If you would like to contribute closed-caption, non-English subtitles for this video, please visit ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?v=aAsp5jFngOw&ref=share.
It is always encouraging to hear the words of a careful thinker who avoids a rigid perspective. Keep up the good work Mr. Kastrup! (You, too, Jeffrey.)
The best place to start is with Dreamed Up Reality is a gentle lead into the Idealist philosophy elucidated and defended so skillfully by Bernardo. I found Materialism is Baloney to be more abstrusive but The Idea of the World was a real tour de force of what Idealism really means whilst pointing out the axiomatic flaws in the Materialist position. I love watching these videos also and think they are very well done with great rapport between interviewer and guest speaker.
Materialist impericism maybe baloney but at least it is objectively testable whereas religious allegory metaphor or myth can be and is used as indoctrination as it was by the Catholic Church to eliminate free thinking and personal relationship to the ineffable
I have had specific experiences while doing Reiki which are entirely real for me. Sharing those experiences with others has proved to be all but impossible. Many have rejected this experience as being a kind of waking dream. Others have actually suggested that the experience was a vision implanted by a demon. Still others simply can't relate to the experience at all. Interestingly the experience was both literal, physical and symbolic all rolled into one. For me it was life altering and perhaps that alone is enough to explain It's real meaning.
Exactly the same for me!! After telling only a few people it was plain to see they didnt get it!! Thats meant to be~~ It is meant for YOU ALONE. It is YOURS and is precious! The Reiki lady that helped me,gave me the following. I claim my birth rite I claim my right of passage I claim the power of my potential. I started a whole new life that day!! Believe and manifest!
... hi, Rex, if you're still here, greetings to you, from OZ, a-way & down under, in Australia. Are you available to converse-? If not, okay, go well, believe & manifest ...
I would give ANYTHING to see you and Bernardo discuss The Tales of Beelzebub to His Grandson... To "deconstruct" the Great Work, as "outlined" by Gurdjieff.
Dr. Kastrup talks of thinking symbolically [pictorially] and not being limited by linguistic or rational, literal thinking. A couple of days ago a static image representing a person close to me appeared in my mind out of nowhere. Much like an image a remote viewer would mentally perceive. As I reviewed what I "saw" I came to a far greater understanding, thus compassion, of this person's psychology and behavior. It actually brought tears to my eyes. There's so much in this interview that it really requires a second viewing which I will do tomorrow. I need to add that I am not comfortable with the references to psychedelics. If your going to do this I think an in depth analysis as to why taking psychedelics are, or can be, specifically psychologically, beneficial.
Look up Paul Stamets. Also, consider watching the documentary "Dosed." There is ample, peer reviewed, published documentation proving microdosing of psilocybin can be beneficial.
I KNOW what Bernardo experienced and yes he is 1000% right on spot ..."dome" or i would say "golden light" can't be described ...it happened to me after i accidentally read Carl Jung.I am not educated person,nearly missed to finished high school and i never read one single book nor i believed in anything which can't be seen or perceived with physical senses ...it happened to me while sober and i was on that level for week ...descending was depressing and painful ...my goal and entire meaning of life to reach it again ...everyone can BELIEVE me!!
I don't mean to be obnoxious by repeatedly posting here but I am rather moved by this interview. Dr. Kastrop remarks that the present is so infinitesimally brief (he likens it to a singularity), the past is gone being all but recalled in the passing instants of the present, and the future is not here. So, what all you have really is but an unfolding story. He suggests one look at their story (including culture, beliefs, experiences, talents, etc.) objectively and dispassionately from, well, yet another story. This reminds me of Rudolph Steiner's looking at the self's daily activities from a higher state, from one's "higher man." I like Kastrop's approach a little better for it is far more all encompassing, thus interesting. I wonder what all one could actually do, let alone discover, from such a state.
Love this interview and the hilarious explanation at the start @5:00 my cats cannot describe the deepest truths of nature through their meowing language, why should we?
By Occam's Razor, idealism is the most logical default position. There is no reason to believe that conscious experience ceases with the death of the brain.
I disagree. Following Occam's razor there is one reality: there is no separation between ideas and materials. We can argue to what degree reality is more fundamentally ideas or material, but this is essentially useless as this dichotomy is human. What we have is 'reality'. Therefore, when an organism loses coherence and breaks up, there is no reason to believe it is still present. What is still present? Where is it? How do you know it is still present? All of these are a far bigger leap, than the assumption that it is no longer there. There are many further questions, such as: where does it come from? What happens when people get brain damage? What happens when people have developmental disorders such as down syndrome? What happens when people are in a vegetative state?
