Delajte, kar je smiselno (Peterson 7), 3. del (with English translation)

Zadržujem se pri tem poglavju preko vseh meja (da o tem, kako sem že v načelu odstopil od pravil bloganja, sploh ne govorim), a v njem obravnava P. zelo pomembne teme. 

O Kristusu. Ateistu, ki je vesel, da nima nič opraviti s cerkvijo, ali pa je do nje, upravičeno ali ne, neprijazno nastrojen, je ta tema, hkrati z drugimi podobnimi, tuja. Žal. Ne morem se tu ukvarjati z vprašanjem, kako doseči, da bi ljudje prisluhnili. Lahko se samo trudim in ves čas poudarjam, da to počnem kot ateist, to je, brezbožnik, to je človek, ki ne veruje v Boga Stvarnika kot Osebo. To, da se imam za brezbožnega, ne pomeni, da me duhovnost ne zanima in da ne vidim prelomnosti Kristusovega nauka in življenja. V čem je ta prelomnost, sem po P. povzel v prejšnjem blogu. Tu naj poudarim drugo Petersonovo misel, To je misel, da je Kristus lahko vsakdo od nas; da lahko vsakdo sprejme bistvo Kristusovega nazora o življenju; da lahko vsakdo živi življenje po Kristusovem zgledu. "... Kristus /je/ vedno tisti, ki se je pripravljen spopasti z zlom - zavestno, docela in prostovoljno - v obliki, ki sočasno biva v njem in v svetu" (str. 172). Ta pripravljenost pomeni tudi pripravljenost na žrtev; v skrajnem primeru na žrtvovanje svojega življenja. Nekje sem zapisal, da je živeti etično lahko smrtno nevarno.  

A pozor! Na tem mestu je možen usoden nesporazum. Živeti kot Kristus ne pomeni prevzeti vlogo "borca proti zlu". Kristus je živel svoje življenje, doživljal njegove prijetnosti in neprijetnosti kot človek svojega časa in prostora. Zavedal se je pomena hrane in pijače (pomnožil je hlebce kruha in košare rib in iz vode naredil vino, vse skupaj sicer s propagandnim namenom) in udobja, velnesa (maziljenje nog). Ljubezen, kakršno koli že, je razglašal za poglavitno vrednoto. Opravljal je svoja dobra dela kot svetovalec, tolažnik in zdravilec, pomagal je ljudem in jih učil, kako živeti.  Vodil je ljudi v nebeško, to je, duhovno kraljestvo. To je bil njegov poklic, njegov "metier". To je rad počel. Za to je imel nagnjenje. V tem se je našel. Zaradi spleta okoliščin pa se je znašel v položaju, ko je naletel na nasprotovanje tistih, ki jih je, pretežno indirektno, z razširjanjem svojega nauka in življenjskega sloga, kritiziral, in ki so zato zahtevali njegovo smrt. Samega sebe ni mogel izneveriti in končal je na križu. Tako so končali tudi drugi pred njim in za njim, ki niso mogli izneveriti samega sebe in svojih nazorov v krutih časih, v kolikor so sploh bili ozaveščene žrtve. 

