I've watched about 40 interviews with Bernardo and read two of his books. This was one of my favourite interviews. It was very genuine and i enjoyed the energy.
This is what suddenly came into mind while I was in quiet reflection, “you cannot know love apart from me, and I cannot experience love apart from you,” this is the meaning of God becoming one in man, this is Immanuel, God with man, God as man. Much love and peace to each sojourner ❤️
Very interesting interview .It seems that the world is not here to make us happy,but to push us to take notice of what is going on,to be metacognitive.
We're here to behold the story. We don't write the story. We might not even have free will. God runs the show, he sends us, he commands us, and he puts his words in our mouth. We are a part of God who is trying to get to know himself.
Another problem here is that existence cannot lack the meta-cognitive if aspects of it are meta-cognitive. Indeed, the totality must be at least as meta-cognitive as its most meta-cognitive expression, unless we take time to be ontically real, which seems very unlikely. As soon as time is ontically conditional only, then it is meaningless (pretty much) to claim that the all is "heading towards" some kind of future state (more meta-cognition) say, because in the time-transcending perspective it must be "already there" and thus, whatever metacognitive entities or levels are expressed at that zenith must already be expressed and known to the ground of being as its totality. I at least know that Bernardo is aware of this too, as I have seen him argue something of the same in at least one podcast I listened to.
I really enjoyed this talk.. brought back memories of Ram Dass.. "Be Here Now".. where it is pointed out coming down/off LSD..isn't the same as coming off God. Sufferning is a portal of the earth, being a activity of a non locality. Bernardo embodies a empathy where image of the lions eating the elephant.. clearly mirrors our subconscious eating the conscious of I am You! I loved the questions.. great interview!
I've been in 50/50 contact with evil and accepted it's existence in a way that can be characterized as empathetic... I was left with the emotional consequences of considering half the story from a reckless hatred towards everything combined with a calm that came from not resisting that perspective... A dark messiah identity of the utmost conviction that there is only punishment in the world...and condemning everyone along with me... Thankfully I was able to get out of the trip by remembering that is just a trip... But was it. Had many similar experiences with a different theme yet at the center of it this needing to reconcile the nature of evil.
Sometimes Bernardo , in his interviews, makes some very specific statements that are not questioned by the interviewer. For example, at 1:19 he states that Jung believed that disembodied consciousnesses, after biological life, grows only with the input of the experience of the living. So far so good, yet, I wonder why, then, those figures of the unconscious do not try to get in touch with the living all the time. Furthermore, why Marie Luise Von Franz stated clearly that the dead and the living should not mingle together. She is the most important Jungian after Jung and she said so when talking about the dream she had of her own father. Although it makes sense that life with its opposites aides growth, what is, at the end of dissociation, that hinders growth?. Those questions should be posed to Bernardo. Also, because Bernardo told us that he believes, and Jung did as well, that after death we will enter a place that is as ‘tremendous’ as life; filled with good as well as evil. But, I wonder, why would we not be able to metacognite and, possibly, ‘understand’ there as well. Finally, I recall that Jung said that it is possible to complete individuation after death and that his wife probably did exactly that. Bernardo, please, could you clarify this crucial point.
I think evil is an element that taken to it's extreme defeats itself cause it leads to a state of reckless self disregard which leads inevitably to self destruction.
Why, when we look at our hand, at our own body, do we see matter not mental state? Are we external observers to our own bodies? In which case, what are we? What is mental state?
At about 13:12 the host asks Kastrup to expand on the psychedelic experience vis a vis his idealism philosophy and she says and I quote “ ...sense of self dissolves and many people experience myths, legends, archetypes...”. My question to anyone is, please could you explain the best you can, what is the sense of self that dissolves, considering that, as the quote stated, many people experience myth, legends and so on and so forth. I find it confusing when the host as well as Kastrup talk about a dissolving ego capable, as in the case of the above quote from host, to metagnite; that is to report the experience. In other words, what is the definition of ‘sense of self’ in this context. Thank you and I very much appreciate your help so that I can understand better Kastrup’s idealism as well.
