Kastrup: Idea of the World

Bernardo Kastrup, PhD, is a computer scientist, who has recently completed a second doctoral degree in philosophy. He is author of Rationalist Spirituality, Why Materialism is Baloney, Dreamed Up Reality, Meaning in Absurdity, Brief Peeks Beyond, More Than Allegory, The Idea of the World, and Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics. His latest book is Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe. He has published several papers on Scientific American's website arguing for metaphysical idealism. His website is https://www.bernardokastrup.com/.

Bernardo has launched a new organization, #EssentiaFoundation, and has produced some wonderful short videos that can be viewed at https://youtu.be/Nls4o_mR-sY and https://youtu.be/wJG6yL4ncK8.

Here he addresses a series of questions related to the possibilities for different versions of postmortem survival (i.e., reincarnation, possession, mediumistic communication, etc.) in the light of metaphysical idealism. He notes that, in all cases, he expects that the mental contents of personal consciousness will remain as part of an impersonal universal mind – i.e., the one mind that sees through the eyes of all creatures. With regard to the findings of psychical research and spiritualism, his attitude – while open-minded – was one of uncertainty and doubt concerning the quality of the purported evidence.

I have to say...isn't this a case of choosing one's personal philosophy against the evidence? If the evidence is questionable shouldn't one explain exactly where and why this is the case given if it's true it can negate Analytic Idealism - or at least this particular version of it.

[Laird]

Did you watch the video, Sci? In fact, he does not allow that if the evidence were true, it would negate Analytic Idealism. He allows for the possibility that the personal self has deeper roots which are not perceivable via our "physical" senses, and which could persist (as the individual) after death.

Did you watch the video, Sci? In fact, he does not allow that if the evidence were true, it would negate Analytic Idealism. He allows for the possibility that the personal self has deeper roots which are not perceivable via our "physical" senses, and which could persist (as the individual) after death.

Not sure why you are asking if I watched the video...

Anyway, Kastrup continually challenges Mishlove's presentation of the evidence, though he says Mishlove has read much deeper into the Survival/Psi literature than he has. Kastrup continually posits the Super Psi explanation before noting at the end there can be levels of disassociation.

But throughout the video he talks about the Ground being an Eternal Ur Mind for whom choice, morality, and individuality are illusory. If the Survival evidence is real then none of those seem like they are true. For example we have the NDE life reviews which center upon the moral ramifications of choices made.

I consider myself someone who has a friendly relationship with Kastrup - I've been a reader for some of his work prior to it being published publicly for example. So I don't mean this in a harsh way that is meant to mock him.

I just think if you start with Survival evidence you cannot easily end up with the idea that there is an Ur-Mind that is the actual "person" looking through all the PoVs of illusory individuals.

[Laird]

I asked whether you'd watched it just because it seemed odd that you'd say that the survival evidence could falsify Analytical Idealism when Bernardo had explicitly said in the video that it couldn't. It seems, then, especially based on your latest response, that you simply think he's wrong about that. Fair enough. I'm sympathetic to that view, although rather than "falsify" I'd probably use a less intense phrase like maybe "make less sense under, and require more adjustments to make good sense under".

I continue to think, though, that the idea of there being only one self which at the same time is multiple selves is incoherent, and is the real deal-breaker for Analytical Idealism (which, I presume, is the updated branding of Bernardo's metaphysics).

I asked whether you'd watched it just because it seemed odd that you'd say that the survival evidence could falsify Analytical Idealism when Bernardo had explicitly said in the video that it couldn't.

He gives a throwaway line at the end, but compare this to everything that comes before this bit of peace-making between him and Mishlove ->

At the very beginning he says the consciousness that matters, that survives, is the One Mind that looks through the First Person PoVs. He even says it's equivalent to the Awareness without identity/memories.

Then he says our memories are available beyond ourselves because they are stored in the One Mind in a "layer of nature".

They then shift into some talk about being outside normal space-time, that all of history is available to the One Mind, and how this is supported by loop quantum gravity and the block universe.

This to me is clearly taking the evidence of Survival and interpreting in a way that is consistent with Kastrup's version of Analytic Idealism. If anything a persistent self that survives death means we don't reverse our supposed disassociation as alters.

Then Kastrup says morality and free choice don't exist ultimately, which again is a negation of not just what seems to be happening with mediumship and reincarnation but also the point of the life-review.

Mishlove then brings up the example of a medium who channeled a chess grandmaster and Kastrup talks about being extra-good at chess while on the tail end of a psychedelic trip. Again, the idea is that this information/skill is out there in a layer of the One Mind and being accessed by us who are alters of this Ur Mind. After this obvious appeal to Super-Psi Kastrup mentions it is hard to identify the style of a grandmaster from a single game, that the style of play only really changed with the advent of AI, etc.

Pretty clear he's skeptical of that case.

Mishlove even brings up the Chapman-Lang case, which spans decades. Kastrup brings up savants, again leading into a Super Psi explanation. Kastrup does accept that the family recognized aspects of Lang's personality, and says he can't too easily dismiss that but he is still thinking that his idea of disassociation and death erasing the boundary between the individual and the One Mind [is correct].

Mishlove brings up the etheric body, Kastrup says such a body is possible in Analytic Idealism but we cannot be sure such a thing exists...he even brings up the Flying Spaghetti Monster before [noting] Mishlove is more familiar with the Psi literature. Kastrup then says maybe it is possible that there are realms beyond our evolved physical senses to detect.

There's a whole discussion about Jung and even there Kastrup says it doesn't seem to be actual individuals in the afterlife but rather Jung interacts with partially disassociated entities that seem like historical figures. He compares the seeming souls to the talking snake and bird-man Philemon that show up in the Redbook.

Somewhere after this is where Mishlove asks if a surviving individual is possible in Analytic Idealism and Kastrup says it is but questions if we have reason to be believe such things. Mishlove mentions the long history of Survival research, including the Cross Correspondences, to which Kastrup responds by again bringing up a "field of mentation" from which mediums draw details. [He does accept the possibility of a driven individual like Myers trying to establish communication from the other side but he doesn't seem very convinced.]

At no point, unless I missed it, does Kastrup accept that the Survival Hypothesis would mean that both the after-life and reincarnation are real and thus individuals seem to exist in a temporal experience as immortal souls. This would at least suggest time is real, that the One-Many relation if true cannot dismiss the temporal individuated existence as mere illusion.

According to this interview, Kastrup thinks that only "the eternal world-eye" or "core-subjectivity" survives death:

Core-subjectivity entails no contents—no name, place of birth, profession, age, episodic memories, etc.—and no narratives of self-identity. Instead, it consists of an empty subjective space with its inherent, undifferentiated feeling of primal ‘Iness.’ You can imagine it as what it would feel like if you became completely amnesic, but still conscious, while in an ideal sensory deprivation chamber.

But Schopenhauer also acknowledged that, while alive, we all have a second mode of existence corresponding to our physical body—that is, the extrinsic appearance or representation of our individual, dissociated contents of consciousness. This second mode, of course, will not survive death. Our narrative of self-identity will be seen through, just as we see through the identity of our dream avatars upon waking up.

Therefore I think that the survival evidence refutes Analytical Idealism.

Therefore I think that the survival evidence refutes Analytical Idealism.

I quite agree. Kastrup might be correct that Materialism is indeed baloney, however...

Based on the evidence from research on NDEs, SDEs, past-life memories, reincarnation, genuine mediumistic communications from the deceased, it seems to me that Kastrup is entirely incorrect in regards to that particular hypothesis.

The ego-personality may not survive death, but its contents certainly seem to be adsorbed back into the Soul-personality, however one would describe that. And going by genuine mediumistic communications... it would seem to me that the Soul can most easily adopt the visage any of the ego-personalities it has experienced.

At no point, unless I missed it, does Kastrup accept that the Survival Hypothesis would mean that both the after-life and reincarnation are real and thus individuals seem to exist in a temporal experience as immortal souls. This would at least suggest time is real, that the One-Many relation if true cannot dismiss the temporal individuated existence as mere illusion.

Taking just one small part from this discussion, if this is true, that Bernardo does not believe in reincarnation, then I would tend to think that his ideas no longer as closely align with mine as I once thought. To me the details seems to matter less with Bernardo,  not from his POV, but mine. However, what makes him stand out for me, is that I don’t feel ‘bothered’ by these differences, I don’t feel that I feel any need to convince him that his ideas are ‘less’ than my own, or indeed, ‘more’. 

I do however, to my own detriment, feel the need to ‘question’ other intellectuals (or in fact anybody) that may have ideas about complex things, but tend to state them as if they were fact. What makes Bernardo different? Simple bias on my part? Is it simply a part he plays convincingly? I’d like to think I would feel the same unease if they were pushing my own ideas with the same sort of conviction, but maybe that wishful thinking.Perhaps that’s the reason why I am seen by some as being sympathetic to ‘conspiracy theories’ and figures on the outside of mainstream. Why do I have this drive to be a ‘thorn in the side’ of some others? I really don’t know. I’d love to find out. It’s part of what makes ‘Steve’ the unique individual that we all surely appear to be.The individual. Is it really just an appearance that exists for one short lifetime? (There is also the question of ‘time’) Fwiw, I think that we probably maintain aspects of our personalities throughout different carnations. Ultimately, our souls may be absorbed into something far beyond anything we can comprehend. For now, many people can’t (or won’t) even accept what seems obvious in many areas. 

I must return yet again to something I wrote about here before. A video that Rupert Spira made and I experienced and knew exactly what he was talking about when I became angry while talking to a good friend about Israel’s ‘evil’. It was his refusal to match my anger that took any energy that it had out of me. I feel similarly about Bernardo in this vid. Maybe it’s the respect and love that he has for Jeffrey that’s on show? I have definitely seen him bare his teeth to others. 

And for anyone reading my posts and rolling their eyes and saying that ‘it’s all about me’, yes it is. I am trying to discover my own wisdom through my journey, not impose any perceived wisdom I might think I have on others. I am very mindful that a whole lot of what I think is probably factually incorrect or otherwise misguided. Some of what I feel is probably much closer to being of ‘import’ or ‘substance’.

Doesn't viewing the ground of being as an Eternal Ur Mind-Blob (like a force or a mechanism) leave one in the exact same bind as the materialists? I.e. How can personality and personal consciousness arise or originate from something completely impersonal?

Anyway, I've come to view Kastrup's ideas as being somewhat akin to Plotinus and neo-platonism: a perfect philosopher's religion, logical, consistent, beautiful, ordered, but ultimately gutless, lacking in blood, sweat, warmth and heart. 

And since neo-platonism was the final product of the dying classical world before it passed out of existence, perhaps we can view Analytic Idealism (and other contemporary analytical spiritual conceptions) as holding a similar place in history, the last gasp(s) of a failing culture.

As I'm sure anyone reading this can guess, I'm not a philosopher, nor a particularly systematic thinker.

Anyway, I've come to view Kastrup's ideas as being somewhat akin to Plotinus and neo-platonism: a perfect philosopher's religion, logical, consistent, beautiful, ordered, but ultimately gutless, lacking in blood, sweat, warmth and heart. 

I feel quite sure that Kastrup would disagree with you, maybe the reason being that I think he displays a lot of right brain in his being, unlike plenty others.