YAP (Yet Another Pattern) from Jordan Peterson structures

I have been listening to a number of Jordan Peterson videos and reading some of his material. What he is saying is well articulated. He backs up his analysis with a deep study of the subject area - very impressive. However, there was something about his meta model that was causing me some cognitive dissonance. I have been trying to understand the source of that dissonance for some time. Every time I listen to him, I find him insightful, honest, and very genuine.

This morning I had, imho, an insight into where that dissonance is coming from.

• Peterson divides the world into chaos and order. 
• Chaos is characterized as being "feminine" and order as "masculine".
• Western civilization and its benefits arise from an order based in significant measure on Christian ethics / morality - the value of each person in and of themselves. This is unlike Judaism, which has a chosen people and the rest (by definition) are unchosen creating a tribalism, i.e., those within and outside the tribe. Islam taxes the non-believers; again creating a tribalism. Some forms of Christianity  also create tribalism - the saved and the unsaved.
• We would  not have the benefits of Western civilization without the seeds derived from Christ's message and him as a model.

What helped me resolve the dissonance were the notions

• that nature can / does create order out of chaos all the time. 
• The seed(s) that help / instantiate that process can be very different in different contexts.
• Christianity was one such seed. However, it is not the only possible seed.
• Nature is self organizing. Our particular form of organization is not the only possible form, not necessarily the best or the worst. It is more likely we are in the middle of the distribution curve rather than either extreme.
• To narrow a causal chain to a single major cause misses the dynamics of chaos. An infinite(?) number of perturbations has led to the current state of affairs. To assign major causality to a single factor or small number of factors narrows the belief system unnecessarily. For me, this creates a dissonance with the meta model that is articulated.

That said, Peterson makes a lot of sense in a lot of different domains. His models of archetypes and the maps of meaning are a very interesting narrative.

It is easy to forget that all we have are narratives. We have a tendency to confuse narrative with truth. As an example, it is very difficult to prove uniqueness of a solution in mathematics. On top of that, the kind of math we do is probably not the only kind of math that is possible. That is not to denigrate the immense value of math in our development and all the benefits  we accrue from it.