It's the ego that dissolves. That part of your psyche that focuses on external reality. Saying that your self dissolves isn't quite accurate because our ego is not the self, it is only a part of our psyche, a lower self as for example Kabbalah teaches us. This kind of sensation can happen in deep meditation and also in hypnosis sessions.
First of all I thank you for your reply, during these talks we often read lots of praise comments but little about ‘questions’ that someone might have. As I said the host defined the psychedelic trip as ‘self dissolution’, as opposed to ego dissolution. I have heard many times Kastrup defining ego as that part of the person that knows which mouth to put the fork to ( feed). So, even ego dissolution here is somewhat problematic. How can we report our experience ( metacognise) if our ego had dissolved during the psychedelic experience. In other words, how can we know that it was ‘us’ that experienced that trip. I wish I could get more discussion on this. Thank you anyway for your kindness in answering my question, it was much appreciated.
A very important part in all these matters is direct experience. Reading books and watching others discuss their experiences is only a small part of what is needed to have understanding. Theory is important but practical experience is a must because it is 'almost' impossible to describe the spiritual side of our reality with human language. To add, when the ego dissolves or is greatly diminished due to psychoactive substances or hypnosis, your focus shifts to other parts of your being, broadly speaking - soul and that is what allows awareness to continue during these kinds of experiences
I believe that the SUN has a CONSCIOUSNESS of higher dimension. Our star is existing on several plan. Hope the SUN loves us a little. I love the sun. Peace & love
There's no such thing as endless possibilities in life.We all have a task and we all will be rewarded.Just as you can rate your task you can also rate your reward.If you add up these numbers the outcome is the same for everyone.I think this is all I need to know. As far as I know spirituality is right about one thing,there are beings who can control us We can't see them.They interfere with our lives to make us fulfill our task.I think they're called spirit guides but I refer to them as managment.The managers are worldwide connected.We all have at least one of them with us. What people call the soul is actually your subconscious.The self is connected to the subconscious where 95 % of the decisions are made.
That's write we live in a free will system ,and have many spirit guides who can only helping us when we ask. If we don't ask they can not interven in our evaluation and or Guidance.
I also believe that POUTIN has a consciouness and is not as evil as Bernardo is imagining. We are all MEDIUM between WORLDS, each one with his own singular specialty. POUTINE is the best for mission and he is a CHRISTIAN. Peace & love
So much left hemispheric wisdom, so little right hemispheric experience. In other words, too much head not enough heart Bernardo! As a philosopher how can you discuss evil without defining your term. It is an amateur response to define your own idea of evil as though it it not thoroughly partisan and then even though you are not a teacher you offer advice based on your own personal view, presenting it as a philosophical given. I have learned a great deal from Kastrup and have had enormous admiration for his intellect and courage, but after this and his refusal to debate Maudlin on Curt Jaimungal’s Theories of everything, I fear there has been a decline in humility and a corresponding inflation of arrogance. I hope he can reflect and find his way again.
I wish i never knew it made life hell, all painful deaths and tortures since 2.6M ago, it is enough to go once through something like unit 731, imagine you have to suffer all possible painful deaths and tortures forever. "ceaseless striving" consciousness is stupid it is primitive it doesn't know anything...
I am a HUGE fan of Kastrup as a metaphysical thinker and writer. But he's disappointing in his brainwashed, unsophisticated understanding of geopolitics. It's sad that he can't recognize the extent to which he has been propagandized.
5:57 "But we do share a real world that really is out there, which we inhabit. And because we are all representing that same shared world, in our respective physical world, our physical worlds are mutually consistent, because they are all representations from a particular perspective of the same shared reality - a reality made of mental states, experiential states" ... How do you argue that there is a "world" "out there" and what is the difference between a "world" and a "real world"? What do you mean "inhabit" ... it is sounding like you are renting space ! How do you get to say that everyone experience the same as you? What about the problem of other minds ? Is it your qualia that is your "physical world" or what is it ?? How do you know some "x" is a representation of something else ? If you at bottom level have qualia as the starting point, and everything else you call your experience is some cognition or derivative from your qualia or your cognitions, how do you derive from that that there is something "beyond" it ? What is that "particular perspective" ?? Does your leap towards some external world depend on that perspective, because perspective indicates that it can be different and that particular perspective could be narrow, erroneous, limited etc ... how would you be able to say. These aspects are not argued, just claimed. And further more you start to tell me what that external world is made of ... "mental states, experiential states" ... How the f'ck do you do that, from a foundation that is not argued ?
