Mod+ 248. BERNARDO KASTRUP SAYS MATERIALISM IS BALONEY
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
Alex
Administrator
sure... but paradoxically it also leads to a re-imaging of our identify as unique and vital part of something greater.
Alex
Administrator
indeed... pls ping him. I have already.
Bernardo Kastrup
New
I'll be coming soon! I"m following the discussions whenever I can. Life's been unbelievably busy this week. But I'll come!
Will
New
I've read through a few articles on that blog, haven't watched any videos (I wish they had transcripts; this is a subject I process better reading than watching), but first impression - don't you think that that list of what the "final destination" entails is coloured by a particular religious/spiritual bent?
Robert Perry
Member
Alex, I'm really glad you did this interview. I first encountered Bernardo on this show and since then have avidly followed his blog and have read three of his books, including this one. I really appreciate how he synthesizes a disciplined and relentless philosophical mind with a willingness to include the kind of unconventional data that I believe suggests an alternate view of reality. Perhaps most of all I appreciate his honesty of mind, a precious quality that I think is unfortunately rare.
In response to your third question at the end of the show, about the potentially incomplete and unsatisfying nature of idealism, or at least Bernardo's idealism, I suspect I know at least part of what you are driving at. I think it has to do with the place of personhood in his schema. So much of the meaning we see in life is rooted in a view that says there is an incalculable and even sacred worth in a person. This would include ourselves, others, and, for many, even non-human persons like animals. Perhaps most of the meaning in our personal lives is about the worth we see in certain persons who are important to us and the meaningfulness we feel is there in our relationships with them. So much of the progress that civilization has made is about a gradual acknowledgment, at the cultural and institutional level, of the inherent sanctity of persons, and that this sanctity includes everyone, not just a few white guys at the top.
I can't speak for Bernardo, but in his system I get the sense that what we think of as personhood is a kind of epiphenomenon, a secondary, temporary, and perhaps even somewhat illusory extrusion (or localization) of a more basic reality. This more basic reality seems, again if I can put words in Bernardo's mouth, impersonal. It seems beyond personhood, prior to personhood. In this sense, I get a quasi-materialistic feeling from his system, despite its fundamental differences with materialism, in that in both, personhood seems to be a secondary derivation of a more basic, impersonal base. Now it may be that he is not committed to that. I was surprised in the interview to hear him acknowledge the possibility of a kind of "soul" that persists after death. So again, I'm just describing a flavor I get.
Because so much of the meaning we feel in life is rooted directly in the perceived reality and worth of persons, I think the most meaningful worldview will naturally be one that grants the most actual reality and worth to persons. That doesn't mean such a worldview would be the most true, of course (though I personally think it is). But it may help to explain why you feel that there is something unsatisfying about Bernardo's brand of idealism.
In response to your third question at the end of the show, about the potentially incomplete and unsatisfying nature of idealism, or at least Bernardo's idealism, I suspect I know at least part of what you are driving at. I think it has to do with the place of personhood in his schema. So much of the meaning we see in life is rooted in a view that says there is an incalculable and even sacred worth in a person. This would include ourselves, others, and, for many, even non-human persons like animals. Perhaps most of the meaning in our personal lives is about the worth we see in certain persons who are important to us and the meaningfulness we feel is there in our relationships with them. So much of the progress that civilization has made is about a gradual acknowledgment, at the cultural and institutional level, of the inherent sanctity of persons, and that this sanctity includes everyone, not just a few white guys at the top.
I can't speak for Bernardo, but in his system I get the sense that what we think of as personhood is a kind of epiphenomenon, a secondary, temporary, and perhaps even somewhat illusory extrusion (or localization) of a more basic reality. This more basic reality seems, again if I can put words in Bernardo's mouth, impersonal. It seems beyond personhood, prior to personhood. In this sense, I get a quasi-materialistic feeling from his system, despite its fundamental differences with materialism, in that in both, personhood seems to be a secondary derivation of a more basic, impersonal base. Now it may be that he is not committed to that. I was surprised in the interview to hear him acknowledge the possibility of a kind of "soul" that persists after death. So again, I'm just describing a flavor I get.