Kristus se svoje dejavnosti ni loteval kot projekta: naredil bom revolucijo; reformiral bom cerkev; boril se bom proti zlu, kjer koli bom nanj naletel, ali še huje, kjer koli ga bom, iščoč ga, našel. Ne. Kristus je živel svoje življenje in ker je čutil, da je uvidel, kaj je skrivnost življenja, je druge učil, kako živeti (tako kot Peterson po njem). Morda P. premalo poudari to usodno razliko. Morda v pretirani meri ustvari vtis, da je smisel življenja boj proti Zlu. Univerzalni Smisel življenja. Ne. Smisel življenja je živeti v skladu s svojo naravo upoštevajoč druge; biti polno živ. Ob tem se zavedaj, da je zlo zunaj tebe in v tebi. Če naletiš nanj v sebi ali zunaj sebe, mu ne popusti; upiraj se, išči načine, kako ga omejiti, mu nasprotovati. Živi mirno v skladu s samim seboj, dokler lahko živiš mirno. Če ne, če naletiš na zlo, se mu upri. Če imaš žilico opozarjati na zlo, opozarjaj, a nadaljuj svoje življenje. Tvoje življenje ni "reagiranje na zlo", "upirati se zlu". Nisi odvisnik od zla. Spominjam se prizora iz filma, ene od jugoslovanskih partizanskih epopej, Sutjeske ali Neretve, ko nemški oficir pregleduje skupino zajetih domačinov in partizanov in se cinično dela prijaznega, čeprav je jasno, kakšno usodo jim je namenil. Star kmet mu, ko pride krvnik do njega in ga ogovori, hladnokrvno zabrusi: "Radi ti svoj posao." To za nas pomeni: bodi miren, ne paktiraj z zlom, četudi za ceno življenja.

Krščanska revolucija. Predpostavljamo, da je krščanstvo bilo neke vrste revolucija, korenita sprememba - česa? V čem je bila "krščanska revolucija"; kakšna je njena narava?  Zdi se, da imamo opraviti z dvema nasprotujočima si nazoroma o tem. Po prvem pojmovanju je šlo Kristusu za realno spremembo družbenih odnosov, družbene ureditve, za neke vrste "socialistično" revolucijo. (Celo trenutni predsednik slovenske vlade je izjavil, da je bil Kristus prvi socialist.) To bi v takratnem času pomenilo osamosvojitev Judov izpod rimske nadvlade (Jan Makarovič je v svoji knjigi Sveto pismo celo primerjal Slovence in Jude v težnji po osamosvojitvi od nadvlade) in odpravo razrednih razlik znotraj judovske - in širše človeške - družbe. Po drugem skrajnem pojmovanju je šlo za duhovno revolucijo, ki naj ne bi posegala v realne družbene odnose ("dajte Bogu, kar je božjega, in cesarju, kar je cesarjevega"). Resnica bo, kot običajno, sredi med tema nazoroma. Kristus ni bil organizator oboroženega osamosvojitvenega upora, še manj revolucije, ki bi vzpostavila "brezrazredno" družbo; njegov duhovni, etični nauk, čeprav ni napeljeval k oboroženemu uporu, vseeno ne bi mogel biti brez posledic za svetno življenje in realne družbene odnose. P. opiše bistvo Kristusove duhovne revolucije. "... krščanstvo je doseglo skoraj nemogoče. Krščanski nauk je povzdignil posameznikovo dušo, povzdignil sužnja in gospodarja ... na isto metafizično osnovo in jih naredil enakopravne pred Bogom in pred zakonom" (str. 177).  "Krščanstvo se je izrecno postavilo na stališče, da ima celo najnižja oseba pravice, pristne pravice ... da lastništvo nad človekom lastnika sužnjev ... degradira celo bolj kot sužnja. ... "Krščanska družba /je/ vztrajala, da so ženske enako vredne kot moški ..." (str. 178). Itd. Ta koncept "se je vzpostavil kot temeljno načelo zahodnega prava in družbe. Tega ni bilo prej nikjer na svetu in marsikje po svetu še zdaj ni tako" (str. 77).

Že v naslednjem stavku pa gre P. v svojem navdušenju predaleč: "V resnici je pravi čudež, da so se hierarhične, na suženjstvu osnovane družbe naših prednikov preuredile pod vplivom etično-religioznega razodetja in da je treba imeti lastninsko pravico in absolutno prevlado nad drugo osebo za krivično" (str. 178). Sužnjelastniške družbe se niso preuredile pod vplivom krščanskega nauka. To "preureditev" mnogo ustrezneje pojasnjuje marksistična teorija, ki vidi vzroke za prehod iz sužnjelastniške v fevdalno družbo v manjši produktivnosti sužnjelastniških odnosov v primerjavi s fevdalnimi odnosi. Pri tem prehodu pa je imelo svojo vlogo nedvomno tudi krščanstvo, poleg dejstva, da so ob propadu Rimskega imperija "barbarska" ljudstva prinesla s seboj svoje družbene ureditve, naj bo nastajajočo fevdalno ali egalitarno rodovno ureditev. Gre za, tudi po marksistični teoriji, za so-vplivanje družbenih "baze" in "nadgradnje". Ob tem naj opomnimo, da so tudi današnje, zahodne, "krščanske" družbe, še vedno hierarhične in da hierarhijo, ki je oblika REDA, zagovarja tudi P. kot nasprotje KAOSA.