@Mandibil you are not making any sense. There is no need to "argue" that we inhabit the same world, it's self evident. The fact that you and I watched and are commenting under the same video is proof enough. Also you are just raising random criticism without explaining why that would be wrong or proposing alternatives, as usual the best you achieve is to make it clear how much you misrepresent, or more charitably, misunderstand what is being said.
@@namero999You don't even understand the BK metaphysics. You are referring to what he calls "screen of perception" (i don't like the use of the term perception since it is presuppositional). What you call "watch", "commenting", "video" ... are all aspects of that perception. It does not follow from the "perception" that there is something beyond it. That is something you bring to the table (probably because you cannot really let go of materialism. Any decent philosopher will demand a bulletproof argument for how anyone get to claim that there is something beyond their experience - or else they will have to use an axiom, which is just stating that they are going with that idea without being able to argue for it
@@namero999 Very well said. Your comment makes clear how his frequent, illogical comments only help me to feel more confident in sharing Bernardo's work with others.
@@namero999 Well no. I don't agree with Mandibil, but the question of whether we all inhabit a collective physical world is a real one. Leibniz argued that we all inhabited closed monads and that argument is entirely applicable to this situation too, and indeed to Bernardo's entire picture. He has not succeeded, imo, in disproving or even particularly disempowering that position. The fact is, we could EASILY be inhabiting separated subjective worlds. That we appear to interact on a comment field, that is a set of subjectives within your experienced world, makes no particular claim on this one way or the other. And likewise with all conceptually similar arguments.
@@greensleeves7165 who said anything about subjectivity? It's the objective world that I'm talking about. And notice that I have not used the word "physical", although I would not have anything against its usage because it's an handy shortcut. But as an idealist, the physical and its extensions do not have standalone existence for me anyway. The problem with masturbatory philosophy is that no explanation will ever be satisfying to some people. What is the reason to claim that "we might as well inhabit separated disjoint worlds..."? How about YOU explain how that would work, since that is completely contradictory with our experience? How would the worlds be separated if we interact constantly, on both psychological and physical level? That the subjective is normally disjoint is obvious (I can't read your thoughts and you can't read mine), just as it is obvious that we all inhabit the same frame of reference: we all agree on experiences, facts in the world can impact us collectively, etc. So there is an objective world: physical or not I don't care, it's the objective frame of reference that can't be arguably denied. If you think you can argue for essentially a flavor of solipsism, I will listen. If you think I am wrong, just ask a sufficiently large number of people whether the sky is above or below. Let's see if we have reasons to believe that we share a frame of reference or if we are completely insulated. To entertain the possibility that we all inhabit disjoint monadic objective worlds (since you used this word, I assume you also know what that entails...) is simply fantasy.
Bernardo I think humanity needs your insightful insights
Please stay among us for à few more decades 😅
I've watched about 40 interviews with Bernardo and read two of his books. This was one of my favourite interviews. It was very genuine and i enjoyed the energy.
Yes, I watch them all. This one really struck me.
Everything he says reflects Hinduism. God is only hurting himself is a prime example. I am a Christian and I am now a Hindu believer too.
Totally agree this was so straightforward in questioning and brought the best out!
This is what suddenly came into mind while I was in quiet reflection, “you cannot know love apart from me, and I cannot experience love apart from you,” this is the meaning of God becoming one in man, this is Immanuel, God with man, God as man. Much love and peace to each sojourner ❤️
DMT changed my psyche for the better. Such a powerful experience.
@marcelluche1851 Thanks for that mate, mainly being that there needs to be a change in the way people see this molecule.
Very interesting interview .It seems that the world is not here to make us happy,but to push us to take notice of what is going on,to be metacognitive.
