100 thoughts on “Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson – Vancouver – 2 (CC: Arabic & Spanish)

  1. When he says, it does if you are trying to defend your house. Good god, if you built your house on the side off a volcano, do you have a right to be angry it got burnt down?

  2. 40:47 Jordan, natural behaviours arbitrarily maintain out of survival. Example – Birds make nests in high trees reducing predatory animals from effecting that species of birds survival and reproduction. But other birds that arbitrarily chose to make nests closer to the ground, inevitably had their nests and eggs destroyed by a predator, effectively making that percentage of that species of bird extinct, hence why the surviving birds lay eggs in high places and passed on those behaviours, precisely Darwinian natural selection. Come on Jordan, it doesn’t take a genius to work that out.

    Behaviours are arbitrary (an absolute DNA mutation; physics), then they’re tested by the rest of the complexities of nature (which have their own arbitrary evolving behaviours), then you stand back and see which versions of species survive. Jordan, you’re trying to invent a agent who caused these behaviour mutations, which is asking a much bigger question and nothing to do with religious stories.

  3. Jordan is not as smart as his megalomania tells him. He represents the ethos of metaphorical substrate of quasi intellectual diarrhea. Sam destroyed his chaotic argumentation with class and precision.

  4. It's interesting, to me, to watch the difference in body language. I love both these gentlemen's minds but they approach things differently…more so than is obvious from their words alone.

  5. I’m a big fan of Jordan Peterson. However, I side with Harris on this topic. Great discussion. I used to get really upset about religion because I was forced into religious schools as a kid. I think being told my sins will send me to hell made me pessimistic to say the least. Now that I am a little older I can rationalize why someone would be religious. I still don’t believe in religion but I do respect religion and someone’s belief in it. IMO I don’t think religion is necessary for us to have a moral compass.

  6. Ohoho! The Palestine/Israeli conflict is irrational because "we're about to fight over Elton John's glass, and Elton John was never here."

  7. moderators get shit on every time they mess up, but are never shown admiration when they do a terrific job like Bret.
    With that being said, good job Bret; absolutely amazing job.

  8. 2 incredibly brilliant and honest men. What a joy it is to be able to listen to them work thru all of this.

  9. Sam Harris is a Jew and an Atheist. Smart and intelligent in many ways, but leaving out Torah, he loses the conversation talking with a God reckoning Jordan Peterson, even involving the NT Jesus.

  10. Although I really like this debate. I believe Sam Harris points doesn't make that much sense if we discard religion.

    Like how do you differentiate between blue and red? By seeing. And how do you differentiate between good and evil? By feeling. And by feeling you believe that there is a moral law giver, which religion has described as God or his law. But if we were to take away that, it would only result in not being able to differentiate between good and evil, and that would create chaos.
    So the problem with Sam Harris take on this issue is that he himself or for anyone not religious cannot differentiate between good and evil, because they serve no one, they have no one that defines what constitutes evil and good. And so believing that we would remain good in a sense in the absence of these religion is wrong, like no we won't remain good. For many people, religion is the only thing that actually stops them from being 'bad' or 'evil'.

    Oh one thing I would like to say regarding Christianity is that the Bible never say we would burn in hell forever. It says we will die, we will no longer exist. This can be proven easily as Jesus said that only those who follow him would have eternal life. It's something that Christians have gotten wrong for so long.

  11. The thing is that we now have a world where a Sam Harris's brain, speech, and essence can exist. I think this is enough evidence that something was done well. It surely can be better, that's why he exists. Let's not be so pessimistic about our situation and our pathway. Great discussion!

  12. Scientific facts and even laws held to be truth have been reviewed, revised, and overturned as new viewpoint, new discovery, and proofs are revealed overtime. The moral extrapolation from facts by its fundamental features of rigorous review keeps it within timely relevant bounds.
    Religious dogma in proclaimed divinity dictates morality as timeless and changes to it at the risk of immoral damnation to the revisionist. The choice to reviewed, revised, and overturned under threat of violence, extradition, and external damnation. Therefore, rigidity and tyranny remains a permanent feature of a divine proclamation of religious dogma.

  13. Peterson's knowing endeavour to surrender to a fraudulent supposition of truth (the bible as word of God) and using divinity to enforce adherence, and using the possible byproduct of well being derived from dogma as rationale to maintain that fallacy while ignoring the substantial harm to the human and human historically that same dogma. At the same time acquiesce to the fallacy and fraudulent supposition pointing to long historic functionality of dogma compare to the lack of coherent replacement from a factual based morality is sacrificing the rationale to pursuit a valid coherent replacement from a factual based morality out of convenience.