Because so much of the meaning we feel in life is rooted directly in the perceived reality and worth of persons, I think the most meaningful worldview will naturally be one that grants the most actual reality and worth to persons. That doesn't mean such a worldview would be the most true, of course (though I personally think it is). But it may help to explain why you feel that there is something unsatisfying about Bernardo's brand of idealism.
C
chuck.drake
It's a floor wax and a desert topping, right? Source exists as both the absolute and apparently as this relative or localized reality. On the relative level it appears as if you can do, think, feel whatever you want.
But on an absolute level whatever is looking through your eyes is the same thing that is looking through mine.
radicalpolitik
New
http://www.newscientist.com/article...overed-deep-in-brain.html?page=1#.U7UwSBafulJ
I think this is pretty relevant to the discussion of consciousness. Whilst I think consciousness might be fundamental, this is a pretty compelling indication that you need a human brain to experience human type consciousness.
I think this is pretty relevant to the discussion of consciousness. Whilst I think consciousness might be fundamental, this is a pretty compelling indication that you need a human brain to experience human type consciousness.
David Bailey
Member
Actually, that is the argument for Idealism as opposed to Dualism - i.e. that there can't really be a split between the mental and physical worlds, so the whole thing has to be mental. Remember that there is no equivalent of the 'hard problem' in Idealism - which puts it ahead of Materialism.
David
C
chuck.drake
If there were a One Track Pony Award on Skeptiko I would gladly hand it to you personally the night of the ceremony.
If you listened to the podcast, or if you gave some thought to the ideas behind Bernardo's metaphors, you might begin to understand that non-dualism doesn't disallow poltergeists, UFOS, the illusion of a soul or anything else. Source is expressed through a myriad infinitely and apparently inexplicably from this side of the fence. What we can understand experientially is that All is Source. Everything else is a mystery.
radicalpolitik
New
The problem with idealism is that is too solipsistic. Things certainly appear to be real, I am not keen, for example, to leap in front of a bus, because it will kill or incapacitate me.
Michael Larkin
Member
Hi Bruce, I don't want an argument either, but wouldn't object to a discussion.;) It's not so much that I have a distaste, and nor does my attitude to entheogens arise from Bernardo's writings (and yes, I've read Dreamed up Reality). Even more influential for me than Bernardo's works have been those of Idries Shah, who writes the following in his book, The Sufis:
FTR, strangely enough, is in the Sufi word list, developed into QMM. This, again encoded by the same Abjad notation, produces the word QiFF - the Divine Pause. This "Pause" is the name given to the "Halt!" exercise, which is only carried out by a teaching master.
That the FTR root means, in a secondary sense, the mushroom, gives rise to an interesting speculation. Largely due to the initiative of Mr. R. Gordon Wasson, it has been determined that in ancient times there was (and still is in surprisingly many places) a widespread ecstatic cult based upon the eating of hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Is the FTR root connected with a mushroom cult? It is, in one sense, but not the sense which one would immediately assume. FTR is a mushroom, but not a hallucinogenic one. We have two sources for asserting this. In the first place, the Arabic word for a hallucinogenic fungus is from the root GHRB. Words derived from the GHRB root indicate a knowledge of the strange influence of hallucinogenic fungi, while the FRT words do not...
The second interesting evidence which indicates that the Sufis used the FTR root to mean the interior experience and not one which was induced by chemical means is contained in a passage from the works of the aptly named Mast Qalandar (literally, "intoxicated dervish"), who undoubtedly comments upon a belief that hallucinogenic mushrooms might provide a mystical experience, but claims that this is incorrect.
