Jungian Metaphysics with Bernardo Kastrup
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Bernardo Kastrup, PhD, is a computer scientist, who has also completed a second doctoral degree in philosophy. He is author of Rationalist Spirituality, Why Materialism is Baloney, Dreamed Up Reality, Meaning in Absurdity, Brief Peeks Beyond, More Than Allegory, The Idea of the World, Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics, and Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe. He has published several papers on Scientific American's website arguing for metaphysical idealism. His website is www.bernardoka....
Bernardo has launched a new organization, #EssentiaFoundation, and has produced some wonderful short videos that can be viewed at • New Science About the ... and • Why Our Reality Is Not... .
Here he describes the enormous influence of Jungian thought upon his own work. He explains that, although Jung often professed to avoid metaphysical speculation, toward the end of his life he was clear about his position as a philosophical idealist. This is particularly reflected in his theory of synchronicity as well as in his identification of the collective unconscious with phenomenal reality. Kastrup also describes synchronicities he experienced while writing about Jung.
New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in "parapsychology" ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is the Grand Prize winner of the Bigelow Institute essay competition on the postmortem survival of human consciousness.
(Recorded on December 8, 2021)
For a complete, updated list with links to all of our videos, see newthinkingall....
If you would like to join our team of volunteers, helping to promote the New Thinking Allowed RUclips channel on social media, editing and translating videos, creating short video trailers based on our interviews, helping to upgrade our website, or contributing in other ways (we may not even have thought of), please send an email to friends@newthinkingallowed.com.
Check out our new website for the New Thinking Allowed Foundation at www.newthinking.... There you will find our incredible, searchable database as well as opportunities to shop and to support our video productions. There, you can also subscribe to our free, weekly Newsletter!
To join the NTA Psi Experience Community on Facebook, see / 1953031791426543
To download and listen to audio versions of the New Thinking Allowed videos, please visit our new podcast at itunes.apple.c...
You can help support our ongoing video productions while enjoying a good book. To order Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe by Bernardo Kastrup, click here: amzn.to/3GCBFJs
LINKS TO OTHER BOOKS SHOWN IN THIS INTERVIEW:
Bernardo Kastrup, Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics -amzn.to/36tQuxa
Bernardo Kastrup, The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality - amzn.to/2zsuoib
Bernardo Kastrup, Dreamed Up Reality: Diving Into the Mind to Uncover the Astonishing Hidden Tale of Nature - amzn.to/3bYAyEe
Bernardo Kastrup, Why Materialism is Baloney - amzn.to/2TCSUEp
Bernardo Kastrup, Brief Peeks Beyond: Critical Essays on Metaphysics, Neuroscience, Free Will, Skepticism, and Culture - amzn.to/2ZzcjK0
Bernardo Kastrup, Meaning in Absurdity: What Bizarre Phenomena Can Tell Us About the Nature of Reality - amzn.to/2XruFdh
Bernardo Kastrup, Rationalist Spirituality - amzn.to/2Xp7IYm
Bernardo Kastrup, More Than Allegory: On Religious Myth, Truth, and Belief - amzn.to/3efgSgD
(As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.)
Our Facebook page: / newthinkingallowed
Our Twitter page: / newthinkallowed
Our Instagram page: / jeffreymishlove
Our LinkedIn discussion group: / 13860770
Over the years Jeffrey has talked to some of the brightest and most important people in recent history, making himself one of those important people. I had no idea that the show was still going and I am so very happy and surprised it is, his contribution to the world and the evolution of consciousness should not be dismissed. In the world of journalism he is one of the greats. Much love for Mishlove. Check out his earlier work if you have yet to do that, the conversations with Ram Dass and Terence McKenna are spectacular
Where can those be found?
The show wasn't apparently on continuously. I believe the first version ended in 2002, but not sure when the current version began. One thing that stands out to me to distinguish the earlier from the current programs is the extent to which Jeff is now so joyful. At the end of this program for example notice how he is literally overflowing with it.
Thank you!
Sometimes when my eyes are closed I can see the room I'm in as if my eyelids aren't there I'm not talking about a map of memory but actually my awareness is outside my eyelids. Does anyone have this experience please tell me? Thankyou
Making a comment for numerologys' sake.
🗣️💨💨Buuuurrp!
I was in Germany and had a series of what I considered „coincidences“ not really synchronicity as Jung described. I said to a friend jokingly, „If I find a KingFisher I will know I am experiencing synchronicity“.
The next day I went to an Indian restaurant, and ordered a beer, and they brought to the table a Kingfisher beer, with an image of a Kingfisher on the label.
Well that was my most reverend heroes ; CJ Jung , Bernardo and Geoffrey…. Absolutely brilliant and I need to list again… and probably again… as this explanation conveys my whole attempt at understanding; not just my own Physci but my conception of the universe within 🙏 …. I thank you from the bottom of my heart…I look forward to the next discussion; once I have “recovered “ sufficiently to assimilate the next one : Glory Be To God !!!