  14. The things the dialogers divide up are not divided or reduceable (neither of them even begin to understand metaphor). Among those countless things, try 'free will,' which is free and unfree, both at once. ` “A person’s decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves,” the lead researcher, Dr. John-Dylan Haynes of Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, said in the study’s press release. “They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement. Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought.” `


  15. Harris is a Fundamentalist who has a problem with religious Fundamentalism. I'll have neither them nor him. He doesn't even understand something as simple as paradise: Heaven-Earth. It's both. Always was, bridged via a triad-linked working reality. Peterson doesn't get this either. He's abandoned the mystery and sophistication of pre-Protestant Christianity for his own psyche-dependent myopia of story and mythology. They're both reductionists, both non-virtuist utilitarians, both afraid of and ignorant of the Past, and bad scholars of the Past as well.

  16. SH: Dogma, specifically religious dogma is a threat to the wellbeing of humanity
    JP: But science doesn't answer my metaphorical questions, so its necessary to pick an imaginary friend, preferably a Christian one, and believe it has the non- evident answers I seek.

  17. This debate was phenomenal! Fantastic. And it should be followed up by another discussion. You both finished with powerful statements that stir an eagerness to dig further into these subjects.

  18. I might be late for this discussion but something that gets crystal clear to me is that, despite being a very intelligent and rational person with also good intentions and a fair bit of I would say fear behind his reasoning, Sam Harris has a very narrow and ignorant (and I'm not saying that in a peyorative way) not only view but also knowledge and understanding of religion in and of itself, specially Islam (it seems the case, for example, that he has no idea nor has studied about what constitutes the Aqeedah or creed of the muslims and how it deals with the problem of multiple interpreations of the Quran, how faith must be grounded in reason and right understanding of the material world and not in compulsion or a blind, dogmatic and fundamentalist approach and some others "barbaric" practices and thinking that we can find in the christian Bible and the Torah of the jews, which he surely loves to point out) and despite Jordan Peterson's great understanding and arguments from the evolutionary, behaviorist and psychological arena he's no philosopher of religion, he's no well formed theologean specialized on the field and, also despite his interest on the subject his field of expertise is not the psychology of religion per se, so therefore he can't fully challenge Sam's view, who implies in his thinking that the world could be a much better place if only the atheist utopia came to be and an approximate of 5 billion people in the world just stop believing in their "invisible man in the sky who hates gays" as he calls it and the rest of gods or divine entities (with a fair bit of spirituality around, to be fair with him).

    Interesting conversation nonetheless.

  19. I do really like this format and especially Sam and Jordan. I can't agree though that the principle "act as if the gun is loaded" is really a metaphorical truth. We do understand why "acting as if the gun is loaded" is beneficial, it causes a conditioning of the mind which leads to a habit which is way more reliable than the simple gun safety rule itself. And therefore "acting as if the gun is loaded" is a real truth in a bigger context.

  20. Easiest Summary is this:
    Jordan: there is something to be learned from the centuries-long teachings of religion
    Sam: doing so is dangerous because it feeds into the dogma of religious nutjobs.

    All other points they make are extra. Enjoyable to listen to them rationalizing, but very very extra, nonetheless. Sam constantly speaks to dangerous literal parts of the bible while Jordan defends the proverbial benefits you gain from the bible. You can have your cake and eat too, guys. Accept that there is something to learn from the stories of the bible as it came from great philosophers and thinkers of their time with the understanding certain things they got were wrong or are now outdated. Morons exist in religion and atheism, you can't allow their misguided views to hold back the enlightenment. Intellectual gain should be accepted wherever it comes from…as long as it is, in fact, a gain.

  21. Man Sam and his gun example is like boy get prepared because Jordan is going to shred you to pieces. If atheists put their Sam as a front man they are a sorry bunch.

  22. At 46 minutes Sam Harris says his fundamental axiomatic claim is "we are conscious".
    OK. Now try deducing truth, logic and morality from that LOL

  23. Jordan Peterson: let me listen to Sam so that I can eloquently argue my case
    Sam Harris: let me interrupt Jordan before he can start making his own point and argue over an unimportant point to get the crowds response

  24. I thought I would add this observation about how to resolve the JBP nad SH debate: This a follow up to a series of posts I posted about JBP and SH, but, because of being guilded (i.e. I was booted off reddit for posting stuff like this below) I have been censored from posting any more observations on JBP and/or SH. I do assure you however, that the observations are no more damning than the one below. So, I thought I would let JBP and SH know that this is the solution they are looking for.

