Kastrup's theory of Idealism

[Gnomon]

PHILOSOPHERS ON KASTRUP

“Needless to say, idealism is at best a metaphysical model, as is physicalism, panpsychism, Hoffman’s conscious realism, indeed all such ‘isms’, and ultimately the map is not the territory, and one must bow to the opening lines of the Tao Te Ching. Nonetheless, it somehow seems important to conceive of an ontological/cosmological model upon which to base a cultural ethos. The question becomes, which one? “
____ snowleopard, on The Philosophy Forum, regarding Kastrup's defense of Idealism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... do-kastrup

This quote hits on the key problem with all attempts to revive the ancient Idealist worldview in a modern Realist world. It's true that we all know Mind directly and Matter indirectly, but perhaps because of that familiarity, we tend to take Mind for granted. Kastrup has produced a masterful argument for Idealism as a philosophical metaphysical model of the world. But his critics are mostly those whose profession requires pragmatic physical results, not dreamy spiritual feelings. So, according to my own BothAnd Principle (*1), I think we need to accept that there is an essential duality (yin/yang) to our relationship with Reality & Ideality. Those are two sides of the same coin that we perch precariously on the edge of.

Theoretical scientists have always flirted with Idealism, especially since Quantum Theory became respectable in the early 20th century. But, among the practical scientists, who make the technology that runs the modern world, Kastrup's notion of mental reality sounds like it's coming from the far-out fringes, and his metaphysical model seems to be associated with flaky New Age fantasies. Which is why my blog post (*2 ), reviewing The Idea Of The World, suggests a slight change in terminology : first, for precision of meaning, and second, to make the notion of a metaphysical foundation for the physical world more palatable to hard-nosed rationalists and pragmatists.

Kastrup refers to “Consciousness” as the Ontological Primitive. But the “C” word has been hi-jacked by those who delight, not in pragmatic facts, but in romantic mysteries, such as mind-over-matter magic. The spooky spiritual connotation of "Consciousness" is associated with myriad disparate religious beliefs & practices. I don't have any personal experience with the disembodied "consciousness" of ghosts & demons, yet I do see a need for an update to the materialistic “cultural ethos”. But the problem, as Snowleopard concluded, is “which one?” As a non-mystical pragmatic person, I think the concept of mind-stuff (datum) as the Ontological Primitive should be common sense in the Information Age. And it should be amenable to the scientific pursuit of physical (mechanical) understanding, as well as to the philosophical pursuit of metaphysical (mental) comprehension. I can accept that other people prefer mystical & magical interpretations of Idealism, but that's not how my information-based world-model works.

*1 http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*2 http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... -the-world

07-29-2019 Gnomon reply to

LEO

Kastrup's book is one of several recent attempts to reconcile Science and Religion. To do so, he had to bridge the gap between Realism and Idealism. Following Berkeley's arguments, he uses Quantum Theory and Information theory to show that Reality is just a Theory. Unfortunately for his ultimate religious goal, it also means that God is just a Theory. As a Deist, that conclusion is not a problem for me. So I have recently added a series of blog posts to discuss his astute ideas about Idealism *1. The blog is an extrapolation from my personal philosophical worldview : Enformationism *2.

Here's a few comments on your observations :

1. Descartes doubted the reality of everything around him, but the one thing he could not dispense with was the mind doing the doubting. Physical scientists simply take their minds for granted, and study the non-mind world as reality. But social scientists, and quantum physicists, have found that disregarding the observing mind can lead to mis-perceptions.
2. Physicists originally assumed that “solid massy particles” (Atomism) were the fundamental reality. But Quantum Theory has dispelled that ancient notion. The foundation of reality is now viewed as fuzzy mathematical probabilities. So, how does immaterial mind emerge from such insubstantial stuff? I have a theory on that. *3
3. For pragmatic scientific or mundane purposes, we take the material world to be the substance of reality. But for theoretical philosophical motives, we may explore the possibility that the mental realm is the true essence of all phenomena. So, I think we'd be wise to use both concepts, Realism and Idealism, where they are appropriate.
3a. Actually, the immaterial mind emerges from the material body. That only makes sense if you understand that the body is made of mind-stuff. *4
3b. Kastrup's notion of many alters in a single mind is good analogy, but not a good explanation for how it works in the universe.
3c. Magical mind-over-matter doesn't work, because Nature has laws that govern both Mind and Matter.
3d. Even Libet admitted that his experiment didn't disprove the agency of mind. (Blog post 87)


*1 Blog Post 88 : Reality is Just a Theory http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
__Blog Post 89 : Reality is Ideality http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

*2 BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

*3 Mind from Matter – http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html

*4 Matter from Mind – http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page52.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/312265

The Word Logos in John 1

Given the profound meaning of the word λόγος in ancient Greek philosophy, and given the influence this philosophy may have had on early Christianity, how does one substantiate the translation of the word λόγος as 'the Word', and as referring to Christ? — Tzeentch


For the Greeks, the Logos was an impersonal principle equivalent to universal Spirit or Mind, or even a god in the sense of omniscience, but not part of the polytheistic pantheon. Apparently, John saw a way to apply a common Greek concept to the transpersonal deity known as the Christ. I'm guessing that the ambiguity of that cross-cultural terminology was an attempt to avoid the Jewish horror at the notion of their monotheistic Yaweh having a human/divine hybrid son.

Here's my adaptation of the ancient Logos to my own idealist worldview :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page35.html

My interpretation of Logos as something like a quantum field may be similar to this one :
https://turingchurch.net/code-name-jesu ... d9fa1b69e8

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ll-made-of
What's It All Made Of?

Alfred North Whitehead’s . . . if you can follow his neologisms. . — Possibility

I found it difficult to follow ANW's neologisms. That's why I have a glossary for my own made-up terms, such as Enformationism as a 21st century update to Materialism.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Here’s an interesting discussion. — Possibility

I read a book by Tam Hunt, the interviewer : Eco Ego Eros. He discusses ANW among other Information related topics. These new ideas are making Idealism seem plausible again, after centuries of dominance by Materialism. In keeping with my BothAnd principle though, I think our world is both Ideal and Real, both immaterial and material, but Information is at the root of everything. The bottom line for me is that it's all made of Enformation, in the form of Math, Energy, Ideas, and Matter. Yet, even more basic is BEING : the power to be, and to become.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I think the relationships between the concepts of potentiality, potential energy, energy and matter are key to understanding what everything is made of in relation to what we experience of reality. — Possibility

I have put all those phenomena together in a concept I call EnFormAction.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html