We're here to behold the story. We don't write the story. We might not even have free will. God runs the show, he sends us, he commands us, and he puts his words in our mouth. We are a part of God who is trying to get to know himself.
Brilliant food for thoughts. I am going to order his book about Jung.
This conversation is wonderful and insightful. Thanks
This is so wonderful and incredibly insightful. All of it. Thank you.
"Just to put it on record for the 21st century" ( 1:45:23--1:54:06 )
Thank you, great interview, consciousness is fundamental, we actually live in our minds, is like we live in a cosmic hologram.
Another problem here is that existence cannot lack the meta-cognitive if aspects of it are meta-cognitive. Indeed, the totality must be at least as meta-cognitive as its most meta-cognitive expression, unless we take time to be ontically real, which seems very unlikely. As soon as time is ontically conditional only, then it is meaningless (pretty much) to claim that the all is "heading towards" some kind of future state (more meta-cognition) say, because in the time-transcending perspective it must be "already there" and thus, whatever metacognitive entities or levels are expressed at that zenith must already be expressed and known to the ground of being as its totality. I at least know that Bernardo is aware of this too, as I have seen him argue something of the same in at least one podcast I listened to.
Fantastic, thank you so very much
I really enjoyed this talk.. brought back memories of Ram Dass.. "Be Here Now".. where it is pointed out coming down/off LSD..isn't the same as coming off God. Sufferning is a portal of the earth, being a activity of a non locality. Bernardo embodies a empathy where image of the lions eating the elephant.. clearly mirrors our subconscious eating the conscious of I am You! I loved the questions.. great interview!
I've been in 50/50 contact with evil and accepted it's existence in a way that can be characterized as empathetic... I was left with the emotional consequences of considering half the story from a reckless hatred towards everything combined with a calm that came from not resisting that perspective... A dark messiah identity of the utmost conviction that there is only punishment in the world...and condemning everyone along with me... Thankfully I was able to get out of the trip by remembering that is just a trip... But was it. Had many similar experiences with a different theme yet at the center of it this needing to reconcile the nature of evil.
Hi to everyone, Bernardo have you try the Bufo Alvarious, the most potent hallucinogen in the world? Could you please give me your opinion.
❤❤❤
Sometimes Bernardo , in his interviews, makes some very specific statements that are not questioned by the interviewer. For example, at 1:19 he states that Jung believed that disembodied consciousnesses, after biological life, grows only with the input of the experience of the living. So far so good, yet, I wonder why, then, those figures of the unconscious do not try to get in touch with the living all the time. Furthermore, why Marie Luise Von Franz stated clearly that the dead and the living should not mingle together. She is the most important Jungian after Jung and she said so when talking about the dream she had of her own father.
Although it makes sense that life with its opposites aides growth, what is, at the end of dissociation, that hinders growth?. Those questions should be posed to Bernardo. Also, because Bernardo told us that he believes, and Jung did as well, that after death we will enter a place that is as ‘tremendous’ as life; filled with good as well as evil. But, I wonder, why would we not be able to metacognite and, possibly, ‘understand’ there as well.
Finally, I recall that Jung said that it is possible to complete individuation after death and that his wife probably did exactly that. Bernardo, please, could you clarify this crucial point.
We are separated because we are separated from feelings. Feeling is the secret. End of story.
1:04:50 Kandinsky
I think evil is an element that taken to it's extreme defeats itself cause it leads to a state of reckless self disregard which leads inevitably to self destruction.
1:52:35 Actually, that was Culture Club, not Country Club. 🙂
Oh yeah I love the Culture Club, music group.
Bernardo: Please explain ‘dissociation’
Why, when we look at our hand, at our own body, do we see matter not mental state? Are we external observers to our own bodies? In which case, what are we? What is mental state?
At about 13:12 the host asks Kastrup to expand on the psychedelic experience vis a vis his idealism philosophy and she says and I quote “ ...sense of self dissolves and many people experience myths, legends, archetypes...”. My question to anyone is, please could you explain the best you can, what is the sense of self that dissolves, considering that, as the quote stated, many people experience myth, legends and so on and so forth. I find it confusing when the host as well as Kastrup talk about a dissolving ego capable, as in the case of the above quote from host, to metagnite; that is to report the experience.
