Diving into the Mind with Bernardo Kastrup

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 58

  • @NewThinkingAllowed
    @NewThinkingAllowed  3 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    Statement of Comment Etiquette for New Thinking Allowed
    You are asked to be courteous at all times to all participants, and to limit your comments to the topics discussed in the videos. Your thoughtful participation is encouraged. If you post insulting comments here or promote political propaganda, conspiracy theories, or religious dogmas as if they were the absolute truth, you will have disqualified yourself and you will be permanently banned from posting on this channel. Except however, if you still want to post an aggressively rude or off-topic comment (and haven't yet been banned from posting), go visit our monolog about George Carlin at th-cam.com/video/e5MKv667TRI/w-d-xo.html. All comments will be accepted there, but not here.

    • @Anders-ge1ib
      @Anders-ge1ib 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Thank you Jeff for lifting all interesting topics! And for always being humble and standing your ground when necessary.

  • @BobBarkerScientificHeretic
    @BobBarkerScientificHeretic 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +23

    One of my favorite guests, with one of the best Hosts, which allows the guest ample time to speak. Looking forward to this

  • @fr33s373N
    @fr33s373N 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    Ever the gracious host. Profound and enjoyable conversation. Thank you

  • @BloodStarvedBrotherhood
    @BloodStarvedBrotherhood 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    First off, I have to say thank you for having this conversation and sharing it, and especially Bernardo for sharing these personal experiences. Many of the experiences talked about reminded me very much of my own and the reminder was very much appreciated. I found Bernardo years ago after feeling much the same, in that reality is fundamentally is mental, and wanting to get a grasp of modern metaphysical idealism.
    I can't help but feel that the true implication of metaphysical idealism has not fully been grasped even by those who espouse it as their metaphysical position. I understand the misgivings surrounding the implications such as solipsism, nihilism, and the potential for greater chaos, but I find these to be rooted in fear, even a fear of ourselves.
    The most profound experience for me that I had on psilocybin mushrooms was the realization of an underlying layer of pure, unconditional love, and this realization has carried over into my "normal" everyday living. I believe that if we can act from that love, in taking this realization of a mental, imaginal, or spiritual reality, to its logical conclusions, we can let go of the fear that holds us back. That if we do mess up so grandly as to obliterate ourselves, the world, even the whole universe, that we would only dissolve back into that love, and a new big bang would occur so we could try again.
    I used to fear that this idea of love is naive or delusional, but again that boils down to a fear of self or a fear of rejection from society. I realized then that I ultimately had a choice to make, and it was "do I have faith in fear, or faith in love?". I am open to the infinite potential of the mind, because I choose faith in love. I think that is what, to me, a mental/imaginal/spiritual reality means, one that requires us to choose who and what we are and what we will allow ourselves to experience, be it heaven or hell.

  • @ChristianSt97
    @ChristianSt97 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    Jeffrey's best interviews are definitely with Bernardo Kastrup!

  • @kantinenparty
    @kantinenparty 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +13

    I'm a simple man. I see Bernardo, I click.

    • @M0Nad1010
      @M0Nad1010 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      😊❤

    • @v1kt0u5
      @v1kt0u5 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Bernardo Kastrup, Michael Levin, Joscha Bach, Stephen Wolfram.

  • @jbricklin1
    @jbricklin1 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Wonderful dialogue! "Matter," as William James long ago noted, is just a "postulate" of thought. One pushback, at 1:07: Not only does solipsism need not be "anathema" for an Idealist, the irrefutability of solipsism is actually Idealism's Good News. It's not a far journey from “everything is an aspect of my one mind” to “everything is an aspect of the One Mind”.
    Virtual solipsism manifests in our dreams every night, however unacknowledged during the dream itself: myriad selves and objects all issuing from our one mind. Of course, when we wake up, a strong sense (but no defense) of the actual individuality of the selves and objects we engage asserts itself. That's when meditating on the very real phenomenon of telepathy comes into play, whispering to us that what is actually in play is the One Mind manifesting in myriad forms, including both our dreaming and waking self. Solipsism, therefore, can be a gateway to what William James considered “the great mystic achievement”: Tat Tvam Asi, “That Thou Art”.
    That the single-sourcing essential to solipsism is in play every night in our dreams, without the belief itself being in play, prepares us to see waking life as also single-sourced.
    Then a society that believes in solipsism would only need to deepen its awareness of telepathy and the overcoming of separation that is experienced as love, to realize that the “mind” of one's solipsistic perspective is porous.

