Excellent summary. I'm definitely going to come back to this, but I just wanted to mention two of my major qualms with Bernardo's otherwise excellent attempts at providing an alternative to physicalism (including Vervaeke's allegedly "non reductive" physicalism") and dualism of any kind)
1. He does not allow for any possibility of the continuation of individuality after physical death. For people who have not carefully analyzed Iain Stevenson and Jim Tucker's research on rebirth, this may seem a stretch, but from over 50 years of familiarity with both, I would say there is simply no possibility of any explanation of their data (the possibility of "super psi" is the closest to a reasonable rebuttal - but in that case, i haven't seen anyone provide a truly convincing reason why it is preferable to the more obvious assumption that the people describing verifical past life memories should be trusted, just as if I tell you I went shopping yesterday, you wouldn't immediately question me and say, "well maybe you didnt' and you're telepathically remembering someone else shopping!)
2. Due to his adherence of Schopenhauer's profound misreading of the Upanishads, Bernardo's "Mind At Large" is seen as having intelligence no greater than a slug or a maggot (sorry, I'm sure you can tell I chose those particular animals for effect; basically, the idea is that MAL is subhuman)
OK, I will definitely come back to this. Meanwhile, I strongly suggest anybody looking for a non Western alternative look up Swami Medhananda and look at his videos on Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo. Medhananda has written several books and published quite a number of articles in mainstream journals of philosophy of religion - I'm guessing, after following the emergence over the last 25 years or so, of philosophers taking consciousness seriously, that within 10 years, Bernardo's writings will be supplanted by those of Swami Medhananda and others who are writing along similar lines.
It is ironic that Kastrup insists on the unknowable nature of mind-at-large akin to the Kantian Noumenon as Peter correctly makes comparison to, yet then proceeds to also insist on knowing full well the qualities of mind-at-large as devoid of any individuality, metacognition, or other higher-level aspects of cognition we would associate with our own experiences.
I would think that the people most qualified to speculate on those qualities of reality beyond our normal waking consciousness are those who have actually had direct experience with such altered states, and examining the records of historical traditions from around the world as well as contemporary case studies who have engaged in this type of consciousness exploration paints a different picture: an animistic universe with whole ecosystems of non-physical personae operating from behind the scenes.
It seems that while Kastrup has been able to shed the modern scientific dogma of physicalism/materialism, he has not been as successful in breaking the scientific habit of reductionism.
I've always found Bernardo's basic challenge to be the one valuable thing about his work:
If all we know, in our ordinary experience, is forms in consciousness, the burden of making a counter claim (the non empirical, non evidentiary claim of some kind of mind-independent "stuff") is on the physicalist. Absent any possibility of evidence, and also, the fact that this leaves order in the universe, sentience, qualia, intelligence, awareness, emotion, life, etc utterly inexplicable, what possible reason could we have for accepting that faith?
That's it. The alternative "mind at large" philosophy is to me, so bizarre, there's just no reason to bother with it.
There is, as you say, a vast record of people who have directly encountered reality with a capital "R". Bernardo has said he wants to use the tools of analytic philosophy to craft his philosophy, but that's just silly. It can't be done the way he wants.
I've studied Bernardo's works, participated in his online forums, and contemplated these concepts. This essay is well constructed and I respect any attempt to intellectualize this subject, but it led me to a dead end. My finding is that no mental models of reality can represent absolute truth because (paraphrasing Alan Watts), "You cannot eff the ineffable." How could a finite mind conceptualize infinite reality? I know this sounds strange, and the mind is an incredible tool, but IMO it's not the device we should be asking to define the nature of reality.
For me, truth realization is an experiential, rather than intellectual, understanding of truth. This involved a stripping away of illusions, beliefs, and mental models that I found clouded my understanding of "what is."
This is in no way to disparage intellectual pursuits, they are wonderful and needed. I especially enjoy Donald Hoffman's attempts at mathematical modeling of conscious realism because of the potential to break the barriers of space-time physics. But that would only lead to a less-imperfect model of reality which science could use for practical purposes. For a personal exploration of truth, one must "Kill the Buddha" of intellectualization and explore one's own experience.
Thank you. Were you on his online forum back near the beginning (around 2012 or 2013)? We may have crossed paths.
I think you've mentioned the other, more important factor I missed in my comment.
You know, I've spoken to Bernardo numerous times about the need to incorporate experiential elements, and he always agreed, he just said he was not qualified to do so.
If you have some background teaching meditative or contemplative practices, I suggest you submit an article to the Essentia Foundation.
Bernardo has at least one, maybe more, interviews with Swami Sarvapriyananda on YouTube, and they seem to agree on a lot. Swami has an excellent 4 part series on practical non dual realization. It's stated in very simple language, and if you or someone could connect the practice to Bernardo's philosophy, I think it would be a great service.
I've never read Kastrup, but from your account it seems that he uncritically accepts the distinction between appearance and reality. And that's a problem. After all, where are the appearances but in reality? And so appearances have to be both part of reality and separate from it. The better move, it seems, it is to reject the appearance/reality distinction altogether and thus the realist/idealist dichotomy.
Excellent summary. I'm definitely going to come back to this, but I just wanted to mention two of my major qualms with Bernardo's otherwise excellent attempts at providing an alternative to physicalism (including Vervaeke's allegedly "non reductive" physicalism") and dualism of any kind)
1. He does not allow for any possibility of the continuation of individuality after physical death. For people who have not carefully analyzed Iain Stevenson and Jim Tucker's research on rebirth, this may seem a stretch, but from over 50 years of familiarity with both, I would say there is simply no possibility of any explanation of their data (the possibility of "super psi" is the closest to a reasonable rebuttal - but in that case, i haven't seen anyone provide a truly convincing reason why it is preferable to the more obvious assumption that the people describing verifical past life memories should be trusted, just as if I tell you I went shopping yesterday, you wouldn't immediately question me and say, "well maybe you didnt' and you're telepathically remembering someone else shopping!)
2. Due to his adherence of Schopenhauer's profound misreading of the Upanishads, Bernardo's "Mind At Large" is seen as having intelligence no greater than a slug or a maggot (sorry, I'm sure you can tell I chose those particular animals for effect; basically, the idea is that MAL is subhuman)
OK, I will definitely come back to this. Meanwhile, I strongly suggest anybody looking for a non Western alternative look up Swami Medhananda and look at his videos on Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo. Medhananda has written several books and published quite a number of articles in mainstream journals of philosophy of religion - I'm guessing, after following the emergence over the last 25 years or so, of philosophers taking consciousness seriously, that within 10 years, Bernardo's writings will be supplanted by those of Swami Medhananda and others who are writing along similar lines.
Great comment mirroring my own thoughts.
It is ironic that Kastrup insists on the unknowable nature of mind-at-large akin to the Kantian Noumenon as Peter correctly makes comparison to, yet then proceeds to also insist on knowing full well the qualities of mind-at-large as devoid of any individuality, metacognition, or other higher-level aspects of cognition we would associate with our own experiences.
I would think that the people most qualified to speculate on those qualities of reality beyond our normal waking consciousness are those who have actually had direct experience with such altered states, and examining the records of historical traditions from around the world as well as contemporary case studies who have engaged in this type of consciousness exploration paints a different picture: an animistic universe with whole ecosystems of non-physical personae operating from behind the scenes.
It seems that while Kastrup has been able to shed the modern scientific dogma of physicalism/materialism, he has not been as successful in breaking the scientific habit of reductionism.
I've always found Bernardo's basic challenge to be the one valuable thing about his work:
If all we know, in our ordinary experience, is forms in consciousness, the burden of making a counter claim (the non empirical, non evidentiary claim of some kind of mind-independent "stuff") is on the physicalist. Absent any possibility of evidence, and also, the fact that this leaves order in the universe, sentience, qualia, intelligence, awareness, emotion, life, etc utterly inexplicable, what possible reason could we have for accepting that faith?
That's it. The alternative "mind at large" philosophy is to me, so bizarre, there's just no reason to bother with it.
There is, as you say, a vast record of people who have directly encountered reality with a capital "R". Bernardo has said he wants to use the tools of analytic philosophy to craft his philosophy, but that's just silly. It can't be done the way he wants.
This was a great read. I particularly like the porous dashboard analogy for the difference between appearance and reality.
Cheers Sam
Fantastic thorough treatment and critiques- I love waltzing into your mind!
Thank you Matt
I've studied Bernardo's works, participated in his online forums, and contemplated these concepts. This essay is well constructed and I respect any attempt to intellectualize this subject, but it led me to a dead end. My finding is that no mental models of reality can represent absolute truth because (paraphrasing Alan Watts), "You cannot eff the ineffable." How could a finite mind conceptualize infinite reality? I know this sounds strange, and the mind is an incredible tool, but IMO it's not the device we should be asking to define the nature of reality.
For me, truth realization is an experiential, rather than intellectual, understanding of truth. This involved a stripping away of illusions, beliefs, and mental models that I found clouded my understanding of "what is."
This is in no way to disparage intellectual pursuits, they are wonderful and needed. I especially enjoy Donald Hoffman's attempts at mathematical modeling of conscious realism because of the potential to break the barriers of space-time physics. But that would only lead to a less-imperfect model of reality which science could use for practical purposes. For a personal exploration of truth, one must "Kill the Buddha" of intellectualization and explore one's own experience.
Thank you. Were you on his online forum back near the beginning (around 2012 or 2013)? We may have crossed paths.
I think you've mentioned the other, more important factor I missed in my comment.
You know, I've spoken to Bernardo numerous times about the need to incorporate experiential elements, and he always agreed, he just said he was not qualified to do so.
If you have some background teaching meditative or contemplative practices, I suggest you submit an article to the Essentia Foundation.
Bernardo has at least one, maybe more, interviews with Swami Sarvapriyananda on YouTube, and they seem to agree on a lot. Swami has an excellent 4 part series on practical non dual realization. It's stated in very simple language, and if you or someone could connect the practice to Bernardo's philosophy, I think it would be a great service.
I've never read Kastrup, but from your account it seems that he uncritically accepts the distinction between appearance and reality. And that's a problem. After all, where are the appearances but in reality? And so appearances have to be both part of reality and separate from it. The better move, it seems, it is to reject the appearance/reality distinction altogether and thus the realist/idealist dichotomy.