Well I have to say that this is quite a synchronicity such that I’m compelled to post it here, now mostly as a footnote to preceding comments. I've been reading one of Barbara Hand Clow's books tying together quantum physics and ancient sacred science. Fascinating. In any event, in the context of this discussion about Kastrup I came across this statement: “Modern science is making us sick by often using only a portion of its own data. We can see that sacred geometry, the substratum of all things in nature, ought to be taken more seriously than successful experiments in particle accelerators.” (As a quick reminder, Kastrup worked at CERN. Enough said.)
I’m sorry to be once again contrarian to your thought processes Daniel, but I want to address two statements right out of the gate: “He introduces a new way to see the world.” And then: “ Kastrup offers a different starting point: Consciousness is not produced by the brain, but filtered through it.”
This is not groundbreaking stuff at all. This is the fundamental awareness of millions of spiritual practitioners who are involved in the awakening process. It’s not even the elephant in the room. It is the room. And it’s also the core insight of many ancient and contemporary spiritual traditions too numerous to name.
That said, I acknowledge that it’s possible that this intellectualization of widely accepted spiritual realities might become a useful thought experiment for certain groups such as the scientific community involved in neuroscientific research. It might serve as a way to chip away at the foundations of Western materialism for various communities of interest. But such an intellectualization also has the potential to add another layer of remoteness to actually experiencing these deep spiritual realities. The mind interposes and becomes an obstacle to growth.
Most importantly, I’m reacting this way because your statement seem to to diminish the important hard-won, and incredible work of so many contemporary spiritual teachers who are fostering the need for awakening at this most crucial time in human spiritual evolution as we all navigate through the existential intensity of world polycrisis.
Hi Tom - I understand your point and from a purely personal point of view, I agree that this understanding is not ground-breaking. Since my youth in the '70s, I have viewed the physical world as a manifestation and product of consciousness and found the notion of consciousness as a by-product of brain activity (chemical reaction etc.) to be ridiculous. Perhaps (I don't know for sure) this is because I took a lot of acid in my youth, which perhaps opened my "doors of perception" for good. Then there is the naturally curious and philosophical nature that I probably came in with. It's not that I'm particularly psychic or more spiritually advanced that others, but that, for me, idealism at some point early on in my life suddenly seemed like common sense. But first I had to be exposed to the ideas, which have been shared by advanced thinkers like Steiner etc. as well as mystics like Ram Dass. My generation, as a result of coming of age in the '60s, was exposed early to a lot of spiritual world views along with the psychedelic drugs.
However, I know that I am very much in the minority, that most people, even many of my "spiritual" friends, are still largely caught in the deeply limiting, dead-end, fundamental premise of materialism. But I think to some degree we all are, since it is the cultural paradigm that we grew up in, and that surrounds us. I believe that Daniel's goal is to reach as many people as possible who are still caught in that kind of thinking, maybe especially those who are so enamored of "science" as a tool for defining reality that no other avenue will convince them of other ways of knowing.
I completely agree with Daniel that the materialistic paradigm is fundamental to our predicament, and in that intellectually rigorous "idealism" is a world view that has the potential to free us from that trap. And for that, scientists like Bernardo Kastrup could have a vital role to play. And I agree with you that "This is the fundamental awareness of millions of spiritual practitioners who are involved in the awakening process."
But I don't think this needs to be a disagreement regarding Daniel's focus here, or what he is offering as food for consideration. As a friend of mine likes to point out, we are all climbing the same mountain, but not all on the same path and not are currently at the same elevation. I believe that by sharing thoughts about reality with those who may be on the cusp of a shift to a broader, higher perspective can be a real service to humanity. I hope and believe that many many people, everyone maybe to some degree, are currently poised on the cusp of a new way of experiencing reality. I hope and believe that conversations like this can help to move everyone to a higher elevation.
Lee thanks for this clarification. I think it makes a lot of sense and you've made some great points. Another way of looking at this overarching issue is in terms of spiritual appropriation (as opposed I suppose to the common term of art "cultural appropriation"). I view this as the process by which spiritual practice and deeper esoteric mysteries are somehow claimed and (again) appropriated by neuroscientists and other scientists who attempt to "interpret" spiritual experience through scientific explanation. Such interpretation, while useful at some level and in certain cases as you correctly point out, still remain in the logical domain. As such, they offer the possibility of subtly reinforcing the materialist paradigm. Not always of course. But it’s there.
Spiritual practice is experiential, transcendent, and irreducible. Body, mind, and spirit all contribute and, of course, some practices emphasize one or more of the three. But often, I find logically oriented neuroscientific analysis concerning and/or ultimately misleading. As Pascal once said: “The heart has reasons that reason itself does not know.” So, I think the materialist basis for our culture is always trying at some level to co-opt or envelope spiritual and mystical realities. In other words, trying to think outside the box often just sort of gets you to being in a bigger box.
That said, your key point is well taken and the well-known Buddhist teacher Pema Chodron always advises “Start where you are”. And it’s very true that we all proceed through different pathways, all uniquely individual. What I objected to was positioning Kastrup as having some kind of breakthrough observation that was not given enough context. But let me look at it again with your comments in mind.
One more quick little koan-like piece of information. Speaking about this time --- the time we are in now --- Barbara Hand Clow has said: "There is almost no sacred science left in the world." What an incredible statement. I think we should heed her words by looking to unearth long forgotten sacred sciences. Why is this important work being shunted aside ? Just a thought.