First we can look at a literal rendering of the text:
"The Creator from the spreading of fervor and the essence of religious feeling thus ordered the 'juice of the grape' for the breakfasting of the Lovers (the Sufis), and in the sacramental bread of the half understanders he left a symbol. And this too learn and know, that the Sufi illuminate is far from the crack and fissure of deception which is distortion, and went near to that other (initiatory) ecstatic feeling; and was far from mushrooming and mushrooms of madness was far. And the breakfasting was of the breakfast of truths on the Way of uncrackedness. Finally after the spreading (vine) and grape came and after that its juice made wine, and supping (after abstinence), the Complete Man was made fashioned strangely by the blunt scimitar. But this bread is not from what they say, neither from beneath the tree. Truly the Truth of Creation is discovered and ecstasy may be solely known in this hiddenness of the bread of the hungry and thirsty. His drink is after his food. The Creator displays as the Opener."
This remarkable passage has been considered to be the ravings of a madman. Sheikh Mauji of the Azamia Sufis interprets it in a page from his Durud (Recitals):
"There is a certain sensation which is true fervor and which is associated with love. This stems from ancient origins, and is necessary to mankind. Signs of it remain in circles other than those of the Sufis, but now only in symbolic form--as they have the Cross but we have Jesus. The Seeker must remember that there are similitudes of feeling which are illusory and which are like madness, but not the madness which the Sufi means when he talks of madness, as the author has used to describe himself (Mast Qalandar). It is from this source, the origin of what we call a wine, from a grape, from a vine, the product of splitting and spreading, that comes the true illumination. After a period of abstinence from wine or bread, the detachment from attachment, this force which is a form of Opening comes about. This is the nutrient which is not a food in any sense of being a known physical thing. . ."
The original passage, which is in more or less literary Persian, gives us the explanation of what it is that the "mad dervish" is trying to do. It harps upon a single word-root: and that root is FTR. No translation could possibly recreate this poetic fact, because in translation the root cannot be maintained. In English, since the derivation of "split," "cake," "religious experience" and so on are from different stems, we cannot maintain the almost eerie sense of carrying on one single sound.
This is an example: "Ya baradar, Fatir ast tafattari fitrat wa dhati fitrat. . ."
In the whole passage of one hundred and eleven words, the word derived from the three-letter root FTR occurs no less than twenty-three times! And many of these usages of the words, though not incorrect, are so unusual (because there is so often a conventional word more apt in such a context) that there is absolutely no doubt that a message is being conveyed to the effect that chemical hallucinogens derived from fungi provide an undeniable but counterfeit experience.
Now I don't know whether that's true, but Shah's works have been so monumentally influential in my life, and taught me so much that I consider valuable, that I take what he says very seriously. The Sufis are not the only ones who maintain that psychedelic experiences are counterfeit, or that they should be avoided, of course. YMMV.
More to come...
C
chuck.drake
I'm not sure what religion would encompass the subset of people who have reached some level of self-realization. They seem to come from every background and prior belief system. There are even cases of spontaneous "enlightenment" through no effort or volition on the part of the experiencer. Eastern schools of thought have certainly mapped practical steps toward self-realization ad infinitum. As well, they have dissected consciousness as their main preoccupation for thousands of years. A fact few seem to care about on this forum where consciousness is such a hot topic. I'm not sure that I know how the term spiritual applies.
What you would hear if you listened to the Buddha at the Gas Pump podcasts (I listen to them, I don't watch them. For me personally the timber of one's voice is critical for understanding.) are the "stories" of many people who really only share one thing--a deep and continuous experiential realization that the apparent seperateness expressed in this reality is an illusion. For these folks a switch has been flipped. We can say that that have woken up or that a veil has dropped or that they have been "enlightened", but the experience for most is entirely lacking in religious sentiment. The interesting thing about Buddha at the Gas Pump is that we then get to view how each individual expresses this realization. Some stay at the top of the mountain, couched in the absolute, realizing fully that the myriad expressed in this reality is nothing more than a grand play, a dream. Some descend from the mountain and work tirelessly to end suffering for others, even though they understand that in reality there are no "others", no you, no me, no mountain.This I suppose is called the path with heart and would best fit what most would consider spiritual I guess. Neither path is any more "right" than the other.
