ALL: I cannot comment on philosophical content via RUclips comments anymore, due to limited time and redundancy with other places where I do discuss my philosophical system. So if you like to engage on philosophical discussions, please post in my Discussion Forum at: groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/metaphysical-speculations. You can find more useful links about my philosophical system here: www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/04/social-media-policy-and-useful-links.html. I count on your understanding!
Hi Bernardo. I'm 73 with the approximate lifespan of your cat. :) As a very young man, starting with Richard Maurice Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness, I knew the key was intense yearning above all else. It has served me well. Now, having explored for a lifetime, it's mostly a matter of choosing how to fill my remaining time. Having listened many hours to your videos and interviews and beginning your books, I feel quite comfortable in saying I'm unlikely to find anyone that does it better than you. With genuine gratitude . . .
After reading the reviews and introduction I can't wait to read this book. I think your ideas are part of a rising paradigm shift in our understanding of consciousness and reality. I feel lucky to be alive during such a vibrant and exciting period of human thought.
Wow. I'm looking forward to reading your book. Ever since I discovered your channel (because of Rupert Spiras' channel) I've got impressed with the insights you have had and shared with us
I admire the poise you maintain when confronting intellectual bias and recalcitrance in your so called peers. What really would drive me up the wall is fighting an uphill battle which the materialists should themselves be waging against their own ... cringe... beliefs. Shouldn't they be hungrily seeking out sound counter arguments with which to assail their own ideas? Can they not embrace sound logic, experimentally, without fearing or even considering the implications? Ahh, what do I know? (Dittly-squat, that's what!) :0)
Really looking forward to this new work. I also noticed the book by Dennis McKenna on your bookshelf. I would be curious to know what you thought of it... To me, Dennis is the Sane one of the two McKennas, yet he has experienced a more-than-full share of the weird... Not to disrespect Terence, of course, who never failed to be at times entertaining and at other times profound. At the very least I can honestly say that T McKenna and his little brother offered me a different way to look at reality, on my journey fromJoseph Campbell to wherever it is we are as of now. I do believe I shall wander over to Amazon and purchase a copy of Dennis' book... and your new one, as well, as soon as it is available.
disposium I share your feelings about the McKennas. Terence was a poet of ideas and it isn't important (to me at least) whether those ideas were 'true.' Probably very few of them were, and only the ones people don't talk about it. But the poetry of those ideas doesn't become any less beautiful because of it. They also changed me in subtle but profound ways, opening new 'modes' of thinking in my mind. And yes, Dennis is certainly the most grounded of the two, despite the La Chorrera events suggesting the opposite... ;)
Bernardo, I've been listening to you on Skeptico and recently finished your book "Why Materialism is Baloney". Wow! Amazing stuff! I'm really looking forward to this new release. I notice you have "Irreducible Mind" on your bookshelf in your video. Do you know the Kellys or have ever worked with them? Also, are there any particular books or readings you'd that particularly inspired you?
JJ Sicotte Hi JJ. Thanks for the kind words and encouragement! No, I never worked with the Kelly's, but like their book. As for books that influenced me, have a look at my Facebook page, where I list some of my favorites in the 'About" section. There is also this link: www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/02/highlights-of-my-personal-library.html Cheers, B.
I see a whole lot of books I have as well: Bergson, Gebser, Tarnas, Hillman, Jung, Campbell, McKenna, Sheldrake, Penrose, Baudrillard, Chomsky, Dennett, I Ching, Book of Symbols.. and almost all the other titles I know of, ha! :) I suppose you're well versed in Stan Grof's work?
Hello Bernardo! I would first like to commend you are your considerable philosophical rigor in your defense of idealism. I did have a question regarding the specifics, however. First, are you more in agreement with the subjective or objective idealists? If objective, which particular sub-type or sub-types are more feasible or accurate than the others, (e.g. personalism, absolute idealism, monadism etc.) Thanks Bernardo! Peace be with you, Friend.
***** Uh, I hesitate about voluntarily given myself more labels, because it always comes back to bite me. Even the label 'idealist' was one I adopted only after much hesitation, and only because I figured it would be too difficult to communicate without accepting at least a first level label. But I will, with apologies, refrain from getting deeper into this hole. :) I invite you to peruse my work and understand what my position is, independent of any labels. Cheers, Bernardo.