  • @_WeDontKnow_
    @_WeDontKnow_ 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    Amazing timing, I just finished the majority of your other talks with Bernardo. He has such an interesting mind to pick at, and you have a great interviewing style. You should definitely have him on again:)

  • @159awi
    @159awi 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    I so like listening to Bernardo!

  • @Elza-xk7yd
    @Elza-xk7yd 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Dear Bernardo, Jeff is right: you are not at all too abstract or "crazy." You make perfect sense, in fact -- and at least some of us, if not all, have been "there" too.

  • @bigfootpegrande
    @bigfootpegrande 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    56:51 I am a geneticist and we have recently unveiled a fractal pattern of genetic population structure of migratory fish, which follows the fractal nature of rivers it uses to reproduce (homing behaviour revealed)

  • @jroma5241
    @jroma5241 หลายเดือนก่อน

    What an adventure to hike into the wilderness of reality guided by these two erudite gentlemen.

  • @alexandrekan99
    @alexandrekan99 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I like what one writer said on the subject of reality. He said that we could have long philosophical discussions about whether the tree in front of you really exists, or is just an illusion. However, we all want this tree to be real, because otherwise, our philosophical discussions would quickly turn into an ugly fight for the last gasp of air.

  • @rafdominguez7627
    @rafdominguez7627 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Wonderful video!! Thank you...your many conversation with Dr Kastrup are lamps in an often dark world and troubling world events

  • @EugenePustoshkin
    @EugenePustoshkin หลายเดือนก่อน

    I think this is a conversation that goes into a right direction. One thing though, one has to find ways to stabilize those profound insights as fully realized traits of self-identity and perception without relying exclusively on any altered state of consciousness, but relying on incessant nondual self-recognition via contemplative intentionality.

  • @johnnyfmorgan
    @johnnyfmorgan 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    some of bernardo's thoughts about his psychedelic exploration reminded me of a poem by czeslaw milosz "this only". its about a traveller returning to a valley. the last stanza is:
    He returns years later, has no demands.
    He wants only one, most precious thing:
    To see, purely and simply, without name,
    Without expectations, fears, or hopes,
    At the edge where there is no I or not-I.

  • @williamkerr5132
    @williamkerr5132 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you very much Dr Jeffrey Mishlove!That ride with Bernado Kastrup was beyond amazing.Really New Thinking Allowed!Shared!Greetings from Brazil!That was a Wonderful Trip and It might last in my thoughts!

  • @joh8982
    @joh8982 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I really enjoyed this conversation between you both. Thanks very much.

  • @LoneRanger.801
    @LoneRanger.801 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Great to see Bernardo again.

  • @liviubeschieri
    @liviubeschieri 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Such a beautiful chat! Wow. Some ideas that came to "my mind" toward the end were that 1) the mind is just speculating based on the little info it has, not purposely deceiving itself, maybe just in its innocent ignorance, sure. But overall the mind is an exploration instrument of the great divine Mind. :) And 2) the there's no need to actually arrive at some solid understanding of reality, sure, we do arrive at more and more clarity and "truth," but ultimately it's the exploration that's the fun, the point, and the participation in the divine play... of knowing itself ever more deeply, and developing the complexity of vessels that can embody and express it's potential and qualities ever more expansively. :D Anyway, great and insightful chat! Thanks Bernardo for your brilliant mind!

  • @sandralee5932
    @sandralee5932 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Wow! Another mind-opening, fascinating video. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

  • @M0Nad1010
    @M0Nad1010 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I resonate so strongly with Bernardo. Our experiences may seem completely different- however, I feel like we both came to this epiphany or revelation- identically!
    Thank you so much for sharing this video ❤

  • @jeremiahhouk9037
    @jeremiahhouk9037 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    You two both rock! You both make me question reality;)

  • @falsearrow4502
    @falsearrow4502 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you very much for this interview. It is comforting to hear about our encrusted cocoon of doom from such a smiley individual

  • @GOSOPRO
    @GOSOPRO 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Love me some Bernardo, he invites us to stretch to deformation the generally accepted credulity of existential physics and mainstream culture, with humility, arm in arm with doggedness. Welcome to my life of self deception.

  • @jkhynia
    @jkhynia 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Bernardo is fabulous 🎉

  • @scordelmartine4879
    @scordelmartine4879 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Always interesting your vidéos Merci !!❤Reality is mental ! We live in a dream. So I don't give reality to horrible things in this world. Only on the beautiful things of this world !!!😊 This way I m always happy😊❤😅 And the world sends me energy, synchronicities , miraculous healings and extraordinary mystical expériences to show me I have it right and remind's me that there is this other reality .!!!!
    "A man is and becomes what he concentrates on " PLOTIN. 😊❤ It is so important to mind our mind ! 😅😊 Much love from France , love both of you ❤ 🇫🇷 Martine

  • @tammyallen
    @tammyallen 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Absolutely wonderful ❤️🙏

  • @simplifyandslowdown
    @simplifyandslowdown 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Woow, very interesting, thank you for sharing with us!

  • @markbass6099
    @markbass6099 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Bernardo’s new book on Nov. 1 - Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell

  • @canisronis2753
    @canisronis2753 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Understanding = expansion of the surface area of the mind

  • @chetom700
    @chetom700 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Really enjoyed this. Thankyou both 🙏
    I recommend spending alot of time inquiring with Jiddu Krishnamurti, you will get to see the subtle tricks your mind plays to feel secure in this culture 🌱

  • @DavydWood
    @DavydWood 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This was great...

  • @amandayorke481
    @amandayorke481 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Wonderful!

  • @flow963
    @flow963 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Very interesting the extent language BK employees to describe his experience and journeys into “altered states of consciousness” corresponds with the language often leveraged to describe NDEs.

  • @The.Watcher.2024
    @The.Watcher.2024 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Excellent :)

  • @Jakelefleur
    @Jakelefleur 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    is this a repeat of the old video, or a new one?

    • @NewThinkingAllowed
      @NewThinkingAllowed  2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      This is a reboot from 2019 ... as stated in the introduction and the description.

  • @UltimaEnigma
    @UltimaEnigma 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    🌈🌟

  • @rjwelsinga
    @rjwelsinga 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    MIND your step

    • @rjwelsinga
      @rjwelsinga 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Actuallly considering buying this book, cool insights! ... remarkable how Kastrup wants/needs to hold on to 'solid ground' as he calls it - and that 'mind' is the only solid ground he found so far. Not sure what he means with his word 'mind' ... i would argue The Whole is 'solid' or 'true', The All. And any type of perceiving that whole, realising it, feeling it, knowing it, doing it, loving it, by individuations of it, solidifies the All. Then again maybe that is my deceptive narrative :)

  • @Emmet-b8k
    @Emmet-b8k 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Hello again from Ireland,once again, another great internet video...1 zero 1... no...oh...101... 0+1...= What 😅...😮...0... No...o... No...one... No...o... no...o ... no... one... 10... No...😅...1... no...😅...1... no...😅...2...😅...no... 😂😂😂😂😂...
    Infinity...number ... not a lesson...😅... .