O krščanski cerkvi.  Da bi bila ironija še večja, je v nadaljnjem razvoju krščanstva cerkev potisnila krščanski nauk popolnoma v onostranstvo, v strahu, da ne bi kristjani aplicirali nauka na krivično svetno družbo in njene razredne odnose s cerkvijo vred. Tuzemsko življenje je solzna dolina, v kateri moramo dotrpeti; vse pravično se bo kot nagrada za trpljenje uresničilo na onem svetu. Pri tem so ji prav prišle Kristusove besede, da njegovo kraljestvo ni od tega sveta. Te njegove besede si sam razlagam, kot da Kristus omejuje svoj nauk na duhovno, etično sfero, in da noče posegati neposredno v materialno sfero, v realne družbene odnose, s političnim delovanjem. V imaginariju srednjeveškega (in tudi še dandanašnjega) človeka in cerkve pa so te besede pomenile razliko med tuzemskim življenjem in življenjem onkraj tega sveta, nad oblaki, v "nebesih". Ali, kot pravi P.: "Dogmatska vera v osrednje aksiome krščanstva ... je imela tri ... posledice: Prvič, razvrednotenje pomena tuzemskega življenja, ker je pomembno samo onostransko ...  Drugič, pasivno sprejemanje statusa quo, ker si odrešenja ... ni mogoče prislužiti s prizadevanjem v tem življenju. ... In tretjič, pravica vernika, da zavrne vsako resnično moralno odgovornost, ... ker je Božji sin že opravil vse pomembno delo" /nas je že odrešil/ (str. 180-181).

Vendar pa je, po P., to le ena plat Cerkve, njena dogmatska struktura. Znotraj te strukture je v Cerkvi, po P., ki tukaj navaja Dostojevskega in Nietzscheja, vendarle prostor za "njenega Ustanovitelja", za "trajno modrost Zahoda", za svobodni moderni um. To je blizu nazoru, ki mu pritrjujem tudi sam, da je Cerkev hkrati institucija, organizacija, in skupnost vernikov, hkratnost hierarhije, institucij (ustaljenih obrazcev), dogme in svobodnega izražanja, novosti, živosti. Če ne bi bilo tako, se v njej ne bi dogajale spremembe. Ne bi bilo, na primer, papeža Frančiška, ki se mi zdi fejst fant, ki pa ni ne nezmotljiv, ne vseveden, ne vsemogočen in se, ob tem, ko nekatere reči spreminja, hkrati tudi uklanja dogmi. 

