You can help support our ongoing video production while enjoying a book. To order Dreamed Up Reality: Diving Into Mind to Uncover the Astonishing Hidden Tale of Nature, by Bernardo Kastrup, please visit amzn.to/2T9Z38F. If you would like to contribute non-English, closed-caption subtitles for this video, please visit ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?v=0or4L30647A&ref=share.
People should organize and tweet this video to Joe Rogan multiple times, it's finally the right time. Bernardo is a household name by now in this niche with numerous books and a strong social media presence - they could further talk about and elaborate this story on his podcast, so he could get a bigger mainstream outreach. We need an online campaign for this cause.
Love how Jeffrey can let his guest talk. The few interruptions are well timed and help clarify points to make this listening experience with this particular interviewer and interviewee one of the best I've heard.
Jeffrey and Bernardo will be, I hope, lauded as revolutionary and revelatory thinkers to future generations, in the way we today regard Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, etc. IMHO, any meaningful human progress from our present moment depends on breaking through the prison of materialist metaphysics that confines present-day scientists, journalists, policy-makers, and most "educated" people.
I've had some of these experiences - mainly without drugs, too! - possibly triggered by childhood illness - and there is an "is-ness" to them at the time that really demands acknowledgement. This morning early spring sunshine beamed through my vertical blinds flashing as if in a semaphore code to signal "I'm here! The world is beautiful!" and I understood that even if sometimes it is otherwise, at that moment, for me, I was embraced in a warmly enfolding welcome I recalled from childhood.
I really love this interview. I posted it to facebook and one of my friends said to watch all the video you can on this author as he's a genius. I love the passion with which he describes how much he wanted answers and how far we'd have to go to make sense of this since our brains are sort of wired for physical survival and not really to understand the meaning of things.
His books are a treasure trove too! Highly recommend them if you can get your hands on them - pretty sure Why Materialism is Baloney is actually available as a free PDF online :)
the concept (last episode of Bernardo) that the logic of the universe is far greater than the Aristotelian logic of man has given me a much needed and stronger framework of consciousness and understanding as I go forward. Wonderful interview. Thanks Doc!
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad... “then he realized... I indeed am this creation, for I have poured it forth from myself... in that way he became this creation, and verily, he who knows this becomes in this creation a creator...” Thx... two men in a boat searching for a beach, a ground that all can see... love this man and his wisdom...
You can tell Bernardo is a fan of McKenna, talking about, 'elbowing' other neurotransmitters out. Talking about the 'tiles' of language over everything using the bird analogy just like Terrence. Terrence was definitely an important step for me along my journey to expanding my thinking. Would love to hear about Bernardo's psychedelic experiences. This audience knows it's not 'crazy talk'.
Bernardo's recounting of his first episode where he didn't want to come back to "this" reality sounds very much like others' accounts of returning from an NDE.
This is the most wonderful of all your splendid interviews, Jeff. All the areas in which, as a psychoanalyst, I am fascinated....and so cheered by the comments of the value of psychology, that it’s all mental. Of course Jung went there, also Matte Blanco. I am trying to construct a topography of the unconscious and shall now have to buy all of Bernardo’s books to flesh out my diagram! Many thanks for all your mind-expanding interviews, dear Jeff. You’re a star!
Just love listening to people's stories especially those who are a lot smarter than myself. Have done a lot of acid but never really analyzed it just appreciated what was shown.
Bernardo compellingly reminds me that the impulse of un-manifest reality (best represented in Shakti energy) sometimes and somehow realizes itself in the manifest world and is thrilled with the discovery but without any human means to spell it out for others . Thank you Bernardo. How beautiful is that?
These conversations with Mr. Kastrup have been of particular interest to me. I couldn't help but feel during your conversation that you had already answered some of the questions you are asking. Clearly on a collectively subconscious level our race has an inkling of our own awakening to a greater consciousness. For example, "the dawning of the age of Aquarius" so popular in 60s culture. It could be that there are so many layers of deception precisely because the consciousness at the core of all we can ever experience would be terribly lonely without them. A quote from Alan Watts comes to mind, "that which knows is never itself the object of knowledge." Thanks again for your wonderful work Mr. Mishlove! I eagerly consume these videos you're producing.
Thank you Jeffery and Bernardo! Love these interviews. The base truth Bernardo rests on is ALL is mental. His logic and experiences lead him to this profound conclusion. As he states this is only the beginning of the exploration, though as we dig deeper the trickster and deception, etc also is understood as shading our conclusions. For me, what follows "reality is all mental" leads me to believing the process of "unique experience" is the coin of the universe. The creation of unique experience is what we truly love. This is done within self as well as collectively.
The physical substance of reality that we perceive of as "matter", consists of in essence a combination of information, knowledge and meaning (consciousness). Dean Radin has also extensively researched this topic. Thank you both for this interview.
After the last interview with Bernardo I have read his most recent book "Meaning In Absurdity" and I have to say it was one of the most exciting reads in a long time. Now I am curious to get my hands on the book discussed here. Thank you again for another interview!
Your conclusions / expression of this is very palatable for many listeners I think. Thank you so much Bernardo and to you Jeffrey for this lovely platform.
Thanks to you and Bernardo. I can totally relate to experiences and the implications he took from them. It it's delight to see that there are people out there that can talk about these matters in an open, unbiased and amicable way without getting scared or feeling threaded and therefore therefore aggressively trying to defend what they believe should be true. Maybe there is light at the horizon for man. And keep up the great work! Both of you. 😘
That was a fascinating discussion. How do I know what I know without structure and form to encapsulate it for definition.? Does the definition then bring about the decay of what was once unidentifiable? Look at nature, it is cyclical. Even the largest boulder is eroded by the steady, persistent drips of water. And yet we refuse to “let go” of what we cannot possibly hold onto.
Lucky to discover this inspiring guy and also thanks for smoothly hold conversation. All mentioned "revelations" during altered states of consciousness and conclusion about mental nature of reality so closely resemble what has already been observed and depicted over 2000 years ago, independently at different places on Earth. What an irony, our so called advanced civilization goes through self-delusional climax now, affected and even more obscured by informational flood boosted by technology.
I've experienced many altered states, most of them ecstatic, some of which I could not stay with because the ecstasy was too great. None of these were drug induced. They were all mystical experiences. Most of them occurred from reading J. Krishnamurti and taking his approach of looking at my environment without judgment, taking the position of NOT KNOWING. That position resulted in being overwhelmed by beauty, meaning and authority. The revelations came with such authority that their was no possibility of challenging it. I've felt for certain that the universe is fractal imbued with consciousness that provides the feeling of life, of living. When I let go of a particular ecstatic experience that I could not handle, I was left with a message. "You are surrounded by absolute beauty, you always have been, and always will be, whether you are aware of it or not. " That has been a guiding light ever since. The corollary is that "Life is full of meaning whether I realize it or not." As for the interview, I could relate to all of it. None was strange to me. I do agree that one must have such altered experience in order to comprehend. I my case, no drugs were involved. Only reading and doing mental experiments. Great interview.
I had that fractal image experience on a trip in 1981. It's been with me all my life and I have attempted to get to the bottom of it ever since. Your description of it here was great to hear. I too had to abort. My thinking of it was that it was my experience of Life unfolding. But I remember coming to coldesacs and having to be saved repeatedly to escape dead-ends. I think I had to learn not to let my ego make path decisions.