Bernardo, are you familiar with Gregory Chaitin's work on Evolutionary theory merged with Algorithmic Information theory and Omega Number? ruclips.net/video/RlYS_GiAnK8/видео.html
Keep up the good work. I have had serious reservations about the materialist point of view ever since my high school days over 50 years ago. When I first learned in school about the theory of how vision arises by light striking the retina and reaching the occipital lobes, I could never understand how these correlations gave rise to the experience and awareness of sight. I could see the chain of physical events correlated with sight, but could not see in what part of that chain the actual experience of sight arose. It has been very difficult to explain my objections to materialists. When I speak of how uncertain it is that consciousness/awareness arises from particles, they immediately assume I am talking about God or religion and write me off as a religious crackpot. However, I am not talking about God, but pure science, since I am an atheist. They are unaware of the hidden assumptions in their beliefs that all phenomena have a material basis. Materialism seems to be contradicted by the overwhelming evidence accumulated during the last 50 years due to the advances in medical science. There is the phenomena of transplant memories, near death experiences, and the medical condition of hydrocephalus where the brain cavity contains only a thin cortical outer layer and the remainder 90 percent water, yet a person with this condition can function as a Cambridge mathematics honor student (see the medical case studies of John Lorber.) One could also argue against materialism by appealing to modern physics. No one really knows what a particle is, so how can one postulate that everything has a material basis? There is the two slit experiment, delayed choice experiments, the fact that the physical properties of quanta does not exist until a measurement is made, quantum nonlocality, fine tuning of the universe, dark energy, dark matter. When there is no understanding of how to interpret these weird phenomena that current science gives rise too, how can one be absolutely certain consciousness arises from a material cause without definitive experimental justification and when there are ample phenomena that suggests otherwise. There is a lack of imagination and extreme dogmatism in insisting on an old paradigm to explain every scientific anomaly. Think of the lack of progress there would be in science had Einstein's new ideas been stifled being counter to the assumptions of Newtonian physics. Thanks for speaking up for us who saw that materialism was baloney over 50 years ago. If I gave voice to my objections in those early days, I would have been completely marginalized and shouted down. The materialist pseudoskeptics are as dogmatic now as they were back in the day. They are unknowingly being unscientific, and yet claiming at the same time to be scientifically objective. Quite ironic.
liseesen I resonate so much with what you say! And I share many of the experiences you had when you tried to speak up. I particularly like the passage where you say that one of the big problems is a _lack of imagination_ by committed materialists. That's exactly right, in my view! They are simply unable to imagine alternative explanations that are entirely logical and consistent with the data.
***** What rankles me is how oblivious materialists are concerning their extreme dogmatism and pedaling this as scientific objectivity. I am extremely skeptical about everything. Whether consciousness arises as an epiphenomena of the brain or can exists beyond the brain has never been experimentally established. One would think based on logic alone (the hard problem), even without considering the ample phenomena suggesting that consciousness cannot be solely the result of physical processes, the materialist position is far from certain. The hard-core materialists are as anathema to me as the fundamentalist Christians. I would readily concede that consciousness is solely the result of brain processes, if this can be experimentally shown. But materialist assume this as a foregone conclusion. The problem, as I see it, is that the current scientific paradigm is reductionistic material. A common mistake is made in assuming all natural phenomena must be explained by the material. However, this is a fallacy. There is no logical reason why all phenomena in nature must be reduced to material causes. This is conflating a scientific theory with nature itself. Any natural phenomena that cannot be explained by the prevailing scientific paradigm are then seen as an impossibility. These natural phenomena are then given derogatory epithets and called paranormal or the experimental evidence for the phenomena are attacked and explained away as being the result of bad science. This is nonsense. No phenomena in nature is paranormal. Either the phenomena exists in nature or it does not. What puzzles me is when this extreme materialist position took root in the scientific establishment. If one looks back at the writings of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Pauli, Heisenberg, Shrodinger, et. al., all were aware that in order to explain all phenomena, one may need to look outside the scope of a purely materialistic science. Materialists try to shoehorn all phenomena into the current scientific materialist paradigm, however ridiculous these attempts may be. Intractable problems arise because of the multiplicity of natural phenomena which don't fit well into the paradigm. Take, for example, the placebo effect. How can the placebo effect effect even be possible under the framework of materialism? The placebo effect suggests that mental processes create physical effects and not the other way around. Am I the only one to see this glaring contradiction to the materialist position? I am not anti-science. I am railing against the unscientific attitude of committed materialist. No one can argue against the spectacular success of the current materialistic paradigm. But clearly a new way at looking at anomalous phenomena outside the current paradigm may be necessary. Let the scientific method prevail to do good science in determining whether unquantifiable phenomena, such as consciousness and subjective experience, are valid or not. If phenomena cannot be quantified within a materialist paradigm, then perhaps a new paradigm must be advanced to develop scientific methodologies that can account for phenomena that cannot be easily quantified. Bernardo, theories such as the one that you propose and Robert Lanza's biocentric theory are steps in the right direction. I commend both of you for your bravery against the prevailing nonsense.
