Will idealism ever become part of the mainstream?

[Soul_of_Shu]

So what is it going to take to sway the collective ethos at large? Case in point, my spouse of 40 years, as perhaps a typical example of many of the secular folks I know outside of this forum, as far as I can tell has had no profound indelible experience of the primacy of consciousness. As such she accepts materialism as entirely plausible, despite the lack of incontrovertible scientific verification of it, as that is pretty much the paradigm she was indoctrinated into by default within academia. And none of the metaphysical arguments I put to her about the inadequacies of materialism vis-a-vis the plausible counter-materialist alternatives have sufficed to convince her otherwise. And yet, if within academia there were to be a shift toward the primacy of consciousness, and a significant majority of accredited scientists started to posit it as a viable alternative to materialism, I suspect she would gradually begin to accept it ~even in the absence of her having any profound indelible experience ~ just as she initially accepted without much question the conclusions of accredited scientists within academia regarding the viability of materialism. And so too would the majority of the kids who would eventually then be taught that new paradigm from day one in school. So indeed, endeavours such as the Essentia Foundation seem utterly paramount.

[Astra052]

I'm saying this as someone who is deeply interested in idealism and would like it to gain more prominence on the academic stage, I'm concerned about the Essentia Foundation. I believe its purpose is a good one and one that is necessary if we're going to progress towards a post-materialist ontology in the sciences. Where the issue arises for me is that 8 out of 19 authors featured on there are expressedly religious or parapsychological in nature. Namely Kastrup (who I admit has more nuanced views than outright supernatural beliefs), Anoop Kumar, Patrick Harpur, Bernard Carr, Edward F. Kelly, Jeffery Kripal, and Dr. Woerlee. With such a high percentage (42%) of authors having interests outside the realms of science I'm worried that the work of the Essentia Foundation will be written off. I'm all for someone having a spritiual interpretation of idealism and extrapolating things based off that, but if we're going to overtake materialism in the academy it has to be based off of objective evidence. This isn't me saying that sprituality or parapsychology are bunk or not worth anyone's time, it's me saying that incorporating those things into the Foundation is honestly shooting ourselves in the foot. It provides an out for materialists to portray us as pseudoscientific people trying to legitimize what they'd call "hocus pocus" into mainstream science. With so many members of the foundation being outright spiritual/parapsychological I think they may honestly have a point. If our hypothesis can't be proven with the minimal amount of assumptions and evidence we won't become a contending ontology. I think we need more Donald Hoffmans and less people who dabble in things like "psi phenomena". Regardless of whether psi or any kind of spirituality is real, idealism has to stand on its own merit and scientific evidence. Everything else should be secondary.

[JustinG]

I think it's just concerning that a seeming majority of idealists have a strong bias towards sprituality. It's hard to make the case we're coming to our conclusions based on reason and evidence when things like paranormal experiences keep getting brought up.

I think that under an idealist metaphysics things like the the paranormal become less extraordinary so the burden of evidence is less than it is under physicalism (where the evidentiary burden is often set impossibly high, as fraud is always possible). So to some extent academic acceptability of parapsychology is linked to that of idealism.

Coincidentally, I noticed that BK has a chapter on PSI in a forthcoming book entitled "Consciousness Unbound: Liberating Mind from the Tyranny of Materialism': https://books.google.com.au/books?id=hJ ... r_versions

[Cleric K]

So what is it going to take to sway the collective ethos at large?

Here's also the place to ask ourselves what does idealism give or should give to the world? Shu's spouse, Joseph at the "change my mind" thread and so on, show that things are deeper than thoughts. As long as idealism is looked at simply as an alternative, more parsimonious philosophical lens, remaining within the abstract intellect, not only that it won't go mainstream but it will be harmful for evolution if this happens. It would be a great misfortune if spiritual life is reduced to the abstract. It will be a real tragedy, for example, if it's somehow 'proven' that afterlife exists while we remain strictly within the intellect (which can't survive the threshold) with no clue how man (while still in a body) can find within his being the part that can cross the gate. In this sense, idealism's rightful mission is to point man's attention at spiritual reality - not to create an idealistic theoretical framework of reality but to show it's plausible to seek living experience of it. In other words, every striving of idealism should be pointed beyond idealism itself and into the actualization of the Spirit within our physical life.