Disciplina in svoboda. Tako smo prišli do, kot kaže, priljubljenega Petersonovega gesla, da ni svobode brez discipline. Resnici na ljubo sem to načelo našel že pred več kot petdesetimi leti v skromni Pelican/Penguinovi  knjižici o vzgoji (Hadfield) in ga potem zagovarjal vsake toliko časa ob razpravah o "permisivni" vzgoji. Otroka je treba naučiti osnovnega reda, to je, osebne urejenosti, urejanja njegovega prostora, strukturiranega dnevnega reda in osnove vljudnega obnašanja do drugih, da bi se po tem in ob tem lahko neobremenjen, svobodno ukvarjal s svojimi ustvarjalnimi dejavnostmi. Postavljati mu je treba razumne omejitve in zahtevati od njega spoštovanje moralnih in etičnih norm. Seveda pa je pomembno, kako ga discipliniramo in omejujemo. P. pravi, navezujoč se na Nietzscheja in Dostojevskega: "... svoboda zahteva omejenost. ... Posameznika je treba omejevati, oblikovati - celo privesti blizu uničenja - z restriktivno celovito strukturo discipline, preden lahko deluje svobodno in primerno" (str. 183). Tu smo na območju prave mere. Mislim, da človeka ni treba "privesti blizu uničenja", da bi ga vzgojili v svobodnega in spodobnega človeka. Bojim se, da na tak način, s preostro vzgojo, vzgojimo dogmatike, sadiste in fanatike, ki bodo uveljavljali etiko z ognjem in mečem v smislu rekla: naj se uresniči pravica, pa če propade ves svet (fiat iustitia, pereat mundus). Opozoril bi na pravo mero: est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines. Res pa je: "... če oče tega ne naredi /če ne postavlja omejitev/, dopušča, da njegov sin ostane Peter Pan, večni deček, kralj izgubljenih dečkov, vladar dežele Nije" (str. 183). Teh etično šibkih narcisističnih moških z otroškim obrazom (baby-face) je danes veliko.

Skušajmo povzeti in izpostaviti ključno. Kako osmisliti svoje življenje? P. razpravlja na dveh ravneh. Prvo je vprašanje o odnosu med samouresničevanjem in oblikovanjem moralnega značaja. To je staro vprašanje o odnosu med naravo in vzgojo (nature vs. nurture). P. ne vzpostavi jasnega odnosa med tema pojmoma. Zdaj nam svetuje, naj sledimo svoji naravi, potem spet, naj si prizadevamo za dobro proti zlu in oblikujemo svoj moralni karakter.

1. Samouresničevanje in oblikovanje moralnega karakterja. - V zvezi s samouresničevanjem velja najprej razčistiti, kaj ta pojem pomeni. Tu P. opozori na zelo pomembno razliko, na katero sem bil sam opozoril v enem prejšnjih blogov o samouresničevanju, ko sem obravnaval razliko med samouresničevanjem in "samodizajniranjem". P. piše: "Ne morem si kratkomalo ukazati, kaj naj delam" (str. 184). P. ponavlja misel C. G. Junga: "Ne moremo izumiti svojih vrednot, ker svojih prepričanj ne moremo kar vsiliti svoji duši" (prav tam). P. imenuje take poskuse "lastni totalitarizem", vsiljevanje idej samemu sebi. Pri samouresničevanju ne gre za to, da bi si izdelali idealno ali zaželeno  podobo samega sebe in izdelali program uresničevanja te podobe. "Imamo naravo. ... "Odkriti moramo to naravo in jo sprejeti, preden se pomirimo sami s sabo" (prav tam). Odkrivanju svoje narave pravim "odkriti svojo lego", "svoj metier". To pomeni prisluhniti svojim nagnjenjem, svojemu načinu odzivanja na svet in sebe (miren, buren, ravnodušen, prizadet); svojim zanimanjem, sposobnostim; zaznati in sprejeti svoje pomanjkljivosti, averzije itd. Ob tem pa odkrivamo svoje vrednote in skrbimo za oblikovanje svoje etike (hierarhije vrednot) in svojega moralnega značaja. Samouresničevanje in oblikovanje značaja potekata istočasno, z roko v roki. Res pa je, da so s poudarjanjem samouresničevanja zanemarili usmerjanje v oblikovanje etično trdnega karakterja.

