Not to create a physical world from scratch, but to create a metaphysical model of the world that we sense (feel) and make-sense of (comprehend). — Gnomon
Notice the duality you introduce between model and world. — Wayfarer

For practical purposes, I will admit to being a subject/object dualist. But for philosophical reasons, I am a substance monist : Causation/Information is fundamental, not Consciousness/Mind, nor Particulate Matter. However, since I am not a card-carrying Idealist, I don't identify Self with God/Universe/World-Mind. And I don't feel a visceral union of Self-Awareness with Primal Consciousness. So, I can't imagine that I am the all-powerful Creator of the complex & contradictory world that I experience via my physical senses. Instead, I merely accept that my split-brain (two hemispheres, two-eyes) somehow merges separate Information Processors into the single stereoscopic perspective of a physical/mental Self.

Kastrup argues that the human mind can split into two or more "alters". But I have no personal experience with that kind of "dissociation". So, I just have to take his word for it. I have never meditated to be point of dissolution of self into the cosmos. And never took psychedelic drugs to depress my self-identifying frontal lobes into an oceanic cosmic Self. Moreover, my religious upbringing was decidedly dualistic. But, I can understand rationally that the world we perceive is actually a concept : an internal imaginary model, constructed from minuscule bits of incoming information. So, Monism & Holism are intellectual notions, not visceral feelings.

As I noted in my previous post, I came to my current Holistic/Monistic worldview from a layman's grasp of 20th century science --- especially the nebulous foundations of physical reality on the subatomic level ; and the equally-hazy open-ended origin-story of the Big Bang. I have no formal training in metaphysical Philosophy. And I never personally knew a Buddhist practitioner, or Hindu guru, or New Age hippie. Consequently, I remain an outsider from those perspectives. So, I hope you will forgive me for clinging to my innate & cultural dualistic worldview, even as I experiment with holistic ideas as a philosophical dabbler. :smile:

However, tables etc can be subject - of pictures, investigations, conversations, etc. They can also, in ordinary language, do things like blocking fire exits, squashing fruit, supporting vases, etc. Equally, a human being can stand in the object-place in a sentence, being looked at, rather than looking, being pushed, rather than pushing and in general being objectified. — Ludwig V

Thanks for the clarification, but still not quite the point I'm seeking to make. Tables, or any objects, can be subjects of a sentence, or subjects of an investigation, or subjects in a catalog. But they are not subjects of experience. So there's there's an equivocation of the word 'subject' at work there. To be a subject of discussion is not necessarily to be a subject of experience.

Humans may indeed be objectified, or treated as objects, and even legitimately so, by, for example, demographers or statisticians or epidemiologists. Or, I suppose, a gunman, if the subject in question is a combatant or an intended victim. But we generally recognise that humans are subjects of experience by use of the honorific 'you' or personal pronouns, 'he or she', rather than 'it' (and leaving aside all of the politically-correct gender neutrality business.) I say that this is because we recognise humans as beings, and we recognise, at least tacitly, a distinction between beings and objects or beings and things.

I don't believe our world-view is unified, except possibly in the world-views of philosophers. — Ludwig V

On the contrary, I take the subjective unity of experience as apodictically certain as Descartes' cogito ergo sum. When I feel a pain, or an emotion, or a sight, I don't learn this at second-hand from organs of perception of sensation. Although I agree with Buddhism that no soveriegn unchangeable self can be identified, nevertheless I accept the basic tenets of Kant's transcendental unity of apperception. Also, I think the argument can be made that something like a 'principle of unity' can be discerned in Aristotle's description of the soul - again, like my criticism of Descartes, not a 'ghost' or 'ethereal spirit' but the organising principle of De Anima (granted I've never done the studies of De Anima to back that up, but it seems to be presented in many of the secondary sources.)

The thing I find with your posts is that you're such a long way down the path of your own syncretic combination of ideas, that I often feel we talk past each other. I see merit in some of what you say, and agree with you in the rejection of mainstream physicalism and in other ways. But then I also see that you interpret many of the things we both read in ways very different from my own. There's nothing I need to 'forgive' on that account, although there are some aspects which I think - how to say - could be refined. (Although doubless that is also true for me, which is what we're doing here, I hope.)

Kastrup argues that the human mind can split into two or more "alters". But I have no personal experience with that kind of "dissociation". So, I just have to take his word for it. I have never meditated to be point of dissolution of self into the cosmos. And never took psychedelic drugs to depress my self-identifying frontal lobes into an oceanic cosmic Self. — Gnomon

These are all pretty subversive ideas from a western cultural viewpoint. Not for nothing was Timothy Leary's first book called The Politics of Ecstacy, which I read around the time of the corresponding psychedelic experiences. But I can assure you the experience of 'the unitive vision' is a real thing (a great Aussie psychedilc rock song from those years was called The Real Thing). Not that I would ever encourage consumption of hallucinogens.)

In any case, Kastrup's dissociated alters theory, despite its eye-rolling reception, has a philosophical basis, rather similar to a popularised version of Advaita Vedanta (and I listened to a dialogue between him and the resident minister at Vedanta Society of New York, Swami Sarvapriyananda.) Recall that Kastrup is obliged to say that if matter is not the fundamental reality, then that role must be assigned to mind - not my mind, or yours, but to what he describes as 'mind-at-large'. And on that note, one of my Medium essays is a friendly critique of that concept.

