not clear. We'll go with angel with them until the breaking of the day or God. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh. And the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint as he wrestled with him. And he said, let me go for the day breaks. And Jacob said, I will not let you go unless you bless me. And the angel said unto him, what is thy name? And Jacob said, Jacob.

And the angel said, thy name shall no more be called Jacob. So the supplanter, right? The overthrower with that kind of intonation of or implication of crookedness, but Israel, which means who wrestles or strives successfully with God. For as a prince, has thou power with God and with men and has prevailed. That's quite a story. I don't know exactly what to make of it. There's obviously a symbolic level of meaning, which is that that is what human beings do. In some sense, As they wrestle, I would say they wrestle with the divine, even with the concept of the divine for that matter.

But the question is, do they prevail? It's an odd thing that Jacob actually seems to win this battle, or at least he wins it enough so that whoever he's wrestling, this divine figure that he's wrestling, is willing to bestow a blessing on him. I guess maybe that's a testament to his courage. It's something like that. Maybe it's an indication that he has paid for his sins sufficiently so that he's sort of back on the moral high ground. But I think it's really telling that the transformation of the name from Jacob to Israel and that what Israel means is he who wrestles with God or who struggles with God and perhaps successfully. But it's also so interesting that he actually emerges victorious.

You wouldn't necessarily think that that would be a possibility, especially given God's rather hot-headed nature in the Old Testament. You don't want to mess with him too much, but Jacob does it successfully. But even more importantly is the idea that whatever Israel constitutes, which would be to say the land that Jacob found, is actually composed of those who wrestle with God. I think that's an amazing idea, because it also seems to me to shed some light on perhaps what was meant by belief in those days. I've often thought of marriage as a wrestling match. If you're lucky, the person that you marry is someone you contend with.

It's not exactly, I don't think it's exactly, it's not tranquil precisely. You might have noticed that, some of you. But the thing is, if you have something to contend against, then that strengthens you, and that's actually better than having nothing to contend against. And so Jacob is the person who's also strengthened by the necessity of this contending. That seems to be the proper relationship with God or the angel, is that contending, the battling, rather than some sort of loose, weak statement of belief. I mean, I'm not trying to denigrate that to an egregate degree. It just doesn't seem like the right mode of conceptualization, right?

Because human beings aren't like that. We're contentious creatures. And that actually seems to be something that meets with God's favor in this situation. So, especially given that that's actually what he names the, while the core kingdom of the chosen people is, the idea is that that's composed of those who contend with God. So that's a hell of an idea, that's for sure. And Jacob asked him and said, tell me, I pray thee thy name. And he said, wherefore is it thou dost ask after thy name? So there's no, that's not happening. And he blessed him there.

And Jacob called the place of the name of the place penile or penile. For I've seen God face to face and my life is preserved. And he passed over penile. The sun rose upon him and he halted upon his thigh. Now, Jacob does walk away injured from this. So he has a permanent limp after that. And so that's also an indication of just how dangerous that contention actually is. Like he gets blast, he wins, but he doesn't get

away, Scott free. And so now, so Jacob goes back to Esau and he's terrified, even though it's been 14 years, he thinks maybe his hot-headed brother hasn't calmed down yet. And it has good reason to think that, I would say. So he sends messengers to Issa, who then sets out with 400 men. And so Jacob is not very happy with this whole idea. And he breaks his people into two bands so that maybe half of them cannot be killed. And then he takes from his large flocks a bunch of animals and a bunch of servants and he sends them out to me. He saw basically to say, look, I'm a jerk and sorry

about the whole birthright thing. And here's some animals. And maybe that's the beginnings of an apology. It's something like that. And so, but he's not very convinced that that's actually going to work. But Esau, who actually turns out to, perhaps, have matured in the interim. Perhaps that's one way of thinking about it. Meet Jacob and says that just seeing him is enough. But Jacob insists that he takes the gift

and Esau accepts. Which is probably a wise thing, because even if Esau is 95% convinced that just seeing his brother is enough, there's probably 5% of him that's still really not all that happy. So you have to be careful when you say that you forgive someone, because there might be a part of you that really doesn't, that really needs something else before you can actually say, okay, look. Fight. You know, and you don't want to fool yourself about that because that 5% that hasn't been completely convinced will find its voice at some point and then maybe undermine the whole reconciliation process. You don't want to think that you're any better than you are,

or any nicer than you are. It's not helpful. And so Esau is smart, I think. So while Jacob's smart to say, no, no, like, thanks a lot, but take the damn goats. And Jacob and Esau is smart enough to accept that. And he might do that maybe to please Jacob, but also I think so that there really is the possibility

of establishing peace, because hypothetically, the gift that's being offered is of sufficient magnitude to erase the debt of the loss of the birth, right? It's something like that, right? It's the payment of the real debt. And Esau said, what mean is thou by all this drove which I met? And Jacob said, these are to find grace in the sight of my Lord. And Esau says, I have enough brother, keep that that thou hast unto thyself. And Jacob said, and this is interesting statement, I think, no, I pray you, if I have now found grace

in thy sight, take the present at my hand, for therefore I have seen thy face as though I had seen the face of God and now was pleased with me. And so that's, so he's taking the honorable judgment of his brother, because it is honorable because Esau did get betrayed. So he has a right to be standing in judgment.

And he equates that judgment with what would you say, with the highest of virtues. It's appropriate judgment. And so he wants to make complete amends to ESA as if ESA is a representative of the divine element of justice. And I guess that's convincing to ESA. It's quite a thing to say, you know, that I need to be reconciled to you because that would simultaneously reconcile me with God. It's like it's crucial.

This is between us, but there's a higher principle at stake that's vital. And I think that is the case with betrayal. That's very frequently the case because if you betray someone, you really have violated, you've deeply violated what can only be called a sacred trust. It's the right terminology for that. Take it, I pray, the might blessing that is brought to thee because God has dealt graciously with me and because I have enough, and he urged him and he took it.

So, you know, the story seems to be something like, well, Jacob was an arrogant, crooked, deceitful character, maybe over-impressed with his own ability. He thought it was pretty amusing to pull a fast trick or two on his brother. Then he ran off, which is not all that brave. And then he got walloped a lot and perhaps learned something. And then when he came back, he was a different person.