If the above is understood, it'll also be clear why there's resistance. As others have pointed, the logical understanding of idealism is the least of problems. People support materialistic (or any other) view not because of logical soundness but because it fits their heart's inclinations. They simply want to live their lives in the way the want - to travel, to enjoy tasty meals, to have fun with friends, to have fancy gadgets, to raise their children, even to sport the religion they choose. Yes, even religion is seen as commodity, as something that we choose from the market to bring some flavor to our lives. All this is seen as freedom in the highest sense of the word - man awakens into the Earthly sandbox and seeks to experience whatever their heart desires. In the modern world driven by belief in the market, the final arbiter is "What do I gain from this?" So it is with world outlooks. Why would one like to change their mind if they are satisfied with what they have or even if they are not satisfied they don't see how another world outlook will make things better for them?

Idealism is resisted because people subconsciously feel that the far reaching consequences of it, leading to spiritual reality, threaten to destroy the sweet Maya that we hate and love so much at the same time. And here we should also be very vigilant of the wave of spiritualism that floods the world. In certain sense we're still 'safe' because we can do harm primarily through external means. But when spirituality takes the form of a method for achieving whatever one's heart desires (take for example The Secret books/movies) we're actually inviting a culture of black magic. And the reason is that the last thing people want to hear is that there could be deeper stratum of reality that gives the form of the desires and inclinations experienced at the surface. Idealism can and will be used to support such forms of spirituality. And it's inevitable that a large portion of humanity will go that way. The realm of the spirit will be conceived as the realm of possibilities from which everyone will attract the experiences they desire for. And these things will manifest, even if they seem laughable from physicalist perspective. And with them will begin the real war of all against all, as more and more individuals' desires begin to clash. This would be the inevitable consequence of egoism which can only be counterbalanced through actual spiritual understanding of the ego and its place in the Cosmos.

[Astra052]

I think it's just concerning that a seeming majority of idealists have a strong bias towards sprituality. It's hard to make the case we're coming to our conclusions based on reason and evidence when things like paranormal experiences keep getting brought up.

I think that under an idealist metaphysics things like the the paranormal become less extraordinary so the burden of evidence is less than it is under physicalism (where the evidentiary burden is often set impossibly high, as fraud is always possible). So to some extent academic acceptability of parapsychology is linked to that of idealism.

Coincidentally, I noticed that BK has a chapter on PSI in a forthcoming book entitled "Consciousness Unbound: Liberating Mind from the Tyranny of Materialism': https://books.google.com.au/books?id=hJ ... r_versions

Honestly I consider that to be pretty discrediting. If we're going to be trying to prove a new paradigm we should be as strict and objective as possible in our studies. If you personally feel like psi or any other parapsychological phenomena is real that's fine, but within our push in academia I don't think this should be touched. Our main proponenets advocating for psi is only going to further keep idealism outside the scientific mainstream and be used as evidence for why we're a bunch of so-called "woo merchants" trying to validate pseudoscientific studies as scientific. We're really shooting ourselves in the foot here I think and just making idealism look like a wishful thinking to save spritual views as the case for materialism becomes more embedded. Very dissapointed.

[Soul_of_Shu]

So what is it going to take to sway the collective ethos at large?

Idealism is resisted because people subconsciously feel that the far reaching consequences of it, leading to spiritual reality, threaten to destroy the sweet Maya that we hate and love so much at the same time.

This is quite true, as evidenced by watching, as I try to convey to my dear oh-so-secular spouse the inadequacies of materialism vis-a-vis some plausible counter-materialist alternative of the indelible primacy of consciousness, while her eyes quickly glaze over, and she protests that it just spooks her out. Frankly, she'd rather not think about it, notwithstanding that she has a very bright mind. Nevertheless, she would give more credence to a scientifically compatible case coming from 'scientists' who she views as the high priests of secular knowledge, even in the absence of having any profound experiential confirmation of it ~ so it would still not really be her lived understanding, but at best an intellectual concession on her part. Ultimately, what it truly would take to deeply convince her would be the profound lived experience, which I cannot give to her, and which may just come down to eventually being ripe for that grace-given event, at which point it will no longer be denied or prevented.

[Simon Adams]

It depends who they are trying to reach out to. You’re right that there is a large hardcore materialist element within academia, but you could argue that most of them are unlikely to be swayed by any kind of organisation like this. Peer reviewed papers are their ‘scripture’, and science journals and magazines their newsletters, and BK, Hoffman etc are already active there.

