Toward a Comprehensive View of Matter, Mind, and Spirit

Notes on the Sheldrake-Kastrup Debate

Interesting crossfire between Rupert Sheldrake and Bernardo Kastrup.

In a nutshell, the point of contention is Kastrup’s version of philosophical idealism—Analytic Idealism—which posits that reality is fundamentally mental or mind-like. This framework attempts to reconcile classical idealist notions with contemporary analytic philosophy and scientific insights, particularly in the fields of cognitive science and quantum mechanics. In the interview linked below, Sheldrake argues that Analytic Idealism is merely another form of materialism in disguise, lacking any spiritual depth. Unsurprisingly, Kastrup disagrees and has responded to these claims here.

Why are these philosophical debates important?

I believe they matter because humanity is currently going through a transitional stage in the evolution of consciousness. On one side, we have perspectives rooted in too faith-based and religious conceptions (as exemplified by Sheldrake), and on the other, a strictly analytic, rationalistic, and scientific view of reality (as represented by Kastrup). Both perspectives, however, seem unable to transcend their own limitations and evolve into a harmonizing third position—what we might call “spiritual materialism.” This viewpoint doesn’t negate either perspective but seeks to go beyond them, integrating both into a larger, unified Whole. This challenge mirrors the broader struggles we face in the present conditions: the habitual thinking mind tends to operate in terms of “this OR that,” while failing to recognize that “this AND that” are complementary aspects of a greater totality.

I won’t delve into all the details they discussed, but I will touch on a few key points. However, if you have the time (and determination!) to watch the video, explore Kastrup’s response, and then go through my linked posts and articles, you will gain a deeper understanding of these existential questions from a more comprehensive standpoint. This broader perspective is something both science and philosophy continue to struggle to accept. Science, because it remains too enamored with its past successes, and philosophy, because it clings too tightly to a limited, analytical view of reality.

Let me first highlight where I agree with Kastrup’s reply.

I find Sheldrake’s characterization of Analytic Idealism as “basically physicalism under a different label” or an “armchair theory” as overly harsh. Reducing it to physicalism and dismissing it as shallow philosophy is unfair—especially when compared to much of Western philosophy of mind, which often relies on obfuscating wordplay rather than providing genuine insight. On the contrary, Kastrup’s work has made a meaningful contribution by loosening the grip of materialism on mass consciousness.

Moreover, Sheldrake’s objection that “analytic idealism makes no experimental predictions that distinguish it from physicalism” goes too far. I’m confident that the day will come when orthodox science begins to accept findings that are currently categorized as “parapsychology” or “PSI phenomena.” Ironically, it’s surprising to have to point this out to Sheldrake, who has always been open to such research.

However, for now, there’s no need to invoke the paranormal. It is sufficient to examine established facts without the bias of a materialistic lens. Kastrup rightly highlights neuroscientific evidence, which aligns with my own perspective and is what inspired me to write an evidence-based critical review of the mind-brain identity theory.

That said, I believe Sheldrake makes a valid point in suggesting it’s time to move beyond strict monism or dualism—specifically, the entrenched habit of dividing matter, consciousness, mind, and spirit into rigid, hermetically sealed categories that must either be reduced to one another or collapsed into a single, all-encompassing category. Indeed, Idealism isn’t enough. It is only a first step toward a more comprehensive view of matter, mind and spirit. This has always been my perspective, and which I’ve explored in greater detail here. The world isn’t just matter (physicalism), just mind (idealism), or just spirit (the religious and/or mystical perspective). It encompasses all of these—and much more.

But Kastrup insists:

“Rupert highlights that Analytic Idealism is still naturalist and reductionist. That is entirely correct. I think the world unfolds spontaneously, according to its own inherent dispositions (i.e., the observed regularities we call the 'laws of nature'), and without supernatural intervention from an outside agent beyond the boundaries of nature itself. I am promoting an analytic ontology, not a religion.“

This view isn’t unique to Kastrup but dates back, as far as I know, as far as Spinoza, and perhaps even earlier. Kastrup’s idea of a world unfolding spontaneously may sound appealing or romantic when viewed from a naturalist perspective, but 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.

However, this mindset is a product of a past Cartesian worldview—one that is transitional and ultimately lacks depth. Unsurprisingly, this line of reasoning leads to the concept of a creator of the universe and life who is reduced to a dumb deity, a purely instinctual universal being—a sort of “cosmic animal”—that acts only by “spontaneously” following basal instincts. This is an unconvincing conclusion, not only from a spiritual or religious standpoint, but, when we take a closer look, also because of several scientific and down-to-earth reasons, as I have discussed in my essay “The World as a Real-Idea.”

In contrast, a much richer and more comprehensive view is possible—not only of God but also of Nature. This perspective is one I explored in detail in my ten-part essay, “The Unexpected Comeback of the Conscious Universe.”

What Kastrup perceives as a strength is, in reality, his limitation: the desire to be “analytic” above all else. This has its evolutionary and historical reason to be: scientific rationalism helped us to overcome the irrational and superstitious dark ages, and, to a large degree, is useful in exercising the mind and discrimination. But what was once necessary as an exercise and self-discipline, has now become a self-imposed straitjacket unwilling to progress. This insistence is no longer grounded in a sober and rational reasoning, but is rooted in collective suggestions, external conditionings, and our historical background. Especially in the West, this conditioning taps into a collective unconscious where the unresolved memory of the horrors of the Inquisition still lingers. The drive to “naturalize” everything is, in fact, an instinctual reaction emerging from these unconscious domains of the intellectual mind that needs to remind its audience how it has distanced itself from its own past failures. A physical mind that is incapable of even conceiving that by silencing itself, it could attain a higher knowledge than what the analytical approach could ever dream of. If we could momentarily consider that the analytic mind may only be a transitional tool in the evolutionary journey of consciousness, and open ourselves to more intuitive realms of cognition, all these apparent conflicts would quickly dissolve.

The “analytic” in Analytic Idealism reflects a commitment to the rigorous logical analysis typical of analytic philosophy. This distinguishes it from the more metaphysical or even mystical formulations of other idealist thinkers and mystics. While it sounds reasonable and in line with common sense, it is inherently flawed because it (unconsciously) adopts an anthropocentric standpoint that tries to fit into logic what is beyond logic. It is like attempting to understand what a color is through rational discourse alone, while refusing to actually see it.

In this sense, Kastrup almost confirms Sheldrake’s objection (which may explain why he jumped to such a harsh judgment): here, he falls into the same unconscious psychological trap as the physicalist.

However, what both Kastrup and Sheldrake seem to consistently overlook (despite it being one of the central teachings of all mystical traditions) is that one can transcend an exclusive perspective (this OR that) and adopt a “higher position,” where the apparent contradictions between monism, dualism, trinitarianism, or, as I suggest, pluralism, dissolve in an inclusive perspective (this AND that). The next cognitive step in our evolutionary journey will be to see inclusively, not in a way that excludes all other possibilities. It will involve becoming “capable of understanding the extreme spiritual, the extreme material, and to find the meeting point where it becomes a true force.”¹ Because, yes, “all is one” and yet it is the many too. We can conceive the World as the pluralistic expression of all the planes and parts of all there is and where the trinity is only one aspect, while idealism, dualism and physicalism are yet another “dimensional reduction”² that aren’t wrong in and of themselves but are a too limited vision of what is the Many which is also the One without a second.

Of course, if you are reading this with a purely analytic mind, it may sound like a nonsensical word salad. It makes no sense to rational cognition because it belongs to the lower sphere of Nature where duality, polarization, fragmentation with an exclusive concentration is its inherent way of seeing and knowing. To truly understand this, we must transcend our ordinary way of thinking and open ourselves to an intuitive understanding of reality—one that goes beyond the rational mind, which is merely a subset and reduction of the whole. Intuition is not a subconscious, unconscious, or infra-rational process. On the contrary, it is a supra-rational understanding of reality.

As a final note, I would also like to highlight Sheldrake’s thoughts on the nature of language. This is another question that cannot be fully understood by limiting ourselves to a strictly materialistic view. Language and meaning-making are expressions of something that transcends biological and evolutionary phenomena alone. If you would like to expand your perspective on this topic, you can find my research on The Nature and Origin of Language in Abhinavagupta and Sri Aurobindo.

---

The subscription to Letters for a Post-Material Future is free. However, if you find value in my project and wish to support it, you can make a small financial contribution by buying me one or more coffees! You can also support my work by sharing this article with a friend or on your sites. Thank you in advance!

1. This is a quotation from the “Mother’s Agenda,” something that we will take a closer look at in a coming post.

2. What “dimensional reductionism” is about, I highlighted in my concluding notes here.