+liseesen wow, wonderful comment. i too have always had the exact same beleif about how the eye works/ sight!! i had the exact same intuition when i was a young boy and first learned just like you, although i didnt "focus" in on it at the time, there was somthing in my being that just told me "this is not right" or rather, "this is not reality/what it seems" and i was so sertain of it at the time, no one could have changed my mind, and of course being a young boy with add, my mind wondered and that was the end of it. it isnt untill now, me being 24 and being a "seeker" for the last 4-5 years, that when i read this, it "re-awakened" that insight i had as a young boy. thank you for adding fuel to my spiritual fire :)
Looking forward to reading this. I had heard about it on the psychedelic salon podcast, which I was pleasantly surprised to hear you on. During this podcast, you discussed the idea of mind-at-large having a kind of dissociative identity disorder, with biology representing alters of a single mind, which have become dissociated or obfuscated from one another. I was wondering, do you think that biology is the only representation which one of these alters could take? And where along the chain of evolutionary chemical reactions would you say that an organism achieves dissociation from mind at large, and gains subjective awareness? I'm confused as to why or how these dissociations or self-localizations of consciousness would take place to begin with... I was also wondering where the idea of free will fits into your ideas. If the universe is an image of the mind of God, so to speak, what role can individual "alters" play in modifying this dream? If each of us simply an aspect of mind-at-large, experiencing the same dream in a subjectively different manner, do we really have any choice in how this dream unfolds?
***** Hi Tom. Biology is the only image of dissociation I feel confident about, for empirical reasons. Could theoretically be other images? For all I know, yes, but I see no reason to assume so. A process typically looks like one thing, instead of having multiple disparate images. Combustion looks like flames, not lightning. As for where along the evolutionary chain dissociation really started, I think there is no precise answer because the process itself is gradual. When does the river become the ocean? There is no sharp line, but five miles from the river's delta in either direction you know whether it's a river or an ocean. The same with life/dissociation. As for free will, I treat it extensively in Chapter 7 of Brief Peeks Beyond. The subject is subtle, tricky, and my position could easily be misinterpreted to mean the opposite of what I intend it to mean, so I don't think I could summarize it in a brief comment here. Cheers, B.
great work! at some point maybe you could elaborate on what the reality REALLY looks like from a materialist point of view in more precise terms. People just don't seem to appreciate how a modern materialist reality is not as intuitive as it sounds -- it is supposed to composed of abstract wave functions, strings, a dozoon of invisible dimensions etc ... precisely things that are NOT material at all -- partly because these mathematical contructs were all invented during the 20th century, and people have not really give much thinking about them
recorriendo Yes, most people don't even begin to grok what materialism really entails! If they did, they would at least have second thoughts. I tried to clarify it somewhat in the beginning of my earlier book, Why Materialism Is Baloney.
OMG!! I hate the law of attraction too! It absolutely ruined my life. I ‘looked away’ from my son because my LOA sister bullied me into it and that played into my fear and laziness and selfishness, and my son died of drug use on the street ignored by me because she insisted I use ‘tough love’ which I now realize is no love But after that I realized I’d been duped to ignore half of life. Do that and your in trouble. Plus it’s always about ‘manifesting ‘ material stuff and talks about ‘your own reality’ as if that’s desirable. Being alone drives a person mad. We are a matrix. Who the heck wants their own reality?!
"We want to be deceived; we need to be deceived. That’s the only way the obfuscated psyche has found to restore significance to what has otherwise become a vacuous and purposeless existence, devoid of much of its original evocative power." You must have read The Trickster and the Paranormal by Hansen.
ALL: I cannot comment on philosophical content via RUclips comments anymore, due to limited time and redundancy with other places where I do discuss my philosophical system. So if you like to engage on philosophical discussions, please post in my Discussion Forum at: groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/metaphysical-speculations. You can find more useful links about my philosophical system here: www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/04/social-media-policy-and-useful-links.html. I count on your understanding!