    If the emergent biological ethic that evolved alongside our evolution evidently became the highest ideals humans determined to be divine, then doesn't that suggest that JBP and SH are discussing the same thing i.e if the emergent biological ethic ultimately become what humans considered our divine ideals, then JBP and SH are only divided by their differing finalities i.e. Rationality and Religion, then isn't the disagreement one of consensus regarding their individual dissection of the whole? Moreover, given that the emergent biological ethic and the divine ideals exist on the same continuum, or more specifically, Rationality and Religion are borne of the same emergent ethic.

    To better describe what the I mean by separate components of a continuum and how uniting both leads to comprehension, I offer you this thought experiment from Artificial Intelligence (AI) Theory i.e. “Mary in the black and white room":

    “Mary’s a scientist, and her specialist subject is colour. She knows everything there is to know about it, the wave lengths, the neurological affects, every possible property that colour can have. But she lives in a black and white room. She was born there and raised there, and she can only observe the outside world on a black and white monitor. Then one day someone opens the door and Mary walks out and she sees a blue sky, and at that moment, she learns something that all her studies couldn’t tell her: She learns what it feels like to see colour.”

    Moreover, when the continuum of a “thing” i.e. Rationality and Religion are studied in isolation, each conclusion is denied knowledge of the other, ergo, each is barred from comprehension. So, the continuum is not to be studied in isolation, and, differing theories are only separate components of a dissected whole e.g. decompartmentalization versus compartmentalization and it is not until [we] experience both that [we] comprehend the “thing”. This is how I know anyone can resolve the divide between rationality and religion, well that is if you are willing to accept that rationality and religion are borne of the same emergent ethic.

    Therefore, having intellectual ownership over the preferred information you have accumulated are only separate components of the whole that exist on the same continuum, with each contributing to each, and none mattering without the other. For example, if you think about the dividing of the ovum during fertilisation, 1 divide’s in to 2, 2 in to 4 and so on until it reaches the threshold of the required capacity for that system. Hence, the first division is the start of indiscriminate determinism which defines the differing finalities within that system.

    I do so love Quantum Theory…it explains so much more than individuals that are stuck in a never ending cycle of internal dialogue that goes nowhere, when the answer is staring them in the face, as documented above.

  25. Great mistake taking the Bible as real historical events. Even wrost, if you take it literally. This has been the business of all judeo-Christians religions.

  26. Now Peterson is just trying to not get ridicule, and we can go easy on him for the "40hs answer" shit, but this is different. He´s trying to justify the irrational pattern of thinking of religious dogma just because he believe (or want´s to believe) that there is no other possible base for moral issues, wich leads him to accepting dogmatic aberrations (a lot of historical events listed by Sam among other things) and to repeat "well, if your right, what do you propose?" wich is something Harris expose to him multiple times. Wake up people. Harris all day, such a strong coherent and organize speech. Hitchens would be proud

  27. The insecure gain strength from instantly clapping and hollering whenever Peterson manages a pithy reply to a difficult question, even if it's not a very good answer; they gain strength from hearing each other – we are many and we are noisy – we can't be wrong, and neither is our hero. Dr. P should have been a pianist.

  28. Sam has a very naive view of humanity, and while I understand where he's coming from, he just seems incapable of comprehending the realistic depiction of mankind that Jordan was putting forward. The stance of "Mankind should just…." or "Why don't people do this instead…" is very wishful and childlike, and after 200,000 years, it's pretty clear that that's not how real people function.
    One dogma must be replaced with another, otherwise chaos ensues.

  29. 1:09:34 – Sam is wrong, this is the crux of the disagreement and the issue at hand. The fact that Sam dismisses that is an issue, people are driven by what they believe, not by an arbitrary goal of improving human well being. People need belief to move outside of selfishness and short-sightedness.

  30. It’s so awesome (and I mean that in the awe-inspiring sense) that we can all access this discourse taking place among three of the most prominent public intellectuals in the West.

  31. What irrational beliefs Mr. Peterson has about religion. Goes to show how intelligent people can still be poisoned by religion

  32. Morality is inherently subjective. It has always been and will always be debated for this very reason. No matter how many people agree with one point of morality and no matter how deeply this super majority feels about the truth of that morality, it is subjective. Arguments that approach morality as objective will always have holes that can't be filled.