Wow 🤩
Merry Christmas Mary
So nice to see Bernardo back here! You two have a fantastic interaction. Thank you!
Jung constantly rejected the accusations that he created a metaphysics. He said he based his epistemology on a Kantian idea of the phenomenal and noumenal realms. What seems metaphysical is really phenomenal, that is an attempt to create an objective view of the human psyche as experienced by the first person. Thereby if a person experienced something „supernatural“ he could treat that fact as a phenomenon of the psyche, in other words it was a fact that some one believed or experienced such a thing and that first person experience did not need to correspond to what is normally regarded as scientific fact.
This is consistent with psychology in general. If a person has a phobia, that phobia does not necessarily need to conform to physical empirical reality. It is a fact that they believe such or such a thing. Or a fantasy, or a delusion, or a religious belief, etc.
A rational person presented with this fact would say „I don’t know why I have this belief I just do.“ they know that their belief is seemingly irrational but on closer inspection entirely rational.
A person’s fantasies are therefore „things“. This is what Jung called the objective psyche. And it has a great degree of empiricism, but not a type of empiricism that can be placed under a microscope or interrogated via falsifiable science very well. But it is still a fact that a person believes such or such a thing.
Fantasies, fantasmas, dreams, and so forth, are "phenomena" in the sense of E. Husserl´s definition (paraphrased): "By shining up, >things< show themselves--to us--in their own right." Next question, then, is: What should we regard as "real" and "unreal"? And answers should take into account the basic assumption that "psychic phenomena" can/should not be reduced to "objective phenomena".
@@gunterappoldt3037 --unless you realize that psychic phenomena exerts some force upon the phenomenal world. Perhaps you would suggest a gradation of forces?
Julius T. Fraser (“Voices of Time“ etc.) many years ago prosed the organic model of different “integral levels of nature“. Recently, Gregg Henriques presented his one of the “tree of life“ (RUclips: UTOK | Unified Theory of Knowledge). Makes much sense to me - although, as the saying goes, “learning never ends“...
After reading "Why materialism is baloney." I have ordered every single book Bernardo wrote. I am now reading "More than allegory.". Bernardo set me free in many ways because he introduced me to a metaphysical model that feels more intuitive to me than the cultural doctrine I grew with which provided a model that forced me to ignore most of my intuitions and questions about life, nature and consciousness.
I found Bernardo like a week ago. I’ve been studied philosophy for like 15 years, including going through school for it as a young man. I’ve never read or heard anyone better than this guy.
So happy to see Bernardo back!
If any of this is even slightly confusing, check out Rupert Spira and Jeffrey Long on non-duality. Love your show Jeff
Rupert and Bernado just made a video last week. It was 🔥🔥🔥🔥
I like how you still have the intro music straight from 1993.
if out solar system was an "atom" which made up part of a greater cosmic being, would this cosmic being believe we humans did not have any consciousness and private inner life?
Great talk. I'm reminded of so many things. One that stands out is the idea by Rupert Sheldrake about lattices and animals. when something happens, or is learned for the "first" time, then it is easier for those things to happen again.
And as for the logical positivists and behaviourists, they'd do your head in!
Christmas came early!
Therapists these days won't even talk about the subconscious or the significance of dream imagery.
Brillant! As always with Bernardo. I really enjoyed this show. Thank you both.
Does anybody feel like carls jung psychology , is perfect suitable for inner work in combination with psychedelics? Like archetypes? Active imagination?? Collective unconscious?? I feel like he had it secret so not to be confused with some scammers or tsarlatans from the mainstream population.
Oh yes, when I started studying PhD in Religious Studies a few years later after having finished my Magister and at a different University, I realized that Jung is somehow laughed at even there. My former teacher who had taught us the Psychology of Religion was very fond of him. However, the new department went the route of cognitive psychology, heavily relying on metrics. Well, it is a useful route, sure, it can bring different and new insights. And it is closer to the hard sciences. :-) (As they wish to be now.) But I could not really see me a good fit there. :-) Anyway, I let go of Jung for many years and went different ways, even further from Religious Studies and academia as such. But it seems to me that Jung is the one I want to return to and explore more. thanks for the reason to do so. :-)
so i find myself a bit confused. when bernardo says that there are no non-arbitrary ways to carve up the world EXCEPT with living beings who have a private inner life.
i’m confused because the distinction between internal/external seems like a totally arbitrary metaphor. everything is internal. there is no experience which is not of the mind. so i’m confused why living beings would be treated differently because of something which seems equally made out of social convenience.
What a Christmas present the two of you have given me with this talk! Thank you from the bottom of my heart!
