Kabbalistic panpsychism

[JustinG]

This take on the influence of Platonism on Kabbalistic ideas is exceedingly long (I barely got one hour into it), and goes into such historical detail as to have an overdose effect, but it may help address your question ...

Thanks. But Platonism is more idealist than panpsychist. I'm really trying to figure out what this obsession with panpsychist ontology is for people who are clearly fed up with materialism and are also familiar with idealism.

There is also considerable overlap between panpsychism and idealism. For example "cosmopsychism" (a word which I actually have the small claim to fame of having invented) is used by panpsychists and idealists. BK has referred to his own philosophy as "idealist cosmopsychism".

[AshvinP]

In my opinion the question that underlies the discussion here is not the terminology used by the professor, nor even his interpretation, but what is true. There are Kabbalists who have understood these symbols verbaly and there are others -and this is the prevailing interpretation,-who have interpreted them metaphorically. According to this interpretation our thought is the divine thought in a limited mode, and if so matter doesn't realy exist. There are similarities with Plato, and there are Kabbalists who used Plato in their interpretations, but in the bottom line Kabbalah is not Plato

Point taken, and I don't want it to seem like I am more interested in the professor's specific view of Kabballah than the ideas of Kabballah itself. I want to get more into the latter.

But to the extent that it represents a pattern among those in the philosophical community, especially an Essentia contributor who is no doubt familiar with BK's work, I am wondering why. Usually I chalk up these discrepancies to some sort of anti-spiritual or anti-religious outlook, but that doesn't fit here. He explicitly mentions panentheism along with panpsychism. Is it just an unwillingness to abandon orthodox religious tenets (Jewish in this case)? How prevalent is Kabbalistic belief among orthodox Jews?

[AshvinP]

Thanks. But Platonism is more idealist than panpsychist. I'm really trying to figure out what this obsession with panpsychist ontology is for people who are clearly fed up with materialism and are also familiar with idealism.

Like Starbuck and others, I suppose that 'panpsychism' ~ construed as referring to material substances being mind-endowed ~ initially seems the safer stepping stone into idealism for those minds that were educated, and still work within the predominant scientific paradigm. Given that professor Schipper is an MD and clinical neurologist, who still has to make concessions to his peers, many of whom no doubt are skeptical of such ideas, to say the least, if not outright dismissive, one can see how he might be cautious in the proposing/promoting of outright idealism. Also, from his bio: "Prof. Schipper has long been interested in the interface between contemporary science and the Jewish mystical tradition (Kabbalah). His work in this area was initially published in Yeshiva University’s Torah u-Madda Journal (2012-13)". So it may well be that this article is a later iteration of an earlier one, and his ideas have since evolved to be more idealism based. It does seem a bit of a 'bait and switch' title, 'Kabbalistic Panpsychism', which then immediately references 'idealist cosmopsychism ' in the subject intro, so maybe just a question of semantics, since in the most general sense the root derivation of the term just means 'all > pysche', and so needn't involve any material substance at all.

To your and Justin's points,

I see what you guys mean, but he does explicitly mention these distinctions as well in the article:

A major criticism leveled against general panpsychism is the so-called ‘Combinational Problem’—how mediators of simple consciousness characteristic of ‘lesser’ creatures synergize within ‘higher’ organisms to yield more complex psychic phenomena. In common with aspects of idealism and cosmopsychism, the Kabbalah neutralizes this challenge by emphasizing the existence of a Universal Mind—specifically the Mind of God—which in a top-down, panentheistic manner progressively reveals itself within the Creation hierarchy.

So why not go all the way with an ontology idealism or 'cosmopsychism'? There are a lot of parallels between Steiner's "spiritual science" and that of Kabballah. The former is usually conflated with some sort of panpsychist ontology, in our modern terms, although I do not believe that is accurate. Is that what is going on here?

[Shaibei]

Kabbalah and Hasidism (a branch of Kabbalah) are in my opinion a strange case in Judaism. Not many understand them in depth.
The professor's problem is that he's not a philosopher. He describes a top-down metaphysics so it's not really panpsychism.
The study of Kabbalah over the years has been forbidden to Jews, and it is understandable why rabbis feared the conclusions that people might draw from it. Statement like 'The universe occurs in divine thought or will' can raise some theological questions ("Does God make me sin?").

