https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=0mqVbNSUvvs

one conversation you and I have is, does it matter that all of it happened? Because that was the conversation, did it happen, did it not happen, and now, because of Peterson, Christianity’s got a good hold because of its talk about mythology and archetypes. But of course, does it matter that it actually happened? So, I think that, how can I say this? I think that all religions are based on events, you know, and even when the ancient myths describe the gods, they’re talking about events. They’re not talking about events at the same level that we’re talking at, right? And so, there are different levels of events, and it’s very simple. Like when I describe the tying of my shoe, I’m not, it’s not the same level of event that if I say Rome fell. Like the category of Rome fell is an extremely high event in terms of what it implies, what it, you know, what it, and then people could even, you know, argue about it because it’s so big. So imagine if you take that even bigger, when they describe the gods, I think they’re describing events, just very, very high events and almost very abstract events, the way, maybe the best way to understand it. But for sure, let’s say one of the things that happens in time, and you see that in the Bible, and you see that in the Old Testament and the New Testament, is that there’s a way in which people realize that there’s a concretization of those patterns. It’s like these patterns actually happen in the world. They’re not just high, high patterns, that actually the world that we live in is actually patterned in those same way. So for sure, in terms of Christianity, I think that Christians, I think to be a Christian, you have to believe in the incarnation and the death and resurrection of Christ, and that those are events that happen in the world. Now I’ve said many times, they’re not forensic descriptions and they’re not trying to describe the causalities of what’s happening. They’re not trying to describe the nature of the resurrected body of Jesus. You don’t see any of that. They actually tried to obfuscate the capacity to simply see the resurrection as some kind of, let’s say, forensic event that you could describe to a police officer, because there’s actually moments when the disciples don’t recognize Jesus. They don’t know what they’re looking at. They don’t know what’s going on. There’s a sense in which the Bible itself is saying, yes, the resurrection happened, but don’t try to box it in. Don’t try to give it a forensic description. But I think it’s important to understand that, because one of the problems of wanting things to be symbolic or only symbolic or only mythological or only archetypal is that then you again have the same issue, which is that you believe that the world doesn’t actually exist in those archetypes, that somehow the world can exist just neutrally and arbitrarily. But I think what we’re discovering more and more is that your very perception, your very capacity to perceive the world is imbibed in those mechanisms. So your very capacity to link events together in order to see unity in multiplicity of events is necessarily archetypal. So you could say something like there’s nothing that happens which isn’t to some degree archetypal, or that if we’re not able to see the archetypal aspect of what’s happening, it’s a fault of ours. And that something like the saints, the enlightened ones could see the pattern in everything. They could notice that the entire world is a theophany of these primordial patterns. So I think that it’s an important distinction because I get a lot of that. Obviously, because they talk about symbolism, people, they wanna stay up in the symbols and they’re interested in seeing the patterns. But it’s how it lands that’s really important, I think. And that’s what makes a difference in terms of a way to live and a way to embody these patterns. It’s not just something we think about, right? It’s not just something we read in books. It’s not just when we interpret movies. It’s that, let’s say if a movie is a condensed, very, very compressed story of someone’s love life, let’s say a love movie, your story of your love life will follow similar patterns, right? The difference between a story is just that they compress. It’s like you take all the salient facts, you distill them into more salient facts, and then you compress them together. So you take your love story of your life, let’s say, and then you remove the bits where you’re going to the bathroom and where you’re doing something else and you’re working. You like take out all the bits that don’t relate to the pattern and then you just smash them together. And that’s why we have, that’s why when we watch movies or we read books, like let’s say novels, we have revelation because it’s like, I’m connecting all these things much closer together and then it can reflect back on me. But those patterns exist in your life. That’s why we care about them. That’s why we find them interesting is because they’re reflecting something which exists in the world.