And so that's a reasonable story. And, you know, he has to repent completely of about what he did before he can rectify the situation properly and he's willing to do that. So that's an interesting idea too, because it's the early reflection of the idea that it is if you do something wrong in the past, A, that you can learn from it, right, so that you're actually capable of learning, and B, that you can set the balance right in the present. Those are very optimistic ideas, you know, because you might say, well, once you've committed some sort of crime,

that's it. There's no hope for you, but that's pretty rough because the probability that you've done unethical things at some point in your life is 100%. And so if there was no way of setting the balance right after that, then everybody would be doomed. So, so then the story gets rough again. Jacob settles in Shalom, or Shalom, Dina, his daughter, goes looking around for friends, Shechem, the son of Ham,

or lays with her, and then wants her for his wife. He actually has the order reversed there. That turns out to be a problem. Jacob hears of this, the father's talk, and so they make an agreement. The agreement is that if all of Hammer's men, including Hammer and his son, are circumcised, so that's the proper offering. I guess that brings them into the familial fold and indicates that they're willing to make a sacrifice to do so,

especially after, you know, Shekhan put the cart before the horse, let's say, the man of Hammer circumcised, they agreed to do so. That turns out to be a big mistake. So, while they're laying around the next day, suffering madly from the circumcision, Simeon and Levi come in, they sneak in and kill all of them and take their wealth and their women and children. That's rough. It's rough. Yeah, I guess you guys noticed that, eh?

So there are other societies, right? And there's still lots of other societies in the world. And so they don't take kindly to what happened to their to their sister, although they don't kill her. So Now it turns out that yeah, it says as it came to pass on the third day when they were sore the two of the sons of Jacob, Simian and Levi, Dynast brethren took each man his sword and came upon the city boldly and slew all the males. And they slew hammer and sheck him his son with the edge of the sword and took Dina out of

Sheckham's house and went out. The sons of Jacob came upon the slain and spoiled the city because they had defiled their sister. They took the sheep and the oxen and the ases and that which was in the city and that was in the field and all their wealth and all their little ones and their wives Took the Cape captive and spoiled everything else that was in the house and Jacob actually turns out not to be very happy about that because He'd met with Ham or and they'd like hammered out a deal and that and that's where they were living and so he figured well He was making the best of a bad lot, let's say. And his sons went behind his back and Jacob says to Simian and Levi, you have troubled me to make me stink among the inhabitants of the land,

among the Canaanites and the Parasites, and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves now together against me and slay me, and I shall be destroyed. I had my house." And they said, should he deal with our sister as with a harlot? And God said unto Jacob, and this is where we get back to the idea of the center. God says to Jacob, arise, go to Bethel and dwell there. So Bethel was where Jacob had originally put that pillar, and dwell there. So Bethel was where Jacob had originally put that pillar. So now it's back. So it's a real hero's journey, right?

There's the place that he has a set place. He goes out and has these adventures and undergoes a moral transformation, reconciles, and then he comes back to the same place, right, as a transformed person. So that's a full hero cycle. Arise, go to Bethel and dwell there, and make thou an there an altar unto God

that appeared to thee, when thou fledest from the face of Esau thy brother. And Jacob said to his household, and to all that were with him, put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments, and let us arise and go up to Bethel. And I will make there an altar unto God who answered me in the day of my distress,

and was with me in the way which I went. And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears, and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shekim, and they journeyed. And the terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob. So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan. That is Bethel, so that's the place where he put up the pillar to begin with.

He and all the people that were there with him. And he built there an altar and called the place El Bethel, because their God appeared to him when he fled from the face of his brother. And God appeared to Jacob again when he came out of Padana Ram and blessed him. And God sent unto him, thy name is Jacob. Thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, which you remember means you, surpper, but Israel shall be thy name. He who wrestles with God. And he called his name Israel, and God said to him,

I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply a nation, and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins, and the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac to thee, I will give it, and to thy seed after thee, will I give the land. And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him, and God set up a Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him. And Jacob set

up a pillar in the place where he talked with him, a pillar of stone, and he poured a drink offering there on, and he poured oil there on. And Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him, Bethel. So he's returned to the central place which had been given to him as his territory. Rachel dies in labor in the process, giving birth to Benoni, son of my sorrow, whose name was then changed to Benjamin, son of the right hand. Now Ruben, so Simeon and Levi have already done something unforgivable. Now Ruben, it's Ruben's term, he sleeps with Bilha, whose Jacob Israel's concubine. So he's the third of the sons to make an unforgivable error, and Jacob slash Israel gets

wind of it. So Ruben is no longer, he would have been the premier son, given that the two older sons were put out of the running, so to speak, because of their disobedience and impulsive, vengeful cruelty. And then Ruben can't keep his, what do they say? Well, you get the idea. Yeah, yeah, yeah, seems to be something that's still quite surprisingly common.

So then we have the story that basically ends with the establishment of the 12 tribes of Israel. From Leah, there's Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issaqar, and Zebulan. From Zilp others, Gad and Asher, from Billa, there's Dan and Naftali, and from Rachel, there's Joseph, who figures extraordinarily importantly in the next story that we're going to cover, which hopefully will wrap up Genesis and Benjamin. And so now Israel itself is established. Israel itself is established. And so then we turn to actually going to end this early tonight.

That's quite bloody miracle. So the story then turns to Joseph and the story begins essentially. Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children because he was the son of his old age, and he made him a coat of many colors. And so what that seems to me to indicate, you know, coats in dreams very often, seems to be particularly true of women's dreams.

That's been my clinical observation. Clothing, footwear in particular symbolizes a role. And that makes sense, right? Because you dress for the roles. It's not that big a mystery. But so then you might say, well, what does a coat of many colors indicate? And you know, if you think of that multiplicity there, it's something like the mastery of multiple domains, right? Or maybe something like plural of potentiality.

And so Jacob is Israel's, or Joseph is Israel's favorite. And because he sees in him this Excess Possibility. And he basically tells his other sons that Jacob is going to be the head son, which they are not happy with, right? Because he's just this young punk, fundamentally. And he's clearly his father's favorite, and he gets this coat that's sort of indicative of this higher status. And so Israel inadvertently sets up a tremendous amount of sibling rivalry in the household again, and that's the understructure of the last story in Genesis. And so in the last of this lecture series for 2017, we'll cover the story of Joseph and his code of many colors and what happens as a consequence of his, of the

favoritism shown to him by his father and we'll track what happens as a consequence of that. And so I'm going to stop there because I'm finished. So... Hello, Dr. Pearson. This is an idea I've been wrestling with for quite some time now. This idea of a lot of the greatest sources of wisdom that we've received through human history, either through text, experiences, or scriptures seems to always come from people going to isolation and then coming back. So I've had a hard time trying to figure out from a scientific point of view or evolutionary point of view what would compel an organism to that is centered around its behavior centered around surviving in especially for humans as social groups,

as well as reproducing, to want to go into isolation. And then not only that, but obtain some level of information that actually helps the group in coming back. That's a really good question. OK, so there's this neuroscientist, neuropsychologist named Elkonen Goldberg. Goldberg was a student of Alexander Luria. Alexander Luria was a Russian neuropsychologist. Perhaps the foremost neuropsychologist of the mid to late 20th century. He had students, so-called of Invinigradova, who discovered the

orienting reflex, for example. The orienting reflex is the reflex that orients you when something anomalous interferes with your goal-directed behavior. It was a major discovery, like one of the four or five most important discoveries that have ever been made in psychology, I would say, certainly in neuroscience. So, Luria was a big deal. And he was the first person who really established the functional role

of the pre-frontal cortex as well. So, and had a very nice overall view of how the brain functioned. His book was written in 1980, and it's still, there's still lots in it that's really useful, which is pretty strange for a science that's advanced that quickly. Anyways, so Goldberg came from a great pedigree.

