What is Reddit's opinion of
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
ProductGPT
Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
19 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Due to personal interest, I've read some of Peterson's work. I've not sure he represents the faction of psychologists concerned with the discipline's notorious and existential replicability crisis.
He seems rather content to discuss the Christian Logos and attempt to understand how religion shapes culture. A peculiar topic for a psychologist and is no doubt rife with methodological complexity requiring exceptional detail to procedure. Well, one hopes.
A description courtesy of Amazon:
> Why have people from different cultures and eras formulated myths and stories with similar structures? What does this similarity tell us about the mind, morality, and structure of the world itself? Jordan Peterson offers a provocative new hypothesis that explores the connection between what modern neuropsychology tells us about the brain and what rituals, myths, and religious stories have long narrated. A cutting-edge work that brings together neuropsychology, cognitive science, and Freudian and Jungian approaches to mythology and narrative, Maps of Meaning presents a rich theory that makes the wisdom and meaning of myth accessible to the critical modern mind.
I should point you towards Jordan Peterson's collosal book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief ... it's explores some very interesting topics around belief and its role in the development of human society, and human existence in general. Its hard going from start to finish, but is definitely worth a look.
ABrokenBeing did say it was how he personally views it so he's not projecting it onto others. I was pulled out of nihilism by Peterson as well, and have to remind myself why. If you watch his videos where he will make these points much more clearly and thoroughly you will see he challenges people to think at the extreme ends, existentialism (everything has some meaning) and nihilism (nothing has meaning). For nihilism he points out that we can prove to most people that life has meaning because everyone will experience pain. It is universal that everything that experiences pain will move away from it and avoid it at many costs. Even a nihilist will avoid something of greater pain than another. So you may stick a knife in your hand to you don't care and ignore the pain, but light it on fire slowly, good luck trying not to react. Hopefully, this is the 'inherent truth' that you're looking for that shows there is at least one thing in the universe that is meaningful. If there is one thing that is meaningful (avoid pain) then you can't be completely nihilistic without deluding yourself.
Also, he wrote a book Maps of Meaning for much, much more information: https://www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Peterson/dp/0415922224/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520058558&sr=8-1&keywords=maps+of+meaning
Maps of Meaning by Jordan B. Peterson. It's a book written by a Psychology professor. I watched the lectures online (by the author) of a course that has the same title and is based on this book. I suggest you do the same, or read the book.
If you want something that will change the view that you look at the world, encounter new ideas, or see how those ideas apply to yourself, this would definetly do that, in a big way.
Here is the book on amazon, the reviews speak for themselves.
There is a free pdf on the author's website as well.
I want to take the time to talk about subjective and objective morals just because every now and then someone comes on and talks about it. I doubt this will change their opinions on this manner but really it's not about them, it's about defining my own thoughts on it and coming to sane conclusions. People often have a world view and hold onto because it's their life raft. For people to change these beliefs they have to be in a safe environment and social media is quite possibly the most unsafe place to do so as not only are your words forever on the internet, but they are up for critique and tens if not hundreds of people will see it. Unfortunately I haven't read the book myself, but I'm familiar with moral skepticism and error theory at least to talk on the subject.
Definitions
Morals
I'm defining morals as any system which decides a set of actions to be taken from all possible actions in a given situation. This can include any system, including things like flipping a coin Dent style, an AI script in a video game that dictates action of NPCs, or what we typically think of as Morals such as it's not good to work on the sabbath.
Subjective
Subjectivity is hard to define in this case because subjectivity means to come from the mind. Everything we think comes from the mind, so on a pure technical basis all morals are "subjective" but that's not a useful definition because then no objective action could ever be made and that's clearly false. In this way math would be subjective. Math however is not subjective, far from it, it's likely the most objective scientific fields we have. So how can something come from the mind and still be objective? That's what I mean when this definition is non-functional if we only apply from the mind. We must mean it to say that it is not objective. In essence subjectivity is anything that is not objective as there is no third position in this axiom, and no decisions can be made without one of these two categories being chosen.
Objective
I'm defining objectivity to be based around the idea of cause and effect. For something to be objective, it must be based around a fact. X + Y = Z. If we find that equation to be true then we have found a fact. The fact itself is objective, but conclusions that use that fact can also be objective. I want Z to be 10, therefore I must make X = 5, and Y = 5, or some other combination that results in 10. That is a action, and can be a part of a moral system. If in our moral system Z = 10 is a good outcome, then it is moral to make Z = 10. Thus we have found an objective action.