Bernardo is always interesting. Yet I was struck (at 49:55) yet again by the haunting question as to whether, even in the "outer" theatre (i.e. what we call the world) the self isn't simply building all of that from its own processes too...including what we call "other people." Solipsism, of course, is not refutable, yet it does have a certain horrific kind of allure. Plausible though they do seem, I never find the arguments raised against it *entirely* convincing. The outer theater may simply be a more persuasive, more deeply disguised onion skin of the one self's own processes, made all the more persuasive by the discovery that we seem to have limited ability to control them. What to make of that? I really don't know. It is of course possible to nuance bare consciousnessness in a style which still allows (after a fashion) for authentically existing multiple beings...at least while that semblance lasts...but I don't know, it still comes out feeling like an iffy construct. At the end of the day it does not seem possible to be SURE that other beings aren't elaborate phenomena generated within the self and projected by the self, however unlikely this may seem to our apparent animal instincts. I don't like it. I'm not saying I do. But it just can't be dismissed easily, imo.
The classic solipsist has to assume that their own subconscious mind generates all of the unexpected and surprising things that happen around them. They must assume that all of the complex behaviors of the people around them are generated by their own subconscious mind as well. None of it can be driven by conscious mental activity, because if it were, then that would imply consciousness outside of their own conscious perspective which would be a violation of solipsism. So, to cling to the idea that only their conscious perspective exists in the one mind they need to propose a kind of dualism between non-conscious mental activity and conscious mental activity. That is my big issue with solipsism. The form of idealism that Bernardo Kastrup is proposing explains everything in terms of conscious mental activity alone. Under that view, there is no "non-conscious" mental activity. For the same reason why I reject materialism, I reject solipsism as well -- Occam's Razor. Classic solipsism proposes a kind of dualism in mind where none is necessary. I agree that we can't _know_ that solipsism is false, though. I just don't see any reason to take the idea seriously. Solipsism isn't the only view that raises the possibility of the people around us not being conscious either. Under materialism, there is a possibility that we are a "brain in a jar" experiencing a simulation of the world, and that the people that we see are NPCs in that simulation with no conscious experience at all. There's no reason to believe that is the case though, again because of parsimony.
@@anduinxbym6633 I have always felt that the term "subconscious" or "unconscious" is problematic, because it may well only be so relative to the surface conscious mind. It is true what you say (up to a point): all phenomena under solipsism are generated by the One Mind that knows itself as the experiencer. The key question here is whether others have a conscious awareness of themselves or not. Strictly speaking, in a "One Mind" scenario, other can only be a semblance and not a reality. There are then two basic options...we are either all semblances of an underlying primal awareness, or all others are semblances, within the theater of experience, of the primal awareness of the individual who unequivocally knows experience (always and only yourself). The problem with the first idea is that it is never going to be demonstrable, and in effect it is an inferred projection only from the awareness that knows experience (again, always only demonstrably yourself). The main problem with the second is that it sounds a lot like ego inflation if it is not understood carefully. I am certainly not saying that things HAVE to be that way, but I am not particularly persuaded by your Occam's Razor argument. This is what I mean when I say that I don't find arguments against sufficiently convincing. The fact that it SEEMS that there really are others could be precisely the purpose of the semblance, imo. I think I can make an equally plausible case, with the Razor, that only one experiencing entity exists (and for argument's sake here, we will name that you). The phenomena that generate what you experience as the "world" would then have to come from very deep inner states that aren't readily available to inspection by the surface consciousness. To simply call that the "unconscious", would be too homely in my opinion. It's a bit like calling the universe, the "unearth." But again, I'd have to say that I don't find anything about that *particularly* impossible to believe. If one mind is hiding from itself in the semblance of multiplicity, then it becomes a case of where the semblance is glimpsed for what it is. The underlying philosophical problem, as I see it, is that multiplicity cannot *actually* be true, if one primal awareness is the irreducible Fundament.
@@marineboyecosse We are not aware of the mental processes that drive many of the things around us. That is why we can be surprised. That's why people can behave in unexpected ways. So, at the bare minimum we must acknowledge that those things are not driven by our own conscious volition. They are driven by mental activity that takes place outside of our awareness. Classic solipsism is the idea that only one mind exists, and that your conscious perspective is the only conscious perspective in that mind. Since the content of the world around us must be generated by mental activity that takes place outside of our own conscious perspective, that leaves only one option for the classic solipsist. They have to assume a new category of mental activity that takes place outside of their personal awareness (non-conscious mental activity). This is what I am calling the "subconscious". The solipsist has to attribute the action of much of the world around them to that "subconscious". *_"There are then two basic options...we are either all semblances of an underlying primal awareness, or all others are semblances, within the theater of experience"_* *_"The problem with the first idea is that it is never going to be demonstrable, and in effect it is an inferred projection only from the awareness that knows experience"_* I don't see how demonstrability is a problem for the first and not the second. There is no way to demonstrate classic solipsism, or physicalism, or any other explanation for mind and reality. It's all founded in metaphysical speculation. Through our own conscious perspective, we directly know that conscious mental activity exists. We cannot ever directly confirm that "non-conscious" mental activity exists. The classic solipsist has to explain the world around them in terms of their assumed non-conscious mental activity, where as idealists like Bernardo explain everything in terms of the direct fact of existence (conscious mental activity). The solipsist is the one who is assuming an entirely new category of mental activity unnecessarily (the non-conscious). That is why Occam's Razor sides against classic solipsism. That kind of mental dualism only adds additional assumption. So, I don't think that classic solipsim is equally plausible.
@@anduinxbym6633 "I don't see how demonstrability is a problem for the first and not the second. There is no way to demonstrate classic solipsism, or physicalism, or any other explanation for mind and reality. It's all founded in metaphysical speculation. " One's own fact of awareness self-demonstrates. Everything else is ultimately inference, and that is basically my point. The existence of other "centres of consciousness" is every bit as much an inference as what you are calling "non-conscious mental phenomena." As I said though, I think this division into conscious and unconscious is problematic. Perhaps, though, that is how the theater operates, by seeming to erect screens of division among phenomena that are ultimately all derived from the same awareness-singularity. We are used to the fact that in dreams, the personae there seem to be "Dramatis Personae"....persons that fill out certain desires, tensions, memories etc that we have. They have a certain semblance of other beings during the dream state, but they are (for the most part) readily recongizable as semblances from the greater relative lucidity of the waking state. A similar observation can be made about the phenomenon of Near Death Experiences. What exactly "are" the spirits, dead relatives, and (in older models) "ancestors" that are encountered in these phenomena? Again, they give signals or behaviour patterns that seem on some level consistent with individual beings that are not ourselves, but by the same token, they also give many clues that they are in effect also "Dramatis Personae" that are playing a narrative role in the dying person's journey into death...real or reversible. The narrative usually being one or another rationale for having to return to the waking world. Although it is a step, all I am really saying is that it is not actually that gigantic a step to infer....or shall we say, at least have *cause for suspicion*...that the same may be true of our general, waking world. That the "others" we perceive there too are also ultimately "Dramatis Personae" that are finally generated by the consciousness-singularity of the individual who experiences herself as aware. This is as strong as I would feel comfortable in stating it: that I have cause for suspicion. It finally comes down to this: does the world really continue to "exist" when you die, or does it suffer a similar kind of fate to the other theaters of consciousness, such as dreams, when the dreamer awakens? It's a troubling question, I think, though as you say, one in which a definitive answer is unlikely to be forthcoming. Or if it exists, that answer itself exists in a state of consciousness remote from the human waking state. I am not too troubled by the creation of a category called "non-conscious mental phenomena" (though I wouldn't choose to express it that way), as I already perceive that to be the way that most of nature has always operated. On the other hand, I think those levels have their own kind of "knowing" or awareness that is immediate, and not intellectualized. This is ultimately my reservation (though not a great beef, I should emphasize) with Bernardo's Idealism: it is too logic-rooted and intellectualized. Nature is much more an instinctive, somnambulistic brooding thing.
