Jordan Peterson: “What is Reality?”
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’
In a recent podcast hosted by Lex Fridman, the clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson asked: “What is real?”
Jordan knocked on the table in front of him and confirmed: “matter is real.” He then continued: “What else? Pain is real, love is real.”
Jordan almost gets it. But not quite.
The better question is why is the table real?
Is the table real because it is made of atoms and molecules? Then ‘reality’ would be based on objective idealism: objective knowledge of scientific ideas. Objective because it uses objective data. Idealism because it is based on ideas: maps and models of the world.
Is the table real because Lex and Jordan are having a conversation over it as a place for a podcast? Then ‘reality’ would be based on social idealism: knowledge of the social use of the table. Social because it is based on social data, language and communication. Idealism because it is based on ideas: maps and models of intersubjective communication.
Is the table real because if you hit it you will feel pain? Then you would be basing reality on subjective experience: your map of reality is based on what you think and feel subjectively. Subjective because it is based on subjective data from your body and sense organs. Experience because it is based on your knowledge of phenomena and your response to it.
The Roman architect Vitruvius said architecture is the combination of three things: commodity, firmness, and delight. (In Latin; firmitas (structural strength), utilitas (social usefulness), and venustas (beauty). This comes from Greek philosophy; ‘truth’, ‘goodness’, and ‘beauty’. To design a table an architect combines three forms of knowledge; objective knowledge of structural and material science, social usefulness, and beauty of design. An architect must understand all three forms of knowledge and apply them in the correct proportion to create a real table, building, or city.
Jordan Peterson, like most scientists, is one dimensional when he makes philosophical arguments. Scientists cannot see beyond objective idealism and seek to flatten all knowledge down into objective idealism. Other maps of meaning are discarded to flatten the whole world into science. Data of subjective experience and social communication are ‘flattened’ into scientific maps of purely objective information.
Ken Wilbur calls objective, subjective, and intersubjective knowledge ‘The Big Three’. Karl Popper called this ‘The Three Worlds’. Breaking down knowledge into three maps of meaning comes from Immanuel Kant and his Pure Reason, Practical Reason, and Judgement. Kant gets this breakdown of knowledge from Greek and Roman philosophy; the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.
Ken Wilbur notes that in Modernism, all knowledge was ‘flattened’ down into Objective Idealism: maps and models of objective phenomena- science. In Postmodernism all knowledge is ‘flattened’ down into Social Idealism: maps and models of social knowledge. Missing from this ‘flattening’ process is subjective knowledge, what ‘I’ think and feel. The individual subjective consciousness is minimized in Modernity and Postmodernity. Psychology tries to ‘flatten’ subjective behavior into objective maps. Humans become mental machines that should be programmed, and their performance optimized. When malfunction occurs, mental machines should be fixed or medicated.
Why ‘flatten’ knowledge in this way?
If the ancient Greeks and Romans knew how to think correctly and apply knowledge holistically why can’t Modern man do the same?
Modernity is a reaction to the industrial revolution where scientific knowledge was needed to fuel the innovation required to support capitalist industrialization. The steam engine, material science of steel, glass, and concrete, and the advances of chemistry for agriculture all required objective scientific knowledge to be prioritized above all else. Scientists sought to ‘flatten’ all knowledge down into objective maps of meaning.
Postmodernity is a reaction to the postindustrial economy where social knowledge and interaction is needed to fuel the innovation required to support postindustrial industry such as media, online user interaction, and a service-based economy. Social knowledge of interaction, images, and language must be used to drive this new economy. With this focus on social knowledge a new value system must be developed to prioritize social groups above all else.
Since the Industrial Revolution knowledge is ‘flattened’ to support the production of civilization. Our ideas of what is real is based on Modern industrial and Postmodern postindustrial ‘Production’. Knowledge has an agenda; it must be ‘Productive’. The word for productive knowledge is ‘technology’. We have lost our ability to understand ‘reality’ and instead can only understand our technologies.
What is the mechanism for the development of knowledge?
How is our understanding of reality based on ‘Production’?
Institutions create knowledge to support their function. Universities, governments, and corporations fund knowledge that supports their organizational purpose. Often governments don’t have the ability to create knowledge so ‘NGOs’ or Non-Governmental Organizations are used. The United Nations created the IPCC to support scientific knowledge to drive policy around climate change. Pharmaceutical companies fund research on science to support drug production. The United States government funds research on minority groups to support social justice initiatives.
Knowledge is socially produced.
More importantly, knowledge is suppressed. In Modernity, mass-production created the need for mass-man: the factory worker. Individual subjective knowledge was suppressed. ‘Consciousness’ was considered a development of objective scientific factors, instead of what I think and feel. The factory worker needed to focus on production not feelings. Individual wants, needs and desires were controlled through advertising, psychology, and drug use. Institutions created group-think using scientific knowledge.
Jordan Peterson, trained as a clinical psychologist, is conflicted. On one hand he subscribes to science and objective idealism. He once famously stated that human behavior was based on evolutionary behavior of lobsters. This ‘flattens’ human behavior into maps of evolutionary biology. On the other hand, he believes people’s behavior is based on social narratives, social idealism. This concept comes from Jung and the belief in archetypes. People’s behavior is based on social stories. In this way he is both a Modernist and a Postmodernist. He tries to cover his Postmodernism shame with objective science and conservative politics but fails. He is a closeted Postmodernist and should come out of the closet and embrace his shadow.
In an age where we are told to ‘Trust the Science’, we must realize that ‘science’ is developed to support the production of civilization, industrial production, and the postindustrial economy. In other words, ‘science’ has an agenda. It is the technology that supports the social structure of institutions and civilization. It is designed for mass production to make mass-man more productive.
Does Jordan Peterson understand what is real?
Certainly, he is aware of objective, subjective, and social knowledge, but trained as a clinical psychologist he is unable to take the three maps of meaning and combine them correctly to understand the holistic reality of a table. His inner conflict is evident in his lectures. We cannot fault Jordan Peterson. Scientists are not trained to think synergistically. We must teach scientists, engineers, and other mass-men, how to think correctly. This means un-flattening maps of knowledge.
How do we begin?
To get at reality ask three questions; Is it objectively true? Is it socially good? Is it subjectively beautiful? It is only in synthesis can reality be found.
Buckminster Fuller called this holistic way of thinking ‘synergetics’. Fuller taught what every architect knows.
An architect designing a humble table or a complex city, must ask three questions: Is it structurally sound? Is it socially useful? And is it beautiful? These three questions are asked again and again in various ways in the design process. Through this holistic process architects are taught to not cling to one map of meaning and ‘flatten’ others. Rather they embrace objective, social, and subjective knowledge and use them all in the design process.
