Kastrup's new book: Brief Peeks Beyond

#4
A fascinating range of essays. I have to admit, Kastrup is a bit of an intellectual climb for me whenever I approach his material. He reminds me of Emerson's thinking and writing style - clear but complex. I will look forward to his book in May!

My Best,
Bertha
 
#5
I find it cute that one chapter is titled "A more parsimonious, logical, non-materialist worldview." Logic itself is a construct rooted in materialism's concepts.
 
#7
Blimey. You're against logic now?
Blimey yourself mate. You took something and did a ridiculous reductionism with it. Stating the fact that a concept is part and parcel of materialism means I'm against it?
Think more before you post will ya?

What I'm not for is using that concept as a primary arbitrator for approaches beyond materialism.
 
Last edited:
C

Chris

#8
Think more before you post will ya?
I'll try, but it would help if I knew whether I was meant to be thinking logically or illogically.

Perhaps you could institute some kind of colour-coding, to tell us whether your posts concern "primary arbitration for approaches beyond materialism." (I'm not sure what that means, but I'll be happy to bear in mind that logic goes out of the window when you're discussing it.)
 
#9
I'll try, but it would help if I knew whether I was meant to be thinking logically or illogically.

Perhaps you could institute some kind of colour-coding, to tell us whether your posts concern "primary arbitration for approaches beyond materialism." (I'm not sure what that means, but I'll be happy to bear in mind that logic goes out of the window when you're discussing it.)
Wow! Hopefully you're just being snarky (which is cool in my book). So ;;/? if that's the case. If OTOH that's really how you misunderstand what I posted, I suggest that you work on coherent thinking.
 
C

Chris

#10
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but really if we don't have logic what are we meant to do? How can we evaluate the strengths of arguments? How can we discuss things?
 
#11
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but really if we don't have logic what are we meant to do? How can we evaluate the strengths of arguments? How can we discuss things?
For one instance, how might you apply logic to attempt to understand the true nature of time? It is possible to imagine that reality may present as a hierarchy in which at some point logic may be superseded.
 
#12
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but really if we don't have logic what are we meant to do? How can we evaluate the strengths of arguments? How can we discuss things?
I'm going to avoid snark and answer you clearly.

I posted nothing about "not having logic" or "not using logic". It is puzzling why you seem wedded to responding as if I had made such statements. What I stated is that, in moving beyond the limits of materialism, logic is not valid as a primary arbitrator.

That you (or even most people) are unfamiliar with processes of evaluation and knowledge exchange that do not rely on logic cannot be used as a means to validate the primary use of logic. What? Are we to proceed on the basis of "only the approaches Chris is familiar with" ?

Logic is a tool. It has lots of uses. It is not the ultimate guideline to actuality. There may not be any singular such guideline.
 
C

Chris

#14
For one instance, how might you apply logic to attempt to understand the true nature of time? It is possible to imagine that reality may present as a hierarchy in which at some point logic may be superseded.
How do you expect me to answer such a question?

If logic no longer applies, my answer had better be just "Hippopotamus."
 
#15
Sounds like a good approach to me. :)

So that'll be logic, and any other approach you can make "us" familiar with ...
:D Fun aside, you're only limiting yourself. Like a carpenter who has only a flat-head screwdriver in his toolbox. But hey that's cool. At least you and the other "flat-head only" folks can get together and rail about those who have a wider selection of tools.
 
#17
A fascinating range of essays. I have to admit, Kastrup is a bit of an intellectual climb for me whenever I approach his material. He reminds me of Emerson's thinking and writing style - clear but complex. I will look forward to his book in May!

My Best,
Bertha
I agree. I always enjoy reading his stuff. Hes making so much sense to me even so im not agreeing with all of his ideas.
 
#18
I find it cute that one chapter is titled "A more parsimonious, logical, non-materialist worldview." Logic itself is a construct rooted in materialism's concepts.
Logic and materialism are different - the former is a particular onlology, the latter is a method of thought and dialogue which may be employed by the proponent of any ontological position, not necessarily materialist one. One could easily recall many logicians who were not materialists - Decartes, Kant or Popper, just to name a few. And Paul Feyerabend is an opposite example - an irrationalist materialist.

Contrary to the facts, psi skeptics push the misconception that materialism is the only "rational" and "scientific" philosophy. I think, I need not to explain here that non-materialistic science does exist; the same is for rationality, even in a strict logical-mathematical sense of the word.
 
#19
Logic and materialism are different
Brilliant! Thanks for that. :D Different doesn't imply unrelated or not based on. Logic (as commonly practiced) is rooted in materialistic concepts.

Using Descartes, Kant or Popper as examples of people who don't subscribe to materialism is silly at best.

What "facts" are you referring to? Science beyond materialism does not rely on logic and science that relies on it will inevitable be materialistic. Logic is just one kind of process and a relatively simplistic one at that. And please note that I stated "rely" not "ever make use of."
 
C

Chris

#20
Saiko

Maybe it would help if you could try to explain why you think logic is "rooted" in materialism, rather than just making assertions.
 
Top