Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief

These notes are old and were written while reading — they don’t necessarily reflect my current views.

Ideas: Ethics-utility function Prog Bar: 0.01% progress: 0.01

Peterson argues that it is wrong to presume that myth tried to make factual claims. Claims can be true without being factually true. He goes on to ask why myths seem to have prevailed through centuries, while more fact based and logically intriguing ideologies like communism and fascism seem to vanish rather quickly. Furthermore, he points out that even after the death of god and lowered relevance of religion, people seem to still accept the judaeo-christian ethical framework. In his opinion, this is due to the fact that factual truths as found by science can’t replace truths that are a call for action. Myths in his opinion are exactly that. Truth that call for action instead of stating facts.

The left and the right hemisphere of the brain seem to serve two distinct purposes. One reacts to unexplored territory and learns about it in order to assess it’s dangers and opportunities. The other charts explored territory and helps navigate it. When confronted with an unfamiliar situation, fear and curiosity are always the default mechanisms. Humans seem to tend more towards curiosity.

In Petersons view the hero is the archetypical representation of the exploration of the unknown. He ties that to the political perspective especially regarding fascism, which in his opinion is the rejection of the hero and the dogmatic focus on the known (masculine, stable).

Humans are in a curious situation right now. Our culture and thinking rests on the idea of the value of human life (humanism (Harari)), but rejects this idea explicitly without rejecting it implicitly. This is very strange, we know that our life has no supreme meaning, but we just keep pretending it does.