Dualism or idealist monism as the best model for survival after death data

I don't think that is a completely fair criticism of Idealism.

Maybe not but rather than say that, why not address the point. If the whole of life was wiped out on earth, would the flag still be in the moon. Indeed would the moon still be in the 'sky' ?

Maybe not but rather than say that, why not address the point. If the whole of life was wiped out on earth, would the flag still be in the moon. Indeed would the moon still be in the 'sky' ?

Yes and Yes. I think Idealism conceives of a variety of types of consciousness that cooperate. Some parts of this greater consciousness (if you like) are devoted to maintaining a simulation of what we call physical reality. As an example, imagine observing a glass of water about to fall off the table. Your mind can perform a simulation of what is about to happen (but not as accurate as the parts of greater consciousness I am discussing).

However, let me repeat - I hate this type of incredibly convoluted way of looking at things. Maybe physics itself will ultimately be seen to be stuffed with its own set of convoluted ideas.

Yes and Yes. I think Idealism conceives of a variety of types of consciousness that cooperate. Some parts of this greater consciousness (if you like) are devoted to maintaining a simulation of what we call physical reality. As an example, imagine observing a glass of water about to fall off the table. Your mind can perform a simulation of what is about to happen (but not as accurate as the parts of greater consciousness I am discussing.

However, let me repeat - I hate this type of incredibly convoluted way of looking at things. Maybe physics itself will ultimately be seen to be stuffed with its own set of convoluted ideas.

So you wouldn't be an an objective idealist. More of a Platonic idealist.

[Ninshub]

Maybe not but rather than say that, why not address the point. If the whole of life was wiped out on earth, would the flag still be in the moon. Indeed would the moon still be in the 'sky' ?

Kastrup would also say yes, from my understanding. The world exists outside of finite minds. That's why both him and Rupert Spira take pains to say that the charge of solipsism against idealism (or what they advance as such) is false. But the earth and moon exist through and are made of universal mind or consciousness - the earth and the moon are part of the "activity of consciousness" as Spira would say.

This is raised here at 24:30.

[Ninshub]

In this thread we're contrsting idealism as a form of monism against dualism. But there's also the question of idealism of realism.

I find it interesting that in this video Rupert Spira (who again makes the point that idealism is not solipsism) describes non-duality as "both idealism and realism" (like Plato, Plotinus, Kant and others).



Meanwhile Spira's own spiritual teacher, non-dual teacher Francis Lucille (who himself was the student of non-dual teacher Jean Klein in the 70s), expresses that non-duality is beyond either idealism or realism, and is "the best ontology for science" (there's one reality).

That's why both him and Rupert Spira take pains to say that the charge of solipsism against idealism (or what they advance as such) is false.

Solipsism is beyond me, Ian, makes no sense at all.

But the earth and moon exist through and are made of universal mind or consciousness - the earth and the moon are part of the "activity of consciousness" as Spira would say.

So is Kastrup a Platonic idealist ?

[Ninshub]

So is Kastrup a Platonic idealist ?

I have no clue, we'd have to ask him!

I have no clue, we'd have to ask him!

Lol ! I must confess I don't tend to listen to his musings much. I'm not doubting his intellect and he is very likeable but I really think we can learn more from experience than philosophy, although I'm not downplaying the role of it, of course. 

We can talk to more and more people who have really died (yes sceptics, really) and we can find out from them what happens and how things are, and this is unique historically (by and large). We won't see it, (well not in our present form)  but in another hundred years, enough really articulate people will have been revived to tell the tale whereby we can surely put to bed some of these arguments. (Well, Paul and Malf's anyway)

His name is Misha Rogov and it appears to be some sort of blog. (October 4, 2021). I'm understanding that he's not criticizing Kastrup for his idealism, but for his brand of it, which he considers terribly wrong, the wrongness seeming to being connected to this "instinctive" aspect I was myself noting.

I like Misha and his inclusion of personal survival and transcendent free will (beliefs partly based on his own NDE), but I fear I don't really understand what he is saying exactly. 

I think he is familiar with an argument made in other places - that to start the argument for Idealism with the conscious subject, then to say under Absolute Idealism that said subject is mere illusion, is sort of like starting with a mathematical proof and then concluding that the first step of the proof is wrong.

In fact, I would venture that Absolute Idealism - which I believe includes Kastrup's formulation - is just wrong for this reason along with the sort of arguments Titus Rivas has given regarding the impossibility of a singular subject (the Ur-Mind aka Mind at Large) to hold competing streams of individual first person consciousness at the same time.

Of course, Absolute Idealism being wrong doesn't mean every conception of Idealism is false, just as Cartesian Dualism being wrong doesn't make all forms of Dualism false.

[Ninshub]

Confusing, isn't it? That's just about where I'm at!

In fact, I would venture that Absolute Idealism - which I believe includes Kastrup's formulation - is just wrong for this reason along with the sort of arguments Titus Rivas has given regarding the impossibility of a singular subject (the Ur-Mind aka Mind at Large) to hold competing streams of individual first person consciousness at the same time.

Regarding this point, though, I don't see the problem myself. Why wouldn't God's Mind be able to encompass an infinity of different streams? I see that not being possible for ourselves, which maybe explains why it feels impossible from what we are able to conceive, but I can't theoretically or speculatively see what that wouldn't be the case for a Source.