I have to disagree on this one. I believe you are misinterpreting his symbolic view. The symbolic view here is not symbolic as in a poetic way using natural language. It is symbolic as in a mathematical and programmatical way. His "vehicle" and "chariot" example is basically copy pasted from object-oriented programming methodology.
I do agree that the lack of references is annoying but that is not a good enough reason to not appreciate the patterns he has made more visible in the biblical narratives.
He clearly has a mathematical mind, and I know that may appear confusing given he rejects a materialistic view. But I believe his rejection is specific to Biblical interpretations under materialism. The contrast comes from showcasing how a symbolic/mathematical pattern in the Bible works well, but when under a modern scientific perspective it would appear muddy and confusing.
Also, his views on abstractions are very much platonic. And are the same baselines the Church fathers have used, I believe this is why people say he was influenced by them. The concept of Universals, for example, seems to be interwoven through the concepts in the book, although in a more implicit way.
I truly enjoyed it and I think it can provide huge insight to a lot of believers, but I can also understand it is not everyone's cup of tea.
To push back, I don't think he has made patterns "more visible" I think he's imposing things that aren't there. For example I find no resonance in anything in the Old Testament that said Adam's left and right hand are symbols of space and time, it's just plain made up.
Thanks. This confirms a lot of what I suspected about both Pageau’s systems of symbolic interpretation, but I did not have the patience to read through the book. Grateful that you waded through it for us.
My understanding was that this book was always just Matthieu Pageau’s personal ideas rather than a serious scholarly work, so I never much cared about the absence of a bibliography. I mean, Jonathan Pageau comes off the same way - just riffing most of the time and occasionally name-dropping some Church Fathers, but I still find him rather interesting, despite his criminal overuse of words like “of course” and “obviously.”
The worst offense of M. Pageau’s book was that it was utterly boring. It was a bit like reading an actual, bone-dry grammar textbook. (Which, speaking as one who has taught English, is not an effective way to learn a language.) All of the little diagrams were silly. I was hard pressed to recall what amazing insights a particular chapter had revealed just moments after finishing it. I’d venture to say, one could find more inspiration in a cheesy dream dictionary.
Yet when Jordan Peterson interviewed M. Pageau a few years back, he acted as though he were speaking with some undiscovered genius or prophet and together, these two anointed men were condescending to reveal to us the secrets of the universe. That’s about the time I moved on from both of them.
I suspect I'd be very happy with the idea of the book if it was presented as "hey here's a symbolic trope I'm noticing that the bible conveys in all these different places!". I'm a Christian, I think the bible is extraordinarily rich, and I'm happy to see symbolic themes in it- matter vs. form, knowledge vs love, order vs chaos, etc., many of which might be genuinely meaningful, though not to the exclusion of the others. But instead it is presented as The Key To The Bible and couched in analytic silliness like an ape of the hard sciences.
I’m encouraged to read your article, as my assumption to date (which may still hold water) was that his book just went over my head. I was enormously frustrated the lack of referencing, which I found bizarre, for the reasons you mentioned. The reading experience was all the more disappointing given the fact that I’d purchased the book upon Jonathan’s recommendation in one of his video’s…someone had asked him how one gets started in symbolic reading (something along those lines) and he strongly recommended his brother’s book.
Any ideas on alternate books that might do a better job? (And which contain references)
It’s a shame as I read it optimistically, but I agree with your analysis. I think the general idea of the book resonated with me somewhat, in that I do think the Bible seems to illustrate man’s place in the universe as the intersection between spiritual/abstract and and the material. However I totally agree that it felt unprofessional & “dog ate my homework” in execution, and ultimately was a let down. Great review! :)
I agree he's not worth reading but to be fair to him I don't think he's a grifter, apparently he lives in a yurt in Canada and he's not trying to monetise his name any further, I get the impression he wrote it because he believes it one hundred percent. Being wrong doesn't necessarily mean bad intentions.