  33. I watched Rush Limbaugh right after this debate, now I'm starting to hear a small squeeky fart in the back of my head every few days..

    Don't ever try this at home folks.

  34. Great discussion however it seems the longer they speak the more they end up where they originally started. It is like a circular argument going back to subjective morality vs absolute morality

  35. This is the third time I watched it. I feel like I'm getting smarter every time I watch it. I can't even imagine watching this on acid.
    Esta es la tercera vez que lo veo. Siento que me estoy volviendo más inteligente cada vez que lo veo. Ni siquiera puedo imaginar ver esto en ácido.
    هذه هي المرة الثالثة التي أشاهدها. أشعر أنني أكون أكثر ذكاءً في كل مرة أشاهدها. لا أستطيع حتى تخيل مشاهدة هذا على الحمض.

    hadhih hi almarat alththalithat alty 'ashahidaha. 'asheur 'anani 'akun 'akthar dhka'an fi kl marat 'ashahidha. la 'astatie hataa takhayl mushahadat hdha ealaa alhamd.

  36. The one thing that Harris doesn't get straight and doesn't get the fact that science has become the new religion for the new generation the fact that a lot of people have died in the name of science doesn't remove the guilt of Science of sacrificing people as well just for the heck of saying that we are in advanced civilization anything is okay in the name of science

  37. Sam breathes pure reason whereas I often feel Jordan Peterson tries to hide behind Jargon and sentences that are often convoluted and difficult to even follow. On the topic of religion Sam demonstrates possibly one of the most rational stances a clear minded human can possess, he maybe hammers on Islam a lot but it's not without justification.

  38. I think what I found often is that Jordan would make a valid justification in countering Sam claims, but Sam instead of tearing this justification apart, he unintentionally (or maybe not) would divert from arguing the point Jordan made by saying "Well let's assume it isn't the case for a moment" because that makes it easier to indulge in his beliefs without the hardship of validating them in light of the argument Peterson just made.

  39. Did Sam just say you base the fact 2+2=4 on intuition…like no you must have a mathematical background to comprehend why that is the case. It's even outrageous to call that a belief, I didn't know Math was based on belief instead of science

  40. It's ironic that for all the criticism Sam places on religious dogmatism, Sam exercises that same dogma in defending unintentional statements he clearly sees as false, for example not admitting but defending the statement that 2+2=4 is an intuition not a fact, and credit to Peterson on not letting it go when saying if math is intuition then what is left for the idea of fact.

  41. If happiness is a measure of "well being" then survey's indicate that traditional religious two parent families are the most satisfied and happy households in USA. It may be ignorance is bliss. But if so then what are the measurements of "well being"? (see https://www.livescience.com/9090-religion-people-happier-hint-god.html & https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/families-are-happier-today-than-previous-generations-according-to-new-survey-300076359.html)

  42. Peterson: "In the Moral Landscape … and correct me if I'm wrong …"
    Put two rational scientists in a discussion, and you'll see two people actually listening and trying to understanding each other. Seriously, I've never seen two people summarize the other person's argument and agreeing with the summaries. Most of the time, you have one party strawmanning the other side.

  43. Somewhere here that I can't find again was the intial mention by Jordan about a source of guidance that is external to ourselves that trains /teaches us to improve.(generally)
    He asked why that is there.
    But it got lost in other thought trails pursued.
    Something along those lines.
    I think that is an important bigger thought worth pursuing, as many of these other points are encapsulated within that, if it could be flushed out and understood better.

