Philosophical Speculations

Hello guys!

I have been an avid reader of Bernardo Kastrup for a long time, over 10 years of my life. In the first phase (2013-2015), I even used to discuss personally with Bernardo, until his schedule got too busy to be able to keep the dialogue.

After reading his works over the years, I went on to study non-dualism, especially Advaita Vedanta, and strayed a bit from his pure analytical idealism framework. Influenced by the works of Dean Radin and others, that wish to prove the subjective influences of individual psyches on the broader medium of the mind, I have heretically dwelved into a mixture of objective and subjective idealism that I came to coin as Mythical History Hypothesis.

In short, the thesis that I am working on is the idea that:

1. Reality is a mental construct: It suggests that the reality we perceive, including the laws of physics, space, and time, is not fundamentally physical but rather a product of a universal consciousness.

2. Individual minds are dissociated fragments of a primordial awareness: This hypothesis views individual consciousnesses as dissociated alters of a larger, unified consciousness, drawing an analogy to Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). - So far, I am building on the works of BK directly.

3. Ancient myths might reflect the actual creation process: It suggests that ancient myths and cosmogonies could be describing the actions of these early, powerful individual consciousnesses shaping a malleable reality. This interpretation leaves room for subjective, individual-level influence over the Mind at large, proposing a framework for "siddhis", extra-sensorial perception, psychic phenomena etc.

4. The physical world solidified over time: It proposes that as individual wills increased, their individual influence on reality diminished, and common perceptions, reinforced over time, solidified into the seemingly objective laws of physics.

5. The universe is like a shared dream: The hypothesis uses the analogy of a shared dream to describe our collective reality, where individual minds, while seemingly separate, are interconnected within the “ocean” of mind-at-large.

For this purpose, I have created a collaborative NotebookLM that will accept individual contributions from those interested in working towards this approach.

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/ ... 8048?hl=en

Please note that one advantage of this tool is that it creates automatic citations and attributions over the primary work. I have no intention of attributing to myself any of the works of Bernardo Kastrup and I am merely trying to build on top of it, in a direction that I see fit to offer more explanatory power.

If we manage to articulate this work properly, I am interested in publishing a book in which all major contributors will be named as co-authors. The tool is limited for now to accept up to 50 contributors.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Adrian S.

Hi Adrian, welcome to this forum.
The first question coming to mind for me when reading your post is: Could you describe the process by which you have come to the summary presented above? In other words, could you give us, rather than the preliminary table of contents of the future book, something from the (inner) behind the scenes?

AdrianS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 1:36 pm Hello guys!

I have been an avid reader of Bernardo Kastrup for a long time, over 10 years of my life. In the first phase (2013-2015), I even used to discuss personally with Bernardo, until his schedule got too busy to be able to keep the dialogue.

After reading his works over the years, I went on to study non-dualism, especially Advaita Vedanta, and strayed a bit from his pure analytical idealism framework. Influenced by the works of Dean Radin and others, that wish to prove the subjective influences of individual psyches on the broader medium of the mind, I have heretically dwelved into a mixture of objective and subjective idealism that I came to coin as Mythical History Hypothesis.

...

3. Ancient myths might reflect the actual creation process: It suggests that ancient myths and cosmogonies could be describing the actions of these early, powerful individual consciousnesses shaping a malleable reality. This interpretation leaves room for subjective, individual-level influence over the Mind at large, proposing a framework for "siddhis", extra-sensorial perception, psychic phenomena etc.

Hi Adrian,

I wonder if you have considered the possibility of going even more heretical with this, particularly #3. It is one thing to develop a thesis that proposes the ancient mythic consciousness reflects the actual creation process, and another thing to suggest that we can directly experience the consciousness and meaningful (ideal) 'curvatures' of existence from which those mythic images were condensed as testimonies to their intuitions of the actual creation process.

That possibility is something we have been exploring on this forum for some years now. In fact, it was considered so heretical that BK essentially 'dissociated' from this forum and left it for us to manage. Yet this possibility can be fully reasoned out as the only logical one. If our sensory existence truly stands in relation to higher-order conscious existence as a 'shared dream' to a waking state, then it is only logical that some within the dream could become lucid through systematic inner practice.

Some may argue that 'non-dual awakening' is exactly that, but we have to admit that such an awakening does not maintain lucid cognition of the higher-order processes that shape the lawful experiences of the shared dream. It does not lead us into the ancient mythic consciousness which renders the imagistic symbols and narratives transparent. Is there perhaps another way of awakening within the dream that can lead to cognitive understanding of the higher-order ideal processes, no less lucidly and precisely experienced as the experience of pure mathematical reasoning?

