Analytic Idealism and the possibility of a meta-conscious cosmic mind

Analytic Idealism and the possibility of a meta-conscious cosmic mind

Prof. Richard Grego, PhD

Does Analytic Idealism limit the scope of its own conclusions and implications because of its adoption of realist, empirically-focused, scientific concepts and argument structures? If so, can the notion of a meta-conscious (that is, self-aware, deliberate) universal consciousness be reconciled with it? Dr. Grego argues precisely so in this critical essay.

Notwithstanding all the merits of his theory, however, Kastrup’s own elaborations on one of its tenets sometimes seems inconsistent with it—especially regarding its central feature: universal consciousness itself. He has stated in many places that universal consciousness is most likely not meta-conscious and that, in this sense, does not entail any personal, intentional, or self-aware aspect at its most fundamental level. While Analytic Idealism does not automatically exclude this possibility, he argues, the empirical evidence we have about what meta-conscious awareness and experience might be seems to suggest that universal consciousness is not fundamentally meta-conscious or personal in any second-order way. The reason for his drawing this conclusion is that the history of the physical universe, and the development of meta-conscious minds via biological evolution, indicates that meta-conscious mental states were not present at the inception of the universe, and therefore are not fundamental to universal consciousness itself. It took several billion years of cosmological development and biological evolution for meta-conscious individuated intellects to emerge. The development of individuated, meta-conscious identity seems, by this logic, attributable to the process of biological evolution in physical space-time [3]. Moreover, Kastrup has also doubled down on this attribution by describing the epistemic limitations of individuated meta-conscious minds in these kind-of-physicalist terms (“Just monkeys on a rock in space”) [4].

However, this portrayal of universal consciousness, meta-consciousness, and physical reality seems inconsistent with the basic tenets of Analytic Idealism. It sounds as though—despite the illusional status of the physical universe—Kastrup is nonetheless claiming that human consciousness is somehow a causal product of biological evolution occurring in space-time. This claim seems to reverse completely the actual causal direction running from universal consciousness to individuated meta-consciousness to the physical universe, as well as invert the ontological priority of universal consciousness to its physical forms. Analytic Idealism holds that the physical world is a construct of individuated meta-conscious observation, which, in turn, is an excitation of universal consciousness. So, the contention that meta-consciousness is a product of physical evolution inverts this causal process.

... Direct experience of pure awareness via meditation, trance-possession, mystical intuition, prayer, psychedelics, near-death or out-of-body experience, etc., do much to permeate the dissociation that separates individuated minds from universal consciousness. Since, by transcending and dissolving the dissociative barriers between individuated consciousness and universal consciousness, this kind of phenomenological encounter engages universal consciousness directly (and more deeply-intimately than scientific analysis), it would seem like a much better basis on which to speculate about the nature of universal consciousness. (To employ another of Kastrup’s analogies here: speculating about universal consciousness via the abstractions of physical science, instead of via direct conscious experiences, is like speculating about nature outside of the blindly-flying airplane via the data from its dials and meters, instead of opening its cargo door and looking out directly at the sky, clouds, weather, and ground below)...

[Laird]

It's an important critique and question: where is God in all this?!

It doesn't, though, get to the heart of the logical problems with Analytic Idealism: even adding God back in as is right and proper isn't going to save it from those problems, and in fact is going to make them worse; after all, even if a universal mind "dissociating" into psyches could be successfully defended as an all-encompassing ontology (it can't), the idea of a self-aware, intelligent, and volitional God undergoing dissociation - a process implying involuntariness and lack of control - is even less plausible than Analytic Idealism's orthodox idea of a universal mind lacking "meta consciousness" undergoing same, especially given that the conventional idea of God as Creator (rather than as Dissociator) is much more plausible.

It's an important critique and question: where is God in all this?!

God is defined as the meta-conscious universal consciousness?

It doesn't, though, get to the heart of the logical problems with Analytic Idealism: even adding God back in as is right and proper isn't going to save it from those problems, and in fact is going to make them worse; after all, even if a universal mind "dissociating" into psyches could be successfully defended as an all-encompassing ontology (it can't), the idea of a self-aware, intelligent, and volitional God undergoing dissociation - a process implying involuntariness and lack of control - is even less plausible than Analytic Idealism's orthodox idea of a universal mind lacking "meta consciousness" undergoing same, especially given that the conventional idea of God as Creator (rather than as Dissociator) is much more plausible.

This implies that God is a distinct entity separate from us that is creating outside of itself, which makes no sense, because it implies that God is not all-encompassing, not omnipresent, not omniscient, not omnipotent. It makes God lesser because God is a distinct entity from its creations. It would mean that the many reported mystical experiences of union with the Godhead are rendered invalid. There is no need for God to create outside of itself, as what would God be creating from? It implies that God is not the ultimate existence.

What is implied by Analytic Idealism is that God willingly experiences dissociation for the sake of exploring its own nature. It explains why there can be telepathy, empathy and profound spiritual connections, because all is essentially of the same substance ~ God-stuff. But it doesn't make the distinct manifestations of God any less individual, as we are all unique compared to each other, despite having the same origins. Having the same origins is what allows souls the power to themselves create.