@@nickshelbourne4426 I am not proposing a dualist "separation" between mind and matter. I am proposing that ultimately there is no such thing as "matter", and that mind alone can account for everything. We know that consciousness exists through our own personal experience. Mind is the direct fact of our existence. On the other hand we do not directly know that there exists non-conscious matter in some physical universe outside of mind. Following Occam's Razor, if everything can be explained exclusively in terms of what we already know to exist (consciousness), then there is no reason to propose an entirely new category of stuff (non-conscious matter). *_"When an organism loses coherence and breaks up, there is no reason to believe it is still present. What is still present? Where is it? How do you know it is still present?"_* If mind is fundamental and encompasses all things, then the body exists within mind, rather than mind in the body. In that case, the answer to your first question is that mind is still present after an organism breaks up. To answer your second question, I don't claim to know that idealism is true. In fact, I hold that it's not possible to know that idealism is true, in the same way as it is not possible to know that physicalism or dualism are true. All explanations for mind and the world around us require metaphysical speculations for which there can be no proof. So, what I am arguing is only that idealism is the most parsimonious explanation for the world around us, and is therefore the most logical default assumption. *_"There are many further questions, such as: where does it come from?"_* Outside of proposing an infinite number of imaginary entities, all positions require what is known as an ontological primitive - that which is fundamental and cannot be explained in terms of anything else. Mind is my ontological primitive. So, mind does not come from anything. Mind "just exists". *_"What happens when people get brain damage? What happens when people have developmental disorders such as down syndrome?"_* An object in a dream may feel like an actual external "physical" object to you from your perspective in a dream, but there is nothing to the object but mental activity. The object is just how you experience that mental activity from your perspective in the dream. I am extending this concept to the observable universe. The observable universe is how you experience the rest of mind from your own separate perspective within mind. If all objects are the appearance of mental activity when viewed from an external perspective, then that includes the brain as well. You are having a human experience of separation from the rest of mind (a dissociative experience) and that experience has an appearance when viewed from and external perspective (your brain). Under that view, brain damage is literally the appearance of changes to your first person experience when viewed from an external perspective, which will of course be experience by you. Downs syndrome, Alzheimer's, Dementia, and any other kind of brain problem that you can bring up are explained perfectly in this way. A healthy brain is the appearance of a "normal" human experience of separation from the rest of mind. A damaged brain is the appearance of a "damaged" human experience of separation from the rest of mind. The latter will obviously result in a different kind of experience. *_"What happens when people are in a vegetative state?"_* I reject the idea that they are having no experience at all. I take the position that they are having experience of some sort. If their brain is not too damaged, then perhaps they are still having some kind of experience of separation from the rest of mind. Alternatively, they could be having a more expansive non-dissociated experience.
@@anduinxbym6633 If you're saying that there is no divide between mind and matter, you cannot logically go on to say that mind carries on when matter finishes. In order for this to occur there must be a separation. In essence, your argument other than this point can be absorbed into materialism with very little changes - what is the nature of material? The metaphysical speculation involved in saying that 'if I cannot see it or measure it, it does not exist' is far less than speculating that it does exist when you can have no experience of it. It is a speculation, but you cannot argue they are equal. This returns to the fact that it is metaphysical speculation to say that faeries, unicorns, and the flying spaghetti monster do not exist as well. In regards to neuroscience, you have fallen back into Bishop Berkeley's form of Idealism, which was not supported by most German idealists. It's a bit of a cop out really: yes, everything is experienced in the mind, but there is a clear correspondence to activity in the brain. If you cut parts of people's brains out it will alter their experience, behaviour and mind in a way which is intimately connected. Further, people with developmental syndromes with genetic origins consistently show the same symptoms. Most of our processing is happening at an unconscious level, about 1% is 'human' consciousness. This is clearly evolved, unless you are arguing that ants, flowers, and rocks have the same consciousness as us. All of this works in a coherent and logical manner, to the point that we can provide brain surgery to people based on self-described symptoms, which leads to symptom relief. Therefore, either you are arguing for an idealism which is redundant because it is materialism except "in a dream", or you are making speculations which do not match up with the fundamentally structured and logical nature of reality.
"the dome". That term didn't immediately grab me as something I knew personally even though I have done deep exploration with psychedelics. But, upon contemplating it further, yeah, I believe he was referring to an all-encompassing vortex that opens in its center like a very fine aperture, which opens up more with your willingness to surrender into the experience, jettisoning all agendas, abandoning all thought processes, allowing it to happen. Is that what is being referred to by "the dome"?
“God is an intelligible sphere, whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere.” I had this experience, it was not from psychedelics I had serotonin syndrome, but One of the experiences i had while in that state was a centeredness that expanded outwardly and the apprehension that all people had this sort of sphere that expanded from their center but were unaware that it is there. And the implications was that various different consciousness actually intersected out of the body. To what distance this sphere extended was not known as it was experienced as both infinite and finite at the same time. Something conceivable but also beyond conception, something not apparent to the sense but obvious to the intuition in that state.
@@matthewkopp2391 That was interesting, there are a lot of questions that will be answered. We will know everything sooner or later and then we will then cherish the days when we could question reality. We're almost better off to be of limited intellect and to live a life of mortality. Knowing everything and having everything would be limiting.
Beautiful. Thank you. I’d love to ask Bernardo... if there existed a set of myths which contained your metaphysics and your ethics AND asked you to engage in rituals and worship, ie a religion, would you devote your life to it?
There is the contention (which Bernardo shares), that dreams are primarily symbolic, with elements representing issues & events independently of the dream's plot. I strong disagree. I've been recording my dreams for several years, and almost ALL of the dreams have a cohesive plot at their core; a tree of events, upon which the details are hung like ornaments on a Christmas tree. I've come to believe that the messages within dreams are found embedded within the plot, not the details. Which leads me to contend that if the person doesn't understand the dream, it's due to issues with the message of the plot; inability to confront emotional &/or psychiatric issues being expressed within the dream. OR, the person is simply intent on trying to make more of the message than it actually is. Re. "the dome": I'm with Dr. Mishlove on this. I have absolutely no idea at all, what the term "the dome" is referring to. I also noted that Bernardo evaded explaining it, when Jeffrey pressed the issue. My off-the-cuff opinion is to think this term is referring to something analogous to a cultural myth; something discussed within the younger generations, AFTER the older generations had stopped using psychedelics, and were no longer directly participating in the culture of psychedelic experimentations. In his list of mythical, symbolic things one can see (near the end), Bernardo failed to mention a bunny rabbit.
I smoke a lot of pot and cannot remember my dreams anymore. If I quit smoking for a couple of days my dreams will be vivid, wild, colorful and well remembered. It is just the way that marijuana affects dreams, it suppresses memory of the dream and I think it suppresses dreaming altogether. Sometimes i have bouncing flying dreams where I just bounce around off the ground out the window down the street way up high in the sky where the wind won't blow. My my my my yeah! Everybody I know seems to know me and well, the day is gonna come, I'm gonna move like hell.