It’s interesting that once ideas are accepted by the mainstream, the fact they believed in spiritual reality (such as the founders of quantum mechanics), their beliefs no longer affect their credibility:). Even Bohm is now being taken seriously to some extent.

So I assume the aim is to reach a more general audience. Yes you will have people turned off by any hint of spiritual beliefs, but if the argument stands up without relying on those, then how much should you pander to their confirmation bias?

If the aim is to reach a wider audience, I do wonder whether they would benefit from some kind of marketing guidance. I would prefer to live in a world where that sort of thing didn’t make a difference, but sometimes those kind of tweaks do seem to. Arguably since Edward Bernays took Freud to the US, we’ve all been desensitised to substance in favour of style.

[SanteriSatama]

And here we should also be very vigilant of the wave of spiritualism that floods the world. In certain sense we're still 'safe' because we can do harm primarily through external means. But when spirituality takes the form of a method for achieving whatever one's heart desires (take for example The Secret books/movies) we're actually inviting a culture of black magic.

Black cats, walking under ladders, number 13 etc. never went away on some level, but yes, the concern is real. There is a Law in the world, law made by all who practice it in all worlds: some version of the Golden/Silver rule, the principle of what you will and sent out reflecting back to you. Ayahuasca etc. spirit worlds will punish if the practitioner who made the pact with those tries to misuse the power. The concern is nothing new, we've lived ages and what not with need to face this issue and build some safety valves. Despite the current ignorance and prejudice of Western culture, that's an issue we've learned to deal with as long as shamanhood has been around.

On the other hand, what about black magic of scapegoat institution of hierarchic societies, torturing and sacrificing innocents at the bottom of the pecking order for the sins of the many? Black magic of animal sacrifice in the name of humanist scientism? Black magic of using math in service of weapon industry and war? The masses allow that black magic to continue, because they receive some wonderful trinket crumbs of technomagic and they are told that its not magic, its "rational science" of a materialist universe.

What about the black magic of ecocatastrophy? Tolkien's depiction of fall of Saruman speaks to us deeply, because we know it's all too real.

[Martin_]

Idealism is resisted because people subconsciously feel that the far reaching consequences of it, leading to spiritual reality, threaten to destroy the sweet Maya that we hate and love so much at the same time. And here we should also be very vigilant of the wave of spiritualism that floods the world. In certain sense we're still 'safe' because we can do harm primarily through external means. But when spirituality takes the form of a method for achieving whatever one's heart desires (take for example The Secret books/movies) we're actually inviting a culture of black magic. And the reason is that the last thing people want to hear is that there could be deeper stratum of reality that gives the form of the desires and inclinations experienced at the surface. Idealism can and will be used to support such forms of spirituality. And it's inevitable that a large portion of humanity will go that way. The realm of the spirit will be conceived as the realm of possibilities from which everyone will attract the experiences they desire for. And these things will manifest, even if they seem laughable from physicalist perspective. And with them will begin the real war of all against all, as more and more individuals' desires begin to clash. This would be the inevitable consequence of egoism which can only be counterbalanced through actual spiritual understanding of the ego and its place in the Cosmos.

Exactly. So can we blame them?
Maybe this resistance is a manifestation of the collective transpersonal unconscious (as in M&L) instinctively (and correctly) holding back.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'm not really resonating with this perceived incompatibility of spirituality and science. While it may be true that scientism and atheism have become wedded in some unholy alliance, that surely need not be the case. And as Simon points out, many of the original founders of quantum physics, often considered to be among the most exacting scientists of all, were quite open to the marriage of science and spirituality.

Werner Heisenberg, the father of Quantum Physics, once said: “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting.”

Einstein was an explicitly spiritual scientist, and arguably the best one ever.

In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft", Max Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. He was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung shared a great rapport in the exploration of the spiritual implications of their scientific enquiry.

Also worth a read, is this article about Niels Bohr

Now of course this does not mean that the spiritual inclinations of such great minds is to be compared to the very secular state of affairs in scientific academia today, just that we should not rule out that many scientists are spiritually inspired and inclined, even as they may not openly profess to it within the context of their strictly academic pursuits. So another role that Essentia Foundation may play is to give them permission, so to speak, to express this aspect of their lives, without worrying about what their peers may think, in knowing that they are far from alone in that regard.

And now I'll let Donald Hoffman chime in on this ...