We have the honor of witnessing the making of a philosopher that will be known for centuries. Relish this experience and spread the word about Bernardo Kastrup.
Not really. For example, he doesn't even broach the subject of Consciousness (Siva) as Energy (Shakti). He's a reductionist, and not an Initiated mystic. Metaphysical Idealism in schools of esoteric Eastern philosophy (Kashmir Shavism, Dzogchen, Adi Da's Daism, and Ramana Maharshi's Advaita) surpasses Bernardo's metaphysical idealism.
I hope you are right. I wonder, though, if it is still possible for any philosopher to become well known for centuries to come like the great philosophers of the past. The last century has seen such a huge increase in the number of people writing, publishing, reading, and exploring ideas that it now seems almost impossible for anyone to become an enduring "major figure" in philosophy for more than a few decades. It seems like more and more people will be philosophizing, connecting, and sharing their insights freely with each other. The distinction between "philosopher" and "non-philosopher" -- always very questionable to begin with -- might become a thing of the past.
This was an amazing talk! Please resume with another! It's so refreshing to hear Bernado have the chance to expand and discuss things further, deeper, instead of interviewers asking the same things over and over, covering the same ground as a hundred others. What we, (well I on a very selfish level I admit!) would love to hear more is what's next, what's beyond, to have these theories expand and permeate life in very meaningful ways, to live this understanding with meaning and a better comprehension. These deeper conversations are invaluable for this essential next stage of evolution. Thank you, more please! 🙏
More coming soon. I've been teaching for the last month and now that the dust has settled, I'm back in the podcast seat scheduling the next few months. More to come. Great comment regarding what's next.... I'll pick up this thread in a few interviews because I've got a few folks lined up that will gladly answer the call. Thank you for tuning in. 🙏🙏🌓🌓
Loved this. As someone that, throughout my 20s, didn't question contemporary science and often felt that we/I had all the answers, I really resonated with Bernardo saying "it's not even arrogant, it's profoundly naive". I ended up becoming a psychotherapist in my 30's and my process in my own therapy and work with others began an opening up or shift in my relationship with reality and self. One thing I would note about my earlier time as a hardcore athiest and materialist, due to my own trauma, I was emotional shut off (living from the head) and now understand that my world view was, inpart, an attempt to control and create a sense of safety in a vastly confusing and potentially terrifying realisation that we don't know anything about what reality is - only how it behaves. Interestingly, as I opened up emotionally and perhaps spiritually, many of my symptoms and suffering began to drop off - Which leads me to my point. To believe we have all the answers within scientific materialism, suggests that we can only find meaning, happiness or peace within that paradym (this is fantastic for capitalism- that's a different rant). We have seen such a rise in particular types of internal suffering in recent history- We search for meaning in objects because our narrative, particularly in the west, tells us that is all that there is. I'm not suggesting that all physicalists are unhappy, many people find closure in their understandings, though I would argue at a cost. However, for many of us, I sense that the world as object must include a shutting down or splitting off aspects of the psyche. Perhpas it is kinder to ourselves to let go of control and trust that we are ultimately a part of nature. To flow with the absurd idea that we don't know what the fuck is going on! Great talk, I really appreciate your present, warm energy :)
Thank you for tuning in. You highlight one of the most important aspects of Bernardo's work - that we are all to question the "convenient fictions" we were both handed by others and also that are spontaneously created in our own lives without the influence of others. As psychotherapist, we see the tendencies and consequences of trauma upon one's worldview - you articulate them well. Jung referred to complexes as splinter personalities - the fragment and then haunt us. Thank you for this thoughtful comment.
First time listening to Bernardo- what a trip. Glad he has brought more people to your channel John. Many fascinating and mind-altering conversations here. Something immense and mysterious is unfolding in our culture.
Just at found your channel John (I'm a big fan of Mr Kastrup)....now I'm going to have to binge-watch all YOUR vids. Looks like some enriching content here. Thanks for your work.
Man. This is a gem. Thank you so much. I love your way of interviewing. It has a kind of warmth to it, I really appreciate. Definitely subscribed. Keep on the great work.
The TH-cam algorithm gets it right every once in a while! It recommended your conversation with Brian Muraresku, and I've been burning through everything else on this channel since then. I love your interview style! Thank you for what you do.
Thank you, John, for this skillful interview. Have been a BK fan for a long time, had already read his book on Jung. I understand so much more through this real conversation of two minds meeting. My own life has shown me the truth of synchronicity, and this was really helpful. 🙏🏼
Thanks so much for bringing on BK. I just read the book under discussion and BK’s interviews always add more to consider. I’ve joined the channel and will be back for more!
I came upon your channel as I am a fan of Dr Kastrup, and glad I did. Beautiful conversation, I appreciate the stillness out of which you ask questions. Looking forward to checking out more of your content. I’d love to see a follow up interview with Dr Kastrup as well. Thank you!
New sub- Been in the Kastrup Klub for 2 yrs. now, and I’m using the holidays to get caught up and current. Happy to just happen across your channel. Great work. Good job-
Looking for "what" things are in addition to a description of "how they behave" is a natural human intuition that is applicable to macroscopic objects, but asking the same about elementary constituents of nature (particles, fields whatever) is like asking about the marital status of the number 7. If I tell a friend about some object and described how it looked and what it was doing asking the question "but what was it ?" is meaningful in the sense that we understand that it is made of something, has an internal structure and these constituents are what explains how it looked and behaved. In other words asking what something "is", beyond how it acts is the same as asking what it is "made of". But the very concept of an elementary building block of reality (say the so called elementary particles of the standard model) is that it cannot be "made of" anything else. Our macroscopic intuition that there is an "inside" of things that is "filled up or occupied" by some substance has no meaning for elementary particles. They are the thing that makes up other things and if they were made up of something else they would not be elementary but that other thing would be. The mode (sense) in which the elementary constituents exist is that they behave in some manner, that is, interact with other elementary things according to some rules. In contrast the mode in which macroscopic things exist is they are patterns in which elementary things are arranged. It is the macroscopic things that don't have an INDEPENDENT existence. The elementary things are what existence is ! This is not just empty word-play. Elementary things don't "possess" existence as a property. Existing means to be made of them. If I say that "Abraham Lincoln no longer exists" what we mean is that there is no longer a specific arrangement of elementary particles that we used know and love as Mr. A.L. None of the particles that he was made up of were specific to him, and none of them are lost. What was specific was their arrangement. So Lincoln existed in terms of (in the mode of) a pattern. He existed because elementary particles can (and did) come together in that pattern, so his "reality" was provided by the reality of the particles. So to say something exists is to say there are particles (in some arrangement). Period. Which is to say that particles are existence. If I specified all the information (say by writing on a piece of paper) that captures the Lincoln pattern that would not be the person A.L. To be A.L.the pattern has to be the A.L. one, but it also has to be a pattern of particles not just disembodied information. Our intuitive feeling that having only descriptions of the behavior of elementary particles leaves them somehow "empty", "un-graspable", or even unreal simply shows that out intuitions are not appropriate for thinking about elementary particles. Why should they be ? They evolved to capture the rules of the macroscopic world. Even Dennett is confused about this when he says that everything exists that you need to talk about to explain the way the world works. This is true in the sense that explaining patterns requires reference to other patterns of things. The pattern itself is extra information. But this just confuses 2 different meanings of the word exist: If I say something does not exist what I hear is that "it is not real" which means it is "not true, or valid". So If I said that the pattern that makes up A.L "does not exist" in the same sense as the electron, then we want to object because that pattern IS the relevant explanation of very real things, like the Gettysburg Address. But this fact does not equate the way in which an electron can be said to exist with the way a pattern like A.L. does. Both are "real" because both capture a true, correct description of some aspect of reality. But validity of the descriptions is not the only way in which the 2 phenomena differ. There is a key thing that patterns don't have but particles do, which is INDEPENDENT existence, and that is what we should properly mean by "existence".People seem to forget that getting from information to energy you need that little Boltzmann constant....
57:58 - "Preposterous to create an artificially conscious silicon computer." YES. It absolutely is. WHY CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE THIS???? Why is it so easy for massive numbers of people to climb on the conscious computer bandwagon? It's a MACHINE - it does exactly and ONLY what you tell it to do. But people start talking about "AI rights" and other such completely bogus ideas. It makes me want to cry.
1:27:27 -1:28:42 everything is... causality has to be reduced to synkronisticity ...the mind ...similarities ...the cross man standing with his arms extended sideway in the sun creates shadow on the earth ....associations of meaning thats all there is 1:27:44
I’m at about minute 34 - 35 and I don’t know what we are talking about? Thank you John for trying to clarify. What is so terrifying about humans according to Jung? I’m confused . What about good and evil?
Re: convenient fictions and computer games. Bernardo goes into some detail about how the computer works to create the image and says that the child's "convenient fiction" of the little man in the room is false. Of course that is certainly true at one level; however, at another level, the game's creator did indeed intentionally evoke an imaginary world in which little men found themselves inside rooms and had to avoid bumping into the walls. IOW the child is correctly translating the intentionality that was built into the game. Anyway I love this dialog the two of you are having, thank you both!
This very unexpectedly reached my #1 area of interest and intense study my whole life. The nature of evil. They said many things that for me was the first time hearing it. Such as needing to feel what the evil people were feeling when they did what they did. Even Hitler. YES. 😭 For the first time I hear someone else saying this when I spent the last 20 years working on it. I dove into the deepest darkness of history to harpoon that darkness NOT “out there” but inside of us. And I found this dragon of chaos and I forged something new with which it can be slain. My background is in psychology-evolutionary psychology and neuroscience-but I too am a computer scientist and started out in college in that. I programmed computers as a kid, and built them too-like actually with a soldering iron, 😂-later I learned about and assembled components and built computers for my family and friends. I know 3 programming languages. Anyway I have spent time in the inner circles of neo-Nazi and racist organizations with nothing but good intentions. So I know what I am talking about. I am writing a book about the 5 types of Nazi that also applies to EVERYONE. Not just our pet projective distraction from our past, the “bad guys” as defined now. Remember if you will that Christians were fed to lions. And also crucified-as the bad guys. So were philosophers speaking truth. Following real truth means taking the leap that ego holds you back from. I loved this talk more than anything ❤️🔥👁️ I don’t understand why I cannot get anything published by the Essentia Foundation or get an interview anywhere. So it’s wonderful to hear this stuff regardless. Thank you guys so much-sending all the love and good vibes. ❤️❤️❤️ I am happy to sacrifice myself for what I love. My words will eventually be heard I know. Thank you.
Keep it up! What a deep and dark path and area of study. Only those who can protect their light are capable of enduring the overwhelming temptations to evil, resentment, revenge, and the like. What a powerful area of study you've selected.
The reference to the Movie Contact, reminded me of Andrei Tarkovsky’s Russian movie Solaris. In the movie a ‘ planet’ of neural fibres creates peoples memories.
Fantastic interview, you draw some insights out of Bernardo that nobody before has! Congratulations! I wonder why he is not fond of Alan watts , I would love to know why....
@@TheSacredSpeaks yes! Please do ask him, I am very curious since Alan Watts has been one of the most insightful philosophers and helpful ,at least for me🙏..love your content by the way !
There seems to be a parallel between physicists studying the behaviour of Nature ( but really wanting to know what it is in itself ) and the deficiencies of 20th Century behavioural psychology, which only observed the external symptoms of mental illness, without really understanding the internal processes. It could be an indication of that change you spoke of, which might be characterized as a growing dissatisfaction with the current scientific paradigm.
Would love to share Covid time stirrings x10 since falling into decoding Jung 3/7 with Bernardo and now today. I never liked games, but now life is a game. I was just trying to organize and put the house in order. Intuition myths have reconnected to deep roots. And I’m recognizing everything on my path. Away we go……way beyond the walls. MetaArts
Bernardo is strange enigma to me, I do not understand him but keep returning to him with progressively higher frequency for past several years-mostly looking for a phrase or sentence-which even his host might utter; which would be relevant to my particular situation at that time and after that I almost involuntarily pause and stop watching after a while. Once I had not even reach the part where I could see Bernardo on screen-it was just host reading out list of his books, and as soon as he read a tile-'meaning in absurdity', my job was done. Actually, I had been agonizing whether something I created was totally absurd and might be meaningless. I do not like his messianic attitude, but I understand its necessity in the world he inhabits.
Nonduality is seriously lacking in the absence of a path of removal of suffering. I think some of it just takes time in realizing that mental truths go stale quicker and quicker. Impermanence bro
To understand and appreciate Nietzsche you must know that he was Polish. And like one Englishman said :"Poland is not a country but a disturbed state offend".
They both have Peter Kingsley's Catafalque. :) I found it easier to read the endnotes first. It's interesting how that book came out just a little while before the covid-19 pandemic and the lockdowns. When everything shut down, it looked as if Kingsley's expectation of an apocalyptic meltdown of our civilization -- inspired by a vision Jung had near the end of his life -- was fulfilled, to some extent. Maybe Kingsley was experiencing precognition of the pandemic and its effects in people's lives, filtered through the lense of a kind of end-of-the-world archetype.
Very good. Totally rhymes with the great work of John David Barrow FRS who was an English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician. And who said (exquisitely): “A Universe, simple enough to be understood, could not have created a mind capable of understanding it”.
@@1kenhardt I'm guessing that there was nothing intended, not even us probably. But still, we are here against all odds, small and huge, idiots and geniuses, dead and alive. That's us.
Thx!!! The insight about replacing Arestotelian logic with intuitionism is so important because I sense this lays at the basis of the needed change and has to do with the essence of creativity. Any change within the consensus meta reality first has to be imagined and felt to be real (faith). Felt Imagination (VAU) impresses the isness of being (nominal, JOD) and can only thereafter be expressed in spacetime as a perception of physicality (phenomena, HE HE). Feeling what you desire as fulfilled IS creative freedom. To feel something 'as if it already is real' is the true act of creation because mentation is ontic thus prior to expression. And what you feel (and truly believe) interacts with the surrounding impersonal field of subjectivity and the resistance between this field and your felt imagination is what QM-collapses ...expresses as matter to the observer. Matter is merely the expressed language; it is therefore always symbolic. And symbolic means that, similar like in a dream, what you perceive has to be understood as solely referential, metaphorical... So the aim is thus to search for meaning in what is represented (matter). Again, matter is the result of the interaction between your felt imagination (personal habit with some degrees of freedom) and the impersonal field of subjectivity (habit with little or no freedom)... physicality does seem like it is shared, but because of its underlying relational mental character, the physical world is always a unique and solely personal perspective (RQM). Intuitively I sense this also has to do with what #IanMcgilchrist states: 'Things or relata are secondary to relationship. And we take part in the reciprocal creation of the world'. Thx for this video and your channel, very meaningful!
Well, it is not that we are puerile as a culture because we as adults dichotomize "Good from evil" and that the insignia of a greater maturity is as Bernardo says, "...to have the maturity to learn how to supervise it within ourselves" but rather a deeper understanding (beneath the words) that circumspect awareness and supervision alone will still not suffice. What is required is the capacity and society's capacity to encourage one another (individually and collectively) access to our underlying traumas, existential fears and the unnamed shadow or so-called, dark side within ourselves. The latter no longer having to remain such (or to a much greater degree lessening its degree of havoc and concomitant intergenerational destruction) once we have the capacity (or at the very least willingness) to voice our early based childhood traumas, voicelessness and abandonment, lest we continue to repress and pass on the taboo (from one generation to the next) that logically and adaptively manifests into a Hitler and/or to whatever degrees associated autocrats, sociopaths and psychopaths! It is not that the addict or any one in psychic distress is not compelled to do what they're doing, naturally they have a motivation but to call it blissfully infantile fashion "evil" and to be punitive toward them is blithely childish or at the very least excessively misguided. However, it necessary to not just take the other's position (if we could or to use the Hindu phrase, Tat Vam Asi) and then we would understand it but to understand a bit more under the surface - at a bodily based or autonomic level - that they (any one us in pain and using drugs, dissociated or becoming a sociopath or psychopath) are externalizing as an adaptive coping mechanism, blocking unbearable, difficult and painful feelings from typically a history of early childhood abuse and trauma to which they are being further silenced (shamed and guilted to death and by even surface cognitive based therapies which just skim the surface and reinforce or bar access to underling feelings of guilt and shame) and therefore understandably (not condoning) out on themselves or others.
Well stated! Much of my work in trauma and attachment explores similar threads as those that you have noted here. We see through our individual and unique perceptual system and therefore the reality that we experience is build upon and envisioned though the systems of both our individual and collective history. I call upon William Blake here in one of my favorite quotes - he states, "I see through the eye, not with it." So often the evils being enacted are done so by those who project the evil within out upon those who are judged as evil. What a wicked game we all play when we remain unconscious of the evil that lurks in our own psyche. James Hollis once remarked, "Nobody fights a battle under the banner of evil."
So how can one help prevent the evil that society is perpetrating against innocent children that tells them that their bodies are the wrong bodies, that they must dismember themselves and castrate themselves and medicalise themselves to attain their true selves?
48:05 When do we as insignificant individual dissociations of Cosmic Consciousness "[bear] moral responsibility" when that mother-effin' Consciousness itself doesn't??? Are we not simply manifestations of Its Will -- of Nature Itself????? Wherefore are we to judge how God wants to work through us?? I'm honestly not trying to be a "Pharisee" about this (or Sadducee; I can't remember the difference now)...I'm genuinely curious why on the one hand the awesome power that is Bernardo's Universal Mind at Large is "excused" when an insignificant human being is held responsible for merely reflecting the mysterious flow of The Universe.... Really seems weird. Oh, Consciousness is amoral because it's unknowing due to not having been subjected to the evolutionary pressures that's lead to meta-cognition -- but we who are the actual victims of its incredibly idiotic whims are the ones to be judged????????? And if we're all just dissociations of the same Mind anyway, then really, who cares?? "All the world's a stage" so once the show or cosmic dream is over (for us individually if not for Bernardo's Field of Mentation), no one's guilty of anything -- none of it was "really real!"
26;39 -26;53 he was able to cross the river ..and catch some fresh fish to his tribe ...Jung holding the golden chain...positivistisk psykology without the soul
It's the not the Western view of good/evil separation that is childish in contrast to the East's. It's the very (shortage of) view of your own that fails to recognize their intertwinement, which is indeed an important part of western history of religion and thoughts, that is childish. A similar group of people that makes the claim that their own view of good/evil is naive are being active in the the East too. In that sense you guys belong to each other indeed more than you belong to your respective traditions. In other words, it's not about the West/East division. It's about people who are divided by their imagined affiliation and their real ones.
The Shadow! Such a meaningful concept. Only to invite “the other” to reveal the meaningful road of self awareness. As a friend once said, “we are in this world alone, but we can’t do this world alone.”
I dont think ive ever heard a more interesting conversation in my life.
So glad that it stirred something within you.
We have the honor of witnessing the making of a philosopher that will be known for centuries. Relish this experience and spread the word about Bernardo Kastrup.
Not really. For example, he doesn't even broach the subject of Consciousness (Siva) as Energy (Shakti). He's a reductionist, and not an Initiated mystic. Metaphysical Idealism in schools of esoteric Eastern philosophy (Kashmir Shavism, Dzogchen, Adi Da's Daism, and Ramana Maharshi's Advaita) surpasses Bernardo's metaphysical idealism.
I hope you are right. I wonder, though, if it is still possible for any philosopher to become well known for centuries to come like the great philosophers of the past.
The last century has seen such a huge increase in the number of people writing, publishing, reading, and exploring ideas that it now seems almost impossible for anyone to become an enduring "major figure" in philosophy for more than a few decades. It seems like more and more people will be philosophizing, connecting, and sharing their insights freely with each other. The distinction between "philosopher" and "non-philosopher" -- always very questionable to begin with -- might become a thing of the past.
Lol.. Calm down. Seems like you missed the entire point. He doesn't know anything either.
Agreed! Finally!
@@l.rongardner2150 talk to him on your channel? I'm sure he would be happy to learn more.
this was absolutely tremendous, thank you
As a regular follower of Bernardo (beautiful mind), he takes me through many interesting topics and channels. Subscribed.
Thank you. and welcome!! I'm a fan as well.
This was an amazing talk! Please resume with another! It's so refreshing to hear Bernado have the chance to expand and discuss things further, deeper, instead of interviewers asking the same things over and over, covering the same ground as a hundred others. What we, (well I on a very selfish level I admit!) would love to hear more is what's next, what's beyond, to have these theories expand and permeate life in very meaningful ways, to live this understanding with meaning and a better comprehension. These deeper conversations are invaluable for this essential next stage of evolution. Thank you, more please! 🙏
More coming soon. I've been teaching for the last month and now that the dust has settled, I'm back in the podcast seat scheduling the next few months. More to come.
Great comment regarding what's next.... I'll pick up this thread in a few interviews because I've got a few folks lined up that will gladly answer the call. Thank you for tuning in. 🙏🙏🌓🌓
Link me some of your favourite Bernardo interviews
I loved how he spoke about the cat through the fence just after his own cat had walked behind him! Enjoyed this talk so much, thank you 👏
Loved this. As someone that, throughout my 20s, didn't question contemporary science and often felt that we/I had all the answers, I really resonated with Bernardo saying "it's not even arrogant, it's profoundly naive". I ended up becoming a psychotherapist in my 30's and my process in my own therapy and work with others began an opening up or shift in my relationship with reality and self. One thing I would note about my earlier time as a hardcore athiest and materialist, due to my own trauma, I was emotional shut off (living from the head) and now understand that my world view was, inpart, an attempt to control and create a sense of safety in a vastly confusing and potentially terrifying realisation that we don't know anything about what reality is - only how it behaves. Interestingly, as I opened up emotionally and perhaps spiritually, many of my symptoms and suffering began to drop off - Which leads me to my point. To believe we have all the answers within scientific materialism, suggests that we can only find meaning, happiness or peace within that paradym (this is fantastic for capitalism- that's a different rant). We have seen such a rise in particular types of internal suffering in recent history- We search for meaning in objects because our narrative, particularly in the west, tells us that is all that there is. I'm not suggesting that all physicalists are unhappy, many people find closure in their understandings, though I would argue at a cost. However, for many of us, I sense that the world as object must include a shutting down or splitting off aspects of the psyche. Perhpas it is kinder to ourselves to let go of control and trust that we are ultimately a part of nature. To flow with the absurd idea that we don't know what the fuck is going on! Great talk, I really appreciate your present, warm energy :)
Thank you for tuning in.
You highlight one of the most important aspects of Bernardo's work - that we are all to question the "convenient fictions" we were both handed by others and also that are spontaneously created in our own lives without the influence of others. As psychotherapist, we see the tendencies and consequences of trauma upon one's worldview - you articulate them well. Jung referred to complexes as splinter personalities - the fragment and then haunt us. Thank you for this thoughtful comment.
Very well said. Thanks!
Man, I just re-listened to this again, twice, in the past two days. With deep gratitude 🙏
First time listening to Bernardo- what a trip. Glad he has brought more people to your channel John. Many fascinating and mind-altering conversations here. Something immense and mysterious is unfolding in our culture.
I agree! and thank you for tuning in. Enjoy the dive.
Just at found your channel John (I'm a big fan of Mr Kastrup)....now I'm going to have to binge-watch all YOUR vids.
Looks like some enriching content here. Thanks for your work.
Thank you for tuning in. Welcome to the project. Enjoy the process and check in every now and then.
I have watched quite a few conversations with Bernardo but this is my favourite one to date. Thank you both for this treat.
What an honor. Thank you!
Thank you John for hosting Bernardo in such a friendly and insightfull conversation.
Thank you, Roberto, for checking out the podcast! 🙏
Man. This is a gem. Thank you so much.
I love your way of interviewing. It has a kind of warmth to it, I really appreciate.
Definitely subscribed. Keep on the great work.
Thank you for your comment and sentiment. What a lovely message. More to come.
Such a pleasure to take in this conversation. Bravo and thank you for what you do.
Wow, so glad you enjoyed it. I will be circling back to Bernardo ... he has so many books that I want to talk to him about 😜
@@TheSacredSpeaks You've been doing great work with these interviews, in general!
@@zoroasterhoudini Thank you! What a wild ride...I'm loving it.
The TH-cam algorithm gets it right every once in a while! It recommended your conversation with Brian Muraresku, and I've been burning through everything else on this channel since then. I love your interview style! Thank you for what you do.
Thank you for climbing aboard! I'm glad you are here.
I SO love Bernardo, and this is an interview that allows him to be who he is completely. Thank you!!
Thank you! You could not have offered a better compliment for me.
Thank you, John, for this skillful interview. Have been a BK fan for a long time, had already read his book on Jung. I understand so much more through this real conversation of two minds meeting. My own life has shown me the truth of synchronicity, and this was really helpful. 🙏🏼
What a lovely message! Thank you, Reirin. So glad that the conversation provided a few windows:)
Thanks so much for bringing on BK. I just read the book under discussion and BK’s interviews always add more to consider. I’ve joined the channel and will be back for more!
Thank you! Welcome. Much to absorb and more to come.
1:27:30 Reminds me of Douglas Hofstadter's "Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking"....
I’ve always wanted to chat with him. Great reference! Thank you.
@1:37:58 - Thank you deeply dear Bernardo for this.
This was a genuine pleasure. Thank you both.
Absolutely! Bernardo is a gift.
Brilliant! Bernardo is a visonary bringing true insight to those who can hear. Suberb interview, thank you!
Thank you! I will reflect on this interview for many years to come. Of course, I love his books.
This was a rewarding conversation, thank you.
Absolutely! Thank you for tuning in.
A very enjoyable and interesting conversation gentlemen. Thank you.
Thank you for tuning in. I'm going to return to this conversation many more times.
I came upon your channel as I am a fan of Dr Kastrup, and glad I did. Beautiful conversation, I appreciate the stillness out of which you ask questions. Looking forward to checking out more of your content. I’d love to see a follow up interview with Dr Kastrup as well. Thank you!
Thank you, Deb! I would love that opportunity. There is so much that we did not cover. More to come.
Such a wonderful interview. I like the style of John and Bernardo as always brilliant! Such a beautiful minds....Thank you both.
Thank you! And, I totally agree ... Bernardo is brilliant!
@@TheSacredSpeaks So you are John! You are my favourite interviewer of Bernardo so far:) Well done.
I have spent many hours listening to this fellow and agreeing with him. A session of learning with him is fun and intriguing. Thank
Me too! 🙏
I’m new to both of these people. While a lot of it was over my head, I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation.
So glad you’ve joined the conversation. Welcome. There’s no way for this material not to be over all of our heads 😜. It’s humbling, to say the least.
stoked I found you. thanks for interviewing my favorite philosopher
I completely get that - he's one of my favorites as well.
New sub-
Been in the Kastrup Klub for 2 yrs. now, and I’m using the holidays to get caught up and current.
Happy to just happen across your channel.
Great work. Good job-
Thank you! I'm in too:)
Please do another 2 hour session and talk about psychedelics. Please I beg you 🥺🥺
That's a fantastic idea
1:27:54 associations of meaning ...Similarities and Bernardo is much more engaged in this part of coversation
Point made around 38:00 by Kastrup. Really well said. Brilliant conversation. Subscribed.
Glad you’re here. Thanks for connecting.
Absolutely wonderful exchange!
Thank you! I thoroughly enjoyed it as well.
Great guest. Thank you both.
Always delightful. Thanks
Thank you
2 hours of bliss
Amen. Loved it.
Love Bernardo. Love Jeff Kripal. Love *Peter Kingsley* 😭 so much. amazing. love. subscribed.
Sounds like a fantastic evening out.
Great conversation, Bernardo as always a pleasure to listen.. opens your mind👏. tha last song amazing!! 👍👏🙏
Thanks for listening!
Incredible conversation. Thank you very much
Thank you for tuning in!
This was so interesting. Thanks!
It was a bit mind blowing on my end as well!
This is amazing.
I"m happy finding your channel and new subscriber Dr. Price.
Looking forward to listening and learning.
Welcome to the project! Thank you for tuning in.
Hi John love your stuff.
Absolutely brilliant conversation!
Thank you.
Thank you! So glad that you enjoyed it! I certainly did
Superb content !
Thank you! It's a meaningful process - with a side of mind-blown.
Looking for "what" things are in addition to a description of "how they behave" is a natural human intuition that is applicable to macroscopic objects, but asking the same about elementary constituents of nature (particles, fields whatever) is like asking about the marital status of the number 7. If I tell a friend about some object and described how it looked and what it was doing asking the question "but what was it ?" is meaningful in the sense that we understand that it is made of something, has an internal structure and these constituents are what explains how it looked and behaved. In other words asking what something "is", beyond how it acts is the same as asking what it is "made of". But the very concept of an elementary building block of reality (say the so called elementary particles of the standard model) is that it cannot be "made of" anything else. Our macroscopic intuition that there is an "inside" of things that is "filled up or occupied" by some substance has no meaning for elementary particles. They are the thing that makes up other things and if they were made up of something else they would not be elementary but that other thing would be. The mode (sense) in which the elementary constituents exist is that they behave in some manner, that is, interact with other elementary things according to some rules. In contrast the mode in which macroscopic things exist is they are patterns in which elementary things are arranged. It is the macroscopic things that don't have an INDEPENDENT existence. The elementary things are what existence is ! This is not just empty word-play. Elementary things don't "possess" existence as a property. Existing means to be made of them. If I say that "Abraham Lincoln no longer exists" what we mean is that there is no longer a specific arrangement of elementary particles that we used know and love as Mr. A.L. None of the particles that he was made up of were specific to him, and none of them are lost. What was specific was their arrangement. So Lincoln existed in terms of (in the mode of) a pattern. He existed because elementary particles can (and did) come together in that pattern, so his "reality" was provided by the reality of the particles. So to say something exists is to say there are particles (in some arrangement). Period. Which is to say that particles are existence. If I specified all the information (say by writing on a piece of paper) that captures the Lincoln pattern that would not be the person A.L. To be A.L.the pattern has to be the A.L. one, but it also has to be a pattern of particles not just disembodied information. Our intuitive feeling that having only descriptions of the behavior of elementary particles leaves them somehow "empty", "un-graspable", or even unreal simply shows that out intuitions are not appropriate for thinking about elementary particles. Why should they be ? They evolved to capture the rules of the macroscopic world. Even Dennett is confused about this when he says that everything exists that you need to talk about to explain the way the world works. This is true in the sense that explaining patterns requires reference to other patterns of things. The pattern itself is extra information. But this just confuses 2 different meanings of the word exist: If I say something does not exist what I hear is that "it is not real" which means it is "not true, or valid". So If I said that the pattern that makes up A.L "does not exist" in the same sense as the electron, then we want to object because that pattern IS the relevant explanation of very real things, like the Gettysburg Address. But this fact does not equate the way in which an electron can be said to exist with the way a pattern like A.L. does. Both are "real" because both capture a true, correct description of some aspect of reality. But validity of the descriptions is not the only way in which the 2 phenomena differ. There is a key thing that patterns don't have but particles do, which is INDEPENDENT existence, and that is what we should properly mean by "existence".People seem to forget that getting from information to energy you need that little Boltzmann constant....
Bernardo out done himself on this one.
His perspective is quite a gift.
Interview starts at 8:40
yep, see the show notes.
1:02:59 question. Was Bernardo correct here? Do they not know what they do not know OR do they not know THAT they do not know? Thanks.
57:58 - "Preposterous to create an artificially conscious silicon computer." YES. It absolutely is. WHY CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE THIS???? Why is it so easy for massive numbers of people to climb on the conscious computer bandwagon? It's a MACHINE - it does exactly and ONLY what you tell it to do. But people start talking about "AI rights" and other such completely bogus ideas. It makes me want to cry.
'Womb envy' !! 😂👍🏼
1:27:27 -1:28:42 everything is... causality has to be reduced to synkronisticity ...the mind ...similarities ...the cross man standing with his arms extended sideway in the sun creates shadow on the earth ....associations of meaning thats all there is 1:27:44
I’m an hour and 10 min in and I don’t think we have talked about the book in the title? I wanted to learn about his book on Jung
I’m at about minute 34 - 35 and I don’t know what we are talking about? Thank you John for trying to clarify. What is so terrifying about humans according to Jung? I’m confused . What about good and evil?
Cool channel, dig the vibe. Liked and subscribed my dude!
Much appreciated!
Re: convenient fictions and computer games. Bernardo goes into some detail about how the computer works to create the image and says that the child's "convenient fiction" of the little man in the room is false. Of course that is certainly true at one level; however, at another level, the game's creator did indeed intentionally evoke an imaginary world in which little men found themselves inside rooms and had to avoid bumping into the walls. IOW the child is correctly translating the intentionality that was built into the game. Anyway I love this dialog the two of you are having, thank you both!
What a lovely comment. YES! It's enough to make you stare off into space and contemplate existence for the next few hours.
so grateful for your work Bernardo..is this going to be an audiobook?
Definitely!
This very unexpectedly reached my #1 area of interest and intense study my whole life. The nature of evil. They said many things that for me was the first time hearing it. Such as needing to feel what the evil people were feeling when they did what they did. Even Hitler. YES. 😭 For the first time I hear someone else saying this when I spent the last 20 years working on it. I dove into the deepest darkness of history to harpoon that darkness NOT “out there” but inside of us. And I found this dragon of chaos and I forged something new with which it can be slain. My background is in psychology-evolutionary psychology and neuroscience-but I too am a computer scientist and started out in college in that. I programmed computers as a kid, and built them too-like actually with a soldering iron, 😂-later I learned about and assembled components and built computers for my family and friends. I know 3 programming languages. Anyway I have spent time in the inner circles of neo-Nazi and racist organizations with nothing but good intentions. So I know what I am talking about. I am writing a book about the 5 types of Nazi that also applies to EVERYONE. Not just our pet projective distraction from our past, the “bad guys” as defined now. Remember if you will that Christians were fed to lions. And also crucified-as the bad guys. So were philosophers speaking truth. Following real truth means taking the leap that ego holds you back from. I loved this talk more than anything ❤️🔥👁️ I don’t understand why I cannot get anything published by the Essentia Foundation or get an interview anywhere. So it’s wonderful to hear this stuff regardless. Thank you guys so much-sending all the love and good vibes. ❤️❤️❤️ I am happy to sacrifice myself for what I love. My words will eventually be heard I know. Thank you.
Keep it up! What a deep and dark path and area of study. Only those who can protect their light are capable of enduring the overwhelming temptations to evil, resentment, revenge, and the like. What a powerful area of study you've selected.
Thank you for making everything understandable. I really needed this, it expanded my knowledge and mind. Everything now is clear.
So glad to know this!
The reference to the Movie Contact, reminded me of Andrei Tarkovsky’s Russian movie Solaris. In the movie a ‘ planet’ of neural fibres creates peoples memories.
What an amazing movie - both of them!
Fantastic interview, you draw some insights out of Bernardo that nobody before has! Congratulations! I wonder why he is not fond of Alan watts , I would love to know why....
I had the same question. Maybe in a follow-up:)
@@TheSacredSpeaks yes! Please do ask him, I am very curious since Alan Watts has been one of the most insightful philosophers and helpful ,at least for me🙏..love your content by the way !
There seems to be a parallel between physicists studying the behaviour of Nature ( but really wanting to know what it is in itself ) and the deficiencies of 20th Century behavioural psychology, which only observed the external symptoms of mental illness, without really understanding the internal processes. It could be an indication of that change you spoke of, which might be characterized as a growing dissatisfaction with the current scientific paradigm.
Jeff Kripal has so much to say here. Our current worldviews are incomplete.
Over 8 mins in and we still haven’t heard from Bernardo...
I’ve never been accused of being succinct 😁. Welcome to the project.
wow little man running inside TV analogy is mind boggling
Thank you
The manure will always be a guest of honour at the festival of the rose 🌹.. thank you 🙏 this was wonderful 😁👉❤️
I love this quote! Thank you
@@TheSacredSpeaks love you 😘❤️
Would love to share Covid time stirrings x10 since falling into decoding Jung 3/7 with Bernardo and now today. I never liked games, but now life is a game. I was just trying to organize and put the house in order. Intuition myths have reconnected to deep roots. And I’m recognizing everything on my path. Away we go……way beyond the walls. MetaArts
Away we go, indeed! Enjoy the ride.
I like that this is your most popular video 🤠
Great catch :)
Bernardo is strange enigma to me, I do not understand him but keep returning to him with progressively higher frequency for past several years-mostly looking for a phrase or sentence-which even his host might utter; which would be relevant to my particular situation at that time and after that I almost involuntarily pause and stop watching after a while. Once I had not even reach the part where I could see Bernardo on screen-it was just host reading out list of his books, and as soon as he read a tile-'meaning in absurdity', my job was done. Actually, I had been agonizing whether something I created was totally absurd and might be meaningless. I do not like his messianic attitude, but I understand its necessity in the world he inhabits.
Nonduality is seriously lacking in the absence of a path of removal of suffering. I think some of it just takes time in realizing that mental truths go stale quicker and quicker. Impermanence bro
Those little synchronicities light the path
Bernardo Kastrup ❤
Agreed ❤️🙏🌓
To understand and appreciate Nietzsche you must know that he was Polish. And like one Englishman said :"Poland is not a country but a disturbed state offend".
what is the book discussed at 9:30 from the background?
ah think i figured it out, 'CATAFALQUE' by peter kingsley
Also, Reality by Peter Kingsley - both amazing reads
1:25:00 ish
Wonderful
Thank you
1:20:10 - Good grief; how did we get from virtual particles to devils and demons???
name of outro song?
th-cam.com/video/x1_4YU1eFDI/w-d-xo.html
Enjoy this ... what a great tune! th-cam.com/video/x1_4YU1eFDI/w-d-xo.html
They both have Peter Kingsley's Catafalque. :) I found it easier to read the endnotes first.
It's interesting how that book came out just a little while before the covid-19 pandemic and the lockdowns. When everything shut down, it looked as if Kingsley's expectation of an apocalyptic meltdown of our civilization -- inspired by a vision Jung had near the end of his life -- was fulfilled, to some extent. Maybe Kingsley was experiencing precognition of the pandemic and its effects in people's lives, filtered through the lense of a kind of end-of-the-world archetype.
What an amazing book. I just recommended it to a friend in religious studies and I am eager to discuss it with him.
Kingsley's earlier stuff on ancient Greek philosophy and the origins of western civilization is also fascinating.
Very good. Totally rhymes with the great work of John David Barrow FRS who was an English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician. And who said (exquisitely): “A Universe, simple enough to be understood, could not have created a mind capable of understanding it”.
Great conversation, "we don't fucking know what's going on" 😀
HAHA! I say that all of the time.
Was never intended to
@@1kenhardt I'm guessing that there was nothing intended, not even us probably. But still, we are here against all odds, small and huge, idiots and geniuses, dead and alive. That's us.
Thx!!! The insight about replacing Arestotelian logic with intuitionism is so important because I sense this lays at the basis of the needed change and has to do with the essence of creativity. Any change within the consensus meta reality first has to be imagined and felt to be real (faith). Felt Imagination (VAU) impresses the isness of being (nominal, JOD) and can only thereafter be expressed in spacetime as a perception of physicality (phenomena, HE HE). Feeling what you desire as fulfilled IS creative freedom. To feel something 'as if it already is real' is the true act of creation because mentation is ontic thus prior to expression. And what you feel (and truly believe) interacts with the surrounding impersonal field of subjectivity and the resistance between this field and your felt imagination is what QM-collapses ...expresses as matter to the observer. Matter is merely the expressed language; it is therefore always symbolic. And symbolic means that, similar like in a dream, what you perceive has to be understood as solely referential, metaphorical... So the aim is thus to search for meaning in what is represented (matter). Again, matter is the result of the interaction between your felt imagination (personal habit with some degrees of freedom) and the impersonal field of subjectivity (habit with little or no freedom)... physicality does seem like it is shared, but because of its underlying relational mental character, the physical world is always a unique and solely personal perspective (RQM). Intuitively I sense this also has to do with what #IanMcgilchrist states: 'Things or relata are secondary to relationship. And we take part in the reciprocal creation of the world'. Thx for this video and your channel, very meaningful!