I have great respect for much of Bernardo's work. No doubt he understands far more than most"experts" about the subjects of philosophy and physics.
Being an expert on the subject is not the same as understanding reality.
Understanding has to be converted into your reality,otherwise it's just a memory bank of information.
If Bernardo is confident that his theories are correct? He should be floating through his life experience without any irrational worries or fears.
Anxiety about death creates a paradox with his work.
The only way death could be something to fear? Is if everything Bernardo thinks is wrong!
If he would just put total trust in all that he preaches!
Sorry, I have missed that: where (and how) does Bernardo express anxiety about death?
Its rational to fear death if you are an Idealist,if you are an atheist it would be irrational.
@@daviddeida
Its irrational to fear death if you are an intelligent human. Even more so if you have a deep understanding of philosophy and physics.
It doesnt equate to authenticity
@@anthonynewton7435 Its irrational if you think intelligence,understanding of philosophy and physics is a basis not to fear death.You can be a mass murderer with those qualifications.
@@daviddeida
I appreciate and understand your perspective on this,until a few years ago I shared a similar opinion and believed I'd broken everything right down to causation level.
Your reply is only true if the individual has been programmed into the academic educational system of learning.
The subject is not the thing itself.
Being an expert on the history and subject of philosophy,or a genius on theories about conciousness and reality? Is nothing but ideas without any conviction,if the individual still has any fear of death.
The only way death could be a negative thing?would be if all of his theories are totally wrong.
The same applies to any irrational fears or anxiety or illnesses up to a point. If he understands conciousness in the way he explains,it does not make any logical sense to be living with the problems that it can manifest if we dont understand.
Jung was highly influenced by Wolgnang Pauli.
I enjoyed listening to this. I've always found Jung's explanations invaluable, ever since 1965. But I combine this with Buddhist Psychology and Buddhist Philosophy.(Not necessarily Buddhist Religion). As regards the Consciousness of inanimate objects I found in Hermetics (known as the 'Philosophy of Hermes Trismegistus') definitions and mind exercise that gives an invaluable link to a full comprehension of this subject. Thank you Jeffrey Mishlove and Bernardo Kastrup. I look forward to more of your videos.
Jung is completely ostracized from psychology
God Jeffrey. You have had the honour of interviewing so of the most interesting people on the planet for 40 years. What a life!
a literature search in the 1970 literature review(?), on C.G. Jung turned my life around, got me disinvited from the psyc, honors...religious studies came next...i love the story.
Thank you, gentlemen. Excellent, excellent, excellent work! I bought Kastrup's book. A pleasure to learn from you both. God bless and Happy New Year!
Thank you kindly for this. It nicely confirms, what I have personally said for years, Freud = materialist, Jung = idealist.
And the two are comparable to Frued = Newtonian/Einsteinian Physics, where as Jung = Quantum Physics.
Further, Jung brilliantly confirms (& validates) the Prasangika-Madhyamaka philosophical view of reality in Tibetan Buddhism! Jung is the man! Brilliant! 🌟
Imagine if that had been the very same pebble Jung had found as a child.
What a wonderful talk Jeffrey and Bernardo👏
Only halfway in I find this is very beautiful and I love it even though it is shot through with overt, glorious "magical thinking" to my rather (but not rigidly) scientific ear. I wonder how deeply other folks on this general thought ray have been able to go in relating Jung's "collective unconscious" to Bohm's "implicate order". Seems to me they are both brilliant, extraordinary attempts to point us toward the same ultimate source.
@@TheWorldTeacher It would be very arrogant of you to "ASSUME" that you have the truth and Bernardo doesn't..... That's not very spiritual of you to do so...
@@TheWorldTeacher Exactly, which is why you can't say for sure that Bernardo Kastrup doesn't have the truth...
@@TheWorldTeacher The seething abundance of raw ego in your piece keeps me from taking what you wrote seriously, oh enlightened one.
They are consilient. Both Bohm and Jung are two of my biggest teachers, exactly because they both touched the hem of the awareness of the magnitude of the interconnectivity of literally everything, and they both expressed that there are nonlocal, hidden variables that influence that interconnection on a fundamental level. We are a part of something, in the way a dog's stomach is not the same as it's heart, but they are so interconnected in this manifestation of decreasing entropy, that they influence each other.. I suppose the reason I have a hard time with psyche being the nonlocal substrata... I still see us as a part of something far more complex. In our local area, consciousness is decreasing entropy, however, we seem to be a part of something that seeks, or is patterned toward increasing entropy. We seem to be in a space where the level of complexity has reached a threshold in which we can decrease entropy, locally... nonlocally the effect is so small, the entire universe is still headed toward a cold, mute death. Or maybe...