Well I have to say that this is quite a synchronicity such that I’m compelled to post it here, now mostly as a footnote to preceding comments. I've been reading one of Barbara Hand Clow's books tying together quantum physics and ancient sacred science. Fascinating. In any event, in the context of this discussion about Kastrup I came across this statement: “Modern science is making us sick by often using only a portion of its own data. We can see that sacred geometry, the substratum of all things in nature, ought to be taken more seriously than successful experiments in particle accelerators.” (As a quick reminder, Kastrup worked at CERN. Enough said.)
I’m sorry to be once again contrarian to your thought processes Daniel, but I want to address two statements right out of the gate: “He introduces a new way to see the world.” And then: “ Kastrup offers a different starting point: Consciousness is not produced by the brain, but filtered through it.”
This is not groundbreaking stuff at all. This is the fundamental awareness of millions of spiritual practitioners who are involved in the awakening process. It’s not even the elephant in the room. It is the room. And it’s also the core insight of many ancient and contemporary spiritual traditions too numerous to name.
That said, I acknowledge that it’s possible that this intellectualization of widely accepted spiritual realities might become a useful thought experiment for certain groups such as the scientific community involved in neuroscientific research. It might serve as a way to chip away at the foundations of Western materialism for various communities of interest. But such an intellectualization also has the potential to add another layer of remoteness to actually experiencing these deep spiritual realities. The mind interposes and becomes an obstacle to growth.
Most importantly, I’m reacting this way because your statement seem to to diminish the important hard-won, and incredible work of so many contemporary spiritual teachers who are fostering the need for awakening at this most crucial time in human spiritual evolution as we all navigate through the existential intensity of world polycrisis.
Hi Tom - I understand your point and from a purely personal point of view, I agree that this understanding is not ground-breaking. Since my youth in the '70s, I have viewed the physical world as a manifestation and product of consciousness and found the notion of consciousness as a by-product of brain activity (chemical reaction etc.) to be ridiculous. Perhaps (I don't know for sure) this is because I took a lot of acid in my youth, which perhaps opened my "doors of perception" for good. Then there is the naturally curious and philosophical nature that I probably came in with. It's not that I'm particularly psychic or more spiritually advanced that others, but that, for me, idealism at some point early on in my life suddenly seemed like common sense. But first I had to be exposed to the ideas, which have been shared by advanced thinkers like Steiner etc. as well as mystics like Ram Dass. My generation, as a result of coming of age in the '60s, was exposed early to a lot of spiritual world views along with the psychedelic drugs.
However, I know that I am very much in the minority, that most people, even many of my "spiritual" friends, are still largely caught in the deeply limiting, dead-end, fundamental premise of materialism. But I think to some degree we all are, since it is the cultural paradigm that we grew up in, and that surrounds us. I believe that Daniel's goal is to reach as many people as possible who are still caught in that kind of thinking, maybe especially those who are so enamored of "science" as a tool for defining reality that no other avenue will convince them of other ways of knowing.
I completely agree with Daniel that the materialistic paradigm is fundamental to our predicament, and in that intellectually rigorous "idealism" is a world view that has the potential to free us from that trap. And for that, scientists like Bernardo Kastrup could have a vital role to play. And I agree with you that "This is the fundamental awareness of millions of spiritual practitioners who are involved in the awakening process."
But I don't think this needs to be a disagreement regarding Daniel's focus here, or what he is offering as food for consideration. As a friend of mine likes to point out, we are all climbing the same mountain, but not all on the same path and not are currently at the same elevation. I believe that by sharing thoughts about reality with those who may be on the cusp of a shift to a broader, higher perspective can be a real service to humanity. I hope and believe that many many people, everyone maybe to some degree, are currently poised on the cusp of a new way of experiencing reality. I hope and believe that conversations like this can help to move everyone to a higher elevation.
Lee thanks for this clarification. I think it makes a lot of sense and you've made some great points. Another way of looking at this overarching issue is in terms of spiritual appropriation (as opposed I suppose to the common term of art "cultural appropriation"). I view this as the process by which spiritual practice and deeper esoteric mysteries are somehow claimed and (again) appropriated by neuroscientists and other scientists who attempt to "interpret" spiritual experience through scientific explanation. Such interpretation, while useful at some level and in certain cases as you correctly point out, still remain in the logical domain. As such, they offer the possibility of subtly reinforcing the materialist paradigm. Not always of course. But it’s there.
Spiritual practice is experiential, transcendent, and irreducible. Body, mind, and spirit all contribute and, of course, some practices emphasize one or more of the three. But often, I find logically oriented neuroscientific analysis concerning and/or ultimately misleading. As Pascal once said: “The heart has reasons that reason itself does not know.” So, I think the materialist basis for our culture is always trying at some level to co-opt or envelope spiritual and mystical realities. In other words, trying to think outside the box often just sort of gets you to being in a bigger box.
That said, your key point is well taken and the well-known Buddhist teacher Pema Chodron always advises “Start where you are”. And it’s very true that we all proceed through different pathways, all uniquely individual. What I objected to was positioning Kastrup as having some kind of breakthrough observation that was not given enough context. But let me look at it again with your comments in mind.
One more quick little koan-like piece of information. Speaking about this time --- the time we are in now --- Barbara Hand Clow has said: "There is almost no sacred science left in the world." What an incredible statement. I think we should heed her words by looking to unearth long forgotten sacred sciences. Why is this important work being shunted aside ? Just a thought.