Kastrup's analytic approach belongs to the inferior domain of consciousness known in Shaivism as Apara-Shakti. It is the realm of objects, logic, mathematics, reification and other left-hemispheric limitations. That is, Maya. Because he has explicitly stated his epistemology wholly derives around the post-hoc logic analyses of various objects (words). It is as if he thinks words, by themselves, are "ontically primitive" - independent of Being. So, he rejects revelations and altered states of consciousness as ways of reaching conclusions, instead hyper-focusing on the post-hoc analyses of linguistic objects.
Indeed, he is also a represenationalist and computationalist by way of his argument that dissociation is necessarily a "logic based process", where the word logic means mere "symbol crunching" that the enactivists reject. You can find these claims in his 2019 book "The idea of the world", specifically, on pages 109-112.
Moreover, Kastrup heavily relies on Karl Friston's predictive processing theories, which are inherently computationalist and staunchly physicalist from the start.
That he is also an employee of ASML Inc., per his LinkedIn profile, should make us deeply suspicious of his intentions with AI.
That's right. Kastrup himself admits that he can't imagine going beyond the analytical view, the spiritual and mystical being mere "poetry." While lamenting the philosophers' obfuscating language, he also rides the waves in fashion of our present mentalist culture, being caught in an abstract "shut up and calculate" QBism or in Friston's pseudo-scientific word salad. However, at least he admits that this could be his own limitation, and I feel he remains open to a potential change of mind. One must credit him with the merit of having brought to a larger public a worldview that loosens the grip of an all-pervading materialism. That's why I always emphasize the importance of going beyond idealism to develop a comprehensive understanding of reality. In this view, physicalism is not excluded; rather, it represents a narrow perspective of reality. At the same time, idealism alone is insufficient. Ultimately, this is the purpose of this Substack. Thank you for your comment.
I agree Kastrup should absolutely be commended for his efforts. I own half of his books out of respect.
His claim that, roughly, "its impossible to perceive the upper bound" in regards to Friston & Don Hoffman does not cohere with what is actually found, phenomenologically, in states of (natural) ego-dissolution, "visions", oneness, DMT-induced ego-death, and so on. These states are un-quantifiable, and incomputable. They are literally "infinity". How, then, can a philosopher endorse ontic idealism when historically - it was PRECISELY these sorts of experiences that led people to endorse idealism?
It is uncontroversial that experiences that occur first, then words second. He surely understands the "re-presenation", but he has no evidence of understanding the pre-sentation component.
Therefore, his emphasis on experience above all else contradicts his own epistemology. He has knowledge, principles, facts, theories, and incredible skill in logic. And his character is incredible. But these are mere representations. They are not pre-sensations. Thus, it is unclear whether he has "rites" or initiation in the "traditional philosophy" sense.
The reason that the Brahmin caste became corrupted over the millenia is due to non-initiates and pure intellectualizers - without lived experience - infiltrating the hierarchies. They posed as "enlightened", by merely regurgitating and re-wording that which was "remembered" (smriti), but not that which was heard (shruti). They only know what they read from the third person. The imposter Brahmins have never lived nor died in that same body.
Very much so. Even high ranking scientists and philosophers still question whether there are first words or first thoughts. Even B. Russell believed first words. Some believe there must be first language/representations and only then there can be mental events or pre-sensations. I find this so absurd. They mentalize everything and aren't aware of how they put things upside-down. You may like to read my take on this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/marcomasi/p/the-metaphysics-of-language-part-1
Bernardo Kastrup has certainly triggered renewed interest in idealism. I could not digest Kastrup’s view ‘we are dissociated alters of the universal mind’. Why is the dissociation? There is no satisfactory explanation. Is life a disease and death the only cure?
I was reading your posts and completely agree on the need to go beyond mind-matter dualism. Your reference to Sri Aurobindo’s integral cosmology is interesting, though I have my doubts!