It's like we're a ripple while the ocean seeks calm. But then is psyche the ripple or the ocean, is it the pattern that overwhelmingly seeks to increase entropy or the much, much, much less likely pattern that seeks to decrease it... Not to mention, the complexity required for psyche.... apparently... cosmically...incredibly fleeting? Are they aspects of one whole and the whole body of it is composed of psyche?
I know there is a nonlocal, hidden variable. It's obvious and literally every field of knowledge is finding its path to an aspect of its vestments (totally used that word because I'm reading Catafalque, lol, Kingsley rocks).... But I still see psyche as a level of complexity which is then able to, possibly, influence the levels it contains.... Not as the fundamental substrata...
It's probably just because I have low self esteem..... And I should probably go pee...
"Answer to Job" saved my life! Bernardo, so far understands this amazing small book more than any other that I have read!
To understand how consciousness word should be used think of it like coffee or beer. Drink a coffee now your consciousness has changed very simple.
now you can add a new word since you aren't using that one incorrectly. It's called awareness. This is the word you should be using when describing the full range of experience. your consciousness your form your perception your thought formation your feelings are all ever-changing. The only thing that stays the same and is the word you should be using is called awareness
Atoms are electrical in nature. There's no such thing as inanimate matter. Everything pulses with atomic-electrical power. Your mind is electrical too.
past active imagination, I have experienced immersive imagination, where not only do the content become autonomous, but the content become my entire perception of "reality," like the best VR game you can imagine. Not a dream state. Five seconds from waking ego consciousness. "The ego is floating in the collective unconscious." Floating, sometimes bobbing up and down... below the surface...
Wonderful discussion on Jung. Kastrup is remarkably erudite on the subject. Thank you.
Wow! Great (no surprise).
This was fantastic listening to PhD Kastrup cover Jungs ideas. The perfect guest to cover this topic. He connected many dots for me. 👏 Bravo
"Science covers behavior and Metaphysics covers the Being."
jung coined a term with wolfgang pauli to describe his dual aspect monism, psychoid. the material manifestation of an aspect of psyche. informational conceptions of physics also verify that reality is not idealist, but inherently dual aspect between an unmanifest and manifest aspect of reality. kastrup is going down the wrong road, and the history of ideas will select that he be forgotten except as a side-note to the paths not taken.
@@NOCOMPLYE informational conceptions of physics do not verify an unfalsifiable ontological position. it says there is no such position in the first place. reality is neither idealist nor materialist, because it is both, like two sides of a coin.
@@NOCOMPLYE i said reality is neither physical nor non-physical but both, and therefore cannot be said to be either alone. that's the paradox that you mistake for circular reasoning.
@@NOCOMPLYE sorry dude, you lack the conceptual capacity to understand what is over your head, and there is nothing anyone can do about that.
Thanks again Jeffrey. Bernardo is always a treat.
Yes the dialogue to the unconscious for me , can start when I am extremely tired and depressed , certain musics will put me in the mood to start my conversation
"The Ego is a psychic island, surrounded by a sea of the unconscious."
Jung is not taught in the US because he is extremely difficult to understand; people are too simplistic in their grasp of how emotions speak to humanity, and to themselves, individualisticaly.
Furthermore, until sleep dreams are deemed important, the Educational Systems will be shaped by the powers that be.
fantastic
I rather, for example, read Hermann Schmitz ("new phehomenology"), or listen to Jochen Kirchhoff. They are much more precise and concise. No need to repeat old nominalistic (scholastic) discussions endlessly. But, of course, the holistic paradigm is an intellectual challenge and ground for "serious play", like C.G. Jung`s "science fiction" (that is, partly scientific, partly fictional "narratives", where, e.g., the "archetype" strangely looks like a "homunculus", which is rather a proto-scientific schema, which -- among other things -- inspired J.W. Goethe´s "Faust").
PS.: It strikes me as strange that Dr. Kastrup never seems to have heard of qualitative research (which is anything but "just dry statistics"). This makes his general critique of "academic sciences" look somehow superficial, although it may also be justified in certain respects ("nerdism", "cancel culture", "bureaucracy", "technocracy", and so forth).
What s guest! Articulate, knowledgeable, engaging. Many thanks to both.
Any discussion with Bernardo is enlightening and interesting. Thank you Jeffrey.
This is a very important bridge between Jungian thought and metaphysics. So much wisdom and food for thought here. Thank you both - really enlightening.
I will not pretend that I understood even a small percentage of this which only verified that I know only one thing that I know nothing!! Question is, does this mean I am wise or a complete idiot-......
Is personal awareness a cosmological constant? I can see how the universe is a copy of a form, where perfect symmetry can only expand and contract, leaving a circle or ring, which breaks up further into slightly curved segments of motion or Planck time. Personal awareness somehow a direct piece of the pearl non-object and able to balance with it, different than the body since that is imperfect with the segments (tasks, days, lifetimes etc) always trying to get back to that symmetry or at least the circle, and assigning value to other imperfect objects in order to join them with the motion segments, like sports, like money.
