Perennial Idealism: A Mystical Solution to the Mind-Body Problem

Perennial Idealism: A Mystical Solution to the Mind-Body Problem

Miri Albahari

In what he terms the “Hegelian synthesis argument” — named broadly after Hegel’s dialectical method of identifying thesis, antith-esis and problem-avoiding synthesis — David Chalmers (2016a) has recently traced the evolution of the mind-body dialectic through vari-ants of materialism, dualism and panpsychism. The dialectic is head-ing in a direction that places consciousness ever closer to the ground of all being. The most recent position is a brand of panpsychism called “cosmopsychism” that takes the entire externally specified cosmos to be an internally conscious subject. This paper will propose a radical new successor to cosmopsychism that I call “Perennial Idealism”. In outlining its preliminary dialectic, I will not focus on the details of ma-terialism, dualism and panpsychism but will instead identify their key sticking points, with a view to arguing that Perennial Idealism over-comes them. I suggest that the most promising way forward in the mind-body problem — navigating around all the problems to date — is to renounce the pervasive panpsychist supposition that fundamental consciousness must belong to a subject. This extends the reach and scope of consciousness to ground not merely to the inner nature of the cosmos, but everything we take to be the world, with its subjects and objects

For if the Perennial Philosophy were both true and experientially accessible, we would expect to en-counter multiple internally consistent reports of such experience. This potentially mutual reinforcement of metaphysic and converging data from mystics thus provides further incentive to explore Perennial Ide-alism as a natural successor to cosmopsychism.The position is, of course, not without its challenges, two of which can be identified as primary: one positive and one negative. The positive challenge is to show how the world as it appears to us, with its tables, trees, atoms and people, could conceivably be construed as a manifestation from the ground of aperspectival and unconditioned consciousness. Constructing this in detail will be a substantial meta-physical project, which this paper will begin to advance. The physical world and its subjects will be re-cast as a network of co-arising subjects, which turn out to be dispositional perspectives framed by configurations of cognitive and sensory imagery.5 What is promising about this idealist avenue is that the brute facts to be built upon are in part observable, not straddling cracks that mysteriously bridge conscious minds with a non-conscious physical substrate. There is no hard problem or interaction/exclusion problem. And as our minds will harbour consciousness in virtue of the aperspectival ground rather than other subjects, combination and decombination problems will be averted. The position also promises to accommodate both common sense and scientific data. There is a way to account for the truth of ‘the table is there when we leave the room’ in terms of co-arising subjects,whilst not ignoring discoveries about atoms. Unlike Berkeley or the British Idealists, Perennial Idealism aims to do this without appeal to an overarching conscious observer such as God or the Absolute.

The negative challenge is to avoid a serious objection that threat-ens to undermine the position before it gets off the ground. For the exercise of reconstructing our metaphysic from the words of mystics,in a way that does not cherry-pick only what looks kosher, reveals a deep new fault-line. I refer to this as “the problem of the one and the many”.6 The problem in fact goes back to ancient times, facing such philosophers as Parmenides and Plotinus, and subsequently Schelling and perhaps his forerunner Spinoza. If the ground, “the One”, is as the mystics say it is — completely unconditioned by such parameters as space, time, imagery and hence plurality — how then can it coher-ently interface with what we take to be our world, or its imagistic ap-pearance thereof with its many apparent subjects and objects? Con-ceding the independent reality of a multi-faceted world, even if that world turns out to be complexes of imagery-bound subjects, enforces a boundary between it and the One, undoing the purely uncondi-tioned status of a ground that permits no such boundary. The alterna-tive is austere existence monism, by which the world as we appear to know it does not exist — only the ground does. This would not only defeat the preceding explanation of the world in terms of imagery-bound subjects, but also deny what seems to be the obvious reality of people having experiences. I will suggest a way around the problem that requires a radical rethinking of how we construe reality, imply-ing an unconventional grounding relation between unconditioned consciousness and subjects. The proposed solution takes its cue from mystico-philosophical writings of established figures from within the Advaita Vedānta tradition.

Perennial Idealism: A Mystical Solution to the Mind-Body Problem

Miri Albahari

"For if the Perennial Philosophy were both true and experientially accessible, we would expect to encounter multiple internally consistent reports of such experience. This potentially mutual reinforcement of metaphysic and converging data from mystics thus provides further incentive to explore Perennial Idealism as a natural successor to cosmopsychism."