But I can assure you the experience of 'the unitive vision' is a real thing — Wayfarer

I don't doubt that the Cosmic Unity or Oceanic*1 experience seems real. But I remain skeptical of the philosophical/religious doctrines associated with that feeling. From a more materialistic perspective, the perceptual/conceptual distinction between Self & Other has been experimentally traced to the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC)*2 . . . . among other brain modules. Presumably, when the operations of that module are depressed by neurotoxins (e.g. alcohol), the person may begin to act "intoxicated". Which, in some cultures, has been identified as a sign of spiritual possession (inspiration). Perhaps, due to the "out of the mouths of babes" effect*2{note}.

Since I have never been intoxicated with chemical or heavenly "spirits", I have no experience with the associated "unitive vision". So, I have to take the word of others (e.g. enraptured mystics) for what it's like to become One with God. I also have no idea about how deep meditation could produce a similar physical effect. But it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy (non-self state), or a form of self-induced depression of PFC. Some Buddhist monks have claimed to be able to control various sub-conscious bodily function via deep meditation.

Therefore, while I take your word for the "reality" of the Unitary way of viewing/experiencing the Cosmic Self, for me it remains an instance of Chalmers' "what it's like" problem of consciousness/awareness. :nerd:

PS___In the final chapter of Kastrup's Science Ideated, he distinguishes between traditional Reason, and "True Logic" as a means to discriminate "between reality and deception". I suppose that means my feeble philosophical attempts to make sense of the world, according to the conventional rules of reasoning, are in vain. He criticizes Western Reason for its lack of a role for the "divine". So, he concludes : "to serve the divine requires 'a deeply religious attitude' ". In my personal experience, that attitude was labeled "Faith". Unfortunately, my sojourn with Western religious Piety makes it seem to be a case of Self-Deception. Is an attitude of open-minded Creedence necessary to experience "the Unitive Vision"? Again, I apologize for slipping back into old dualistic habits of thought. It seems that, for me, Self is the sole reality, and Other is merely a plausible hypothesis. :cool:


*1. Oceanic Feeling :
"the phrase "oceanic feeling" to refer to "a sensation of 'eternity'", a feeling of "being one with the external world as a whole", inspired by the example of Ramakrishna, among other mystics." ___Wikipedia

*2. Which part of the brain is most associated with our self concept?
Neuroscientists have believed that three brain regions are critical for self-awareness: the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex.
https://now.uiowa.edu/news/2012/08/roots-human-self-awareness
Note --- The Prefrontal Cortex provides the so-called "Executive Function" of the body. This is supposed to be "Self/Soul", who is in control of all conscious bodily functions. When that function is disrupted by toxins, or even internal neurotransmitters, it may begin to malfunction. That's why a person intoxicated from alcohol, begins to act like a young irresponsible child, and may eventually lose its grip on some semi-conscious functions, such as bladder control.

"Subject" is a complicated word. I believe that the meaning of "subject" in the sense of referring to a person, is derived from the ruler-subject relation in which "the subject" is under the dominion of the ruler. Since the activities of "the subject" here are subject to the will of the ruler, this does not provide a good base for understanding the human person as a conscious, free willing agent.

So "conscious subject" is full of hidden implications, the principle one being the physicalist idea that the person's actions, and perceptual apprehension of the world in general, are simply a response, or reaction to the world, as the person is subjected to one's environment. That is the determinist perspective, which commonly inheres within the notion of "subject". This is the alternative to representing the person and the person's perceptual apparatus as acting agent.

I'm sorry about the quality of my previous reply, it was off the cuff and not well thought out. I'll retrace my steps.

We were talking about Bernardo Kastrup's 'dissociated alters'. Kastrup's analytical idealism suggests that the ground of existence is experiential, rather than material, and that the universe is ultimately a single, universal mind. As discussed previously, there are convergences between that and schools of ancient Greek (nous in neoplatonism) and the Brahman of Vedanta (not to mention more recent schools of idealist philosophy). The model of the self as a "dissociated alter" originates from this. In this understanding, individuals are like "alters" (a term borrowed from dissociative identity disorder in psychology) of this larger consciousness. These alters are local 'dissociated' centers of awareness within a broader field of universal consciousness.

Kastrup uses this framework to account for individual subjectivity, as well as mental disorders, and even paranormal occurrences. He argues that what we consider our individual minds are in reality dissociated segments of a larger consciousness that encompasses all reality. This perspective places individual human experiences within a larger, interconnected framework of consciousness that transcends individual boundaries. It also provides an interpretive model whereby insight into the universal nature of consciousness provides the means of liberation from or transcendence of the limited ego-centred mind, which might be compared to what Richard M. Bucke called 'cosmic consciousness' in his 1901 book of that name.

Unfortunately, my sojourn with Western religious Piety makes it seem to be a case of Self-Deception. Is an attitude of open-minded Creedence necessary to experience "the Unitive Vision"? — Gnomon

The expression 'the unitive vision' is a catch-all for various diverse expressions of divine union or theosis in different cultures. As a matter of interest, the expression of an 'oceanic feeling' which you mention is associated with Freud's attempt to interpret mysticism, which however was vitiated by his overall 'scientism'.

Maybe the reason you associate that with credence and religious faith, is a consequence of the long association (or subordination!) of these ideas with ecclesiastical authority and downtown religion. (I recall a remark by British philosophical theologian Dean Inge, that were Christ to return, there would be some Christians who would be the first to crucify him again.) The case can be made that these ideas were coralled into the confines of religion as a means of social control in the first place (although that would be a massive thesis requiring voluminous argument). But I would venture that the influence of dogmatic religion in your earlier life has prejudiced you against these ideas, so that you tend to view them through those spectacles.