I believe Lurie's teacher was Pavlov, if I remember correctly. So anyways, Goldberg, you know, you hear some of you may have heard the idea that the left hemisphere is more linguistic than the right hemisphere is that left hemisphere is specialized for language and the right hemisphere is specialized for nonverbal, imagistic communication. The left hemisphere has a pretty well organized micro structure and the right hemisphere is more diffuse as well. And that's true in left-handed males in particular. So the circuitry can be switched around a bit, but it's okay, the modules are basically the same,

although they can be moved a little bit. But Goldberg thought that it isn't language versus non-language. It's routine versus novelty. And so the left hemisphere, and there's a neuropsychologist physician named Ramashandran who's done some very interesting work that's pertinent to this. Maybe I'll tell you a story about him. Anyways, Goldberg believed that the right hemisphere, so you have very old systems underneath both

cortical hemispheres that do things like respond to anomaly, to the thing that doesn't fit, to the predator in the distance. Some of that's extraordinarily fast, so that would be like a snake reflex that can move you away from a snake in less time than it takes the snake to bite, and it's really a reflex. It doesn't even hit your brain. It's really super fast.

And then there's a defensive crouch that's instantiated, higher up in the nervous system, but that's still remarkably fast. And then there's fear as an emotion and the orientation of attention. And then there's the cognitive processing. And that all streams out across a time span, right? And maybe that time span is half a second So and that's really a long time if something is attacking you So you got those initial responses are quite primitive, but they're extraordinarily fast

All right, so there's sub-cortical structures that orient you towards novelty and prepare you for for freezing or for attending. And the right hemisphere seems to be dominated by those systems. So imagine that what happens is that something threatens you, you orient towards it, the right hemisphere produces a bunch of images about what it might be. So imagine that's what happens when a child

is afraid of the dark. The child's on the bed, they're afraid of the dark, they're crouched because they're frozen like a prey animal, and they're right hemisphere is producing monsters to inhabit the darkness that are the child's hypotheses about what might be out there. Okay, because that's what you want to know, right? You want to know what's out there,

and then you want to know what to do about it. I can tell you two kids dreams that are sort of relevant to that. So when my daughter was about three, she came into the bedroom that my wife and I had. And she was crying. She'd had a nightmare. And she said that she saw a stream.

And there was garbage all over the stream and she didn't like that And so I sat her down I said okay, so imagine the stream with the garbage in it now imagine that you're taking the garbage out and throwing it in the garbage Be it and so she and I got her to like visualize that because that kind of puts her back in the semi-dream state And then she cleaned up the mess and then she could go off to sleep. Now, you could tell the child, don't worry about the dream isn't real. But that's not true, because it's not real like other daytime things are, but it's not like it's not real. It's a dream. Like, a dream is real. It's just not the same kind of real. And so, what I did with her was to indicate to her practically that if she saw something anomalous, something that was out of place, something that was a mess, that it was within her capacity

to set it right. Okay, and so, okay. So, now, your right hemisphere tells you what monsters might inhabit the darkness. Now what you have to do is figure out, there's two things you have to figure out. One is what to do about a given monster. And the other is to do, what about is to figure out what to do about the class of all possible monsters?

Right, that's a whole different thing. That's something that only human beings are capable of, that level of abstraction, right? And so what you might do about a particular monster is hide or go out and get rid of it. If it was just an actual animal, right? But that doesn't help because there's all the other potential predators that are still there. And so maybe you can go hunt all them down, but that doesn't help either because you can't

hunt them all down. It's not very likely. Anyways, so instead, what you have to do is figure out how to configure yourself so help either because you can't hunt them all down. It's not very likely. So instead, what you have to do is figure out how to configure yourself so that you're in the best possible position to fight off the monsters when they come. That's your best bet. All right, so now people are trying to figure this out forever. They're trying to figure out what's the answer to the problem of the class of all possible

monsters. Part of that sacrifice, so there are routines, for example, in Hinduism with the goddess Kelly, you make offerings to Kelly, who's this devouring goddess. And then she turns into her benevolent counterpart. And so sacrifice is actually one way that you contain the monsters. If you think about the monster as the set of all

negative future potentialities, you make the proper sacrifices those monsters stay at bay. But then there's heroism as an alternative too, which means the active confrontation of the class of all possible monsters and the building of yourself up into the sort of courageous person that can do that. in the building of yourself up into the sort of courageous person that can do that. It took a tremendous amount of meditation to transform those images, say, of the monsters into, or to solve the problem of the class of those monsters. So now I'll tell you another child's dream. So some of you probably heard this before, but it's such a great dream that it's worth telling. So now I've had my sister-in-law's house once and her son was running around.

He's about four very precocious, very verbal, very intelligent. Running around with a night hat on an assort, so he's engaged in this pretty intense play world. And when he goes to sleep, he puts the knight hat on his pillow and the sword by his pillow. And at the same time, he's having knight terror. So he's waking up, and it had been for a number of weeks, Nate waking up screaming, and then, but he doesn't know why. There's some things that aren't going so well in the household

and the parents get divorced shortly afterwards. Okay, so that's what's going on underneath, right? And he's also going to go to kindergarten and so he's about to go into the world. And so he's coping with this. You know, so I'm watching him zoom around as this night and thinking that's pretty cool. And that night he woke up and had a, and it was screaming.

And so, we were all at breakfast the next morning. And I said, did you dream anything? And he got really intense. And he said, yes, I had a dream. And I said, well, what was the dream? And he said, well, I was out on this field. And all these dwarfs came up to me. They were only about as high as my knees.

And they didn't have any arms. They had powerful legs. And they were covered with hairy feathers in grease. And there was cross carved in the top of their head. And they had beaks. And whenever he moved anywhere, they would jump out and with their beaks. And there were lots of them.

And everyone, like, just said nothing at breakfast. It was like, yeah. Because then he was right into this story, and so we were all like, yeah, well, yeah. There were that accounts for all the screaming. And so, and then he said, yeah, and then in the background, there was a dragon. And every time the dragon puffed out smoke, it would turn into these dwarves. It's like, oh man, kid, you really got a problem there.