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Larkin
Member
On your other point, Bruce, about experiencing SC, I don't doubt that what people experience in NDEs is a higher level of consciousness (we'll leave aside whether entheogenic experiences are similar). But is that really at the level of SC? I'll tell you what makes me somewhat sceptical about that conclusion. Let's suppose it's true that during NDEs, and presumably after we have irrevocably died, we experience SC. If we do, but nonetheless reincarnation is a fact, then why would we experience it only to reincarnate, not experience it, and strive once more to get back to it?
My suspicion is that the NDE experience and what comes after death is not the experience of ultimate SC. Rather, it's an experience of those parts of our (still limited) consciousness which we rarely access in day-to-day life. There may be a lot further to go, and we may reincarnate because it's necessary in order to go further. If that is correct, then more advanced souls would have richer NDE experiences, though admittedly it's very difficult to test that hypothesis.
All experiences I've had, and they've never been as exotic as those reported by those taking entheogens, or NDEers, have been apparently spontaneous. I don't find that I hanker after anything more spectacular. I don't see the point: but maybe that's just me.
My suspicion is that the NDE experience and what comes after death is not the experience of ultimate SC. Rather, it's an experience of those parts of our (still limited) consciousness which we rarely access in day-to-day life. There may be a lot further to go, and we may reincarnate because it's necessary in order to go further. If that is correct, then more advanced souls would have richer NDE experiences, though admittedly it's very difficult to test that hypothesis.
All experiences I've had, and they've never been as exotic as those reported by those taking entheogens, or NDEers, have been apparently spontaneous. I don't find that I hanker after anything more spectacular. I don't see the point: but maybe that's just me.
C
chuck.drake
I agree with Michael here. I think it is a common mistake to think that because humans appear to have a continuity of experience following the death of the physical body that this is somehow the "ultimate truth." That postmortem the veil is suddenly lifted and behold we are co-existent with Source.
In fact many of the "stories" coming through mediumship or the OBE tell a much different tale. They tell of belief system territories and of a continued existence in a reality that for many echoes the physical nature of this reality.
Michael Larkin
Member
I think that Bernardo would agree with you that the chair exists and is in that sense "real". However, he's denying that the chair exists outside any kind of consciousness. It's the appearance of a process happening in consciousness as perceived by your localised consciousness. In a sense, there's a kind of dualism there: between what you're conscious of, and what you're not conscious of. The chair's a rather problematic example, because what it's made of (say, wood) is not something you could have created, whereas a chair, you could have created, and been conscious of having done so.
But take a star: that exists in shared consciousness, but you aren't conscious of having created it. Some higher level of consciousness, say SC, has created it as a process that It's aware of having created, just as you are such a process. Any process that has a sharable appearance to us is real (and maybe also some processes that have as yet no sharable appearance are too). And sharable processes, whatever they might be, always have their origin in some level of consciousness. Nothing that is real exists outside of some level of consciousness: there is no dualism in that sense.
Michael Larkin
Member
Concisely and well put, Chuck.:)
David Bailey
Member
This is a simple misconception! Idealism isn't solipsism because yours is not the only mind - and indeed there may be minds involved that are not human at all. Bernardo is not saying that our whole world is private to us!
David
David Bailey
Member
I also agree - the message I seem to be getting is that 'out there' is a very complex, messy place, and that different people 'land' in vastly different places - to judge from their NDE accounts.
David
What exists is experience. Perhaps that it matters is what gets us into trouble?
I really do think the majority of people who seem to never worry about these issues are onto something. It really is a complete waste of time, unless one finds it enjoyable. But I do think Bernardo's work is very valuable in providing an alternative to an unfortunate worldview. Dualism is a conversation stopper, regardless of its reality. And I don't know if you've noticed, but people have a real hard time getting a leg up on Bernardo in an argument. This probably has at least a little to do with his command of language, but perhaps even more so that he has a more logical position. If we're going to use our collective sense of logic as an indicator of some ontological truth, perhaps we should start by entertaining the most logical position? It's a start in the right direction. But for me, any position that empowers consciousness, existence, human potential, sentient life, the soul, etc. is a good one.