I like the idea that reincarnation, as one life after another, is a kind of modern myth that will lead us to discover it's both true and false because all those lives are happening at once. Perhaps the latter myth will further be expanded upon.
I transcended the narrative, once upon a time. I could look up at the Sun and the sun was totally symbolic. Every human interaction was a splendid synchronicity. I remained there for 100 cat years. Now I'm back, mired in Maya, seduced and hypnotized. Nevertheless, I'm lucky, happy and blessed to be able to see that human intuition trumps the law of the excluded middle. :0)
If Jeffrey can give away Bernardo’s book in a couple of sentences it is not much of a book. Frankly speaking, which is how I like to speak being Dutch myself, I rarely feel the need to finish reading any book by a PhD due to its tedious iteration of a singular concept. This is hoping that Bernardo is able to break the mold for me as he does possess a certain charisma that gives me that hope.
The success of science is based on symbolism (symbolic language) - mathematics. Let's talk about adding the number of oranges (with an orange mapped onto 'x'). When I say 2x + 2x = 4x, I do not literally mean that the 'x' is an orange. Science also uses thought-experiments - which are allegories, in a sense.
In northern mythology we see the archetypes of Odin, Thor and Loki. The stars in the night sky also symbolize the archetypes on which astrology is projected. It seems that psychedelics open the door to this world of gods, as humans have always called this phenomenon.
That s what the singularity really is than ??!! I think i had an illumination to what all the stories will bring in the end,the ultimate reality,the Truth,God in religious words not just on an individual level like some enlighten being already did,but on the collective level as more and more beings realize it.
Ha, 20:00 talking about killing God, and LITERALLY! Thus spoke Jesus and Zarathustra... Virgin mind ( right side of the brain, never penetrated from outside) giving birth to the Word in the flesh and it suffers the same death as it's Father and his Kingdom. Locked in the words in a man made book. I was so happy when I found the key that I've decided to share it. But then I was stopped, humiliated and my naked body was carried up the stairs... People start to gather fast and in a few seconds there were many. I could hear the screams and laughter in the same time. One was saying: ''Look! That's Jesus, is he dead?'' The two guards that carried me were trying to separate my hands, that were finger locked in front of my chest with no success. Two more came and helped, but still the hands were locked. ''What do we do?'', asked the guard that fell on the floor trying to pull. ''Leave him be!'', screamed someone from the crowd. ''Oh, we're not leaving him, that's for sure!'', said the guard with the heavy voice as he was lifting my legs and start carrying me away with the others. ''Don't worry, we're taking him somewhere safe!'' ''Safe for all of us...'', he added. So they took me deep into the desert. My eyes were shut all the way. Then they decided to stop:''That's enough, he's not coming back from here.'' They threw my body on the hot sand and then one of them asked me: ''What are you going to do now, son of man?'' I stood up opened my eyes and hands wide, looked straight to the morning star and said: '' I am home now. And anyone looking for me will find me here.'' ''Well good like with that, ha ha ha!'', they laughed. ''One more thing!'', I shouted as they were leaving. ''What?'' ''Don't tell anyone.''
So if consciousness in not an epiphenomenon as we thinks in neurobiological point of view I think that reality is autoreferencial we are autoreferencial language is autoreferencial so as Cioran said we live into a linguistic pattern so consciuosness probably is surely autoreferencial but we can in a computational way describes it
Dear Dr Kastrup, I just wanted to bring a small remark. You said that allegory and metaphoric thinking came before literary and concrete interpretation ... I beg to differ ... I doubt that metaphoric thinking came before the literal one. Weren't the very first Sumerian writings accounting and business records? ... Metaphor and symbolism is beautifut but we would be mistaken if we understood symbolically something that was meant to be taken literally ... that by the way the cause of most of our confusion when we read ancient accounts. For example the Sumerian tablets speak of these flesh and blood beings called the Anunnaki and their relationship with homo sapiens ... also, the hebrew bible is a very pragramatic and literal account of the history of the jewish people and his rapport with this individual called Yahweh, one of the so called Elohim, who were also flesh and blood beings ... the theological elaborations and "magical" extrapolations came later on when the concept of the one god was introduced by priests and emperors ... Same thing with Greek mythology which has a core of very historical events that were later on made into fabels by exuberant authors who just discovered the powers of imagination :D For example, there is no word in hebrew for an imaginal, eternal divinity that is transcendent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent ... no such type of god for most ancient peoples ...A disclaimer, i am not a darwinian evolutionist nor a religious creationist ... I am more on the side of biogenetic interventionism ... if you know what I mean ...
So I am not an empiriocriticist and materialist in this sense and for this reason and I think that science is only an economical teory that doesn t say nothing about the essence of ourselves in this sense science has a limite and we have think that reality in my opinion as an intelligence
yes chomsky is correct that thinking is based on the structure of innate language & therefore limited, But But now we know about brain plasticity-so can language change if brain changes? question for Bernardo
Where are the practical examples of bodies of water naturally conforming to the exterior of shapes? Where are the practical examples of a gas pressure being created and maintained without physical containment?
The immediate need to label someone based on what they seem to be saying, like Bernardo is doing Philosophy, strikes me as frustrating. We know what Philosophy means to us but we don't know what Kastrup will say next even though we label him. Yet we pretend, calling him a philosopher, that we know what he's doing. To me, if any label applies, he's a "what the hell is going on...ist". Like the rest of us.
you cannot do anything that requires the calibre of a human if you cannot allow context to determine the meaning. If every word has to have its meaning set in stone, you can probably only function as an automaton..