@@marineboyecosse *_"One's own fact of awareness self-demonstrates. Everything else is ultimately inference, and that is basically my point. The existence of other "centres of consciousness" is every bit as much an inference as what you are calling "non-conscious mental phenomena."_* We do know that mental content can take place outside of our own awareness, so the presence of boundaries between our personal conscious perspective and the rest of mind is already established. The question is what lies beyond those boundaries. To suggest that conscious mental activity lies beyond those boundaries explains everything in terms of what we already know, where as the proposition of non-conscious mental activity does not. So, I still do not see those assumptions as equally plausible. I do not contest the potential for a Freudian interpretation of dreams and even some near death experiences. I also do not contest the tenability of solipsism. I just do not believe solipsism to be a parsimonious position. You could say that you have cause for suspicion that solipsism is correct, but I think there is more reason to believe it is not correct. *_"I am not too troubled by the creation of a category called "non-conscious mental phenomena" (though I wouldn't choose to express it that way), as I already perceive that to be the way that most of nature has always operated. On the other hand, I think those levels have their own kind of "knowing" or awareness that is immediate, and not intellectualized."_* What I meant by the phrase "non-conscious mental phenomena" was non-experiential mental activity. If the mental activity of nature has its own knowing or awareness on any level then it's not really a new category of mental activity. It's all just experiential mental activity. I would agree that there is a strong cause for suspicion that much of nature is driven by mental activity that is experiential on some level, but not necessarily self-aware in the same way as we are.
You vs Dannet and Harris in one debate. We need debates. More serious debates to kill the mainstream science. Kudos Kastrup, for now I live in a city with your name. Kastrup in Dk. I found your name looking for weather in my city, Kastrup Coincidence?. We are one. But your “instance” of consciousness is closer to the……”truth”. I would like to translate your ideas in my own languages. I feel,like this must happen. You are indeed a instance of consciousness that are closer to the main perspective. I would like a beer when you tell people around what yoy think. Kudos!
Another great programme. During the latter part I was thinking about what that experience of what I would call Absolute Reality, means for us. Many viewers here have had it I'm sure. I don't wholly agree that it is ever a bad thing. Challenging in a world where it needs to be expressed and respected, and on the whole is not. And perhaps unsettling because of that. But evolution is going to be sore! I'm not sure. Thanks to both for the interview.
Ahhhh some oxygen. Thank you. Ego dissolution sounds scary, I would call it more mind expansion, or simply remembering. That you are much more than you thought you were. Which is why coming back feels so limiting, although cozily familiar. I can perfectly relate to what Bernardo says and appreciate this dialog very much. I had a similar re entry experience on DMT. Actually my first DMT experience.
I remember arguing with a theoretical physicist and medical doctor about this very topic at a Buddhist monastery. He made me sound foolish because he's trained in rhetoric but insisted that everything happens in and of the brain and those who have found otherwise are practicing fringe or junk science. Buddhist and other 'mystical' philosophies of course make the same claims about consciousness but it's nice to be able to defer to someone like Bernardo for the hard cases.
The purpose of the illusory world of perception or deception is to take the place of reality. We can’t separate from our reality but we can dissociate from it, making it appear different from and in opposition to ourself. We are attracted to our illusion which we made and fear our reality which we chose to forget.
The studio camera is being used on my side....although that signal is currently being routed through Skype prior to recording. (I suspect a separate recording, not through Skype, would be even better.) I'm also exploring improving technical quality by having the guest make a local recording on their end and then sending me the file. (You will see the result of that in the next video with Bernardo.) Any other suggestions for getting the best technical quality from internet videos are welcome!!!
In other words I believe there is a real underlying reality that we all will share not some afterlife filled with an eternal personal subjective reality only real to each individual. I believe I am one with everything but I also have my own unique sovereign identity that nothing can destroy and I feel deeply the universe and god celebrate my unique experience and perspective gained through many life times many eternities
Cool, This rings a bell with myself. It's easy to blast deep into consciousness with the.right fuel. The trick seems to leasurly have a gander within the mind leaving a trail of bread crumbs that doesn't get eaten by the birds. Finding some concrete landmarks and universally accepted signposts marking the pathways.to deeper states of consciousness. Pathways readilly & safe to travel 24/7 . Once again dude coined a good phrase " the theater of the mind " Thumbs Up !
this was incredibly insightful.. and was confirming things that I have been thinking about myself for a few years (regarding reality being one complex fractal)... one of the potentials as to why, as Bernardo guesses, is because the one Mind ("God") is lonely.. this struck me a bit, this is sad.. but this raised a problem in my mind: the whole spiritual enlightenment / getting back to "source" / "god" / ... thing is wrong fundamentally, because you are spoiling the game. source created all of this to escape loneliness; it divided itself up into innumerable pieces, wiped the memories, understanding or knowledge of the fact that it is itself, just so that it can experience communion... why then would we reverse this process? why get enlightened? if I am "IT" then it is better for me, to be unaware of the fact, that i am "IT"... since I put myself into this situation............. anyway, incredible talk!
@@tonykelly7103He has a tendency to state his own assumptions and treat those stated assumptions as if they were themselves an argument for what he is assuming. His assertion that there can be "no actualized infinities" is a prime example of that. I think it falls apart on multiple levels. You make a good point here.
@@tonykelly7103 He pressed me on the subject in a previous conversation, where he asked if mind was finite or infinite. It has been a while since we had that conversation, but I believe I said something like "I don't claim to know whether mind is finite or infinite, as far as I'm concerned it could be either". He asserted that mind must be infinite and went to say that the infinite can never be actualized, and I disputed both of those claims. In more recent discussions with him I stated that I favored the idea that mind was infinite, just to get straight to his objections against the concept of infinity.
@@tonykelly7103 Interesting take on things. On the question of whether mind is finite or infinite, I tend to believe that either will work. I definitely do not take the position that mind is "made of parts". I've been very clear about that in previous discussions with him. I'm taking mind itself as a whole to be my ontological primitive.
In my view, individual consciousness is like the two slits in the classic quantum physics experiment. "Reality" is the flow of particles, and only when attention is "on" at the two slits will "physical reality" be rendered for the observer. When the attention is "off" i.e. unconscious, there is nothing rendered. In other words, attention is required for reality.
It would be interesting and helpful, Jeffrey, based on interviews like with Bernardo or e.g. Jayson Jorjani and others, to explore the many ways on how to conduct a meaningful and happy life in times like ours. Is it not this very question that makes us watching NTA?
The only thing I know about reality is that it's mind. The only thing I know about mind is that it's self-deceiving. -- I think there's room to work within these parameters.
I am sorry one more comment , I also believe as above so below and this seems to be a common teaching that what is below reflects in some form what is above. I think ultimate reality won't be a shock to our systems but something familiar.
The next step is termination of the catholic roman church (predicted for 2020 by ISAAC NEWTON), to bring back spirituality & the soul in the frame of science, and build the new standard model of reality, in which consciousness is essential. A lot of work to do.
