, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For those following my blog, you will know that I have been following the work (as posted in videos on YouTube) of Dr. Jordan Peterson. And as you know, I have been recognizing patterns that support PROCESSES that are taking place inside and outside of the Catholic Church. I have termed these as CONVERGENCE PROCESSES.

The patterns that I have noticed in turn can be summed up as follows: a return to Thomism. As my loyal reader know, Thomism is the philosophical framework (and not just) that was developed by the 13th century Scholastics and served as foundation of Catholic doctrine until it was brutally suppressed by the neo-Modernists in the middle of the last century.

What I have been observing on the secular side of human endeavor, especially in some areas of academia, is that serious scholars, let’s call them EMPIRICISTS, are returning to what can be called the classical scholars and picking up where these scholars left off.

In the video at the top of this page, you will notice (at about the 1:46:00 mark) that Dr. Peterson talks about morality and Fredric Nietzsche’ critique of Christianity. He goes on to say that Nietzsche, who created the “overman”, someone who was able to create his own “values” was wrong and that Carl Jung corrected Nietzsche. What Jung corrected was the notion that “values”, i.e. morality is inherent in man. Now Carl Jung was no St. Thomas Aquinas, but Dr. Jordan Peterson is quickly closing the distance. But I digress… When I first heard this, the first thing that came to my mind is the following discussion of Natural Moral Law here: (Romans 2:14-15)

For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another.

Notice the CONVERGENCE PROCESS or is it just me?

Now to the subject at hand and more CONVERGENCE PROCESS. What I have done below is transcribe the summary that Dr. Peterson gave starting at the 1:06:00 mark. I will repost and comment.

And so I will repeat the outline and end.

Now I was talking about the boundaries of free speech. And I believe that speech should be untrammeled because it is too dangerous to encapsulate it, but that does not mean that I believe that speech, free speech comes without responsibility. I believe quite the contrary, that free speech carries with it the highest responsibility because if you wish the right to free speech, so that the responsibility of speaking, then you have to contend with the fact that your words are the force that shapes the world. And that with every word you utter, things tilt slightly heavenward or slightly hell ward and that responsibility rests firmly on your shoulders. And it’s inescapable.

After you have digested the above, please go into this video here (time permitting) and see what inferences you can draw from that material.

But back to the Peterson video:

And that’s a terrible thing to realize although it is a meaningful thing to realize. And people say that they would like their life to be meaningful and that’s a questionable claim because to recognize your life as meaningful, is to understand that everything you do matters and that what it means for things to matter is that your deciding in some sense between heaven on earth and hell on earth  with every decision that you make. And that the decision that you make echo far beyond you in ways that are almost incomprehensible and that the destiny of the world is determined by the collective decisions of the individuals that make up the world. And that we’re all locked together deciding in which metaphysical direction our little planet will go.

So free speech carries with it heavy responsibility but the responsibility is something you want because it justifies the suffering of existence.

Life is suffering.

Love is the desire to see unnecessary suffering ameliorated.

Truth is the handmaiden of love.

Dialogue is the pathway to truth.

Humility, that’s recognition of personal insufficiency and the willingness to learn.

To learn is to die voluntarily. And to be born again in great ways and small.

So speech must be untrammeled so that dialogue can take place. So that we can all humbly learn. So that truth can serve life. So that suffering can be ameliorated. So that we can all stumble forward.

Towards the Kingdom of God.

Notice the above. Sound familiar, yes.

And what is surprising is where Dr. Peterson’s logical progression terminates. Aside, please listen carefully to the part about Pinocchio’s FATHER, Geppetto and how he relates to the classics. But I digress…

Now, Dr. Peterson doesn’t differentiate between the kingdom of God (a proposed secular construct) and the Kingdom of God as per Quas Primas, but the differentiation can be extracted from this lecture.

I will end here, since there is a lot of watching.

But one final request. As you are watching this video, always please keep in mind that you are listening to a clinical psychologist.