What the Debate is Really About
To some degree I can understand the concern of Open individuals with regards to limited actions based on morals. I am someone high in Openness and it's hard for me not to go out and ask question, look for new things to try and overall do things outside of what is "normal." That seems to be what this debate is about and a reason why people can be so dead set on subjective moralities. The idea of an objective morality is the final destination, once we have obtained and perfected such a system, we can essentially not worry about making decisions and there is nothing new to experience. In fact, with a complete objective morality, all decisions can be essentially calculated. You'd need some serious computing power to do that, and by serious I mean likely not physically containable on this planet, but theoretically there's no reason why you couldn't do that.
But this fear is not something we should be holding onto. The point of knowledge seeking is to fix problems and being afraid of a lack of potential should not stop us from trying to solve those problems. This is what this debate is really about, is there a foundational principle that is absolute? This question is the difference between one side being right and one being wrong and I believe that there is.
Paths, Systems, and Suicide
If we map out your life, it can be sectioned off into a path going along an infinitely branching tree. This tree is all possible actions that you can take. Typing on a keyboard and miss a key, that typo, that wrong press, is an action on that tree. This tree ends with you, as it is a model of your actions. This model is something we can call objective because it describes the actions you take and the actions you've already taken. The past and the present both are on this map, but the future isn't on this model because that isn't in reality but in the mind. The future can be predicted, but any accurate prediction is reliant on information. Essentially our ability to predict what happens in the future is dependent on what we know from the past.
This is where morals come into play. Morals are prediction models to how one should act. Early models were not based in hard science, but a sort of proto-science where we observe what happened in the past and assume it will happen again without much thought on the issue. Did that volcano erupt last year? Better prepare for it again. Maybe the volcano is a god, we must appease the god! Quick, throw the child into the volcano! This is the classic example of a moral system not working properly. It's not only wrong in it's prediction, the actions to prevent the future from happening as predicted were wrong. But there are examples of this working, which is why we evolved with it. Winter is coming, and we'll need to plant a lot of grain to survive the winter when food is scarce. This is an example of a moral having a good prediction, and a good response to fix the issue with the future. That decision changed what path we were on to a better one where we weren't dying.
This in of itself would be enough proof to show that, while hard to determine, a moral system can be made objective given the right information and resources. However, there is one issue that usually stifles this conversation: Suicide. If you have not been able to track where I was going with this, the purpose of our existence is to exist. It's that simple. Many people will scoff at that and say "it's a problem that no one has been able to solve for thousands of years, the fuck you on?" But those people were trying t find the objective moral system, not the foundation. In order to show this is the case though we need to understand why people kill themselves as that is the only piece of evidence outside of baseless skepticism.
There are two main reasons why people commit suicide, the first is just straight up mental disorder. People not functioning as they should is not uncommon. I can hear them now, the shrill cries of the reactionary skeptic: "How can you define a person as being normal?!" Because we have a massive sample size that says most people don't have schizophrenia. The best estimates are 1 in 4 adults have a mental illness, but even that number is inflated by more or less stress related problems rather than actual mental illness born from biological issues. So let's put that claim away since it's there to be a road block than a serious challenge.
The second reason why people commit suicide is a lack of options. You can see the end ahead of you. The path you have been traveling on as lead you to a place where you either have no actions to take, or every prediction model leads to pain and then death, or just death. So, you take the shortest route with Mr. PPK. Normally though this claim states that if we want to die then clearly there is no meaning in life and therefore there are no morals. That's not how that works. Not having options means that your goal, to exist, cannot be fulfilled in the way you want it to. It actually is proof that there is an end goal, even if it's ever moving.
Objective Morality
From all of the above we can summarize that the future can not only be predicted, but that actions that favor continuation of the game are ultimately what we should strive for. Yes, that is highly debatable as to what game is continuing. There are places where you can continue it for yourself, or your children, but you can't choose both. It is hard to know with these choices what is the objective moral standard is because our knowledge is incomplete. We don't know what would be the better choice in many situations because we just don't know enough about the world. This is the piece I take from Mackie. Wrong as he is, he does get that right. Many moral claims are wrong, but to claim that is an indication of a lack of objectivity in moral systems is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Objective morals are there, we just don't know most of them. We do know a few, such as natural rights, the foundation of Libertarianism, but we will get things wrong. Getting things wrong is a natural cause of us trying to find the objective, not random happenstance that works for no reason.