2. Pospravljanje pod svojo streho in izboljševanje sveta. - Peterson me je zmedel, morda zato, ker je tu njegovo besedilo protislovno, brez jasnih odnosov med ključnimi pojmi. Naj to vsaj nekoliko utemeljim. V sklepnem podpoglavju 7. poglavja zapiše najprej, naj bom ponižen (njegov nagovor v drugi osebi ednine jemljem osebno!) in naj najprej pospravim pod svojo streho, preden skušam spremeniti svet. Nato pa mi pravi, da bom doživel globlji občutek smisla, če bom "postavil poslanstvo 'narediti svet boljši' na vrh svoje moralne hierarhije." (str. 190). Saj pravzaprav ni nič narobe: najprej naj pospravim pod svojo streho, nato naj se lotim izboljševanja sveta. Narediti svet boljši je po njegovem celo odplačevanje dolga, "ki sem ga dolžan za blazen in neverjeten čudež svojega obstoja" (prav tam). Tine Hribar piše o "daru biti". Če kaj podarim, ne pričakujem povračila. Če prejmem dar, se ne čutim dolžnega. Ali pa se gremo trgovino in daj-dam, v okviru katerega si pridobim prijatelje, ker mi lahko prav pridejo. Dokler pospravljam pod svojo streho, moje poslanstvo spremeniti svet ni na vrhu moje moralne hierarhije. Ali pač? Najbrž je, a popravljanja sveta se lotim tako, da najprej popravim sebe. To lahko dolgo traja. Mogoče pa gre oboje hkrati, dopoldne pri "Ekologih brez meja" spreminjam svet, popoldne pa pri psihoterapevtu popravljam sebe?

HOPEFULLY UNDERSTANDABLE ENGLISH TRANSLATION (citations are translations of translations!)

About Christ.  To the atheist, who is happy that he has nothing to do with the church, rightfully or not, this topic is strange. To my sorry.  Here I can not deal with the question of how to reach people to listen to. I can only constantly emphasize that I, as an atheist, that is, a person who does not believe in the Creator or in God as a Person am interested in spirituality and that I do see the breakthrough importance of Christ's teachings and life. What is the nature of his breakthrough, I summarized in the previous blog. Here I emphasize the other Peterson's thought, the thought that every one of us can be Christ; that everyone can take the essence of Christ's view of life; and that everyone can live a life according to Christ's example. "... Christ / is / always ready to deal with evil - consciously, fully and voluntarily - in a form that co-operates in him and in the world" (page 172). This willingness also means readiness to sacrifice; in the extreme case of sacrificing their own lives. Somewhere I wrote that living ethically can be life-threatening.

But watch out! There can be a fatal misunderstanding. Living as Christ does not mean taking on the role of a "fighter against evil". Christ was living his life, experiencing its pleasantness and inconveniences as a man of his time and space. He was aware of the importance of food and drink (he multiplied loaves of bread and fish baskets and made wine from the water, even if for propaganda purposes), comfort, and wellness (anointing of feet). Love, whatever it is, was proclaimed as a major value. He performed his good deeds as a counselor, comforter, and healer, he helped people and taught them how to live. He led people into the heavenly, that is, the spiritual kingdom. This was his profession, his "metier." That's what he was doing. He had an urge to do this. He found himself in this. Because of the circumstances of the situation, he found himself in a situation where he encountered the opposition of those whom he criticized, mainly indirectly through the dissemination of his doctrine and lifestyle, and who therefore demanded his death. He could not betray himself and ended up on the cross. That is how others ended up before him, and after him, who could not betray themselves and their views in times of cruelty, if at all conscious of what was happening.

Christ did not understand his activity as a project: I will make a revolution; I will reform the church; I will fight evil, wherever I come upon it, or even worse, wherever I find it, looking for it intentionally. No. Christ lived his life, and because he felt that he had seen what was the mystery of life, he taught others how to live (like Peterson after him). Perhaps P. does not underline enough this fateful difference. Perhaps the impression is created that the meaning of life is fighting against evil. The universal meaning of life. No. The meaning of life is to live according to one's nature, taking into account the wellness of others. To be aware that evil is outside us and within us. If you encounter it inside or outside, don't give up; look for ways to limit it, and oppose it. Live peacefully according to your nature and character, as long as you can live peacefully.  When not, when you encounter evil, oppose it. Keep warning of evil, but continue your life. Your life is not a "reaction to evil". You are not an addict of evil. Be calm, do not make a pact with evil, even for the price of life.