God creates an infinite Reality within itself (as God itself is infinite), creates the infinite souls to populate that infinity (which are themselves infinite in potential), who then create more and more realities within that, each of them potentially infinite too, as there is no limit to infinity. God must be something special compared to all else ~ and the only candidate is that God is Reality itself in full.

If we want to discuss the being of light people see in NDEs... I would argue that that isn't God as believed, but rather, at best, the Creator-soul of this particular plane, not God as defined above. But it is very easy to see where the confusion lies ~ this being never seems to define itself as God in the mystical sense. Indeed, the idea of it being "God" seems to be one of belief projected by the NDEr after the fact, as a means to try and understand it using terminology that they and others may understand and comprehend.

[Laird]

God is defined as the meta-conscious universal consciousness?

A God by that definition would be recognisable as God, which is the point of the critique and my endorsement of it: Analytic Idealism denies God (on these recognisable terms) by denying that the universal consciousness is meta-conscious.

What is implied by Analytic Idealism is that God willingly experiences dissociation for the sake of exploring its own nature.

Again, on Analytic Idealism, the universal mind lacks meta-consciousness, so any "willingness" it has is not intentional in the sense we'd ordinarily understand it: it doesn't even know that it's dissociating, so it can't "submit" to that process in any meaningfully volitional sense as we'd understand it as meta-conscious agents.

all is essentially of the same substance ~ God-stuff.

No, Analytic Idealism explicitly denies the existence of any "stuff": there is only experience.

Re your other comments on God more generally: we've hashed this out previously at length (without resolution), and I don't see the point in rehashing it (given the unlikelihood of resolution on a second attempt).

I think the article reveals a problem I'm not sure Kastrup has properly tackled, namely that "Experience" - if we're talking about raw feels - don't encompass the totality of Mind.

We experience thoughts and use reasoning, but while thinking & reasoning have an associated "what it is like" experiential dimension they are distinct from sensory feels or even mental feels like Chalmers' example of the feeling of running late.

As such I don't see how an Ur-Mind that lacks meta-consciousness can have the necessary character to produce meta-consciousness. Or to put it another way, I think this shows that if we consider the Hard Problem in terms of Fodor's Mental Trinity - Subjectivity, Aboutness of Thought, Use of Reason - then Kastrup's entire philosophy at best would explain Subjectivity.

Now does any of this mean there is a God, in the sense of an entity that has thoughts / feelings / reasoning of Its own? I don't know, though I do lean in the direction that both "I am God" and I am not God" are false statements...

I think the article reveals a problem I'm not sure Kastrup has properly tackled, namely that "Experience" - if we're talking about raw feels - don't encompass the totality of Mind.

We experience thoughts and use reasoning, but while thinking & reasoning have an associated "what it is like" experiential dimension they are distinct from sensory feels or even mental feels like Chalmers' example of the feeling of running late.

As such I don't see how an Ur-Mind that lacks meta-consciousness can have the necessary character to produce meta-consciousness. Or to put it another way, I think this shows that if we consider the Hard Problem in terms of Fodor's Mental Trinity - Subjectivity, Aboutness of Thought, Use of Reason - then Kastrup's entire philosophy at best would explain Subjectivity.

Now does any of this mean there is a God, in the sense of an entity that has thoughts / feelings / reasoning of Its own? I don't know, though I do lean in the direction that both "I am God" and I am not God" are false statements...

    " I do lean in the direction that both "I am God" and I am not God" are false statements..."

Couldn't both be true from a paradoxical perspective where we are seeing two essential aspects of ourselves which form a sythesis which resolves the paradox when we experience it from that perspective.(if thast makes any sense)

" I do lean in the direction that both "I am God" and I am not God" are false statements..."

I'm wondering what you think a true statement would be in this regard?

I'm wondering what you think a true statement would be in this regard?

Honestly I'm not sure, but I feel like perhaps I am a *part* of God but not Its totality?

I do accept, however, that I don't have a hard argument for the feeling.

Honestly I'm not sure, but I feel like perhaps I am a *part* of God but not Its totality?

I do accept, however, that I don't have a hard argument for the feeling.

I imagine you could see it on a continuum where our identity in the space/time reality (or simulation perhaps) limits our ability to perseive/experience "source" or the totality and as we loosen our identity with the ego and our persona's through practices, nde's etc, we gain access to infomation and understandings of the totality.

Huston Smith  in "forgotten truth" argues for "reality being on a continuum or even a higherarchy (realer than real )
Jung also had a concept he called "ego self access" which models a developemental relationship between our ego's and the "Self" or God from which we cultivate a conduit  which can evolve over time and give us(ego) more insight and understanding of higher realities. Jung developed his psychology around this model which split from Freud and depathologised religion which he saw if properly understood and practiced, as our natural inclination toward God as well as mental health and social functioning.