You got beat things that are biting you, and you can kill them, and that's fine. But then there's the dragon just puffing out new ones. So it's like a hydra problem, right? The old hydra has the serpent. You cut off one head, seven more grow. It's not a good thing. And it's such a cool dream because it really portrayed this class of all possible monsters problem.

So you've got the specific monsters, and that's a problem. So you've got to get rid of them. That's not's problem. So you've got the specific monsters and that's a problem. So you've got to get rid of them, but that's not the problem. The problem is that there's something in the background that's just generating monsters like Matt. And so I said to him, what do you think you could do about that? And that's a loaded question, right? That's like leading the witness in a trial. You don't get to ask a question like that because it implies that it implies the answer. What could you do about that is not any different than saying you could do something about that. Right, so I hinted at that as a possibility and his eyes lit up. Now you remember he's already running around as a knight, hey?

So he kind of already knew what to do because he had the whole sword in the hat, and with that, you know that you can go after the dragon. And he kind of got that, and he said, I'd get my dad, and then I jump up on top of the dragon, and I'd poke out both of its eyes with my sword, and then it go right down its throat to the firebox where the fire comes out, I carve out a piece of the firebox and then I'd use that as a shield. And I thought, yes! Right! Right! Man, it's so smart, eh? Because he got the thing instantly. He knew that he knew, so imagine, first of all he thought, okay, I have to go to the heart of the problem, right?

And really to the heart, not to the dragon, but right down the damn things gallot, right to the place where the fire was actually being was actually being created, because there it was there you could find the shield and that he'd take this thing that was fireproof and make a shield out of it. And so that was just dead, bloody, perfect. It was so cool. And you think, well, how could a kid come up with that? And there's a bunch of answers. I mean, one is we know Snake Fear is an eight. We know that now.

There's been recent research that has demonstrated that. OK, so we've been preyed on and been predators for a very long period of time. So the idea that,, I found something else interesting about the brain out, out about the brain recently too, and a book I was reading by Ray Kurzweil called How to Build a Mind. I think that's what it was called.

It was quite a good book. So I think it was in that book, or it was in a neuroscience paper I was reading. It doesn't matter, but it was in one of those two places. So you know that scanning technology has got more and more high resolution over the last few years, right? It just gets more and more high resolution all the time.

And so people are now able to look at the micro structures of the brain in a way that hasn't been possible before. And so the old idea with the cortex basically was that the cortex was full of a bunch of neurons. And then when one neuron and another fired at the same time, they would wire together. And that's kind of how your brain learned to make connections. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that will do. And then it was found that it wasn't quite

that simple, because what your cortex is made out of are these columns of neurons that are duplicated, sort of like a centipede's legs. You know, it's very simple genetic code to add another leg, set a legs to a centipede. It's sort of like that with your brain. It's made out of all these columns. And the columns are basically already quite wired up. And then as you learn the columns wire together.

Okay, so there's some pre-existent structure there, but there's more pre-existent structure than what that was thought. So, it's basically that there are already tracks that link columns together that are in different parts of the brain, and the columns themselves can send out dendrites to these superhighways, which are already there, and then the superhighway is there, and then it can generate connections to the columns at the end of the superhighways, which are already there, and then the superhighway is there, and then it can generate connections to the columns at the end of the superhighway. So what that means is that

there's a tremendous amount of cortical structure already in place, but there's plasticity around that. And when I read that, I thought, well, that's part of the source of the archetypes. There's already an archetypal structure there, that as well as the sub-cortical structures. So you could say that like the kid already had within him, not only the capacity to represent, not only the monster, but the class of all possible monsters, and the fact that the problem wasn't monsters, the problem was that monsters could continually be generated, which is a way worse problem. And then the answer to that isn't to kill an individual monster. The answer to that is go to the source of the monstrous itself and defeat it. So it's absolutely staggering. And you could imagine that it would take a tremendous amount of meditative effort for

people who have come up with that solution over a very long period of time. So now, the point of the representation is to formulate a picture of what it is that's the threat so that you can then formulate a general purpose solution. And so there's this image of Kelly, which I really like, because Kelly is sort of the goddess of the darkness, let's say, in destruction. And so Kelly has a headdress of fire, her hair is on fire, and she has a headdress of skulls, and she has hands cut off all around her neck, and she has a belt that's often

snakes, but sometimes, she's sometimes eating the intestines of this guy that she's just given birth to, and that she's sitting on. She has eight legs like a spider, and she's in a web of fire. And so she's a monster in some sense that represents everything that might terrify and devour you. And the question is, so you come up with that representation as an image to represent the class of all terrifying things. And then you have to generate a solution in the face of that class.

And sacrifice is one of the solutions. But that heroic encounter is another one of the solutions, and that's the one that he catalyzed. Now, he'd been read lots of books, he'd watched lots of Disney movies, and he'd seen the heroic pattern portrayed many, many places, and his little brain was working like mad to extract out the essence of that and to embody it.

And when I asked him that question, it just went snap. And all those things lined up and his night terrors went away. That was it. And I followed up with his mum because it was really quite remarkable the whole set of occurrences. You know, and he didn't have night terrors that night even though he'd been having the nightly. And that was the end of them.

Because he'd solved this problem, like he needed to be the courageous night that went after the dragon. And so that is what people need to be. So I think when we go into solitude, we shut off the external stimulation, and we let the dreaming part of our mind emerge. And that's this nonverbal pattern detector that thinks in images. And it's the thing that mediates between what we don't understand and what we do understand. Like, if you understand it completely, you can say it and you can act it out. If you don't understand it, you represent it in images. And there, it's like, it's the emotion, fear, withdrawal, paralysis.

And then that manifests itself in an image of what that might be. And that image is the basis for the story, and it's the basis for further development of the idea. And to go into isolation is to let those images emerge and to dream a little bit. And then that moves you ahead into the future. So to use your language that you used before, it's not enough just to map out the danger that is imminent in front of you, but all the potential dangers that you could come up with in abstract form.

Yeah, well, remember what happens when God throws Adam and Eve out of paradise. They become aware that they're going to die, right? The future becomes a problem. Because you could say the future is the place of all potential monsters, right? And so just the monster that you have right in front of you, it's like, yeah, well, you get rid of that,

but that doesn't solve your problem, does it? The problem is, how do you exist in a world full of monsters? And part of that answer is, well, you become a monster yourself. That's a big part of the answer. But it's an incomplete answer, because if you're just a monster, then you're just as bad as the monsters. So you have to trans, you have to be a monsterist enough to contend with the monsters, but then you have to be civilized enough so that you're not a monster yourself.

And that's more or less equivalent to the Jungian integration of the shadow. So. Yep. Yep. Yeah. Hi, Dr. Peterson. I've been wanting to ask you this for a while now since I started watching your lectures.