Hi Bernardo. I'm 73 with the approximate lifespan of your cat. :) As a very young man, starting with Richard Maurice Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness, I knew the key was intense yearning above all else. It has served me well. Now, having explored for a lifetime, it's mostly a matter of choosing how to fill my remaining time. Having listened many hours to your videos and interviews and beginning your books, I feel quite comfortable in saying I'm unlikely to find anyone that does it better than you. With genuine gratitude . . .
After reading the reviews and introduction I can't wait to read this book. I think your ideas are part of a rising paradigm shift in our understanding of consciousness and reality. I feel lucky to be alive during such a vibrant and exciting period of human thought.
ienjoyapples Cheers!
Wow. I'm looking forward to reading your book. Ever since I discovered your channel (because of Rupert Spiras' channel) I've got impressed with the insights you have had and shared with us
Thanks bernardo for helping us make clearer sense of this great mystery! We love your Interviews
I admire the poise you maintain when confronting intellectual bias and recalcitrance in your so called peers. What really would drive me up the wall is fighting an uphill battle which the materialists should themselves be waging against their own ... cringe... beliefs.
Shouldn't they be hungrily seeking out sound counter arguments with which to assail their own ideas? Can they not embrace sound logic, experimentally, without fearing or even considering the implications?
Ahh, what do I know? (Dittly-squat, that's what!) :0)
+Jack Passmore :)
Really looking forward to this new work. I also noticed the book by Dennis McKenna on your bookshelf. I would be curious to know what you thought of it... To me, Dennis is the Sane one of the two McKennas, yet he has experienced a more-than-full share of the weird... Not to disrespect Terence, of course, who never failed to be at times entertaining and at other times profound. At the very least I can honestly say that T McKenna and his little brother offered me a different way to look at reality, on my journey fromJoseph Campbell to wherever it is we are as of now. I do believe I shall wander over to Amazon and purchase a copy of Dennis' book... and your new one, as well, as soon as it is available.
disposium I share your feelings about the McKennas. Terence was a poet of ideas and it isn't important (to me at least) whether those ideas were 'true.' Probably very few of them were, and only the ones people don't talk about it. But the poetry of those ideas doesn't become any less beautiful because of it. They also changed me in subtle but profound ways, opening new 'modes' of thinking in my mind. And yes, Dennis is certainly the most grounded of the two, despite the La Chorrera events suggesting the opposite... ;)
***** Have you read Dark Night, Early Dawn by Christopher Bache? You might find it interesting.
disposium Will have a look, thanks for the hints!
Bernardo, I've been listening to you on Skeptico and recently finished your book "Why Materialism is Baloney". Wow! Amazing stuff! I'm really looking forward to this new release. I notice you have "Irreducible Mind" on your bookshelf in your video. Do you know the Kellys or have ever worked with them? Also, are there any particular books or readings you'd that particularly inspired you?
JJ Sicotte Hi JJ. Thanks for the kind words and encouragement! No, I never worked with the Kelly's, but like their book. As for books that influenced me, have a look at my Facebook page, where I list some of my favorites in the 'About" section. There is also this link:
www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/02/highlights-of-my-personal-library.html
Cheers, B.
I see a whole lot of books I have as well: Bergson, Gebser, Tarnas, Hillman, Jung, Campbell, McKenna, Sheldrake, Penrose, Baudrillard, Chomsky, Dennett, I Ching, Book of Symbols.. and almost all the other titles I know of, ha! :) I suppose you're well versed in Stan Grof's work?
Hello Bernardo! I would first like to commend you are your considerable philosophical rigor in your defense of idealism. I did have a question regarding the specifics, however. First, are you more in agreement with the subjective or objective idealists? If objective, which particular sub-type or sub-types are more feasible or accurate than the others, (e.g. personalism, absolute idealism, monadism etc.) Thanks Bernardo! Peace be with you, Friend.
***** Uh, I hesitate about voluntarily given myself more labels, because it always comes back to bite me. Even the label 'idealist' was one I adopted only after much hesitation, and only because I figured it would be too difficult to communicate without accepting at least a first level label. But I will, with apologies, refrain from getting deeper into this hole. :) I invite you to peruse my work and understand what my position is, independent of any labels. Cheers, Bernardo.
Berni Love you man!!!1
Bernardo, are you familiar with Gregory Chaitin's work on Evolutionary theory merged with Algorithmic Information theory and Omega Number?
ruclips.net/video/RlYS_GiAnK8/видео.html
Slobodan Dakic No, but will have a look, thanks!
Slobodan Dakic Interesting... need to give this some thought. Thanks!
The Botherhood of the Screaming Abyss, I see it...
Brandon Norsted Autographed by Dennis ;)
***** A kind and brilliant man.
***** Also, I had to get "The Science Delusion" and not "Science Set Free". Very different books. :)
Brandon Norsted :)
Keep up the good work. I have had serious reservations about the materialist point of view ever since my high school days over 50 years ago. When I first learned in school about the theory of how vision arises by light striking the retina and reaching the occipital lobes, I could never understand how these correlations gave rise to the experience and awareness of sight. I could see the chain of physical events correlated with sight, but could not see in what part of that chain the actual experience of sight arose.
It has been very difficult to explain my objections to materialists. When I speak of how uncertain it is that consciousness/awareness arises from particles, they immediately assume I am talking about God or religion and write me off as a religious crackpot. However, I am not talking about God, but pure science, since I am an atheist. They are unaware of the hidden assumptions in their beliefs that all phenomena have a material basis. Materialism seems to be contradicted by the overwhelming evidence accumulated during the last 50 years due to the advances in medical science. There is the phenomena of transplant memories, near death experiences, and the medical condition of hydrocephalus where the brain cavity contains only a thin cortical outer layer and the remainder 90 percent water, yet a person with this condition can function as a Cambridge mathematics honor student (see the medical case studies of John Lorber.)
One could also argue against materialism by appealing to modern physics. No one really knows what a particle is, so how can one postulate that everything has a material basis? There is the two slit experiment, delayed choice experiments, the fact that the physical properties of quanta does not exist until a measurement is made, quantum nonlocality, fine tuning of the universe, dark energy, dark matter. When there is no understanding of how to interpret these weird phenomena that current science gives rise too, how can one be absolutely certain consciousness arises from a material cause without definitive experimental justification and when there are ample phenomena that suggests otherwise. There is a lack of imagination and extreme dogmatism in insisting on an old paradigm to explain every scientific anomaly. Think of the lack of progress there would be in science had Einstein's new ideas been stifled being counter to the assumptions of Newtonian physics.
Thanks for speaking up for us who saw that materialism was baloney over 50 years ago. If I gave voice to my objections in those early days, I would have been completely marginalized and shouted down. The materialist pseudoskeptics are as dogmatic now as they were back in the day. They are unknowingly being unscientific, and yet claiming at the same time to be scientifically objective. Quite ironic.
liseesen I resonate so much with what you say! And I share many of the experiences you had when you tried to speak up. I particularly like the passage where you say that one of the big problems is a _lack of imagination_ by committed materialists. That's exactly right, in my view! They are simply unable to imagine alternative explanations that are entirely logical and consistent with the data.
***** What rankles me is how oblivious materialists are concerning their extreme dogmatism and pedaling this as scientific objectivity. I am extremely skeptical about everything. Whether consciousness arises as an epiphenomena of the brain or can exists beyond the brain has never been experimentally established. One would think based on logic alone (the hard problem), even without considering the ample phenomena suggesting that consciousness cannot be solely the result of physical processes, the materialist position is far from certain. The hard-core materialists are as anathema to me as the fundamentalist Christians. I would readily concede that consciousness is solely the result of brain processes, if this can be experimentally shown. But materialist assume this as a foregone conclusion.
The problem, as I see it, is that the current scientific paradigm is reductionistic material. A common mistake is made in assuming all natural phenomena must be explained by the material. However, this is a fallacy. There is no logical reason why all phenomena in nature must be reduced to material causes. This is conflating a scientific theory with nature itself. Any natural phenomena that cannot be explained by the prevailing scientific paradigm are then seen as an impossibility. These natural phenomena are then given derogatory epithets and called paranormal or the experimental evidence for the phenomena are attacked and explained away as being the result of bad science. This is nonsense. No phenomena in nature is paranormal. Either the phenomena exists in nature or it does not.
What puzzles me is when this extreme materialist position took root in the scientific establishment. If one looks back at the writings of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Pauli, Heisenberg, Shrodinger, et. al., all were aware that in order to explain all phenomena, one may need to look outside the scope of a purely materialistic science. Materialists try to shoehorn all phenomena into the current scientific materialist paradigm, however ridiculous these attempts may be. Intractable problems arise because of the multiplicity of natural phenomena which don't fit well into the paradigm. Take, for example, the placebo effect. How can the placebo effect effect even be possible under the framework of materialism? The placebo effect suggests that mental processes create physical effects and not the other way around. Am I the only one to see this glaring contradiction to the materialist position?
