Freya Mathews: For Love of Matter & the Dao of Civilization

In this thought-provoking conversation with Freya Mathews, we delved into the depths of panpsychism, nature, and eco-philosophy. Freya illuminated the interconnectedness of these ideas, emphasizing how our current ecological crisis demands a profound reevaluation of the very assumptions that gave rise to modernity.

Panpsychism, the view that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, became a central theme. Freya articulated how recognizing the sentience within all things challenges the human-centric perspective that has led to environmental exploitation. She passionately argued that a shift towards an eco-philosophy rooted in panpsychism can help us cultivate a more respectful and reciprocal relationship with the natural world.

As we explored these concepts, it became clear that responding to our ecological challenges requires more than just surface-level solutions. Freya urged us to rethink our place in the world, to question the Cartesian dualism that separates mind from matter, and to embrace a holistic understanding of existence. In this enlightening conversation, Freya Matthews inspired a call to action—to not only address the symptoms of our environmental crisis but to fundamentally transform our worldview, recognizing the intrinsic value and agency of all life forms on this planet.

Freya Mathews is Emeritus Professor of Environmental Philosophy at Latrobe University.

Her books include The Ecological Self (1991, 2021), Ecology and Democracy (editor) (1996), For Love of Matter: a Contemporary Panpsychism(2003), Journey to the Source of the Merri (2003), Reinhabiting Reality: towards a Recovery of Culture(2005), Ardea: a philosophical novella (2016), Without Animals Life is not Worth Living (2016) and The Dao of Civilization: a Letter to China (2023).

She is the author of over a hundred essays, chapters and articles in the area of ecological philosophy. Her current special interests are in ecological civilization; indigenous (Australian and Chinese) perspectives on “regenerativity” and how these perspectives may be adapted to the context of contemporary global society; panpsychism and the critique of the metaphysics of modernity; and conservation ethics. In addition to her research activities she helps to care for a private conservation reserve in northern Victoria. She is a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities.

Panpsychism seems to me to be fundamentally mistaken, in that it claims that all physical things in the universe are conscious and sentient (or have a strong element or property of consciousness), meaning that consciousness is tied to physicality and that consciousness is nothing but a property of material things.

We know that panpsychism is wrong because the Hard Problem (and the presence of a boatload of empirical evidence of certain paranormal phenomena) show that consciousness, subjective awareness, perception and the other aspects of consciousness are fundamentally immaterial.

Panpsychism seems to me to be fundamentally mistaken, in that it claims that all physical things in the universe are conscious and sentient (or have a strong element or property of consciousness), meaning that consciousness is tied to physicality and that consciousness is nothing but a property of material things.

We know that panpsychism is wrong because the Hard Problem (and the presence of a boatload of empirical evidence of certain paranormal phenomena) show that consciousness, subjective awareness, perception and the other aspects of consciousness are fundamentally immaterial.

Panpsychism - in the sense that consciousness is in "physical" entities (matter, space, fields, etc) - may be wrong, but it's not because of the Hard Problem.

The Hard Problem in itself, as per the IEP entry, just notes that a third person investigation of reality cannot explain aspects of first person experience.

Survival is just the continuation of the Person after their biological embodiment ceases, why there can be Panpsychics like Eric Weiss who was an advocate for Survival evidence. You could argue any Process Theologian who believes in an afterlife is also a Panpsychist.

For myself, I'd say that if someone is going to say Mind is in the Physical they should first explain to me what the "Physical" is as I genuinely don't think the concept makes sense [unless we're talking about the subject of a metaphysically neutral physics]. I understand, hypothetically, something can be outside all experience but only known by experience...but why should I believe such stuff exists?