Some believe that the Bible actually talks about the mind in it's various states of consciousness (e.g. Theosophy, Geoffrey Hodson, "the hidden wisdom in the holy bible") I see touching points with the interview: 1) the innocence of children: "He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:2-4 New International Version (NIV) ) The higher self, the subconscious, Christ, God, speaking to the disciples / learners / truth seekers. Here's it's counterpart: “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” (Luke 11:52 New International Version (NIV) ) 2) the theatre: "For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles at the end of the line, like men sentenced to death [and paraded as prisoners in a procession], because we have become a spectacle to the world [a show in the world’s amphitheater], both to angels and to men." (1 CORINTHIANS 4:9 AMP) The apostles representing the parts of the being / mind that is willing to follow the Christ, still in the flesh and thus struggling with "imperfection", yet pressing towards the elevated position with Christ and the father in "heaven". The angels being messengers of God, light, bringing elightenment. 3) detached from space & time this is the privilege of God in heaven. As described in the story of the celestial wagon in Ezekiel 1:1-28, God moves around by the spirit's command (at the speed of thought). The experience of this highest state of consciousness was overwhelming for Ezekiel: "Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around. 19 When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose. 20 Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 28 This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking." "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Revelation 22:13 English Standard Version (ESV) 4) being in the elevated state of consiousness, free from oppression of space & time is the meaning of being "in (union with) Christ". It is when you let go of the ego. Conscientiously you sacrifice that part of your existence to be able to follow the Christ to heaven. You consider all other things to be a waste and don't want to return to body and earth: "Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." Matthew 16:24 New International Version (NIV) "What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in[a] Christ-the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. 10 I want to know Christ-yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death," Philippians 3:8-10 New International Version (NIV) "I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account." Philippians 1:23-24 English Standard Version (ESV)
"I'm driven by a strong desire to understand what's going on...hopeless as it might be." Bernardo, do you really think the pursuit of these understandings are hopeless? I hope not.
Jungles are deadly places to live. The consensus reality of a jungle will either wrap around you in the form of a boa constrictor, eat you alive in the form of a Bengal tiger, or poison you in the form of a tree frog.
Jeffrey recently tried Kratom Maengda only a 3rd of the recommended dose wow it's total euphoric bliss...mega motivation improves the beauty of life i am also greatly loved and am loving myself with good food and excerice rigorous regimen and many ladies friends blessings friend amazing shows I will be driving a truck again...ahhh time for ultimate freedom dream land astral frontier of total freedom
his re-entry sounds like my nde/obe re-entry......incredibly burdensome. It can't be described, really. And add to all that, that the body is in great pain - it is a very difficult thing to come back.
(...even though i know how....) . caught between, ..........not perceiving the bottom, nor the surface she, ...............could not measure herself but when, the bottom was, finally, ............................ seen, ..................heaven was found.
5 people are looking at one moon.We agree that: 5 subjective individual agreements = the moon. Easy to flip that 180% We could have one subjective experience filtered through 5 people. Actually there would be 5 moons and we agree on what it looks like and position etc because it is one knowing shining out as 5 different people. Is that 'many worlds' theory? Also Somehow I can't help but wonder if Godels Incompleteness theorems describe somehow our inability to see reality.
he struggles with the word "revelation"... revelation is discovery, clues to the unknown... revelation is the "questions"... meditation... religion isn't just an idea, but actual conduct in our days... the very "essence" of religion, our thoughts our speech, our behavior, is our religion inside us... if they don't exist, religion can not exist! religion becomes just words, words become watered down, then we spin those words like we spin the thread of a cover, we are moving to the fairground... we are losing our religion...! we must "return" to the questions, the approach of "return", this can not be, the return is a movement towards an answer... its not a "re-turn", but a "turn towards" that origin... so it is "to the question", not to the answer! in the void there are no answers because there are no questions... no division, absolute love... the questions have the answers hidden deep within them... the questions arises from the disorder we have created... the question..."can we live in peace ?" arises from that division that war... c thx... our memory, our knowledge, which the world has made, which the teachers have put together, the gurus... is that wisdom? wisdom is bought through a book? through a teacher? from another? from their ideas...? I dont think so... if we go up the mountain with all this baggage, all the baggage which they have put together, then the mountain becomes very steep indeed... to get to the top all baggage needs to be left behind... revelation is the questioning... where do I put my next step? is that rock im holding onto solid? will it support others? in the void "all" is unknown... as all memory's of all the world are left at the bottom of the mountain...
Again, artists do this, every day, for years and years. Is it that PhD’s feel that their grip on reality is more solid than people who are painters? Also painting was dominated by male brains for years, especially on the market side, so how female artists may or may not have encountered art in making it May not be fully noted. Someone who is aligned with the culture is much more likely to follow the instructions to fulfill PhD curriculum and to write and read for 5 years to fulfill their degrees. My point is that when linear brains look into non-linear ways to describe consciousness questions it is odd to listen to by a more non-linear mind and an outsider. Get some artists into your opening these dialogues and into your research. I’m putting science and consciousness into my art writing. It’s odder than you know to listen to linear trying to acknowledge non-linear mind as a non-linear abstract artist of 25 years.
I have a BFA and an MFA, and I have to say that very often at least half the faculty if not more hold to materialist beliefs. This is very evident in the trend of identity as the main working idea. Not that identity is not important, it is, but the idea put forth is we are nothing more than the identity fragment that we declare is real. When I brought up Jung in a graduate school I received a great deal of criticism from people who had no clue as to what he actually said. One teacher said „archetypes are just stereotypes“ and another „it’s structural“ and dozens of other cliches. I saw it as a mass defense mechanism. On the other hand I also studied theater and practiced it, and because all performers are required to use their bodies as the instrument of their art these prejudices were far less prevalent. An actor or dancer if they are really working at being a good performer will either intuitively understand the chakra system or discover it by accident at least to a degree. It no longer is woo woo when you discover it is about energy locations in the body. An actor will discover that their persona is but one persona that they can wear, the understand that their ego is just a fragment of their total being. Etc. But I think we ought to remember that the idealist Plato thought that art and theater was a lie and therefore bad for society. I think the real issue is „to what ends“ is a particular art? Can art be a lie as Plato says? The history of propaganda suggests that. But art can also be the lie that tells the truth.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
You can help support our ongoing video production while enjoying a book. To order Dreamed Up Reality: Diving Into Mind to Uncover the Astonishing Hidden Tale of Nature, by Bernardo Kastrup, please visit amzn.to/2T9Z38F.
If you would like to contribute non-English, closed-caption subtitles for this video, please visit ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?v=0or4L30647A&ref=share.
People should organize and tweet this video to Joe Rogan multiple times, it's finally the right time. Bernardo is a household name by now in this niche with numerous books and a strong social media presence - they could further talk about and elaborate this story on his podcast, so he could get a bigger mainstream outreach. We need an online campaign for this cause.
When you start to ascend like Bernardo, you get the added benefit of cosmic echo voice. I can’t wait
Love how Jeffrey can let his guest talk. The few interruptions are well timed and help clarify points to make this listening experience with this particular interviewer and interviewee one of the best I've heard.
Jeffrey and Bernardo will be, I hope, lauded as revolutionary and revelatory thinkers to future generations, in the way we today regard Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, etc. IMHO, any meaningful human progress from our present moment depends on breaking through the prison of materialist metaphysics that confines present-day scientists, journalists, policy-makers, and most "educated" people.
one of the greatest thinkers on the planet. brilliant, utterly brilliant.
I've had some of these experiences - mainly without drugs, too! - possibly triggered by childhood illness - and there is an "is-ness" to them at the time that really demands acknowledgement. This morning early spring sunshine beamed through my vertical blinds flashing as if in a semaphore code to signal "I'm here! The world is beautiful!" and I understood that even if sometimes it is otherwise, at that moment, for me, I was embraced in a warmly enfolding welcome I recalled from childhood.
I really love this interview. I posted it to facebook and one of my friends said to watch all the video you can on this author as he's a genius. I love the passion with which he describes how much he wanted answers and how far we'd have to go to make sense of this since our brains are sort of wired for physical survival and not really to understand the meaning of things.
His books are a treasure trove too! Highly recommend them if you can get your hands on them - pretty sure Why Materialism is Baloney is actually available as a free PDF online :)
Bernardo knows his stuff and expresses himself really well.