_"Transcend the intellect with what?"_ With that which obviously underlies the intellect. *The Non Conceptual* ...what else? _"If a thought comes, recognize it as conditioned thinking, which is a part of your ego. ... This is non-conceptual knowing, being the space between the “information” and “knowledge” of the world and its words, thoughts, judgments, etc."_ Understanding (What the intellect uses) is merely *conditioned thinking based on a thought process* and (sometimes) instructed rules of "structured thought".. Knowing in its true sense (non conceptual) is therefore *_not dependent on thought to know anything._* All thoughts are known and experienced from the perspective of the non conceptual. This is why *_the non conceptual cannot be understood_* or put into words. The very thoughts required to grasp it inevitably takes you away from it's source. The non conceptual exists even in the absence of all thoughts ....It is this to which we go during Non R.E.M portion of Deep Sleep. _The Conscious experience of this state is the real goal of meditation. Few can go there at will._
Its a huge mistake to see Schopenhauer as a continental philosopher. Schop himself said he was carrying on from the tradition of Hume and Locke. Continental philosophy is from the 20th Century only... If Kant is right then Schopenhauer is right. If Kant is wrong then Schopenhuaer is wrong. Kant is the linchpin, not Schopenhuaer. Some of the brightest minds of the 20th Century grappled with Kant. Some hated the philosopher, others saw him as the greatest mind that ever lived.
"Myth is the revelation of divine life in man" - "It is not we who invent myth; rather it speaks to us as a Word of God. No science will ever replace myth, and a myth cannot be made out of any science. For it is not that "God" is a myth, but that myth is the revelation of a divine life in man. It is not we who invent myth; rather it speaks to us as a Word of God. ~ Carl Gustav Jung; Memories, Dreams and Reflections; Page 340.
Although it would be an exaggeration for me to claim having had the full-blown experience, people do describe the possibility of living life without a story. Going along with that possibility is the image of the transient present's expansion into a continuing presence. (But all of this is off the topic of the value and power of symbolism and symbolic thinking (which are very real) .)
29.44 Bernardo says that when we have food, clothing, security etc we are still missing something, we have a hole within us. He says we need science to create a new modern religion. How bizarre, he admits we have a need within us even when we have everything materially. He seems to arbitrarily deny the existence of God, because it doesn't fit with the science that he seems to put his trust in. In another video, he says there is a universal consciousness that is beyond our own consciousness. Again, he does not seem to accept that this could be God. There is very good historical evidence for Jesus, and yet he seems to ignore this. One man's (Kastrups)self-taught ideas seem for some reason to carry a lot of weight with people watching this.I can't help but wonder why people seem so keen to put their trust in a man who has no proof for his ideas (did anyone ever come back from the dead and say "yes you're so right Bernado"??)?
Although I don’t agree with the last bit of your comment, because there is no need for someone to come back from the dead to confirm Bernardo’s hypothesis, since his conclusions are easily achieved by pure logic (I recommend Bernardo’s “Rationalist Spirituality”, is a beautiful demonstration on how to reason your way into those conclusions), I do agree that he seems to be somewhat… blinded, perhaps? Don’t get me wrong, he is galaxies away from me in terms on intelligence, I have no way of competing. But, c’mon, Pim Van Lommel’s book + Bruce Greyson’s + Eben Alexander + Peter Fenwick, and then a good dive into the serious side of Mediumnic Parapsychology, from where I would recommend the books of spanish women Sol Blanco-Soler + Paloma Navarrete. All that coupled with Jungian notions of the plausibility of the existence of disembodied beings. I mean, c’mon, what else does he want? It’s all over the place. I can argue for the existence of GodS very easy with all that info. I don’t know what else he needs.
If you would like to contribute closed-caption, non-English subtitles for this video, please visit ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?v=aAsp5jFngOw&ref=share.
It is always encouraging to hear the words of a careful thinker who avoids a rigid perspective. Keep up the good work Mr. Kastrup! (You, too, Jeffrey.)
The best place to start is with Dreamed Up Reality is a gentle lead into the Idealist philosophy elucidated and defended so skillfully by Bernardo. I found Materialism is Baloney to be more abstrusive but The Idea of the World was a real tour de force of what Idealism really means whilst pointing out the axiomatic flaws in the Materialist position. I love watching these videos also and think they are very well done with great rapport between interviewer and guest speaker.
Idealism = the dashboard of perception. Thank you ! 😃😁
@@judithann2485
... J.A. ✓ m-hmm ...
Materialist impericism maybe baloney but at least it is objectively testable whereas religious allegory metaphor or myth can be and is used as indoctrination as it was by the Catholic Church to eliminate free thinking and personal relationship to the ineffable
This is the best Kastrup interview I’ve ever watched. Mishlove is delightful.
I have had specific experiences while doing Reiki which are entirely real for me. Sharing those experiences with others has proved to be all but impossible. Many have rejected this experience as being a kind of waking dream. Others have actually suggested that the experience was a vision implanted by a demon. Still others simply can't relate to the experience at all. Interestingly the experience was both literal, physical and symbolic all rolled into one. For me it was life altering and perhaps that alone is enough to explain It's real meaning.
Can you try explain them here?
Exactly the same for me!!
After telling only a few people it was plain to see
they didnt get it!!
Thats meant to be~~
It is meant for YOU ALONE.
It is YOURS and is precious!
The Reiki lady that helped me,gave me
the following.
I claim my birth rite
I claim my right of passage
I claim the power of my potential.
I started a whole new life that day!!
Believe and manifest!
... hi, Rex, if you're still here, greetings to you, from OZ, a-way & down under, in Australia. Are you available to converse-?