Albahari's paper on "Perennial Idealism" is as usual for academic philosophical writings, hard to follow with much dense convoluted logic and obscure esoteric terminology. One thing stands out: apparently and not unexpectedly he ignores the great body of actual relevant paranormal empirical evidence that has accumulated in areas like NDEs, mediumistic communications, and reincarnation memories. This is the large body of verified reports of at least limited but actual observations and experiences of the nature of the afterlife, reincarnation, etc.

Since this consists of a large amount of at least significantly internally consistent reports, he supposedly should have considered it in his assessment. But he didn't, presumably because of the academic taboo attached to anything paranormal. 

I would like to know what he would think, if he would just consider this actual empirical evidence. My own opinion is that the empirical paranormal evidence doesn't correlate well with this proposed philosophy.

It seems that the only evidence he considers valid is the testimony of various mystics in their accounts of instances of "cosmic consciousness" and other transformative experiences and visions. These are certainly a part of the evidence, but in my opinion the lesser part.

Albahari's paper on "Perennial Idealism" is as usual for academic philosophical writings, hard to follow with much dense convoluted logic and obscure esoteric terminology. One thing stands out: apparently and not unexpectedly he ignores the great body of actual relevant paranormal empirical evidence that has accumulated in areas like NDEs, mediumistic communications, and reincarnation memories. This is the large body of verified reports of at least limited but actual observations and experiences of the nature of the afterlife, reincarnation, etc.

Since this consists of a large amount of at least significantly internally consistent reports, he supposedly should have considered it in his assessment. But he didn't, presumably because of the academic taboo attached to anything paranormal. 

I would like to know what he would think, if he would just consider this actual empirical evidence. My own opinion is that the empirical paranormal evidence doesn't correlate well with this proposed philosophy.

It seems that the only evidence he considers valid is the testimony of various mystics in their accounts of instances of "cosmic consciousness" and other transformative experiences and visions. These are certainly a part of the evidence, but in my opinion the lesser part.

1. "She"

2. How would the parapsychological data change what the paper is about? Many mystics believed in Psi, souls, reincarnation, etc...

Albahari's paper on "Perennial Idealism" is as usual for academic philosophical writings, hard to follow with much dense convoluted logic and obscure esoteric terminology. One thing stands out: apparently and not unexpectedly he ignores the great body of actual relevant paranormal empirical evidence that has accumulated in areas like NDEs, mediumistic communications, and reincarnation memories.

I found the premise of the article rooted in old familiar ground.  While having to refresh my memory, the concepts forwarded by Huxley and Leibniz were very popular and influential in the late '60s, when the current views on consciousness were brewed.

How does one have empirical evidence about subjective experience, other than long-term change in the subject's character?  There is no external outcomes present in the environment to measure, when regarding internal perception as understood in science.

1. "She"

2. How would the parapsychological data change what the paper is about? Many mystics believed in Psi, souls, reincarnation, etc...

1. Oops

2. It's not clear to me how any form of idealism will predict the phenomenon of separation of the mind/soul as a mobile center of consciousness from the physical body, observing the physical body, doctors and other surroundings from an elevated position in the room, visiting another realm via some means of transportation sometimes experienced as a "tunnel", communicating with advanced beings and also deceased loved ones, and then returning to re-inhabit the physical body/brain. This deep NDE phenomenon which is sometimes veridical seems to me would much more directly and readily be predicted by interactive dualism. The same seems to apply to memories of past lives including a process of entering the fetus and leaving the body (memories of which many features have been verified), and memories of a between lives period of making choices. 

Aside from all this, just because many mystics know that psi, souls and reincarnation are real doesn't mean that they are able to plausibly explain how these phenomena somehow derive from, are compatible with or can be reconciled with their glimpses of a higher reality, cosmic consciousness experiences, etc. Other mystics may not accept some of these phenomena as real, perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance.

It's not clear to me how any form of idealism will predict the phenomenon of separation of the mind/soul as a mobile center of consciousness from the physical body, observing the physical body, doctors and other surroundings from an elevated position in the room, visiting another realm via some means of transportation sometimes experienced as a "tunnel", communicating with advanced beings and also deceased loved ones, and then returning to re-inhabit the physical body/brain. This deep NDE phenomenon which is sometimes veridical seems to me would much more directly and readily be predicted by interactive dualism. The same seems to apply to memories of past lives including a process of entering the fetus and leaving the body (memories of which many features have been verified), and memories of a between lives period of making choices. 

