วีดีโอ

Although I appreciate a good debate, this was not that. Mr. Hart makes quite a few assumptions and generally untrue statements about Jung. Whether intentional or not, it's my opinion that Mr. Hart approached this topic with his inevitable deeply religious bias. His(Mr. Hart) clear bias and dogmatic perspective of Jung, God and the Bible raise all kinds of red flags for me; and honestly make it hard to watch, let alone take seriously as a good argument. As many of the other comments state, a one on one debate with Kastrup would be preferable...and here comes my bias...I also think it be very evident that Mr. Harts dogmatic house of cards would be on display.

Mankind needs a belief system. He needs to search his entire Life something he will never be sure about…to often admit there is nothing to look for when its narcissist défense system goes down at the end of his life. For me it is simpler to live my life knowing this. At least it is a belief system I can be sure about ;) Once you admit that….every theory is more or less the same…. We live in an illusion.

th-cam.com/video/f5XsGE03qP4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=HwhaWRxTvDm_zXW0

Im so glad i smoked before i watched thus

As this is the first in this series, I'd welcome feedback in what you liked and what you found less helpful:)

I belong to a book discussion group that goes by the name of The Philosophy Group. Free Will discussions arise regularly, with the usual arguments being offered, plus, recently, complicating thoughts re personal responsibility. As one who was raised and educated Roman Catholic, I find such discussions so tedious - and even childish since they go back, for me and many other people my age, to age seven (First Condession and First Communion). When I process the question now it seems obvious that , practically speaking, we are free to be ourselves, and we are free to do what might be viewed by ourselves as “the right thing.” These factors can be viewed as what makes our actions “determined,” but what’s the benefit of even asking the question? We do and must value personal responsibility, regardless of beliefs about so-called free will - which began as a theological question to justify ideas around The Fall, Satisfaction/Atonement, reward and punishment in the hereafter, and justifying the influence and power of the Catholic Church over everyone’s lives in the West. Thinkers who claim determinism negates responsibility are taking themselves way too seriously, and I don’t think they deserve out attention, That I feel this way results inevitably from my history and my temperament. I cannot possibly choose to hold the opposite view at this time. Re Bernardo’sviews on free will, they are for me merely philosophical entertainment. When less thoughtful others talk about free will, I often find such talk tedious and childish. Yet here I am commenting on this video for at least the 2nd time after having viewed and enjoyed this video for at least the 2nd time. I can’t help acting out being my obviously confused self.. And so it goes, round and round. To clarify and add to the impression of confusion, I very much enjoy carefully framed philosophical statements and suggestions such as TranscendentPsych’s video essay here. Plus, I am very invested in understanding Bernardo Kastrup. Plus, I very much appreciate TranscendentPsych’s appreciation for and understanding of the religious perspective, which, from my perspective, is sui generics. I’m a big fan.

🇷🇺☦Yes, DBH, unless you repent, just like the false gods, as a man you will perish, along with your heretical Origenist modernist ideology, in the everlasting fire of Sheol...🤌

Bernardo is the man, after listening to lots of his ideas and after reading some of his books, I’m not longer a materialist his arguments are just flawless, thanks for the video.

Bernardo admits that metacounsciousness is a capability, potential of Universal Consciousness but not a property. I got this confirmed when I asked where would metaconsciousness go at the end of the last metacounscious being, heat death of the universe, etc. It could not just simply dissapear and remains as a potential, to (maybe) be expressed again. But this brings forth other problems as this means that the inherent scaffolding of metacounsciousness was already there albeit unexpressed.

Consciousness is all that actually exists. Everything we experience is Perception In Consciousness.

I'd like your opinions on my video called, "The Idealist Inference Argument for Immaterialism." I'm a therapist and it informed this argument. If you search the title, you can find it. Loved your video and subscribed ❤

Love this digest! You mention a publication from Hart on consciousness, would it be possible for you to share a link? Many thanks

If conciousness isn't a product of the brain then why can we be knocked out, or become inebriated by drugs and alcohol to the point of becoming unconcious?

Thanks, I have been trying to understand the old Norse:English concepts of Wyrd and Orlog.. I have lifted the next bit from an article that explains it better than I could. The outcomes of the past inform our present reality; present reality informs our present actions; present actions inform future outcomes; future outcomes manifest and become outcomes of the past. The cycle continues ever onward. However, this process isn’t linear and isolated; the actions of others can also affect us and our actions can affect them. The outcomes of those actions can in turn affect other people, provoking more actions, and so on. Actions and outcomes weave in and out of one another to create the Web of Wyrd. Orlog can be thought of as the threads. The old Norse art of seidr enables the sorcerer to manipulate the web to produce the outcomes of their desires. Which implies a transcendent meta consciousness that could lift us above the primal laws of cause and affect

Kastrup's big problem is he's an idealist, so in an ideal world his statements would be true, but we don't live in that world, so he's mostly wrong

Other criticism of BK: th-cam.com/video/zdZWQe46f1U/w-d-xo.htmlsi=XZOL3hbwDTV7Vs4d

Superb English accent and manner indeed, on top of all the thought put in. Subscribing. (A beautiful reminder of Attenborough, but dreadful now to realise that "Soonack" Sunak and co have similar too, eloquently aiding the destruction of the our fellow human beings and their loved ones in Gaza and Ukraine!!🥶)

"Rational free will" seems to say that we are forced into our choices by our considered deliberations! (And one could say that each is forced into whatever degree of added deliberation by his temperament). Currently, it seems to me that the only genuinely (ie not redefined for philosopher's comfort) free will trickles in through what, in physics, we call quantum randomness/indeterminism. Because, indeed, let's not fall into the trap of begging the question...Whatever degree of free will exists in nature would appear, to an observer, as randomness.

