A Further Note On My Gloss On Jordan Peterson On Immanence And Exhiliration

I wrote this to someone, fwiw—he’d listed a lot of really bad folks who were/are religious 

....Your first sentence sounds pretty and profound but makes not a lot of sense to me. 

I could a stab at unpacking it but it would be guess work. 

I was trying to put a gloss on what I heard Peterson say, that, as I have it, there is deep within us all a drive, an impulse, to make meaning, to seek coherence, to seek the wholeness of ourselves. The medium for the manifestation of that driven impulse is consciousness informed by our feelings, themselves the outpourings of our deepest selves, physically and psychologically. 

When we feel profound exhilaration, then that drive for meaning for the instant of our experience resolves itself in a heightened state we might characterize as something like pure being or transcendence, an instant of experience when we get past the ordinary fractiousness, tensions, paradoxes, weaknesses, frailties, deficits, enigmas, uncertainties and so on of ongoing typical living, (which rationality and deliberation not only can’t ultimately resolve but inhere in and help create.) We reach peaks in those experiences.   

And here’s a point in response to your list: the achievement of these high moments of being does not confer morality or beneficence on us. What may ignite transcendence will for good or (say) normal people will likely include the kinds of things I first listed but the twisted and the perverse and the evil the external sources may well include what destructive and depraved, I’d argue. But the evil too have their own experiences of transcendence. In that regard your list, on consideration and further reflection, seems in fact outside Peterson’s point as glossed by me, even as your list and your elusive further comment prompted some further thought by me.  

Any thoughts on this?...