\u201cHow do know the love of God is not a counterfeit-love?\u201d This was asked by a teenager in a recent youth meeting on Wednesday night. The youth leader came up to me after the meeting and asked how I would answer that question. I thought about it for a moment then said, \u201cIf you know that there is counterfeit-love then it means that there is a true expression of love. We know of love because God is love and God is the truest expression of love.\u201d This story came to mind as I encounter the argument of Jordan B. Peterson in Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief<\/i>. In it, Peterson argues that there are different ways of knowing and discovering meaning that can have severe consequences when removed.[1]<\/p>\n
Summary<\/b><\/p>\n
Map of Meaning is a dense exploration of belief and meaning drawing from various academic fields and reflected in Peterson\u2019s own story of leaving religious myth behind only to struggle with existential despair.[2] Given the complexity of Peterson\u2019s lengthy exploration, I turned to ChatGPT to offer some insight into the them of the book. ChatGPT offered, \u201cThe central theme of \u201cMaps of Meaning\u201d revolves around the exploration of meaning and belief systems, particularly their psychological and cultural underpinnings.\u201d[3]\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Knowing What We know<\/b><\/p>\n Peterson makes the interesting distinction between two ways of knowing: forum for action and place of things.[4] Peterson argues that the \u201cforum for action\u201d is the place of mythology that provides meaning through story, social constructs, and symbolism.[5]. The second mode of interacting with the world is what he calls \u201cplace of things\u201d which understands the world in a scientific manner subject to rigorous process.[6]. Peterson unpacks these distinctions to restore validity to religious and mythological symbolism as valid forms of knowing for humanity, even arguing that this type of knowing is encoded in the individual and society even if the person does not affirm religious belief.[7].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Peterson matures this argument in his series of lectures called the The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories<\/i>. His lecture on Genesis<\/i> begins by laying the foundation for consciousness being an a priori category of understanding the world that constructs meaning in the world.[8] In this series of videos, Peterson shortens \u201cforum for action\u201d to \u201cpotential.\u201d He offers the different ways we find meaning when he observes, \u201c\u2026we tend to think that what you encounter when you\u2019re looking at the world is the material world, but that isn\u2019t how you act. You act as if you are in a place of potential.\u201d[9]<\/p>\n Counterfeit-Love<\/b><\/p>\n The distinction between potential and the material world was not the subject of the teenager\u2019s question, yet it reminded me of Peterson\u2019s elevation of meaning as a \u201cforum for action.\u201d A question like,\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cHow do you know you are loved\u201d cannot be answered scientifically. We can try to demonstrate it by the evidence a person might exhibit, such has the frequency of his or a spoken \u201cI love you\u201d per day or week. To further complicate this type of approach is that God does not adhere to such empirical scrutiny. It would makes sense that a person might question the love of God if God does not give them four plus hugs per day, which is above the determined average; yet, as Peterson argues, a different type of meaning is just as valid (or more so). Therefore, to determine if a love is valid, a person might consider a moment in which love was determined valid and compare that experience to the current love that is considered, or conversely, compare a time when love was found invalid to abstract the potential.[10] Teenagers truly ask the most profound questions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u200c1. Jordan Peterson, Maps of Meaning : The Architecture of Belief <\/i>(London: Routledge, 1999) p. 5-6.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 2. Ibid., xix.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 3. \u201cThemes Maps of Meaning\u201d, November 9, GPT-3.5, OpenAI, November 9 2023, chat.openai.com\/chat<\/a><\/p>\n 4. Peterson, 1.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 5. Ibid.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n