The most joyful time is to watch Bernardo in Jeff's show. Love to both of you
Another phenomenal conversation with Bernardo. Thank you both!
the concept (last episode of Bernardo) that the logic of the universe is far greater than the Aristotelian logic of man has given me a much needed and stronger framework of consciousness and understanding as I go forward. Wonderful interview. Thanks Doc!
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad...
“then he realized... I indeed am this creation, for I have poured it forth from myself... in that
way he became this creation, and verily, he who knows this becomes in this creation a creator...”
Thx... two men in a boat searching for a beach, a ground that all can see... love this man and his wisdom...
You can tell Bernardo is a fan of McKenna, talking about, 'elbowing' other neurotransmitters out. Talking about the 'tiles' of language over everything using the bird analogy just like Terrence. Terrence was definitely an important step for me along my journey to expanding my thinking. Would love to hear about Bernardo's psychedelic experiences. This audience knows it's not 'crazy talk'.
Bernardo's recounting of his first episode where he didn't want to come back to "this" reality sounds very much like others' accounts of returning from an NDE.
and jeff you are an expert, brilliant interviewer.
"The longer one is alone, the easier it is to hear the song of the earth." - Robert Anton Wilson
This is the most wonderful of all your splendid interviews, Jeff. All the areas in which, as a psychoanalyst, I am fascinated....and so cheered by the comments of the value of psychology, that it’s all mental. Of course Jung went there, also Matte Blanco. I am trying to construct a topography of the unconscious and shall now have to buy all of Bernardo’s books to flesh out my diagram! Many thanks for all your mind-expanding interviews, dear Jeff. You’re a star!
Thanks again fellas! Always a pleasure listening to you two talk
Another excellent interview with Bernardo.
First time i heard and heard about bernardo kastrup...very interesting human being, thnx for helping expanding my perspection...heel mooi.
Just love listening to people's stories especially those who are a lot smarter than myself. Have done a lot of acid but never really analyzed it just appreciated what was shown.
Bernardo is beautiful. Welcome to the "rabbit hole". Beyond the "loneliness" and "dream" is endless love. Keep going. 😊
1:12:49 "We're so screwed up." That is one conclusion we can all agree on.
Bernardo, looking forward to the book on Schopenhauer!
Bernardo compellingly reminds me that the impulse of un-manifest reality (best represented in Shakti energy) sometimes and somehow realizes itself in the manifest world and is thrilled with the discovery but without any human means to spell it out for others . Thank you Bernardo. How beautiful is that?
Wow! Just amazing meeting of genius... Love and respect💚
My God this is astounding...
These conversations with Mr. Kastrup have been of particular interest to me. I couldn't help but feel during your conversation that you had already answered some of the questions you are asking. Clearly on a collectively subconscious level our race has an inkling of our own awakening to a greater consciousness. For example, "the dawning of the age of Aquarius" so popular in 60s culture. It could be that there are so many layers of deception precisely because the consciousness at the core of all we can ever experience would be terribly lonely without them. A quote from Alan Watts comes to mind, "that which knows is never itself the object of knowledge." Thanks again for your wonderful work Mr. Mishlove! I eagerly consume these videos you're producing.
Thank you Jeffery and Bernardo! Love these interviews.
The base truth Bernardo rests on is ALL is mental. His logic and experiences lead him to this profound conclusion. As he states this is only the beginning of the exploration, though as we dig deeper the trickster and deception, etc also is understood as shading our conclusions. For me, what follows "reality is all mental" leads me to believing the process of "unique experience" is the coin of the universe. The creation of unique experience is what we truly love. This is done within self as well as collectively.
Wonderful interview
I love this guy --- thanks for having him back! Ah, and I love you too :) Going to pick up my NTA t-shirt from the post office now!
T-shirt is great quality -- thanks. Badges next :D
The physical substance of reality that we perceive of as "matter", consists of in essence a combination of information, knowledge and meaning (consciousness). Dean Radin has also extensively researched this topic. Thank you both for this interview.
Would love an interview with both Dean and Bernardo one day, if Bernardo chooses in the future to explore the field of psi phenomena :)
After the last interview with Bernardo I have read his most recent book "Meaning In Absurdity" and I have to say it was one of the most exciting reads in a long time. Now I am curious to get my hands on the book discussed here. Thank you again for another interview!
Your conclusions / expression of this is very palatable for many listeners I think.
Thank you so much Bernardo and to you Jeffrey for this lovely platform.
Thanks to you and Bernardo. I can totally relate to experiences and the implications he took from them. It it's delight to see that there are people out there that can talk about these matters in an open, unbiased and amicable way without getting scared or feeling threaded and therefore therefore aggressively trying to defend what they believe should be true. Maybe there is light at the horizon for man. And keep up the great work! Both of you. 😘
I cried listening to this
Thank you.
That was a fascinating discussion. How do I know what I know without structure and form to encapsulate it for definition.? Does the definition then bring about the decay of what was once unidentifiable? Look at nature, it is cyclical. Even the largest boulder is eroded by the steady, persistent drips of water. And yet we refuse to “let go” of what we cannot possibly hold onto.
Lucky to discover this inspiring guy and also thanks for smoothly hold conversation.
All mentioned "revelations" during altered states of consciousness and conclusion about mental nature of reality so closely resemble what has already been observed and depicted over 2000 years ago, independently at different places on Earth. What an irony, our so called advanced civilization goes through self-delusional climax now, affected and even more obscured by informational flood boosted by technology.
Bam!!!! That was indeed a great interview.
I've experienced many altered states, most of them ecstatic, some of which I could not stay with because the ecstasy was too great. None of these were drug induced. They were all mystical experiences. Most of them occurred from reading J. Krishnamurti and taking his approach of looking at my environment without judgment, taking the position of NOT KNOWING. That position resulted in being overwhelmed by beauty, meaning and authority. The revelations came with such authority that their was no possibility of challenging it. I've felt for certain that the universe is fractal imbued with consciousness that provides the feeling of life, of living. When I let go of a particular ecstatic experience that I could not handle, I was left with a message. "You are surrounded by absolute beauty, you always have been, and always will be, whether you are aware of it or not. " That has been a guiding light ever since. The corollary is that "Life is full of meaning whether I realize it or not."
As for the interview, I could relate to all of it. None was strange to me. I do agree that one must have such altered experience in order to comprehend. I my case, no drugs were involved. Only reading and doing mental experiments. Great interview.
They do Jeffrey! They have a very positive effect on me, I'm sure everyone else who listens as well.
I had that fractal image experience on a trip in 1981. It's been with me all my life and I have attempted to get to the bottom of it ever since. Your description of it here was great to hear. I too had to abort. My thinking of it was that it was my experience of Life unfolding. But I remember coming to coldesacs and having to be saved repeatedly to escape dead-ends. I think I had to learn not to let my ego make path decisions.
I bow deeply to you both :)
Bernardo is always interesting. Yet I was struck (at 49:55) yet again by the haunting question as to whether, even in the "outer" theatre (i.e. what we call the world) the self isn't simply building all of that from its own processes too...including what we call "other people." Solipsism, of course, is not refutable, yet it does have a certain horrific kind of allure. Plausible though they do seem, I never find the arguments raised against it *entirely* convincing. The outer theater may simply be a more persuasive, more deeply disguised onion skin of the one self's own processes, made all the more persuasive by the discovery that we seem to have limited ability to control them. What to make of that? I really don't know. It is of course possible to nuance bare consciousnessness in a style which still allows (after a fashion) for authentically existing multiple beings...at least while that semblance lasts...but I don't know, it still comes out feeling like an iffy construct. At the end of the day it does not seem possible to be SURE that other beings aren't elaborate phenomena generated within the self and projected by the self, however unlikely this may seem to our apparent animal instincts. I don't like it. I'm not saying I do. But it just can't be dismissed easily, imo.