Ah, thanks, I stumbled across this Stack and am really low on context in this corner of the universe. Of course I should've been more charitable anyway. I work in math and we see perfectly sincere cranks all the time so it's a familiar situation. It's too bad he doesn't just do some mysticism, that seems like a much better fit for the yurt!
I'll come back later with a more detailed response, but for now:
You have violated a cardinal rule of argumentation, the principle of charity. That is, you don’t assume the most rational, coherent, and plausible version possible of his argument.
Despite claims to the contrary, you do not give the benefit of any self-doubt concerning your own understanding, but instead assert that it's "nonsense" or "ridiculous" or “caricatured” or “confused”/”confusing” or “complete babble.”
You ask many, many rhetorical questions, without demonstrating any effort to look for a plausible explanation.
Let’s take your whining about his lack of references as an example. There are explanations you fail to contemplate:
His ideas could be plagiarized. You bring up the possibility, though you don’t actually accuse him. But you fail to confirm or exclude it. In the age of AI. And of Google. And of databases of biblical references.
Or his ideas could be common knowledge in scholarly circles. Are they? Again, you don’t say. (A few are, most notably his version of Aristotelian “causes.”)
Or he’s writing outside the world of formal scholarship, and has his tactical reasons. (He is and he does.) You could have asked.
But, or, finally and most probably, if you had excluded or taken account of these others: It’s truly original thought.
(I've read the book five times and discussed it online for dozens of hours with serious thinkers. And yes, I agree: It's frustrating not to have references. (My doctoral dissertation had a bibliography of 30 pages.) I got over it.)
Putting referencing to one side (I don't think he's plagiarizing or relying on common knowledge I think he's making stuff up), what is the rational, coherent, and plausible version of his argument?
I mean I tried to make some positive sense out of his concrete/abstract thing. One issue with the book is huge subjects are introduced in a few questionably edited paragraphs/sentences and terms that are not properly defined. It's one reason why referencing would help, it might have allowed you to get some sense of where his definitions are coming from.
You conclude: “I find nothing in it that is edifying for a believer, nothing in it that is spiritually helpful, and nothing in it that enhances my understanding of God. In fact by the end of the book, rather like Jordan Peterson, I am left wondering what God if any the author believes in. The God of the ‘abstract principles’ like ‘vehicle,’ I guess.”
This is revealing and lamentable. Pageau makes two questions central to rediscovering the spiritual worldview:
“What does it mean?” And: “What spiritual truth does it embody?”
I personally know of several people whose study of the book has in fact transformed their spiritual life, or even brought them back to the faith and the church.
Others have gained tremendous insight into a lost way of seeing the world. I am one of these. This book (and other content by his brother Jonathan and others) has helped me recover what I believe is much closer to an ancient understanding of the world, especially by the Hebrews, but even to ancient cultures generally. And it has allowed me to see more meaning around me, in innumerable ways. It has renewed my walk with God. This after sixty years of life, and Bible-based ministry, including a seminary degree (MDiv).
You think Pageau is trying to crack the code of the Bible, to give us a this-for-that formula for interpreting symbols. But both Matthieu and Jonathan Pageau have denied that symbolism is a “system” of that kind. The range of meanings connected with the symbols Matthieu Pageau discusses is not compatible with such an aim. He claims every single symbol, for example, is manifest at multiple levels of cosmic reality, from the highest to the lowest.
You also position Pageau as opposing “big bad science.” He does not, but instead credits its insights, both in the introduction and conclusion to the book. Rather, Pageau is trying to help us reengage with the pre-Scientific Revolution mindset.
It is a truism of Christian cultural commentary that we live in an age of “disenchantment.” Insisting that we still use metaphors and symbols, as you do, is a weak objection to a project like this.
You don’t seem willing to admit that the pre-modern/biblical mindset was radically different from ours, let alone to try to experience it. Maybe the question to ask: Do you think we have sufficiently addressed what we have lost? (I do not.)
You conflate Pageau’s aim to transcend the material mindset with an argument against materialism. He does shift between the two too easily. But the material perspective is just as much of a problem for many Christians as it is for non-Christians. We don’t ask the right questions. He's not engaging materialists per se.