The key point is that popular religion cannot traffic in high-falluting ideas of cosmic consciousness and the unitive vision. 'Believe and be saved' is much nearer the mark. While I'm coming around to the understanding that those who really do practice charity, empathy, self-control and agapē really may be 'saved', I'm in complete agreement that much of what goes on in the name of religion is ignorance personified.

Some Buddhist monks have claimed to be able to control various sub-conscious bodily function via deep meditation. — Gnomon

This is quite well-documented, actually - and not only Buddhist monks, but yogis, generally. But those skills, that level of self-discipline, are practical impossibilities for most of us, they have been developed in seclusion under strict regimens and high levels of discipline. There's a lot of popular mythology about these kinds of yogic skills but its fruits are incredibly hard-won. (Hence the popularity of popular religion!)

Incidentally, here is a rather good presentation from Bernardo Kastrup, about ten years ago, differentiating his analytical idealism from panpsychism, among other matters. Again my understanding of idealist philosophy is very much convergent with what he says.

Kastrup's analytical idealism suggests that the ground of existence is experiential, rather than material, and that the universe is ultimately a single, universal mind. As discussed previously, there are convergences between that and schools of ancient Greek (nous in neoplatonism) and the Brahman of Vedanta (not to mention more recent schools of idealist philosophy). The model of the self as a "dissociated alter" originates from this. In this understanding, individuals are like "alters" (a term borrowed from dissociative identity disorder in psychology) of this larger consciousness. — Wayfarer

Nice summary of Kastrup.

The key point is that popular religion cannot traffic in high-falluting ideas of cosmic consciousness and the unitive vision. 'Believe and be saved' is much nearer the mark. — Wayfarer

This is a good point and wherever anyone says this I think, yep that's true. Unfortunately in reducing spirituality to such a simplistic or 'dumbed down' terms (the Magical Mr God) I wonder how useful/meaningful it is. It seems awfully easy to turn this into a tool of oppression and Calvinist-style retribution.

I'm while I'm coming around to the understanding that those who really do practice charity, empathy, self-control and agapē really may be 'saved' — Wayfarer

Which would include most secularists, I'd imagine. David Bentley Hart makes the point that universalism was central to the early Christian tradition. We are all 'saved', regardless.

I'm not sure what 'saved' means however, once you articulate this in more sophisticated spiritual terms. Liberated? Moksha? Any thoughts? Saved seems so binary and one suspects a more nuanced vocabulary is required.

I'm not sure what 'saved' means however, once you articulate this in more sophisticated spiritual terms. Liberated? Moksha? Any thoughts? Saved seems so binary and one suspects a more nuanced vocabulary is required. — Tom Storm

I don't know for certain, but I'm sure that 'saved' does mean something. (That's what puts me on the religious side of the ledger. I had a kind of anamnesis of my own aged about 13, although such realisations are generally impossible to convey to others.) What does it mean? I still hark back to Alan Watts' title 'the Supreme Identity' even while acknowledging Watts' shortcomings. The idea that the being realises his/her true nature as something beyond death. (There's a Princeton philosopher who wrote a book on this, Surviving Death, Mark Johnston, which I personally couldn't relate to, but it's written in the mode of analytic philosophy to appeal to that audience.)

Here's one point. The Indian traditions have a much more expansive outlook. Hinduism can accomodate Christianity more easily than vice versa, as Jesus is seen as an avatar, without detracting from His divine nature. That is anathema to doctrinal Christianity, but figures such as the Venerable Bede Griffith presented a kind of integral path synthesising Vedanta and his native Christian faith. (I saw Father Bede lecture in Sydney towards the end of his very long life.) I suppose the kind of view I'm advocating is universalist, although I don't want to fall into a kind of one-size-fits-all syncretism. But related to that is the religious cosmology common to both Hinduism and Buddhism, of the eternal caravan of rebirth (saṃsāra) and liberation from it (mokṣa, Nirvāṇa). Once aware of that, the linear cosmology of traditional Christianity seems more difficult to entertain, although the longer I live, the less certain I become.

Kastrup's analytical idealism suggests that the ground of existence is experiential, rather than material, and that the universe is ultimately a single, universal mind. — Wayfarer

That's a plausible hypothesis, and somewhat similar to my own emerging worldview, both of which are unprovable in any objective sense, and moot for any except philosophical purposes. My personal philosophical thesis is "grounded" mostly on modern scientific discoveries, instead of traditional/cultural religious doctrines. It concludes that the "ground" of physical existence is Causal, not Material, nor Experiential. As far as we can tell, 99.999% of the universe, until recently, lacked subjective Experience. Instead, most inter-communication involved exchanges of Energy, without personal meaning. Parallel to my own critique of Materialism, I can agree with Kastrup in his skeptical analysis of Panpsychism : it "implies universal consciousness, and fails to explain our own personal subjectivities". My own view is closer to Platonic Idealism, which postulated an eternal source of Abstract Forms with the Potential for both embodied Material things and Mental ideas. But he avoided anthro-morphing that unknown & unknowable abyss of Possibility, along with the myriad religious rules that arise from human interpretations of divine Will.