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 4:28 pm

AdrianS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 1:36 pm Hello guys!

I have been an avid reader of Bernardo Kastrup for a long time, over 10 years of my life. In the first phase (2013-2015), I even used to discuss personally with Bernardo, until his schedule got too busy to be able to keep the dialogue.

After reading his works over the years, I went on to study non-dualism, especially Advaita Vedanta, and strayed a bit from his pure analytical idealism framework. Influenced by the works of Dean Radin and others, that wish to prove the subjective influences of individual psyches on the broader medium of the mind, I have heretically dwelved into a mixture of objective and subjective idealism that I came to coin as Mythical History Hypothesis.

...

3. Ancient myths might reflect the actual creation process: It suggests that ancient myths and cosmogonies could be describing the actions of these early, powerful individual consciousnesses shaping a malleable reality. This interpretation leaves room for subjective, individual-level influence over the Mind at large, proposing a framework for "siddhis", extra-sensorial perception, psychic phenomena etc.

Hi Adrian,

I wonder if you have considered the possibility of going even more heretical with this, particularly #3. It is one thing to develop a thesis that proposes the ancient mythic consciousness reflects the actual creation process, and another thing to suggest that we can directly experience the consciousness and meaningful (ideal) 'curvatures' of existence from which those mythic images were condensed as testimonies to their intuitions of the actual creation process.

That possibility is something we have been exploring on this forum for some years now. In fact, it was considered so heretical that BK essentially 'dissociated' from this forum and left it for us to manage. Yet this possibility can be fully reasoned out as the only logical one. If our sensory existence truly stands in relation to higher-order conscious existence as a 'shared dream' to a waking state, then it is only logical that some within the dream could become lucid through systematic inner practice.

Some may argue that 'non-dual awakening' is exactly that, but we have to admit that such an awakening does not maintain lucid cognition of the higher-order processes that shape the lawful experiences of the shared dream. It does not lead us into the ancient mythic consciousness which renders the imagistic symbols and narratives transparent. Is there perhaps another way of awakening within the dream that can lead to cognitive understanding of the higher-order ideal processes, no less lucidly and precisely experienced as the experience of pure mathematical reasoning?

Love it

As a personal side note, I have been practising ludic dreaming, among many other spiritual paths. If in a lucid dream decide to "melt the dream", you can briefly experience pure awareness. Awareness without object.

But to be honest, these are the kind of discussions palatable to people like you and me, spiritual seekers. What I wanted to do it to give a more worldly articulation, with scientific conjunctures. So perhaps the spiritual awakening will be just a chapter.

Federica wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:11 pm Hi Adrian, welcome to this forum.
The first question coming to mind for me when reading your post is: Could you describe the process by which you have come to the summary presented above? In other words, could you give us, rather than the preliminary table of contents of the future book, something from the (inner) behind the scenes?

BK's work doesn't leave much room for personal influence over reality. The Mind at Large, in BK's perspective, is the only one creating the appearance of the world. I disagree here. This is why I was jokingly saying that I am a heretic - under objective idealism (or analytic idealism, as BK calls it), there is little room for such influence. This shift in perspective comes from both personal experience with various spiritual practices, but also from reading about some phenomena that can hardly be explained under pure objective idealism.

AdrianS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:17 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:11 pm Hi Adrian, welcome to this forum.
The first question coming to mind for me when reading your post is: Could you describe the process by which you have come to the summary presented above? In other words, could you give us, rather than the preliminary table of contents of the future book, something from the (inner) behind the scenes?

BK's work doesn't leave much room for personal influence over reality. The Mind at Large, in BK's perspective, is the only one creating the appearance of the world. I disagree here. This is why I was jokingly saying that I am a heretic - under objective idealism (or analytic idealism, as BK calls it), there is little room for such influence. This shift in perspective comes from both personal experience with various spiritual practices, but also from reading about some phenomena that can hardly be explained under pure objective idealism.

But that shift in perspective hasn't made you question your number two - the dissociative boundary?

For example, how would you address an argument such as the one below?
If you don't have time to watch, he develops the idea that since math objects don't have a reality in the physical world, but we still share an immediate and operable understanding of them, then it must mean that we live in a shared, undissociated ideal (non-physical) environment - the one in which mathematical objects also live.