[Shaibei]

Some of Steiner 's ideas are similar to Kabbalah, there are also differences. Steiner's general theory that the world is composed of perception and concepts is similar to the thought of the Jewish philosopher Salomon Maimon, who combined Spinoza with Kant, and in fact was probably influenced by Kabbalah.
(Though the kabbalists state that the (not so blind) will is the top sefira and by that they are closer to jung and schopenhauer than to a rational idealism)

[RehabDoc]

Professor Schipper makes it very clear that the nature of relationship to the Diety recognized by the Kabbalists as well as Judaism involves 'panentheism' and the question is whether that really lines up with panpsychism or idealism, neither or both.

Panentheism is also very clearly the form of theology most consistent with the objective idealism of Charles Sanders Peirce as outlined in this article by John Shook.... https://www.academia.edu/27796967/2016_ ... eirces_God

We are finite time-bound creatures. We can be 'inside' or we can be 'outside', 'focal' or 'global', 'dissociated' or 'integrated', but we only can be one thing at a time. For the Diety, these binarisms are transcended. Panentheism identifies the Diety as transcending contradiction, transcending paradox. The Diety is BOTH outside and inside, BOTH in time and outside of time, BOTH static and processual.

I am not sure that panentheism is consistent with panpsychism, or that panpsychism is sufficient to cover what panentheism implies.

[AshvinP]

Kabbalah and Hasidism (a branch of Kabbalah) are in my opinion a strange case in Judaism. Not many understand them in depth.
The professor's problem is that he's not a philosopher. He describes a top-down metaphysics so it's not really panpsychism.
The study of Kabbalah over the years has been forbidden to Jews, and it is understandable why rabbis feared the conclusions that people might draw from it. Statement like 'The universe occurs in divine thought or will' can raise some theological questions ("Does God make me sin?").

Alright, I guess I will have to settle for that, thanks. This was bugging me like one of those words stuck at the tip of your tongue. It would be nice if some of these contributors could just hop on the forum and clear up their own metaphysical positions.

[Shaibei]

Professor Schipper makes it very clear that the nature of relationship to the Diety recognized by the Kabbalists as well as Judaism involves 'panentheism' and the question is whether that really lines up with panpsychism or idealism, neither or both.

Panentheism is also very clearly the form of theology most consistent with the objective idealism of Charles Sanders Peirce as outlined in this article by John Shook.... https://www.academia.edu/27796967/2016_ ... eirces_God

We are finite time-bound creatures. We can be 'inside' or we can be 'outside', 'focal' or 'global', 'dissociated' or 'integrated', but we only can be one thing at a time. For the Diety, these binarisms are transcended. Panentheism identifies the Diety as transcending contradiction, transcending paradox. The Diety is BOTH outside and inside, BOTH in time and outside of time, BOTH static and processual.

I am not sure that panentheism is consistent with panpsychism, or that panpsychism is sufficient to cover what panentheism implies.

By the way, when Einstein visited Israel he met the Chief Rabbi at the time, who was a great Kabbalist. During the conversation the rabbi quoted a Kabbalist who spoke of a different conception of time to souls of different dimensions. Einstein's answer was that he was mainly interested in the physical aspect of time. Apparently David Bohm would have been more intrigued...

[Soul_of_Shu]

Alright, I guess I will have to settle for that, thanks. This was bugging me like one of those words stuck at the tip of your tongue. It would be nice if some of these contributors could just hop on the forum and clear up their own metaphysical positions.

According to Bernardo, it is the intention to eventually have a comments section tacked onto the end of the EF articles, as he has on his own blog, which would afford the opportunity to give feedback, or get into some Q&A with the authors, if so inclined. Indeed, allowing for some kind of audience engagement with its contributors seems critical if it is to become the kind of impactful force it is endeavouring to be. Of course, if they might also chime in here would be great, however unlikely that may be, given how presumably preoccupied they must be with primary pursuits.