In other words, what is the definition of ‘sense of self’ in this context.
Thank you and I very much appreciate your help so that I can understand better Kastrup’s idealism as well.
Metacognite, rather. I apologise.
It's the ego that dissolves. That part of your psyche that focuses on external reality. Saying that your self dissolves isn't quite accurate because our ego is not the self, it is only a part of our psyche, a lower self as for example Kabbalah teaches us. This kind of sensation can happen in deep meditation and also in hypnosis sessions.
First of all I thank you for your reply, during these talks we often read lots of praise comments but little about ‘questions’ that someone might have. As I said the host defined the psychedelic trip as ‘self dissolution’, as opposed to ego dissolution. I have heard many times Kastrup defining ego as that part of the person that knows which mouth to put the fork to ( feed). So, even ego dissolution here is somewhat problematic. How can we report our experience ( metacognise) if our ego had dissolved during the psychedelic experience. In other words, how can we know that it was ‘us’ that experienced that trip. I wish I could get more discussion on this. Thank you anyway for your kindness in answering my question, it was much appreciated.
A very important part in all these matters is direct experience. Reading books and watching others discuss their experiences is only a small part of what is needed to have understanding. Theory is important but practical experience is a must because it is 'almost' impossible to describe the spiritual side of our reality with human language.
To add, when the ego dissolves or is greatly diminished due to psychoactive substances or hypnosis, your focus shifts to other parts of your being, broadly speaking - soul and that is what allows awareness to continue during these kinds of experiences
I've heard different people say that psychedelics increase brain activity
Do u think it will be kind of interdimensional tourism industry
I mean... he's right isn't he..
Bernardo reply about God as Job and Jesus is amazing, but lets remember the The Self is God.
God is not otherness, it is closer to you than yourself.
I believe that the SUN has a CONSCIOUSNESS of higher dimension. Our star is existing on several plan. Hope the SUN loves us a little. I love the sun. Peace & love
Are you on drugs?
There's no such thing as endless possibilities in life.We all have a task and we all will be rewarded.Just as you can rate your task you can also rate your reward.If you add up these numbers the outcome is the same for everyone.I think this is all I need to know.
As far as I know spirituality is right about one thing,there are beings who can control us We can't see them.They interfere with our lives to make us fulfill our task.I think they're called spirit guides but I refer to them as managment.The managers are worldwide connected.We all have at least one of them with us.
What people call the soul is actually your subconscious.The self is connected to the subconscious where 95 % of the decisions are made.
That's write we live in a free will system ,and have many spirit guides who can only helping us when we ask. If we don't ask they can not interven in our evaluation and or Guidance.
@@dayerotth8273This seems to be the case though not every request will be granted 😊
I also believe that POUTIN has a consciouness and is not as evil as Bernardo is imagining. We are all MEDIUM between WORLDS, each one with his own singular specialty. POUTINE is the best for mission and he is a CHRISTIAN. Peace & love
So much left hemispheric wisdom, so little right hemispheric experience. In other words, too much head not enough heart Bernardo! As a philosopher how can you discuss evil without defining your term. It is an amateur response to define your own idea of evil as though it it not thoroughly partisan and then even though you are not a teacher you offer advice based on your own personal view, presenting it as a philosophical given. I have learned a great deal from Kastrup and have had enormous admiration for his intellect and courage, but after this and his refusal to debate Maudlin on Curt Jaimungal’s Theories of everything, I fear there has been a decline in humility and a corresponding inflation of arrogance. I hope he can reflect and find his way again.
Maudlin acted in bad faith, period.
I wish i never knew it made life hell, all painful deaths and tortures since 2.6M ago, it is enough to go once through something like unit 731, imagine you have to suffer all possible painful deaths and tortures forever. "ceaseless striving" consciousness is stupid it is primitive it doesn't know anything...
I am a HUGE fan of Kastrup as a metaphysical thinker and writer.