Federica wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 8:12 pm

AdrianS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:17 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:11 pm Hi Adrian, welcome to this forum.
The first question coming to mind for me when reading your post is: Could you describe the process by which you have come to the summary presented above? In other words, could you give us, rather than the preliminary table of contents of the future book, something from the (inner) behind the scenes?

BK's work doesn't leave much room for personal influence over reality. The Mind at Large, in BK's perspective, is the only one creating the appearance of the world. I disagree here. This is why I was jokingly saying that I am a heretic - under objective idealism (or analytic idealism, as BK calls it), there is little room for such influence. This shift in perspective comes from both personal experience with various spiritual practices, but also from reading about some phenomena that can hardly be explained under pure objective idealism.

But that shift in perspective hasn't made you question your number two - the dissociative boundary?

For example, how would you address an argument such as the one below?
If you don't have time to watch, he develops the idea that since math objects don't have a reality in the physical world, but we still share an immediate and operable understanding of them, then it must mean that we live in a shared, undissociated ideal (non-physical) environment - the one in which mathematical objects also live.

Very interesting podcast Federica!

I looked trough the first episode and it’s really interesting, because it’s points to the our thinking isn’t only constrained by the sensory perceptions.

Thank you for sharing

AdrianS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:15 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 4:28 pm

AdrianS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 1:36 pm Hello guys!

I have been an avid reader of Bernardo Kastrup for a long time, over 10 years of my life. In the first phase (2013-2015), I even used to discuss personally with Bernardo, until his schedule got too busy to be able to keep the dialogue.

After reading his works over the years, I went on to study non-dualism, especially Advaita Vedanta, and strayed a bit from his pure analytical idealism framework. Influenced by the works of Dean Radin and others, that wish to prove the subjective influences of individual psyches on the broader medium of the mind, I have heretically dwelved into a mixture of objective and subjective idealism that I came to coin as Mythical History Hypothesis.

...

3. Ancient myths might reflect the actual creation process: It suggests that ancient myths and cosmogonies could be describing the actions of these early, powerful individual consciousnesses shaping a malleable reality. This interpretation leaves room for subjective, individual-level influence over the Mind at large, proposing a framework for "siddhis", extra-sensorial perception, psychic phenomena etc.

Hi Adrian,

I wonder if you have considered the possibility of going even more heretical with this, particularly #3. It is one thing to develop a thesis that proposes the ancient mythic consciousness reflects the actual creation process, and another thing to suggest that we can directly experience the consciousness and meaningful (ideal) 'curvatures' of existence from which those mythic images were condensed as testimonies to their intuitions of the actual creation process.

That possibility is something we have been exploring on this forum for some years now. In fact, it was considered so heretical that BK essentially 'dissociated' from this forum and left it for us to manage. Yet this possibility can be fully reasoned out as the only logical one. If our sensory existence truly stands in relation to higher-order conscious existence as a 'shared dream' to a waking state, then it is only logical that some within the dream could become lucid through systematic inner practice.

Some may argue that 'non-dual awakening' is exactly that, but we have to admit that such an awakening does not maintain lucid cognition of the higher-order processes that shape the lawful experiences of the shared dream. It does not lead us into the ancient mythic consciousness which renders the imagistic symbols and narratives transparent. Is there perhaps another way of awakening within the dream that can lead to cognitive understanding of the higher-order ideal processes, no less lucidly and precisely experienced as the experience of pure mathematical reasoning?

Love it

As a personal side note, I have been practising ludic dreaming, among many other spiritual paths. If in a lucid dream decide to "melt the dream", you can briefly experience pure awareness. Awareness without object.

But to be honest, these are the kind of discussions palatable to people like you and me, spiritual seekers. What I wanted to do it to give a more worldly articulation, with scientific conjunctures. So perhaps the spiritual awakening will be just a chapter.

Agreed, we need to build a stable bridge between philosophical-scientific thinking and spiritual paths of exploration.

I wonder if you have contemplated the branches of philosophy known as phenomenology (of cognition) or epistemology (what it means 'to know')? When these are pursued properly, without importing prior assumptions about the nature of 'subject' and 'object', or pursued according to modern habits of thinking which generally seek mechanistic third-person 'explanations' for our living phenomenal experience, they provide a natural bridge to those domains of inner life that have been explored more directly through esoteric spirituality and science. The latter, when pursued as a practice of strengthening and enlivening cognition, can provide the basis for not only remaining awake when the lucid dream melts, but filling that space of 'pure awareness' with rich ideal content. Then we can begin to intuitively understand how the shared ideal space shapes and steers our 'shared dream', just as we normally intuitively understand the flow of our own thoughts.

