Mod+ 274. DR. BERNARDO KASTRUP, WHY OUR CULTURE IS MATERIALISTIC

@Bernardo Kastrup I have an extra question, if you have time.
Maybe it is addressed in the upcoming book but I'll try anyways... :)

Let's suppose a paradigm shift in 2016: idealism à la Kastrup becomes the mainstream philosophical assumption in science.
How will this revolutionize the study of consciousness in the scientific / academic world? What sort of new directions should we expect if such a shift took place?

cheers
That is an excellent question! I know some of my questions to Bernardo above must have seemed a bit negative, and yet paradoxically I think his view of reality is very probably right! Also, I take his point that he is talking about ontology, and science should be thought of as merely modelling (though I think it is almost impossible for someone in science to think that way).

Nevertheless, if you read Irreducible Mind (for example), you become aware of all the data that science ignores. I think at least part of the reason it ignores that data is because it can't possibly fit into the standard scientific model. I reckon most scientists are barely aware of the way data is filtered in this way to leave only the part that they can explain (even if very badly).

Science badly needs a way to talk about some of the data in IM - and that is where I feel Dualism could play its part - even if that part is only temporary. Maybe it isn't Bernardo's role to provide that crutch, but I think anyone who has taken an interest in Skeptiko must feel the need for it. Even many honest sceptics surely realise that if you can't really label some results other than calling them woo-woo, you can't really think about them, or test them, or do anything but sneer at them.

David
 
If you are trying to bridge the gap from dualism to idealism have a look here:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html
J. J. van Der Leeuw, an advanced meditator, wrote in The Conquest of Illusion:

"In that experience [of the Absolute] we are no longer the separate self, we are no longer what we call 'we' in our daily life. Not only are we our entire being, past and future, in that sublime experience of eternity, but we are the reality of all that is, was, or shall be, we are That."
....
Lester Levenson who developed psychological techniques that led to his realization...:

He saw this Beingness as something like a comb. He was at the spine of the comb and all the teeth fanned out from it, each one thinking it was separate and different from all the other teeth. And that was true, but only if you looked at it from the tooth end of the comb. Once you got back to the spine or source, you could see that it wasn't true. It was all one comb. There was no real separation, except when you sat at the tooth end. It was all in one's point of view.
Moving awareness to "the base of the comb", as Lester Levenson described it, is not like losing individuality, it is like remembering who you really are.​
Much more at the link


Idealism and dualism are compatible philosophies. Mechnaical engineers use Newtonian mechanics all the time even though it is only an approximation of relativity. If you want to discuss material physics, phyicalism is works best. If you want to discuss life and the afterlife, dualism works best. If you want to discuss the ultimate reality, idealism works best. What NDErs and evidential mediums report as the afterlife of spirits is not always the ultimate reality. There are different levels, the physical world seems to be at one end and pure consciousness seems to be at the other end but there are other levels in between. All these levels are a kind of technology created by mind. Someday there may be a new level beyond the physical world that exists in a computer. Physical beings like us may "incarnate" there and having drank from Lethe will debate whether there is an ultimate reality beyond qbits.
interesting... thx for sharing these quotes. I'm in the ABM camp (i.e. anything but Materialism)
 
thx for this post.

That is to say, that previously, when I have often attempted to understand the seemingly crazy notions, decisions and actions of ordinary individuals, groups of people, institutions (scientific, corporate, governmental), whole countries etc, I have always felt at a loss as to how to understand how time and again, humanity seems in its choices to be both crazy and dumb. From the lifestyles we lead, to the things we value in life, to the politicians we elect, to the wars they then conduct in the name of peace. It really can feel like a bad nightmare.
this is a point I've been thinking a lot about lately. I can sometimes downplay how out of sync I sometimes feel. It can be jarring to flip thru televion stations and watch CNN or worse yet local news --- WTF are these people doing/thinking? do they really believe this stuff? Then again, I don't have to look furuther than my own path to see how things/worldviews can change. I have complied a list of questions I read to myself everyday... one of them is:
8. Is it possible those who are doing/thinking differently are on their own journey?
 
8. Is it possible those who are doing/thinking differently are on their own journey?
Yes. Each individual is on her/his own journey.