The classic solipsist has to assume that their own subconscious mind generates all of the unexpected and surprising things that happen around them. They must assume that all of the complex behaviors of the people around them are generated by their own subconscious mind as well. None of it can be driven by conscious mental activity, because if it were, then that would imply consciousness outside of their own conscious perspective which would be a violation of solipsism.
So, to cling to the idea that only their conscious perspective exists in the one mind they need to propose a kind of dualism between non-conscious mental activity and conscious mental activity. That is my big issue with solipsism. The form of idealism that Bernardo Kastrup is proposing explains everything in terms of conscious mental activity alone. Under that view, there is no "non-conscious" mental activity.
For the same reason why I reject materialism, I reject solipsism as well -- Occam's Razor. Classic solipsism proposes a kind of dualism in mind where none is necessary.
I agree that we can't _know_ that solipsism is false, though. I just don't see any reason to take the idea seriously. Solipsism isn't the only view that raises the possibility of the people around us not being conscious either. Under materialism, there is a possibility that we are a "brain in a jar" experiencing a simulation of the world, and that the people that we see are NPCs in that simulation with no conscious experience at all. There's no reason to believe that is the case though, again because of parsimony.
@@anduinxbym6633 I have always felt that the term "subconscious" or "unconscious" is problematic, because it may well only be so relative to the surface conscious mind. It is true what you say (up to a point): all phenomena under solipsism are generated by the One Mind that knows itself as the experiencer. The key question here is whether others have a conscious awareness of themselves or not. Strictly speaking, in a "One Mind" scenario, other can only be a semblance and not a reality.
There are then two basic options...we are either all semblances of an underlying primal awareness, or all others are semblances, within the theater of experience, of the primal awareness of the individual who unequivocally knows experience (always and only yourself). The problem with the first idea is that it is never going to be demonstrable, and in effect it is an inferred projection only from the awareness that knows experience (again, always only demonstrably yourself). The main problem with the second is that it sounds a lot like ego inflation if it is not understood carefully.
I am certainly not saying that things HAVE to be that way, but I am not particularly persuaded by your Occam's Razor argument. This is what I mean when I say that I don't find arguments against sufficiently convincing. The fact that it SEEMS that there really are others could be precisely the purpose of the semblance, imo. I think I can make an equally plausible case, with the Razor, that only one experiencing entity exists (and for argument's sake here, we will name that you). The phenomena that generate what you experience as the "world" would then have to come from very deep inner states that aren't readily available to inspection by the surface consciousness. To simply call that the "unconscious", would be too homely in my opinion. It's a bit like calling the universe, the "unearth." But again, I'd have to say that I don't find anything about that *particularly* impossible to believe.
If one mind is hiding from itself in the semblance of multiplicity, then it becomes a case of where the semblance is glimpsed for what it is. The underlying philosophical problem, as I see it, is that multiplicity cannot *actually* be true, if one primal awareness is the irreducible Fundament.
@@marineboyecosse We are not aware of the mental processes that drive many of the things around us. That is why we can be surprised. That's why people can behave in unexpected ways. So, at the bare minimum we must acknowledge that those things are not driven by our own conscious volition. They are driven by mental activity that takes place outside of our awareness.
Classic solipsism is the idea that only one mind exists, and that your conscious perspective is the only conscious perspective in that mind. Since the content of the world around us must be generated by mental activity that takes place outside of our own conscious perspective, that leaves only one option for the classic solipsist. They have to assume a new category of mental activity that takes place outside of their personal awareness (non-conscious mental activity). This is what I am calling the "subconscious". The solipsist has to attribute the action of much of the world around them to that "subconscious".
*_"There are then two basic options...we are either all semblances of an underlying primal awareness, or all others are semblances, within the theater of experience"_*
*_"The problem with the first idea is that it is never going to be demonstrable, and in effect it is an inferred projection only from the awareness that knows experience"_*
I don't see how demonstrability is a problem for the first and not the second. There is no way to demonstrate classic solipsism, or physicalism, or any other explanation for mind and reality. It's all founded in metaphysical speculation.
Through our own conscious perspective, we directly know that conscious mental activity exists. We cannot ever directly confirm that "non-conscious" mental activity exists. The classic solipsist has to explain the world around them in terms of their assumed non-conscious mental activity, where as idealists like Bernardo explain everything in terms of the direct fact of existence (conscious mental activity). The solipsist is the one who is assuming an entirely new category of mental activity unnecessarily (the non-conscious). That is why Occam's Razor sides against classic solipsism. That kind of mental dualism only adds additional assumption. So, I don't think that classic solipsim is equally plausible.
@@anduinxbym6633 "I don't see how demonstrability is a problem for the first and not the second. There is no way to demonstrate classic solipsism, or physicalism, or any other explanation for mind and reality. It's all founded in metaphysical speculation.
"
One's own fact of awareness self-demonstrates. Everything else is ultimately inference, and that is basically my point. The existence of other "centres of consciousness" is every bit as much an inference as what you are calling "non-conscious mental phenomena." As I said though, I think this division into conscious and unconscious is problematic. Perhaps, though, that is how the theater operates, by seeming to erect screens of division among phenomena that are ultimately all derived from the same awareness-singularity.
We are used to the fact that in dreams, the personae there seem to be "Dramatis Personae"....persons that fill out certain desires, tensions, memories etc that we have. They have a certain semblance of other beings during the dream state, but they are (for the most part) readily recongizable as semblances from the greater relative lucidity of the waking state.
A similar observation can be made about the phenomenon of Near Death Experiences. What exactly "are" the spirits, dead relatives, and (in older models) "ancestors" that are encountered in these phenomena? Again, they give signals or behaviour patterns that seem on some level consistent with individual beings that are not ourselves, but by the same token, they also give many clues that they are in effect also "Dramatis Personae" that are playing a narrative role in the dying person's journey into death...real or reversible. The narrative usually being one or another rationale for having to return to the waking world.
Although it is a step, all I am really saying is that it is not actually that gigantic a step to infer....or shall we say, at least have *cause for suspicion*...that the same may be true of our general, waking world. That the "others" we perceive there too are also ultimately "Dramatis Personae" that are finally generated by the consciousness-singularity of the individual who experiences herself as aware. This is as strong as I would feel comfortable in stating it: that I have cause for suspicion. It finally comes down to this: does the world really continue to "exist" when you die, or does it suffer a similar kind of fate to the other theaters of consciousness, such as dreams, when the dreamer awakens? It's a troubling question, I think, though as you say, one in which a definitive answer is unlikely to be forthcoming. Or if it exists, that answer itself exists in a state of consciousness remote from the human waking state.
I am not too troubled by the creation of a category called "non-conscious mental phenomena" (though I wouldn't choose to express it that way), as I already perceive that to be the way that most of nature has always operated. On the other hand, I think those levels have their own kind of "knowing" or awareness that is immediate, and not intellectualized. This is ultimately my reservation (though not a great beef, I should emphasize) with Bernardo's Idealism: it is too logic-rooted and intellectualized. Nature is much more an instinctive, somnambulistic brooding thing.
@@marineboyecosse
*_"One's own fact of awareness self-demonstrates. Everything else is ultimately inference, and that is basically my point. The existence of other "centres of consciousness" is every bit as much an inference as what you are calling "non-conscious mental phenomena."_*
We do know that mental content can take place outside of our own awareness, so the presence of boundaries between our personal conscious perspective and the rest of mind is already established. The question is what lies beyond those boundaries. To suggest that conscious mental activity lies beyond those boundaries explains everything in terms of what we already know, where as the proposition of non-conscious mental activity does not. So, I still do not see those assumptions as equally plausible.