You don’t treat his project seriously, simply objecting that it doesn’t make sense: “It sounds like nonsense, and it sounds like Pageau is just making stuff up, but how am I meant to know?” Well, you try to make it work, and see. Approach it as if you have something to learn. Stay with it long enough to understand what HE think he is saying.
(You obviously DON’T; you say so.)
(Or don't. You didn't have to post this review. But engage more if you do, rather than just whining that it doesn't conform to conventions it never attempted to meet.)
Perhaps most troubling, you seem to lack curiosity. You ask questions, but have no interest in answering them. Pageau is a serious Christian. Did it not occur to you to ask, for example, why his 330-page book contains not a single reference to Jesus, to Christianity, or even to the New Testament?
That's not a "rational, coherent, and plausible version of his argument," it's you saying you don't like me criticising them. I thought you might like to explain how "vehicle" is an abstraction too high for us to understand or why he has licence to make stuff up about what Adam's left and right hands symbolise and assert it as cosmic truth when the bible never mentions Adam's left or right hands. I'm happy to have an actual discussion about what you think his interpretations of symbolism mean, and you can be page and chapter specific if you like, I still have the book here, but complaining I need to "Stay with it" or "try to make it work" when the book is so full of bad explanations, questionable definitions and liberal interpretive licence is ridiculous.
Perfect example: No, the Bible obviously doesn’t mention Adam’s right or left hand. So you just assume that he’s “making stuff up”? Rather than thinking he’s trying to make sense? And thinking, Hmmm. Maybe he KNOWS that, but is suggesting maybe that “Adam” is representative of, say, something more than just an individual?
Again, this is not the principle of charity you are demonstrating but grasping at minor peculiarities.
Read and address my main points, or don’t and I’ll ignore you when the algorithm spits up another of your posts in my feed because you whine about something else you don’t care to wrestle with from a Pageau.
Make sure you order it with your right hand, the left hand symbolises earth which isn't as good as heaven, so you'd probably get the paperback of Maps of Meaning instead. Either that or a bag of concrete.
I think this should be requisite reading for anybody delving into Pageau, or Christianity, but especially for anybody who wants to criticize their work. This might clarify but perhaps your stance would remain the same. https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-recovery-of-symbolism/
Thanks. It seems that is possibly nearer an understanding of symbolism to what I would have, and is clearly different from Mathieu's in the book. Jonathan is a bit vague here, and the straw man about how. "Symbolism has been progressively reduced from underlying our very cosmological world view, to now being a form of “signifying” like the little man on the door of the lavatory or a traffic sign with its shapes and color" is unhelpful and uninformed. If he'd read any linguistics or semiotics he would know that's a limited definition of arbitrary signification not a symbol as most people understand it, and as I objected to in Mathieu's book, establishing a claim based on a lazy straw man is just unhelpful. There's obviously not a lot to go on here though, I could interpret what he's said in quite a lot of ways. I would observe they are slightly different, Mathieu seems to have a computer code type view of symbolism whereas Jonathan seems to have a much more vague "narrative" view of symbolism.
If you want more of his stuff I spoke to Jonathan a few months ago and he suggested four articles from that same site he wrote are useful introductions to his work:
I have to disagree on this one. I believe you are misinterpreting his symbolic view. The symbolic view here is not symbolic as in a poetic way using natural language. It is symbolic as in a mathematical and programmatical way. His "vehicle" and "chariot" example is basically copy pasted from object-oriented programming methodology.
I do agree that the lack of references is annoying but that is not a good enough reason to not appreciate the patterns he has made more visible in the biblical narratives.
He clearly has a mathematical mind, and I know that may appear confusing given he rejects a materialistic view. But I believe his rejection is specific to Biblical interpretations under materialism. The contrast comes from showcasing how a symbolic/mathematical pattern in the Bible works well, but when under a modern scientific perspective it would appear muddy and confusing.
Also, his views on abstractions are very much platonic. And are the same baselines the Church fathers have used, I believe this is why people say he was influenced by them. The concept of Universals, for example, seems to be interwoven through the concepts in the book, although in a more implicit way.