I think it's also important to remember when thinking of things like war, greed, etc that those have been as much a part of non-materialistic societies as they have of our current paradigm. I guess a not so great analogy is to the NFL - knowing that it's a game doesn't make people any "nicer" about it. So the idea that materialism ( as in only the physical exists) has any real bearing on those who favor materialism (as in I want to have the most toys) is easily seen to be false. The Aztecs weren't doing ritual sacrifice because they saw the worlds as solely physical.
 
Yes. Each individual is on her/his own journey.

I think it's also important to remember when thinking of things like war, greed, etc that those have been as much a part of non-materialistic societies as they have of our current paradigm. I guess a not so great analogy is to the NFL - knowing that it's a game doesn't make people any "nicer" about it. So the idea that materialism ( as in only the physical exists) has any real bearing on those who favor materialism (as in I want to have the most toys) is easily seen to be false. The Aztecs weren't doing ritual sacrifice because they saw the worlds as solely physical.
great point.
 
thx for this post.


this is a point I've been thinking a lot about lately. I can sometimes downplay how out of sync I sometimes feel. It can be jarring to flip thru televion stations and watch CNN or worse yet local news --- WTF are these people doing/thinking? do they really believe this stuff? Then again, I don't have to look furuther than my own path to see how things/worldviews can change. I have complied a list of questions I read to myself everyday... one of them is:
8. Is it possible those who are doing/thinking differently are on their own journey?
If only we knew what the purpose (if any) of us being here was, it would be easier to answer that!

However, maybe we all have hundreds or thousands of re-incarnations, and afterwards,we just shrug and say, "Yep, another rather typical incarnation!". I mean we don't have much grip on the temporal scale of this process!

David
 
No. Materialism is used to mean completely different things. One can be a staunch believer in materialism meaning "only the physical exists" and be a caring person who believes that sharing with others, etc is of primary importance. Such is not rare. I fact many "green" people are in that grouping

The materialism spoken of in economics/public policy is the belief that acquiring material possessions for oneself is of primary importance. And one can know of the spiritual - even know that it is primary - and still be a hearty participant in that approach. Again, it is not rare.

There are always exceptions to generalities, but generally, materialistic philosophy undoubtedly feeds our oftentimes destructive socio-economic system.
 
@Bernardo Kastrup It seems a big leap of faith to apply the same principle for consciousness (and it's features), where the number of variables and the mechanisms are largely incomplete.

Maybe. Yet, there is just nothing else we can do to ground our thoughts on empirical fact. The alternative is to give up on empiricism and just dream stuff up. That's the eternal dilemma of both science and philosophy. It applies not only to consciousness but to all so-called 'physical' processes as well: there may always be hidden variables.
 
I would like to express my deep, deep, DEEP gratitude to both Alex and Bernardo for their time and effort putting on this particular podcast.
It feels exceptionally difficult to express just how life enriching it is for me to hear two sharp, piercing and intelligent minds grappling with the raw fundamentals of such a profoundly important and quite frankly urgent problem, and I thank you both profoundly for creating this podcast.

I say it is an "urgent" problem, because quite frankly, until listening to Bernardo today expertly and eloquently join up the dots, and present such a coherent and comprehensive overview of both the limitations and ramifications of the Materialist fantasy (nightmare), I hadn't really felt I had any insight into the crazy and illogical way the world seems so often to unfold. Bernardo's interview has forced a crack in the doorways of my mind just large enough for me to have somewhat of an epiphany. That is to say, that previously, when I have often attempted to understand the seemingly crazy notions, decisions and actions of ordinary individuals, groups of people, institutions (scientific, corporate, governmental), whole countries etc, I have always felt at a loss as to how to understand how time and again, humanity seems in its choices to be both crazy and dumb. From the lifestyles we lead, to the things we value in life, to the politicians we elect, to the wars they then conduct in the name of peace. It really can feel like a bad nightmare.

I really feel that what Bernardo is showing about materialism, that it is a metaphysical paradigm (a quite absurd one in fact) and not in any way a fundamental reality with any true explanatory power, is fundamental to understanding why the heck the world, and the people who inhabit it often seem so infuriatingly dumb, selfish and conniving (certainly true of the politicians and the financial and corporate folks; the movers and shakers). Seeing this through the lens of Bernardo's masterful overview and exposition of the Materialist mind-set has given me a way of truly understanding how all this madness, on a truly global scale, can and has come about naturally, and organically. That is to say, it seems so obvious in light of this interview, that the reason the world is shaping itself in this crazy fashion, is that the consciousness of the majority of the inhabitants of this planet are all hypnotised at a foundational level by the Materialist notion that life is a fluke, and ultimately futile, and so the "grab what you can, while you can, and sod everyone else" ("except maybe my kids, no wait, sod them too, because I am leaving them a poorer world to live in so I can grab more for me now") type attitude, is an entirely natural consequence.