  44. Also amongts several other points of contention I have are these 2.
    An agreed definition of truth. such as (the ONE point, thought, or postulation, that is correct, to the exclusion of All opposing, contradicting, points, thoughts, and postulations.) (approximately)
    Secondly an agreed definition of religion.
    Sam uses the latter term very often.
    If religion can be defined as the efforts of humanity to free ourselves from our bondage, as I believe is fair, this then in my thinking includes every world view except Christianity.
    Christianity stands in stark contrast to every other view that requires humans to do enough to attain the goal, christainity claims that a greater being has fully done for us what we can never do for ourselves , as history demonstrates that we can't.
    This provision is not only free but attainable to all of humanity, regardless of any demographic catagory one belongs to, that's fully unique, and only comprehensible within the context of love.
    Religion is pride based, and always leads to segregation, and the concept of performance based catagorizing of better and worse personhood.
    Christainity stands starkly against that, requiring a humility of being based on the acknowledgement that we are all flawed, we are all unable of our own ability to summont this truth, and thus the distinction of being better and worse becomes mute, as we are all in the same predicament.
    All this only being only a rudementary summary of christainity, with literally almost infinite further comprehensions to be comprehended, two further points of import, first is that christainity has plenty of failures correctly atttibuted to it, secondly christainity has NEVER been even nearly lived out fully socialogically to any great extent, and only ever fully demonstrated individually in Jesus, of further import is to understand that little of that which is self ascribed with the christain label is even remotely actually christain as Jesus taught it biblically is to be, thus the aforementioned failures occurred, and even today even moreso is that truth still a reality.(in North America less then half of what is labeled Christian actuality is and that's very important to understand)
    I believe Sam has little to no understanding of these important distinctions, and Jordan maybe only has a rudementary familiarity with this exact distinction, I've yet to hear him expound on it, ( but not sure) , but it seems that he does not yet have an intamate relational understanding of the faith/ with God, as being christain is not only knowledge of biblical understandings, but also requires a personal intamate relationship with God. (but 4 not being a christain he sure has an emense knowledge of biblical concepts and he has a great respect for them)
    In summary, If it is worthy of continual mention in discussion then a comprehensive understanding of terms is in my opinion absolutely required for deeper comprehensions to come to lite. (broad brushing isn't acceptable)
    Ps. Admitatly I still need to see the other parts in this series so maybe I can find them there.

  45. Often in this discussion I found myself confused, not sure anymore of what the terms they were using meant in the context where they were used. Now, it might be because I'm not as sharp as these guys, but it would surprise me if they didn't also get confused at certain points in the discussion. But I noticed that they rarely stop each other to ask for clarification. So either they were communicating perfectly and this confusion never arose, or when they did find themselves in that state they opted not to ask for clarification. Since I can't believe they were never confused (because they don't seem to be making much progress and they ask each other similar questions over and over again) I have to ask, why do they not ask for clarification? Isn't that what's necessary to make progress? Maybe they thought that to ask for clarification would not be fruitful because they wouldn't understand anyway, or maybe they thought that it would slow down the conversation too much, for their own sake or for the audience's. Or was it perhaps to some degree because they felt that to admit that they didn't understand what the other person said would be to accept a loss – either a loss in their struggle to win the debate, or a loss to their own self-esteem, because not being able to follow what the other person said could be taken as a sign of their comparative lack of mental capacity. Whatever the cause, I think their failure to ask for clarification in these moments of confusion is the main reason why they're not making progress. When faced with this confusion they instead effectively derail the argument by answering a related but slightly different question or by responding with a question of their own. Again, it might just be that I'm too slow to follow these guys, but that's my take on why they're not getting anywhere.

  46. I get that they are really smart. But they could really do with reading a John Stott book. Their comments on Christianity are so misinformed. They argue that the problem with religion is that there are too many interpretations of the same text, but then make their own interpretations without regard for other interpretations of it. But who knows, maybe I'm just a morally degenerate religious person.

  47. Why do people even bother to debate religion? Why not just let people believe whatever they want? And if they commit crimes and atrocities due to their beliefs, then arrest, prosecute, and punish those who are guilty of said crimes, and leave the law abiding ones alone. It's really that simple. The only thing I can gauge from debates like this, is that intellectuals enjoy these sparing matches as kind of sport. Otherwise there is no practical purpose for them that I can see.

  48. I have a simple life-rule; the guy who cannot speak while holding his hands still and must gesticulate and pantomime wildly and incessantly…that guy is usually full of shit.

  49. In previous comments on this presentation, the term "truth" is expressed. I much prefer to be informed of FACTS and OPINIONS, from which I — and I, alone as an individual viewer– determine TRUTH. This policy has served me pretty well, especially given the state of Big Media news outlets' egregious BIAS. Simply put: Give me the FACTS, and I will determine what is TRUE. I don't need to agree or disagree with someone else's "truth", and I think this is what today's media have utterly abandoned!