We have free will, we can choose to self delete, however we are also a distinct part of nature.... It's the duality of being human...

I keep wondering about the role of temperament, and any distinctions between temperament and will. To what extent, if any, are we free to choose to act counter to our temperament? Truly questions for a transcendental psychotherapist.

I feel I need to view this video again to better appreciate it. but at this moment I don’t know if I actually will or not. If I do view it again or if I don’t will be a consequence of what? How can I know if my action or inaction will have been my choice or my fate? What difference will it make if I lean one way or the other? What is the significance of the free will question? I do know that thinking about free will gives me a heads headache

Im a big fan of bernardo kastrup but the subject of free will i find very difficult to get my head around

Interesting! I've always held the sort of Schopenhauer view. We can do what we will, but we can't Will what we Will. For example I can have a chocolate or an apple, but my desire for apples and chocolate comes from my nature and environment. I can't seem to make myself want things other than my wants.

Excellent! One point though. I was intrigued by your squeamishness about the God word. Because it seems to me you go on later in the video to paint an accurate picture of that entity, (provided your hearer is not hung up by myths from thousands of years ago). What do you understand to be the difference between God and what you describe?

Fascinating stuff. I wish I could share Addison’s faith that the future of Christianity is mystical, but I see one glaring problem here - the abundance of contemporary mystical experience testimonies, most notably NDEs. I think most people are aware of the standard NDE blueprint - the tunnel, meeting relatives, the being of unconditional love, but there are many exceptions to this. loads of them. One can find on TH-cam hundreds of testimonies from people claiming to have met Jesus, claiming to have been given a tour of the afterlife, including infernal realms full of unspeakable horrors. Some even see their deceased relatives in torment. There are of course contradictions across these “Christian” accounts (as there are between most NDEs), but their existence should give us pause. I personally find the phenomenon deeply troubling as I wonder what kind of god would allow such confusion, possible deception, and evil (if the infernalist visions are to be believed). I guess the point I’m trying to make is that there’s a lot of talk in certain spheres of Christianity about the need to reenchant the world (I’m thinking DBH, Millbank, Stephen Clarke, Pageau, Mark Vernon etc) but very little talk about this phenomenon, which is surely hugely significant if we’re encouraging a return to a mystical faith. NDEs aside, but on a related note, there’s also a growing trend within some Pentecostal movements of otherworld journeying, with many claiming, like Paul, to have been whisked up into the heavenly or infernal realms. Some are possibly lying, but I don’t think we can discount them all. For many, the cosmos is enchanted to the utmost degree - with occult spiritual forces behind everything, and a pathological preoccupation with evil spirits, curses and spiritual bondage. Pentecostalism is the fastest growing religious movement worldwide, and these once fringe ideas are becoming more mainstream, so we’re going to have to explain them if we’re going to have an honest conversation about spirituality and the nature of reality. I personally wonder what the heck is going on! Has anyone else thought much about these matters?

Addison and Rupert should have a talk. Both are very wise❤

James webb in space takes pictures of the universe and isn't conscious...so these 5 people need a new job...

I enjoyed a lot the interview. Being a fan of Kastrup, I still see many areas where his analytic idealism seems to fall short, In particular his insistence that there is only “one kind of consciousness”, which is by default an unverifiable claim and puts his formula Self = God on a weak basis. Yet I’d love to dig my teeth a bit deeper into what theology has to say about this and would be very interested in the list of books that Addison offered to compile for Kastrup’s benefit. Any chance to get this?

Spira is not an Advaita teacher. He follows the theological/philosophical path known as Kashmiri Shaivism. It's similar to Advaita in that it stems from the greater non-dual tradition, but it is also quite different too

Jung never assumed that God and the Self were the same thing. In his work as a psychological healer he was principly concerned with helping his patients come to a better understanding of themselves through their interaction with the unconscious. It's important to understand that he was approaching what ultimately came to assume the proportions of theological questions from this standpoint. He was concerned chiefly with what worked for his patients. It was the successes or failures he experienced in his work that helped to shape the eventual conclusions he came to. Needless to say, Answer To Job got him into a lot of hot water at the time it came out, and he was continually being asked to clarify his thoughts on the matter, to an extent that may have caused him some regret at having thrown his hat into the ring, so to speak, but I admire him for sticking to his guns !

Can we not persuade Kastrup to have a discussion with David B. Hart? That really would be worth listening to/ watching.

Fyi, Jung’s father, Paul Jung, was a Swiss Reformed minister, not Lutheran. Otherwise, very informative interview.