You need to read Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" to get your thinking straight on the relation between logic and creativity.
Well, it is not that we are puerile as a culture because we as adults dichotomize "Good from evil" and that the insignia of a greater maturity is as Bernardo says, "...to have the maturity to learn how to supervise it within ourselves" but rather a deeper understanding (beneath the words) that circumspect awareness and supervision alone will still not suffice. What is required is the capacity and society's capacity to encourage one another (individually and collectively) access to our underlying traumas, existential fears and the unnamed shadow or so-called, dark side within ourselves.
The latter no longer having to remain such (or to a much greater degree lessening its degree of havoc and concomitant intergenerational destruction) once we have the capacity (or at the very least willingness) to voice our early based childhood traumas, voicelessness and abandonment, lest we continue to repress and pass on the taboo (from one generation to the next) that logically and adaptively manifests into a Hitler and/or to whatever degrees associated autocrats, sociopaths and psychopaths!
It is not that the addict or any one in psychic distress is not compelled to do what they're doing, naturally they have a motivation but to call it blissfully infantile fashion "evil" and to be punitive toward them is blithely childish or at the very least excessively misguided. However, it necessary to not just take the other's position (if we could or to use the Hindu phrase, Tat Vam Asi) and then we would understand it but to understand a bit more under the surface - at a bodily based or autonomic level - that they (any one us in pain and using drugs, dissociated or becoming a sociopath or psychopath) are externalizing as an adaptive coping mechanism, blocking unbearable, difficult and painful feelings from typically a history of early childhood abuse and trauma to which they are being further silenced (shamed and guilted to death and by even surface cognitive based therapies which just skim the surface and reinforce or bar access to underling feelings of guilt and shame) and therefore understandably (not condoning) out on themselves or others.
Well stated! Much of my work in trauma and attachment explores similar threads as those that you have noted here. We see through our individual and unique perceptual system and therefore the reality that we experience is build upon and envisioned though the systems of both our individual and collective history. I call upon William Blake here in one of my favorite quotes - he states, "I see through the eye, not with it." So often the evils being enacted are done so by those who project the evil within out upon those who are judged as evil. What a wicked game we all play when we remain unconscious of the evil that lurks in our own psyche. James Hollis once remarked, "Nobody fights a battle under the banner of evil."
So how can one help prevent the evil that society is perpetrating against innocent children that tells them that their bodies are the wrong bodies, that they must dismember themselves and castrate themselves and medicalise themselves to attain their true selves?
Great
whatabout egregors
I'm definitely picking up this thread. Thank you.
“Of course we don’t know what’s fucking going on” 😂😂😂1:40:58 😂😂😂
Mind blown. Sub, though I know bernardo already.
Thank you! Welcome.
bookmark 27:26
He is a wonder 🤍
Agreed!
1;24;20 Jung and Pauli finally...
im watching
Thank you!
Thank you great show that's coming from apollyon
🌞
48:05 When do we as insignificant individual dissociations of Cosmic Consciousness "[bear] moral responsibility" when that mother-effin' Consciousness itself doesn't???
Are we not simply manifestations of Its Will -- of Nature Itself????? Wherefore are we to judge how God wants to work through us??
I'm honestly not trying to be a "Pharisee" about this (or Sadducee; I can't remember the difference now)...I'm genuinely curious why on the one hand the awesome power that is Bernardo's Universal Mind at Large is "excused" when an insignificant human being is held responsible for merely reflecting the mysterious flow of The Universe....
Really seems weird. Oh, Consciousness is amoral because it's unknowing due to not having been subjected to the evolutionary pressures that's lead to meta-cognition -- but we who are the actual victims of its incredibly idiotic whims are the ones to be judged?????????
And if we're all just dissociations of the same Mind anyway, then really, who cares?? "All the world's a stage" so once the show or cosmic dream is over (for us individually if not for Bernardo's Field of Mentation), no one's guilty of anything -- none of it was "really real!"
37:10
26;39 -26;53 he was able to cross the river ..and catch some fresh fish to his tribe ...Jung holding the golden chain...positivistisk psykology without the soul
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7
It's the not the Western view of good/evil separation that is childish in contrast to the East's. It's the very (shortage of) view of your own that fails to recognize their intertwinement, which is indeed an important part of western history of religion and thoughts, that is childish. A similar group of people that makes the claim that their own view of good/evil is naive are being active in the the East too. In that sense you guys belong to each other indeed more than you belong to your respective traditions. In other words, it's not about the West/East division. It's about people who are divided by their imagined affiliation and their real ones.
The Shadow! Such a meaningful concept. Only to invite “the other” to reveal the meaningful road of self awareness. As a friend once said, “we are in this world alone, but we can’t do this world alone.”
Is the lion evil when he eats a gazelle?! "The shadow".
Not at all. James Hollis once remarked, "When Jaws eats someone, he isn't being a bad shark, but a sharky-shark." Funny
intelligent smart man
Without a doubt!
If the mind created physicality then there is no God above this mind.
It's all about the fractals these days 😜
@Bernardo. Who is that open-minded Nobleprize winner still alive??
George Smoot?
I think it’s Roger Penrose.
@@sxsmith44 nah he is well respected no?
🙂
Mind has changed due to automation
Yes, this thread is so important. The intersection of mind and tech