After I started reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, I came upon a paragraph in his chapter on scholars that really bothered me, and it actually bothers me to this day. He talked about this kind of person, like they were just a mirror. Like they stretched, he said, every part of their skin, basically, to allow every new piece of information that they took on. And then all they ever were was just an instrument. They were just a mirror, reflecting what they had learned,

never actually having generated anything on their own. And it's bothered me, I feel like in a way, it's impacted my identity a lot, because I don't know how are you supposed to create something. Okay, well that's a really good question. I mean, Nietzsche is often classed with the existentialists, right? And so one of the tenets of existentialists, there's two real tenets of existentialism.

There's more, but obviously we're oversimplifying, but one is that life is a problem. It isn't because there's something wrong with you. It's that life is a problem. And so that's often contrasted with the Freudian view, which is that if you have a problem, it's because something went wrong during your development. The existentialist said, no, no, it's like life is a problem, make no mistake about it. And that the purpose of scholarship is in some sense to solve that problem. And so for Nietzsche, like he said, all truths are bloody truths to me. And what he meant by that was that if an idea didn't incarnate itself in you and

transform your perceptions and your actions, then you were merely possessed by the idea. You're merely a spokesperson for the idea, or you could say that the idea possessed you. You're a puppet for the idea. It's not you. It's the idea is in you and it has you. You haven't taken the idea and incorporated it with you and made it part of your life. And so there's a romanticism that's associated with that, right?

That's the passionate scholar, the person for whom ideas are not merely what you call abstracted representations that can be tossed about as if they're commodities. They're more like personalities. That might be another way of thinking about it. And so, if those ideas are compelling, then you don't... Like one thing I learned a long time ago, and I think this is probably relevant. You know, when I was a kid, I like to argue, and I like to win arguments or lose them, although I like winning them a lot better.

But I didn't really mind so much what the content of the argument was. You know, I could engage in it like a sparring match, and it was in some sense to establish dominance, right, to establish intellectual dominance. I quit doing that when I was in my mid-twenties, because I thought that that was too shallow and approach to the ideas. They're not commodities of that sort. They have tendrils that reach down into the living. That's the right way to think about it. And so Nietzsche's criticism of scholars, and he did this a lot, was that they were bloodless. They didn't, they were full of performative contradictions.

That's another way of thinking about it. They'd say one thing and do another, because their intellect was completely dissociated from their actions. And he thought that was a very bad idea. And I think that that's a good criticism. I think it is a bad idea. I also think it makes for an extraordinarily boring lecturer. Because you can tell if you're listening to someone, whether the idea is that you're hearing are merely being passed through the person, as if they're being memorized, say, or whether they're part of the dynamic core of the person.

And if they're part of the dynamic core of the person, then they're almost always engaging in gripping. And so he wasn't a fan of bloodless scholars. And I think that's correct, because one of the things that I see, it's not a good idea to have ideas possess you. Unless you know what the ideas are up to, and lots of people are possessed by ideas rather than possessing them. And that what that means is they haven't taken the ideas and integrated them into their own being.

They haven't, it's like an incarnation in a sense. They haven't incarnated the ideas in embodied form. And so they're incomplete. You know, Nietzsche also thus speaks Zarathustra. When Zarathustra comes down the mountain, he sees a bunch of people gathered around a famous individual. I think maybe a scholar, but doesn't really matter. And when Zarathustra goes and looks at the person,

all he sees is a little tiny midget with a gigantic ear. And so he's a hyper specialist, right? And so he has a pretty impressive ear, but he's only this big. And that was Nietzsche's immeasuristic commentary on the danger of hyper specialization. And also on the danger of adulation for hyper specialization. And because he thought about it as a kind of deformity.

Now, Nietzsche was a pretty harsh guy, but he did address the issue of the relationship between intellectual knowledge and action. Because for Nietzsche, those things are not to be separated in some sense. So yeah, so maybe, I don't know why it, maybe it bothered you, like it's hard to say why it bothered you, might have bothered you because it sort of undermined the idea of scholar,

but the other possibility, and this isn't an accusation because obviously I don't know anything about you, but it might also be that it struck a chord, you know, and that maybe you were doubtful or questioning how tightly associated your intellectual endeavor was with your actual character and your practice. So that's another possibility. I mean, that's a really good thing to think about because generally speaking, that integration is very much lacking. People are a lot smarter and fluid with their ideas than they are ethical and consistent and characterized by integrity.

So, yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, so last week you talked about how you hated people asking you if you believe in God or do you believe miracles or you dislike those questions at least. You also talked about how, and I won't put words on your mouth, but I think you said

something about the idea of an empirical evidence for religious experiences or spiritual experiences. And I wonder how those two ideas, like, can a spiritual existence, or can a spiritual experience exist without God, or how do I have to travel recklessly? Who knows? Who knows? I don't know what to make of that. I mean, you could, it depends on what you're willing to accept as proof, I suppose. That's where things get tricky. If you have to demonstrate the existence of God objectively, then subjective experiences of the transcendent are irrelevant.

But and that's a perfectly reasonable standpoint, if your initial presupposition is the only thing that has actual existence is those things that can be demonstrated objectively. And I'm not putting that down. Like, that's a powerful methodology. Our technology is basically dependent on the acceptance, at least the partial acceptance of those axioms. But I also think that it's difficult for me to deny the existence of these patterns of thinking

that seem to exist cross-culturally, like the existence of the representation of the dragon, for example, especially given that I can see an evolutionary rationale for the emergence of these representations. And then there's also the indisputable fact that religious experiences are accessible to people through a number of different avenues. Now, and one of the things I mentioned when I discussed this before is while you could say, well, those are no different than experiences

of psychopathology, but they are different because the experiences of psychopathology damage people. Whereas the evidence is that the transcendent experiences actually help people. So unless you're willing to say, well, there are some forms of psychopathological experience that actually facilitate health, which is a possibility. But I think you're pushing your hypothesis at that point.

Would it hurt to define what a religious experience is in this case then? Because I feel like the semantics, like I'm not sure if you're saying about a religious experience is what I'm understanding. Well, generally a religious experience is something like an experience of the renewal of the world. That might be one way of thinking about it, so that everything sort of leaps forward

as crystalline and perfect as if you had been viewing it from behind a mask before. Another would be a sense of the union of everything. And so you're a singular being and you're isolated in religious experiences. So for example, there's a book written recently by a neuroscientist, my stroke of... What's it called? My stroke of insight, yeah, that's right.

And I believe she had a left hemisphere stroke, if I remember correctly, and she was sufficiently well developed neuroscientist to understand what was happening as she had the stroke. And she had an intense religious experience as a consequence of that. And she experienced it as a dissolution of the ego into this state of union with everything

and this transcendent experience of awe. And the op, well, I don't remember the rest of it. I mean, there are other elements of religious experience that are quite common. The idea of the opening of the heavens. That's one, the communion with the ancestors. That's another, the reduction of the body to a skeleton. That's another, the movement up into heaven.

These are well-documented phenomena, and a lot of them are associated, well, a fair number of them are associated with psychedelic use, but that's not the only avenue to experiences like that, and epilepsy can produce experiences like that too. And people usually report near death experiences as well, you know, people usually report that those experiences have life-altering significance. Now, that in and of itself only proves that people are capable of having subjective religious experiences. Right? It doesn't definitively prove that there's anything outside of that. So Jung, Carl Jung,

for example, most of the time he didn't talk about God. He talked about the God image, which is not the same thing because you could have a God image that was even evolutionarily instantiated without that necessarily being related to any transcendent being beyond the image. So, who knows? Who knows? Again, I think it depends on what you're willing to accept as proof. Now, the proof, this beyond question that people can have life-changing religious experiences. Another example of that is that the best treatment for alcoholism is religious conversion.

It's well documented in the literature. I studied alcoholism for a long time. So one of the cures that sticks is religious conversion. And the 12-step programs essentially attempt to instantiate religious conversion. And it's hard to document their success because they succeed for the people who stick with it. But that's not a very good measure, right?

It's sort of self-evident that they work for the people who stick with it. I'm not cynical about alcoholics and on them, it's sort of anything, but we don't have good data on outcome. But there is good data showing that religious transformation is a good cure for alcoholism. So, and that's an interesting phenomena too. It's too complicated, I probably can't. Okay, I'll try this for a second. So here's how I think a religious conversion might work.

So imagine you've got the left hemisphere, and it's the place where your habitual interpretations reside. So I can give you a quick example of this. So this guy Ramashandran, who's a neurophysiologist, or I think that's his field of study, I think he's at UCLA. He studied people who had neglect. And neglects is a very, very bizarre phenomenon.

So if you have a stroke that damages your right parietal lobe, you'll lose the left part of your being. Not just your body, it's really weird. So for example, if you have a right parietal stroke and you look at a clock, you only see, you only only half the clock exists for you. It's not like you only see half the clock. It's weirder than that. It's that there's only the right side of the clock. There's only the right side of you. There's only the right side of my body. I don't know that this exists. And so sometimes people with right parietal damage will wake up

after the stroke and grab their left arm and throw it out of bed or their leg and throw it out of bed because it's not theirs. And then of course they fall out of bed, which is quite a shock to them. And so they'll only eat half the food on the plate. Nobody can really understand this phenomenologically, right? Because we can't imagine what that must be like. I think it must be like, you know how, you know there's things behind you, but you don't not see them. They're just not there. It's not like it's black or anything, or there's a space. It's just not there. And so I think what happens is the not there extends to three quarters of the field instead of half the field. That's a guess. Anyway, so, now the funny thing about people with neglect

is that if you tell them, if you point it out, you say, well, I noticed that you're not moving your left foot today, they'll say, well, it's our thread it can, I can't move it. And say, well, what do you just try to move? It's a no-look, Dr. Arditoly, it's in too much pain to move. It was working fine this morning. That can be months after the accident. So it's a denial.

And people thought actually that that was trauma-induced denial for a long time before they figured it out was actually a consequence of the neurophysiological damage. Now, Ramish Andron found that if you irrigated the contralateral ear, say, now, if you pour cold water in someone's ear, it upsets their vestibular system and their eyes will move back and forth like this. You can try that at a party if you want. And, anyways, Ramishandran was testing vestibular function on these patients and he irrigated

the right ear with cold water and they woke up. And maybe what happened was that that was shocking enough. So imagine the networks in the right hemisphere were degraded but not completely gone. And they needed a really high threshold of activation to snap into function. So here's an example of that. If you have Parkinson's disease, imagine you're frozen there. Okay. And I throw a ball at you. You'll go like this and catch it. But you can't throw it back.

So you can, the stimulus is enough. That's enough to push you past threshold, but you can't do it voluntarily. Now, if you have Parkinson's, like right to the end's degree, you won't even be able to catch it. But there's a stage where you can still do that. There's a great case study where this grandpa was in a wheelchair. He had Parkinson's and his young grandson was playing out on the dock and fell in the water and started to drown. And he got out of his wheelchair, went into the ocean,

rescued him, brought him onto the beach, sat back down in this wheelchair, and was paralyzed again. So that was enough. So you can imagine there was enough network left. So if the emotional tension became high enough that the degraded circuits could still function. So, okay, so back to Ramachandran. So you irrigate the air all of a sudden,

the right hemisphere connections flash the remainder's managed to connect and the person goes, oh my God, I've had a terrible stroke, I've lost the left side of my body, they're crying, they're completely catastrophically overwhelmed by it. And then 20 minutes later, the effects wear off and they snap back in and now they've lost their left side, again, they don't remember it.

And so what seems to happen is that the right hemisphere is collecting anomalous information. That's what it does. That's what it does when you're dreaming. It's representing that anomalous information in image form and sort of slowly passing it to the left hemisphere so it doesn't overwhelm it. And maybe if it gets overwhelming, you wake up and you're afraid and you tell someone about the dream, that helps you figure out what it was. But anyways, so that the right hemisphere is always trying to tap the left hemisphere into transformation, right?

So now imagine that that can happen a little bit or a lot. So maybe you're just ignoring a little bit of anomalous information. You just have some mildly frightening dreams, or maybe you've just stacked up a whole bunch of things that you're ignoring, and there's some major league monsters that you haven't contended with. Maybe there's situations where the right hemisphere is stored up enough of a counter hypothesis, let's say, about how the world works.

Making sense out of all those things that you've ignored, that one day it just goes snap and you're a new personality. And maybe the new personality isn't addicted. So it's something like, it's something like that, I think. So yeah, okay. Applause. Good morning, citizen Peterson. I've prepared a real doozy for you here today. Oh good, it's a good thing you've got extra time to handle this one.

I'd even say it's rehearsed a little bit. So it's going to be ultra ineffective got extra time to handle this one. I'd even say it's rehearsed a little bit, so it's gonna be ultra-ineffective, you know? Okay, okay. Now, I understand that a lecture on the psychological significance of anything, really, is going to endubitably wander off into an anthropocentric worldview.

But as a practitioner of the hard sciences, I wanted to dig a little bit deeper. So I saw it out, I guess, a religious interpretation of both creative freedom and, I guess, the very nature of time itself. And I found it, obviously, that's why I'm here. And if you think you have an anthropocentric worldview, it's nothing compared to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's. Now I like to think that, you know, this microphone here, the one that you keep muting out on me, you know, this

microphone is an object which exists outside of our individual perception. That's just the way I like to look at it. But then I think about the concept, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And certainly, I mean, when you're talking about art, the appreciation of art, there has to be some sort of subjective element

integrated into that. But there also must be a limit as well. I mean, certain works of art that we appreciate as absolute masterpieces like Michelangelo's Pieta, for example, which you bring up frequently because it really is that good. But there's other things which are just by comparison, they're like vandalism, you know?

Now there's always a temptation to invoke the principle of a non-overlapping magisteria, but that seems like sort of a cop-out, right? So I formulated, I guess, for myself, four standards of measure, which help me separate what's the difference between art and mediocrity. And here's the four. Number one, education. Number two, time commitment. You got to put in the time. If you're an artist, it's probably going to become your full time occupation. It's

that. You have to be that passionate about it. Number three, public display. Art is in something that you own for yourself. You hide it in your basement. Then it's not. Art is something that you have to express. Something that you've got to share. And number four, and I think this is the most important one.

Ethicacy of vision. If you're an artist you've got to have a vision and we talk about the dream state here a lot. You go into the dream state, you have inspiration but it's not enough to just have the inspiration because that's totally subjective for you. The art part about it is having the techniques and the skill and the intent and I guess the capacity to turn that into something real, you know, that you can then express or share. So can you read Cardinal Ratzinger's explanation for the nature of time and then address the concept of beauty in the eye of the beholder with specific reference to the body positivity

movement? specific reference to the body positivity movement. How? Jesus. Woo! You don't think I can. I think that's the room temperature I think. I think that you tangled together so many things, and this is also a tangle of things. Not that that's a criticism, that I can't pull them all together with sufficient rapidity not to bore the audience

to death. So I'm going to wait. I'm going to wait. OK. OK. Dr. Peterson. So I'm gonna I'm gonna wait I'm gonna wait Okay Dr. Peterson I'm fascinated by the idea of faith what faith means Jacob listens to a voice and believes it He probably heard other voices. Why did he believe this one?

Why what there must have been an a priori sort of functional necessity for him to believe the voice that told him one thing or another. And I think that that's a string that runs through the Bible and then through the New Testament. We are expected as, well, I confess I'm a Christian, I act like I believe God is real. And so there is this call of faith. And also, in every hero's story we see now, there is always a moment in that story where the hero must believe something, beyond the evidence that is before them, which is to say they must take a leap of faith. So I'm wondering if you can just unpack

that experience of faith and the understanding of how a human being makes the choice to believe one thing or another. Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, is this still on? Is this still working? Okay, good. I don't precisely know the answer to that.

It's a very peculiar thing because we think many things, or you could say many voices appear in our minds. Because when Nietzsche took date cards, I think therefore I am a part. And he said, well, it isn't so obvious that there's an eye, first of all, that it's a unity, a unity transparent unto itself, which of course, the psychoanalysts picked up in a big way. And then he wasn't sure that it was the eye who

thought in some causal manner. He said, well, no, it's more like thoughts, it's something like thoughts appear in the phenomenal field. And maybe you choose between them or maybe they possess you. There's lots of other ways of thinking about it. It isn't exactly obvious to me why we choose to take one pathway rather than another when so many of them offer themselves to us. People tend to talk about that as something like conscience.

And now, maybe it's that it's got to have something to do, I think. It's an endless regress because you can always ask why any assumption became primary, but I'll put that aside for a moment. It seems to me to have something to do with your aims. You know, that you're more likely to listen to a voice that is in keeping with your most fundamental aims. And then the question is, where do your most fundamental aims come from? And from what I've been able to determine, and I'll speak psychologically again, is that to begin with your concatenation of rather primitive subpersonalities,ry ones, tired ones, upset ones, laughing ones. You can see that in babies.

They cycle through those states very rapidly. There's an infantile unity above all that, but it doesn't have control. And so then the developing individual has to figure out how to integrate those primitive subpersonalities into a unified personality. At the same time, they integrate the unified personality into a social unity. So, it's partly individual integration, but it's fed by social forces. I mean, even when you watch an infant breastfeed, it's established a relationship with its mother

and there's a reciprocity that's already at play there. So then that underlying multiplicity starts to form itself into a unity. And then the question, and I would say that's something like the emergence of the individual out of the titans. That's a reasonable way of thinking about it. Like a sovereign out of the titans. It's something like that.

But then there's another division, which seems to me to parallel the Cane Enable Division, is that that integration can be oriented towards something that's positive, but it can also be oriented towards something that's negative. And that's the split of the world into good and evil, I think. And then it looks like you're navigating between those. And I can only account for that with something like choice.

Like I think the free choice, even though I don't understand it, I'm unwilling to deny the existence of free choice merely because I don't understand it. Because it looks to me like that's how people act, that's how they expect to be treated and that societies who, that's, that structure themselves in accordance with the idea that people have free choice actually work. Now, that doesn't prove that there's free choice, but people have been arguing about that forever.

So, but it looks to me, so those are two possible means of integration, and then I think what you're doing is feeding one or the other constantly. And I think you probably choose which one to feed. I think. That's, I mean, that's how it feels that way to me as well. Like when I look at my own, you know, maybe you're really aggravated with something, maybe you're aggravated with your wife, you know, or your child or something like that, you know. And you're feeling kind of nasty and maybe even know that you're

in the wrong. And an idea comes into your head, you think, I could say that. And you know you could say it. And you know what it would do, but then you pause and you think Without make it better at worst and then maybe you go to hell with it Which is quite the thing to say I've got a little story about that in a minute and then you say it But you knew You knew that you took the low road, right? And you know it and then you're guilty about that and defensive, and that makes the fight way worse. Because then there's no damn way you're

going to admit that you actually did that. And so things do go to hell. And so here's a nugly little idea. So that's relevant to the question. So imagine you're playing around with cocaine. Now, I'm using cocaine because it's very addictive, but it's a very interesting chemical because it's a dopamine-inergic agonist. What dopamine does is two things.

It makes you feel like what you're doing is worthwhile, but it also, imagine that there's a bunch of neural circuits that are active and then they get ahead of dopamine, or you do. Then those neural circuits get a little bit more powerful. Okay, so it has a rewarding property which is as it makes you feel like what you're doing is important and it has a reinforcing property which is it makes neural circuits grow. So now what that means is that whatever you are doing just before you took cocaine grows. Okay, so now imagine there's a bunch of different things that you do just before you take cocaine,

but there's a string of decisions, and at one decision point is the same for all of those different occurrences, and that decision point is, because you know you're in trouble, and that decision point is, well, to hell with it. Okay, so then you think that each of the 200 times that you take cocaine, even though you do it in different places, but that one thought is there all the time, and that thing grows because you're reinforcing it, and it grows, and it grows. And so now that's in you, that's part of you. And it's the thing that says to hell with it. Okay, so now, and maybe that's not such a good thing to grow inside your brain. So then you're addicted and they take you

to a cocaine treatment center and after a week, you're no longer physiologically addicted. You're not craving, you don't have a problem, as long as you're there. But then they take you back to your normal environment and you see like cocaine Joe, your friend. And as soon as you see him, up that thing comes in bang, you're back on the tail with a track.

And that's where you will end up, too, if you reinforce that particular perspective long enough. So that's a kin in a sense to this decision-making process. If you take the low road, then that wins, and it gets a little stronger. Because everything that wins neurologically gets a little stronger. It's like a Darwinian competition. So one rule is don't practice what you don't want to become because you really do become that.

It builds itself right into your neural architecture. And that's one of the terrifying things about addiction. You know, because you think, well, it's kind of psychological. It's like, yeah, kind of, it's also kind of neurophysiological. And you build a one-eyed cocaine monster in your head if you hit yourself enough with something that reinforcing.

So, yeah. Applause. Last question, I guess. Hallelujah. Just a really simple question then about... Long suffering, so when it... one of the things that was noticing from the stories of Jacob and a lot of these biblical narratives is you do have this all-powerful God who's able to kind of essentially be the hidden

protagonist in the narrative, but then the funny thing is that he's kind of essentially be the hidden protagonist in the narrative. But then the funny thing is that he's kind of revealing some of his qualities throughout the course of the story. So you were talking about the weird paradox of the fact that God somehow allows Jacob Israel to win the fight. Yeah, and he does that with Abraham, too. Yeah. So my question is relating to panseps thing about the rats that you told like three or four times and the number of occasions,

I saw one of the recent videos you talked about it, where the bigger rat lets the smaller rat win, because then the smaller rat won't engage in the game. So the question is, is twofold for me. One is God allowing humanity to win periodically, so that's to allow us to actually engage in the dialogue through these stories. And two, is it a much more primitive version of the virtue of humility, which you wouldn't normally characterize of an omnipotent deity. Well, those are excellent questions. I really like the second one in particular, that God's decision to allow human victory

from time to time is actually a manifestation of something approximating humility, or at least mercy, but humility's an interesting take on it. Well, it's also connected to Paul's image of how Christ hands himself over and allows himself to be defeated by men and therefore conquers sin which is men's enemy. It's the same paradox where God enters into that dynamic with people and willingly loses.

Yeah, well that's a... Okay, so the first thing I would say is that's a really interesting analogy. I can't, it's complicated enough questions so that I can't go beyond, I don't think I can go beyond the question, actually, because it's so complicated that I don't think I can formulate it any better than you already did. Like it's an interesting string of ideas. I'd have to play with it a while to see,

it does shed an interesting light on why God is amenable to negotiation in the Old Testament, which is really a strange, as you pointed out, it's really a strange thing. It's like this is omnipotent God who obviously can do whatever he wants, and yet he allowed, he can be bargained with. And that also opens up the question of why, like your hypothesis is, well, if you don't let the little rat win now, and then they get dejected and quit playing. And that's, I mean, that's a pretty good observation. If people don't get to win now, and then, you know,

that's kind of what happens to Kane. God says, well, you're not playing a straight game. That's why you're not winning. But there's an intimation in the Old Testament, and I think it's more developed in the New Testament, maybe not, that the straighter the game you play, the more likely you are to win. And so maybe part of the reason that God lets Abraham, bargain, and even Jacob is because they've started to play very straight games. And so maybe you do win in your wrestling

with God if you play a straight game. I mean, I actually think that's, I think the reason that's true is because that's actually why we would define it as a straight game. Now, then we could speak psychologically again. I think that what we've come to recognize as a straight game is the game that in the broadest number of situations across the widest range of time spans is most likely to produce a positive outcome.

And that's actually the grounds for our sense of ethics that it's really practical. Not to belabor it too much because there was an interesting insight from Chesterton's the man who was Thursday where God sets himself up as the benevolent antagonist, so as to accelerate the game. Yeah, well, I think that's a really interesting idea. I mean, there is, there is hints, I would say, throughout the biblical stories that the reason that God tolerates Satan, let's say, is because without an adversary you're soft. And that's tied in with the notion that life is something like a moral struggle,

that that's the fundamental essence of being a moral struggle. Now, I think that that's phenomenologically a reasonable observation. Maybe other people don't experience it that way, but it seems to me like within my own experience that that's accurate. Now I don't know what, again, I don't know what that says about the fundamental nature of reality. But I had a vision at one point that I was in a ring

with Satan actually, believe it or not. And it was like a Roman Colosseum. And, you know, I was rather upset to find myself there, but I won. And I asked God afterwards why he would do such a thing. And his answer was he knew I could win. That's interesting, you know, because,, because I don't know what to make of that. Believe me, I have no idea what to make of that. But the idea was that if you're trying to encourage someone, rather than protect them, because those are really different things, right? To protect someone isn't to make them strong.

To encourage them is to make them strong. Then you set them a series of challenges right at the point where they may win. And maybe you could make a case that that's what you do if you really care for someone. Now I know that that's it. I'm not saying that that interpretation is correct. But there's something... I mean, you definitely, with your children, you know, when you're wrestling with them, you know when you're wrestling with them say when you're playing with them

you use You push them to the limit of their ability Because otherwise they don't transcend their current abilities. Yep If you found this conversation meaningful you might think about picking up dad's books maps of meaning the architecture of belief, or as newer bestseller, 12 rules for life and antidote to chaos. Both of these works delve much deeper into the topics covered in the Jordan B. Peterson podcast.

See JordanB Peterson.com for audio, e-book, and text links or pick up the books at your favorite bookseller. Remember to check out JordanBeePeterson.com slash Personality for information on his new course, which is now 50% off. I hope you enjoyed this podcast. If you did, please let a friend know or leave a review. Next week's episode is a continuation of the Biblical series and is titled Joseph and the Code of Many Colors.

Talk to you next week. Follow me on my YouTube channel, Jordan B. Peterson, on Twitter, at Jordan B. Peterson, on Facebook, at Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, and at Instagram, at Jordan.b. Peterson. Details on this show, access to my blog, information about my tour dates and other events, and my list of recommended books can be found on my blog, information about my tour dates and other events, and my list of recommended

books can be found on my website, JordanB Peterson.com. My online writing programs designed to help people straighten out their paths, understand themselves in the present, and develop a sophisticated vision and strategy for the future can be found at selfauthoring.com, that selfauthoring.com. That's selfauthoring.com. From the Westwood One Podcast Network.