But he's disappointing in his brainwashed, unsophisticated understanding of geopolitics.
It's sad that he can't recognize the extent to which he has been propagandized.
Yeah well we got brainwashed in the Garden. Now as Atheist we know better.
Politically, Kastrup talks like he gets all his views from MSNBC.
5:57 "But we do share a real world that really is out there, which we inhabit. And because we are all representing that same shared world, in our respective physical world, our physical worlds are mutually consistent, because they are all representations from a particular perspective of the same shared reality - a reality made of mental states, experiential states"
... How do you argue that there is a "world" "out there" and what is the difference between a "world" and a "real world"?
What do you mean "inhabit" ... it is sounding like you are renting space !
How do you get to say that everyone experience the same as you? What about the problem of other minds ?
Is it your qualia that is your "physical world" or what is it ??
How do you know some "x" is a representation of something else ? If you at bottom level have qualia as the starting point, and everything else you call your experience is some cognition or derivative from your qualia or your cognitions, how do you derive from that that there is something "beyond" it ?
What is that "particular perspective" ?? Does your leap towards some external world depend on that perspective, because perspective indicates that it can be different and that particular perspective could be narrow, erroneous, limited etc ... how would you be able to say.
These aspects are not argued, just claimed.
And further more you start to tell me what that external world is made of ... "mental states, experiential states" ... How the f'ck do you do that, from a foundation that is not argued ?
@Mandibil you are not making any sense. There is no need to "argue" that we inhabit the same world, it's self evident. The fact that you and I watched and are commenting under the same video is proof enough. Also you are just raising random criticism without explaining why that would be wrong or proposing alternatives, as usual the best you achieve is to make it clear how much you misrepresent, or more charitably, misunderstand what is being said.
@@namero999You don't even understand the BK metaphysics. You are referring to what he calls "screen of perception" (i don't like the use of the term perception since it is presuppositional). What you call "watch", "commenting", "video" ... are all aspects of that perception. It does not follow from the "perception" that there is something beyond it. That is something you bring to the table (probably because you cannot really let go of materialism. Any decent philosopher will demand a bulletproof argument for how anyone get to claim that there is something beyond their experience - or else they will have to use an axiom, which is just stating that they are going with that idea without being able to argue for it
@@namero999 Very well said. Your comment makes clear how his frequent, illogical comments only help me to feel more confident in sharing Bernardo's work with others.
@@namero999 Well no. I don't agree with Mandibil, but the question of whether we all inhabit a collective physical world is a real one. Leibniz argued that we all inhabited closed monads and that argument is entirely applicable to this situation too, and indeed to Bernardo's entire picture. He has not succeeded, imo, in disproving or even particularly disempowering that position. The fact is, we could EASILY be inhabiting separated subjective worlds. That we appear to interact on a comment field, that is a set of subjectives within your experienced world, makes no particular claim on this one way or the other. And likewise with all conceptually similar arguments.
@@greensleeves7165 who said anything about subjectivity? It's the objective world that I'm talking about. And notice that I have not used the word "physical", although I would not have anything against its usage because it's an handy shortcut. But as an idealist, the physical and its extensions do not have standalone existence for me anyway. The problem with masturbatory philosophy is that no explanation will ever be satisfying to some people. What is the reason to claim that "we might as well inhabit separated disjoint worlds..."? How about YOU explain how that would work, since that is completely contradictory with our experience? How would the worlds be separated if we interact constantly, on both psychological and physical level? That the subjective is normally disjoint is obvious (I can't read your thoughts and you can't read mine), just as it is obvious that we all inhabit the same frame of reference: we all agree on experiences, facts in the world can impact us collectively, etc. So there is an objective world: physical or not I don't care, it's the objective frame of reference that can't be arguably denied. If you think you can argue for essentially a flavor of solipsism, I will listen. If you think I am wrong, just ask a sufficiently large number of people whether the sky is above or below. Let's see if we have reasons to believe that we share a frame of reference or if we are completely insulated. To entertain the possibility that we all inhabit disjoint monadic objective worlds (since you used this word, I assume you also know what that entails...) is simply fantasy.