Aside from all this, just because many mystics know that psi, souls and reincarnation are real doesn't mean that they are able to plausibly explain how these phenomena somehow derive from, are compatible with or can be reconciled with their glimpses of a higher reality, cosmic consciousness experiences, etc. Other mystics may not accept some of these phenomena as real, perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Beyond Physicalism, released by Esalen, has a variety of Idealist possibilities that seek to reconcile parapsychogical data with the rest of the sciences. [NDEs, mediumship, reincarnation, etc.]

Interactive Dualism would leave open the question of how the two substances interact. It would also leave open the question of how we got everything in consciousness and everything we perceive as the physical world.

So even [if] we had the souls of the dead just hanging out with the living, people would still wonder how the entirety of Reality fits together. This is why people like the Neo-Platonists and Vedic sages who at the least claimed to have experienced all sorts of parapsychological phenomenon continued to ponder how to reconcile the realm of souls and the realm of the body.

This isn't to say Perennial Idealism is correct. Like most metaphysics it is better than the Something from Nothing nonsense of the Physicalist Faith, but then it runs into problems of its own. Here, namely, how does Pure Awareness, a consciousness without perspective, create all the subjects who have their own private experiences? The idea is that this Awareness is actually a Void of Infinite Potential that gets actualized, but while this works for nonconscious stuff this seems less explanatory for the emergence of experiencing subjects.

One possibility is that all Subjects have no need to arise because they were always Here, that each perspective existing now has always existed. This would suggest souls are not just immortal but arguably Eternal.

Beyond Physicalism, released by Esalen, has a variety of Idealist possibilities that seek to reconcile parapsychogical data with the rest of the sciences. [NDEs, mediumship, reincarnation, etc.]

Interactive Dualism would leave open the question of how the two substances interact. It would also leave open the question of how we got everything in consciousness and everything we perceive as the physical world.

So even [if] we had the souls of the dead just hanging out with the living, people would still wonder how the entirety of Reality fits together. This is why people like the Neo-Platonists and Vedic sages who at the least claimed to have experienced all sorts of parapsychological phenomenon continued to ponder how to reconcile the realm of souls and the realm of the body.

This isn't to say Perennial Idealism is correct. Like most metaphysics it is better than the Something from Nothing nonsense of the Physicalist Faith, but then it runs into problems of its own. Here, namely, how does Pure Awareness, a consciousness without perspective, create all the subjects who have their own private experiences? The idea is that this Awareness is actually a Void of Infinite Potential that gets actualized, but while this works for nonconscious stuff this seems less explanatory for the emergence of experiencing subjects.

One possibility is that all Subjects have no need to arise because they were always Here, that each perspective existing now has always existed. This would suggest souls are not just immortal but arguably Eternal.

There are problems with all theories and philosophies of the nature of the mind-body complex. Including Perennial Idealism as you mention. So it's no surprise that there is the famous Interaction Problem with Dualism. There are also always ingenious philosophical rejoinders to all these problems. That's why philosophical debates are endless. My view is that the empirical evidence is paramount and the theory that explains this data in the least complicated way is most likely correct. This is of course the Occam's Razor principle. It's not an invariable law, just a principle that from experience points to the most likely explanation. It seems to me Interactive Dualism is the most direct and simple explanation of the data.     

As to Idealism. Objective Idealism is the only form of Idealism that seems to me to be reasonably compatible with the paranormal data, without a lot of special rationalizations. This posits "....the existence of a separate objective consciousness which exists before and, in some sense, independently of human consciousness, thereby bringing about the existence of objects independently of human minds" (Wiki). This would need perhaps to be combined with the proviso that this is reality as experienced, but at the ultimate underlying level of existence an all-pervading consciousness is the ground or true nature of all of reality including conscious beings This all-pervading consciousness would have various names including God or the mind of God.

There are problems with all theories and philosophies of the nature of the mind-body complex. Including Perennial Idealism as you mention. So it's no surprise that there is the famous Interaction Problem with Dualism. There are also always ingenious philosophical rejoinders to all these problems. That's why philosophical debates are endless. My view is that the empirical evidence is paramount and the theory that explains this data in the least complicated way is most likely correct. This is of course the Occam's Razor principle. It's not an invariable law, just a principle that from experience points to the most likely explanation. It seems to me Interactive Dualism is the most direct and simple explanation of the data.     

