Mind, Reality & Nature w/ Bernardo Kastrup & Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes |

[@FaanaMusic]

I'd love to see what would emerge from Bernardo speaking with Forrest Landry. Please bring them on together if you can. 🙏 They're both scientifically minded, but understand the transcendental and I feel like their language could converge well. Personally I see Forrest reaching much more nuance, depth and clarity on topics like metaphysics and ontology and I'd like to see what would Bernardo think about these ways of seeing.

[@mianilsson3550]

Is someone of them, who treats the reality of war in Ukraine?

[@PMKehoe]

Interesting to hear Pete rich thoughts & reflections... and as always, Bernardo is amazing!

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

This was a wonderful discussion, Tim, and I really appreciate the line of questions you asked, which pointed to bridging metaphysical concerns with living in the world. I do think a lack of metaphysics leads to the problems they discussed, which have major impacts in economics, sociology, and the like. I always liked how Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes approaches metaphysics (his paper Cadell reviewed on the topic is great), and I agree with Kastrup that lines of inquiry ultimately come back to a question of “feeling something out,” which suggests why a philosophy of mind is going to be closer to a question of ends than means. It’s a deep question to inquire into how our ideas about reality change reality itself, and I was taken by Kastrup point that philanthropy can eventually hit a wall that forces it to consider metaphysical notions and changes (I think that same point might apply to economics broadly). The reflections on Whitehead were great, and it’s a beautiful notion that we are happiest when we let ourselves be a violin on which something greater than ourselves plays, which turns out to be a testament to our particularity versus a collective erasing of it. Anyway, it’s very nice to see these two in discussion, and thanks Tim for what you did to make that possible!

[@Voicecraft]

Always appreciate reading what stands out for you Daniel. For those new to the channel in the comment threads: O.G. Rose is a philosophical powerhouse of a writer -- a much loved part of the Voicecraft Network and generative part of a broader sphere of inquiry and participatory thinking -- their work is truly worth engaging with. And for those who appreciate other process thinkers like Matt Segall, here is an excellent dialogue between Daniel of O.G. Rose and Matt on the Voicecraft podcast: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYLddIeCn9t4faM

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

@@Voicecraft That means the world, Tim Adalin. Thank you very much for the support and kinds words! It is an honor to be part of Voicecraft.

[@JimKanaris]

Great conversation! As a philosopher of religion, I'd only quibble with certain things said about Christianities and the modern, Cartesian substance dualism imagined to inhere in them. The spokesperson of our times to provide a sober view of this history is David Bentley Hart, whom I feel is necessary for westerners to read given the close correlation of Christian traditions with their intellectual history. A good place to start is _Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies_ (2010) and to end, in relative concert with the conversation here: _All Things are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life_ (2024). Still, I'm so happy to see the changing tide in intellectual circles regarding "mind at large". Keep up the great work! Our civilization needs it!

[@voicecraftnetwork]

Hey thank you for sharing these resources. Appreciate the comment.

[@beniscatus6321]

I reckon they're amazingly close to each other's views. Towards the end, Peter didn't seem to appreciate that Bernardo sees a representation on the dashboard not as distinct from reality, but as a partial image of it (so it does offer salient information, but can only go so far towards comprehending it).

[@Voicecraft]

Initially we had an extra hour scheduled in and I think the conversation would have clarified some of this further. Something to return to for sure.

[@NateKinch91]

Oh yes! Perhaps the fastest I’ve clicked on a KZbin link ever!!!

[@Voicecraft]

I think it would be up there for me too.

[@samalqattan]

Love your format of convo brother. Inspired

[@Voicecraft]

Appreciate that. Lots more here.

[@nupraptorthementalist3306]

❓️ Can we get a dialogue with Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes and Mathew Segall? I've asked them before, and they're up for it.