I am in the UK, and we have just voted in the Conservatives, who really are about quite simply propping up and increasing the wealth and power of the few, and ensuring the great unwashed of society don't rise above their filthy, uneducated servile stations. I see them as PURE materialists, and I thank Bernardo for sharing this podcast, as I feel I can after this at least now see them as misguided and hypnotised fools rather than somehow being the evil selfish demons I once did (alright, some prejudices are hard to let go of, I still see them as slightly demonic).

Also, I feel a strange sense of hope in that perhaps on a deeper level, it may be possible to understand that the influence of materialism on the world, which although we are all forced to confront on a daily basis, does not have to shape our inner world. In fact, once seen for the incredibly weak, and frankly absurd metaphysical position that it is, it really very easily, and naturally recoils of it's own accord. Almost organically, a strange sense of purpose and hope, that life is not futile or meaningless, and that it has purpose and direction, naturally and organically seems to return. If not fully return, there feels at least once again space for it in life, and as long as there is a space, we can start to construct something much improved on the old and oppressive monstrosity which took up all the space. Bizarrely, while on the one hand it all feels so desperately depressing that nearly all the world is under the hypnosis of the Materialist fantasy, the clear notion that it really is nothing more than a fantasy (albeit one destroying much of our world) is utterly liberating, and profoundly full of hope and good prospects.

So, I know I have rambled on a bit, but hopefully some of you will have detected that my points run somewhat parallel to the question of the synergistic relationship between Materialism and our economic (and political, social, moral etc ad infinitum) system, and that I feel without doubt that yes, not only does materialism feed and fuel the economic system, I would go further and say our economic system is materialism incarnate. But I like very much something Alex alluded to when he more or less said (my gist of it) that perhaps we need to fully immerse ourselves as a planet in the materialist paradigm, before we can fully overcome it, and evolve consciously beyond it, and consign it to being just one more rung on the ladder of our evolutionary journey. Here's hoping !

Once again, a massive thank you to both of you !!!

Soulatman

How wonderfully encouraging this is to me and, I'm sure, to Alex too. Thank you soulatman!
 
No. Materialism is used to mean completely different things. One can be a staunch believer in materialism meaning "only the physical exists" and be a caring person who believes that sharing with others, etc is of primary importance. Such is not rare. I fact many "green" people are in that grouping

The materialism spoken of in economics/public policy is the belief that acquiring material possessions for oneself is of primary importance. And one can know of the spiritual - even know that it is primary - and still be a hearty participant in that approach. Again, it is not rare.

My point was precisely that materialism, as a metaphysics, ontology, is synergistic with the economic system. That 'materialism' as a lifestyle is synergistic with it is trivial and hardly worth asserting.
 
As such, the 'soul' in dualism can be seen as the first-person perspective of experience, while the 'body' is the second-person perspective. That is, the body is what a direct experience looks like from another point-of-view within mind-at-large. The universe could be seen as 'God's' (mind-at-large's) body, the inner life of 'God' being Plato's 'World Soul.'

Thank you, I was hoping you would say something like that. On a related note, do you agree that it is also possible for panpsychism to be true at the same time as (your vision of) Idealism is true? (And is Idealism properly capitalised btw?)

Also, I hope I'm not monopolising your attention, but I have another dualism-related question: how (if at all) does Idealism account for the existence of evil? Is it a matter that is even within its remit? One of the reasons that dualism (in the sense of philosophical manichaeism) appeals to me so much is that it accounts for the existence of evil better than any other paradigm of which I'm aware.

I also have a question about parsimony: please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to suggest that materialism is less parsimonious because it posits an additional ontological category, "the physical world", yet does not Idealism also posit an equally additional ontological category, "mind-at-large"? I think this truly is an additional category because it has characteristics above and beyond those of our own individual minds: it is capable of "hosting" a four-dimensional "realm" within which all of our individual minds can "play". Would you accept this as a valid criticism or do you think that it is misplaced?

Alex's questions at the end of the interview:

Do you think there's a synergistic relationship between materialism and our economic system?