I truly enjoyed it and I think it can provide huge insight to a lot of believers, but I can also understand it is not everyone's cup of tea.
To push back, I don't think he has made patterns "more visible" I think he's imposing things that aren't there. For example I find no resonance in anything in the Old Testament that said Adam's left and right hand are symbols of space and time, it's just plain made up.
Thanks. This confirms a lot of what I suspected about both Pageau’s systems of symbolic interpretation, but I did not have the patience to read through the book. Grateful that you waded through it for us.
My understanding was that this book was always just Matthieu Pageau’s personal ideas rather than a serious scholarly work, so I never much cared about the absence of a bibliography. I mean, Jonathan Pageau comes off the same way - just riffing most of the time and occasionally name-dropping some Church Fathers, but I still find him rather interesting, despite his criminal overuse of words like “of course” and “obviously.”
The worst offense of M. Pageau’s book was that it was utterly boring. It was a bit like reading an actual, bone-dry grammar textbook. (Which, speaking as one who has taught English, is not an effective way to learn a language.) All of the little diagrams were silly. I was hard pressed to recall what amazing insights a particular chapter had revealed just moments after finishing it. I’d venture to say, one could find more inspiration in a cheesy dream dictionary.
Yet when Jordan Peterson interviewed M. Pageau a few years back, he acted as though he were speaking with some undiscovered genius or prophet and together, these two anointed men were condescending to reveal to us the secrets of the universe. That’s about the time I moved on from both of them.
The abstract unifying principle for Jordan Peterson and Pageau Bros is the platonic form of "Quack"
I suspect I'd be very happy with the idea of the book if it was presented as "hey here's a symbolic trope I'm noticing that the bible conveys in all these different places!". I'm a Christian, I think the bible is extraordinarily rich, and I'm happy to see symbolic themes in it- matter vs. form, knowledge vs love, order vs chaos, etc., many of which might be genuinely meaningful, though not to the exclusion of the others. But instead it is presented as The Key To The Bible and couched in analytic silliness like an ape of the hard sciences.
I’m encouraged to read your article, as my assumption to date (which may still hold water) was that his book just went over my head. I was enormously frustrated the lack of referencing, which I found bizarre, for the reasons you mentioned. The reading experience was all the more disappointing given the fact that I’d purchased the book upon Jonathan’s recommendation in one of his video’s…someone had asked him how one gets started in symbolic reading (something along those lines) and he strongly recommended his brother’s book.
Any ideas on alternate books that might do a better job? (And which contain references)
Northrop Frye's the great code and words with power are pretty good.
Thanks for the suggestion - just created a customGPT using his framework 👍
We can certainly understand now the connection between these titans of thought that some readers find so compelling. 😉
It’s a shame as I read it optimistically, but I agree with your analysis. I think the general idea of the book resonated with me somewhat, in that I do think the Bible seems to illustrate man’s place in the universe as the intersection between spiritual/abstract and and the material. However I totally agree that it felt unprofessional & “dog ate my homework” in execution, and ultimately was a let down. Great review! :)
There are two thousand years of serious people working to unify philosophy with the Bible, why rely on this random grifter Pageau?
I agree he's not worth reading but to be fair to him I don't think he's a grifter, apparently he lives in a yurt in Canada and he's not trying to monetise his name any further, I get the impression he wrote it because he believes it one hundred percent. Being wrong doesn't necessarily mean bad intentions.
Ah, thanks, I stumbled across this Stack and am really low on context in this corner of the universe. Of course I should've been more charitable anyway. I work in math and we see perfectly sincere cranks all the time so it's a familiar situation. It's too bad he doesn't just do some mysticism, that seems like a much better fit for the yurt!
I'll come back later with a more detailed response, but for now:
You have violated a cardinal rule of argumentation, the principle of charity. That is, you don’t assume the most rational, coherent, and plausible version possible of his argument.