If not, okay, go well, believe & manifest ...
I would give ANYTHING to see you and Bernardo discuss The Tales of Beelzebub to His Grandson... To "deconstruct" the Great Work, as "outlined" by Gurdjieff.
I used to read Beekzebub on acid now that was a mind expanding experience
Wonderful conversation. This channel nourishes me, thank you for your work Jeffrey, I am immensely grateful.
yeah this channel really is something else, my favorite by far
Thanks for this interview, it was very enjoyable. I love listening to Bernardo =) I only wish his interviews were longer (!)
I would call this healthy thinking. Looking beyond pictures. Thank you!
Dr. Kastrup talks of thinking symbolically [pictorially] and not being limited by linguistic or rational, literal thinking. A couple of days ago a static image representing a person close to me appeared in my mind out of nowhere. Much like an image a remote viewer would mentally perceive. As I reviewed what I "saw" I came to a far greater understanding, thus compassion, of this person's psychology and behavior. It actually brought tears to my eyes. There's so much in this interview that it really requires a second viewing which I will do tomorrow. I need to add that I am not comfortable with the references to psychedelics. If your going to do this I think an in depth analysis as to why taking psychedelics are, or can be, specifically psychologically, beneficial.
Look up Paul Stamets. Also, consider watching the documentary "Dosed." There is ample, peer reviewed, published documentation proving microdosing of psilocybin can be beneficial.
I KNOW what Bernardo experienced and yes he is 1000% right on spot ..."dome" or i would say "golden light" can't be described ...it happened to me after i accidentally read Carl Jung.I am not educated person,nearly missed to finished high school and i never read one single book nor i believed in anything which can't be seen or perceived with physical senses ...it happened to me while sober and i was on that level for week ...descending was depressing and painful ...my goal and entire meaning of life to reach it again ...everyone can BELIEVE me!!
Thank you Jeffrey for introducing me to Bernardo Kastrup. I saw him here a couple of years ago and have been following his conversation ever since.
Dear host, I just want to give you a big hug. Thank you 🙏🏾 ❤
Great interview, thanks!
He smiles big and proud remembering the power of psychedelics. I love that about this person.
Great talk and indeed great book Bernardo!
Super valid conversation!
I don't mean to be obnoxious by repeatedly posting here but I am rather moved by this interview. Dr. Kastrop remarks that the present is so infinitesimally brief (he likens it to a singularity), the past is gone being all but recalled in the passing instants of the present, and the future is not here. So, what all you have really is but an unfolding story. He suggests one look at their story (including culture, beliefs, experiences, talents, etc.) objectively and dispassionately from, well, yet another story. This reminds me of Rudolph Steiner's looking at the self's daily activities from a higher state, from one's "higher man." I like Kastrop's approach a little better for it is far more all encompassing, thus interesting. I wonder what all one could actually do, let alone discover, from such a state.
Love this interview and the hilarious explanation at the start @5:00 my cats cannot describe the deepest truths of nature through their meowing language, why should we?
By Occam's Razor, idealism is the most logical default position. There is no reason to believe that conscious experience ceases with the death of the brain.
I told myself before I clicked on this video: I bet AnduinX is on here. Sure enough!
@@Dhorpatan You know it ;)
I disagree. Following Occam's razor there is one reality: there is no separation between ideas and materials. We can argue to what degree reality is more fundamentally ideas or material, but this is essentially useless as this dichotomy is human. What we have is 'reality'.
Therefore, when an organism loses coherence and breaks up, there is no reason to believe it is still present. What is still present? Where is it? How do you know it is still present? All of these are a far bigger leap, than the assumption that it is no longer there.
There are many further questions, such as: where does it come from? What happens when people get brain damage? What happens when people have developmental disorders such as down syndrome? What happens when people are in a vegetative state?
@@nickshelbourne4426 I am not proposing a dualist "separation" between mind and matter. I am proposing that ultimately there is no such thing as "matter", and that mind alone can account for everything.
We know that consciousness exists through our own personal experience. Mind is the direct fact of our existence. On the other hand we do not directly know that there exists non-conscious matter in some physical universe outside of mind.
Following Occam's Razor, if everything can be explained exclusively in terms of what we already know to exist (consciousness), then there is no reason to propose an entirely new category of stuff (non-conscious matter).
*_"When an organism loses coherence and breaks up, there is no reason to believe it is still present. What is still present? Where is it? How do you know it is still present?"_*
If mind is fundamental and encompasses all things, then the body exists within mind, rather than mind in the body. In that case, the answer to your first question is that mind is still present after an organism breaks up. To answer your second question, I don't claim to know that idealism is true. In fact, I hold that it's not possible to know that idealism is true, in the same way as it is not possible to know that physicalism or dualism are true. All explanations for mind and the world around us require metaphysical speculations for which there can be no proof. So, what I am arguing is only that idealism is the most parsimonious explanation for the world around us, and is therefore the most logical default assumption.
*_"There are many further questions, such as: where does it come from?"_*
Outside of proposing an infinite number of imaginary entities, all positions require what is known as an ontological primitive - that which is fundamental and cannot be explained in terms of anything else. Mind is my ontological primitive. So, mind does not come from anything. Mind "just exists".
*_"What happens when people get brain damage? What happens when people have developmental disorders such as down syndrome?"_*
An object in a dream may feel like an actual external "physical" object to you from your perspective in a dream, but there is nothing to the object but mental activity. The object is just how you experience that mental activity from your perspective in the dream. I am extending this concept to the observable universe. The observable universe is how you experience the rest of mind from your own separate perspective within mind.
If all objects are the appearance of mental activity when viewed from an external perspective, then that includes the brain as well. You are having a human experience of separation from the rest of mind (a dissociative experience) and that experience has an appearance when viewed from and external perspective (your brain).
