Will idealism ever become part of the mainstream?

[AshvinP]

Another thing to keep in mind is that idealist philosophy, at its best, is aimed at questioning our unexamined axioms about the world. It is not so much about arguments over what metaphysical position can better explain this or that phenomenon (except phenomenal consciousness). One of the deepest and most influential unexamined axioms is precisely the division of "natural" and "supernatural" into separate categories of experience, and therefore the division of science and analytical philosphy from spiritual outlooks. If idealism became solely about those academically acceptable arguments, then it would lose most of its appeal and value for me. But I don't think it will, because by its very nature it can't help but go to the heart of metaphysical and spiritual matters.

The whole supernatural vs natural thing bugs me because lets say one day something "supernatural" is proven within a scientific framework, it immediately becomes "natural". I think most people who argue for the reality of something "supernatural" don't see it as somehow seperate from the natural world but just as much apart of it. It's a dichotomy created mostly by atheist skeptics who want to bury spiritual beliefs as superstitious "woo woo" .

Atheist skeptics have taken full advantage of it over the last 150 years or so, but the division goes back at least to Descartes and the separation of the realm of 'mind' from the realm of 'matter'. The rationalist orthodoxy then deemed everything in the former realm should be discussed privately, vaguely and in hushed tones, and everything in the latter realm is fit for rigorous public discourse. So I honestly see your criticism of Essentia Foundation as an extension of that same mentality... a mentality that is naturally dying out and for great reasons.

[Cleric K]

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.

Of course. That's the "love and hate" addiction to Maya and how deep things really go. And we should in no way think of ourselves as exceptions to this - even if we put a lot of effort in the other direction.

We are not that innocent as we would like to think of ourselves. Even if we are at the bottom of the pecking order. There are things that are currently blasphemies in the eyes of physical science. What if we say that the patterns of vicious weather and earthquakes have mysterious connection with our collective unconscious - the hatred and lies bred everywhere - not only on global elite level but also in the very mundane personal level? Or if we say that a vast part of the nervous diseases plaguing our modern civilization result from the release of astral elements of pain and terror by the mass execution of thousands of animals each second?

Exactly. So can we blame them?

Absolutely not. That's what we are talking about. It's not about trying to convert everyone to our system of thought. It's enough that the knowledge is freely accessible and at least known of its existence. Every soul will be drawn to its Karma.

The real question for each one of us is when we feel in position to choose. There's great difference if I just feel embedded in the external culture of our age and if my thinking has been liberated and I can see through it. Now if I say "Maybe my Cosmic role is to be on the resisting part of MAL?" I must at least be clear that I'm doing this in a very different way from someone doing it completely unconsciously, out of instinct. And the Karmic repercussions would be quite different in both cases.

[Soul_of_Shu]

FYI ... I've decided to merge the topic regarding idealism becoming mainstream with the topic regarding the concerns about the Essentia Foundation being able to facilitate that process, as they are so closely related it doesn't really make sense to be having two separate conversations about them.

[Astra052]

Cleric wrote: 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.

I think idealism is resisted because materialism has produced a logical and working theory of reality sans the problem of consciousness (which they assume will be and is being solved). So far everyone here has pretty much confirmed that their belief in idealism is largely a consequence of their spiritual beliefs rather than empirical evidence. This is disappointing for me and I think it should be for anyone who wants it to be taken seriously by mainstream academia. If we can't prove idealism without invoking, referencing, or associating with the spiritual then I think the whole project of trying to push for it as a valid scientific view is pointless. It ends up just being another spiritual ontology trying to validate itself through questionable science. If we can provide actual evidence for idealism without bringing up the collective unconscious, spiritual experiences, or anything that can't be scientifically proven that would be great. I'm trying not to come across like I'm knocking spirituality, it's more that groups like the Essentia Foundation will not succeed at their goal if we continue to be intrinsically tied to spirituality. We're going to be written off with the Deepak Chopra's of the world for peddling pseudoscience and trying to validate our spirituality through bogus science rather than being able to prove idealism on its own scientific merit.

[Astra052]

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.

Why does appealing to a mass audience matter? Are we trying to sell books or prove a genuine scientific theory? I don't think it's a negative that materialists want peer reviewed science and academically rigorous evidence for things. That's really just good science. If all we're trying to do is make spirituality believable for people I think there are many authors already doing that. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the goal of the Essentia Foundation and Kastrup is to make idealism a scientifically viable ontology. If our hidden agenda is propogating spirituailty then everyone involved with this is being dishonest. I don't think Kastrup, Hoffman, Muller, or others are dishonest so I'd prefer not to go down that route. I'm just going from being intrigued and somewhat convinced by the idealist perspective to extermely skeptical once I've seen how many people involved just seem to be looking for a way for spirituality to be viable rather than supporting idealism on its own empirical merit.

