You've read Maps of Meaning where he sets out his view of objective truth & the affective reality of the mythic world? How does this differ from postmodernism?pic.twitter.com/WNggI6L8kP
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Well sure it goes deeper, but we're not at that level. We'd have to work up to it. Peterson's views are reducible to a rationalist, materialist, scientific, empiricist definition. I sincerely mean that, because I come from that camp. But it takes a bit to lay that out.
Archetypes are observable, because we see them repeatedly in cultures across time. What they are, like metaphysically, is tough to define. But it's hard to say what a number is metaphysically as well. But numbers are enormously useful, so we use them. Archetypes are similar.
That's where a touch of the Pragmatism comes in. No one knows what the hell math is - but we accept that it's useful and true and beautiful for whatever reason. But it's certainly not "false" just because it isn't composed of baryonic matter.
Archetypes persist across time and across culture, with profound psychological impact on people. Writers use them liberally because we pretty much only care about archetypal stories. People brand themselves archetypally and it works for some damn reason. It's not easy to dismiss.
You don't have to. I don't.
Most writers don't, I've noticed! Rereading JP's passages, he seems to be suggesting that reduced belief in the existence of a mythological or idealized or Hyperreal world is a bad thing - not that objectivity is false.
In fact, he explicitly says the cause of the waning belief was that we got so good at measuring the objective, material world! That presupposes the existence of that very objective world.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.