When laying in the crib, the baby on their side sees a crib bar or angle of the wall, and perceives two massive forces which are the light and gravity, and the horizontal connection is comforting, can be identified with, allows the awesome. Upright, triangulation helped by facial features, assign value to objects and connect them for gain, the nipples and mouth triangle, later identifying people objects on a horizon with singular awareness and two or more points to fix on, comfort of a different sort, fun with balls and sticks. Baseball a good example like a bird's nest, a circle or rather two circles, one inside the other like a bird in a nest. An object is created, an egg or ball, that when sent out (enhanced ground effect?) is of novel value and becomes something new, like a home run or first flight.
Interesting to think of what some wildlife could perceive if they could rest a bit more after birth, bears for instance. Thanks for the video!
So thankful to both of you gentlemen for this video!ॐ ❤
Absolutely Brilliant and refreshing insights that I so resonate with - thank you Bernardo and Jeffery for bringing us Bernardo ❤️🌹
Yes, He studied eastern philosophy which was totally different from Freud. Synchronicity going with the flow or random life as quantum physics or just living, you never know. Psych is bases the bases of metaphical reality. Father white: to me , psych is the all see, it stands alone exisitance and not depending on anything else. The psych is the see ..
The psych is creates the body. Materialism is not thought throw. His metaphicsl views. Decoding : consciousness and psych
consciousness which today phenomenal consciousness. Expperince connected in web of meta cogantaive. Explicit control, associations, its much more restored and they psych.. pheromones consciousness. Experiential in nature. New web or w awareness. Freud was his mentor which is unconsciousness. The unconsciouse you can’t access, Things you are expeicnign you either can’t experience or your ego disassociated from it. Segments of the psychs. The unconsciouse is a kind of conscisness es. The unconsidered and cons cites traffic. Traffic: exchange arrche types of conscience or collective unconsciouse
They can move across consciousness and unconscious , metaphor spectrum of light. Change of frequency of the spectrum. Collective unconsidered, things can move across those boundaries and moves always the same. That nature is experiential
computers are programs that follow a patten
information we found 1948 states and dynamical. Information is a discretion , it static. It is just data. Binary numbers zeros a one. You press the keyboard 1 that is a binary number 01111111. Eight bites and tht is all. We the human are the one that gives this life. So, its us , we are the one that gives life to all this stuff. Todya, with quantum ai , its just info but which it data. Data being taken here and there which it has images attached again binary numbers at the core of a computer binary system. It all zeros and one. It goes back to the iching. Theiching 64 . 2, 4, 8 , 16 32 64 , 128 256 so on and on.. so, the Chinese figured it out long time ago..
information content which psychics. Jung The collective unconsciousness if we sense is the physical world that sounds ourself. Expertian frme work.
Collective unconscious as a dream and waking state, those images with eyes open are manifestation of the unconsciouse and your ego matter is the derivative. Consistent across books. Freud: the Ego. Young: ego consciousness and web associated thoughts images opinions and so on. A web of psychi organizatied way, an image your preview whch may trigger and emoting. Web of connection and its a sea of associations that can change and are fluid.
arch types
its empty
crystals have define structure , lattice precise of properties that form the crystal. It exist if no crystal existed. The lattice is a template the template is not anything its just a template and things coming together.
template of behavior
psych magnifies itself, an expression of itself. The idea of forms
non of it is the form itself. Comes after the arch type.
harmonics of music, Gutar string, product notes.. the other notes is not its Frequancy arch type. Harmonics of the psych ..
vibration of the psych
arch type: object and subject
template of behavior it is not incasesd
in the collective unconscious that i body , network experience and embodymient of arch type. The embody of archetype. That compete expression of arch type. All psych energy flows template complex..
energy of those associated flows to the lattice of arch type.. its a subject and context and mega cognition arises that compose is a subject non the less.
physical world has a will of its own. Unconscious it also has its own life expeicne, we can see it from outsid. Inrospection
you are watching psych images and forms of images and reprsentions
you have no control of ver it.
ego psychi island
synchronizes same arch types of images and our inner life. The external physical world.
External world
psychi everything is alive.
objects of external world are alive.
yes, and no. Physical world is an expersion of collective unconscious. They dont have private of their own..
wow, i see it.
the phone is material matter, but someone had to make that. It’s like Japanese culture , we see things as they are. It is what it is. Wow. Now, I see.
so, museum seeing old items , these items hold history or experience of what someone used and they create memories. Conscisness is in me. I saw yellow hot wheel tracks the other day. I remember getting nervous , why. My Mom used that to disopine me when I was a kid. The yellow track was just plastic it was a thing, but my memorie s beset I carved out. That is the image.. I see it now.
experiential process ..
holographic thinking , wish to find. Projection of my psychi
images you protecting
images being to acqaure you didnt’ induce force to do that behavior
that is the space of ordinary imagination
active of there own accord. Talking to the unconsciousness. Theatre of experience
something is being told to the ego.
so, my balsa wood surfboard when I see it. It holds memories of my past when I made it, the friends who helped me get the wood, the application of glass that two times had to redo. So, we are the conscious s. We are the prime mover. These things , someone had to make them and that is it..
psych is the seer
psychic is matrix of everything which is God.
psych has no limit
how you put the bricks together. Colognes cathedral. Parts at core a stone. It is built whch someone had to put that together.
