The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - Cathy Newman Interview & Analysis

Episode Date: January 30, 2018

On January 16th, 2018 Channel 4 aired the now infamous interview between Cathy Newman and Dr. Jordan Peterson. This podcast will first air the original interview and then the interview of Dr. Peterson by Geenstijl that was an analysis of the interview followed with an elaboration on what they think are the five strongest points of Dr. Peterson's philosophy on "how to be in the world". The centrality of the archetypical hero's myth The central role of the Logos during the hero's narrative.

Welcome to the Jordan B. Peterson Podcast. This is Episode 38, the Kathy Newman interview and analysis. On January 16, 2018, Channel 4 aired the now infamous interview between Kathy Newman and Dr. Peterson. This podcast will be comprised of two parts. First, the original interview, and then the interview between Dr. Peterson and Timon Diaz of Geenstiel. The second interview is an analysis of the first and is followed by an elaboration of five central points

to Dr. Peterson's philosophy on how to be in the world. To support these podcasts, you can go to selfauthoring.com or understand myself.com for Dr. Peterson's Personality Assessment Tool. Part two of this podcast starts at the 30-minute mark. Jordan Peterson, you've said that men need to quote, grow the hell up. Tell me why. Well, because there's nothing uglier than an old infant, there's nothing good about it. People who don't grow up don't find the sort of meaning in their life that sustains

them through difficult times and they are certain to encounter difficult times. And they're left better and resentful and without purpose and adrift and hostile and resentful and vengeful and arrogant and deceitful and and of no use to themselves and of no use to anyone else and no partner for a woman and there's nothing in it that's good. So you say I mean that sounds pretty bad. It's bad. It's bad. It's a crisis of masculinity. I mean what do you do about it? You tell you help people understand why it's necessary and important for them to grow up in a doctor's responsibility. Why that isn't a shake your finger and get your act together sort of thing. Why it's more like, why it's more like a delineation of the

kind of destiny that makes life worth living. I've been telling young men, but it's not, I wasn't specifically aiming this message at young men to begin with. It just kind of destiny that makes life worth living. I've been telling young men, but it's not, I wasn't specifically aiming this message at young men to begin with. It just kind of turned out that way. And it's mostly you admit, it's mostly men listening. I mean, it is. And the audience is a man, right? Well, it's about 80% on YouTube,

which is a, YouTube is a male domain primarily. So it's hard to tell how much of it is because YouTube is male and how much of it is because of what I'm saying. But you, what I'm saying. But you, what I've been telling young men is that there's an actual reason why they need to grow up, which is that they have something to offer, you know, that people have within them this capacity to set the world straight and that's necessary to manifest in the world.

And that also doing so is where you find the meaning that sustains you in life. So what's going wrong then? Oh God, all sorts of things have gone wrong. I think that I don't think that young men are here words of encouragement. Some of them never in their entire lives as far as I can tell. That's what they tell me.

And the fact that the words that I've been speaking, the YouTube lectures that I've done and put online, for example, have had such a dramatic impact, is an indication that young men are starving for this sort of message. Because like, why in the world would they have to derive it from a lecture on YouTube? Now, they're not being taught that it's important

to develop yourself. But does it bother you that your audience is predominantly male? Does that... Isn't that a bit divisive? No, I don't think so. It's no more divisive than the fact that YouTube is primarily male and Tumblr is primarily female. That's pretty divisive, isn't it? Tumblr is primarily female. But you're just saying that's the way it is.

Well, I'm not saying anything. It's just an just saying that's the way it is. Well, I'm not saying anything. It's just an observation that that's the way it is. There's plenty of women that are watching my lectures and coming to my talks and buying my books. It's just the majority of them happen to be men. What's in it for the women, though? Well, what sort of partner do you want? Do you want an overgrown child?

Or do you want someone to contend with that's going to help you? Do you say women have some sort of duty to sort of help fix the crisis masculinity? Which depends on what they want. No, I mean, it's exactly exactly how I laid it out. Like, women want deeply, want men who are competent and powerful. men who are competent and powerful. And I don't mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That's not power.

That's just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why actually. You can't dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination, is that what you're saying? No, I'd say women who have had their relationships impaired with impaired their relationships with men impaired and who are afraid of such relationships will settle for a weak partner because they can dominate them, but it's a sub-optimal solution.

Do you think that's not all women doing? I think there's a substantial minority of women who do that and I think it's very bad for them. They're very unhappy. It's very bad for their partners, although the partners get the advantage of not having to take any responsibility. But what gives you the right to say that? I mean, maybe that's how women want their relationships, those women. I mean, you're making these vast generalizations. I'm a clinical psychologist. Right. So you're saying you've done your research and women are unhappy dominating men. I didn't say they were unhappy dominating men. I said it was a bad long-term solution. Okay, you said it was making them miserable. Yes, it is. And it depends on the

time frame. I mean, there can be, there's intense pleasure in momentary domination. That's why people do it all the time. But it's no formula for a long-term successful long-term relationship. That's why people do it all the time. But it's no formula for a long-term, successful, long-term relationship. That's reciprocal, right? Any long-term relationship is reciprocal, virtually by definition. So... Let me put a quote to you from the book. Well, you say there are a whole disciplines in universities fourth-rightly hostile towards men.

These are the areas of study dominated by the postmodern stroke, Neo-Marx's claim that Western culture, in particular, is an oppressive structure created by white men to dominate and exclude women. But then I want to put... My knowledge is too. OK, sure. But I want to put to you that here in the UK, for example. Let's take that as an example.

The gender pay gap stands at just over 9%. You've got women at the BBC recently saying that the broadcaster is illegally paying them less than men to do the same job. You've got only seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies. So it seems to a lot of women that they're still being dominated and excluded to quote your words back to you. It does seem that way, but multivariate analysis of the pay gap indicated it doesn't exist. But that's not true, is it? I mean, that 9% pay gap. That's a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. But there's multiple. Yeah, but there's multiple reasons for that. One of

them is gender, but it's not the only reason. Like, if you're a social scientist, worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. Like you say, well, women in an aggregate are paid less than men. Well, then we break it down by age. We break it down by occupation. We break it down by interest. We break it down by personality. But you're saying basically it doesn't matter

if women aren't getting to the top because that's what skewing that gender pay gap, isn't it? You're saying, well, that's just a fact about women aren't necessarily going to get to the top. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter either. You're saying there are multiple reasons for it. You're saying, well, that's just a fact. No, saying it doesn't matter. It's not necessarily going to get to the top. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter either. You're saying there are multiple reasons for it. Yeah, but there is reason why should women put up with those reasons? Why should women be content? I'm not saying that they should put up with it. I'm saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women

is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There's no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So I can give you an example. You've even told me about multivariate analysis. Let me give you an example. I'm saying that 9% pay gap exists. That's a gap between men and women. I'm not saying why it exists, but it exists.

Now, if you have to say why it exists. That seems pretty unfair. You have to say why it exists. But do you agree that it's unfair? If you're a woman, not necessarily? And on average, you're getting paid 9% less than a man. That's not fair, is it? It depends on why it's happening.

I can give you an example. OK. There's a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than, didn't less agreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men. Again, a vast generalization.

Some men are not agreeable than men. Yes, that's true, but that's right. And some women get paid more than men. So you were saying that by and large, women are too agreeable to get the pay rises. I'm saying that that's one component of a multivariate equation that predicts celery. It accounts for maybe 5% of the variance. So surely the other, we needed about another 18 factors,

one of which is gender. And there is prejudice, there's no doubt about that, but it accounts for a much smaller proportion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim. Okay, so rather than denying the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn't you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay rise, go and ask for a pay rise, make yourself disagreeable with your boss? Oh, definitely, there's that, but I also didn't deny it existed. I denied it existed because of gender.

Okay. See, because I'm very, very, very careful with my words. So the pay gap exists, you accept that. But you're saying, I mean, the pay gap between men and women exists, you're saying it's not because of gender, it's because women are too agreeable to ask for pay rises. So it's one of the reasons. Okay, one of the reasons. So why not get them to ask for a pay rise?

I've done that. I've done that. Many, many times in my career. I've canceled. Oh, they do it all the time. You can, it's, so one of the things that. I've done that many, many times in my career. And they just counseled, oh, they do it all the time. You can, it's, so one of the things that you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training.

So you might say, often you treat people for anxiety. You treat them for depression. And you, and maybe the next most common category after that would be a service training. And so I've had many, many women extraordinarily competent women in my clinical consulting practice. And we put together strategies for their career development that involve continual pushing, competing for higher wages and often tripled their wages within a five-year period. And you celebrate that. Of course. So, do you agree that you would be happy

if that pay gap was eliminated completely? Because that's all the radical feminist the saying. It would depend on how it was eradicated and how the disappearance of it was measured. And you're saying if it's the cost of men, that's a problem. Oh, there's all sorts of things that it could be at the cost of. It could even be at the cost of women's own interests. So because they might not be happier if they get equal pay. No, because it might interfere with

other things that are causing the pay gap that women are choosing to do. Like having children. Well, or choosing careers that actually happen to be paid less, which women do a lot of. But why shouldn't women have the right to choose not to have children, or the right to choose those demanding careers? They do, they can. Yeah, that's fine. But you're saying that makes them unhappy, by and large. I'm saying that that, no, I'm not saying that, and I actually haven't said that so far. You're saying it makes them miserable. No, I said that what was making the miserable was having a part, was having weak partners. That makes the miserable.

I would say that many women around the age of I would say between 28 and 32 have a career family crisis that they have to deal with. And I think that's partly because of the foreshort and time frame that women have to contend with. Like women have to get the major pieces of their life put together faster than men, which is also partly why men aren't under so much pressure to grow up. So because for the typical woman, she has to have her career and family in order pretty much by the time she's 35.

Because otherwise, the options start to run out. And so that puts a tremendous amount of stress on women, especially at the end of their 20s. I think I take issue with the idea of the typical woman, because you know, all women are different. And that's what I want to just put another quote to you from the book. You say, well, they're different in some ways than the same in others. Okay, you say, women become more vulnerable when they have children. And you talk to one of your YouTube interviews about crazy, harpy sisters. So, a simple question, is gender equality a myth in your view? Is that something that's just never gonna happen?

It depends on what you mean by equality. If you mean that then in women... Getting the same opportunities. Fairly, we could get to a point where people were treated fairly, or more fairly. I mean, people are treated pretty fairly in Western culture already, but we could. But they're really not though, are they? I mean, otherwise, why would there only be seven women running for its 100 companies

in the UK? Why would there still be a pay gap which we've discussed? That's like, why are women at the BBC saying that they're getting paid illegally, less than men to do the same job? Well, that's not fair. Let's go to the first question. There are both those are complicated questions. Seven women repeat that one.

Seven women running the top footsy 100 companies in the UK. Well, the first question might be, why would you want to do that? Why would a man want to do it? I mean, there's a lot of money at the interest of God. There's a certain number of men, although not that many, who are perfectly willing to sacrifice virtually all of their life to the pursuit of a high end career.

So they'll work. These are men that are very intelligent. They're usually very, very conscientious. They're very driven. They're very high energy. They're very healthy. And they're willing to work 70 or 80 hours a week, non-stop, specialized at one thing to get to the top. So you as a women are just more sensible. They don't want that because it's not

an isolate. I'm saying that's part of it definitely. And so I worry. So you don't think there are barriers in their way that prevent them getting to the top of their companies. Oh, there are some barriers. Yeah, like other like men, for example, I mean, to get to the top of any organization is incredibly competitive interpros and the men that you're competing with are simply not going to roll over and say, example, I mean, to get to the top of any organization is incredibly competitive enterprise, and the men that you're competing with are simply not going to roll over and say, please take the position. So let me come back to my question. It's absolutely all out warfare.

Is gender equality a myth? I don't know what you mean by the question. Men and women aren't the same and they won't be the same. That doesn't mean they can't be treated fairly. Is gender equality desirable? If it means equality of outcome, then almost certainly it's undesirable. That's already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. What do you mean by that?

Equalty of outcome is undesirable. Well, men and women won't sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them alone to do it off their own accord. Already seen that in Scandinavia. It's 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that. It might not be quite that extreme. And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers. And that's a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law. Those are ineradicable differences. You can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure

and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices, you will not get equal outcomes. Right. So you're saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists, call them whatever you want to call them, should basically give up because it ain't going to happen. Only if they're aiming at equality of outcome.

So you're saying give people equality of opportunity, that's fine. Not only fine, it's eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals and for society. But still women aren't going to make it, that's what you're really saying. It depends on your measurement techniques, they're doing just fine in medicine. In fact, they're far more female physicians than there are male physicians. There are lots of disciplines that are absolutely dominated by women, many, many disciplines, and they're doing great.

So, let me put something else to you from the book. You say the introduction of the equal pay for equal work argument immediately complicates even salary comparison beyond practicality for one simple reason. Who decides what work is equal? It's not possible. So the simple question is, do you believe in equal pay? Well, I made the argument there as I could depend on you. So you don't even equal pay? No, I'm not saying that at all. Because a lot of people listening to you will just say, I mean, are we going back to the dark? That's because we're actually not listening.