As to Idealism. Objective Idealism is the only form of Idealism that seems to me to be reasonably compatible with the paranormal data, without a lot of special rationalizations. This posits "....the existence of a separate objective consciousness which exists before and, in some sense, independently of human consciousness, thereby bringing about the existence of objects independently of human minds" (Wiki). This would need perhaps to be combined with the proviso that this is reality as experienced, but at the ultimate underlying level of existence an all-pervading consciousness is the ground or true nature of all of reality including conscious beings This all-pervading consciousness would have various names including God or the mind of God.

What is the ingenious philosophical rejoinder to the Interaction Problem?

How does one substance end up being transmitted/filtered by a completely different substance?

Invoking God, unless there's some underlying argument as to why, seems like an end run around the problem? No one can seem to explain how subjects with their own perspectives end up coming from matter, matter w/ bits of consciousness, a single consciousness perspective, consciousness without perspective, and so on. The question is why is it impossible to believe that every soul that exists now has always existed - not saying that is correct either but it is interesting [almost] no one - even theists - seem to go in this direction. (IIRC the Neo-Platonists, following Plato himself, are among the few to entertain the idea, with some modern day occult-y types).

On the flip side, how does one account for the tight binding between the brain and mind? Obviously Physicalism/Materialism is wrong, but the relationship between any argued for soul and the existent observable body seems - as noted in Irreducible Mind - more like salt dissolved into water than just a TV receiving signals.

What is the ingenious philosophical rejoinder to the Interaction Problem?

How does one substance end up being transmitted/filtered by a completely different substance?

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"... this objection to interactionism (the so-called "interaction problem") rests on a ‘billiard ball’ picture of causation: if all causation is by impact, how can the material and the immaterial impact upon each other? But if causation is either by a more ethereal force or energy or only a matter of constant conjunction, there would appear to be no problem in principle with the idea of interaction of mind and body."

I would add, consider the transceiver analogy: a brain is the receiver/transmitter of a very refined energy which is the mind. This is a rough analogy: microwaves and matter. Why can't mind and matter be fundamentally different substances yet still have subtle interactions with each other that manifest the mind-body relationship? Interactive dualism.

Like microwave signals easily passing through most ordinary matter but being detected and decoded by specifically designed antennae and other electronic devices, the "mind signal" apparently passes through most ordinary matter, but is received and decoded and manifests physically through the special neural matter of the brain.

Another of several other answers in the Encyclopedia:  "...quantum indeterminacy manifests itself directly at a high level, when acts of observation collapse the wave function, suggesting that the mind may play a direct role in affecting the state of the world (Hodgson 1988; Stapp 1993).

I notice that you haven't engaged with my argument from Occam's Razor.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

I would add, consider the transceiver analogy: a brain is the receiver/transmitter of a very refined energy which is the mind. This is a rough analogy: microwaves and matter. Why can't mind and matter be fundamentally different substances yet still have subtle interactions with each other that manifest the mind-body relationship? Interactive dualism.

Like microwave signals easily passing through most ordinary matter but being detected and decoded by specifically designed antennae and other electronic devices, the "mind signal" apparently passes through most ordinary matter, but is received and decoded and manifests physically through the special neural matter of the brain.

Another of several other answers in the Encyclopedia:  "...quantum indeterminacy manifests itself directly at a high level, when acts of observation collapse the wave function, suggesting that the mind may play a direct role in affecting the state of the world (Hodgson 1988; Stapp 1993).

Whoever wrote that article did a bad job. The issue is not billiard ball causation, the issue is that two fundamentally distinct types of substance have to inexplicably "touch"/'influence" each other. [This is another problem for Physicalism since Laws of Nature and everything under their purview are distinct kinds of entities.]

In fact the ideas in the article suggests there are not, in fact, two fundamentally different substances but some underlying overlap between the physical and spiritual.

Or, at the least, there is a third grade of substance that has some mental/spiritual aspect and some physical aspect in order to bridge the causal gap between them. But then why can't both matter and mentality be born of this third grade?

As for the radio signal idea, I don't think this can fully explain the relationship between mind and brain, which is why even the authors of Irreducible Mind began to think of the mind/brain relation as one of water and salt merged together.

I notice that you haven't engaged with my argument from Occam's Razor.

Ah sorry -> I don't think Dualism is a conclusion from Occam's Razor, as it makes more sense to have a singular substance rather than two. Having two substances is a needless multiplication when a singular substance - whether that is Mind, Panpsychic Matter, or some Neutral Monist stuff - suffices.

This is not to say there aren't bodies and souls, just that at the level of the Ground of Being they are made up of the same stuff. I don't know if it really matters in the practical sense but I do think remaining attached to Interactive Dualism will only hold parapsychology back.