The view of "dissociation" from a universal consciousness isn't particular to Kastrup. It is old as humanity and can be found especially in Eastern cultures. Of course, they didn't parallel it to a psychiatric disorder such as a dissociation identity disorder like Kastrup does (this, again, shows how he struggles to get rid of his own cultural Western-centered conditionings). As to Sri Aurobindo, it isn't necessary to agree. However, all those interested in these existential topics may be interested in knowing what kind of solutions he offered to these questions. You might like to read my essay on his integral cosmology here: https://integral-review.org/the-integral-cosmology-of-sri-aurobindo-an-introduction-from-the-perspective-of-consciousness-studies/
Thanks Marco. I am still searching for answers, but inclined to think mind-matter integration should begin with verifiable (objective) knowledge. This is not to say I distrust the validity of mystical insights. I am only doubtful about its reach beyond the initiated to convince the skeptic.
Though it sounds paradoxical, I think Cartesian division of reality into matter and mind was a step in the right direction to resolve mind-matter conundrum.
Let me use an analogy to explain. Solving algebraic equations involving higher degree polynomials was a difficult problem for a long time. Mathematicians in 16th century came up with the concept of complex numbers to solve such equations. Complex numbers have of two parts, real and imaginary. Real part is a natural number but imaginary part isn’t. Imaginary numbers cannot be ‘grasped’ in the sense we understand natural numbers.
Comprehending reality can be thought of as analogous to solving algebraic equations. Reliable knowledge could be acquired only after natural philosophers began treating the solutions as having two parts- material & mental, similar to the real & imaginary parts of a complex number.
True, we faltered after the promising start. Science made rapid progress with the study of dead matter while philosophers tied themselves in knots attempting to grasp the essence of mind-substance. Perhaps the failure to make progress with mind substance should propel us to question what exactly we mean by ‘knowing’ something, and that could lead to viewing matter itself differently.
Yes, I agree, and like your analogy with complex numbers—it resonates with the point I made in this post: not this or that, but this AND that. The same logic could be further extended to Cartesian dualism itself. I believe your question of how we might view matter differently will be answered only if we move beyond the Cartesian split, that is, not seeing matter and mind merely as a duality, but as the two aspects of a plurality, or even as a continuum of different modes of the same underlying reality. That's not just abstract philosophy but is a viewpoint of the world and ourselves that can have deep practical implications.
I also agree that the integration of mind and matter could begin with verifiable (objective) knowledge. However, I also believe it could work the other way around just as well. It’s the 'either-or' exclusive patterns of thought that we must finally transcended.
As to the "knowing," here also we shouldn't be exclusive: spiritual intuition can complement and even empower analytic rationality. They are not mutually exclusive. Objective (i.e., the inter-subjective) knowledge and subjective knowledge must come together as complementary perspectives, merging into a third position that is neither one nor the other, but rather the source from which both originate. Thus, "knowing" can't be limited to another contrived strictly analytical cognitive activity alone. It must be enlarged to a spiritual knowledge as well, and that, nonetheless, doesn't deny mind and matter.
Shajan: I had my doubts regarding Sri Aurobindo for 20 years. What bothered me the most was - having studied Tibetan Buddhism, contemplative Christianity and Ramana Maharshi, among others - I was absolutely convinced that the essentials of the eternal Truth had been set down for all time. I found it outrageous that someone could be claiming to have found something "new" - how could the eternal Truth be "new"?
In any case, on a Tibetan Buddhist retreat in North England, in the summer of 1996, something clicked, and my doubts were effortlessly resolved. however, having gone through 2 decades of intense doubt, I remain - even almost 30 years later - very sympathetic to doubters of the integral yoga!
So please feel free to share your misgivings. My bet is March has addressed them and can do so quite easily. But I look forward to hearing from you!
Don, my doubts are related to the effectiveness of mystical insights to make real change on a large scale. I spent the first 30 years of my life in India and consider Advaita philosophy and Buddhist thought as towering achievements of human mind. But India remains as materialistic as any other country in the world. Why did all the spiritual knowledge fail to create a more enlightened society? I don’t claim to have answers, but think real change is possible only when we start from a firm foundation of reliable/objective knowledge.
This was very helpful. It seemed quite obvious that Bernardo was missing a lot in his critique but I couldn't articulate it as well as you have. Thanks!
"at its core, it reflects a mechanistic, soul-less, and, paradoxically, mind-less understanding of Nature. It is the all too common intellectual drive to “naturalize” everything at all costs, because contemporary culture equates “naturalization” with academic rigor and intellectual precision."
And the further points, elaborating the problems with the reductionist view. Well done.
