Criticism

[Jim Cross]

The question at the bottom line is really simple actually. We all have factual observables: the phenomena of conscious experience which are the sense perceptions, feeling, thoughts bearing ideas and meanings, imaginations, acts of will brining some of these phenomena to existence. And this is all we have as observables, and nothing more, this is undeniable fact of our direct experience. Now, the philosophical question is: is there anything in reality that by nature is fundamentally different from these consciously-observable phenomena, whatever it could be? We can make assumptions about the existence of such phenomena or noumena or fundamentals, but there is no way we can ever prove their existence, because we can never experience them directly. And there is an obvious and undeniable possibility that such phenomena or noumena simply do not exist in any ontological sense, and all there is to reality is only phenomena of conscious experience. The last statement is called "idealism", where the term "consciousness" is simply a label for the entire set of all observable conscious phenomena we can ever experience. If we are to suggest a positive answer to the ontological problem at all, of all such possible answers that philosophy has offered so far, the idealist answer is the simplest and most elegant (in other words, the most "parsimonious").

JF, what you are describing is another possible approach to the problem, which can be labelled as mysterianism or agnosticism, where we admit that our human cognitive ability is simply insufficient and inappropriate to even approach the ontological question of what the reality fundamentally is. It would be like a dog trying to understand math. I have nothing against it, and I agree that such position is the most pragmatic. We can perfectly live and survive in the world without answering the ontological question, it is irrelevant to our way of existence. But if we take such pragmatic position, ironically we arrive back to idealism. Why? Because the world we actually live in and experience is exactly the world of the conscious phenomena. We do not experience directly anything apart from conscious phenomena. All the "external" world of material objects that we think we live in is entirely our projection and fairyland fantasy, and we have no way to prove that it is real. But why do we even need such fantasy? Does it serve any pragmatic purpose? Many people think that it does, but I do not think so, IMO it's just a cognitive habit that actually creates more problems than it solves (but that's a different topic). Anyway, if we take such agnostic and pragmatic approach, we find that all that is relevant to our life is the reality we actually live in - the world of our conscious phenomena, or "consciousness" to use a simple word for it. And science is only a set of mathematical and cognitive models that simply describe and approximate the patterns of these phenomena. From a pragmatic standpoint we do not actually need to assume the existence of any other realities that are by nature different from conscious phenomena that we directly experience as observables (be it matter, shmatter, Kantian noumenon or neutral ontic fundamental or whatever). This version of idealism is not ontological (we refrain from making any statements about what the reality fundamentally is), it is simply a pragmatic worldview about the world that we actually experience and the world we actually live in - the world of the phenomena of our direct conscious experiences.

What makes you think the phenomena of conscious experience is simple actually?

And there is plenty we deduce and know that is not observable unless you are equating knowing and observing. We don't observe the planets going around the sun, that would require us to be outside the solar system. We can make partial observations and deduce that the planets go around the sun. Even a cat observing a mouse going into a hole deduces that the mouse hasn't vanished but is instead in the wall, so it waits patiently at the hole for the mouse to reappear. If knowledge doesn't extend beyond observation, we could never generalize any experience into a prediction.

[JeffreyW]

That there is nothing strange about it is the first clue it is false. It attempts to describe a reality so strange we cannot conceptualize it. Transcendental Illusion is almost always an inference from our experience, such as the question of finite/infinite universe, which infers from our spatial/temporal/causal experience to something where such conditions are absent.

The first sentence really made me cringe a little. Also, idealism postulates a mental universe, I think that is extremely easy to conceptualize.We are not trying to describe what it is like to be the universe because we dont know.
And can I ask for the third time on what I have pressed you on in vain so far: Are you denying Schopenhauer is an idealist?
Thanks JW.

Well, since you ask without laughing this time. Schopenhauer was certainly not an Idealist in the German Idealist tradition of Kant, Schelling, Fichte, and Hegel. In fact Schopenhauer was the exact opposite of Hegel’s absolute idealism of universal spirit.