Under that view, brain damage is literally the appearance of changes to your first person experience when viewed from an external perspective, which will of course be experience by you.
Downs syndrome, Alzheimer's, Dementia, and any other kind of brain problem that you can bring up are explained perfectly in this way. A healthy brain is the appearance of a "normal" human experience of separation from the rest of mind. A damaged brain is the appearance of a "damaged" human experience of separation from the rest of mind. The latter will obviously result in a different kind of experience.
*_"What happens when people are in a vegetative state?"_*
I reject the idea that they are having no experience at all. I take the position that they are having experience of some sort. If their brain is not too damaged, then perhaps they are still having some kind of experience of separation from the rest of mind. Alternatively, they could be having a more expansive non-dissociated experience.
@@anduinxbym6633 If you're saying that there is no divide between mind and matter, you cannot logically go on to say that mind carries on when matter finishes. In order for this to occur there must be a separation. In essence, your argument other than this point can be absorbed into materialism with very little changes - what is the nature of material?
The metaphysical speculation involved in saying that 'if I cannot see it or measure it, it does not exist' is far less than speculating that it does exist when you can have no experience of it. It is a speculation, but you cannot argue they are equal. This returns to the fact that it is metaphysical speculation to say that faeries, unicorns, and the flying spaghetti monster do not exist as well.
In regards to neuroscience, you have fallen back into Bishop Berkeley's form of Idealism, which was not supported by most German idealists. It's a bit of a cop out really: yes, everything is experienced in the mind, but there is a clear correspondence to activity in the brain. If you cut parts of people's brains out it will alter their experience, behaviour and mind in a way which is intimately connected. Further, people with developmental syndromes with genetic origins consistently show the same symptoms.
Most of our processing is happening at an unconscious level, about 1% is 'human' consciousness. This is clearly evolved, unless you are arguing that ants, flowers, and rocks have the same consciousness as us.
All of this works in a coherent and logical manner, to the point that we can provide brain surgery to people based on self-described symptoms, which leads to symptom relief.
Therefore, either you are arguing for an idealism which is redundant because it is materialism except "in a dream", or you are making speculations which do not match up with the fundamentally structured and logical nature of reality.
For the deepest layers, go to Rupert Spira or some other Sage. But Rupert reading nails it.
so well done here!😃
Experience is the only thing you can trust and it goes so deep
"the dome". That term didn't immediately grab me as something I knew personally even though I have done deep exploration with psychedelics. But, upon contemplating it further, yeah, I believe he was referring to an all-encompassing vortex that opens in its center like a very fine aperture, which opens up more with your willingness to surrender into the experience, jettisoning all agendas, abandoning all thought processes, allowing it to happen.
Is that what is being referred to by "the dome"?
“God is an intelligible sphere, whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere.”
I had this experience, it was not from psychedelics I had serotonin syndrome, but One of the experiences i had while in that state was a centeredness that expanded outwardly and the apprehension that all people had this sort of sphere that expanded from their center but were unaware that it is there. And the implications was that various different consciousness actually intersected out of the body. To what distance this sphere extended was not known as it was experienced as both infinite and finite at the same time. Something conceivable but also beyond conception, something not apparent to the sense but obvious to the intuition in that state.
@@matthewkopp2391 That was interesting, there are a lot of questions that will be answered. We will know everything sooner or later and then we will then cherish the days when we could question reality. We're almost better off to be of limited intellect and to live a life of mortality. Knowing everything and having everything would be limiting.
This interview digs as deep as one can dig
It's strange to hear someone that have his story so together
I think that also our doubts are a potential for not knowledge but for empower what we ignore again
Wow he is clear for a philospher. Thanks
Good computer game analogy at 8:15
Beautiful. Thank you.
I’d love to ask Bernardo... if there existed a set of myths which contained your metaphysics and your ethics AND asked you to engage in rituals and worship, ie a religion, would you devote your life to it?
I think Jacque Lacan has said that the subconcious is just all those feature of reality that the mind observes, but cannot represent using language...
There is the contention (which Bernardo shares), that dreams are primarily symbolic, with elements representing issues & events independently of the dream's plot. I strong disagree. I've been recording my dreams for several years, and almost ALL of the dreams have a cohesive plot at their core; a tree of events, upon which the details are hung like ornaments on a Christmas tree. I've come to believe that the messages within dreams are found embedded within the plot, not the details. Which leads me to contend that if the person doesn't understand the dream, it's due to issues with the message of the plot; inability to confront emotional &/or psychiatric issues being expressed within the dream. OR, the person is simply intent on trying to make more of the message than it actually is.
Re. "the dome": I'm with Dr. Mishlove on this. I have absolutely no idea at all, what the term "the dome" is referring to. I also noted that Bernardo evaded explaining it, when Jeffrey pressed the issue. My off-the-cuff opinion is to think this term is referring to something analogous to a cultural myth; something discussed within the younger generations, AFTER the older generations had stopped using psychedelics, and were no longer directly participating in the culture of psychedelic experimentations.
In his list of mythical, symbolic things one can see (near the end), Bernardo failed to mention a bunny rabbit.
I smoke a lot of pot and cannot remember my dreams anymore. If I quit smoking for a couple of days my dreams will be vivid, wild, colorful and well remembered. It is just the way that marijuana affects dreams, it suppresses memory of the dream and I think it suppresses dreaming altogether. Sometimes i have bouncing flying dreams where I just bounce around off the ground out the window down the street way up high in the sky where the wind won't blow. My my my my yeah! Everybody I know seems to know me and well, the day is gonna come, I'm gonna move like hell.
Great stuff!! Thanks
Thank you!