Despite claims to the contrary, you do not give the benefit of any self-doubt concerning your own understanding, but instead assert that it's "nonsense" or "ridiculous" or “caricatured” or “confused”/”confusing” or “complete babble.”
You ask many, many rhetorical questions, without demonstrating any effort to look for a plausible explanation.
Let’s take your whining about his lack of references as an example. There are explanations you fail to contemplate:
His ideas could be plagiarized. You bring up the possibility, though you don’t actually accuse him. But you fail to confirm or exclude it. In the age of AI. And of Google. And of databases of biblical references.
Or his ideas could be common knowledge in scholarly circles. Are they? Again, you don’t say. (A few are, most notably his version of Aristotelian “causes.”)
Or he’s writing outside the world of formal scholarship, and has his tactical reasons. (He is and he does.) You could have asked.
But, or, finally and most probably, if you had excluded or taken account of these others: It’s truly original thought.
(I've read the book five times and discussed it online for dozens of hours with serious thinkers. And yes, I agree: It's frustrating not to have references. (My doctoral dissertation had a bibliography of 30 pages.) I got over it.)
Putting referencing to one side (I don't think he's plagiarizing or relying on common knowledge I think he's making stuff up), what is the rational, coherent, and plausible version of his argument?
My point: In argumentation, the onus is on the attacker—you—to make that version. And then show why it doesn't work. You don't.
When I can spend more than 15 minutes, I'll come back with my (positive) take.
Meanwhile, I gave you an example of his use of common knowledge, and it's central to his theory.
I mean I tried to make some positive sense out of his concrete/abstract thing. One issue with the book is huge subjects are introduced in a few questionably edited paragraphs/sentences and terms that are not properly defined. It's one reason why referencing would help, it might have allowed you to get some sense of where his definitions are coming from.
You conclude: “I find nothing in it that is edifying for a believer, nothing in it that is spiritually helpful, and nothing in it that enhances my understanding of God. In fact by the end of the book, rather like Jordan Peterson, I am left wondering what God if any the author believes in. The God of the ‘abstract principles’ like ‘vehicle,’ I guess.”
This is revealing and lamentable. Pageau makes two questions central to rediscovering the spiritual worldview:
“What does it mean?” And: “What spiritual truth does it embody?”
I personally know of several people whose study of the book has in fact transformed their spiritual life, or even brought them back to the faith and the church.
Others have gained tremendous insight into a lost way of seeing the world. I am one of these. This book (and other content by his brother Jonathan and others) has helped me recover what I believe is much closer to an ancient understanding of the world, especially by the Hebrews, but even to ancient cultures generally. And it has allowed me to see more meaning around me, in innumerable ways. It has renewed my walk with God. This after sixty years of life, and Bible-based ministry, including a seminary degree (MDiv).
You think Pageau is trying to crack the code of the Bible, to give us a this-for-that formula for interpreting symbols. But both Matthieu and Jonathan Pageau have denied that symbolism is a “system” of that kind. The range of meanings connected with the symbols Matthieu Pageau discusses is not compatible with such an aim. He claims every single symbol, for example, is manifest at multiple levels of cosmic reality, from the highest to the lowest.
You also position Pageau as opposing “big bad science.” He does not, but instead credits its insights, both in the introduction and conclusion to the book. Rather, Pageau is trying to help us reengage with the pre-Scientific Revolution mindset.
It is a truism of Christian cultural commentary that we live in an age of “disenchantment.” Insisting that we still use metaphors and symbols, as you do, is a weak objection to a project like this.
You don’t seem willing to admit that the pre-modern/biblical mindset was radically different from ours, let alone to try to experience it. Maybe the question to ask: Do you think we have sufficiently addressed what we have lost? (I do not.)
You conflate Pageau’s aim to transcend the material mindset with an argument against materialism. He does shift between the two too easily. But the material perspective is just as much of a problem for many Christians as it is for non-Christians. We don’t ask the right questions. He's not engaging materialists per se.