I do not contest the potential for a Freudian interpretation of dreams and even some near death experiences. I also do not contest the tenability of solipsism. I just do not believe solipsism to be a parsimonious position. You could say that you have cause for suspicion that solipsism is correct, but I think there is more reason to believe it is not correct.
*_"I am not too troubled by the creation of a category called "non-conscious mental phenomena" (though I wouldn't choose to express it that way), as I already perceive that to be the way that most of nature has always operated. On the other hand, I think those levels have their own kind of "knowing" or awareness that is immediate, and not intellectualized."_*
What I meant by the phrase "non-conscious mental phenomena" was non-experiential mental activity. If the mental activity of nature has its own knowing or awareness on any level then it's not really a new category of mental activity. It's all just experiential mental activity. I would agree that there is a strong cause for suspicion that much of nature is driven by mental activity that is experiential on some level, but not necessarily self-aware in the same way as we are.
which book should I buy to read about those psychodelic trips of his?
Dreamed Up Reality
@@NewThinkingAllowed Thank you kindly!
You vs Dannet and Harris in one debate. We need debates. More serious debates to kill the mainstream science. Kudos Kastrup, for now I live in a city with your name. Kastrup in Dk. I found your name looking for weather in my city, Kastrup Coincidence?. We are one. But your “instance” of consciousness is closer to the……”truth”. I would like to translate your ideas in my own languages. I feel,like this must happen. You are indeed a instance of consciousness that are closer to the main perspective. I would like a beer when you tell people around what yoy think. Kudos!
"The first principle is that you MUST NOT fool yourself-
and you are the easiest person to fool."
Richard Feynman
Another great programme. During the latter part I was thinking about what that experience of what I would call Absolute Reality, means for us. Many viewers here have had it I'm sure. I don't wholly agree that it is ever a bad thing. Challenging in a world where it needs to be expressed and respected, and on the whole is not. And perhaps unsettling because of that. But evolution is going to be sore! I'm not sure. Thanks to both for the interview.
Ahhhh some oxygen. Thank you. Ego dissolution sounds scary, I would call it more mind expansion, or simply remembering. That you are much more than you thought you were. Which is why coming back feels so limiting, although cozily familiar. I can perfectly relate to what Bernardo says and appreciate this dialog very much.
I had a similar re entry experience on DMT. Actually my first DMT experience.
I can emphasize with the overwhelming feeling that comes from tripping. Everyone has something to be learned
I remember arguing with a theoretical physicist and medical doctor about this very topic at a Buddhist monastery. He made me sound foolish because he's trained in rhetoric but insisted that everything happens in and of the brain and those who have found otherwise are practicing fringe or junk science. Buddhist and other 'mystical' philosophies of course make the same claims about consciousness but it's nice to be able to defer to someone like Bernardo for the hard cases.
The purpose of the illusory world of perception or deception is to take the place of reality. We can’t separate from our reality but we can dissociate from it, making it appear different from and in opposition to ourself. We are attracted to our illusion which we made and fear our reality which we chose to forget.
Jeff you can use your studio cameras to double-record your videos for better quality on your side at least.
The studio camera is being used on my side....although that signal is currently being routed through Skype prior to recording. (I suspect a separate recording, not through Skype, would be even better.) I'm also exploring improving technical quality by having the guest make a local recording on their end and then sending me the file. (You will see the result of that in the next video with Bernardo.) Any other suggestions for getting the best technical quality from internet videos are welcome!!!
In other words I believe there is a real underlying reality that we all will share not some afterlife filled with an eternal personal subjective reality only real to each individual. I believe I am one with everything but I also have my own unique sovereign identity that nothing can destroy and I feel deeply the universe and god celebrate my unique experience and perspective gained through many life times many eternities
Cool,
This rings a bell with myself. It's easy to blast deep into consciousness with the.right fuel. The trick seems to leasurly have a gander within the mind leaving a trail of bread crumbs that doesn't get eaten by the birds. Finding some concrete landmarks and universally accepted signposts marking the pathways.to deeper states of consciousness. Pathways readilly & safe to travel 24/7 .
Once again dude coined a good phrase " the theater of the mind " Thumbs Up !
Rumi has mentioned this all along. This is a new concept in western countries
His tiling is what Dean Radin calls Filters, I think. We all filter everything. Sensitive/psi folk have fewer filters.
I've had the same experience... the fractal machine, that creates to world, based on mathematical formulas. Very, very strange experience!
this was incredibly insightful.. and was confirming things that I have been thinking about myself for a few years (regarding reality being one complex fractal)...
one of the potentials as to why, as Bernardo guesses, is because the one Mind ("God") is lonely..
this struck me a bit, this is sad..
but this raised a problem in my mind: the whole spiritual enlightenment / getting back to "source" / "god" / ... thing is wrong fundamentally, because you are spoiling the game.
source created all of this to escape loneliness; it divided itself up into innumerable pieces, wiped the memories, understanding or knowledge of the fact that it is itself, just so that it can experience communion...
why then would we reverse this process?
why get enlightened?
if I am "IT" then it is better for me, to be unaware of the fact, that i am "IT"... since I put myself into this situation.............
anyway, incredible talk!
Good stuff, as always!
Thanks. I expect he will eventually.
@@tonykelly7103He has a tendency to state his own assumptions and treat those stated assumptions as if they were themselves an argument for what he is assuming. His assertion that there can be "no actualized infinities" is a prime example of that. I think it falls apart on multiple levels. You make a good point here.
@@tonykelly7103 He pressed me on the subject in a previous conversation, where he asked if mind was finite or infinite. It has been a while since we had that conversation, but I believe I said something like "I don't claim to know whether mind is finite or infinite, as far as I'm concerned it could be either". He asserted that mind must be infinite and went to say that the infinite can never be actualized, and I disputed both of those claims.
In more recent discussions with him I stated that I favored the idea that mind was infinite, just to get straight to his objections against the concept of infinity.
@@tonykelly7103 Interesting take on things. On the question of whether mind is finite or infinite, I tend to believe that either will work. I definitely do not take the position that mind is "made of parts". I've been very clear about that in previous discussions with him. I'm taking mind itself as a whole to be my ontological primitive.
@Anton Kruglyk
Why did you quit the debate we were having on my Leibnizian Cosmological Argument video?
Jeffrey, I disproved the physical universe theory, can I be a guest on your show.
In my view, individual consciousness is like the two slits in the classic quantum physics experiment. "Reality" is the flow of particles, and only when attention is "on" at the two slits will "physical reality" be rendered for the observer. When the attention is "off" i.e. unconscious, there is nothing rendered. In other words, attention is required for reality.
Urban settlements as in attached 2 or 3 level housing known since over 7 thousands years, some Cucuteni settlements reached over 10 000 inhabitants.
Dative experience?
It would be interesting and helpful, Jeffrey, based on interviews like with Bernardo or e.g. Jayson Jorjani and others, to explore the many ways on how to conduct a meaningful and happy life in times like ours. Is it not this very question that makes us watching NTA?
The only thing I know about reality is that it's mind. The only thing I know about mind is that it's self-deceiving. -- I think there's room to work within these parameters.
I am sorry one more comment , I also believe as above so below and this seems to be a common teaching that what is below reflects in some form what is above. I think ultimate reality won't be a shock to our systems but something familiar.
brillant
You and Lex Friendman. If this not happens All my life will be boring. Why do not you guys have a conversation, ad you both are AI experts?