Ontology and epistemology, what's the difference?
Ontology = philosophy of what is real; epistemology = philosophy of how can we know something
Thank you. Can you elaborate a little on epistemology, I'm having trouble making out what is meant by trying to know something. Seems very vague.
Look up Theory of Knowledge on Wikversity
I like the idea that reincarnation, as one life after another, is a kind of modern myth that will lead us to discover it's both true and false because all those lives are happening at once. Perhaps the latter myth will further be expanded upon.
I transcended the narrative, once upon a time. I could look up at the Sun and the sun was totally symbolic. Every human interaction was a splendid synchronicity. I remained there for 100 cat years. Now I'm back, mired in Maya, seduced and hypnotized. Nevertheless, I'm lucky, happy and blessed to be able to see that human intuition trumps the law of the excluded middle. :0)
I really enjoyed this an interesting talk that made a lot of sense Thanks for all the work that you share.
If Jeffrey can give away Bernardo’s book in a couple of sentences it is not much of a book. Frankly speaking, which is how I like to speak being Dutch myself, I rarely feel the need to finish reading any book by a PhD due to its tedious iteration of a singular concept. This is hoping that Bernardo is able to break the mold for me as he does possess a certain charisma that gives me that hope.
The success of science is based on symbolism (symbolic language) - mathematics. Let's talk about adding the number of oranges (with an orange mapped onto 'x'). When I say 2x + 2x = 4x, I do not literally mean that the 'x' is an orange. Science also uses thought-experiments - which are allegories, in a sense.
Brilliant stuff, great minds. All within the Great Mind
x
Such a densely meaningful topic; but alas! Too many advertisements, sadly. Please reconsider your purpose of posting such material. Thank you.
Thank you for letting me know. We have removed all advertising in the middle of this video.
@@NewThinkingAllowed 🙏
What does he mean at 29:24 with "we haven't found" a super symmetric particle yet"? Super symmetry has been proven hasn't it?
In northern mythology we see the archetypes of Odin, Thor and Loki. The stars in the night sky also symbolize the archetypes on which astrology is projected. It seems that psychedelics open the door to this world of gods, as humans have always called this phenomenon.
That s what the singularity really is than ??!! I think i had an illumination to what all the stories will bring in the end,the ultimate reality,the Truth,God in religious words not just on an individual level like some enlighten being already did,but on the collective level as more and more beings realize it.
Byron Katie might have transcended it...it meaning "the story."
Nice video 🔥
love it => bernardo can explain things pretty well ;-)
Ha, 20:00 talking about killing God, and LITERALLY!
Thus spoke Jesus and Zarathustra...
Virgin mind ( right side of the brain, never penetrated from outside) giving birth to the Word in the flesh and it suffers the same death as it's Father and his Kingdom. Locked in the words in a man made book.
I was so happy when I found the key that I've decided to share it.
But then I was stopped, humiliated and my naked body was carried up the stairs...
People start to gather fast and in a few seconds there were many.
I could hear the screams and laughter in the same time.
One was saying: ''Look! That's Jesus, is he dead?''
The two guards that carried me were trying to separate my hands, that were finger locked in front of my chest with no success.
Two more came and helped, but still the hands were locked.
''What do we do?'', asked the guard that fell on the floor trying to pull.
''Leave him be!'', screamed someone from the crowd.
''Oh, we're not leaving him, that's for sure!'', said the guard with the heavy voice as he was lifting my legs and start carrying me away with the others.
''Don't worry, we're taking him somewhere safe!''
''Safe for all of us...'', he added.
So they took me deep into the desert.
My eyes were shut all the way.
Then they decided to stop:''That's enough, he's not coming back from here.''
They threw my body on the hot sand and then one of them asked me:
''What are you going to do now, son of man?''
I stood up opened my eyes and hands wide, looked straight to the morning star and said:
'' I am home now. And anyone looking for me will find me here.''
''Well good like with that, ha ha ha!'', they laughed.
''One more thing!'', I shouted as they were leaving.
''What?''
''Don't tell anyone.''
So if consciousness in not an epiphenomenon as we thinks in neurobiological point of view I think that reality is autoreferencial we are autoreferencial language is autoreferencial so as Cioran said we live into a linguistic pattern so consciuosness probably is surely autoreferencial but we can in a computational way describes it
I love the areas you consider Jeffrey.
Dear Dr Kastrup, I just wanted to bring a small remark. You said that allegory and metaphoric thinking came before literary and concrete interpretation ... I beg to differ ... I doubt that metaphoric thinking came before the literal one. Weren't the very first Sumerian writings accounting and business records? ... Metaphor and symbolism is beautifut but we would be mistaken if we understood symbolically something that was meant to be taken literally ... that by the way the cause of most of our confusion when we read ancient accounts. For example the Sumerian tablets speak of these flesh and blood beings called the Anunnaki and their relationship with homo sapiens ... also, the hebrew bible is a very pragramatic and literal account of the history of the jewish people and his rapport with this individual called Yahweh, one of the so called Elohim, who were also flesh and blood beings ... the theological elaborations and "magical" extrapolations came later on when the concept of the one god was introduced by priests and emperors ... Same thing with Greek mythology which has a core of very historical events that were later on made into fabels by exuberant authors who just discovered the powers of imagination :D For example, there is no word in hebrew for an imaginal, eternal divinity that is transcendent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent ... no such type of god for most ancient peoples ...A disclaimer, i am not a darwinian evolutionist nor a religious creationist ... I am more on the side of biogenetic interventionism ... if you know what I mean ...
Kant came to the limitations of our mind that the guess speaks of.
When he reached that limit he said “I Kant“.
If you accept that the spoken and written language can't express everything then why can't you accept that symbolic representations are also limited?