Kastrup's analytic approach belongs to the inferior domain of consciousness known in Shaivism as Apara-Shakti. It is the realm of objects, logic, mathematics, reification and other left-hemispheric limitations. That is, Maya. Because he has explicitly stated his epistemology wholly derives around the post-hoc logic analyses of various objects (words). It is as if he thinks words, by themselves, are "ontically primitive" - independent of Being. So, he rejects revelations and altered states of consciousness as ways of reaching conclusions, instead hyper-focusing on the post-hoc analyses of linguistic objects.
Indeed, he is also a represenationalist and computationalist by way of his argument that dissociation is necessarily a "logic based process", where the word logic means mere "symbol crunching" that the enactivists reject. You can find these claims in his 2019 book "The idea of the world", specifically, on pages 109-112.
Moreover, Kastrup heavily relies on Karl Friston's predictive processing theories, which are inherently computationalist and staunchly physicalist from the start.
That he is also an employee of ASML Inc., per his LinkedIn profile, should make us deeply suspicious of his intentions with AI.
That's right. Kastrup himself admits that he can't imagine going beyond the analytical view, the spiritual and mystical being mere "poetry." While lamenting the philosophers' obfuscating language, he also rides the waves in fashion of our present mentalist culture, being caught in an abstract "shut up and calculate" QBism or in Friston's pseudo-scientific word salad. However, at least he admits that this could be his own limitation, and I feel he remains open to a potential change of mind. One must credit him with the merit of having brought to a larger public a worldview that loosens the grip of an all-pervading materialism. That's why I always emphasize the importance of going beyond idealism to develop a comprehensive understanding of reality. In this view, physicalism is not excluded; rather, it represents a narrow perspective of reality. At the same time, idealism alone is insufficient. Ultimately, this is the purpose of this Substack. Thank you for your comment.
I agree Kastrup should absolutely be commended for his efforts. I own half of his books out of respect.
His claim that, roughly, "its impossible to perceive the upper bound" in regards to Friston & Don Hoffman does not cohere with what is actually found, phenomenologically, in states of (natural) ego-dissolution, "visions", oneness, DMT-induced ego-death, and so on. These states are un-quantifiable, and incomputable. They are literally "infinity". How, then, can a philosopher endorse ontic idealism when historically - it was PRECISELY these sorts of experiences that led people to endorse idealism?
It is uncontroversial that experiences that occur first, then words second. He surely understands the "re-presenation", but he has no evidence of understanding the pre-sentation component.
Therefore, his emphasis on experience above all else contradicts his own epistemology. He has knowledge, principles, facts, theories, and incredible skill in logic. And his character is incredible. But these are mere representations. They are not pre-sensations. Thus, it is unclear whether he has "rites" or initiation in the "traditional philosophy" sense.
The reason that the Brahmin caste became corrupted over the millenia is due to non-initiates and pure intellectualizers - without lived experience - infiltrating the hierarchies. They posed as "enlightened", by merely regurgitating and re-wording that which was "remembered" (smriti), but not that which was heard (shruti). They only know what they read from the third person. The imposter Brahmins have never lived nor died in that same body.
Very much so. Even high ranking scientists and philosophers still question whether there are first words or first thoughts. Even B. Russell believed first words. Some believe there must be first language/representations and only then there can be mental events or pre-sensations. I find this so absurd. They mentalize everything and aren't aware of how they put things upside-down. You may like to read my take on this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/marcomasi/p/the-metaphysics-of-language-part-1
Bernardo Kastrup has certainly triggered renewed interest in idealism. I could not digest Kastrup’s view ‘we are dissociated alters of the universal mind’. Why is the dissociation? There is no satisfactory explanation. Is life a disease and death the only cure?
I was reading your posts and completely agree on the need to go beyond mind-matter dualism. Your reference to Sri Aurobindo’s integral cosmology is interesting, though I have my doubts!