I too have toyed with the notion of a "Universal Mind". But, lacking direct revelation, I don't know if that Form Source is aware of anything in our world. What human science tells us is that Sentience eventually emerged, after eons of insentience. For all I know, the Source could be more like a mindless Multiverse with eternal Causal/Creative powers. Everything my biblical source-of-information told me about the Eternal Universal Deity of the Hebrews came from human philosopher/prophets, using their observation & imagination to make sense of the ever-changing material world with spooky invisible causal forces labeled "spirits". Today, we call those forces "energy", but its only scientific property is causation of material change. Unlike the biblical Holy Spirit, Energy is assumed to be random and insentient. And, except for a historical tendency toward complexity & consciousness, I have no evidence to prove otherwise.

I can understand Kastrup's analogy of "dissociated alters", but I find that abstract notion difficult to convert into an empirical "fact" of reality. Likewise, I am probably better informed than most westerners about eastern philosophy, but I'm not persuaded that the religions based on that grounding are any closer to ultimate Truth than the Judeo-Christian religions ; which are splitting like atoms into nit-picking sub-atomic interpretations of interpretations of what is and what must be. Therefore, I must remain agnostic about philosophical Universals (e.g. Divine Deities) rationalized from a few specific bits of information. :nerd:

But I would venture that the influence of dogmatic religion in your earlier life has prejudiced you against these ideas, so that you tend to view them through those spectacles. — Wayfarer

Due to years of reflection on my own back-to-the-bible decentralized priestless written-scripture-based Protestant religion, I can admit to being post-judiced against some of its essential ideas, ironically based on faith in the Roman Catholic Bible, but not its pope & priests. In Science Ideated, I was going along with Kastrup's "cunning" arguments against competing philosophical & religious belief systems. But then, the last chapter, in defense of Analytical Idealism, began to sound a lot like a faith-based religion. Jesus warned his disciples about Spiritual Blindness, and admonished them to be "wise as serpents". Now, Kastrup describes how we may break-out of the western "illusion" by means of "cunning wisdom". He says : "true logic must come disguised as reason". This notion of Parmenidean True Logic is distinguished from the presumably False Logic of Aristotle, which defined the reasoning process for western Science. Years ago, I abandoned Faith Wisdom in favor of Evidential Reason. Now he wants me to go back, to take a leap of faith into eastern wisdom???

Having dismissed the scientific worldview as illusory, he quotes Kingsley : "to serve the divine, requires 'a deeply religious attitude, the sense that it's all for the sake of something far greater than ourselves". Strangely, that "something" else is just as mysterious as the invisible immaterial deity of the ancient Hebrews, who seldom spoke publicly to ordinary men, but always through a human mouthpiece. Yet, he quotes Kingsley as advocating "a kind of cunning wisdom that can be used to trick, enchant, or persuade". Sounds like Donald Trump to me. Then, Kastrup suggests a ploy "to use pure, strict, sharp reasoning to undermine reason itself". To replace Greek reason with Hindu devotion or Buddhist hyper-subjectivity? That's when alarm bells go-off in the once-burnt mind of someone prejudiced-by-personal-experience against Faith ; not against Divinity per se, but in skepticism toward the cunning spokesmen for an absentee deity. For now, I prefer to remain Agnostic, and to let the unknown Creator speak to me through the public evidence of the knowable Creation. :halo:

I don't know. The fact you think it's a religious argument says something. I've gotten hold of the ebook and will peruse it.

Sounds like Donald Trump to me — Gnomon

:rage:

I don't know. The fact you think it's a religious argument says something. I've gotten hold of the ebook and will peruse it. — Wayfarer

Sorry, if I came on a bit strong in that previous post. All through Kastrup's book, I was nodding in agreement, since it sounded like rational philosophical arguments against non-idealist worldviews. But, in the last chapter, his arguments began to sound irrational and polemical. Kastrup himself introduced "cunning" religious arguments, intended to "undermine reason" and to "trick, enchant or persuade" unbelievers. That's the kind of argumentation that I identify with religious and political campaigns. However, I didn't have to characterize the chapter as a "religious argument", because Kastrup did it for me : "to serve the divine, requires 'a deeply religious attitude".

In that final chapter, Kastrup seems to be advocating, not just philosophical Idealism, but also religious mysticism. He was more specific about his ineffable experience of "the Other" in a previous book : The Idea of the World. As a child, my own religious experience was mostly toward the passionless rational end of the spectrum. So, I have always looked at mysticism as an outsider. I once attended a "holy roller" service with my parents, and experienced (objectively) individuals who would stand up, gesticulate, and speak in tongues (not human dialects, but angel language). That was about as close to mysticism as I came, during my impressionable years.

Years later, curiosity motivated me to deliberately investigate the "other side" of religion. I learned a lot from Evelyn Underhill's (1911) Mysticism : The Development of Humankind's Spiritual Consciousness. I suppose her background was Catholic theology, because she seemed highly educated and fluent in Latin. Like Kastrup, she was also skeptical of fake spiritualism : "Mysticism has been misunderstood . . . . has been claimed as an excuse for every kind of occultism, for dilute transcendentalism, religious or aesthetic sentimentality, and bad metaphysics." In her first chapter, she discusses various alternative worldviews. After dismissing Realism/Materialism, she says "the second great conception of being --- Idealism --- has arrived by a process of elimination at a tentative answer to this question." The question was "whence comes the persistent instinct which --- receiving no encouragement from sense experience --- apprehends and desires this unknown unity, this all-inclusive Absolute, as the only possible satisfaction of its thirst for truth."