The levels of psychedelic trance that Dr Kastrup describes sound like Buddhist jhanas.
7:05 Am I the only person who sees them both as gray?
The next step is termination of the catholic roman church (predicted for 2020 by ISAAC NEWTON), to bring back spirituality & the soul in the frame of science, and build the new standard model of reality, in which consciousness is essential. A lot of work to do.
Omg Netherlands legal yess do you offer couch surfing??
More debates with kind of SAM HARISS.
Some believe that the Bible actually talks about the mind in it's various states of consciousness (e.g. Theosophy, Geoffrey Hodson, "the hidden wisdom in the holy bible")
I see touching points with the interview:
1) the innocence of children:
"He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:2-4 New International Version (NIV)
)
The higher self, the subconscious, Christ, God, speaking to the disciples / learners / truth seekers.
Here's it's counterpart:
“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” (Luke 11:52 New International Version (NIV)
)
2) the theatre:
"For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles at the end of the line, like men sentenced to death [and paraded as prisoners in a procession], because we have become a spectacle to the world [a show in the world’s amphitheater], both to angels and to men." (1 CORINTHIANS 4:9 AMP)
The apostles representing the parts of the being / mind that is willing to follow the Christ, still in the flesh and thus struggling with "imperfection", yet pressing towards the elevated position with Christ and the father in "heaven". The angels being messengers of God, light, bringing elightenment.
3) detached from space & time
this is the privilege of God in heaven. As described in the story of the celestial wagon in Ezekiel 1:1-28, God moves around by the spirit's command (at the speed of thought). The experience of this highest state of consciousness was overwhelming for Ezekiel:
"Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around. 19 When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose. 20 Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 28 This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking."
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Revelation 22:13 English Standard Version (ESV)
4) being in the elevated state of consiousness, free from oppression of space & time is the meaning of being "in (union with) Christ". It is when you let go of the ego. Conscientiously you sacrifice that part of your existence to be able to follow the Christ to heaven. You consider all other things to be a waste and don't want to return to body and earth:
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." Matthew 16:24 New International Version (NIV)
"What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in[a] Christ-the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. 10 I want to know Christ-yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death," Philippians 3:8-10 New International Version (NIV)
"I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account." Philippians 1:23-24 English Standard Version (ESV)
You should watch cinimax after midnight..hahah😆
Too bad Terrance McKenna wasn’t in on this conversation.
Glad to be introduced to the side effect label. WARNING: Can and will result in contamination by the trickster.
"I'm driven by a strong desire to understand what's going on...hopeless as it might be." Bernardo, do you really think the pursuit of these understandings are hopeless? I hope not.
Pity, he doesn't take into account Kant's theory of categories as structures innate to human cognitive apparatus ('reason').
I spontaneously had the experience in 2013. I hope to escape to a jungle one day.
Jungles are deadly places to live. The consensus reality of a jungle will either wrap around you in the form of a boa constrictor, eat you alive in the form of a Bengal tiger, or poison you in the form of a tree frog.
@@geralddecaire6664 Right on!...thanks for your concern.
Jeffrey recently tried Kratom Maengda only a 3rd of the recommended dose wow it's total euphoric bliss...mega motivation improves the beauty of life i am also greatly loved and am loving myself with good food and excerice rigorous regimen and many ladies friends blessings friend amazing shows I will be driving a truck again...ahhh time for ultimate freedom dream land astral frontier of total freedom
his re-entry sounds like my nde/obe re-entry......incredibly burdensome. It can't be described, really. And add to all that, that the body is in great pain - it is a very difficult thing to come back.
(...even though i know how....)
.
caught between,
..........not perceiving the bottom,
nor the surface she,
...............could not measure herself but when,
the bottom was,
finally,
............................ seen,
..................heaven was found.
5 people are looking at one moon.We agree that: 5 subjective individual agreements = the moon. Easy to flip that 180% We could have one subjective experience filtered through 5 people. Actually there would be 5 moons and we agree on what it looks like and position etc because it is one knowing shining out as 5 different people. Is that 'many worlds' theory? Also Somehow I can't help but wonder if Godels Incompleteness theorems describe somehow our inability to see reality.
Still trying to "change my mind, change my reality" into one where I have 8,000 supermodel girlfriends and all the siddhis. I'm an empiricist.
He did some kind of psychedelics. Whoopie.
Not even God wants to be itself and so escapes by creating a world, what chance do humans have? No wonder we're all addicts.🐍
Seems he could have done a better job explaining the expierence...hahah just having fun 😆
he struggles with the word "revelation"... revelation is discovery, clues to the unknown... revelation is the "questions"...
meditation... religion isn't just an idea, but actual conduct in our days...
the very "essence" of religion, our thoughts our speech, our behavior, is our religion inside us... if they don't exist, religion can not exist! religion becomes just words, words become watered down, then we spin those words like we spin the thread of a cover, we are moving to the fairground... we are losing our religion...!
we must "return" to the questions, the approach of "return", this can not be, the return is a movement towards an answer... its not a "re-turn", but a "turn towards" that origin... so it is "to the question", not to the answer! in the void there are no answers because there are no questions... no division, absolute love...
the questions have the answers hidden deep within them...
the questions arises from the disorder we have created...
the question..."can we live in peace ?" arises from that division that war...
c
thx...
our memory, our knowledge, which the world has made, which the teachers have put together, the gurus...
is that wisdom?
wisdom is bought through a book?
through a teacher?
from another?
from their ideas...?
I dont think so...
if we go up the mountain with all this baggage, all the baggage which they have put together, then the mountain becomes very
steep indeed... to get to the top all baggage needs to be left behind... revelation is the questioning... where do I put my next step? is that rock im holding onto solid? will it support others?
in the void "all" is unknown... as all memory's of all the world are left at the bottom of the mountain...
Again, artists do this, every day, for years and years. Is it that PhD’s feel that their grip on reality is more solid than people who are painters? Also painting was dominated by male brains for years, especially on the market side, so how female artists may or may not have encountered art in making it May not be fully noted.
Someone who is aligned with the culture is much more likely to follow the instructions to fulfill PhD curriculum and to write and read for 5 years to fulfill their degrees. My point is that when linear brains look into non-linear ways to describe consciousness questions it is odd to listen to by a more non-linear mind and an outsider. Get some artists into your opening these dialogues and into your research. I’m putting science and consciousness into my art writing. It’s odder than you know to listen to linear trying to acknowledge non-linear mind as a non-linear abstract artist of 25 years.
You might enjoy this video with two artists: ruclips.net/video/1UVCY7bPhUw/видео.html
I have a BFA and an MFA, and I have to say that very often at least half the faculty if not more hold to materialist beliefs. This is very evident in the trend of identity as the main working idea. Not that identity is not important, it is, but the idea put forth is we are nothing more than the identity fragment that we declare is real.
When I brought up Jung in a graduate school I received a great deal of criticism from people who had no clue as to what he actually said. One teacher said „archetypes are just stereotypes“ and another „it’s structural“ and dozens of other cliches. I saw it as a mass defense mechanism.
On the other hand I also studied theater and practiced it, and because all performers are required to use their bodies as the instrument of their art these prejudices were far less prevalent. An actor or dancer if they are really working at being a good performer will either intuitively understand the chakra system or discover it by accident at least to a degree. It no longer is woo woo when you discover it is about energy locations in the body. An actor will discover that their persona is but one persona that they can wear, the understand that their ego is just a fragment of their total being. Etc.
But I think we ought to remember that the idealist Plato thought that art and theater was a lie and therefore bad for society.
I think the real issue is „to what ends“ is a particular art? Can art be a lie as Plato says? The history of propaganda suggests that. But art can also be the lie that tells the truth.