[@ovgu7137]

Great conversation, thank you

[@Voicecraft]

Appreciate that

[@Andrew-M-Davis]

Solid discussion here, gentlemen. I'd like to hear more about the status of value in each of your metaphysics. This question came up and is presupposed by both Peter and Bernardo, but what is the status of "worth" metaphysically? What is its relation to Mind at large and/or what we should be up to in the universe? Bernardo's repeated insistence that we let nature be nature through us is fine (I've often said that what we should be up to in the universe is what the universe is up to in us). But Bernardo's means of expressing this at times smacks of certain determinism which is unappealing, and the status of value seems vague in his metaphysics. We are what nature is doing, yes, but we are also an expression of the extreme plasticity of nature (as Whitehead puts it), such that we can act upon nature in ways more or less for or against it. This is where the element of value becomes important. One might claim that Auschwitz is simply "nature naturing" and so is the collective singing of Amazing Grace, say, but to have a metaphysical place to truly deem one better or worse is arguably a gift of idealist-style metaphysics. I think this can be developed more fully in Peter and Bernardo's work. Both are theologically careful and somewhat averse because once value and standards of value are integrated with primordial Mind, the term "God" (rightfully) tends to get tossed around (and often in wildly diverse senses). An example of an axiological pantheism that may interest both Peter and Bernardo is that of John Leslie, who I've engaged in my recent work: www.amazon.com/Mind-Value-Cosmos-Relational-Contemporary/dp/1793636419/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ZE0LDP7YNPK6&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.1aq62quzvuBjGXqkgxSXDN3ZoyVSxq8U7B7aRFtG2UUPOlaxECpNq7zsi1JWTpjI1yyBfXjTLOMVW8pMTf8F7v7Y1f7HJMGkCzddZqoiaJ9w5qEjAEFDdvnagpDiBcZ4we7X9J9CPEIdpUmFEQj7XWmsZijZ-Agku0BwPDwEJbb7ocIU8Z2aOqt9wLZhupwMSUmk4iLDDMXGPeK0s0iYD86Qj79s_Na_RWt_SmvncM0.wJ1kU3ge07Hq3wlQb4zgcQsDNRRbiarF_64_qTmACIY&dib_tag=se&keywords=Mind%2C+Value%2C+and+Cosmos&qid=1734716666&sprefix=mind%2C+value%2C+and+cos%2Caps%2C418&sr=8-1. Cheers to all.

[@Voicecraft]

Interesting to read your thoughts Andrew and I'm glad you connected here. That direction of thinking has been present in different episodes and network sessions. It's something we'll continue to return to and invite different angles of insight on, so I'm glad you commented. I agree this would also be an interesting line to pursue with Bernardo, Peter and others.

[@amartinakis]

I already love it from the first 50 secs

[@pocketfullofshellz]

That was cringe and obvious

[@mohitoautomaciek801]

🤝👍Wszystkiego DOBREGO dla WAS👍🤝

[@PromoMIAR]

Great!

[@PromoMIAR]

"God is a Baby Circle" Having repeating dreams about this lately but I have no idea what it means.

[@grzegorz4636]

no need to be worried about being misunderstood, already Alan Watts explained that the opposite of individualism is NOT collectivism, which is in fact another, grouped form of individualism

[@fracta1organism]

im curious about the relationship between the intellectual project of metaphysical idealism and the philanthropy that supports it, which is something that marx already knew about for obvious reasons, namely, the de-politicization of the real world of social relations.

[@nupraptorthementalist3306]

Perhaps my two favorite philosophers, especially Peter, who Nietzschefies Whitehead and is basically responsible for my becoming a process philosopher, and discovering or appropriating/consuming David Ray Griffin*, particularly my favorite physicist Bohm. There's David Hartshorne and so on. We came to Ouspensky independently; I remember discussing this with him recently. Both Bernardo and Peter have the courage to speak for themselves despite the heavy opposition of fashionable metaphysical prejudices. Because of them, and other like Mathew Segall and Mr. Mcghilchrist, etc. it will become less tedious to have serious conversations about things that are tabboo now. They shunned Whitehead as if he were a divorced man, simply because of where he ventured to philosophize; they're dogmatists unwares, theseincorrigiblely orthodox passive ones.

[@shauncy7]

Great guests but wow you're intejections and monologues inbetween completely threw me off and I wasnt the only one. The first time Bernado also had no idea what you said. Please... I'm trying to be polite but this is extremely hard to understand and there are some completely subjective ramblings that you throw into the conversation. They stem from your own very personal and initmate relationships with those topics. It feels kind of like taken out of an inner monologue that you had with yourself where you are trying to sound extra descriptive ( like the cliché type of a philosopher) and it is so hard to follow. In my opinion you use way to many words (especially adjectives)... Its like you are forcing yourself to sound like a poet while you are trying to lead an interview which is supposed to focus on creating a leveled field of communication using clear concepts.

[@JonStittingStill-TryingAtLeast]

Is it an interview? It could be seen as an emergent dialogue. Sometimes, hard-to-follow sequences can create breaks in the flow that open up new and unexplored avenues-or make space for different rhythms to emerge. It might take some time to settle into, but I’m intrigued by what could come out of it. From my experience, Tim often leans on an intuition that doesn’t work in straight lines, which can be challenging at first but has the potential to spark surprising insights. Thinking about the way we communicate, especially across such large distances, there’s a lot of room for experimentation and play. I wonder how we might balance that openness with accessibility for those encountering this style for the first time. What are your thoughts on this approach to dialogue?

[@CJ-kq3oh]

Both of the guests are very clear, to the point, thinkers who do not try to impress us with their language, but with their ideas. This stands in sharp contrast to the turgid baloney being aimed at them from the gracious host.

[@shauncy7]

@@CJ-kq3oh agreed, it's like the guests and the host are on 2 completely different missions.

[@JonStittingStill-TryingAtLeast]

​@@CJ-kq3ohOne time, my wife and I, I think before we were married, went to a place called Biscuit Company. They do exactly what you think they do. I think we had been at a party the night before, and we were going back to our town. We stopped. I really like this place. I was actually in my town, going back to where I had went to school. College. We stopped at this Biscuit Company, and my wife really wanted a bologna biscuit. So we ordered it, and the lady said, we don't have any bologna, but we'll have some tomorrow if you want to come back.

[@jazzfan39]

Agreed

[@fineasfrog]

If is said in the inner traditions that "what we do to it (reality), it in a very around about way does to us". We hear of this in common phrases like "what goes around, comes around". What goes on and around in us as a mentality and its behavior somehow comes around to affect us. The idea of karma suggest something of this. But, of course, such complex ideas are given all sorts of distortions and misrepresentations that we tend to dismiss them from sincere consideration. Since these loops are difficult or almost impossible to see in any clear way, there is much wrongly associated with this big idea. It is like the Sufi story of Nasrudin who is sent by the KIng to go around the known world and study all philosophies and religions. Nasurdin returns after several years and sends his report to the King which contains only one word "carrots". The King not satisfied with the report, calls Nasrudin to come before him and ask what of carrots. Nasrudin says all of what he investigated are like carrots. The visible part is green but underneath it is orange. Few except the farmer know how to care for it so it grows to maturity. In addition there are a great many donkeys associated with it. If reality is somehow one whole ecology and we are embedded in it, then it would follow that yes, what we perceive about it and act on will result in our being acted on us. If reality is all One and we are not separate from it, then we can't avoid being in and affecting the ecology. What might be the hidden wisdom in such saying like "as you sow so shall you reap" or "we are made in the image of the whole"? Is it that the whole infinity of reality brings forth individual points of view in order to reveal what otherwise would not be displayed and therefore stay hidden. Consider this writing from Bulent Rauf who died in1986: "Matter does not exist (it is an appearance). All tangible matter is an expression of energy. Energy is indestructible and intangible. Matter is tangible and destructible. The only reality matter has is that it is an illusion (appearance). In other words you can also say the reality of matter is the reality of its illusion. Illusion is imagery. The reality of the image is the reality of the thing imaged. The image itself is non-reality which veils its reality. The image itself is non-reality. It is the veil. The image itself is the illusion (appearance) of its reality. Only totality is real. Any part of it, by itself, is an illusion (appearance) drawn from that totality. If energy is indestructible, then it must be intangible. Tangible is temporal; a consequence of time, space, because it can be measured. Non-measurable is intangible, therefore infinite. Matter is finite. Matter is time/space/measurable in the witnessing. Its reality is intangible, therefore outside or beyond witnessing. Witnessing is the image of that reality which is outside the witnessing (shuhud). If all this is remembered constantly, only then can one be aware of reality. The purpose of shuhud is to bring man to this reality.....The illusion (appearance) indicates reality by which the human being may direct itself to unity." This quote is from the book "Addresses" by Bulent Rauf (1986 ) Beshara Publications

[@rooruffneck]

These two men should chat 3 or 4 times a year.

[@beniscatus6321]

Yes! Brilliant stuff.

[@Voicecraft]

For sure

[@jjjccc728]

**Bernardo Kastrup:** * **Our lives are not about us:** Kastrup contends that the prevalent notion of individualism, where our lives revolve around personal fulfillment, is "profoundly unnatural." He posits that our purpose lies in participating in the grand scheme of nature, arguing that recognizing this truth liberates us and allows nature to express itself through us. * **Dissociation from nature is exacerbated by culture:** While acknowledging a foundational level of dissociation inherent in our physiology, Kastrup argues that cultural narratives and beliefs, especially those rooted in physicalism, worsen this separation by reinforcing the idea of the self as distinct and isolated from the world. * **Humans cannot fully grasp ultimate metaphysics:** Kastrup expresses humility regarding our capacity to define the ultimate nature of reality. He suggests that while we can strive to be "less wrong" by refining our understanding and addressing inconsistencies, the vastness of reality likely surpasses our ability to fully comprehend it. **Peter Sjöstedt-H del:** * **Porosity between the self and the world:** Sjöstedt-H del proposes a more porous relationship between the inner and outer worlds, suggesting that there is more continuity and infusion between them than Kastrup's model might suggest. He finds this view psychologically beneficial, promoting a sense of connection and integration with the world. * **Direct perception of causation and the past:** Drawing on Whitehead and Bergson, Sjöstedt-H del argues against Hume's assertion that we don't directly perceive causation. He contends that we directly experience the causal flow of time and the feelings of the past, enabling a deeper connection with our experiences and the world around us. * **Value of panpsychism:** While acknowledging the challenges in defining individuality and consciousness in a panpsychist framework, Sjöstedt-H del expresses his leaning towards this view, seeing it as a more comprehensive and inclusive way of understanding reality. Both Kastrup and Sjöstedt-H del, despite their nuanced differences, emphasize the need for a shift in perspective, moving away from a purely individualistic and materialistic worldview towards a more holistic and integrated understanding of our place in the grand scheme of existence. They highlight the importance of recognizing the interconnectedness of all things and the role of consciousness in shaping our experience of reality.

[@kas8131]

Would like to know what book Peter uses with his philosophy of mind class

[@Paakku97]

Philosophy of Mind: A Contemporary Introduction Book by John Heil 2013 3rd ed I digged around and found this through the university website

[@kas8131]

@ thanks! I briefly looked at his site, didn’t see it

[@GeoMe-il6oq]

I have one problem which is needed to explain. If everything is mental then how do we explain medical/scientific procedures and diseases? You conduct hundreds of modification and experiments with no meaningful result, then someone find a procedure/molecule/drug which works and we have new medical discovery. Simultaneously, how does Analytic idealism explain cancer or psychiatric disorders?

[@MGNeu]

a porous sketch of the dream: bottom up - rigpa (pure unexpierienced intelligence), top down - 5meodmt (?), meso: the patterns made of the ... streams between this mutually two mirroring nondualitys (nobody is perfect)

[@greensleeves7165]

I'm still not fond of the "surrenderism" drift that Bernardo has gone on recently. If we are fiddles being played by nature, what is this agency that is "nature" or is that just a metaphor? If it is a real agency, what does it want? What does it value in the music created by the fiddles? Does it in fact have preferences or does "anything go" (eye-eating parasites?). So, interesting, but requires further elaboration. If anything goes, how does one really see that as agency? And also, if anything goes, surely agency actually enters into the picture emergently with the onset of individual beings. A bucket list may not be cosmic, but who is to say that the cosmos doesn't appreciate the discovery of them through the opportunity presented by individual creatures, and hence possibly one impetus towards the generation of individual creatures in the first place?

[@breadcrumbtv]

Eh??

[@mianilsson3550]

We are living now the terrifying Russian war in Ukraine!!! What is meant to be a mind, a will to life, In this reality???

[@robertcooper8939]

Philanthropy comes about from poverty

[@breadcrumbtv]

What are you talking about mate, word salad

[@pythIV]

stick with what you can comprehend

[@StephenPaulKing]

Slow...

[@QDoppio]

Watch it on 2x speed… what are you talking about?