Lacking a talent for ecstasy, I have attempted to quench my own thirst for truth by using Western philosophical methods. Which Kastrup is also very familiar with, but uses its own logic to "undermine" its rational conclusions. Throughout the years, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions have used rational arguments to justify their institutional power over the hearts & minds of men. So, they have attempted to suppress the mystical "instinct" of those who prefer to go directly to the source of all authority : the "absolute". Hence, esoteric religious trends have always been marginalized by the mainstream institutions. Yet, I have unintentionally minoritized myself, by straying from the Doctrinal mainstream, without reaching the opposite shore of Spiritualism.

Although accuses me of being a New Age mystic,my personal non-religious philosophical worldview is a sort of blend of Realism & Idealism, with no mystical aspects. I assume that there is a physical world out there sending signals to my senses. But I am aware that my internal model of that world is a figment of my own imagination and reason. Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment? :cool:

In that final chapter (of Science Ideated) Kastrup seems to be advocating, not just philosophical Idealism, but also religious mysticism. — Gnomon

Actually I do have that book. I had started it, but I was irritated by the fact that many of the chapters are simply re-published essays from his blog site and other places. It is overly polemical in many places, and I am finding that reading too much of Kastrup is tiresome even though I’m basically in agreement with him. Agree that chapter on Peter Kingsley was weak (Kingsley’s book ‘Reality’ is on my shelf awaiting attention but it has not, as it were, drawn me in.)

I suppose her background was Catholic theology, — Gnomon

Underhill is described as ‘anglo-Catholic’. There’s a stream within English Anglicanism which incorporates many elements of Catholic mysticism. Dean Inge was another.

Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment? — Gnomon

Only when we talk about it. ‘The way that can be named is not the real way’.

//

At bottom the kind of idealism I’m advocating, if indeed idealism is what it is, is based on the realisation that the observer is inextricably foundational to reality. Whereas all our scientific knowledge is objective in nature - which not a flaw or a fault by any stretch but it has existential implications which are themselves not objective in nature. I think existentialist philosophers also recognise that, but then the whole issue becomes entangled with their cumbersome literature and varieties of opinion. But it is from that objective point-of-view that the Universe appears as a collection of objects obeying physical forces, as the subject has been deliberately excluded from it at the outset. And then that initial move, that starting position, is forgotten and neglected, and becomes baked in to our worldview, as if it is an ultimate fact. It’s like being confined to a locked compound, throwing the key over the wall and then declaring there’s no way out.

When discussing the ‘unitive vision’ I found an article from Father Richard Rohr. He’s a Franciscan friar who spoke at the Science and Non-duality Conference. So he’s quite radical and hip in his approach, a lot of Catholics complain about him but I believe he’s been judged orthodox by Catholic authorities. In any case, this snippet:

Living and thinking autonomously, separately, or cut off from the Vine (John 15:1-5) or Source is what Paul means by being foolish and unspiritual (1 Corinthians 1:20-2:16). Living in union is what I like to call “knowing by participation.” Spiritual things can only be known from the inside, never as an object outside ourselves, or we utterly distort the perception. We must know subject to subject (I-Thou), not subject to object (I-it).

Separateness and objectification is unfortunately the chosen stance of the small self. From this place we have a hard time thinking paradoxically or living in unity. Instead, we more readily take one side or the other in order to feel secure. The ego frames everything in a binary, dualistic way: for me or against me, totally right or totally wrong. That is the best the small egotistical self can do, but it is not anywhere close to adequate for God’s purposes. It might be an early level of dualistic comparison or intelligence, but it is never wisdom or spiritual intelligence, which is invariably nondual. — Centre for Action and Contemplation

But then, atheists will roll their eyes and say ‘that’s just religion’ - which is objectively true, but also completely beside the point. It is about transformation to a different way of being, a different cognitive mode. And what we understand and describe as religion often, in fact usually, completely fails to understand and convey that understanding, and then becomes part of the problem.

I like Rohr but I am not sure what he means there. Guess I would need to read the full text.

As it happens, Rohr often rolls his eyes and says 'that's just religion' too.

“Christians are usually sincere and well-intentioned people until you get to any real issues of ego, control power, money, pleasure, and security. Then they tend to be pretty much like everybody else. We often given a bogus version of the Gospel, some fast-food religion, without any deep transformation of the self; and the result has been the spiritual disaster of "Christian" countries that tend to be as consumer-oriented, proud, warlike, racist, class conscious, and addictive as everybody else-and often more so, I'm afraid.”

― Richard Rohr, Breathing Underwater: Spirituality and the 12 Steps

Ain't that the truth.

Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment? — Gnomon
Only when we talk about it. ‘The way that can be named is not the real way’. — Wayfarer

Although my personal philosophical worldview assumes, as an unprovable axiom, an original universal First Cause of some kind, I don't go so far as to label that unknown Source as "The Absolute". And I am not aware of any personal benefit from Worshiping, or attempting to "unite" with that cosmic principle. I guess that's because I am lacking the political & religious gene for submissive behavior in the presence of great power. For me, The Unknown is intellectually compelling (a mystery to be solved), but not emotionally attractive (a mystical force to be worshiped or appropriated).

I am in sympathy with highbrow & holistic Eastern philosophy in general, but not with its popular & emotional religious forms. I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever. So, my dispassionate demeanor is more appropriate for Stoicism than for Mysticism. I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty. So popular rule-based Religion, and less popular euphoria-based Spiritualism, do not appeal to me. Also, mystical & arcane Kabbalah-type "secret wisdom" is not the powerful lure for me that it is for some seekers. Is there any hope for me, as an aspirant of mundane Socratic wisdom? Do I need to be "transformed" in order to escape the modern/western hell-bound herd? :nerd:

PS___Other than an antagonistic attitude toward human Reason, mystical religious practices seem to have little in common. Some use deep awareness meditation, some hallucinogenic drugs, and some physical Yoga or whirling dances to achieve union with the Divine. I am at a loss in all of those avenues.

...submissive behavior in the presence of great power.......I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever......I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty.... — Gnomon

:chin:

What, in this passage, suggests something like that?

Separateness and objectification is unfortunately the chosen stance of the small self. From this place we have a hard time thinking paradoxically or living in unity. Instead, we more readily take one side or the other in order to feel secure. The ego frames everything in a binary, dualistic way: for me or against me, totally right or totally wrong. That is the best the small egotistical self can do, but it is not anywhere close to adequate for God’s purposes. It might be an early level of dualistic comparison or intelligence, but it is never wisdom or spiritual intelligence, which is invariably nondual. — Centre for Action and Contemplation

...submissive behavior in the presence of great power.......I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever......I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty.... — Gnomon
What, in this passage, suggests something like that? — Wayfarer

I was not referring to "this passage" but to "the deeply religious attitude" in general. I don't think Kastrup is promoting any particular traditional religion in his books, but merely the philosophical worldview of Analytical Idealism. However, his last chapter uses quotes from Peter Kingsley to illustrate some of the concepts he's trying to convey in order to "break down" our rational defenses. Kingsley is described as a Sufi mystic, which emerged from within the rule-bound Islamic religious traditions. The primary belief of Sufism is that "unification with Allah" is the most important goal of an individual's life. That sounds like extremely "submissive" behavior to me, turning egoistic self-conscious rational humans into egoless mechanical robot/slaves. Is that an unfair assessment? Would I be wise to transform into a "whirling dervish"? Would I then "know the mind of God"?

Kastrup's final chapter is focused primarily on breaking down the rational defenses of the self-centered Western mind. And it uses some of the same mind-bending "tricks" that Roman Catholic theology employs to make counter-intuitive notions, like a unitary/triune deity, seem plausible to the mortal mind ; as-if viewed from a higher perspective. He deprecates Greek Logic & reasoning in favor of what he calls "true logic" --- what I might call "religious reasoning". But the path to that divine perspective seems to require --- like all "true" religions --- a leap of blind faith : "true logic must come disguised as reason ; it must entail embracing the illusion fully". He seems to be suggesting that we voluntarily blind our rational minds in order to allow a divine "illusion" to dispel a mundane mirage. As Kastrup puts it, with no sign of irony : "transcending reason through reason".

Kastrup says that "it's critical that we first bring down our defenses . . . . because the intellect is the bouncer of the heart". Yes, but the skeptical intellect is also the shield against BS. My early religious training also insisted on lowering our shields in order to allow a higher Truth to penetrate the hardened heart. Once our intellectual defenses are down, we are prepared to accept whatever irrational religious doctrine is poured into our open un-defended heads. And that is why, as I reached the "age of reason", I chose to keep my mind open, but "not so open that your brains fall out".

In the sub-chapter labeled Beyond Idealism, he describes the Western worldview as a "hoax". In place of that fake-reality, he describes the True Reality of oneness with God-Mind : "everything is one, whole, motionless". Ironically, Einstein posited a similar mathematical Singularity-universe in his eternal timeless placeless "Block Universe" thought experiment ; perhaps to illustrate the concept of Relativity by contrast to Absoluteness. As an as-if metaphor, he didn't expect us to take it as a physical Reality, but only as metaphysical Ideality --- something to think about, not to lay hands on. Kastrup goes on to assert that "it is true that reality is constructed out of belief". But that's all the more reason we should be very careful about what we believe.

He goes on to explain that, from the perspective of Idealism, "the only way for things to feel real is if consciousness tricks itself into believing that its own imagination is an external phenomenon. Consciousness's prime directive is to trick itself, for if it doesn't, nothing is left but a void". So, he seems to be saying that we must learn to distrust our own senses, our only physical contact with external reality, in order to get in touch with what Kant called the unknowable ding an sich. I suppose that's the essence of pure Idealism. Which may be why my own worldview is an impure amalgamation of pragmatic Realism and intellectual Idealism. Can I have my Ideality and eat the cake too? :wink:

But the path to that divine perspective seems to require --- like all "true" religions --- a leap of blind faith : "true logic must come disguised as reason ; it must entail embracing the illusion fully". He seems to be suggesting that we voluntarily blind our rational minds in order to allow a divine "illusion" to dispel a mundane mirage. As Kastrup puts it, with no sign of irony : "transcending reason through reason". — Gnomon

None of which has much to do with blind faith, has it? Bernardo Kastrup has completed two doctorates and written a dozen books, containing a great deal of rational argumentation. He debates against all comers, religious, non-religious, scientists, philosophers.

He also makes the point of disagreeing with Kingsley' contention that Western culture has irredemiably failed (although also noting that this claim itself might be a gambit); he's not going all in on Kingsley.

Kastrup goes on to assert that "it is true that reality is constructed out of belief". — Gnomon

Right! And then immediately says that in isolation, this is bound to be misinterpreted and dismissed.