Jeffrey live from the Hopi Nation ✋
Brilliant.
So I am not an empiriocriticist and materialist in this sense and for this reason and I think that science is only an economical teory that doesn t say nothing about the essence of ourselves in this sense science has a limite and we have think that reality in my opinion as an intelligence
Neitzche never dealt with basics of human perception or place in the cosmos
yes chomsky is correct that thinking is based on the structure of innate language & therefore limited, But But now we know about brain plasticity-so can language change if brain changes? question for Bernardo
I know exactly what Bernard is talking about in last 20 minutes of interview.
The GNOMES man! :0
Where are the practical examples of bodies of water naturally conforming to the exterior of shapes?
Where are the practical examples of a gas pressure being created and maintained without physical containment?
The immediate need to label someone based on what they seem to be saying, like Bernardo is doing Philosophy, strikes me as frustrating. We know what Philosophy means to us but we don't know what Kastrup will say next even though we label him. Yet we pretend, calling him a philosopher, that we know what he's doing. To me, if any label applies, he's a "what the hell is going on...ist". Like the rest of us.
Same here the void once
you cannot do anything that requires the calibre of a human if you cannot allow context to determine the meaning. If every word has to have its meaning set in stone, you can probably only function as an automaton..
Transcend the intellect with what?
_"Transcend the intellect with what?"_
With that which obviously underlies the intellect. *The Non Conceptual* ...what else?
_"If a thought comes, recognize it as conditioned thinking, which is a part of your ego. ... This is non-conceptual knowing, being the space between the “information” and “knowledge” of the world and its words, thoughts, judgments, etc."_
Understanding (What the intellect uses) is merely *conditioned thinking based on a thought process* and (sometimes) instructed rules of "structured thought"..
Knowing in its true sense (non conceptual) is therefore *_not dependent on thought to know anything._*
All thoughts are known and experienced from the perspective of the non conceptual. This is why *_the non conceptual cannot be understood_* or put into words. The very thoughts required to grasp it inevitably takes you away from it's source.
The non conceptual exists even in the absence of all thoughts ....It is this to which we go during Non R.E.M portion of Deep Sleep.
_The Conscious experience of this state is the real goal of meditation. Few can go there at will._
Should I be a Hindu now?
They have been hinting at Idealism for thousands of years. The Upanishads are awe-inspiring.
Its a huge mistake to see Schopenhauer as a continental philosopher. Schop himself said he was carrying on from the tradition of Hume and Locke.
Continental philosophy is from the 20th Century only... If Kant is right then Schopenhauer is right. If Kant is wrong then Schopenhuaer is wrong. Kant is the linchpin, not Schopenhuaer.
Some of the brightest minds of the 20th Century grappled with Kant. Some hated the philosopher, others saw him as the greatest mind that ever lived.
"Myth is the revelation of divine life in man" -
"It is not we who invent myth; rather it speaks to us as a Word of God.
No science will ever replace myth, and a myth cannot be made out of any science.
For it is not that "God" is a myth, but that myth is the revelation of a divine life in man.
It is not we who invent myth; rather it speaks to us as a Word of God. ~ Carl Gustav Jung; Memories, Dreams and Reflections; Page 340.
Philosophy WAS trying to explain reality until Wittgenstein
Then it became an attempt to understand language
The world is too left brain dominant!
holy shit,,the dome, I have been there on DMT...far out man
Although it would be an exaggeration for me to claim having had the full-blown experience, people do describe the possibility of living life without a story. Going along with that possibility is the image of the transient present's expansion into a continuing presence. (But all of this is off the topic of the value and power of symbolism and symbolic thinking (which are very real) .)
First time I understand religion.
So Bernado dipped his toes in psychedelic drugs too?
"primate species" really? so how is that working for you?
29.44 Bernardo says that when we have food, clothing, security etc we are still missing something, we have a hole within us.
He says we need science to create a new modern religion.
How bizarre, he admits we have a need within us even when we have everything materially. He seems to arbitrarily deny the existence of God, because it doesn't fit with the science that he seems to put his trust in.
In another video, he says there is a universal consciousness that is beyond our own consciousness. Again, he does not seem to accept that this could be God.
There is very good historical evidence for Jesus, and yet he seems to ignore this.
One man's (Kastrups)self-taught ideas seem for some reason to carry a lot of weight with people watching this.I can't help but wonder why people seem so keen to put their trust in a man who has no proof for his ideas (did anyone ever come back from the dead and say "yes you're so right Bernado"??)?
Although I don’t agree with the last bit of your comment, because there is no need for someone to come back from the dead to confirm Bernardo’s hypothesis, since his conclusions are easily achieved by pure logic (I recommend Bernardo’s “Rationalist Spirituality”, is a beautiful demonstration on how to reason your way into those conclusions), I do agree that he seems to be somewhat… blinded, perhaps?
Don’t get me wrong, he is galaxies away from me in terms on intelligence, I have no way of competing. But, c’mon, Pim Van Lommel’s book + Bruce Greyson’s + Eben Alexander + Peter Fenwick, and then a good dive into the serious side of Mediumnic Parapsychology, from where I would recommend the books of spanish women Sol Blanco-Soler + Paloma Navarrete. All that coupled with Jungian notions of the plausibility of the existence of disembodied beings. I mean, c’mon, what else does he want? It’s all over the place. I can argue for the existence of GodS very easy with all that info. I don’t know what else he needs.
Subtlemegablastsupergood. Dr. Mishlove busting open the skype world with complete Banshee like Abandon ! :> (thanks)
He seems to be trying to describe inspiration from a materialistic viewpoint.
true, academic philosophy sucks......philosophy for philosophy's sake
Thank You!
Thank you!