As I wrote earlier, Schopenhauer overturned Kant’s notion of Will as Pure Reason, and from there to god, to justify the applicability of Reason to the world, and changed it to his own notion of the unitary force of Will as purely irrational striving. The pure irrational nature of Will preceding everything including our drives themselves (Triebe) is explained in detail in Chapter 27 in WWuV. That means reason and ideas cannot possibly be true at the most elemental level, or what Kastrup calls ontological primitive. In fact, Schopenhauer says we as individuation of Will are beings driven by our genitals.

As for Kant, Reason and Ideas are a priori, but Schopenhauer doesn’t ground them in anything, and even hints that even reason is just a masking of our genital desires. However, Reason and Ideas can be employed to escape the inevitable frustration of irrational desires.

It might be interesting for you to read at least Chapter 27 and then we could discuss further.

[JeffreyW]

That there is nothing strange about it is the first clue it is false. It attempts to describe a reality so strange we cannot conceptualize it. Transcendental Illusion is almost always an inference from our experience, such as the question of finite/infinite universe, which infers from our spatial/temporal/causal experience to something where such conditions are absent.

The first sentence really made me cringe a little. Also, idealism postulates a mental universe, I think that is extremely easy to conceptualize.We are not trying to describe what it is like to be the universe because we dont know.

I didn’t mean for you to cringe but rather to think outside your present context. Consider that the closer we come to elemental reality (and I don’t claim that we are now close), the stranger things become to our limited evolved cognition. Relativity destroyed any notion of a universal or elemental time and twisted our notion of space, time, and causality to the absurd point where effects could precede their causes. But it becomes even stranger when we move to the quantum realm, where time, space, and causality disappear entirely. And now we even get hints of a fractal universe with no elementary level at all. The point isn’t that it would be strange to be an all encompassing consciousness, but that the very idea of an all encompassing consciousness isn’t strange enough to consider as elemental. Our notion of consciousness is itself a mere representation of our inner experience and cannot itself explain anything at the most fundamental level.

[Eugene I]

What makes you think the phenomena of conscious experience is simple actually?

And there is plenty we deduce and know that is not observable unless you are equating knowing and observing. We don't observe the planets going around the sun, that would require us to be outside the solar system. We can make partial observations and deduce that the planets go around the sun. Even a cat observing a mouse going into a hole deduces that the mouse hasn't vanished but is instead in the wall, so it waits patiently at the hole for the mouse to reappear. If knowledge doesn't extend beyond observation, we could never generalize any experience into a prediction.

Right, but this problem (reducing all the knowledge to our personal observations) only occurs if we approach it from a solipsistic standpoint and limit the knowledge to our personal observations. But idealism is not solipsism and encompasses all observations and knowledge of all sentient beings. Yet, there is still a problem here: if we take all observables, observations and knowledge available to conscious beings that we know about - humans and animals, this body of observations and knowledge is still insufficient to explain how the whole universe of observables comes about and how it is maintained. We are left with explanatory gap. The way different versions of idealism attempt to bridge this gap is by assuming the existence of sentience beyond human and animal forms. This is the sentience that wills into existence, knows and observes all possible observables that exist in the universe, such as observing planets orbiting around the sun and so on. In BK's idealism it is termed "Mind at Large", in theistic versions it is termed "Divine", in non-theistic versions it is termed "Cosmic Consciousness" etc. The key point here is that by introducing such a far-reaching hypothesis we are not introducing any entities that ontologically different from the observables we already know experientially - the conscious phenomena. We are only suggesting that there is a world of conscious phenomena that exists beyond the human and animal realm.

Either way, if we only limit ourselves to the phenomena observable by our human minds and refrain from making any hypotheses about existence of anything beyond the realm of human minds, we will forever be left with explanatory gaps, because obviously the observable phenomena available to us are insufficient to explain how the universe exists and functions. We have to introduce certain unverifiable assumptions (even the unprovable assumption of the existence of other human minds in order to to break from solipsism). The question now becomes about the choice and quality of such assumptions. Assumptions made by idealism do introduce the existence of "mind at large", but this does not require to introduce the existence of entities of a nature different from the observable conscious phenomena, and does not face any intractable explanatory gaps. The assumptions made by materialism, dualism or neutral monism do introduce the existence of entities of a nature fundamentally different from the observable conscious phenomena, and, as a consequence, do face intractable explanatory problems such as the "hard problem of consciousness" or interaction problem. This is because they now have to explain how the fundamentally non-conscious entity can give rise to conscious phenomena (for monistic schemes), or how conscious phenomena can interact with fundamentally non-conscious entity (for dualistic schemes).

I know you are a fan of relational interpretation of reality, and I am actually too. Relations are actually ideas, so they are essentially conscious phenomena. By postulating that the world we observe is the world of relations perfectly fits to idealism, because we are still accepting the (undeniable) existence of conscious phenomena (relations included), but are not introducing any entities beyond that. That is why the relational philosophy was historically developed by Nagarjuna within the framework of the Buddhist philosophy (which is essentially idealism in modern terms).

[JeffreyW]

Obviously. But it is normal that requests get decined, looking for a job, ,trying to sell stuff...they can all contain potentially white lies they are often just a sign of brushing someone off. It would not be professional to say: you called me a cult-leader and my philosophy "amateurish", I would lure you into an ambush if I could...

1.6 Million views: Yes if he can get on that show that would get him ahead. Maybe sell a few hundred books on autopilot.

That things change over time is also possible. Notice how recently his conversations are 4 or 5 hours long? I can imagine it can get a bit "taxing". All I have been trying to say all along is: If someone rejects a request for an interview that is that persons right, he need not justify. "I dont want to" is enough. The rejected person will then be hurt and say soandso wussed out....even though maybe he insultet the other person (and maybe not).... reapeat ad infinitum....
At the end of the day, gotta live with it.

I think there is more going on here. I know from a mutual friend that Kastrup is aware of my videos and unhappy, as is my friend by the way. Even on Twitter he chooses not to respond to my comments to him, although he seems not to hesitate with others. There is now a significant financial investment in his brand of Idealism, which is now monetized to the maximum. At this point he is much more a product than a philosopher, and as such protecting the brand becomes the first priority. He is locked in and cannot change his position - a critical ability for an honest thinker.

As a recent philosophy graduate he is especially vulnerable. It takes decades to really understand the great thinkers, not just a few years in graduate school. And that is required to produce any original thought of value. Most of the great philosophers, such as Kant, Wittgenstein, Hume, and Heidegger, went on to either repudiate or greatly revise their early work. If Kastrup were to evolve in his thinking he would certainly need to do the same, but he is now prevented from doing so.

[Mark Tetzner]

1. Why is he unhappy?
2. You are implying that serious funds went into his company.
And maybe even insinuating that he does not believe as he speaks.
I think if you think and announce it so so: proove it.
Gruss, Mark


P.S. what does "monetized to the maximum" mean?
Is this going the route of him enriching himself on those
who need religion as "opium for the masses" (karl marx). ?
My honest intuition: this is probably bull.
He makes some money on books and if once in a while someone
pays him for an interview, then so be it.
Bernardo knows almost nothing about the possibilities he could have,
he thinks what he does is the result of carefully crafting things over the
years.
He made some money elsewhere in his life - that he is making any
money that can be considered "serious" on his books etc. is something I have
good reasons to doubt.
It sounds to me to be a bit on the conspiracy-side of things, but
let use know if you know better.
After all BK is not reading anything we say, so might as well

[AshvinP]

I think there is more going on here... Most of the great philosophers, such as Kant, Wittgenstein, Hume, and Heidegger, went on to either repudiate or greatly revise their early work.

JW,

You may have missed this response before, so I am linking to it here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=629

I would love to get your thoughts on that and/or this comment above re: epistemology of Kant and Schopenhauer - viewtopic.php?p=12916#p12916

There is no rush, but I just want to make sure you are aware of these counter-arguments to your critique of evolutionary idealism and Reason, and I hope there is not "more going on here" as well

[JeffreyW]

1. Why is he unhappy?
2. You are implying that serious funds went into his company.
And maybe even insinuating that he does not believe as he speaks.
I think if you think and announce it so so: proove it.
Gruss, Mark


P.S. what does "monetized to the maximum" mean?
Is this going the route of him enriching himself on those
who need religion as "opium for the masses" (karl marx). ?
My honest intuition: this is probably bull.
He makes some money on books and if once in a while someone
pays him for an interview, then so be it.
Bernardo knows almost nothing about the possibilities he could have,
he thinks what he does is the result of carefully crafting things over the
years.
He made some money elsewhere in his life - that he is making any
money that can be considered "serious" on his books etc. is something I have
good reasons to doubt.
It sounds to me to be a bit on the conspiracy-side of things, but
let use know if you know better.
After all BK is not reading anything we say, so might as well

Unhappy as in angry that somebody would have the audacity to critique him as I did. Our mutual friend tends toward thinking the videos were unfair hatchet jobs, but again he has no background in these subjects.

He himself talks about the all the funding behind Essentia Foundation and he is following the same business model as other marketers selling themselves as the solution to your problems, such as Chopra, Peterson and Osteen. As they demonstrate, there is tremendous money in books and seminars - not so much in legitimate philosophy. Nietzsche lost money oh his self-published books and Wittgenstein needed about a decade to find a publisher for the Tractatus and never really made much money. He supported himself by teaching grammar school and his family inheritance, Heidegger was the rare exception, with Sein und Zeit as the biggest selling philosophy book of the 20th Century.

I hate to speculate about whether he believes what he’s saying or not. Probably does but isn’t all that confident he can defend it against someone with real knowledge of physics and philosophy. If he has time to respond to others on Twitter, he has time to respond to me also.

[JeffreyW]

I think there is more going on here... Most of the great philosophers, such as Kant, Wittgenstein, Hume, and Heidegger, went on to either repudiate or greatly revise their early work.

JW,

You may have missed this response before, so I am linking to it here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=629

I would love to get your thoughts on that and/or this comment above re: epistemology of Kant and Schopenhauer - viewtopic.php?p=12916#p12916

There is no rush, but I just want to make sure you are aware of these counter-arguments to your critique of evolutionary idealism and Reason, and I hope there is not "more going on here" as well

Thanks. I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet, but I definitely will.

[Mark Tetzner]

1. Why is he unhappy?
2. You are implying that serious funds went into his company.
And maybe even insinuating that he does not believe as he speaks.
I think if you think and announce it so so: proove it.
Gruss, Mark


P.S. what does "monetized to the maximum" mean?
Is this going the route of him enriching himself on those
who need religion as "opium for the masses" (karl marx). ?
My honest intuition: this is probably bull.
He makes some money on books and if once in a while someone
pays him for an interview, then so be it.
Bernardo knows almost nothing about the possibilities he could have,
he thinks what he does is the result of carefully crafting things over the
years.
He made some money elsewhere in his life - that he is making any
money that can be considered "serious" on his books etc. is something I have
good reasons to doubt.
It sounds to me to be a bit on the conspiracy-side of things, but
let use know if you know better.
After all BK is not reading anything we say, so might as well

Unhappy as in angry that somebody would have the audacity to critique him as I did. Our mutual friend tends toward thinking the videos were unfair hatchet jobs, but again he has no background in these subjects.

He himself talks about the all the funding behind Essentia Foundation and he is following the same business model as other marketers selling themselves as the solution to your problems, such as Chopra, Peterson and Osteen. As they demonstrate, there is tremendous money in books and seminars - not so much in legitimate philosophy. Nietzsche lost money oh his self-published books and Wittgenstein needed about a decade to find a publisher for the Tractatus and never really made much money. He supported himself by teaching grammar school and his family inheritance, Heidegger was the rare exception, with Sein und Zeit as the biggest selling philosophy book of the 20th Century.

I hate to speculate about whether he believes what he’s saying or not. Probably does but isn’t all that confident he can defend it against someone with real knowledge of physics and philosophy. If he has time to respond to others on Twitter, he has time to respond to me also.

and the teasing continues....
there are a few chosen few that make serious money on amazon.
i think if you want to go after people who make real money go
after robert spira, he makes a ton on seminars.
that bk isnt even trying says enough for me.
but that you are kind of saying that his world-view collapsed after watching
your videos is still bold. though who knows.
thats why i wante him to reach out to the rest of us on his blog.

my challeng to you is showing us that you are a real thinker on your
own merrits rather than just a scholar.

whats your poison ,what explains consciousness?