Monogamy is a good example of this. Monogamy is a better relationship foundation and we have the data to prove it. Polygamy happens when there are fewer males due to an area being in constant strife. Sure, there are personality types that desire more mates, but successful relationships are monogamous and the statistics are proof of that.
Ultimately the debate should not be if objective morals exist but that what morals we are pushing are objective. We are flawed individuals, and we have a tendency to believe in things that make no sense. It is not as though we have the keys, we just stubbed our toe on the door, and still haven't realized how big that door is, let alone really finding even where the key hole is. Once we do find those keys, well, things will likely get either very boring, or very amazing. One thing is for sure though, we can't dismiss the pursuit of progress because over some kooky idea that nothing is real. That would be immoral.
I've seen mention of his book "Maps Of Meaning - The Architecture Of Belief" Wikipedia section here and Amazon reviews here.
I haven't yet read that book, nor watched the corresponding video lectures (partway down on this youtube page).
I'd be interested to hear what those on this subreddit who are philosophically minded think about Jordan Peterson's ideas.
Edit to add: You can download a free PDF, 400 pages, dated from 1999 (while page 1 says "PDF version with figures - May 2002"), at this blog page.
There are subreddits: /r/Maps_of_Meaning and /r/JordanPeterson
I got my physical (soft-cover, though) copy of MoM just 2 weeks ago from Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415922224/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1).
I agree though, it is pricey.
>Exactly what you said. Public decision making over public property. Why should that not be applied to all of society? What is the line in your view that separates public decision making from private?
This is a very complicated and deep topic that needs to be properly explained.
Intelligence and Personality
There is a reason why the human brain is the most advanced piece of machinery that exists. With the technology we have we are able to simulate something like 10% of the human brain. That is with super computers that have their own dedicated floors. One day we will be able to simulate it, and likely even multiple brains at once and do real psychological tests that are as accurate as the hard science we have today with say chemical reactions.
Your brain though is not like a general computer. It's more like a specialized computer that is running only a few basic programs, and one really complex one. That complex one is a learning algorithm that comes prepackaged with things. Personality for one is mostly determined by genetics. Environment can change personality, but it takes a lot of stress and trauma to do so. Sometimes, with the case of LSD, it's a matter of taking drugs, but generally speaking people have a default personality pre-loaded onto people that reflects their parents.
This personality acts as a filter. The world is a complex place and one thing that computer scientists learned back in the day when designing AI that interacted with the real world was that there is too much to interpret. If you have a hard time believing this or want proof we can do a simple exercise. Walk into a room and see what you notice. You might notice a few major things, maybe there's a chair you can sit in, or a drink you can pick up, but there are a lot of things in the room, even in somewhat empty ones. Bugs, dust, clutter, all of it gets filtered out because trying to focus on all of those things at once is taxing. Personality in this way biases us to eliminate options. We recognize objects with our eyes, but that's not personality. Personality biases us towards options.
Options are a real thing, we must admit that potential is just as real as the actual thing because our minds treat it as a real thing. If you are high in Openness for example, you may be predisposed to read more because that means getting more information. This is why lots of people will watch things like "How to Fillet Every Fish." 26 million views isn't just there because people like fish, it's there because people like knowing things and easily accessible knowledge is literally a sub genre of videos that we call educational. But some people don't want to watch things like this, some people want to focus on just working. Conscientiousness is that personality trait, and when faced with either working or learning, those two personality traits clash for dominance inside your brain.
Mistakes Were Made
However, not all options are equal. As much as we'd like to think that morals are not objective, they are. Morals are algorithmic systems that determine what options should you take, and some things are just straight up bad choices. Actions are always in response to problems. In fact, no action is ever taken without the presence of a problem. Go on a walk? You were bored, that's a problem. Scratch your back? The itch is a problem. Make food? You were hungry, that's a problem. Watch a video about fish being prepped for cooking? That's a solution to a potential problem: not knowing what to do when in the wrong place. Bring in that wrong place is such a problem in fact that we have vast fictional stories detailing it. Not to mention the books that show us how to get out of those places.