I am not anti-science. I am railing against the unscientific attitude of committed materialist. No one can argue against the spectacular success of the current materialistic paradigm. But clearly a new way at looking at anomalous phenomena outside the current paradigm may be necessary. Let the scientific method prevail to do good science in determining whether unquantifiable phenomena, such as consciousness and subjective experience, are valid or not. If phenomena cannot be quantified within a materialist paradigm, then perhaps a new paradigm must be advanced to develop scientific methodologies that can account for phenomena that cannot be easily quantified. Bernardo, theories such as the one that you propose and Robert Lanza's biocentric theory are steps in the right direction. I commend both of you for your bravery against the prevailing nonsense.
+liseesen wow, wonderful comment. i too have always had the exact same beleif about how the eye works/ sight!! i had the exact same intuition when i was a young boy and first learned just like you, although i didnt "focus" in on it at the time, there was somthing in my being that just told me "this is not right" or rather, "this is not reality/what it seems" and i was so sertain of it at the time, no one could have changed my mind, and of course being a young boy with add, my mind wondered and that was the end of it. it isnt untill now, me being 24 and being a "seeker" for the last 4-5 years, that when i read this, it "re-awakened" that insight i had as a young boy. thank you for adding fuel to my spiritual fire :)
Looking forward to reading this. I had heard about it on the psychedelic salon podcast, which I was pleasantly surprised to hear you on. During this podcast, you discussed the idea of mind-at-large having a kind of dissociative identity disorder, with biology representing alters of a single mind, which have become dissociated or obfuscated from one another.
I was wondering, do you think that biology is the only representation which one of these alters could take? And where along the chain of evolutionary chemical reactions would you say that an organism achieves dissociation from mind at large, and gains subjective awareness? I'm confused as to why or how these dissociations or self-localizations of consciousness would take place to begin with...
I was also wondering where the idea of free will fits into your ideas. If the universe is an image of the mind of God, so to speak, what role can individual "alters" play in modifying this dream? If each of us simply an aspect of mind-at-large, experiencing the same dream in a subjectively different manner, do we really have any choice in how this dream unfolds?
***** Hi Tom.
Biology is the only image of dissociation I feel confident about, for empirical reasons. Could theoretically be other images? For all I know, yes, but I see no reason to assume so. A process typically looks like one thing, instead of having multiple disparate images. Combustion looks like flames, not lightning.
As for where along the evolutionary chain dissociation really started, I think there is no precise answer because the process itself is gradual. When does the river become the ocean? There is no sharp line, but five miles from the river's delta in either direction you know whether it's a river or an ocean. The same with life/dissociation.
As for free will, I treat it extensively in Chapter 7 of Brief Peeks Beyond. The subject is subtle, tricky, and my position could easily be misinterpreted to mean the opposite of what I intend it to mean, so I don't think I could summarize it in a brief comment here.
Cheers, B.
what a shame people, just 4000 views. what are you watching stupid folks? only cursing words come to the mind, but it is what it is...
Sounds great. Look forward to your book.
great work! at some point maybe you could elaborate on what the reality REALLY looks like from a materialist point of view in more precise terms. People just don't seem to appreciate how a modern materialist reality is not as intuitive as it sounds -- it is supposed to composed of abstract wave functions, strings, a dozoon of invisible dimensions etc ... precisely things that are NOT material at all -- partly because these mathematical contructs were all invented during the 20th century, and people have not really give much thinking about them
recorriendo Yes, most people don't even begin to grok what materialism really entails! If they did, they would at least have second thoughts. I tried to clarify it somewhat in the beginning of my earlier book, Why Materialism Is Baloney.
OMG!! I hate the law of attraction too! It absolutely ruined my life. I ‘looked away’ from my son because my LOA sister bullied me into it and that played into my fear and laziness and selfishness, and my son died of drug use on the street ignored by me because she insisted I use ‘tough love’ which I now realize is no love
But after that I realized I’d been duped to ignore half of life. Do that and your in trouble. Plus it’s always about ‘manifesting ‘ material stuff and talks about ‘your own reality’ as if that’s desirable. Being alone drives a person mad. We are a matrix. Who the heck wants their own reality?!
Your book "Brief Peeks Beyond "comes very highly recommended. I'm very much looking forward to reading it.
"We want to be deceived; we need to be deceived. That’s the only way the obfuscated psyche has found to restore significance to what has otherwise become a vacuous and purposeless existence, devoid of much of its original evocative power." You must have read The Trickster and the Paranormal by Hansen.
+disposium I own a copy but haven't read it yet! Shame on me...