Utente:Distico/Sandbox/7: differenze tra le versioni
Contenuto cancellato Contenuto aggiunto
Nessun oggetto della modifica |
|||
Riga 54:
<ref>Peter R. Giancola, Jordan B. Peterson e Robert O. Pihl, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14884346_Risk_for_alcoholism_antisocial_behavior_and_response_perseveration Risk for alcoholism, antisocial behavior, and response perseveration], ''Journal of Clinical Psychology''</ref>
==Maps of Meaning==
a central line of argument that can be extracted from the book, along the following lines:
1. Myths are culturally universal.
2. Myths are the psychological origin of morality.
3. Myths are the philosophical basis for morality.
4. Myth-based morality grounds political judgments about totalitarian states.
Here are quotes that show that Peterson follows Carl Jung in supposing that archetypal myths are universal across cultures.
P. 12: “We also presently possess inaccessible and complete form the traditional wisdom of a large part of the human race—possess an accurate description of the myths and rituals that contain and condition the implicit and explicit values of almost everyone who has ever lived.”
P. xx.: “The world as a forum for action is composed, essentially, of three constituent elements, which tend to manifest themselves in typical patterns of metaphoric representation. First is unexplored territory—the Great Mother, nature, creative and destructive, source and final resting place of all determinate things. Second is explored territory—the Great Father, culture, protective and tyrannical, cumulative ancestral wisdom. Third is the process that mediates between unexplored and explored territory—the Divine Son, the archetypal individual, creative exploratory Word, and vengeful adversary.”
una linea centrale di argomento che può essere estratta dal libro, seguendo le linee seguenti:
#I miti sono culturalmente universali.
#I miti sono l'origine psicologica della moralità.
#I miti sono la base filosofica per la moralità.
#La moralità basata sul mito fonda giudizi politici sugli stati totalitari.
Peterson segue la [[Archetipo|concezione archetipica]] di [[Carl Jung]] supponendo che i miti archetipici siano universali praticamente in tutte le culture. Peterson fa esempi a partire dalla tradizione mitica mesopotamica, quella giudaico-cristiana, con riferimenti anche al [[buddismo]] e alle altre religioni orientali.
P. xx .: "Il mondo come ''forum'' per l'azione è essenzialmente composto, secondo Peterson, da tre elementi costitutivi, che tendono a manifestarsi nei miti in tipici schemi di rappresentazione metaforica. Il primo è il «territorio inesplorato – la Grande Madre, la natura, il creativo e il distruttivo, la fonte e il luogo di riposo finale di tutte le cose determinate». Il secondo è il «territorio esplorato – il Grande Padre, la cultura, la saggezza protettrice e tirannica, ancestrale e cumulativa». Il terzo è il «processo che media tra territorio inesplorato ed esplorato: il Figlio Divino, l'individuo archetipo, la Parola esplorativa creativa e l'avversario vendicativo».
Secondo Peterson questi miti archetipici sono serviti a cementificare, in termini biologico-evolutivi, quella che è l'innata tendenza morale dell'uomo, dando alla morale una potente base astratta di significato. Secondo Peterson infatti gli antichi miti contengono in essi, evolutivamente parlando, la base psicologica e filosofica della morale umana.
P. 12: “These myths are centrally and properly concerned with the nature of successful human existence. Careful comparative analysis of this great body of religious philosophy might allow us to provisionally determine the nature of essential human motivation and morality—if we were willing to admit our ignorance and take the risk. Accurate specification of underlying mythological commonalities might comprise the first developmental stage in the conscious evolution of a truly universal system of morality.”
P. 13: “Meaning means implication for behavioral output; logically, therefore, myth presents information relevant to the most fundamental of moral problems.”
«I miti – arguisce Peterson – sono centrati e correttamente interessati alla natura del successo [evolutivo] dell'esistenza umana. Un'attenta analisi comparativa di questo grande corpo della filosofia religiosa potrebbe consentirci di determinare provvisoriamente la natura essenziale della motivazione e della moralità umane». Secondo Petrson infatti: «una precisa specificazione degli aspetti comuni mitologici sottostanti potrebbe permettere di comprendere il primo stadio di sviluppo nell'evoluzione cosciente di un sistema veramente universale di moralità».
P. 13: Il significato infatti, secondo Peterson, ha delle evidenti implicazioni per l'output comportamentale; logicamente, quindi, il mito – che è la forma archetipica della costruzione del significato – non può che presentare «informazioni rilevanti per il più fondamentale dei problemi morali».
He normatively assumes that religious mythology is the right way to approach moral thinking and acting:
P. 14: “Myth portrays what is known, and performs a function that if limited to that, might be regarded as paramount in importance. But myth also presents information that is far more profound—almost unutterably so, once (I would argue) properly understood. We all produce models of what is and what should be, and how to transform one into the other. We change our behavior when the consequences of that behavior are not what we would like. But sometimes mere alteration in behavior is insufficient. We must change not only what we do, but what we think is important. This means a reconsideration of the nature of the motivational significance of the present, and reconsideration of the ideal nature of the future.”
P. 390: “Mythic truth is information, derived from past experience—derived from past observation of behavior—relevant from the perspective of fundamental motivation and effect.”
In his books and lectures, Peterson motivates his investigations of maps of meaning as an attempt to understand the horrible atrocities of totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century. Why did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other tyrants kill tens of millions of people? How can future atrocities be prevented? These are pressing questions that Peterson thinks can be answered using his myth-based perspective on morality, but better answers are available.
Here are some quotes that display Peterson’s contention about the relevance of mythology and religion to politics:
P. 316: “The devil is the spirit who underlies the development of totalitarianism; the spirit who is characterized by rigid ideological belief (by the “predominance of the rational mind”), by reliance on the lie as a model of adaptation (by refusal to admit to the existence of error, or to appreciate the necessity of deviance), and by the inevitable development of hatred for the self and world.”
P. 321: “The presumption of absolute knowledge, which is the cardinal sin of the rational spirit, is, therefore, prima facie equivalent to the rejection of the hero—to the rejection of Christ, of the Word of God, of the (divine) process that mediates between order and chaos. The arrogance of the totalitarian stance is ineradicably opposed to the “humility” of creative exploration.”
P. 353: “The Rwandan massacres, the killing fields in Cambodia, the tens of millions dead (by Solzhenitsyn’s estimate) as a consequence of internal repression in the Soviet Union, the untold legions butchered during China’s Cultural Revolution [the Great Leap Forward (!), another black joke, accompanied upon occasion, in the particular, by devouring of the victim], the planned humiliation and rape of hundreds of Muslim women in Yugoslavia, the holocaust of the Nazis, the carnage perpetrated by the Japanese in mainland China— such events are not attributable to human kinship with the animal, the innocent animal, or even by the desire to protect territory, interpersonal and intrapsychic, but by a deep-rooted spiritual sickness.”
Peterson thinks that the solution to totalitarian horrors and spiritual sickness is the heroic individual:
P. 313: “The hero rejects identification with the group as the ideal of life, preferring to follow the dictates of his conscience and his heart. His identification with meaning—and his refusal to sacrifice meaning for security—renders existence acceptable, despite its tragedy.”
P. 483: “A society predicated upon belief in the paramount divinity of the individual allows personal interest to flourish and to serve as the power that opposes the tyranny of culture and the terror of nature.”
| |||