  50. Really wish Sam would have answered the question posed by peterson as to what lies within the black box of his universal ethic. The fact that it was avoided 3 times points to the fact that Sam does not have a clear understanding of what that is. However, he did admit at the closing that this should be an open discussion, and maybe that as a culture we need to figure this out in the future

  51. Sam- "religion is stupid and we should get rid of it"
    Jordan- "I'm using hyper complex metaphors and dont believe in a singular God but rather the darwinism that presents itself in religious memes"
    Brett- "both of you are making this far harder than it needs to be"

  52. One thing that Sam misses, at least about Judeo-Christian tradition is its inability for updates. Both traditions allow for the Rabbinical binding and loosing of the text.

    I tend to fall more on Peterson's side relative to the ensconcement of story into text acting as guardrails for societal behavior.

    I do believe that we will eventually see a convergence of the religion of science with the religion of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Zero point field as Yahweh may be that Nexus.

  53. I wish sam would have gone deeper into the concept of the framework of interpretation as jordan was trying to explain. There is something really fundamentally missing from Sam's argument because he is neglecting to think about the bridge between facts and values. Where can these distinctions come from? There is some kind of structure that must exist otherwise there would be an endless numbers of ways to explain away any fact, and we know how bad that is…

  54. Religion is based on a series of 'Stories' which were created to help people deal with the fear arising from our encounter with the chaotic, uncertain, and spontaneous nature of existence, and the 'future', in whatever way we hold that particular construct! Religion can then be understood as a sense-making response. Adherence to the different series of 'Stories' of sense-making is what constitutes 'Beliefs'.

  55. Sam Harris is so smart but can't grasp the fact that basically the entire book of Exodus is about God rescuing people from slavery because it is bad. The Bible has clear rules that after 7 years you must free your "endengered servants/slaves" and it is a Jubilee. Jesus never had slaves and neither did his apostles and you can't derive anything from Jesus teachings to permit you to mistreat another human being even with hateful words without cause let alone slavery. The Bible talks about slavery because it talks about everything but that doesn't mean that it's the will of God for us to hold slaves. In the book of 1Timothy 1:9-10 "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."

    The law of the OT does not permit the kind of brutal slavery done by the Arab and trans Atlantic slave trades which is exactly why Christians stopped it and pressured the world too.

  56. For a long time Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris debated the likes of lane craig, haggard, etc, and these people were retards and they were liars. Peterson is one of those who we've been needing the whole time. With Peterson, it's more of a dialogue instead of a debate. Peterson has the right motivations and he's honest. Not so with the others. Peterson is an opponent who's not an opponent. He is someone who can be on the other side of the fence, yet is worthy to talk with to move things forward properly. He is a powerful and beautiful human being. I think he deserves a place at the Four Horsemen table.

  57. 45:00 its not because it has an infinite number of interpretations. Pretty much anything I can think of has an infinite way to be interpreted. Quantum physics for sure, but its a matter of the evidence its based on obviously. Playing with words a bit.

  58. What is it about the universe that would require God to sacrifice His Son to appease it?

    Or perhaps a better question is: What is it about human psychology that would require God to sacrifice His Son to appease it? To allay its fears. To allay its bloodlust.

    We obviously have a great capacity for violence towards our fellowman.

    We also have a way to transcend that.

    How do we – deeply and effectively – transmit that message to future generations? To get "Peace on earth and goodwill to all mankind" deep in our heart and from there into the world. Glib postmodernism and mere short-term "facts" and man-made "laws" are not going to cut it. The Nazis had "laws" as did the Soviets, Mao's China and Pot Pol's Cambodia. Paranoia and aggression are always ready to rear their ugly heads.

    How do we raise consciousness?

    How do we tame the beast?

    Jesus is a shining example showing the way, being the way, acting out the way. "Love thine enemies" and "Turn the other cheek" vs. "Eye for an eye" and "Tooth for a tooth". And today, now, locking up two million Palestinians in horrid inhuman conditions in the open air prison called Gaza simply because they were born into the "wrong" tribe and are "in the way" of the "right" tribe is a blight on all humanity, on all of us.

    Deeper truths – Way, Tao, Logos, Rta, Grace – transcend verbal argumentation and categorisation. The truth is in the movement, not in various systems of categorisation. The consequences arise from the way, the movement, not from argumentation.

    Life is not an argument.

    Merry Christmas.

  59. People today are sacrificing their spirit to the financial system in return for a paycheck. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." "What profits a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"

  60. A meaningful discussion with people like Peterson is practically impossible, even for people like Harris.
    Trying to justify the Bible simply takes to much mental energy… none is left to have a real philosophical discussion.
    How blind can faith make us!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *