Mod+ 248. BERNARDO KASTRUP SAYS MATERIALISM IS BALONEY

Let's suppose it's true that during NDEs, and presumably after we have irrevocably died, we experience SC. If we do, but nonetheless reincarnation is a fact, then why would we experience it only to reincarnate, not experience it, and strive once more to get back to it?

Because that's what Source likes to do! To go back and forth between experiencing itself in its totality, or as a tiny (momentarily) split-off fragment of itself, or as anything in between, in infinite variations, throughout eternity.

As Grof would say, this is the cosmic game.

But to speak of timing or sequence of events as to precisely HOW this happens is something I've pretty much stopped trying to do. And that's because time and sequence, as (or even if!) they exist outside a human body, is impossible for the human mind to grasp.

Can the Flatlander understand how the world operates outside 2-dimensions? We're in the same position in thinking about what happens after we "die."

As to the question of entheogens, probably best to leave it. I was just curious as to whether your opinion had changed at all based on Bernardo's deep respect for them (and their apparently key role in his own development), and your immersion in his work.

Apparently not. :)
 
I was just curious as to whether your opinion had changed at all based on Bernardo's deep respect for them (and their apparently key role in his own development)

I've wondered about this. From what I recall Bernardo sort of left this up to the imagination of the reader in Dreamed Up Reality. I remember thinking, 'so is this guy just a really good meditator or what?'
 
I've wondered about this. From what I recall Bernardo sort of left this up to the imagination of the reader in Dreamed Up Reality. I remember thinking, 'so is this guy just a really good meditator or what?'

IIRC he specifically mentions something about substances.

IMO there isn't a good reason to reject entheogens, unless we're trying to confine the transcendental experience into a box we can't - AFAICTell - justify. I personally haven't taken any, but I might someday.

Accepting - or at least temporarily assuming - materialism is false only takes us to a shore with an ocean of mystery before us.
 
Okay, Ian, I've looked at that paper and glanced at others on the site. I'd like to be able to say that I've come away with a clear picture in my mind what you're trying to say and why it might refute Idealism, but sad to relate, I haven't. That doesn't mean that it hasn't refuted it, only that I have little understanding, for the most part, of what you're trying to get at. In large part this is because you're a physicist or engineer (not sure which), and you employ quite a lot of technical terms and examples that I find it hard to grok.

Now and then, I find something that is a bit more accessible, such as:

Distinctions thus ought to be made between

the `Principal Cause': that disposition which operates,
the `Occasional Cause': that circumstance according to which dispositions operate,
the `Instrumental Cause': the origin of the occasional cause, so is another cause by means of which the Principal Cause operates.

The overall pattern is therefore that ``Principal causes operate according to occasional causes, which arise from instrumental causes''.

All three kinds of causes appear to be necessary for any event in nature, for example, when a stone is let fall: the principal cause is the earth's gravitational attraction, the occasional cause is our act of letting go, and instrumental cause is the muscle movements in our finger releasing the stone. Its hitting the ground is thus caused by our letting go, but only as an instrumental and then occasional cause. Many common uses of `cause' (including that of Davidson [1967]) refer to occasional causes rather than principal causes, as it is only in the occasional sense that events can be said to be causes. Previous events cannot be efficacious causes, Emmet [1984] points out, in the sense of `producing' or `giving rise to' their effects. The instrumental cause is a genuine causal contributor, and may be said to `set the stage', by making suitable conditions (namely, the occasional cause) for the operation of the principal cause.

Also:

From our examples, we may generalise that all the principal causation is `down' the sequence of multiple generative levels {A to B to... }, and that the only effect back up the sequence is the somehow the way principal causes still depend on certain occasions in order to operate. Let us adopt as universal this asymmetric relationship between multiple generative levels: that dispositions act forwards in a way conditional on certain things already existing at the later levels. We regard this as a simple initial hypothesis, and will have to observe whether all dispositions taken as existing in nature follow this pattern.

We may therefore surmise that A, the first in the sequence, is the `deepest underlying principle', `source', or `power' that is fixed through all the subsequent changes to B, C, etc. Conditional Forward Causation, the pattern we saw from physics, would imply that changes to B, for example, come from subsequent operations of A, and not from C, D,.. acting in `reverse' up the chain. Rather, the subsequent operations of A are now conditioned on the results in B, C, D, etc. The operations of A are therefore the principal causes, whereas the dependence of those operations on the previous state of B is via instrumental causation, and the dependence on the results in C, D,... is via occasional causation. It is now hypothesized that this is a universal pattern for the operation of dispositions in nature that do not follow from the rearrangement of parts of an aggegrate object.

I say "a bit" more accessible; but I'm still struggling as to what it says in relation to Idealism or Dualism or any other -ism, really. How does it refute Idealism, which wouldn't deny that there are patterns and regularities in nature? These might include the notion of Dispositional Essentialism, which you appear to be positing as a widely-applicable principle. For that matter, how would it refute Materialism? This isn't clear to me.

I think I'm going to need the Cliff Notes version if I'm going to be able to discuss this any further with you. Bernardo might have more of a clue because he's a scientist as well as a philosopher, but I'll have a bash if it can be made simpler.
 
Last edited:
Because that's what Source likes to do! To go back and forth between experiencing itself in its totality, or as a tiny (momentarily) split-off fragment of itself, or as anything in between, in infinite variations, throughout eternity.

As Grof would say, this is the cosmic game.

Well, my objection to that has to do with the idea of evolution. I mean, do you agree that some people appear to be more evolved than others? Or is, say, a Saddam Hussain every bit as evolved as a Jesus of Nazareth? Is SC equally happy to manifest as either and just be in the game for the thrill of the ride without any intention for Its manifestations to evolve?

If so, I can't see that there would be any necessity for persistence of some kind of essence or soul. It could be, if what you say is true, that there's no such thing as reincarnation as generally understood: rather, there might just be SC and Its many one-time incarnations as Napoleon, Einstein, Mother Theresa, or my local greengrocer, all of whom are completely annihilated at death: the only sense in which they might continue is within SC's memory.

And yet, we clearly see evidence for the evolution of organisms, of societies, of individuals, of concepts, of inventions and so on. Is evolution then confined to the world that we can currently perceive? Is SC only evolving that and having adventures within it as one-time incarnations?

Personally, I think your view is incoherent and raises far more questions than answers. To me, the only schema that makes any sense is one where there is persistence of essence accompanied by the possibility for that essence to evolve: the possibility for SC to come to know itself more and more clearly and intimately through its manifestations.

But to speak of timing or sequence of events as to precisely HOW this happens is something I've pretty much stopped trying to do. And that's because time and sequence, as (or even if!) they exist outside a human body, is impossible for the human mind to grasp.

I agree that there are limitations on how much we can understand. The contrast between our experience of time and space and what people report about them in, say, NDEs is duly noted.

Can the Flatlander understand how the world operates outside 2-dimensions? We're in the same position in thinking about what happens after we "die."

And yet, you seem sure that you can experience SC as opposed to just a more refined view of your own consciousness that isn't always accessible to you. Talking of Flatland, without evolution you end up with a stark 2-level scheme: either one experiences at the human level, or at the SC level. From a purely aesthetic perspective, forgive my saying that I find that unconscionably boring. I can't imagine that SC would be so unsophisticated as to be satisfied with it.

As to the question of entheogens, probably best to leave it. I was just curious as to whether your opinion had changed at all based on Bernardo's deep respect for them (and their apparently key role in his own development), and your immersion in his work.

Apparently not. :)

Look: In general, I'm a fan of Bernardo's ideas, but that doesn't mean I go along with him about everything. If he has a deep respect for the use of entheogens (I'm not 100% sure he has), then he's entitled to his opinion, but that would be something we'd have to agree to disagree about. He might be right about some things, but not about others, which I suppose can be said for all of us.
 
Last edited:
IIRC he specifically mentions something about substances.

IMO there isn't a good reason to reject entheogens, unless we're trying to confine the transcendental experience into a box we can't - AFAICTell - justify. I personally haven't taken any, but I might someday.

Accepting - or at least temporarily assuming - materialism is false only takes us to a shore with an ocean of mystery before us.

He talks about them at the beginning of the book while overviewing the various tools for inner exploration. But he never reveals the specific tool he uses for the experiments.

The only thing I reject is the term entheogen, but otherwise you're preaching to the choir. IMO, people should use psychedelics only for recreational purposes. Projecting all matters of sacred seriousness onto them I find extremely distasteful. And LSD is the best!
 
IMO, people should use psychedelics only for recreational purposes. Projecting all matters of sacred seriousness onto them I find extremely distasteful.
I won't comment on psychedelics as such. But one could argue that there should be some sacred seriousness in everything we do - though I do encourage frivolity and silliness as well - these concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Okay, Ian, I've looked at that paper and glanced at others on the site. I'd like to be able to say that I've come away with a clear picture in my mind what you're trying to say and why it might refute Idealism, but sad to relate, I haven't. That doesn't mean that it hasn't refuted it, only that I have little understanding, for the most part, of what you're trying to get at. In large part this is because you're a physicist or engineer (not sure which), and you employ quite a lot of technical terms and examples that I find it hard to grok.

Now and then, I find something that is a bit more accessible, such as:

Distinctions thus ought to be made between

the `Principal Cause': that disposition which operates,
the `Occasional Cause': that circumstance according to which dispositions operate,
the `Instrumental Cause': the origin of the occasional cause, so is another cause by means of which the Principal Cause operates.

The overall pattern is therefore that ``Principal causes operate according to occasional causes, which arise from instrumental causes''.

All three kinds of causes appear to be necessary for any event in nature, for example, when a stone is let fall: the principal cause is the earth's gravitational attraction, the occasional cause is our act of letting go, and instrumental cause is the muscle movements in our finger releasing the stone. Its hitting the ground is thus caused by our letting go, but only as an instrumental and then occasional cause. Many common uses of `cause' (including that of Davidson [1967]) refer to occasional causes rather than principal causes, as it is only in the occasional sense that events can be said to be causes. Previous events cannot be efficacious causes, Emmet [1984] points out, in the sense of `producing' or `giving rise to' their effects. The instrumental cause is a genuine causal contributor, and may be said to `set the stage', by making suitable conditions (namely, the occasional cause) for the operation of the principal cause.

Also:

From our examples, we may generalise that all the principal causation is `down' the sequence of multiple generative levels {A to B to... }, and that the only effect back up the sequence is the somehow the way principal causes still depend on certain occasions in order to operate. Let us adopt as universal this asymmetric relationship between multiple generative levels: that dispositions act forwards in a way conditional on certain things already existing at the later levels. We regard this as a simple initial hypothesis, and will have to observe whether all dispositions taken as existing in nature follow this pattern.

We may therefore surmise that A, the first in the sequence, is the `deepest underlying principle', `source', or `power' that is fixed through all the subsequent changes to B, C, etc. Conditional Forward Causation, the pattern we saw from physics, would imply that changes to B, for example, come from subsequent operations of A, and not from C, D,.. acting in `reverse' up the chain. Rather, the subsequent operations of A are now conditioned on the results in B, C, D, etc. The operations of A are therefore the principal causes, whereas the dependence of those operations on the previous state of B is via instrumental causation, and the dependence on the results in C, D,... is via occasional causation. It is now hypothesized that this is a universal pattern for the operation of dispositions in nature that do not follow from the rearrangement of parts of an aggegrate object.

I say "a bit" more accessible; but I'm still struggling as to what it says in relation to Idealism or Dualism or any other -ism, really. How does it refute Idealism, which wouldn't deny that there are patterns and regularities in nature? These might include the notion of Dispositional Essentialism, which you appear to be positing as a widely-applicable principle. For that matter, how would it refute Materialism? This isn't clear to me.

I think I'm going to need the Cliff Notes version if I'm going to be able to discuss this any further with you. Bernardo might have more of a clue because he's a scientist as well as a philosopher, but I'll have a bash if it can be made simpler.
That paper is really just constructing the general framework for a mechanism for how 'multiple levels' might be related.
It is not really directed at idealism, but just the first step in meeting the most common objection to dualism: that 'mind and body are so different things that they cannot interact with each other'. I am trying to take seriously the idea of 'planes of existence' or 'multiple levels' or 'discrete degrees'.
 
I think I'm going to need the Cliff Notes version if I'm going to be able to discuss this any further with you. Bernardo might have more of a clue because he's a scientist as well as a philosopher, but I'll have a bash if it can be made simpler.
My talk at the Tucson conference in 2008 is at http://www.generativescience.org/talks/tucson2008/index.htm
This discusses, better I think for you, the general issues about first cause and spirit mind and body.
(It does go on, still, to perhaps more details than you want now).
 
That paper is really just constructing the general framework for a mechanism for how 'multiple levels' might be related.
It is not really directed at idealism, but just the first step in meeting the most common objection to dualism: that 'mind and body are so different things that they cannot interact with each other'. I am trying to take seriously the idea of 'planes of existence' or 'multiple levels' or 'discrete degrees'.

Okay: so if mind and body are in fact capable of interacting with one another, how does that happen? How does your conceptual framework explain it? Note that I'm not prejudging the issue: maybe you can explain it. I know you think they're two kinds of the same substance and would presumably be able to interact on those grounds, but that's just words. How does it actually happen? Can you talk me through it?
 
I won't comment on psychedelics as such. But one could argue that there should be some sacred seriousness in everything we do - though I do encourage frivolity and silliness as well - these concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

Hey Typoz! I hate seriousness, but I'm a bit biased. See, I'm extremely neurotic, and for me, seriousness poisons the air. I can feel it radiating off people and it amplifies my already overbearing tension. Seriousness lies with authority, conformity and obedience. I'm sure the devil loves seriousness... I think Alan Watts said "I'm always sincere, but never serious." He was a very wise man.

And sacred? Well that's just plain offensive.

I guess you could say I'm pretty darn serious about this stuff.
 
Okay: so if mind and body are in fact capable of interacting with one another, how does that happen? How does your conceptual framework explain it? Note that I'm not prejudging the issue: maybe you can explain it. I know you think they're two kinds of the same substance and would presumably be able to interact on those grounds, but that's just words. How does it actually happen? Can you talk me through it?
The point is different kinds of substances, so more difficult!
I cannot give details until Monday (about to start 4th July trip to Lake Mono, often off net).
One paper linking mind and body is http://www.generativescience.org/ps-papers/Thompson-ddnamin2f.htm

The overall structure is theism, so can give more on that if desired.
 
I guess it may be in part a matter of a nuanced interpretation of words such as "sacred" - I've run into this before in face to face conversation, words can be used by a speaker to mean one thing, but to the listener it can mean something quite different (though both views can be valid). The whole thing isn't worth expending words on though, as I don't think it's really a big deal, I might give the impression of seriousness here, but speaking face to face I might give the opposite impression. :)
 
I guess it may be in part a matter of a nuanced interpretation of words such as "sacred" - I've run into this before in face to face conversation, words can be used by a speaker to mean one thing, but to the listener it can mean something quite different (though both views can be valid). The whole thing isn't worth expending words on though, as I don't think it's really a big deal, I might give the impression of seriousness here, but speaking face to face I might give the opposite impression. :)

Okay, I accept your surrender.

Looks like Dr. Thompson is heading to Lake Mono. Shouldn't he be going to Lake Duo?! hehe ;)
 
Okay Ian, I've skimmed the paper and am only a little wiser. Whatever your hypothesis is, as presented in your papers it appears somewhat abstruse. That may be more my fault than yours, but unless you can explain it it simpler terms, We'll reach an impasse. Maybe during your coming visit to lake Mono will you'll be able to come up with the Dummies Guide version. 'Tis a consumation devoutly to be wished: but in any case, I hope you enjoy your jaunt.:)
 
Okay Ian, I've skimmed the paper and am only a little wiser. Whatever your hypothesis is, as presented in your papers it appears somewhat abstruse. That may be more my fault than yours, but unless you can explain it it simpler terms, We'll reach an impasse. Maybe during your coming visit to lake Mono will you'll be able to come up with the Dummies Guide version. 'Tis a consumation devoutly to be wished: but in any case, I hope you enjoy your jaunt.:)
I agree it is not the simplest theory. But then, it makes general predictions.

Cheers from Jamestown
 
Hey Typoz! I hate seriousness, but I'm a bit biased. See, I'm extremely neurotic, and for me, seriousness poisons the air. I can feel it radiating off people and it amplifies my already overbearing tension. Seriousness lies with authority, conformity and obedience. I'm sure the devil loves seriousness... I think Alan Watts said "I'm always sincere, but never serious." He was a very wise man.

And sacred? Well that's just plain offensive.

I guess you could say I'm pretty darn serious about this stuff.

“The fools standpoint is that all social institutions are games. He sees the whole world as game playing. That’s why, when people take their games seriously and take on stern and pious expressions, the fool gets the giggles because he knows that it is all a game.”

(I'm sure you know/can guess who said this)
 
Well, my objection to that has to do with the idea of evolution

Here's one way of looking at it, Michael.

I do think spiritual evolution is a reality. But in the midst of a gradual movement back towards Source, it's sometimes useful to get a taste of what it is you're striving for. And that's what happens in an NDE, mushroom-induced trance, or other such experience: you get a chance to remember, with mind-blowing clarity, what it's like to be one with Source again -- even if briefly.

As NDErs say (and I myself will testify), such an experience can be a huge boost to a weary and disheartened traveler. It can inspire, strengthen, and help to make one's direction clearer.

Doesn't it make sense that Source would provide its own split-off fragments with that sort of help?
 
Back
Top