They're just projecting what you're saying. I'm hearing you basically saying women need to just accept. They're never going to make it on equal terms, equal outcomes is what, how you define it. I'm here. You're basically saying women need to just accept. They're never going to make it on equal terms. Equal outcomes is how you define it. If I was a young woman watching that, I would go, well, I might as well just go and play with my Cindy dolls. But give out trying at school because I'm not going to get the top job I want. Because there's someone sitting there saying it's not possible.

I said the equal outcomes are very desirable. That's what I said. It's a bad social goal. I didn't say that women shouldn't be striving for the top or anything like that, because I don't leave that for a second. Striving for the top, but you're going to put all those hurdles in their way as has been it in their way for centuries. And that's fine, you're saying that's fine. No, no, I think I really think that's...

The patriarchal system is justified. That's silly. I do. I think that's silly. I really do. I mean, look at your situation. You're hardly unsuccessful. Yeah, and I have a bad luck. How do you mind? Hard to get where I've got to.

Exactly. So that's okay. Battling is good. This is all about the fact. Is it inevitable? But you talk about men fighting. But let me just put another thing to you from the point of view of saying,

you have to battle for a high quality position. Well, I noticed in your book, you talk about real conversations between men containing, quote, an underlying threat of physicality. position. Well, I noticed in your book you talk about real conversations between men containing quote an underlying threat of physicality. Oh, there's no doubt about that. What about real conversations between women? Is that something or are we sort of too amenable and reasonable? No, it's just that the domain of physical conflict is sort of off limits for you. Well, you just said that I thought to get where I've got. What does that make me a proxy man?

I don't imagine that you've, yeah, to some degree, I suspect you're not very agreeable. So that's the thing, successful women. I'm not very agreeable. Right. But I'm not actually in this conversation. And I'm sure it served your career well. Successful women, though,

basically have to wear the trousers in your view. They have to sort of become men to succeed is what you're saying. Well, if they're going to fight to succeed, therefore I'm a little remand. If they're going to compete against men, certainly masculine traits are going to be helpful. I mean, one of the things I do in my counseling practice, for example, when I'm consulting with women

who are trying to advance their careers is to teach them how to negotiate and to be able to say no and to not be easily pushed around and to be formidable. And you need to, if you're going to be successful, you need to be smart, conscientious and tough. Well, here's a radical idea. Why don't the bosses adopt some, the male bosses, shall we say, adopt some female traits so that women don't have to fight and get their sharp elbows out for the pay rises? It's just accepted if they're doing the same job, they get the same pay. Well, I would say partly because it's not so easy

to determine what constitutes the same job. But that's because, arguably, there are still men dominating our industries, our society. And therefore, they've dictated the terms for so long that women have to battle to fight the man. No, it's not true. It's not true. So for example, well, I can give you an example very quickly.

So I worked with women who worked in high-powered law firms in Canada for about 15 years, and they were as competent and put together as anybody you would ever meet, and we were trying to figure out how to further their careers. And there was a huge debate in Canadian society at that point that was basically ran along the same lines as your argument, is that if the law firms didn't use these masculine criteria, then perhaps women would do better. But the market sets the damn game. It's like...

And the market is dominated by men. No, it's not. It's not. The market is dominated by women. They make 80% of the consumer decisions. That's not the case at all. If you're talking about... If you're talking about people who stay at home looking after children,

by and large, they are still women. So they're going out doing the shopping. But that is changing. They make all the decisions. Okay, so what I'm going to say is, the market is driven by women, not men. Right. Okay, and if you're a lawyer in Canada,

and they still pay more for the same sort of goods, that's been proven that men, for that you buy a blue bicycle helmet, it's going to cost less than a pink one. Anyway, we'll come onto that. It's partly because men are less agreeable. Right, so they won't put up with it. I want to ask you, is it not desirable to have some of those female traits you're talking about?

I'd say that's a generalisation, but you've used the words female traits. Is it not desirable to have some of them at the top of business? I mean, maybe they wouldn't have been of the back in Christ. They don't predict success in the workplace. The things that predict success in the workplace are intelligence and conscientiousness. Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace. So you're saying that I'm negative emotion? You're saying that women aren't intelligent enough to run these top companies?

No, I didn't say that at all. You said that female traits don't predict success. But I didn't say that intelligence wasn't, I didn't say that intelligence and conscientiousness when you were saying that intelligence by implication are not female traits. Oh no, I mean that's a dangerous territory. Not saying that at all.

Are women less intelligent than men? No, no, they're not. No, the data on that's pretty clear. The average IQ for a woman and the average IQ for a man is identical. There is some debate about the flatness of the distribution, which is something that James DeMour pointed out, for example, in his memo, but there's no difference at all in general cognitive ability. There's no difference to speak of in conscientiousness. Women are a bit

more orderly than men, and men are a little bit more industrious than women. The difference isn't big, but all that averages into consciousness. And the men who aren't necessarily at the top of the class. Well, of course, we'll... Okay. But no, but the male traits, so why are they not... Feminine traits, why are they not desirable at the top of... Feminine traits, why are they not desirable at the top of the...

It's hard to say. I'm just laying out the empirical evidence. Like, we know the traits that predict success. But we also know because companies by and large have not indominated by women over the centuries, we've nothing to compare it to. It's an experiment. True, and it could be the case that if companies modified their behavior and became more feminine, they would be successful. But there's no evidence for it. I'm not neither doubtful nor non-doubtful. So why not give it a go as the radical evidence? Because the evidence suggests, well, it's fine.

If someone wants to start a company and make it more feminine and compassionate, let's say, and caring in its overall orientation towards its workers and towards the marketplace, then that's a perfectly reasonable experiment to run. My point is that there is no evidence that those traits predict success in the workplace. And there's a sense of evidence to... Because it's never been tried. Well, that's not really the case. Women have been in the workplace for, what,

at least ever since I've been around, the representation of women in the workplace has been about 50%. So we've run the experiment for a fairly reasonable period of time, but certainly not for centuries. Let me move on to another debate that's been very controversial for you. And this is, you've got a trouble for refusing to call trans men and women by their preferred

personal pronouns. No, I wonder why. It's not actually true. I got in trouble because I said I would not follow the compelled speech dictates of the federal and provincial government. I actually never got in trouble for not calling anyone anything. Right. That didn't happen.

I wouldn't follow the change of law which was designed to be outlawed. Not once it was law. No, no. No. That's what law, which was designed to be outlawed. No, once it was law. No, no. Why should you? That's what they said it was designed to do. Okay. You cited freedom of speech in that. Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?

Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now. You know, like you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It's been rather uncomfortable. Well, I'm very glad I put you in this car. Well, I'm great, my point.

I think you get my point. You get my point. It's like you're doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell's going on. And that is what you should do. But you're exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me. And that's fine. I think more power to you as far as I'm concerned.

So you haven't sat there, and... I'm just trying to work that out. I mean... Ha, gotcha. You have got me. You have got me. I'm trying to work that through my head. Yeah, yeah. I took a while. I took a while. Yeah, did, ha, gotcha. You have got me, you have got me. I'm trying to wear that to my head. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Take a while, take a while.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Take a while. You have voluntary, you have voluntarily come into the studio and agreed to be questioned. A trans person in your class has come to your class and said they want to be called. That's never happened. And I would call them she.

So you would. So you've kind of changed your channel. No. No, I said that right from the beginning what I said at the beginning was that I was not going to seed the linguistic territory to radical leftists regardless of whether or not it was put in law that's what I said and then the people who came after me said well you must be transphobic and you'd mistreated a student in your class it's like I never mistreated a student in my

class I'm not transphobic and that isn't what I said. Well, it's actually also called trans-campainers authoritarian, haven't you? I mean, isn't that? Well, only in the broader context of my claims that radical leftist ideologues are authoritarians, which they are. You're saying someone who's trying to work out their gender identity, who may well have struggled with that?

I had quite a tough time over here. No doubtful struggle with it. You're comparing them with, you know, Chairman Mao, who saw the deaths of millions of people. Well, even if the activists, you know, they're trans people too. They have a right to say these things. Yeah, but they don't have a right to speak

for their whole community. You compare them to Chairman Mao. You know, I could pinnash, or go so pinnash, I mean, you know, this is grossly incensed of them. I didn't compare them to pinnash.. Well, I did compare them to the left wing to the televitarians. And I do believe they are left with the televitarians. On the Mao, millions of people died. I mean, there's no comparison. That Mao and a trans activist, is there? Why not? Because trans activists aren't killing

millions of people. The philosophy that's guiding their utterances is the same philosophy. The consequences are yet. You're saying that trans activists could lead to the deaths of millions of people. No, I'm saying that the philosophy that drives their utterances is the same philosophy that already has driven us to the deaths of millions of. Okay, tell us how that philosophy is in any way comparable. Sure, that's no problem. The first thing is is that the philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount. That's the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Maoist China. And it's the fundamental philosophy of the left-wing activists, its identity politics. It doesn't matter who you are as an individual. It matters who you are

in terms of your group identity. You're just saying murderous things, though, to provoke, aren't you? I mean, you are a provocateur. I never say you're like the alt-right that you hate to be compared to. You want to stir things up. I'm only a provocateur in so far as when I say what I believe to be true, it's provocative. I don't provoke, maybe for humor. You don't set out now and then, I'm not interested in provoking. But what about the thing about, you know,

fighting and the lobster? Tell us about the lobster. Well, that's quite a segue. Well, the first chapter I have in my book is called Stand Up Straight with Your Shoulders Back. And it's an injunction to be combative, not least to further your career, let's say, but also to adopt a stance of ready engagement with the world and to reflect that in your posture. And the reason that I write about lobsters is because there's this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct

of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it's almost unbelievable. And I use the lobster as an example because the lobster, we devolved from lobsters in evolutionary history, about 350 million years ago, common ancestor. And lobsters exist in hierarchies, and they have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy,

and that nervous system runs on serotonin, just like our nervous systems do. And the nervous system of the lobster and of the human being is so similar that antidepressants work on lobsters, and it's part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn't.

Let me just get straight. You're saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters. I'm saying that it's inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It's it's absolutely inevitable. And there is one third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that. Right, that's so long that a third of a billion years ago,

there weren't even trees. It's a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin, that's similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status. And the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated.

So as your serotonin levels increase, you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion. So you're saying like the lobsters, we're hard-wired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and there's nothing we can do about it. No, I'm not saying there's nothing we can do about it, because it's like in a chess game, right, there's lots of things that you can do, although you can't break the rules of the chess game and continue to play chess. Biological, your biological nature is somewhat like that. Is it sets the rules of the game, but within those rules, you have a lot of leeway. But the idea that, but one thing we can't do is say that

hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy. It's like, that's patently absurd. It's wrong. It's not a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy. It's like that's patently absurd. It's wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's seriously wrong. Oh, and you just whipping people up into a state of anger and not at all. You divisions between men and women, you're stirring people up. You have any critics of you online,

get absolutely lambasted by your followers. And by being a whole lot of people. Sorry, your critics get lambasted by your followers. And by me and generally. Sorry, your critics get lambasted by you. I mean, if they're academics, not at all. If an academic is going to come after me and tell me that I'm not qualified and that I don't know what I'm talking about, I can seriously not follow it.

So you're not going to say to your followers now, quit the abuse, quit the anger. Well, we need some substantial examples of the abuse and the anger before I could detail that question. There's a lot of out there. For, well, let's take a more general perspective on that. So I have had 25,000 letters since June, something like that, from people who told me that I've brought them back from the brink of destruction. And so I'm perfectly willing to put that up against the rather vague accusations that my followers

are making the lives of people that I've targeted miserable. Jordan Peterson, thank you. My pleasure, nice talking to you. So, next up we have the analysis of the interview between Dr. Peterson and Timon Diaz of Geem Steel. Thanks for listening. Mr. Jordan Peterson, thank you so much for joining us today. Good to see you. Thanks for the invite.

No problem, no problem. Pleasure to owe hours. Our main theme today will be to discuss your philosophy on how to be in the world, as properly as an individual. I've watched your lectures on personality transformations, maps of meaning, and the biblical series, and I think I've distilled your philosophy down to

what I think are your five strongest points. Later on, I will present those points, and we'll unpack them and comment on them. But first, the talk of the day, man, your interview with Channel 4, Kathy Newman, I was watching this and it was like a self-propelled train wreck for half an hour, it just kept on going. It was quite fun, the memes that came out of it were really good. But I think yesterday or today it took kind of a more joyless turn.

But first I want to ask you, what talked about the aftermath? But first, how did you experience that interview? What happened there? What was going on there? Well, there were lots of things going on, which is why people are watching it. I mean, there are lots of things going on at many levels of analysis all the time. And it's hard to Determine which level of analysis you should focus on especially when something complicated is happening The way I experienced it was that I went into the channel for a studio and I sat and

Well first in the green room where everything was quite friendly Kathy was being made up in there and so we we had a pleasant interchange, I would say. And then I was brought into a room where the interview took place with the cameras. And we spoke for two or three minutes before the cameras rolled, and she was pleasant and engaging, distracted a bit. But it's exactly what you'd expect, right?

She's got her mind on many things. But then the cameras went on and she just was a completely different person instantly. And so that was interesting. You know, it was interesting to me that she had both of those approaches so instantaneously at her disposal, you know. And so of course, the first thing that entered my mind was, well, my eyebrows went up and I thought, okay, which of these two people is the real person, right? And then she, you could say she played Devil's Advocate.

I suppose that's one way of thinking about it. She laid out a set of ideological presuppositions, two sets actually, her set, and my set, and the set of ideological presuppositions that she laid out for my side of the argument bore very little resemblance to anything that I think or say. And so she would ask me a question, which wasn't really a question. It was a barb with bait on the end of it. And I would respond, and then she would tell me... So you're saying? Yeah, she would say what I said, except then what she would say,

had nothing to do with what I'd say. She was actually... Quite limited. She was fabricating on the fly the person that she hoped, the villain that she hoped I would be, and then insisting that that was me and that denying it was a lie. Essentially, that's what the interview was. So it's deeply insincere because she was playing an ideological persona and she wanted you

to play one as well. Well she wanted to be the proper foil for that, and was insistent is the right word that I abide by that particular decision. But there was more to the interview than that because it was, I mean, I've had a lot of experience listening to people. Tens of thousands of hours of experience listening to people

because I'm a clinical psychologist and I've had an extensive practice and I've dealt with every sort of person you could possibly imagine and a very large number of people that you couldn't imagine no matter how long you tried. So I was watching her after the first minute like a clinician instead of like an

interviewer and I was really paying attention to what she was doing and I truly don't believe that anything she said in that entire interview was true on its own. It was all I actually have a chapter about this in my book called Assume that the person you're listening to knows something you don't, which is a taxonomy of conversational types, and a discussion about how to engage in a conversation, if what you're trying to do is further your knowledge of the truth, if both of you are trying to further your knowledge of the truth, which is a proper conversation, it's the highest form of conversation, not the only form.

You could amuse each other too. That's a perfectly good form, or you can have a friendly spar, or you can play a primate dominance hierarchy game, which is very, very common, which is mostly what was happening in that interview. But she was using her words as tools to attain a particular kind of end. And I couldn't exactly figure out what the end was. Some of it would be to dominate the interviewee,

especially if that's a person. And then that would be contaminated with ideological correctness. You want to dominate your interviewee if you believe that they're wrong from an ideological perspective. And you want to do that number one to attain victory and number two to Butchress your ideological points. So there was that then there was some devil's advocate I suppose and and maybe that's more forgivable because you could say that she has a

Responsibility to do that as a journalist which I don't believe by the way responsibility to do that as a journalist, which I don't believe, by the way, asking difficult questions and playing the devil's advocate are not the same thing, even though sometimes playing the devil's advocate is necessary. And then I think there was an underlay of career grandstanding. I don't know that much about her, and I don't know how she's made her reputation, but she was obviously, she is obviously a combat of person, and my suspicions are that she's made a success of putting people, maybe she's made a success of herself in other ways, but she's made a success of herself at least in part by putting people uncomfortably on the spot. So all those things were going on at the same time, and then of course underneath that is the fact that there was an ideological battle

being played out, I would say, a three-fold ideological battle. There was a battle between her position, which was radically Neomarks' postmodernist, I would say. She was arguing against who she thought I was, and so that was the battle. And then there was the position I was trying to put forward, which had virtually nothing to do with what she was discussing. She was fighting your strawmen.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, well, and it was like I was able to remain reasonably detached during the interview because I realized almost immediately that whoever she was talking to bore very little resemblance to me. And so, I mean, she was quite sophisticated in some sense in what she did, because she did manage to sort of, her claims became so preposterous and so self-contradictory that it was difficult to remain completely detached. And I think, and this was the crux of the interview.

And I think the part that's attracted the most attention. She had asked me at one point in a provocatively self-righteous manner, just what gave me the right to assume that my privilege of free speech, let's put it that way, gave me the right to potentially offend someone and hurt their feelings. And I thought about six things at the same time, but the first thing I thought was, you're a journalist. That's the last question in the world you should ever ask someone, if you have any genuine

integrity as a journalist, because that's all you have as a journalist, you have the right to offend people and hurt their feelings. And so I called her out on that. I said, look, all you've done in the last 20 minutes is everything you possibly could to make me as uncomfortable as you possibly can. And I said it in a way that I would say was designed

to let her know that I knew exactly what she was doing. And then I suggested that that was actually okay, because she had every right to do that, but that she couldn't have it both ways. She couldn't make her living and her reputation using those tactics, let's say, and for her, those were tactics of seeking the truth. They were almost purely tactics of domination, and one upmanship. And maybe if you live in the postmodernist world, you don't believe in truth. Anyways, there's just victory in power games. And so perhaps

that's what she was pursuing. I don't know exactly what she was pursuing, but it was so palpably obvious to the two of us at that point that she had, in fact, done nothing except try to make me uncomfortable that calling her on it left her speechless. And then that was the only time I would say when I actually spoke to the genuine human being instead of the ideological So the ideological front it fell off briefly and then you said I got you Well, I would say technically and this is might be interesting for people who are interested in Jungian psychology

If you want to understand what Carl Jung meant by animus possession, which is a very difficult concept then that that interview was a textbook case of having a discussion with someone who is Anonymous Possessed. And I can't explain what that means because it's very complicated, but if you go and read Jung and you read about Anonymous Possession and you need a demonstration of it so that you get a sense of what it means then that interview is exactly indicative of that. And I would say as advice to people, maybe it's more like education. Anyone, see with anyone who is animus possessed, their goal is to engage you in the argument.

If you engage in the argument on the terms they've defined, you lose. It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. You lose as soon as you engage in the argument. And so what I did in the interview was just not engage in the argument. So I wouldn't say I did that with a hundred percent perfection. One of my friends, a very smart guy, there's the scene where she was taken aback. I said, Ha, Gautchia. And my friend said, maybe you could have played that differently there, maybe you could have said, All right, so obviously you just thought about what I said.

Maybe we could actually have a real conversation about that. But she had become somewhat angry a little bit at that point, because she had violated the rules that make journalism possible by suggesting that I didn't have the right to make people uncomfortable with my speech. Like she had broken a rule that she shouldn't have broken in my estimation and that made me angry. And so I said something that was designed to be witty, hopefully was witty. And I thought that was a reasonable approach and maybe it was. But it might have been better to have played it straight and said, look, now we can get somewhere, because we're actually talking now.

So you mean that after the Haagachu, you would have taken control of the conversation? We could have actually had a conversation. We didn't have a conversation, or we, well, depends on what you mean by conversation. We had a kind of conversation, but what we actually had was a dominant hierarchy dispute, right? With an ideological overlay. So then it went quite viral actually, I think it got me. It was trending on YouTube. It was number seven on trending on YouTube. Number seven. Yeah, crazy. And then some loose clips on Facebook also got hundreds, millions. Yeah, no, definitely. And then loose clips on Facebook also got hundreds,

millions, no, definitely. And then, I know Derek Blackman in the US made a clip and it got 750,000 views in like one day. Then the memes came and then a day later, it kind of took a joyous turn. Yeah, yesterday and today, right now. Yeah, well, it's amazing. Well, you see, so here's a strange thing, eh?

So I kind of played, it's amazing. Well, you see, so here's a strange thing, so I kind of played, let's say, night on White Horse. And so the Guardian yesterday published a astoundingly reprehensible article. The Badger Boot? No, about the Channel 4 interview. No, they've done some nice interviews about my book. They've been kind of all over the place with me, you know. But the Channel 4 people claim that Kathy has been targeted with threats, you know. A torrent of online abuse by internet trolls, it's like 50,000 trolls. You know, that's a lot of trolls. You might start thinking maybe they're not all trolls, but in any case, overwhelmed by misogynistic abuse and threats and that they had called in a security specialist

to assess the level of threat. And so it was the beginning of the attempt to twist the story around so that the story became Kathy Newman, poor, embattled channel 4 newscaster, was merely trying to do her job, even though she might have been a bit provocative, interviewed alt-right hero Dr. Jordan Peterson in an honest manner to expose his agenda, posted the results to YouTube, and was immediately mobbed by his army of internet trolls. So she went from, so my sense is she

went from journalist playing a variety of complicated games to target of criticism online, to heroin, embattled heroin in the panoply of martyrs to whom similar things have happened in the past. And what's terrible about it. So, and inadvertently I would say, contributed to that because when the Guardian story came out, I read it, and the story purported to be about the threats that she had received. But really, the story, because the story opened with a description of me, and the description was, let's call it, far from flattery.

You know, it was the same old thing. Dr. Peterson, he's a provocateur. He has an army of trolls, if anybody ever dares to challenge him, let's say, all they're doing is honestly challenging the trolls come out and then they have to fear for their lives. And that was the story. That's the narrative. The threats were just the prerequisite for the story.

And then yeah, like a dozen UK news media sources, the newspapers in particular, have picked this up. Some even more critical of me than that. Some in a slightly more balanced fashion. But NC, when the Guardian story broke, I tweeted something. I said, look, if you're, I've looked at the tweet, or the YouTube comments and most of them were merely criticism, but if you're threatening her, well, stop, you know, because we had an exchange of words, which is what we're supposed to do.

I think this message to your fellow was one of the most liked tweets you ever put out. Yeah, but here's the terrible thing about it. You know, what happened was that the fact that I tweeted that was instantly used as validation for the claim that there were threats. And that was just, yeah, that's what happened. And see, it's weird, because when I wrote that, I thought, it was part of me that thought that that might happen. There was a little warning bell that went off that said, look, you know, there's no evidence that these threats are credible. And if you respond by asking people to back off, you're also implying that there are people who should back off, that

this is real. And I thought, no, I'm going to do it anyways because she has been targeted. She has been subject to a very large number of very vitriolic comments. And maybe that's enough. And so, you know, it's okay to come out and say that's enough. But the thing is, it wasn't okay because as soon as I did it, then the fact that I did it was used as proof that all of these claims were valid. And that just floored me. Like I was very distraught, I think, is the right word about that this morning because I didn't see that coming. So we're there threats against her.

If you see them. Defined threat. There's no threats that were sufficient to get the police involved. So what they see, the Guardian was very vague about what the threats were and how and who these security people were. They were vague about that. But the implication was that the threats were serious enough so that security people needed to be called into advice. Okay, well the narrative is clarified a little bit in the last day. Now they just said,

well they had security consultants come in to look at the threats. Well, so then you think, well, is that because they're actually concerned about the threats? Or is that because they want to spin off a story about how the threats are so severe that they had to call in security consultants? And like, I have a strong, so let's say it's 10% the former and 90% the latter, which is what I would estimate. And so, but it doesn't matter now because the narrative has already been twisted around. Now I don't know if that's going to...

I have no idea if that's going to actually backfire on Channel 4. Or if it will have the effect of further damaging my reputation? I mean I know the Canadian media has picked up the victimized, Kathy Newman narrative and run with it as well. Well, they're certainly trying the independent, I think was at peace today, as a subtitle, when white men fuel their losing power, any level of nastiness is possible. Yeah, in a struggle to regain this. Yeah, I know, that was definitely one of the most appalling headlines

that I've ever seen a credible news organization produce. And they, like, see, one of the things I pointed out in my book in 12 rules for life is that as a clinician, talking to many hundreds of people for many thousands of hours and watching how things unfold in their life from the earliest stages of their childhood memories to their current state of life and into the future, one thing I have learned is that no one ever gets away with anything and so this reporter has made a kind of statement, a kind of provocative

statement and he or she doesn't understand that there will be consequences of that, and perhaps not the sort of consequences that the author will tie back to that statement, but that's the sort of, that's a, that's a statement that you only make if you are very historically ignorant or very unconscious, in cautious, or if there's a very dark part of you hoping things will go very wrong very soon. And I would say that there's a reasonable possibility that things are going to go very wrong very soon. For whom? For all of us. For all of us. None of what's happening in this polarized atmosphere

is amusing to me. What happened, even with the Channel 4 interview, you know? And maybe I was a bit self-congratulatory, let's say when I made my sort of satirical, gotcha statement. made my sort of satirical, gotcha statement. And then I would say you could read what happened with Channel 4 as a victory for me and as a loss for Kathy. Now, depends on what she was aiming at. If she was aiming at 3 million views on YouTube in two days,

then it's not a loss. You know, for me, it's like, well, my book went up to number two on Amazon.com in the U.S. the next day, right? It's number one in Canada. It's number three in the U.K. All on Amazon. I couldn't have asked for more publicity, right? And so I could also be sitting back and saying, well, you know, she tried to, a person who regarded herself as my ideological opponent,

tried to go after my philosophy and my reputation on national TV, failed brutally, and has been taken apart for it. It's like, this is a good day, but I don't regard it as a good day. I don't think it's a good day. As what do you regard it? I think that it's evidence of the instability of the times that we're in.

It would have been much better for me and for everyone else if what we would have had was a real conversation. So, it's not good. It's not good. And I asked Kathy in a variety of different ways now if she would sit down and have an actual conversation because the right way for this to end is not for me to declare victory because I don't regard it as a victory. I mean, I'm not saying that I would have liked to have the tables turned.