You don’t treat his project seriously, simply objecting that it doesn’t make sense: “It sounds like nonsense, and it sounds like Pageau is just making stuff up, but how am I meant to know?” Well, you try to make it work, and see. Approach it as if you have something to learn. Stay with it long enough to understand what HE think he is saying.
(You obviously DON’T; you say so.)
(Or don't. You didn't have to post this review. But engage more if you do, rather than just whining that it doesn't conform to conventions it never attempted to meet.)
Perhaps most troubling, you seem to lack curiosity. You ask questions, but have no interest in answering them. Pageau is a serious Christian. Did it not occur to you to ask, for example, why his 330-page book contains not a single reference to Jesus, to Christianity, or even to the New Testament?
That's not a "rational, coherent, and plausible version of his argument," it's you saying you don't like me criticising them. I thought you might like to explain how "vehicle" is an abstraction too high for us to understand or why he has licence to make stuff up about what Adam's left and right hands symbolise and assert it as cosmic truth when the bible never mentions Adam's left or right hands. I'm happy to have an actual discussion about what you think his interpretations of symbolism mean, and you can be page and chapter specific if you like, I still have the book here, but complaining I need to "Stay with it" or "try to make it work" when the book is so full of bad explanations, questionable definitions and liberal interpretive licence is ridiculous.
Perfect example: No, the Bible obviously doesn’t mention Adam’s right or left hand. So you just assume that he’s “making stuff up”? Rather than thinking he’s trying to make sense? And thinking, Hmmm. Maybe he KNOWS that, but is suggesting maybe that “Adam” is representative of, say, something more than just an individual?
Again, this is not the principle of charity you are demonstrating but grasping at minor peculiarities.
Read and address my main points, or don’t and I’ll ignore you when the algorithm spits up another of your posts in my feed because you whine about something else you don’t care to wrestle with from a Pageau.
L review
la critique
You’ve inspired me to buy the hardcover version that is now available, thanks! Advertisement really does work!
Make sure you order it with your right hand, the left hand symbolises earth which isn't as good as heaven, so you'd probably get the paperback of Maps of Meaning instead. Either that or a bag of concrete.
Good advice! Maybe that’s what’s happened to you, perhaps you got the Spanish version on accident. That’s would explain a lot of misunderstanding ;)
If you want to actually tell me what you think I'm not understanding I'm happy to listen.
I appreciate that, I believe you come in good faith. If I can find the time I will try to elucidate.
I think this should be requisite reading for anybody delving into Pageau, or Christianity, but especially for anybody who wants to criticize their work. This might clarify but perhaps your stance would remain the same. https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-recovery-of-symbolism/
Thanks. It seems that is possibly nearer an understanding of symbolism to what I would have, and is clearly different from Mathieu's in the book. Jonathan is a bit vague here, and the straw man about how. "Symbolism has been progressively reduced from underlying our very cosmological world view, to now being a form of “signifying” like the little man on the door of the lavatory or a traffic sign with its shapes and color" is unhelpful and uninformed. If he'd read any linguistics or semiotics he would know that's a limited definition of arbitrary signification not a symbol as most people understand it, and as I objected to in Mathieu's book, establishing a claim based on a lazy straw man is just unhelpful. There's obviously not a lot to go on here though, I could interpret what he's said in quite a lot of ways. I would observe they are slightly different, Mathieu seems to have a computer code type view of symbolism whereas Jonathan seems to have a much more vague "narrative" view of symbolism.
If you want more of his stuff I spoke to Jonathan a few months ago and he suggested four articles from that same site he wrote are useful introductions to his work:
https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/most-of-the-time-the-earth-is-flat/
https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/where-is-heaven/
https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/heaven-and-earth-in-the-icon/
https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/heaven-round-earth-square/
Have you read James B Jordan’s “Through New Eyes”? In my opinion, it’s everything that Pageau tried to do, but actually really good.
Never heard of him, I'll have a look.
I would really enjoy a book review on that one… just saying 👉🏻👈🏻
Pageau recommends the book on his website. He interviewed a colleague of Jordan's.
Oh interesting, I haven’t seen the interview. Was it Peter Leithart he interviewed?