The full quotation is:

For instance, it is true that reality is constructed out of belief; pure belief, nothing else; if there is no belief, there is nothing. But if one is to make this statement and leave it at that, one is bound to be misinterpreted and dismissed. For we will fall and die if we jump off a building, even if we believe we can fly; the world doesn’t seem at all acquiescent to our beliefs. The point here, however, isn’t that reality is constituted by personal, egoic beliefs; the foundational beliefs in question aren’t accessible through introspection; they underly not only a person, not only a species, not only all living beings, but everything. They aren’t our beliefs, but the beliefs that bring us into being in the first place. — Science Ideated

But to try and contextualise what I see as a basic issue in this conversation: there's a piece of terminology I encountered in a scholarly article in Buddhist Studies, and which is also found in phenomenology - namely, 'egological'. It's not the same as 'egocentric', which is a personality disorder. Rather it pertains to the way the ego constitutes experience of the objective world into a coherent, subjective stream of consciousness related to the ego or self; it characterises what Husserl calls 'the natural attitude'. Husserl explores how conscious acts are related to the ego, which is not an object in the world but a central point of reference for all experience and meaning. But the usual state is unawareness, or taken-for-grantedness, of the ego's role in the way we construe the world. That is very closely related to this whole discussion. The Buddhist Studies article I mentioned is about the legendarily paradoxical Buddhist text, the Diamond Sutra, and says, in part:

...the material object, the object of external sensory perception and the object of mind are all egologically constituted, where I understand the term egological to mean an oppositional, discriminatory attitude issuing from the ego-consciousness of the subject that is driven by an unconscious desire. ...We will conclude, then, that because of this egological constitution, the `seizing’ and `attachment’ to the object of cognition occur. It is this egological constitution that the Sutra admonishes to negate and avoid, i.e. it encourages us to go beyond the egological constitution of internal and external objects which `foolish, ordinary people’ habitually `seize’ upon in their everyday standpoint. — The Logic of the Diamond Sutra

What Kastrup, and Kingsley, and such arcane texts as the Diamond Sutra are pointing to, is the necessity to transcend the mentality which invests the objective domain with an inherent reality which it doesn't possess. That is not at all easy (and something in which I don't claim any accomplishment whatever, save the insight that it is something real that I don't know.) And, of course, ego will resist, as it is subversive.

That sounds like extremely "submissive" behavior to me, turning egoistic self-conscious rational humans into egoless mechanical robot/slaves. Is that an unfair assessment? Would I be wise to transform into a "whirling dervish"? Would I then "know the mind of God"? — Gnomon

"egoless mechanical robot/slaves" would indeed be an unfair assessment. Would it be wise for you to engage with Sufism? Probably not, given your background. I only know anything of Sufism through readings, and am unlikely to ever encounter a Sufi master - but I don't hold it in such negative esteem; also noting that Sufism has often been a persecuted minority within Islam, as the mystical elements of religions have often been outcast by the majority.

The way I read it, Kastrup is not saying to 'mistrust our own senses', but to recognise, as I say in the OP, the way in which the mind creates (or generates, or manifests) the world, which is then accorded an intrinsic reality which it doesn't possess (thereby overlooking the role of the subject in the process). This has been subject of comment by many more notable scholars than myself: that the Western mindset has defined itself in such a way that there's no place in it for the Western mind! Which is pretty much what Kastrup is arguing. The fact that you can only interpret any of this as 'religious dogma' seems to me, and pardon me for saying, a consequence of the views you bring to it. (The long shadow of Reformed Theology, I would hazard. )

The way I read it, Kastrup is not saying to 'mistrust our own senses', but to recognise, as I say in the OP, the way in which the mind creates (or generates, or manifests) the world, which is then accorded an intrinsic reality which it doesn't possess (thereby overlooking the role of the subject in the process). — Wayfarer

This is going too far. It is true that the way we perceive the world is conditioned by the ways in which our sentient bodies and brains are constituted. The suggestion that the mind creates the world, rather than merely interprets it seems absurd and wrong.

This is not to say it is not a logical possibility, but just that all our experience speaks against it. It is a logical possibility, a mere logical possibility with nothing cogent to support it as far as i can tell. Why should we believe something simply on the basis that it an imaginable possibility? That we should believe things just because they seem intuitively right to us is exactly the mindset of conspiracy theorists.

Thanks for your comments. I don't want to repeat the entire OP, other than to refer to this paragraph:

there is no need for me to deny that the Universe is real independently of your mind or mine, or of any specific, individual mind. Put another way, it is empirically true that the Universe exists independently of any particular mind. But what we know of its existence is inextricably bound by and to the mind we have, and so, in that sense, reality is not straightforwardly objective. It is not solely constituted by objects and their relations. Reality has an inextricably mental aspect, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis. Whatever experience we have or knowledge we possess, it always occurs to a subject — a subject which only ever appears as us, as subject, not to us, as object. — Wayfarer

And I maintain that this is basically in conformity with Kant's philosophy, insofar as Kant maintained that empirical realism and transcendental idealism are not in conflict (per these excerpts.)

And I maintain that this is basically in conformity with Kant's philosophy, insofar as Kant maintained that empirical realism and transcendental idealism are not in conflict (per these excerpts.) — Wayfarer

So, do you believe that if there were no minds in existence there would be no reality or actuality? I don't think Kant believed that— I think he would say the in itself would nonetheless be.