I'm not saying that I would have been happy with a loss, but what happened in there was not an optimized victory. What we need to do, what would be best, is if she would sit down with me for about an hour on camera, where we could actually have a discussion. Like I would like to ask her something. For example, I've been trying to puzzle this out. I saw a picture of her today that was a tweet. that was a tweet by one of her friends, and they said

that the tweet was something like, we're amusing ourselves watching the Twitter comments, well, waiting for the police investigation, okay? And then there's a picture of Kathy holding a tablet, you know, looking shocked in a very pleased way, I think it's the right way of, and you see that's kind of what I'm worried about, is that she is shocked in a rather pleased way. Was this the police investigation into the threats to her? Presumably, it wasn't clear, but presumably, but I think she removed those tweets. She did, removed them, but it's hard to remove things from Twitter. Yeah.

Yeah. And so, but I've also been sitting here thinking, like, you know, people write me and they say, well, you must be, I'm writing you a letter of support, you must be receiving an overwhelming amount of hate mail, you know, keep up the good work. I don't receive any hate mail. I received like five pieces of hate mail in the last 15 months. I can't believe that that's the case. It's very modest number.

Yeah, and they weren't particularly vitriolic. They were criticisms, you know. So I don't get hate mail. Now I don't know why, but I don't. But, you know, if the tables were turned, you know, and if I had done an interview and then 50,000 people had written critical comments about me in two days, ranging from like pretty severely critical to pretty damn vitriolic, I would be having a rough time of it, man,

I'd be sitting there thinking, Jesus, you know, what the hell did I do? What did I do that was so deeply wrong that this was the result? But I don't know what Kathy's thinking. That does not seem to constitute her response so far. Well, you know, I hesitate to guess at it, but there's no evidence that that's her response. You know, she said, oh, well, it was all in good fun. It was part of the game. Thank you for being a good sport. If it's not a game for me. Eva feminism. Yeah, exactly.

Eva feminists, we're really. And I mean, what my impression of the response to her interview is that virtually everyone watching it online, and I'm judging this response by the number of likes to dislikes and the comments which are running about 80 to one against her which is like 50 to one against you is not good. Like 80 to one against you is really really not good. There's something wrong. And so and these aren't trolls. These aren't my army of trolls. These these three million people who've watched the video or it's

more than that actually. That's that's all sorts of people everywhere. And they're they're not happy with the way the interview went. And that would crush me. And I think that's the right response to that. It's like when you receive overwhelming public criticism like that, the right response should be not glee at stirring up the hornet's nest, but careful re-analysis of what you did. That's hard. It's not as hard as the alternative because if you're riding high and there's a

correction coming and you keep forstalling it, the correction will get larger and larger and larger and larger and finally. And finally, when it comes, you will not be able to tolerate it. And that's the situation. I believe that she's it. The correction is coming. As you responded to your request to sit down again. No, but it's been made very, very, you know, recently. Okay.

So I've had a colleague of hers contacted me and said that he would do what he could to put us in touch and other people have been working behind the scenes. And I suggested it on Twitter and, you know, I'm likely going to contact my press agency Penguin and see if they want a contact or an ask. But because that's the right outcome, the right outcome is we have a, we have this bit of combat, let's say, it produced a scandal. Now we actually talk about it. No tricks, just a conversation, and then everybody wins, right?

Because I can admit whatever mistakes I made, she can admit whatever mistakes she made, we can drop the persona, which is what she had. It was an animus possessed persona, technically speaking. She could drop that, we could actually have a discussion. Like I would open the discussion by asking her why she was taken aback when I asked her about her treatment of me in the interview. And people have also been spinning that as Mike claims to have been victimized in the interview.

So, which is another sign of how pathological the discourse has become, because pointing out what's happening and claiming some kind of victim status are by no means the same thing. So what you're saying, although it might look as a victory for you and the attention it has on a healthy victory. It's not a healthy victory. And taking back to that, you said that it's actually

a sign of the times where things could go really wrong for all of us really soon. Yeah, we're playing with fire. What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate? Well, things go wrong in cultures all the time, right? You get the polarization, increases until people start to act it out.

I mean, I'll give you an example. I always pay attention to what happens at the back of my mind, to the bottom of my mind, let's say. And when I learned from Carl Jung, for example, one thing was that if you watch what happens in your imagination, well, you're speaking, and what things are happening to you, you'll see little dream-like fragments happening all the time. And not in words.

They're really more like,'re really more like brief dreams. Jung thought we were dreaming all the time, even when we were awake. And, you know, today I was reviewing maybe 10 or 11 of these newspaper articles that had played this twisty game and accused me of like sicking my internet trolls on the poor hapless journalist. And I thought, this was the dark part of me, right? That's the shadow part thought. If I wanted to sick my internet trolls on Channel 4,

then there'd be nothing but broken windows and riots. And then there's a little part of me that thinks, wouldn't that be fun? Right? And that's where we're at. It's like, because I'm a reasonable person, a very reasonable person, even though I can. And you saw the sun in the back of your mind. Oh, yes. And're at. It's like because I'm a reasonable person a very reasonable person even though I can Oh, yes, and I pay attention to them because I know that they're

They're part of the collective unconscious, right? They're the shadow part and when there's part of me thinking well, wouldn't that just be perfectly goddamn delightful? Then there's lots of people who are not only thinking that way sometimes but thinking that way all the time and they're just waiting for that to be the proper response. You see this with the antifilence in the United States and with the Charlottesville thing as well. So, but basically what you're saying is that when you have these dark thoughts in your mind and the back of your mind, you kind of tap into the collective unconscious of the culture you're embedded in.

Definitely, definitely. There's no doubt about it. It's like the dark part of me and the dark part of you is the same thing in some ways. And we live in the same culture. And so it's going to manifest itself in a similar manner. So you're saying the polarization that we're seeing right now, that we are speaking out, it's not in the future

we will act out that polarization. Well, if we keep accelerating, especially if we keep accelerating with lies, you know, and this whole channel for rats nest is like 90% lies, maybe more. And a lot of it's ideologically motivated lies, but it doesn't matter. It's still lies. Like Kathy, as I said, there was virtually nothing she said in that interview that was actually coming from her, like a deep part of her, the soul of her.

It was all persona, it was all persona, and all use of words in a, in a expedient manner as tools to obtain, I think probably, probably status, dominant status and reputation. Yeah. So this is kind of the part where I want to go to the next part of this talk because what people know you from your, but it's not actually activism, but you're standing against both modernism and identity. My refusal to abide by the dictates of compelled speech.

That's what most people know you from. But what fewer people know is your philosophy on how to be in the world, properly as an individual. And I think that- I don't know which people know more about. I mean, I would say that the typical person, like there's people who live in the old media world, and there's people who live in the new media world, and the people who live in the old media world, they know me for that, but the people who live in the new media

world, I wouldn't say that's the case for. That's a good point. I was referring to the people in the old. Yeah, okay. Well, it's weird that we have to make that distinction, I wouldn't say that's the case for. That's a good point. I was referring to the people in the old. Yeah, okay. Well, it's weird that we have to make that distinction, but it's necessary because we're in the time where those distinctions are the case.

So the thing is, my view on this is, if you implement your philosophy on how to be in the world, you become less susceptible to ideological possession. Well, that's the hope. Yeah, which is kind of the meta-importance of that part of your work, I think. As I told you, I've watched most of your lectures, and I've distilled it, I've tried to distill it back

to five points, which in my view are the five strongest points. I will list them now in summary, and then we'll unpack them more. Yeah, well, you nailed one of them right away. It's like, I mean, I have my conscious goal since learning what I've learned, which I would say occurred back in the mid to late 80s. You know, when I learned the basic principles that I've been elaborating upon over the

last 30 years or so, once I learned those, then the hope was that sharing that knowledge would make people immune to ideological possession. That was the goal. I think this is one of your closing remarks in maps of meaning. You say that the problem to society's ills is the integrity of the individual. Okay, so I'm going to list the five points. So, point one, the absolute centrality of the archetypical hero's myth. Point two, your main instrument during this hero's narrative is the logos. Point three, the way to be in the world is to orient yourself towards the highest possible good you can conceive of, because it's not as if you have anything better to do.

Four, make the right sacrifices to walk with God. And in this sentence, the concept of God as a judgmental father is an articulation of the discovery of being able to bargain with the future. And five, minimize your persona, cultivate your essence, and live in its closest possible proximity. Now that's, you know, for a distillation into five, that's pretty good.

So first, let's start with the first point, the centrality of the archetypical he heroes myth. What is the archetypical hero's myth? What makes it archetypical? And what is a hero? Could you elaborate on this? Well, imagine that you have a problem, and then imagine that you want a solution and imagine that there's a particular solution to that particular problem. But then imagine that you have what you might describe as a bigger problem and that's not the problem. It's the fact that you have problems because that's the real problem. The real problem is the fact that you have problems. And then you might say, well, you don't want a solution to our problem. You want a solution to the fact that you have problems.

And so it's a leap of abstraction, right? So then you might say, well, is the way of conceptualizing the set of all problems that's universal? And I think there is. And that's what religious stories try to do. And they do it using drama. Dramatic means because the problem is so complex. So that's the meta problem.

It's so complex that we don't really know how to formulate it. But that's what we're struggling towards. So it's like, well, what's the problem of life? Something like that. Well, you could say that the problem of life, and I would like this quite carefully in 12 rules for life, the problem of life is this. We're finite and mortal. That's problem number one. So, so the first problem is that life is essentially tragic. It's little us against infinity, and we lose. And not only do we lose, but we lose in a manner

that produces a substantial amount of suffering, and sometimes an unbearable amount. So it's a big problem, so that's problem number one. Problem number two is that that's not the worst problem. The worst problem is that that's true plus malevolence exists in the world, evil exists in the world, and makes that first problem even worse than it would have to be. And that's true, plus malevolence exists in the world, evil exists in the world, and makes that first problem even worse than it would have to be. And that's universally true for everyone all the time. That's archetypal. So when you formulate a situation archetypely, you speak about it in a manner that's eternally

true. So, there's lots of ways that you and I differ, but there's many ways that we're the same. And so that would be what constitutes our essential humanity, let's say, and what constitutes, what makes us the same is that like you, I'm mortal and my life is finite and my existence is characterized by suffering and I have to contend with the fact of malevolence in the world. And it's the terribly destructive character of the natural world. It's the tyrannical element of the social world and it's the adversarial element of myself

and every other individual. So that's the malevolent element. And so we're stuck with that. Okay, fine. That's the archetypal formulation of the problem. You could say that's the mythic landscape, right? And it's something like good and evil in a world of chaos and order. It's something like that. It's very interesting. You know, there are games online that have that as their basic structure. Right, the game developers have figured this out, so that's pretty interesting. Okay, so then the question is, well, how do you comport yourself in a landscape of chaos

and order and when the game is good versus evil? Something like that. Well, then that's where the idea of the archetypal hero emerges, and the archetypal hero is the person whose eyes are open and whose speech is true and who faces both the chaos of the unknown and the tyranny of the known and balances them, right? And then you think, well, that's the antidote to the problem. That's the meta-solution to the meta-problem. And it's something

like, in a more straightforward form, and this is something that I spoke about because I was speaking in Holland here in the Netherlands two nights ago about European and Dutch identity. And how to solve, let's say, the conundrums that are associated with a multicultural world and immigration, and my suggestion was well, it's a very complex problem. There isn't a solution, but the solution to a very complex problem is you should be better person than you are because then you'd be better at solving complex problems and lots of them are coming your way. So bloody well, get your act together. And that's what I've been telling people. But more than that, because it's more than that,

because that's merely burdening people with excess responsibility, let's say, so that can be a crushing message. You're not who you could be. You know, get your bloody act together. You're whining away in the corner and you're no good to yourself and anyone else. You know, it's harsh. But then there's another element to that, which is there's way more to you than you think you are, and that you have something necessary and vital to contribute to the world. And if you don't contribute it, that things will happen that aren't good, and that's terrible for you and everyone else. So it's not only that you need to do this because it's your responsibility,

but you need to understand that there isn't anything better that you could do for yourself or for anyone else. And people are dying to hear that message. So that resonates with young men. Yeah, well it's so amazing. I'm in this very weird situation right now to say the least. It's surreal. My life has been surreal for a long time. It's like being in a deli painting.

I can't... I continually can't believe it. And I mean continually. You know, does field that psychedelic to you? Oh yeah, it's completely, well it's so strange, you know, like all, when I got to England, for example, to London, my wife and I were staying at this little Airbnb and we went out to get some groceries and so I walked into the grocery store. We're only out for about an hour and somebody recognized me in the grocery store and came up and said, look, you know, I was in a kind of desperate situation and I was feeling pretty

nihilistic and depressed and I really wasn't paying attention to my life and I was watching your videos and like, thank you. It's really helped me straighten myself out. It's like, oh hell, it all, hey, great. And so then I went into the electronics store, next door and some guy came up to me and he said exactly the same thing. And so like wherever I go now,

it's while people come up to me. So they're just, I wouldn't call them random strangers, but you know what I mean? They are. And they say, they have their own personal take on it, because they usually tell me in which particular way they were feeling nihilistic and and with vengeful and and and and saddened and unable to pull themselves together, but it's the same thing.

And then, you know, when I did this talk, I did three talks at London in London, and you know, we started with one theater of 300 people, which was, you know, the Penguin UK was hoping that we'd do a credible job in sells and tickets. And I could talk to you about the book and it sold out instantly. And then, yeah, it said that it told me that it sold out faster than any event they'd ever hosted. And it's like, so they put up another one with a thousand people. And it sold out right away. And then they put up another one with a thousand people. And it sold out right away. And then they put up another one with a thousand people and it sold out right away. And so then I went and talked to these, you know,

these venues and people are overwhelmingly welcoming. It's crazy. And then afterwards, you know, like 500 people line up and they all say the same thing. I've been watching your videos that's like, really helped me out. It's like, how could you not feel that your life was surreal where when that's happening?

Yeah, I can imagine. I think what's happening I see this online and in the memes and kind of in the meme culture around you I think what's what's happening essentially is that the hero's myth Resonates so strongly with young men. It's it's kind of it's it's it's a basic narrative you descend into the underworld You you go where you at least want to look. You rescue your father? Yeah, yeah, because in filth it will be found. That's right, exactly. That which you most need is to be found where you least want to look.

That's the King Arthur. That's right, that's right, that's the whole theme of the Holy Grail, that's exactly right. Well, so there's a little story that goes along with that. So King Arthur and his knights are all sitting around a round table, which implies that they're of equal stature, essentially. And they go off to look for the Holy Grail, which is the container of that, which redeems, it's something like that. But of course, who the hell knows where to look for the Holy Grail. So each of the knights decides to enter the forest at the point that looks darkest to him, right?

And that's a hell of a story because first of all, it shows that courage is the first requirement, right? Because you look for what's darkest and you go in there. That's that's part of you know Jung developed that idea quite substantially with regards to his notion of the shadow and It's also I think it's also what makes this believable for people, because the alternative is something like, well, look for happiness. And everyone thinks, well, I'd rather be happy than miserable and like fair enough, but there's nothing about that that has any nobility.

And it's not believable, no one believes that, because everyone knows that life is bounded by tragedy and that malevolence abounds. Everyone knows that. So, and you say, so there's that terrible, that terrible dark dyad of tragedy and evil, and you waive the little flag of happiness in front of it. It's like, you know, no one believes that that will work. But then when you tell people, look, you're dark, you're a monster, you really are. But that's actually useful because you cannot survive the world

without being a monster. People think, oh, well, that's interesting. I kind of suspected that I was a monster. And everyone's always said that was bad. It is bad, obviously. But there's something that can be done about it. And that's something that can be trans-muted into something good without being inhibited.

So you're saying to be good, I don't have to be a neutered tomcat. To be good, I can be a monster, but I can be like a civilized monster. It's like, yeah, that's what you should aim at. You should be unbelievably dangerous. The more dangerous you are, the better. And then you should control that.

Because that's your doctrine on what constitutes morality, right? It's contained capacity from 11. From mayhem from mayhem. Absolutely, absolutely. I learned this partly from young, but also partly from Nietzsche. And of course, young learned it partly from Nietzsche because Nietzsche pointed out that most of what passes from morality is just obedient cowardice. So I'm an obedient coward.

Well no one wants to think that. So they say, well no, I'm not an obedient coward. Well, no one wants to think that. So they say, well, no, I'm not an obedient coward. I'm a Oh, I'm a good person because I don't break any rules. It's like no, you're not your obedient coward and you're too afraid to break the rules That doesn't make you good. It also accounts for why the dark hero You know the anti-hero is so popular in cinematic representations in particular because people go and watch the mafia hitmen and guys like that. And there's a dark part of them that thinks, wow, those guys are really cool. Like movies like Quentin Tarantino's movies where the hitmen are wisecracking and they're

tough and they can handle everything. And you think, well, these guys are psychopathic criminals. Why are people looking up to them? It's because, well, you're not moral if you're just harmless. And the question is, well, what's the antidote to being harmless? And the antidote to that is to open up that doorway into the shadow. And then you could become that, right? There's that gleeful, predatory victory that's part of that, you know, that would be associated with, let's say the attitude that I could have had to what happened with Channel 4. It's like, I won. Look the fuck out, right? But no, that's not right because it's

not good enough. It's better than losing by a lot, because there's nothing in a loss that's admirable, but it's not the highest form of victory and there's no reason not to go for the highest form of victory. And that's peace, right? It's not predatory victory, it's peace. Because anyone with any sense who has any wisdom regards peace as the goal. And that isn't the peace that means that I'm so afraid of you that I'm not going to say anything. It's the peace that is that,

like it's the peace of armed opponents who respect one another, right? That's real peace. Harken back to the hero's myth one more time. Do you think that basically all people need to complete this narrative at some stage in their lives? Do all people... It is their lives. Like if you don't, if you don't act this out, let's say, you're not living, you're fragmented, you're a

puppet, you're a puppet of other motivational forces. Like this is what happens when you unite the motivational forces that guide you. You knight your own nature with your own culture and rise up above it. That's what happens as you end up acting this out in one way or another. And you might as well know it.

And this was Young's point. It's like you can be the unconscious actor of a malevolent, tragic drama, or you can wake the hell up, and you can decide that you're going to be the hero of not only your story, but of everyone's story. And then you can choose which of those do you want. Now the problem with choosing, let's call it the archetyply heroic path, is that you have to take the responsibility, but the upside is

Well, what the hell's the difference between responsibility and opportunity? You could say well, there's no difference between responsibility and opportunity So the more responsibility you take the more opportunity you have now Maybe you don't want that because you'd rather cower in the corner and hide But the the thing is is that you probably wouldn't rather do that because if you try it, you'll find that there's nothing in it but self-contempt and misery. That's a bad pathway to pull back and to fail to engage in the world and to, you end up bitter and resentful and self-destructive and vengeful and then far worse. You's, you can develop a liking for that.

I wouldn't recommend it. Yeah. No, I understand. I was summarizing the cinematic history of the past 15 years. And there were a few characters that I found particularly archetypical. And I was wondering, because I don't think you've ever

mentioned these in your lectures. So there's Maximus from Gladiator, there's Hector of Troy from Troy who faces off against the Kiles, there's King Lee and Ida's from 300 with the Spartans, and there's Spartacus. And what stood out to me was these are all deeply archetypical figures. And they have a few core properties in common. One is they talk very little and if they talk they talk very decisive. Two is they never or seldom raise their voice. Only if they raise their voice it's so the troops can hear them. And three I think that within these archetypes might reside the case, maybe the ultimate case, for Mill Monogamy, because these

archetypes that resonate so strongly with men, what they all have in common is that they're fiercely loyal to one woman alone. Right. Well, that's part of the incorporation of the shadow, I would say, because Louis C.K. a while back talked about Tiger Woods, and I really liked it, because people were complaining about Tiger Woods and and I really liked it because people were complaining about Tiger Woods and his affairs. And also about Arnold Schwarzenegger and his affairs. And one of the things that Louis CK pointed out, quite a very comical manner, was that many men aren't having the

affairs of Tiger Woods. But that's not because they're good men. It's because they don't have, I think he said, a busload of Swedish bikini models waiting for them at the final hole. So the idea would be that you should conduct yourself so that you are attractive to many women, maybe that you have your pick of them, but then you should pick one. And that's a sacrifice. Obviously, that's a sacrifice of a sort.

It's a strange sacrifice because, you know, I talked to someone, a comedian recently, who told me of one of his experiences in Las Vegas. So he went to Las Vegas with a sports superstar. And they went to a party and what literally happened at the party was one woman brought forward, a small group of other women, all very attractive, and basically told the sports legend that he could just pick one of them and she would go home with him, right? And so that had all been arranged beforehand. And he said that he's been in many situations where something like that has happened. And I thought, well, you know, that sort of is

appealing to the Hugh Heftner Playboy 14-year-old fantasy that sort of gripped our culture from the 1960s onward. But imagine that you sleep casually with 100 women in a six-month period or a three-month period for that matter, or a three-week period. I don't care. Pick your time frame. And you say, well, what, and you're ecstatic with yourself because you've been validated by this opportunity. And I'm not making light of that.

It's not nothing to be attractive to women like that. It's really something to be attractive to women like that. But it isn't obvious to me that your choice to conduct yourself in that manner enriches your life and the life of other people more in any way than picking one person and actually having a relationship with them. It's only true that promiscuous pathway, let's say, is better if you can actually divorce

sexuality from all the other elements of life. Say, well, it's about variety and it's about impulsive pleasure. Or maybe it could be even slightly deeper than merely impulsive pleasure. It could be shared-impulsive pleasure. Or maybe it could be even slightly deeper than merely impulsive pleasure, it could be shared impulsive pleasure. But I don't think you can do that because sexuality isn't divorceable from family and from morality and from all the other elements of your life. And if you're mature, you know that. And so you make a decision. You make a decision not to capitalize on your opportunity, not to misuse your opportunities. And you make a decision, you make a decision not to capitalize on your opportunity, not to misuse your opportunities. And you know, a huge part of the Me Too phenomenon, a huge

part of this battle that's being played out in our culture is a consequence of the failure of men to recognize that. Now, it's not only the failure of men, let me be absolutely clear about that, because for example, with the example of the sports superstar, the women who are lining up in front of him, parading themselves and offering themselves are deeply complicit in this pathological game. And so, it's pretty clear anthropologically as well that, you know, sexual choice tends towards a pre-dow distribution, especially for men. So most men have very little selection at their disposal, disposal, and a small number of men have excess opportunities. The question is, what should that small number of men do? And you

might say capitalize on it and to hell with the consequences. And like, it's a powerful argument, but I do believe it's wrong. It destabilizes this society. And so, and I also don't think it does your soul any good because the problem with treating other people as casual sexual partners, let's say, is that you also treat yourself that way simultaneously. And I don't think that that does you any good because you're not unless that's what you

want to be. If you want to be a casual partner, it's like, well, that's, I wouldn't say that's a particularly noble ambition. You should be able to do better than that. All right. So we just discussed the centrality in your philosophy of the archetypical hero's myth, which is basically one descends into the underworld. you go where you at least want to look, you face the dragon goddess of chaos, you fight with all you have and a little more, and if you survive, you

retrieve something of supreme value and you escort it back into the daylight. And then you share it with everyone else. And then you share it. Which is a crucial part. A crucial part of it. Definitely. So the second point is actually, within your philosophy, it seems that during this narrative that I just described, the logos is your premier instrument.

And you describe the logos as the capacity to articulate and differentiate it chaos into habitable order. Into the habitable order that is good. Yeah, that is good.able order that is good. That is great. Rich is in like an elaboration that I kind of figured out last year when I was doing the biblical lectures, right? Because one of the things I came to understand when I was reanalyzing the earliest chapter in Genesis is that there's this idea in Genesis that the creative force, God God uses this process, employs this process, the logos to extract habitable order

from chaotic potential. He speaks the world into being. Right, but he uses logos specifically to do it, then the logos is truthful speech. And so there's an idea there, which is that it's a deep idea. It's the deepest idea of the West, I would say. It's the deepest religious idea. So, but I think it's been, I don't know if it's been articulated best in the West, but I would

say you could make a case for that. But in any case, the idea is that there's a way to bring order into being, that makes the order good and that's to bring it into being by spoken truth. So you can bring new, you can extract new being out of potential by lying. But then, no, it's hellish. It's hellish. So it's order, but hellish order. Teranical order. Right. It's tyrannical order, generally speaking. Well, and we know that to be the case. It's not like this is some metaphysical speculation. If you read Sojournitzin, for example, or Victor Frank, all people like that, who've deeply meditated on the relationship between malevolence and tyranny, they just lay it out clearly.

In a true tyranny, everyone lies about everything all the time. And that's why it's hell. And that's exactly right. You said that in the Soviet Union in Eastern Germany, one in three people was a government informer. Yeah, that's right. It's the very definition of social pathology. Because if you can't say what you think, then you don't know who you are. You can't live.

You have to live as a crippled person, a self-cripling person. It's like you're taking a sledgehammer to your shins. It's you and everyone else. And it's brutal and murderous. And one of the things that's so profound about the concept of the logos because you refer to Genesis, but actually it's older, it's Babylonian.

Right? It's from the Inuma Age. It's even older than that, right it's older, it's Babylonian, right? It's from the enumai. It's older, it's even older than that, right? I mean, it's as old as humanity itself in some sense. I would say it's the central process by which human beings flourish in the world. So yeah, it's as old as higher consciousness is, it's something like that. And you've also stated that actually that Western legal systems are predicated on the notion that people possess the logos. That's what it looks like to me. Yeah, I mean, well, because the individual has sovereignty in the West, we have a rule

here, a meta rule, which is that the individual is not above the rules, it's not that, it's that the rules encounter a boundary where they hit the individual, so that even if you're a murderer, even if everyone knows you did it, say, you still have to be you still have to be treated with the dignity that you would grant to someone who possesses the capacity to conquer chaos and revitalize tyrannical order. The law itself has to draw to a halt in front of that. People don't understand how amazing it is that that principle ever emerged because the impulsive correct response to the revelation of a murderer in your midst is to just kill him as brutally and rapidly as possible. And you think, well, why not? He deserves it. It's like, well,

you could make a case that he deserves it. I mean, you can make a strong case for that, especially if you happen to be the relative of the victim, let's say. But that's not the point. The point is that there's something even deeper at stake that's real. And I believe that that respect for that logo, let's say, which is something that's a co-creator of being and also something that is possessed of free will. Those are the ideas that without that respect, you cannot establish a harmonious relationship with yourself because you don't know who you are. You cannot establish a real friendship or intimate relationship with anyone else. You can't be a good parent. You can't take your place in your local community and you can't be a

productive useful citizen. If you're not in touch with your local. Exactly. It's the principle when your relationships are working whether they're with yourself or with one or many people. are working, whether they're with yourself or with one or many people, if they're working, they're working to the degree that they're guided by that principle. Well, it's simple in some ways. It's like, well, you and I want to get along, let's say. Well, the first question, the last question even is, well, do we trust each other?

And we test each other out constantly. It's like, well, maybe I want to see if I can rely on you a little bit. So I tell you something that's a little rough, something I need a little help with, maybe. I reveal something about myself. And I watch. And then maybe you have some sense and you listen. And you reveal something about yourself that's about the same magnitude. And we sit and think, okay, that went all right, that exchange was fair.

And then maybe I think, okay, well let's just push this a little bit farther. So I lay another card on the table and you do the same. And it's like, well, soon we find out that there's reciprocity, so we're tracking the exchanges and that we can each be relied upon. It's like, great, well I can rely on you, well good, now we can go off and try something difficult together, and that binds us together even more tightly. Well every relationship is like that. But is this the logos you're referring to? Because in my understanding, the logos is just the capacity to articulate chaos

into order. But that's what we're doing when we're mediating in the space between us. That's what we're doing in this conversation. So the space between us, well, we just met. So there's a chaotic potential here. Yeah. And we can articulate this into. Yeah, the potential is that we just met.

Yeah. Right? It's like, you don't know me, I don't know you. So what's going to come of this? Yeah. Well, many potential things, well, and we're having this conversation that's going to be watched by many people so we're bringing by having this discussion

we're bringing we're we're Re-shaping the potential that lies in front of us into something actual and we're determining with every gesture and every every word what that order is going to be and so and you're doing that all the time with people. And, and, you know, one of the things that's really struck me is that people know this. And I talk to people. I say, well, your parents are going to say to you, people who love you will say, you're

not living up to your potential. And if they're serious about that, then that strikes at your heart. You think, oh my God, I'm not living up to my potential. That's like the ultimate sin. There's part of you that knows that. And you think, well, I should be making more of myself. I should be living up to my potential. And you never stop and sit back and think, what is this potential that we're referring

to? What do we mean by that? Potential. And what sort of reality does it have? Well, it's only potential. What sort of reality does it have? It it have well? It's only potential. What sort of reality does it have? It has no reality. It's only potential. Well, it's so it's in it's a weird it's a weird

What would you would you call it? It's not even a category. It's Well, maybe it's a category man. That's the best I can do on the spur of the moment We all act as if potential is real and that it can be moment. We all act as if potential is real and that it can be transformed by our choices. So when people say to me, hey, you're not living up to your potential, they're actually saying you're not articulating order from chaos as you could. Yes, or the corollary is that you're also not standing up to tyranny, like you're not recasting tyrannical order like you should be. It's both of those. So there's chaos on one side and tyrannical order. Exactly. And the logo's mediates between. Yes, and so sometimes you see this in the story of Christ quite clearly, because especially in the extended version,

let's say, where Christ is also the logos that exists at the beginning of time. It's like, well, that's the word that brings forth order from chaos, but the incarnate Christ, let's say, where Christ is also the logos that exists at the beginning of time. It's like, well, that's the word that brings forth order from chaos, but the incarnate Christ, let's say the logos made flesh, that's a way of looking at it, has a social revolutionary element to them. So he's standing up constantly against the Pharisees and the lawyers, the forces of tyranny. And so he's more in the actual passion story. He's more of a combatter of corrupt order than someone who's calling forth order from chaos.

That's the more abstract level. But both of them are part, both of them are part of the hero's story. The hero's always doing one of those two things. So when you think about the logos, is this the element that makes the individual possess a certain divinity? And you're … Yeah, it's indistinguishable from the divinity of the individual. It's the same thing. It's the divine principle of the individual. And then the question, one question might

be, well, you could say, well, what's the phenomenological status of that, which would be how do you experience that? And you experience that in many ways. You experience that as a sense of meaning when you're doing something meaningful. So that's a direct experience of it. You can experience it in more a more metaphysical way and people experience that when they experience feelings of the infinite, intimations of the infinite, intimations of immort the infinite, intamations of immortality. That's another way of thinking about it.

And those can happen when you're listening to music. They can happen. They can happen in sexual encounters. There's all sorts of rituals that might evoke them. The micro-examples occur when you're working and you're deeply engaged in what you're doing and you're finding it meaningful. You can make contact with the part of you that seems infinite in scope. And those are the sorts of experiences that people usually refer to as mystical.

And you know, you might think, well, those are just forms of insanity. That would be a classic psychiatric materialist objection. But the problem is, the evidence doesn't support that idea. The evidence suggests that mystical experiences have a profoundly positive effect on all aspects of people's lives. Now that doesn't mean they can't go wrong. Schizophrenics sometimes have mystical experiences,

but they're that that is constructive. It's not the same thing. It's not the same thing. And it shouldn't be confused. There's no evidence that it's the same thing. And the two things shouldn't be, and there's plenty of evidence that they're not the same thing and it shouldn't be confused. There's no evidence that it's the same thing. And the two things shouldn't be, and there's plenty of evidence that they're not the same thing. They shouldn't be confused. And so, okay, so that's the phenomenological level. You can experience these things and people have strived to experience them throughout human history. I mean almost all the things we do that are cultural, like deeply cultural, all our forms, let's say,

of entertainment, which is a very bad way of thinking about it, are attempts to produce those intimations of the divine, and people love that more than anything, and no wonder. You couldn't say, well, that doesn't mean that there's any such thing as divine. It's like, well, that's a whole different argument. Maybe not divine, but transcendent nonetheless. Well, you know, it's good enough. Yeah. You know, I'm not necessarily engaging in metaphysical speculation when I did the Biblical lectures,

for example, I tried to stay on psychological grounds and say, look, just read psychologically, these stories are sufficient. I do believe that there's a metaphysical reality to the experiences of the intimations of immortality and divine unity that people are capable of having. I believe there is metaphysical grounds for those. I believe they're reflective of a deeper reality, but you don't have to believe that

in order to view this from a psychological or pragmatic perspective. Yeah. So what I really enjoyed, I actually thoroughly enjoyed, to view this from a psychological or pragmatic perspective. Yeah. So what I really enjoyed, I actually thoroughly enjoyed in my day to day life when I started to articulate the concept of the logos for myself. Every morning when I wake up I think,

hey, I have a logos and I can start to create order out of something chaotic. I can start to explore territory and bring it into my map of the world. It's right. Chaos to encounter and giant to fight. It's quite fun. It's a little more fun than anything else.

It's better than fun. That's the thing. How would you call it? If not fun. Meaningful. Meaningful. It's meaningful, man. It's better.

The reason to distinguish it from fun is that fun doesn't work when you're not having fun. Fun doesn't work when you have people in your family that are suffering or when you're in a crisis. That's not fun. But this works then too. Maybe even better. So that's, yeah, it's a boat that doesn't sink in a storm.

It's an adventure. That's the other thing. It's an adventure. So it, or maybe it's even the adventure. So you wake up at the morning you think exactly that. There are dragons to slay and giants to fight. It's like yeah absolutely. Well I think this is a good point to go to a third point. The way to be in the world is to orient yourself to the highest possible good you can conceive because you don't have anything better to do. You also say that you encourage people to take on as much responsibility as they can.

And because this constitutes a meaningful life and this is I find it is quite interesting. You know what is meaningful because it is encoded into your body, the notion of meaning of meaning. Oh yeah yeah. And it's the deepest of the higher instincts. That's a good way of thinking. My reading of this was that, now it's actually your reading, but what constitutes meaning is the right balance between chaos and order. And this is actually what you describe as paradise

on earth, being a world garden, where both where chaos, the chaotic potential, and the logos mediate supreme beauty. And harmony, harmony is a good way of thinking about it. Because, well, people understand harmony because they listen to music. It's like, you know, you listen to a piece of music, you love it, it's like, that's harmony. It's like, well, how would you like things to be like that?

It's like, there's not a question. The fact that you love the piece of music means that you want things to be that way. It's direct. It's not mediated by cognition. Yeah. That's something else. It is something else. It's absolutely something else. When I first heard you say this, or entice yourself through the highest possible good you can conceive, I'd never thought of it that way. But when you just laid out, it sounds really quite logical.

It sounds like the most logical thing to do. Yes. But I never heard it in an articulated fashion like that. Yeah. I think that many people, I think it was the closing remarks of maps of meaning. I think you refer to Pinocchio when Gipego, by the start, which is the highest idea. That's true, something impossible. Yeah.

Right. But can you elaborate on this? Why does the highest possible good can constitute meaning? And why do we feel this? Why do we feel when we're doing something meaningful? Well, I think it's because we go back to the beginning of the conversation, is that we have a problem. We have the fall. That's the right way of thinking about it.

We have chaos and tyranny and we have evil. It's like, what do you do about that? You pursue the pathway that solves those problems. That's what the meaningful pathway does. And that's why it feels meaningful. It's like, those actually are the problems. In a, see, I've started to think, well, I thought for a long time, there are truths of drama and literature, and there are material truths of science. But there

are times when those two align, and they're true literally and metaphysically, literally and metaphorically, at the same time. And the idea that being is a place of tragedy and evil is literally and metaphysically true, and metaphorically true, both at the same time. And the idea that there's a way of dealing with those both at the same time, and that that's meaningful, that's also literally and metaphorically true at the same time. And the reason for that is that because it's true that our eternal enemies are tragedy and malevolence, we've adapted to them and we can feel, so to speak, when we're contending them with them properly.

And that feeling of contending with them properly is the feeling of meaning. And so there you have it, and the meaning that's produced as a consequence of contending with those properly is the antidote to them at the same time. So, in the Christian story, of course, Christ voluntarily hoists his cross. Okay, so that means a lot of things at the same time. I mean, first of all, it's actually a heavy physical object. Second, it's something you have to hoist up into your shoulders. It's a genuine burden. So it's a genuine physical burden. But it's also a metaphysical burden because at the same time that he hoists up his cross, he's accepting the burden of his death.

And he's doing that not only death, but suffering in death death and he's doing that not only death but suffering in death and he's doing that voluntarily. It's like that's the ticket exactly that is to do that voluntarily. It's like yeah, there's no doubt there's life is tragic and bounded by malevolence, no doubt about it, except it, except it, except it, transcend it, and things, then you transmute it. That's what I've never recovered from that realization 30 years ago. Which is a good thing. Right, that's a good thing.

But I would say in many ways I'm a deeply pessimistic person because I'm very aware of the thinnitude of life and the suffering that's associated with it acutely aware of that and also of malevolence and then I came across this set of ideas which I've been elaborating that we've been talking about and there's this process that's laid out as an antidote. It's like tell the truth. Orient yourself towards the highest good you can conceive of and tell the truth and that will work and the strange thing is it works It's like really it works. Those are big problems. You might think they're so big that they have no solution How could they have a solution? It's like well? They have a solution. Isn't that something? I think in one of your lectures you refer to or you say you tell the crowd And you make these gestures you talk about tell the crowd and you make these gestures you

talk about alignment a lot and you always make this gesture I like it you say align your soul with the structure of being what does that mean? that means it's the same thing that you do when you're dancing with someone so imagine an orchestra is playing are you good dancer? I'm a pretty good dancer what's now? well I wouldn't exactly say that what I have is a style. I can dance with my wife, which is the crucial thing. I'm good enough dancer so that she likes to dance with me. And she's actually a pretty good dancer, so that works out pretty well.

And I listened to the music, so I guess maybe that's partly why I can dance, because I actually listened to the music. So imagine there's an orchestra. Now, you think about what the orchestra is doing, right? It's, it's, these people are hyper specialized, they're incredibly skilled, they all have their individual talent, they're all pushing the limit when they're really playing well, right? They're pushing the limits of their capability. And then they're organized into groups, strings, horns, etc. So there's the individual, but then there's the group, and then there's the aggregation of the group.

And then there's the conductor, who's the king, right? And he's making sure that all of the skillful players play their part harmoniously. And then they're laying out pattern upon pattern upon pattern upon pattern and pattern and they're modeling the structure of reality because that's what reality is. It's pattern upon pattern upon pattern all harmoniously when it's working nicely. It's the music of reality, because that's what reality is. It's pattern upon pattern upon pattern, all harmoniously. When it's working nicely, it's the music of the spheres. It's all harmony from the lowest subatomic level all the way up to the top, and that's what music is modeling.

And then there's society, that's all the dancers, and they're all weaving in and out of each other's territory smoothly and without conflict because they're paying attention. And so that society dancing to the tune that the king is conducting for the orchestra of being, right? And then there's the dyad, the two people, and they're paying attention to each other and matching their bodies to one another and delighting in the stacked harmony. Well, that's perfect, And people find that extremely enjoyable.

It's because they're acting out the proper mode of being. They're dramatizing it. And people find that invigorating and refreshing. And they're beautiful, all of those things at the same time. And so that's a dramatized example of how you should live your life. And I mean, should. I don't mean you should live your life. And I mean, should, I don't mean you should live your life this way. It's not that. It's that if you want to make things better, not worse, then that's the pathway.

That's what I mean by should. It's not, follow the rules, God damn it. I mean, there's some of that because without the rules, God damn it. I mean, there's some of that, because without the rules, we can't coexist and you can't become disciplined. But it isn't, follow the rules. You're 12 goddamn rules for life. Right, exactly. Exactly.

Yeah. Okay. I understand what you're saying, but it still doesn't quite answer my question. What does it mean to align your soul with the structure of being? Because there's this sentence. Oh, yes. It fascinated me, but I still cannot articulate in a concrete way what it means. It has to do with speaking the truth when facing chaos.

Yeah, because it's partly because you see, this is something I would really like people to take away from 12 rules of life It's like there's a chapter in there called do what is meaningful not what is expedient and it lays out two pathways of and it's so interesting because I would say that What happened in the Channel 4 interview was that I was trying to use my speech in a meaningful manner and trying to use my speech in a meaningful manner. And I'm not saying that I have no lingering elements of expediency. I'm not saying that, but I was trying to utilize my speech in a meaningful manner. I wasn't trying to manipulate the conversation.

I didn't have a plan for the interview. I didn't think, oh, I'm going to go on here and sell a million books. There's no plan. The plan was to go and have a talk. That's it. And to let whatever happened happen. Well, so the thing about telling the truth that so adventurous is that you let go of what

you want. And you replace it with a hypothesis. It's the hypothesis of faith. And the hypothesis is, it doesn't matter matter what I want because I don't know even what I should want. Instead I can say what I'm going to make a claim and a philosophical claim that if I tell the truth as carefully as I can, then whatever happens is the best that could have possibly happened in that situation, no matter how it looks. Right? Right? That's profound. Well, it's adventurous. That's the thing that's so fun about it. And I think

this is also why it's not merely you should bow down to the rules, because that's sort of a slave mentality in some sense, right? I mean, you have to be a slave to things. You have to be disciplined. So I'm not denying the utility of following the rules. But telling the truth is much more, it's much more dynamic than that, because you don't know what's going to happen. And you don't care. Or maybe to put it more precisely, as I said,

you assume that whatever happens is the right thing. And so, and then it was so exciting to me last year when I was doing the biblical lectures to understand finally that the link between the idea of God employing the logos to create habitable order and saying that it was good. It said, oh, okay, so that's the deepest reflection of that idea. The idea is that the being that you speak forth from potential with truth is good. It's like that might be true. Well, Jesus, just think what it would be like if that was true.

It's the key. It's like, well, how do you say things right? Tell the truth. I've actually come to think during the past two years that if you honestly speak the truth, it makes you and not indestructible, but it does kind of make you, you're so indestructible. And I think the archetypes are referred to, you know, Maximus Hector, Leonidas, all men who spoke the truth, the world defeated in the end, but their soul was not broken when they were defeated.

Socrates is the best example of that. Because we know the thing about Socrates that's so cool is that many things. Is that, you know, there's arguments about the historical reality of Christ and there's arguments about the historical reality of the Buddha and Muhammad as well. There's no arguments about the historical reality

of Socrates. He lived and we have two transcripts of his trial from two different people. And they basically, and I outlined this again in the same chapter about what is meaningful and what is expedient. You know, when Socrates, when he was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens, there was a game that was going on. It was a political game. And Socrates was a dad fly, right? He bothered people because he kept asking them questions. You know, he wanted to know the people because he kept asking them questions, you know? He wanted to

know the answers, he'd asked them questions, and then the people he was questioning would find out that they didn't know the answers and that was very disturbing to them, you know? And so they all got together. Athens was a small city by our stand. It's only 25,000 people. Everyone knew everyone, like seriously, right? And all the local aristocracy got together and said, God, you know, we're sick of this guy. Why don't we tell him we're going to put him on trial? And sort of hint that he should get the hell out of town. That was the game. So, you know, they announced the trial and everyone knew it was going to be a fixed outcome. But the idea was, well, we'll announce that six months ahead of time and he can have a colloquy with his friends and get out of town, and then we'll be rid of them, and that'll be the

end of that. Well, and Socrates knew that this was the game, and so did his friends, and they all got together and said, well, you know, we've got to get you out of town, and Socrates was thinking, yeah, that's probably a good idea, because like I don't want to be dead. And then he went off and had a little consultation with his conscience, his Damon, he called it. I think you actually pronounce it Damon, but it means conscience for our purposes. And he went and had a conference with it, you know, and he was thinking internally, consulting his conscience, and it said, don't run away.

And he thought, really? What do you mean, don't run away? These people want to kill me. They're going to kill me. What do do you mean don't run away? These people want to kill me. They're going to kill me. What do you mean don't run away? And his conscience said, don't run away. Don't run away. That's how it is.

You're not to run away. And Socrates came back and told his friends, okay, I went and talked to my conscience. And he said, you know, the one thing that makes me different from all other men is that when my conscience tells me not to do something, I stop. It doesn't tell me what to do. Tells me what not to do, and then I don't do it. No matter what, that's what made me who I am. And he said, you know, the Delphi Choracol had said for her party, said that it is trial

that he was the wisest man, and she was very highly regarded right whatever She was doing with her hallucinogenic tricks She was the mouthpiece of the gods and said that Socrates was the wisest man in Greece and we still remember him. He didn't run He didn't run and and then he thought okay. Well if my conscience is correct Let's assume not for a minute weird as that is because how could it be correct? But it's always been correct before he said well look, and he said this at his trial. I'm old. I'm old. I've been what renowned for my clarity of thought. I'm going to die not so long from now. And so now I have this opportunity to put my affairs in order and to say goodbye to everyone and to live the remainder of my life with integrity and to say what I have to say. And then at his trial he just flips the table

and he goes after the people who are prosecuting him and you see why they want him dead. It's devastating. It's devastating. And so you know we know the story 2,000, 2,500 years later, 3,000 years later. And well and that's a reflection of exactly what you said, is that that part of the spirit doesn't die. Now, what does that mean? I think it means that it dies when you corrupt yourself. Well, that's what Saul's in it's instead in the Guglai Garcopelago. You know, he said, there's something worse than death.

That's a good thing to know. And that's the death of your soul. And that's whether the soul is immortal or not. It's psychological ideas. There are conditions under which it would be better not to live. Well, that's the cry for freedom, I would say. So because life without truth is hell. That's the right way of looking at it.

Yeah, strong stuff. That's for sure. Strong stuff. Yeah, I know. I know. And because life is hard, we're going to the fourth point, which might make it a little less hard. It's from your biblical series. I think this is from Noah, the floodman. Make the right sacrifices to walk with God. And within this conception, the concept of God

is a judgmental father, which is an articulation of our discovery of being able to bargain with the future. What does it mean to make the right sacrifices when bargaining with the future? It means that as you, let's say you conceptualize what you're pursuing is good. And you asked a bit about putting things in alignment. And I would say, okay, well, here's a technical description of what's good.

It's what's good for you now, in a way that's good for you tomorrow and next week and next month and next year, so it can be iterated, right? So you can't do impulsive things because the problem with doing impulsive things is they're really good right now, but you're dead tomorrow. That's not a good solution. And if it's impulsive now and you're dead in a year, that's also not a good solution. So you're bounded by the necessity of preserving yourself across time.

But that's not the only boundary because it has to be good for you, but it also has to be good for the people around you in ever widening concentric circles. And that's not much different from it being good for your future self. So it's a very constrained set of procedures but people are signaling to each other what these things are all the time. So you know if you're in a conversation out of party and you behave properly then people are happy to have you around and they laugh at your jokes and they tell you interesting things and it's engaging and if you're off the path at all then they frown at you or they

ignore you or you're boring and people are signaling your position on the line between chaos and order at you all the time all the time non-stop everyone's broadcasting at everyone else always and so to align yourself with the highest good is to figure out how to conduct yourself so that all things are working as well as they can because of what you're doing right now. Now, you're aiming at that, that doesn't mean you can do it, but that's what you're aiming at, and then you get better at doing it. And then while you're doing that in principle, you concentrate on the day, right, so that you can pay real attention to the moment, orient

yourself properly, so you're looking in the right direction, you're aiming at the right thing, and then concentrate locally. That's what the Sermon on the Mount, that's the message of the Sermon on the Mount, by the way. So now now you have to remind me of the issue of question was what does it mean to make the rad sacrifices? Right, okay, so now let's say you're aiming at what you're aiming at, you're walking towards it, right? Well you may find that there are things that you're doing that you just have to stop doing. For example, when I was writing maps of meaning, I was going out and partying a lot three thousand weeks. When I particularly liked alcohol, and I think it had something to do with my proclivity

towards depression, but if I had a couple of drinks, that just disappeared. I came from a pretty hard-drinking childhood culture where I grew up, and I smoked and as well, especially when I was drinking. And that was fine. I was pretty immune to hangovers when I was young, but as I got older, that wasn't so much the case. But more than that, when I was working on maps of meaning, it was very, very, was really stretching me, like the limits of my tolerance.

And lots of times, when I was rewriting and thinking, it was so stressful that if I was hungover I just couldn't tolerate it. But worse than that I couldn't think clearly, not as clearly as I had to. When you were hungover. Exactly. It was like, especially if I had, you know, maybe I'd taken a paragraph and written it 15 times or 20 times trying to get it right.

Well now I had to write it the 21st time but it was already almost as good as I could make it. And so if I wasn't in tip top shape when I was was looking at it, and I added it, I'd make it worse. So I had to make a choice. It was like, well, you want to make this better, or do you want to keep going out three times a week, because you can't do both. It's like, okay, well enough of that. So I stopped doing that. And there's lots of things I stop doing because they were in commensurate with the goal. And that's the sacrifice. You make the sacrifices necessary to trans...

There's no difference between making sacrifices and transforming. It's the same thing. So you think, well, this is what I want. Okay, well, if that's what you want, then you can't also have this. Make your choice. Okay, I'll give that up. Well, does that please God? Well, that's the archetypal way of thinking about it.

Well, you'll find out. What you also say in your flood myth lectures is that the flood is kind of a metaphor for natural etrophy. Yeah, so things just fall apart. Things decay, but by making the right sacrifice, you can build the arc to withstand the decay around you. Well, I really experienced that this year. So in a synchronous way, you know, while I was lecturing

about Noah, you know, I was in this intense political controversy, and I mean, I've been in a situation for 15 months now, where if I say anything wrong, I'm done. And no, I've said things that were more wrong than they might have been, skirted that edge. So I've been hyper-vigilant about what I've been saying and what I've been doing for this extended period of time with with real catastrophe

lurking as a consequence of making an error. Well, luckily well during that time, especially when it was really intense at the beginning. It's not so it's not so threatening now as it was even though it's still very strange and intense. You know, I was very fortunate because my parents were at my house when all this broke and my wife and my kids are around, they're adults. We were sorted out. I have good relationship with my father. We've straightened out. I have a good relationship with my mom. I trust them both. They tell me the truth. They're on my side. Same with my wife. Same with my kids. And then I have a circle of friends outside that. They're people. Same thing. We have our relationship

is solid. We tell each other what we think. And so I had people who were supporting me, helping me figure out when I was making mistakes, telling me when they thought what I was doing was working and when it wasn't. We were analyzing this very carefully. But, and it was maximally stressful. But there wasn't additional stress because of unresolved issues in the family, you know. And that was good because like three or four additional pieces of stress I would have started to make mistakes and the whole bloody thing would have spiraled down. So let's say that the outside conditions there were there were tragedy, but there was no malevolence within your own structure.

So you could handle it. There was, it was restricted to the degree that Goodwill had restricted it over about a 25-year period. So you never say none because there's always a snake in the garden, but it was as good as we could make it with our honest attempts to do so. And that was good enough. And then when I read about Noah, it was a story that I hadn't delved into as deeply

as I had into some of the earlier stories in Genesis. There's one line that says that Noah was perfect in his generations. And I thought, I don't know what the hell that means. So I went and looked up every biblical phrase, Noah has comments on it from centuries of commentators. So you can really dig into these and figure out what they mean.

And, you know, basically what it meant was that, because he was a good man, he had structured his family in a manner that was healthy, you know, and sustaining. And so then when all hell-break broke loose, the arc was there. And ready. And that's a lesson. It's like you're going to hit things in your life.

Like my daughter, for example, was very, very ill, a horribly ill for a long time, deathly ill and suffering terribly. She was on high doses of opiates for two years. She was basically walking around on two broken legs and that was only one of the things that was bothering her. So she was in agony, just about broke her at one point. And so we were completely distraught by this ongoing catastrophe. And had there been any additional trouble between my wife and I or between my daughter and I or between my son and I like

God only knows what would have happened You know because we barely squeaked through that, but we did we did we did get through it You know and I told her one thing for example Which is a propo in this world of victimization. I said look kid. She was about eight. I said you're you're in real trouble man You're in real trouble. It's like Here you're you have these terrible physical illnesses. And there's something worse, is that you're gonna be tempted to use your illness

as an excuse to not engage in life. And it's gonna be hard for you to tell when you can't do something because you're sick, and when it would just be convenient of you to use your illness as an excuse for not doing it. I said, look, if you ever do that, you'll not only be sick physically, you'll be sick spiritually. And then you're done. That'll be worse. And to her credit, her great credit, she, she listened and she didn't ever play victim. Thank God. How old was she when you told her to take a shower? Oh, probably eight.

Yeah. Well, the chips were down already. That was about, she was about that old too, if I remember correctly, when I taught her how to give her own injections, you know, and that was, so she had to use this chemical that was basically... Thank you, her injections? No, it was an anti-cancer, it was a chemotherapy agent. She didn't have cancer, but it was a chemotherapy agent. And, you know, we could have administered it to her. She had to do it, I think, three times a day. And, you know, part of our theory was, well, we want to give her as much control over her fate as possible, you know. And so when she was about eight, I sat her down. She was

pretty motivated by money. She's an evil little capitalist. I sat her down. I said, look, kid, here's your needle. See if you can do this, give your own injection. I said, I'll pay you 50 bucks. You sit there and you see if you can do it. If you can do it, I'll give you 50 dollars. She sat there, like, on the steps for 45 minutes trying to do it. It's quite harsh to watch. She was age-as-old at the time. And she did it. And she said, I did it. I said, here's your money, kids.

So the next time she had to do it, I said, it's 50 bucks again, but you only got 15 minutes. So she did it. I paid her. And then the next it was like, you got five minutes. And then you got 30 seconds. Then you got five seconds, because like, what do you want to sit there and torture yourself with the needle for half an hour? It's like, get it over with, and she got so she could do it immediately, and I paid her, I think we paid her $10 either going to climb on top of that goddamn illness or it was going to do her in.

She recovered? Yeah. Not only did she recover, she figured out what was wrong and she fixed it, and then she fixed me. So diet changes. Both Tammy and I, my wife, we have autoimmune problems. Heres are one for sort. My wife has ciliac disease and minor of another for sort, which is not quite specified, but seems to be associated with kind of an inflammation caused depression that runs

in my family. But Michaela, my daughter, seemed to get both of them. And it really, while she developed juvenile room toward arthritis thritis and had her hip destroyed when she was 16 and then her ankle on the other leg the next year. So it was vicious. But she figured out herself, it was a diet issue. Yeah, Jesus. Yeah, that's for sure.

And here it's worse than that even because her dietary response to something that she eats but shouldn't doesn't occur until four days after she eats it. It's hard to track. Oh, Jesus, and then it lasts a month. So imagine you're trying to figure out your diet. You eat something, you have no idea whether you react to until four days later. So that's virtually impossible to figure out to begin with.

And then if you make a mistake, you're screwed for a month. And so that means that three weeks into the month, you might eat something that you don't even know you shouldn't eat. And then it's another month. You don't even know. So it's a miracle she figured it out. It does sound reckless for her to have articulated order into this chaotic mode. Yeah, it is. It's unbelievable.

I mean, it's really, she was sleeping 18 hours a day. She could only stay awake using riddeline. Like, she was seriously depressed, like terribly depressed. And that was actually, I asked her at one point. The depression was partly associated with pain, but not only that, I asked her at one point. And this is something to think about regarding depression. I asked her one day when she was about 13. I said, look, kid. No, I know it was after her ankle had fallen apart on her and she'd undergone all this pain.

She had 38 affected joints, and the prognosis was multiple early joint replacement. So we found that out when she was quite young. But I asked her one day, okay, you've got a choice, kid. You can either have the arthritis or the depression, which would you pick? She said she'd pick the arthritis. So that gives you some indication of what the depression was like. Quite severe. Yeah, I would say so.

It's a form of agony that you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy. And it looks like it was inflammation. And at that age, so young. Anyways, she's not taking any medication. No, no. It's amazing. It's very cool. And she had a baby this year. So, never sure that was going to happen.

So, that was... We squeaked through, man. Yeah. So, by having a relation that was embedded in... Well, that was at least, that was, at least we didn't interfere with whatever was within her that might have been able to manage this, right? So there wasn't, so her, her brother, you know, more power to him. I always treated him, Julian, Mrs. Nam, ever since he was a little kid, I treated him like he was like he was what would you say capable of wisdom. And when

he was little I used to ask him, you know, hard questions and ask him about how we should structure things in the household, ask him about how chores should be distributed. Bring him into the conversation and he was always very judicious, very diplomatic and very mature. And right from the time he was a little kidicious, very diplomatic and very mature. And right from the time he was a little kid, I never played any games with him and he tricks on him, you know. Well, never. I did my best not to.

And you know, when he was about 14, which is sort of prime trouble-making time, and he certainly had the temperament for it, he was a bloody rock, you know. He was perfect. He helped his sister. He stayed around the house. He didn't cause any extra trouble, or if he did, he kept it private and didn't involve us in it. And he accepted the fact that we didn't have as much time to pay attention to him as we would have liked to. And he let his sister rely on him. And he didn't go out with his friends as much as he might have, and he did that for multiple years.

No complaints. Perfect. So thank God for that. Yeah. Thank God indeed. We have one more point to address if you want. It's actually the fifth point. It says, minimize your persona. It got to vet your essence, and live in its closest possible proximity,

referring to the essence. I think there's one lecture of you on existentialism and authenticity, and this is a theme throughout maps of meaning, especially the Pinocchio series. Could you elaborate on that? Well, what is a persona? Well, a persona is like a suit. It's like a suit. It's like a suit. I mean, a business suit. A business suit is the expression of a persona.

So when you go into a bank and you see the teller and the teller is in a suit, you really interact with the suit in some sense. Because you don't want to hear about the tragedy of the teller's life. It's not the time or place for that. And he doesn't want to hear about yours. You want to walk in there and is suit and you want to see him or her in business attire and you want to do your financial transaction. You want to say hello and be polite and you want to leave. And so what that means is that you have to have a public face for your complexity. And you have to simplify yourself so that other people can interact

with you. It's politeness, right? It's politeness to do that and it's politeness not to poke behind that unless people ask. And then we can, it's part of being civilized, domesticated even. That's the downside. That's the side that subjects you to tyranny, but it's part of being civilized. that subjects you to tyranny, but it's part of being civilized. So you go from the state of nature to possession by the persona, let's say. But that's not where it should stop, because then if you're only persona, that's not good, because you're too tightly associated with the state and the culture. There's nothing about you that's really individual. There's no, the spirit, your individual individual spirit hasn't been integrated into your personality. So you have to,

you have to go beyond the persona. It doesn't mean you don't have to have one. God, you know good at all if you don't have a persona. Who can stand being around you? You don't know how to behave. But if you only know how to behave, you're just a domesticated house cat or a lap dog, you have to push beyond the persona. And that's what the integration of the shadow does from the union perspective. It's like to pull that monster that's been edited out of you, to pull that back in,

and to allow that to reveal itself within your, within your increasingly sophisticated way of being. And then you're not just a persona. So if you want to push back on your persona, are you saying that you have to cultivate your shadow? Yeah, well, part of it. Yeah, because the thing is, you can't escape from your persona unless you can say no. Here's an example malevolence.

The only reason he can stand up against evil is because there's some evil in him that he's incorporated, essentially. Well, that's exactly right. and the persona, if you're a persona, then you're an obedient citizen. But the problem with being an obedient citizen is that if the society tells you to march the Jews off to the death camp, for example, and you're obedient, then that's what you'll do. And it doesn't, it isn't like society is civilized, and then all of a sudden you're performing some act of atrocity. That isn't how it works.

It's like you're a obedient citizen and then you're asked to violate your conscience a little bit. And you have to because you don't have anything other than that persona. And so, not so beidians. And so, a little more obedience is demanded and you say, okay, well, then you're a little bent because the society is becoming a little bent and then you're a little weaker. Then you're asked to violate your conscience a little bit more and you think, well there's a little less of me and the pressure is on a little more and I could have said no before but I didn't, so you say yes again, then you say yes again, and then you have a society where one third of the population is informing on the other two thirds. It's hell. It's like, well, so how do you say no? Well, that's the shadow. It's like, and that's, see, the reason that the video idea would not about Bill C. 16 and it's compelled speech, provisions went viral, was because I said no. I didn't say it casually. What I meant was there isn't anything that you can do to me

that I can imagine that will force me to utter the words that you want me to utter. Nothing. And I meant it. And when I made the video, I think people could actually tell that I meant it. And so I took this abstract problem and made it concrete. I said, no, that's not happening. And so, and that's part of the incorporation of the shadow. But then this regard, the shadow is actually benevolent, not malevolent. Well, once it's incorporated, yeah, well, that's the thing. And I don't know what to make of that in its entirety, because it sort of means that

if you mean something like, because one of the old metaphysical problems is why would God allow evil into the world? I think, well maybe God didn't allow evil into the world, maybe God allowed the possibility of evil into the world. That's different. And maybe the world with the possibility of evil is actually a better world than the world without the possibility of evil. It's something like that. Maybe a man is better when he's a dangerous man who's being good than he would be if he was just a good man who wasn't capable of being dangerous. And I believe that because the best man that I've ever met are very dangerous men. You don't mess with them. And you know that as soon as you meet, do you think weak men can be virtuous? No.

Because I think that when you're weak, let's say that signals that you don't have the options to sin. Right. Which is something that creates resentment and resentment creates corruption. Mm-hmm. So in this sequence, do you think that someone without teeth or without the options to sin can be...

Can be good. See, that's a real theological question, right? Because the question you're asking is, this is tied up with the idea of free will and evil. Can a person who doesn't have the option to be evil be good? And I would say no. So maybe that's the reason that metaphysically speaking. You know, I don't know where you are when you're speaking

metaphysically exactly, but the question of why is the evil in the world is a constant question. It's like it's possible that without the possibility of evil, there cannot be good. Good requires the possibility of evil, and maybe good is so good that the fact that it requires the possibility of evil is acceptable. Maybe it's even desirable. You know, you kind of end up on the edge of your knowledge when talking about such things. But it seems to me to be right.

And it seems to be right in a lived sense. Like I met charcoal willing. He's a good example. I mean, willing was the commander in Ramadan, I think. And you know, you can say what you want about American military involvement has nothing to do with that. Really, not at this level of analysis. He's a tough guy.

I follow him on Twitter. Yeah, so you know. He gets up every morning at 5.30. He's a tough guy. He said, he told me straight forwardly that he was one of those kids that, as an adolescent, could have gone either way, right? He could have been highly successful street criminals. Yeah, probably.

Yeah, probably. Well, you can see it. But he decided not to do that. And, you know, he's very, I would say, he's a seal, right? Mm-hmm, that's right. He's psychophysiologically intimidating. He's a big guy. You can tell he knows how to use it.

And you can tell he used it. But as far as I can tell, he's a good person. And that's actually all of that capacity for mayhem is part of what makes him a good person. And people know that, that's why they're listening to him. And like I said, the other people I've met, the man I've met who are good men, they're all like that, they're all dangerous, they're all dangerous. Have they all been not good men before?

Or is that not part of becoming a good man? I would say they've certainly all done things that they... Well, you know, adolescents break rules, right? And healthy adolescents break rules, and so... Then the question is, well, how extreme does the rule breaking become? Well it was very from person to person but I would say that most of them, not all of them, but most of them were more on the end of the rule breaking spectrum, right? They broke more rules than normal but they clued in you know and decided, explored that and then decided no no, that's not, that's better than cowardice, it's better

than weakness, but it's not as good as what's good. So he followed this doctrine, actually the people that are accusing you of instantiating like toxic masculinity, well let's say that it's true that you're promoting meal strength. If you follow this trend. Yes, well it's important because I'm also promoting it in women. You know, like my daughter is a good example, man. She's tough. You don't mess with her.

She'll cut you apart. I believe you. Maybe it was wrongly phrased. No, it's okay. No, but the thing what I'm trying to get is that when you're telling people to empower themselves. I wouldn't say that, because I'd never used that word. Empowering that word, but it's okay to be kind of encouraging people.

I like that word better, because I'm encouraging people. Yeah. To put courage into them, that's better. Yeah. So by becoming courageous, you increase your potential for being virtuous. That's basically. Well, and one of the most amazing things that I discovered this year or stumbled upon

was I was puzzling over a line in the New Testament, which I've always been curious about, because it never set right with me. The meek shall inherit the earth. So as I said before, if you go online, Bible Hub, I think it's called Bible Hub. It's really good for this because it contains a collection of commentary. So you can look at a verse in it. Yeah, you can look at a verse and on the translations, multiple translations, and multiple commentators. So each verse is taken apart by many, many people. And I found out that the word meek, meek either doesn't mean now what it meant

when people first translated the text, or it was a mis-translation, either way. But because Meeck sounds like powerless and harmless, it's something like that, right? But what Meeck actually means, it's the derivation of a word, it's the translation of a word that meant something more like those who have swords and know how to use them, but keep them sheathed. I thought, oh, yes, it's the translation of a word that meant something more like those who have swords and

know how to use them but keep them sheathed. I thought, oh yes, that's exactly it, the world. Those who have swords and know how to use them but choose to keep them sheathed will inherit the world. It's like yes, exactly right, exactly right, much different than the idea of... Right, different, right. I think this is a good point and a good note to close. I agree. Thank you very much. My pleasure. Nice talking with you. Thank you for listening to the Jordan B. Peterson podcast. You can check out the original videos by following the links that are in the description of this episode. You can support these podcasts by going to selfauthoring.com or understand myself.com. you