We are the main mover, we give all things life or archtype. I see it thanks again..
Surfer Frank Downey California ❤❤❤
Sounds like a complex data structure in a modern day programming language which can represent different kinds of very complex information but is an empty entity in itself.
Metaphysics 101
Transforming frowns into smiles is smarter than turning lead into gold. And transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war) is more ignorant (dead) than turning gold into lead.
My Boy Bernardo doing one hell of a Job interpreting grandpa jung. The jung worldview is rife with mystery. Everything is psyche. Images everywhere. But what is our place in this vast ocean. Stunning
Maybe jungs archetypes are just the products of years studying mythologies alchemy christian gnosticism hermeticism and maybe some drug help but we will never know that.
Mr. Mishlove is a bit like like Master Oogway from Kung fu panda
Wonderful interview! Thank you so much. Would you please consider covering the late Danish mystic Martinus and this teachings?
I got right into Jung years ago. Then I read the Jung Club, which was an arttack on Jungianism. It put me off a bit, but I read years later that it was a load of rubbish.
Jung's ideas on Psyche and Archetypes were developed gradually
I don't agree with the idea of this guy that the common unconscious is equal to physical world
Common unconscious was always larger then what seem or what's unseen It was rather a large container of everything that the structures of man's reality were to deal with or are to deal with
What was not mentioned here is the connection between The Space We live in and The Archetypes
Anyway Junguan stuff is so rich that It's difficult to deal with All of Its content in the way of individual Psyche
I haven't read Jung, only heard about him here and there. But I have thought a lot about Jung's idea of collective consciousness and have been a constant sufferrer of synchronicities-both bad and good. And whenever I reached a particular understanding about collective consciousness, just by purely mental gymnastic, if it is right one, I will come across some or the other Bernardo video describing my understanding in proper term and explaining it how Jung too said the same thing, and in a way Jung had predicted what I would think-not literally- it is just synchronicity.
I found Jung after getting hooked with mysticism. I thought the personal contains the dreams, also Freudian; but in the subatomic, the collective that separates from Freud is the world of the quarks & Higgs: the experience of the mystical.
I would make a wild guess:
@4, when puzzled by compass needle, Einstein is bordering between the personal and the collective unconsciousness. 1st breakthrough.
@12, a family friend gave him Euclid and Kant which he devoured. 2nd.
@17, he was chasing a beam of light. 3rd.
@26, he published 1st draft of 4books on new physics. 4th breakthrough.
I'm not saying he crossed the threshold, but investing much psychic energy some more in the collective leads to mysticism & turn 98-points of monkey DNA into personal gold.
love Jeffs "and now lets go to the Internet Video." so old school. so different from the usual grifters. Re-assuring.
Several times he uses a word that the captions pick up as “nucia” but I can’t find a definition for this spelling. Does anyone know the correct spelling so that I can find the definition?
‘Οὺσία’ is the Ancient Greek word for ‘substance,’ ‘essence,’ ‘gist,’ even ‘being,’ something that exists in and by itself, independently of anything else. So by claiming that the psyche is itself an οὺσία, Jung is saying that it is its own
metaphysical ground or category-i.e. the ‘psychic.’ And as if to eliminate any possible doubt in this regard, he declares: The psyche deserves to be taken as a phenomenon in its own right; there are no grounds at all for regarding it as a mere epiphenomenon.
@@NewThinkingAllowed thank you! Good to know.
@@NewThinkingAllowed One follow-up question would be: Which agency takes "Sein" or "Dasein" as a "phenomenon in its own right". Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, for example, meditated about it, with some aid from the "phenomenological method". All three thinkers seem to agree on the point that "Sein/Dasein" in its (appearance as) being-thrown-on-ness (objective) mode should not be regareded as "primordial", i.e., there should be some "conditions of the possibility" (of its "showing-shown-ness", or ..., you name it) which are more "transcendental". Just saying. It seems one of the basic riddles of something like a anthropogene "philosophy perennis".