I'm not convinced that there is, but nor would I outright deny the possibility either. I think we can approach this as we might approach literary criticism of a book: we might be able to find "a common theme" in the book's narrative, which seems to explain various events in the narrative, and we might write a review of the book explicating that theme and how the book's narrative develops it, but, in the end, we can't be sure that the book's author really intended those narrative events to be understood in that way. Similarly, we can look at the modern world and posit "a common theme" between philosophical materialism and acquisitive materialism, and "critique and explicate the theme", but, in the end, we can't be sure that there really is a solid connection beyond that which we've constructed in our critical minds. Of course, it is possible that were one to read Bernado's book, there would be a whole lot of evidence presented to that effect which would convince one that it goes beyond "critically visualised themes" and into "an objective connection", but I haven't (yet) read his book.

I will say that it's a fascinating idea, and I would like to believe that it is true, because in providing an additional cause of acquisitive materialism it gives us extra hope of overcoming that malady: change our ontological outlook and we can alleviate our cultural obsession with "getting more stuff, and constantly upgrading the stuff we've already got", and the spiritually adverse effects that has upon us.

Finally: Bernardo, I just want to express my appreciation for what you said between 20:21 and 23:47 re Libet's experiment i.e. replacing the notion of binary consciousness versus unconsciousness with a notion of degrees of "obfuscated" versus "self-reflective" consciousness. This helps me to put into words a similar idea that I have intuited wordlessly for some time now about the extreme interpretation of this experiment as proof against free will: that free will decisions need not be "wholly, explicitly and exquisitely conscious"; that the process of making free will decisions might be a complex mix of sub-processes, some of which we are more explicitly conscious of and some of which we are less explicitly conscious off, but lack of full consciousness about a part of the process does not necessarily disqualify the entire process as a "free willing" one.

(There was a lot more that I appreciated in this interview, just picking out the item that most comes to mind).
 
I like Alex's point about materialism being fostered by elites who don't want competition with higher power. About the only useful thing said by theists in the over 60 hours of debates with atheists I listened to [the Goddebates - podcasts] was an observation that atheists lacked the humility to dare to be accountable to a higher intelligence. The materialistic version of humanism has humanity at the very peak of consciousness - which is weird conceit for folk who think it is nothing fundamental. How can you be proud of having the best epiphenomenon on the block? But the progression from faith to materialism is a steady slide down an intellectual slippery slope that started with Christianity napalming the inner ecology of the old pagan tradition in favour of a highly mannered and controlled version. Its a bit like favouring the manicured garden over wilderness, but a garden which has only a few approved plants. Then the Church's folly in demanding that dogma trumped science didn't help. The final blow seems to have been the innocent anticipation that a proper scientific method would reveal God's handiwork, and when science did not prove God it was easy to then discard the idea. But let's add to that the proposition that the world was there for the benefit of humans [both Biblical and Aristotle] and its easy to see that materialism emerged a morality-free zone with no metaphysical extensions. So many streams came together. Materialists simply drew upon religious thought that suited them [the world is given by God to humans for their use and benefit] and ignored the bits that did not. The English philosopher John Grey does a fabulous job in taking apart that confused fusion of religiosity and materialism in Black Mass. But its a dense read with a lot of detail on neoliberal economics that will not suit everybody. If you can suck it up and go with the narrative it is deeply rewarding.
 
I wanted to say something about Alex's terminal question about whether there is a link between materialism and our economic system. So much of what is available to buy is dependent upon fantasy and conceit. If we bought clothing on the basis of utility [as one we did] we'd get by with a couple of pairs of pants, a few shirts, maybe two pairs of shoes and a coat or jacket. And those items would last for years. If we bought like that now the so-called fashion industry would fall over pdq. But we are induced not to buy on physical utility, rather psychic utility. How we look matters, or so we are told. We have to be fashionable. Pure materialism would trade on functionality and robustness [optimal value for the least effort], but what we have is an exploitative materialism that puts no store by the psychic attributes of being human beyond seeing them as an opportunity to exploit them for profit. Or so it says. Bernardo made a slip of the tongue early on in the chat when he observed that the only purpose of materialism was to accumulate. I got what he meant but at the same time he revealed the fatal flaw in a lot of materialistic thought. That is that it is not actually materialistic at all. It just a screwed up way of seeing the world via displacement and compensatory behaviours. And so long as there is a market for equally screwed up folk it is a way of getting rich, and feeling compensated while fears and angers are displaced. In essence the material world does often serve as a representational medium for psychic states - think keepsakes, mementos, sacred relics, memorabilia and so on. Some things we place personal values on [like keeping letters from old loves], but the commercial sector survives on its ability to induce us to attach to its products through design or marketing. Think a popular vile tasting lolly water that is often marketed as possessing magical or hallucinogenic properties [of course implied only through advertising, not in any actual way]. The old Coke slogan of "Coke adds life" meant what? That carbonated lolly water adds something essential to a situation? That's a metaphysical claim and when we examine marketing there are many metaphysical claims made. Moral materialists would not exploit metaphysical vulnerabilities in customers in order to profit. Moral markets would stop at enough. There is a fundamental difference between a market serving the customer and the customer serving the market. We are in that latter phase. Materialism permits a retreat from a fundamental moral duty of taking no more than is needed. That moral duty existed in the hearts and minds of cultures that operate within the animistic mentality [the world is full of spirits] that assumes a fundamental moral relationship between humans and the reality that embraces them.
 