  • @treeperson2947
    @treeperson2947 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Maybe no thinking allowed to enter a new paradigm

  • @OuroboricIdealism
    @OuroboricIdealism 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Kastrupian analytic idealism represents an inevitably groundless case of dogmatic metaphysics. The position insists on the transcendental reality of a “mind at large” and its “alters” (other minds), claiming that all minds are excitations of one absolute mind. However, since neither a mind at large nor other minds can be given in possible experience (which only provides access to immanent appearances as representations in consciousness), Kastrup must assert their transcendental rather than empirical reality.
    Analytic idealism proves inescapably groundless precisely because it exemplifies dogmatic metaphysics. Dogmatism involves attempting to derive pure knowledge from concepts alone, and since Kastrup can only access the concepts of mind at large and other minds (rather than their empirical reality), his position necessarily becomes dogmatic. This represents pre-critical “building castles in the air” by illegitimately inferring existence from mere essence. The position is doubly groundless because the transcendental reality of mind at large and other minds cannot be substantiated either a priori or a posteriori. It cannot be established a priori because it’s not logically necessary (solipsism remains logically possible), and it cannot be established a posteriori because experience only provides access to immanent representations in consciousness.
    Kastrup’s central error lies in presupposing what requires explanation: the transcendental reality of mind at large and other minds. His system assumes this reality and then explains phenomena from this assumption, but cannot justify the fundamental assumption itself. This makes his position a petitio principii. When Kastrup attempts to defend his position by appealing to apparent intersubjective agreement, he commits the same category error as Samuel Johnson’s famous refutation of Berkeley by kicking a stone. Just as Johnson failed to understand that Berkeley wasn’t denying the sensation of stones but their mind-independent existence, Kastrup fails to recognize that the appearance of intersubjectivity within consciousness doesn't establish the transcendental reality of other minds beyond one’s consciousness.
    The irony of Kastrup’s position becomes evident in his critique of physical materialism. He argues against physically objective matter by claiming it’s “not an observable fact but a conceptual explanatory device abstracted from patterns and regularities of observable facts”. Yet his own posited mind at large and its alters fall prey to exactly this criticism-they too are unobservable explanatory abstractions derived from patterns in experience. Furthermore, matter at least possesses empirical reality (even if we doubt its transcendental reality), whereas neither mind at large nor other minds can possibly have empirical reality.
    When Kastrupians protest that “consciousness is directly given in experience”, this misses the point-the argument is not against the reality of consciousness but against the groundless affirmation of a transcendental mind at large and other minds. When they argue that the mind at large hypothesis best explains the hard problem of consciousness and quantum mechanics, this overlooks that solipsism would be an even more parsimonious explanation per Occam’s Razor. When they claim that solipsism can’t account for the order and regularity of experience or the autonomous activity of other organisms, this begs the question by presupposing these phenomena require transcendental reality rather than being possible as mere representations in consciousness (as in dreams).
    When Kastrupians argue their position makes a smaller leap of faith than materialism, this merely confirms their position as irrational fideism-a smaller irrational leap remains irrational. When they appeal to revelation, this still involves experience, which only provides representations in consciousness, thus begging the question and appealing to the stone again. When they argue that finite consciousness necessarily presupposes universal consciousness, this assumes what needs proving (that individual consciousness is truly finite) while ignoring the logical possibility that the solipsistic self could be the ultimate ground of appearances.
    The technical philosophical failings multiply: Kastrup’s “analytic” idealism actually involves synthetic a priori judgments, as analysis of experience alone cannot reveal that mind at large must have transcendental reality. He illegitimately extends categories like relation and causation beyond their proper domain of application within experience. His position violates Occam’s Razor by multiplying entities beyond necessity. Most fundamentally, he fails to recognize that knowledge cannot extend beyond the bounds of possible experience.
    Kastrupian analytic idealism stands necessarily groundless-not due to poor argumentation, but because it requires establishing what cannot be established within legitimate philosophical inquiry. It cannot retreat to empirical claims without abandoning its metaphysical commitments, and it cannot establish its required transcendental claims without engaging in dogmatism. This represents not mere philosophical error but a regression to pre-critical thinking that Kant’s critical philosophy had overcome. Just as it would be irresponsible to insist the Earth is flat after the Copernican Revolution, engaging in pre-critical metaphysics after Kant’s critical turn represents a fundamental failure of philosophical responsibility.

    • @NewThinkingAllowed
      @NewThinkingAllowed  2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      It seems to me that your argument depends upon, among other things, the refusal to consider the empirical data of parapsychology.

    • @OuroboricIdealism
      @OuroboricIdealism 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @NewThinkingAllowed I do not disregard the empirical data of parapsychology (and insist that such data has regulative validity on the basis of practical reason), I only insist that empirical data is always representations arising in one’s consciousness and provides no evidence of any alleged transcendental reality beyond one’s consciousness (e.g., a mind at large, other minds, things-in-themselves, etc.).

  • @Radswid
    @Radswid 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    When Mr. Kastrup finds a pebble on his path, he assumes that no one has made this discovery before him. So he has to write a book about his findings.And he has to talk and talk about it...

    • @namero999
      @namero999 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      He is very vocal about his work not being new, about the fact that he's not inventing anything other than framing ancient ideas in a more western-digestible way... He has been repeating this since the beginning.

  • @oliviergoethals4137
    @oliviergoethals4137 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Time for a new talk no?

  • @OuroboricIdealism
    @OuroboricIdealism 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Bernardo Kastrup’s analytic idealism is fundamentally groundless and represents dogmatic metaphysics. Kastrup’s position insists on the transcendental reality of a “mind at large” and its “alters” (other minds), claiming that all individual minds are excitations of one absolute consciousness. However, this stance is inherently problematic because neither a mind at large nor other minds can be given in possible experience, which only provides access to immanent appearances and representations in individual consciousness.
    Kastrup’s analytic idealism is inescapably groundless because it constitutes dogmatic metaphysics-attempting to derive knowledge from pure concepts alone without empirical foundation. The transcendental reality of mind at large and other minds cannot be substantiated either a priori (as solipsism remains logically possible) or a posteriori (as experience only provides access to internal representations). When Kastrup appeals to apparent intersubjective agreement to support his claims, he commits the same error as Samuel Johnson’s famous refutation of Berkeley by kicking a stone-mistaking features within experience for proof about what lies beyond experience.
    The fundamental flaw in Kastrup’s approach is that it presupposes what it should explain: the transcendental reality of mind at large and other minds. His system begins by assuming this reality and then explains phenomena from this assumption, but cannot establish the necessity or actuality of what it presupposes. This represents not a minor logical flaw but a fundamental and necessary failure of the position. Any attempt to ground transcendental claims about mind at large in empirical appearances represents precisely the kind of category error that Kant’s critical philosophy was designed to prevent.
    Rather than marking philosophical progress, Kastrup’s analytic idealism represents a regression to pre-critical dogmatic metaphysics-attempting to establish through illegitimate means what cannot be established within the bounds of legitimate philosophical inquiry. The position’s necessary groundlessness stems not from poor argumentation but from requiring what cannot possibly be substantiated within proper philosophical limits. In failing to recognize these limits, Kastrup’s approach exemplifies exactly the kind of pretension to absolute knowledge that critical philosophy aimed to overcome.

  • @Emmet-b8k
    @Emmet-b8k 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Ps...o 0

  • @Jana-fp8qp
    @Jana-fp8qp 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Where was the meaning 4 million years ago before human conscousness? Why can't other life forms have meaning? I disagree wirh his cat doesn't have meaning. I think his cat is more in touch with meaning than him. (his cat should give him a big scratch for that comment)
    If we are just a bag of chemicals then I would say this discussion is meaningless. If we are beyond this brain then everything down to the particles that make matter has meaning. There is no in between. Absolute Panpsychism and beyond!