I recognize PKD's Exegesis and The Book of Symbols from my own shelves :)
yes, it was Jung and the I Ching that moved me forward, too, to metaphysics and my subsequent career
14:40 Anthony Stevens defines archetypes in this video: ruclips.net/video/e1rxoKM2UHg/видео.html
I try to describe it as, this being resides on a certain level of complexity, so it is capable of an inner psychic life. The inner psychic life is basically the consequence of , we are nearer a part on the structure of whatever it is we are a part of that has reached this particular threshold in its ability to decrease entropy, which would express itself as complexity from our perspective. The universe seeks to increase entropy, but we are (conscious beings in the universe) these weird little monsters that are growing on its back and we decrease entropy locally. The body of everything in the universe is influenced by it nonlocally though. Metaphysically, we are a part of something seemingly like a fractal. Maybe we're cancer on something many levels up. I suppose like anything, it's the use it's put to, and the disease contains its own cure and we are also the means to its superpowers....
When talking about information it is best to define information in the striktest terms, for instance it is a misconception that computers can process information, they manipulate binary data only, there is no information without consciousness. Information is the meaning of the data or experience (percived via data i/o). Books also do not contain information, they contain data, transcribed in symbols. The information is created when a conciousness interprets the data into meaning.
Im rewatching this video, such an inspiring conversation 🔥
I knew it, the troublesome is the archetype that keeps trying to find and recognize itself trough sincronic events, not me. 😂
I find that to be interesting language you use Bernardo describing how nature has a will and "wanted" you to write that book.
The only thing I disagree with Kastrup on is his insistence that the unconscious - the collective unconscious - is not organized or intentional but is simply like some type of sea with its contents in it. There is nothing at all to suggest this is the case. Such a view is, ironically, a vestige of physicalism.
The fact that we observe an ordered, intentional, law-like universe alone suggests intentionality and that consciousness is capable of generating rationally intelligible realities and beings to inhabit them.
The notion that someone how the collective unconscious or what underlies it is simple intuitive or doesn’t even have an awareness or an intentional and decisive existence is not supported by what we observe.
OH YES THE BERN IS BACK!
Anyone know other conversations in which Bernardo discusses information?
Very reassuring. I am keeping this video to view a couple of more times.
Another extraordinary interview with Bernardo Kastrup! I'm so happy to hear that there will be another in the near future. Thank you!
Love these talks! And this one released on the day after my 41st bday. :)
Love the talk, thanks to all involved. :)
One is driven to some form of idealism by empirical, experiential considerations.
In his crystal analogy, the lattis is the pattern in which the crystal grows. It's a blueprint. I can say it is information.I Then ask the question - does it take up any physical space, the information? If not the the universe informationally could be said to exist as information and has no space requirement.
In this case, mass is a byproduct, a derivative of information and at a fundamental level requires no 3D space.
For myself the follow up question is - what is information fundamentally?
And
Is there always a following question? If so the UNKNOWN can be considered a constant in any ontology.
Archetypes are the self portrait of instincts. Resultant images.
🍓🌿happy holiday🌿🍓
i have had dreams and where can feel the wetness of water or feel the struture of an object
Ty
oh that is why some dreams scenes have people places and things
Jung is pretty obscure on the topic of the afterlife though. It is clear that he believes in it, but exactly WHAT he believes seems to wobble around to a disconcerting degree. That said, one of his most lucid statements is this:
"The mind of the living appears, therefore, to hold an advantage over that of the dead in at least one point: in the capacity for attaining clear and decisive cognitions. As I see it, the three-dimensional world in time and space is like a system of co-ordinates; what is here separated into ordinates and abscissae may appear “there,” in space-timelessness, as a primordial image with many aspects, perhaps as a diffuse cloud of cognition surrounding an archetype. Yet a system of co-ordinates is necessary if any distinction of discrete contents is to be possible. Any such operation seems to us unthinkable in a state of diffuse omniscience, or, as the case may be, of subjectless consciousness, with no spatio-temporal demarcations. Cognition, like generation, presupposes an opposition, a here and there, an above and below, a before and after."
That is precisely the core issue with the survival of individuality - indeed the survival of any "specifiable" information post-mortal. What is the "membrane" there that supposedly separates me from you? Here it is the brain and the body, however that works in the detail. But there? Without such a membrane we merely have the "diffuse omniscience", which is not a structure that could support persons. I speculated before that it might be our individual histories, lived mortally, but this is HIGHLY speculative.
Jung also appears to be fond of the idea that the dead are intensely interested in what the living have to say, and sit, in rapt attention when a newly dead arrival shows up. Yet this seems to be a function of his own thinking about things. I can't say I have read many - indeed any - modern day NDEs where the dead were hanging on the every word of the living. If anything it's the other way round. Seen mythically, "information" flows from the other world into the dying person in the NDE.
In another sense I think he is onto something here though. The dead (or the world of the dead) indeed doesn't/don't appear to "know" anything that we don't know. This is a large topic, but I'll do no more than mention it here. It's as if knowledge belongs to us, derives from us, is rooted in us...and without us "God" can't know anything except its own "diffuse omniscience".