do you agree that it is also possible for panpsychism to be true at the same time as (your vision of) Idealism is true?

Definitely not. I think panpsychism is extremely dangerous and misguided in many levels. Here is a part of a post of mine in a discussion in my own forum:

"My quibble with panpsychism is that it subtly, though definitively, frames consciousness as subordinate to matter. Even while granting consciousness to be a fundamental property, it does so by saying that it is a property of matter. In other words, matter still exists outside consciousness and happens to fundamentally have consciousness. Matter has consciousness, under panpsychism.

"Idealism, on the other hand, is very different: it states that matter appears in consciousness as percepts, and does not exist outside consciousness. Consciousness isn't a property of matter, but matter an excitation of consciousness. Consciousness is the ground of existence, not matter.

"I see panpsychism as the escape route of the reductionist materialist in face of the hard problem. Whitehead showed the way ~100 years ago and many materialists are getting ready to follow his path now. I think if we make that concession to them, we are in for another hundred years of delusion."

how (if at all) does Idealism account for the existence of evil?

I would turn it around: why is the existence of evil a problem to begin with? Clearly, this phenomenon we call evil is part of reality and part of the intrinsic potentialities of dissociated alters of mind-at-large (i.e. human beings) just like love, affection, fear, ambition, etc. Why does it need to be accounted for in any special way? The 'problem of evil' only arises from the postulate that the world is governed by a self-reflective deity that is inherently and fully good, while also omnipotent. Idealism makes no such postulate.

you seem to suggest that materialism is less parsimonious because it posits an additional ontological category, "the physical world"

Yes.

yet does not Idealism also posit an equally additional ontological category, "mind-at-large"?

Mind-at-large is merely an extrapolation of an ontological category empirically known to exist -- i.e. mind -- beyond its face-value boundaries. This is not at all the same as postulating an entirely new and fundamentally unprovable ontological category -- i.e. not-mind.

I think this truly is an additional category because it has characteristics above and beyond those of our own individual minds: it is capable of "hosting" a four-dimensional "realm" within which all of our individual minds can "play". Would you accept this as a valid criticism or do you think that it is misplaced?

I think it is misplaced. We know empirically from people with Dissociative Identity Disorder that mind can split into dissociated alters without ever ceasing to be mind. It's not a big jump to imagine that the human psyche is, fundamentally, a dissociated alter of mind-at-large. This explains all aspects of reality that materialists feel can only be explained by postulating a material universe outside mind. And it does so not by postulating new, abstract, unprovable ontological categories, but simply by applying a known process (i.e. dissociation) to a known category (i.e. mind).

Finally: Bernardo, I just want to express my appreciation for what you said between 20:21 and 23:47 re Libet's experiment i.e. replacing the notion of binary consciousness versus unconsciousness with a notion of degrees of "obfuscated" versus "self-reflective" consciousness.

Yes, that is key to the whole story, otherwise even idealism ends up with something entirely equivalent to the 'hard problem': how does unconscious mental content become conscious mental content? I am glad this has been helpful to you!

free will decisions need not be "wholly, explicitly and exquisitely conscious"; that the process of making free will decisions might be a complex mix of sub-processes, some of which we are more explicitly conscious of and some of which we are less explicitly conscious off, but lack of full consciousness about a part of the process does not necessarily disqualify the entire process as a "free willing" one.

Ditto!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top