So, it is not a surprise that we do our best to avoid being in that place. It's hell, and not just in a metaphorical sense. However, there is something that has been coming about since the trend to reject the old teachings. The pride of the human intellect is something that is there to stop good decisions from being questioned. Critical Theory, ironically enough, is a good example of how mind viruses can take over people. That critical view of what is the sum of human knowledge can be dismantled by bad faith criticism. So the mind has to defend itself, specifically by using things like pride. The Backfire Effect is an example of this in action. The mind literally needs to be safe from outside threats to change programs. There are ways to do this without safety, looking up brainwashing methods will lead you down that path, but that's a side tangent. Really those are just ways to get past what is essentially your mind's firewall.
However that firewall, like our physical immune system, can be a serious enemy. In this we go back to the actual topic at hand:
Impossible Problems
Some problems cannot be solved. Think of these problems as being so rooted in the concept of life and experience that they are inseparable. These problems are a result of being able to act, rather than a human system. Such problems are prominent in the minds of people today because they are serious problems. However, there are no solutions, only actions and severe consequences. Some of these consequences in fighting these problems are so severe that it has brought down empires.
For one, we do not know what the true objective morality is. But for another we are unable to decide what is truly good for a person in their own life. That sisyphean task not only requires use to assume that some humans are more capable than others at living life, but that we know who these people are and there is no reason to doubt in that. Milton made it clear that the pride of the human mind would lead to the worst possible places and they have. Time and again we have seen this happen but people don't believe it and want to hold onto the idea that if we think hard enough we can life perfect lives. We will never solve all problems because being able to act in of itself creates problems. Life would have to cease in order to all problems to be solved.
Private lives cannot be regulated, it ends badly. Sometimes it takes time, but the piper has to be paid eventually and it always ends terribly. Some things can be regulated because we have painstakingly mapped out natural rights, but that is the limit, those are the things you can regulate and not have things go south. It does not matter if you believe that or not, reality doesn't care if you don't believe in it, it controls every aspect of your life and you cannot fight it forever.
Amen to this. Full disclosure, I'm now fully out but I held callings (Gospel Doctrine, SS, EQ) as a PIMO (Physically in, Mentally out) for a good 7 years before my wife and I finally decided to leave.
There's no easy answer. There are some good resources for those who want to stay, so I'll try and compile them here:
​
Resources for staying
John Dehlin and some other thoughtful members put together this resource page for what is often referred to as "Middle Way Mormonism". Obviously, this was before Dehlin's excommunication. There are still a number of active LDS who help manage the page and try to update resources.
Waters of Mormon (formerly known as Thoughtful Faith) facebook group is full of nuanced mormons who are trying to remain engaged with the LDS church in one form or another. It's pretty heavily modded and seems to have it's own heirarchal politics aside from the church, but the modding does create a somewhat safe space to discuss concerns and remain positively engaged with mormonism.
Jordan Peterson... This might seem like a stretch... but i know a number of people who remain PIMO with the help of some of JP's writings such as 'Maps of Meaning'. He's big on this Jung-ian idea of universal archetypes, where religious traditions hold real value in terms of developing shared ethics and values, even if the stories, myths, etc. are not literally true. When asked if he believed in God/Christianity the JP response is "I act as if I do." This is very much in line with middle-way mormonism.
Neo-Apologetics books... thinking in the vein of the Givens', Patrick Mason, etc. These are thoughtful scholars who are willing to address and admit to some of the worst aspects of mormonism in hopes of helping bring it transition beyond it's existing problems. Books like 'Planted', 'The Crucible of Doubt', 'The God Who Weeps' come to mind. In addition to framing problems "faithfully" I think they bring some really beautiful perspectives on mormon theology in general. There are many in this sub who would take issue with some of the perspectives they bring, but they did help me maintain a mixed-faith marriage as an active, non-believing member for quite some time.
This discussion between Jim Bennet and Bill Reel about the CES letter is really fascinating. Jim is one of the most thoughtful, honest people in the state of Utah. He's active LDS and provides some interesting ways to square the historical issues. Again, many in this sub will point out flaws with Jim's arguments, but at the end of the day this is a good resource for those who want to stay and I think having more active LDS like Jim is the best possible outcome for the brighamite branch of mormonism.
FAIR is also technically a resource, though I don't know anyone who's done a deep-dive into FAIR apologetics and walked away feeling satisfied.
Other Resources
I'm titling this section "Other Resources" because I don't view them with a specific goal of leaving the church, but they are helpful in discerning truth and developing as a person outside of the mormon framework. These resources don't necessarily lead to anyone leaving the church but are helpful in general.
'This is my Doctrine' by BYU professor Charles Harrel is an objective, epistemological view of mormonism. i.e. the history of the history of mormon theology, with some added insights into early christian theology and historical development. This is a book with no guile or agenda, and I know mormons who have read large portions of this book who are still active LDS... (I think even Harrel is still active) But it's a pretty clear deconstruction of traditional mormonism/christianity in general imo.
Community of Christ or the RLDS church is pretty similar to mormonism but is also willing to be open about it's history and is very democratically, transparently run. Any interviews with CoC 70 and historian John Hamer are just amazing. There are other faith communities like Universalist Unitarianism which leans more agnostic, Oasis which is typically for people who have experienced a faith crisis away from western christianity (including mormonism), and episopalianism which is generally one of the most accepting, progessive branches of christianity in the US.
Brene Brown, who has almost no connection with mormonism, has some amazing books that are surprisingly relevant for mormon faith crises. Her podcast has also been the number one resource for my wife with our transition. braving the wilderness is a good place to start in terms of her books.
Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Hararri. This helped me develop a real appreciation for mormonism and religion in general, even if it is not a religious book in any way. It's a history of humanity's neurological development. Extremely fascinating.
Also, anything that allows you to connect and discuss with others who have gone through or are experiencing faith crises is huge. r/mormon is a great place for discussion of both faithful and critical perspectives. Mormon Stories podcast has tons of perspectives, both faithful and critical, and Mormon discussions podcasts has resources for mixed-faith marriages and tons of other topics. Bill Reel's earlier episodes come from a faithful perspective and were really helpful to me staying.
I'm sure there's tons more resources, but this is getting way too long and I need to go live life. Good luck with your journey and please feel free to message me if you want to discuss.
I got the paperback version on Amazon for only $31 USD.
This link should help.
> I mean that's why cultures form isn't it? Norms are established and enforced either through societal/cultural pressure or law.
"I am free, and you are my slave." Yup, nothing to see here!
> It was long. That's kind of a red flag right there.
https://www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Peterson/dp/0415922224
564 pages.
> Apparently, police should ignore statistics and focus their limited resources more on people who aren't actually committing the majority of crime. Yeah - that makes a lot of rational sense doesn't it?
Are you encouraging police to go after people of color? Because that would be unconstitutional, right? Altho I guess that doesn't matter once we decide "black people are bad"
>I've tried to figure out what an institution would look like if all the alleged "systemic" racism was removed.
not like this https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/us/paul-weiss-partner-diversity-law-firm.html
> nor do I know in what way it's specifically "white"
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/29/17793104/white-house-intern-picture-summer-2018
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Peterson/dp/0415922224
That ones not even in the top ten ...... Apparentely "words mean different to you coz you special" brainless.
There's not a single deleted comment in this whole thread, what the hell are you talking about? Are you sure you're not mixing me up with someone else?
Anyways as to meaning, I think it's self evident meaning exists. Outside of that, I defer to the work Maps of Meaning as my reference on this claim. It's a brilliant work, you can read the summary of it here https://www.amazon.com/dp/0415922224/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_TU3OzbN877A4R and the author has posted a free to download PDF on his researchgate.
Anyways I seriously study meaning from multiple academic fields. I know a thing or two about it, and enough to say it exists. Don't agree with me? Read the literature and then make up your mind. I mean, what is your foundation on this subject, huh? Armchair philosophy? Rick and Morty?
I didn't tell suggest to two people to go to therapy because they disagreed with me, otherwise I would have told everyone that. The people I did say that to seem obviously unwell, one much more than and other and extreme nihilism is debatable as to whether or not it can be considered "unwell". Anyways I didn't give a diagnosis. If you actually knew what a diagnosis is I wouldn't have to explain this to you.
I claimed happiness and materialism is meaningless. I never said you people live meaningless lives. Only that meaning is better than materialism and in of itself happiness. Additionally if you don't believe in meaning, why is it a bad thing to live a meaningless life??? Are you even hearing yourself? Jeez.
If this is a serious post--and I certainly hope it isn't--I suggest you read Jordan Peterson and change your own mind:
https://www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Peterson/dp/0415922224
Popular alternatives to Maps of Meaning: The Archit...
DBT® Skills Training Handouts and Worksheets, Second Edition
The Feeling Good Handbook