Have you read about Jung’s NDE? It’s fucking fascinating. He even saw his doctor in the NDE, and knew the doctor would be dying soon, and then HE DID. Jung was very mad at him. He was also very upset about having to come back.
@@LS-qu7yc I have read it. It certainly embodies the "you must go back" theme. In other respects it is somewhat unusual though, as NDEs go. His doctor was in "archetypal" form, and Jung was stripped to an "objective" form where he consisted of the things that he had done. Can't say I find it terribly appealing.
@@greensleeves7165 perhaps it’s his own interpretation and the way he wrote in general. To me it was very flowery language but I still got the notion that it was a typical NDE as it is told through a personality. What do you find lacking in his descriptions of some sort of “afterlife”?
@@LS-qu7yc Well, as ever, there's not really a description of a "life" there. I would be very hard pressed to decipher what my ongoing experience in that environment would be based on Jung's account. Like most other NDEs it's a "portal state". I also don't know what it would mean to "consist only of what I had done" and of how I fitted into history. It doesn't sound to me like a "life" at all.
@@greensleeves7165 do you have an experience?
Brilliant.. 🙏🏻 Thank you
I loved this. Jung was a genius.
Just order his book on Jung.
Understanding is bestowed
At 13:50, the definition of "ego" given seems counterintuitive: "a collection of thoughts and feelings" is a poor match for "the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity". Isn't it about time to forge ahead with more modern nomenclature? Unconscious, subconscious...the old lingo is constraining against the development of a more sophisticated understanding...
That definition that you gave was basically a freudian one.
If one gives a general definition that applies to oneself, that applies to understanding your own ego you can be way more straightforward/practical with it.
If you observe your sense of self or ego right now it’s a collection of thoughs, sensations, feelings roughly located in the space between the eyes.
Since bernardo has experienced ego-death before with psychedelics the reality of ego is clear to him. A sense of ego or self is also part of his system of metaphysics; the term “dissociated boundary” or something like that is what he uses to refer to the specific limited/partial and relative experience of consciousness that we have within a human body.
@@1yanyiel
@@StoneShards Then I don’t really understand where you came from in the first comment. At first it seemed you wanted to expand the definition of ego that kastrup provided but with modern words (Therefore a modern system of ideas to refer to the mind/ego), but now you’re essentially saying that it’s futile since languge is “itself arbitrary and imprecise”. Then you imply that the ego does not exist, that it’s confounding the thing in itself vs the conceptualizion of it. So what is it that you want exactly?
@@1yanyiel
@@StoneShards Ok I think I see where this is coming from. Perhaps you mean that a precise definition of any given concept is possible. And that taking certain terminology and using it out of the place in which it originated can conflate it into another meaning or just become something entirely else.
Well, the way I see things is that there’s no such thing in language as a definition that is definite. Or a system of ideas that are magically enclosed, defined and precise in that way. Ideas are flimsy, and conceptions relate with other conceptions. So you’re kind of in the dilemma that analitical philosophy tried to do which is to define all words so that one can be as clear as possible. But sadly words refer to other words, concepts refer to other concepts indefinitely. So one puts a arbitrary halt in a definition of a word. I mean a definition is to “enclose” or “outline” something. Now this is at a ontological level of what language is (Derrida’s deconstruction faced this dilemma)
Now on a practical level yes one can try and be concise and precise when it comes to defining system of ideas. But ideas themselves are not static either, nor is “understanding itself” a linear process either. Ideas are shared constantly with other minds, which puts language as an inherently collective thing. Which means that thinking itself is collective by nature as well. Plus we don’t truly understand what we understand, nor know why we know things, if we did we wouldn’t have this speculative philosophical discussion about the nature of our own minds.
Another thing is that ideas go through a historical process. Whatever we think at the moment of what “ego” means will not mean what it signified 100 years ago when freud defined it. Possibly the concept evolved during his lifetime, and then the version that we have now of that is whatever the academics interpreted and how it permeated in society. We don’t know jesus nor buddha’s original teaching or concepts. So in the end ideas are flimsy, changing and they’re not even clear in our own minds even if we understand them. Which means that understanding something goes beyond an explicit definition of it.
I think I extended this quite a bit but this is an area that I’ve thought about alot.
Lovely, beautiful
Form is emptiness, emptiness is form
Interaction with the tea cup as to having properties attributes can be bestowed on the blank television for example. The love for inanimate objects as to having agency, is a similar Well, like Wilson in the Movie Castaway. Or is the conduit our agency as opposed to our vessel.
this is simply awe (sum).
🙂
Lovely Jung, lovely Bernado and Llvely Jeffrey. Great synchronicity with the red pyramid pebble. The Sun told me its all imagination, uniting psyche and materialsim.....