The Christian Revolution. What was it? What is her nature? It seems that we have to deal with two contradictory views on this. After the first conception, Christ was about to make a real change in social relations, and social order, a kind of "socialist" revolution. (Even the current president of the Slovene government declared that Christ was the first socialist.) At that time, this would mean the independence of the Jews from Roman supremacy and the elimination of class differences within the Jewish - and wider human - society. Following the other extreme concept, it was a spiritual revolution that should not interfere with real social relations ("give to God what is God's, and to the Emperor, what is the Emperor's"). The truth will be, as usual, in the middle. Christ was not the organizer of an armed rebellion, even less a revolution that would establish a "classless" society; his spiritual, ethical doctrine, although it did not invite armed resistance, could not, however, be without consequences for worldly life and real social relations. P. describes the essence of Christ's spiritual revolution. "... Christianity has reached almost impossible. The Christian doctrine elevated the soul of the individual, raised the slave and the master ... on the same metaphysical basis and made them equal before God and before the law" (page 177). "Christianity has explicitly stated that even the lowest person has the right, the genuine rights ... that the ownership of a slave ... is degrading the owner even more than the slave ..." The Christian society insisted that women are equally worthy of as men ... "(page 178). This concept" was established as a fundamental principle of Western law and society. There was no such thing before anywhere in the world, and it is not yet anywhere in the world now "(page 77).

Already in the next sentence, P. is too excited and enthusiastic: "In fact, it is a real miracle that the hierarchical, in the slavery founded societies of our ancestors, have been rearranged under the influence of ethical-religious revelation and that it is unjust and criminal to have a property right and an absolute dominance over another person" (page 178). The societies of slave ownership were not reorganized under the influence of Christian teachings. This "rearrangement" is more appropriately explained by the Marxist theory, which sees the reasons for the transition from the slave to the feudal society in the lower productivity of slavery relations compared to feudal relations. In addition to the fact that, at the time of the decline of the Roman Empire, the "barbarian" peoples brought with them their social order, the emerging feudal or egalitarian tribal order, had undoubtedly played a part in this transition. The Marxist theory would even permit for the co-influence of social "base" and "superstructure". In addition, let us remind that today's, western, "Christian" societies, are still hierarchical and that the hierarchy is a form of ORDER, defended by P. against CAOS.

The Christian Church. To further increase the irony, in the further development of Christianity, the church pushed the Christian doctrine completely into the realm of the transcendental, fearing that Christians would apply the teachings to the unjust worldly society and its class relations, and against the church hierarchy itself. The worldly life is a tearing valley in which we have to endure; then as a reward for suffering, the justice will come true in the other world. The words of Christ have been interpreted in the sense that his kingdom is not of this world but of the transcendental one. My explanation is that Christ restricts his doctrine to the spiritual, ethical sphere, and refuses to intervene directly in the material sphere, into the real social relations, with political action. In the imagination of the medieval (and even today's) people and the church, these words meant the difference between life here and life beyond this world, above the clouds, in the "heavens". Or, as P says: "The dogmatic faith in the central axiom of Christianity ... had three ... consequences: Firstly, the degradation of the meaning of life here and now because only transcendent life is important ... Secondly, the passive acceptance of the status quo, because the salvation ... can not be earned by the efforts in this life ... And thirdly, the believer's right to refuse any real moral responsibility ... because the Son of God has already done all the important work "/ has already saved us (p. 180-181).

However, this is only one side of the Church, its dogmatic structure. Within the structure, according to P., mentioning Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche here, there is a place for "its Founder", for "permanent wisdom of the West", and for the free modern mind. It is close to my view that the Church is at the same time an institution and a community of believers, the simultaneousness of hierarchy, institutions, dogmas, and freedom of expression, novelty, and life. If it were not, there would be no change in it.

Discipline and freedom. So we came to, as it seems, the popular Peterson's claim that there is no freedom without discipline. I found this principle more than fifty years ago in a modest Pelican / Penguin booklet on education (Hadfield…?) and then I advocated it every once in a while when joining the discussions of "permissive" education. The child should learn the basic order, that is, personal hygiene, the arrangement of his space, the structured agenda, and the basis of polite behavior towards others, to be free to deal with his creative activities and pursuits. He should be confronted with reasonable limits and demands to respect moral and ethical norms. It is important to discipline and limit it. P. says, referring to Nietzsche and Dostoevsky:... freedom requires limits ... One should be restricted, shaped - even brought near to destruction - with a restrictive overall structure of discipline before he can operate freely and appropriately" (page 183). Here we are speaking about the right scale. I do not think that a person should be "brought near to destruction" to bring him into a free, responsible and decent man or woman. I am afraid that in such a way, with a too strict upbringing, we will raise dogmatics, sadists, and fanatics, who will use ethics with fire and sword: to realize the right and just, even if the whole world falls to the ruins (fiat iustitia, pereat mundus). There is a right measure in everything: est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines. However, it is true: "... if a father does not do this, he /does not set a limit / allows his son to remain, Peter Pan, the eternal boy, the king of the lost boys, the ruler of the Land Nowhere" (page 183). These ethically weak narcissistic men with a baby face are many today.

Let's try to summarize and highlight the basic ideas. How to find the sense of your life? P. discusses this on two levels. The first is the question of the relationship between self-realization and the formation of a moral character. This is an old question about the relationship between nature and nurture. P. does not establish a clear relationship between these concepts. Now he advises us to follow our own nature, then again, to strive for good against evil and to shape our moral character.

1. Self-realization and the formation of a moral character. – P. draws attention to the very important difference that I identified in one of the previous blogs about self-realization when I considered the difference between self-realization and self-design. P. writes: "I can not order myself what to do" (page 184). P. repeats the thought of C. G. Jung: "We can not invent our values, because we can not force our beliefs to force our souls" (ibidem). P. calls such experiments "one's own totalitarianism", imposing ideas on oneself. Self-realization is not about creating an ideal or desirable self-image and creating a program for realizing this image. "We have nature ... ...We need to discover this nature and accept it before we reconcile itself with ourselves "(ibidem). In my words, one should find out his /her suitable life position, his »metier«. This means listening to one's own inclination, the way of responding to the world and ourselves, one's temperament (calm, turbulent, indifferent, sensitive, sanguine, choleric), and one's interests, and abilities. One has to perceive and accept their defects, aversions, etc. In doing so, we discover our values and care for the building of our ethics (hierarchy of values), for our moral character. Self-realization and shaping of character take place at the same time, hand in hand. It is true that by emphasizing self-realization, the formation of an ethically solid character was neglected in psychology in the last decades.

2. Rooming up under one's own roof and improving the world. - Peterson has confused me to a certain extent; I'm missing a clear distinction between the key concepts. In the concluding subchapter of chapter 7, he writes that we should be humble and first room up under our own roof before trying to change the world. Then he tells us that we will experience a deeper sense of meaning if we "set the mission" to make the world better "to the top of /our/ moral hierarchy." (p. 190). In fact, there is not much wrong: first, let me room up under my roof, then let me try to improve the world. Making the world better is understood as the repayment of debt, "for the incredible miracle of my existence" (right there). Tine Hribar, a Slovenian philosopher writes about "the gift of being". If I donate anything, I do not expect reimbursement. If I receive a gift, I do not feel obligated to reciprocate. Otherwise, the gift is not a gift but a form of trade (as, according to P., friendship is).  It can be this in the Trobriand Islands, but not in my ethical conception. As long as I'm rooming up under my roof, my mission to change the world is not at the top of my moral hierarchy. Or maybe, I am trying to correct the world by first fixing myself. This can take a long time. Maybe it happens both at the same time, I am changing the world in the "Ecologists Without Borders" in the morning, and in the afternoon, am I correcting myself in the psychotherapist's office?