For example, we can imagine that we decide to slowly count from 1 to 10 in our mind. As we progress from pronouncing "1" to "2" to "3", etc.. we have a very clear intuitive sense of how our momentary verbalizations are structured through time. The auditory vibrations of our inner voice, as we pronounce the words of the numbers, do not meet us like a foreign object, for example, the erratic movements of a fly buzzing around, but as an orderly progression of inner states guided by our general meaningful intent to count. If we are currently at "5", even though we haven’t yet reached ten, we have a good intuitive sense of where the process is going and what inner state will soon condense at our mental horizon, even though we haven’t yet pronounced the next numbers in our mind. This intuitive sense also gives us orientation for how we have reached our present state through the previously pronounced numbers.

Can we expand that intuitive sense to also encompass more of the 'shared dream' beyond the phenomenal states guided by our simple intents to count and so forth?

Here is a good resource for getting an introduction to this phenomenological-epistemic domain of inquiry:

https://www.natureinstitute.org/ronald- ... -the-world

RH Brady wrote:"Epistemology is the scientific study of what all other sciences presuppose without examining it: cognition itself. It is thus a philosophical science, fundamental to all other sciences. Only through epistemology can we learn the value and significance of all insight gained through the other sciences. Thus it provides the foundation for all scientific effort. It is obvious that it can fulfill its proper function only by making no presuppositions itself, as far as this is possible, about man’s faculty of knowledge. This much is generally accepted. Nevertheless, when the better-known systems of epistemology are more closely examined it becomes apparent that a whole series of presuppositions are made at the beginning, which cast doubt on the rest of the argument. It is striking that such hidden assumptions are usually made at the outset, when the fundamental problems of epistemology are formulated. But if the essential problems of a science are misstated, the right solution is unlikely to be forthcoming. The history of science shows that whole epochs have suffered from innumerable mistakes that can be traced to the simple fact that certain problems were wrongly formulated …" (Steiner, GA 3)

The germ of Steiner’s approach is already implicit in his remarks on the erroneous formulations of epistemology. Obviously, the premises with which we begin an examination should not be identical with the conclusions that result from that same investigation, or the process is circular. Thus, if the question is: “how can we know the world?” or “how does the act of cognition take place?” we cannot begin with the very “knowledge” that this investigation should justify, or we investigate no more than the logical implications of our presuppositions. Epistemology, Steiner concludes, cannot begin from any positive knowledge of the world, but must suspend all such “knowing” in order to examine the act of knowing itself. The point is simple, but almost always ignored, due to the seeming impossibility of carrying out such a task...

Against this Steiner will propose that since we cannot take the results of previous cognition for granted when we attempt to grasp cognition itself, another formulation of the problem is necessary. If we simply propose that knowledge is immanent in human consciousness (if it is not, then we are not speaking about anything), the basic question of epistemology could be simply: How? What is the act of knowing? Thus we face toward our own act of cognition, and the investigation turns on the self- observation of thinking — finding a way to watch what we do — rather than a presupposed knowledge of the world.

You may notice we already "found a way to watch what we do" in our simple counting exercise above. It is amazing how much esoteric (spiritual) insight can flow out of this intimate phenomenological approach. In the end, it is our modern intellectual assumptions, habits, tendencies, etc. that obscure the shared 'spiritual space' that we inhabit and convince us that we are destined to remain 'dissociated alters' only interacting with one another at arm's length. For your collaborative project to be fruitful in bridging this gap, I think it would need to engage thoroughly with the new phenomenology-epistemology that came onto the scene around the turn of the 20th century.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on all this when you have a chance.

Güney27 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 10:40 pm Very interesting podcast Federica!

I looked trough the first episode and it’s really interesting, because it’s points to the our thinking isn’t only constrained by the sensory perceptions.

Thank you for sharing

Glad you find it interesting, Güney. Indeed, it's a key realization that math objects live outside sensory perceptions.

Another thing that is worth reflecting on is the unique place of mathematics within the realm of sciences (as pointed out at 05:20 in the video). Mathematicians formalize new math objects, new theorems, but the existing body of mathematics is never revised or modified by the new theorems. On the contrary, for physics and natural sciences, new theories often stand as alternatives to the old ones, the new theorems often contradict or compete with the older ones.

Federica wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 8:12 pm

Part Two is out, I haven't seen it yet: