I agree with David below that you said it perfectly "... aim for an understanding and not a reconciliation of these sides". For me, what was frustrating about Peterson was his aversion(not like I'm surprised) to answering black and white questions. Also Dawkins not easily accepting that the human story is riddled with myths and symbols. Someone in the comments somewhere said Dawkins wearing a tie was wearing a symbol we all agreed to. Was he literally being tied? lol
"Perhaps, we should aim for an understanding and not a reconciliation of these sides"
I think that was Beautifully said.
Also I love what McGhilchrist has been able to show us about how the Left and Right Brian operates, but I also wonder if it doesn't still operates within an Emperical framework closer to Dawkins world view.
I guess what I am saying is, having understood that the Right Brian is more open to mystery and a symbolical type thinking, one is still left to wonder if it's ultimately just a brain activity and nothing more.
I guess Dawkins might say something like, yes I know you find the Virgin Birth useful because you have an active right brain, but it's only a Brain activity and nothing more.
Quite revealing that, considered deeply, McGilchrist's theory is an empirical framework that operates within - without championing - Dawkins' worldview.
It also seems to me that Peterson and Dawkins' brains have over-indexed on the basic functions of the hemispheres that inform each worldview. If these are immutable, one wonders why there's a contention about which side is "right."
But my McGilchrist-addled brain - from reading his work and watching most of his videos - wishes that the world is oriented around the character and qualities of the right brain. And that, shamefully and paradoxically, is a left-brain attitude demanding an exact outcome. 😬
I was reminded of the conversation between JRR Tolkien and C.S Lewis, where Tolkien referred to the Christian myth as a Myth that actually happened, hereby joining the Mythological and Historical.
So, even if there are a lot of Mythological languages within the Christian story, it is still around actual Historical events. I think Peterson is quite aware of that aspects but avoids it, because it raises questions like Miracles and the supernatural, which I don't think he's ready to Defend.
Peterson in my opinion is still trying to play within the Scientific rationalists square, though he is trying to expand the square.
When the question of Dragons was brought up, though I really understood what peterson was saying, as regards to Meta-categories, and how Dragons were like an absolute image of a predator, yet I think he was still trying to fix it with a biological framework as if it was a physical animal we hadn't seen, and Dawkins wasn't having any of that.
Yet I was surprised at how Dawkins couldn't see past his usual biological categories. He was strictly fundamentalist in his approach in my opinion.
I agree with David below that you said it perfectly "... aim for an understanding and not a reconciliation of these sides". For me, what was frustrating about Peterson was his aversion(not like I'm surprised) to answering black and white questions. Also Dawkins not easily accepting that the human story is riddled with myths and symbols. Someone in the comments somewhere said Dawkins wearing a tie was wearing a symbol we all agreed to. Was he literally being tied? lol
Oh my! lol
"Perhaps, we should aim for an understanding and not a reconciliation of these sides"
I think that was Beautifully said.
Also I love what McGhilchrist has been able to show us about how the Left and Right Brian operates, but I also wonder if it doesn't still operates within an Emperical framework closer to Dawkins world view.
I guess what I am saying is, having understood that the Right Brian is more open to mystery and a symbolical type thinking, one is still left to wonder if it's ultimately just a brain activity and nothing more.
I guess Dawkins might say something like, yes I know you find the Virgin Birth useful because you have an active right brain, but it's only a Brain activity and nothing more.
I think you've framed this more devastatingly.
Quite revealing that, considered deeply, McGilchrist's theory is an empirical framework that operates within - without championing - Dawkins' worldview.
It also seems to me that Peterson and Dawkins' brains have over-indexed on the basic functions of the hemispheres that inform each worldview. If these are immutable, one wonders why there's a contention about which side is "right."
But my McGilchrist-addled brain - from reading his work and watching most of his videos - wishes that the world is oriented around the character and qualities of the right brain. And that, shamefully and paradoxically, is a left-brain attitude demanding an exact outcome. 😬
I was reminded of the conversation between JRR Tolkien and C.S Lewis, where Tolkien referred to the Christian myth as a Myth that actually happened, hereby joining the Mythological and Historical.
So, even if there are a lot of Mythological languages within the Christian story, it is still around actual Historical events. I think Peterson is quite aware of that aspects but avoids it, because it raises questions like Miracles and the supernatural, which I don't think he's ready to Defend.
Peterson in my opinion is still trying to play within the Scientific rationalists square, though he is trying to expand the square.
When the question of Dragons was brought up, though I really understood what peterson was saying, as regards to Meta-categories, and how Dragons were like an absolute image of a predator, yet I think he was still trying to fix it with a biological framework as if it was a physical animal we hadn't seen, and Dawkins wasn't having any of that.
Yet I was surprised at how Dawkins couldn't see past his usual biological categories. He was strictly fundamentalist in his approach in my opinion.