As I understand the reason that empirical reality and transcendental ideality are compatible is because the transcendental can never be more than ideal, that is can never be more than ideas, for us.

The very idea that the empirical is real, and thus more than merely mental or ideal, speaks against the notion that reality is mind-constructed, rather than merely brain/body-interpreted.

So, do you believe that if there were no minds in existence there would be no reality or actuality? — Janus

The idea that things ‘go out of existence’ when not perceived, is simply their ‘imagined non-existence’. In reality, the supposed ‘unperceived object’ neither exists nor does not exist. Nothing whatever can be said about it. — Wayfarer

As I understand the reason that empirical reality and transcendental ideality are compatible is because the transcendental can never be more than ideal, that is can never be more than ideas, for us. — Janus

If by that you mean ‘the transcendental’ is only ever a product of the mind, then I believe that is mistaken. It is better characterized as that which must be the case in order for us to think and reason as we do.

I meant that the transcendental can only ever be discursively "known" via ideas (the provenances or aptness of which are indeterminable). And those ideas being essentially dualistic, do not really constitute a knowing, but merely a conceiving, and a blind conceiving at that.

So, do you believe that if there were no minds in existence there would be no reality or actuality? I don't think Kant believed that— I think he would say the in itself would nonetheless be. — Janus

Well, accept it or not, he does actually say it:

If I removed the thinking subject then the whole corporeal world would have to go away, since this world is nothing but the appearance in sensibility of, and a kind of presentations of, ourselves as subject. — Critique of Pure Reason, A383

Bryan Magee says:

The point is, the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding, which apprehends all the objects of empirical knowledge within it as being in some part of that space and at some part of that time: and this is as true of the earth before there was life as it is of the pen I am now holding a few inches in front of my face and seeing slightly out of focus as it moves across the paper. This, incidentally, illustrates a difficulty in the way of understanding which transcendental idealism has permanently to contend with: the assumptions of 'the inborn realism which arises from the original disposition of the intellect' enter unawares into the way in which the statements of transcendental idealism are understood, so that these statements appear faulty in ways in which, properly understood, they are not. ...We have to raise almost impossibly deep levels of presupposition in our own thinking and imagination to the level of self-consciousness before we are able to achieve a critical awareness of all our realistic assumptions, and thus achieve an understanding of transcendental idealism which is untainted by them. This, of course, is one of the explanations for the almost unfathomably deep counterintuitiveness of transcendental idealism, and also for the general notion of 'depth' with which people associate Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy. — Schopenhauer's Philosophy, p107

This is going too far. It is true that the way we perceive the world is conditioned by the ways in which our sentient bodies and brains are constituted. The suggestion that the mind creates the world, rather than merely interprets it seems absurd and wrong. — Janus

The primary problem with this statement is your use of "interprets". What is present to the mind, is just a representation which is created by the mind. The thing represented is supposed to be "the independent world". But the relationship between a representation and the thing represented cannot be called an "interpretation". An "interpretation" would be an explanation of the representation, which may attempt to describe that relation between the representation and the thing represented. But we cannot truthfully say that the relation between the conscious representation and the supposed independent world is anything like an interpretation.

Furthermore, if we proceed to a deeper level in our analysis, and attempt a true interpretation of that relation between the representation and the thing represented, we find a secondary problem. If we look at what is actually represented by the conscious mind, when it creates its representation which is supposed to be a representation of the independent world, we see that what is represented is just the information which the subconscious part of the mind, along with the sense organs and neurological system, provide to it. Now we have a distinction between the conscious part of the mind which creates what we know as the representation, and subconscious part (the neurological system), which creates the raw material which is being represented by the conscious representation.

Therefore it is really correct, and not at all absurd or wrong, to say that the mind creates the world, even though this may seem extremely counter intuitive to you. The conscious mind creates a representation of "the independent world", but what is actually represented here is just something created by the subconscious part of the mind. The analysis I provided above shows that the conscious mind creates something which is a representation of what is supposed to be "the independent world". However, what that representation really represents is the information provided to it by the subconscious part of the mind, and this part of the mind produces that information through the various acts of sensation. So what is really represented by the conscious mind's representation, which is claimed to be "the independent world", is just something created by the subconscious part of the mind.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/897768 :fire:

If I removed the thinking subject then the whole corporeal world would have to go away, since this world is nothing but the appearance in sensibility of, and a kind of presentations of, ourselves as subject. — Critique of Pure Reason, A383

I read that as making the point, since the empirical world appears to us, that without us it would not appear (that is it would not appear to us but it would to other animals). It is not to say that that which appears to us, as distinct from its appearances to us, would not exist without us.

No, representing the world to ourselves just is interpreting it. It's a precognitive process, though, not a deliberate act.

No, representing the world to ourselves just is interpreting it. — Janus

To "interpret" is to bring out, or explain the meaning of. To "represent" is to stand for, signify, or correspond to. In no sense are the two the same thing. As I explained, one can interpret a representation, but a representation is not an interpretation. This is because representation is meaning without the requirement of understanding, whereas interpretation requires understanding.

So, in relation to your prior statement, we can only interpret meaning, which we find in the representation of the world. We never actually interpret the supposed independent world, only the representation of it. Therefore the world which we interpret is just an artificial representation, a creation. And when we analyze the representation process, we find that the representation is always a representation of a further representation, in what appears to imply an infinite regress. This is why skepticism cannot be ruled out.