Yes we individual lovers of Christ are less than enchanted with the political pope the dogma the religious vanity , and the Orthodoxy in Mother Russia and the corruption . I’m so grateful for the Jesus who threw out the money changers and baited the hook to expose the evil of political empire and dogmatism in organized religions such as Orthodoxy of the San Hedrin. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.

Why not get Kastrup on to discuss with Addison their ideas about Jung and religion. It would be an interesting podcast.

I really enjoyed Addison’s book, Strangers and Pilgrims Once More: Being Disciples of Jesus in a Post-Christendom World by Addison Hodges Hart (2014). I wonder if others here have read it and your thoughts?

Excellent clarification and speaking truth to bullshit.

I might need to re-listen, but I didn’t necessarily hear anything major to which Kastrup would have objected, based on my reading of him. Would be interesting to have him in conversation with Addison.

would love to see an interview with William M Epstein or a review of his books - the illusion of psychotherapy, psychotherapy as religion and psychotherapy and the social clinic in the united states, soothing fictions.

So the christians finally get off the couch to point out the shortcomings of Bernardo Kastrup's poor attempt at marrying science and mysticism, in the hope that both camps are going to come running to him. He shall lose both imo

Addison Hart echoes in many ways the criticism Jung received when "Answer to Job" first came out. There are several examples of how Jung responded to this criticism. One of them was in a letter to Dr. Josef Rudin, which in the context of this conversation could serve as a response to Hart's critisism: "...... Is it in a tone of mild reproach that you say I take no account of 'Bible theology'? Had I done so I would have written from the theological standpoint, and you would have very right to accuse me of blasfhemy. A similar situation has been made from the Protestant side, that I disregard the higher textual critisism. But why haven't these gentlemen editied Job in such a way that it reads as it should be, accordeing to their view? I am a layman, and I have before me only the Job that has been served up to the lay public 'cum consensu autoritatis'. It is about this Job that the layman thinks and not about the speculations of textual criticism, which he never gets a sight of anyway and which contribute nothing relevant to the spirit of this book ...." (C.G. Jung)

"Non material something that shapes the world we see"...makes me think of further questions...what is the seed vigour in plants? Do they also have a soul? I can only speak in terms of energies, more in line with Martin Buber's encounter of I (the felt sense) and Thou - from my endeavour to address such vast and, I suppose, tricky concept of the soul. Another great video, discussion, analysis and food for thought.

Thank you for sharing your thought and experiences on this. I think and practice much the same way as you at the moment. I always struggled with the translation "loving kindness" for some reason. I came across a translator of early Buddhist texts, a chap named John Peacock. He said that loving kindness isn't really a great translation of Metta. Its more like Friendliness and good will. So Metta Bhavana is a cultivation of goodwill and friendliness to all. I found this easier to work with, as trying to love everyone is quite a hard task, depending on how you approach the word love. I have found the daily practice of Metta to be a real transformational thing. John Peacock has some really interesting talks about how Metta is a path to awakening in itself, and he feels that vipassana and Metta practice are not different things, but they merge into the same practice. Or rather, there is no real pure awareness or metta practice, but they all have elements of each in them when taken deeper. I have been doing the Centering Prayer for a few weeks now, I believe in God, but I sometimes struggle with the problem of so much suffering in the world. How can a loving God allow so much misery and suffering all these years. I found it really interesting the insight the God suffers with and through us. I think this is quite a profound thought really. And im not really sure why! I would love to hear your thoughts further on this. Take care.

There is this wonderful speaker named Paul Hedderman who has a great way of talking about what he sometimes call the dilemma. "... And this is the dilemma. In most cases many of us are looking for what we are from what we are not. We've been misplaced, we've been put at another reference point and that reference point, what we are, doesn't seem to be available so we are looking for it. Which, as St Francis tried to correct "what's looking is what you are looking for.'' We don't see that because we think we already know what is looking , which is Paul, the body, which it isn't. Paul is not seeing, the eye is not seeing. The eye facilitates something to see." __ Paul Hedderman If we are looking from a perspective inside the story of "me" the Christian, or "me" the Buddhist... we, consequently will be 359 degrees blind.

Well explained, man. Meaning in Absurdity is a great book. It really helped to settle me when trying to get a handle on this stuff was driving me a bit mad. It's an odd world we inhabit, for sure.

I love that we have these pov's to help us imagine our situation. Another equally helpful perspective it Dependent Origination. Thanks for a great presentation.

Comments now switched on !!:)

St Augustine deals with the argument of the evil god and the good god extensively. His analysis ought to be considered. A significant issue with universal consciousness deprived of love as the driving force of reality as Bernardo posits is that it is a hollow undirected omnipotent power. What is the direction that this universal force desires? Unguided evolution, suffering for suffering sake? What end is this consciousness serving?

Absolutely brilliant. Very fortunate to have this information at hand aka world wide web. This is very kick ass how these men break down idealism. Definitely saving this video.

“Doing” philosophy.

The quatrain by William Blake 'He who binds to himself the joy ...' and your interpretation of it was for me an aha moment, and I felt it viscerally. Thank-you Mark. Valerie