The view of "dissociation" from a universal consciousness isn't particular to Kastrup. It is old as humanity and can be found especially in Eastern cultures. Of course, they didn't parallel it to a psychiatric disorder such as a dissociation identity disorder like Kastrup does (this, again, shows how he struggles to get rid of his own cultural Western-centered conditionings). As to Sri Aurobindo, it isn't necessary to agree. However, all those interested in these existential topics may be interested in knowing what kind of solutions he offered to these questions. You might like to read my essay on his integral cosmology here: https://integral-review.org/the-integral-cosmology-of-sri-aurobindo-an-introduction-from-the-perspective-of-consciousness-studies/
Thanks Marco. I am still searching for answers, but inclined to think mind-matter integration should begin with verifiable (objective) knowledge. This is not to say I distrust the validity of mystical insights. I am only doubtful about its reach beyond the initiated to convince the skeptic.
Though it sounds paradoxical, I think Cartesian division of reality into matter and mind was a step in the right direction to resolve mind-matter conundrum.
Let me use an analogy to explain. Solving algebraic equations involving higher degree polynomials was a difficult problem for a long time. Mathematicians in 16th century came up with the concept of complex numbers to solve such equations. Complex numbers have of two parts, real and imaginary. Real part is a natural number but imaginary part isn’t. Imaginary numbers cannot be ‘grasped’ in the sense we understand natural numbers.
Comprehending reality can be thought of as analogous to solving algebraic equations. Reliable knowledge could be acquired only after natural philosophers began treating the solutions as having two parts- material & mental, similar to the real & imaginary parts of a complex number.
True, we faltered after the promising start. Science made rapid progress with the study of dead matter while philosophers tied themselves in knots attempting to grasp the essence of mind-substance. Perhaps the failure to make progress with mind substance should propel us to question what exactly we mean by ‘knowing’ something, and that could lead to viewing matter itself differently.
Yes, I agree, and like your analogy with complex numbers—it resonates with the point I made in this post: not this or that, but this AND that. The same logic could be further extended to Cartesian dualism itself. I believe your question of how we might view matter differently will be answered only if we move beyond the Cartesian split, that is, not seeing matter and mind merely as a duality, but as the two aspects of a plurality, or even as a continuum of different modes of the same underlying reality. That's not just abstract philosophy but is a viewpoint of the world and ourselves that can have deep practical implications.
I also agree that the integration of mind and matter could begin with verifiable (objective) knowledge. However, I also believe it could work the other way around just as well. It’s the 'either-or' exclusive patterns of thought that we must finally transcended.
As to the "knowing," here also we shouldn't be exclusive: spiritual intuition can complement and even empower analytic rationality. They are not mutually exclusive. Objective (i.e., the inter-subjective) knowledge and subjective knowledge must come together as complementary perspectives, merging into a third position that is neither one nor the other, but rather the source from which both originate. Thus, "knowing" can't be limited to another contrived strictly analytical cognitive activity alone. It must be enlarged to a spiritual knowledge as well, and that, nonetheless, doesn't deny mind and matter.
Shajan: I had my doubts regarding Sri Aurobindo for 20 years. What bothered me the most was - having studied Tibetan Buddhism, contemplative Christianity and Ramana Maharshi, among others - I was absolutely convinced that the essentials of the eternal Truth had been set down for all time. I found it outrageous that someone could be claiming to have found something "new" - how could the eternal Truth be "new"?
In any case, on a Tibetan Buddhist retreat in North England, in the summer of 1996, something clicked, and my doubts were effortlessly resolved. however, having gone through 2 decades of intense doubt, I remain - even almost 30 years later - very sympathetic to doubters of the integral yoga!
So please feel free to share your misgivings. My bet is March has addressed them and can do so quite easily. But I look forward to hearing from you!
Don, my doubts are related to the effectiveness of mystical insights to make real change on a large scale. I spent the first 30 years of my life in India and consider Advaita philosophy and Buddhist thought as towering achievements of human mind. But India remains as materialistic as any other country in the world. Why did all the spiritual knowledge fail to create a more enlightened society? I don’t claim to have answers, but think real change is possible only when we start from a firm foundation of reliable/objective knowledge.
This was very helpful. It seemed quite obvious that Bernardo was missing a lot in his critique but I couldn't articulate it as well as you have. Thanks!
This was particularly clear mind:
"at its core, it reflects a mechanistic, soul-less, and, paradoxically, mind-less understanding of Nature. It is the all too common intellectual drive to “naturalize” everything at all costs, because contemporary culture equates “naturalization” with academic rigor and intellectual precision."
And the further points, elaborating the problems with the reductionist view. Well done.