[Martin_]

...

...

Umm. what happened to the thread? ("Re: Concern about the Essentia Foundation.")

Edit: ok. Shu, i see your post now. sry.

[AshvinP]

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.

I think idealism is resisted because materialism has produced a logical and working theory of reality sans the problem of consciousness (which they assume will be and is being solved). So far everyone here has pretty much confirmed that their belief in idealism is largely a consequence of their spiritual beliefs rather than empirical evidence. This is disappointing for me and I think it should be for anyone who wants it to be taken seriously by mainstream academia. If we can't prove idealism without invoking, referencing, or associating with the spiritual then I think the whole project of trying to push for it as a valid scientific view is pointless. It ends up just being another spiritual ontology trying to validate itself through questionable science. If we can provide actual evidence for idealism without bringing up the collective unconscious, spiritual experiences, or anything that can't be scientifically proven that would be great. I'm trying not to come across like I'm knocking spirituality, it's more that groups like the Essentia Foundation will not succeed at their goal if we continue to be intrinsically tied to spirituality. We're going to be written off with the Deepak Chopra's of the world for peddling pseudoscience and trying to validate our spirituality through bogus science rather than being able to prove idealism on its own scientific merit.

Spiritual worldviews, while obviously related to philosophy and science, are broader frameworks of understanding than both of those. I think you are conflating a lot of distinguishable fields of knowledge together here. But, even more crucially, you are failing to see how any field of knowledge progresses, especially science. BK identifies Thomas Kuhn as one of the two most influential minds of the 20th century (the other being Carl Jung) for good reason. There are not two distinct groups of scientists, idealists and materialists, working on scientific theories to incrementally prove one or the other true, but rather a relatively tiny group of scientists who are being forced by intrinsic flaws and limitations of all scientific theories to imagine a radically new paradigm of what it means to do science, which then ripples out into the rest of the scientific community. And there is no reason to say this new scientific paradigm cannot allow for all manner of spiritual worldviews to be explicitly represented.

Why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution? In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both?

One aspect of the parallelism must already be apparent. Political revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created. In much the same way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way. In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution.
- Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[Martin_]

...
I've seen how many people involved just seem to be looking for a way for spirituality to be viable rather than supporting idealism on its own empirical merit.

You are referring to the ppl involved with Essentia, right?

Please substantiate this. Clearly, having expressed some spiritual beliefs doesn't disqualify you for being objective in the matter and still prioritizing the pursuit of "objective - rational - validated by Physics only - idealism".

Take BK as an example. His formal academic production is absolutely free of spiritualism and parapsychology, etc. (As far as i can tell). He is doing exactly what you are asking for; proposing Idealism on its own merits, independent of its spiritual implications.

I think everone deserves to have their content to speak for itself. Sure, a bit of critical thinking regarding the motivations behind doesn't hurt, but in the end, it's that content that matters.

So far, I have not found any criticism about any specific contents being too woo-woo or whatever. Only concerns about how others might react.


Also, the scientific community is not some kind of rational machine. It's a group of people; all of them being biased in their on ways and for their own reasons.

Essentia is playing the academic game. It's following the rules. If anyone questions the motivations of the players, one might point out that you wouldn't need to do that unless you felt that they were winning. (i'm not referring to you, Astra, i'm referring to the ones you worry about)

[Astra052]

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.

I think idealism is resisted because materialism has produced a logical and working theory of reality sans the problem of consciousness (which they assume will be and is being solved). So far everyone here has pretty much confirmed that their belief in idealism is largely a consequence of their spiritual beliefs rather than empirical evidence. This is disappointing for me and I think it should be for anyone who wants it to be taken seriously by mainstream academia. If we can't prove idealism without invoking, referencing, or associating with the spiritual then I think the whole project of trying to push for it as a valid scientific view is pointless. It ends up just being another spiritual ontology trying to validate itself through questionable science. If we can provide actual evidence for idealism without bringing up the collective unconscious, spiritual experiences, or anything that can't be scientifically proven that would be great. I'm trying not to come across like I'm knocking spirituality, it's more that groups like the Essentia Foundation will not succeed at their goal if we continue to be intrinsically tied to spirituality. We're going to be written off with the Deepak Chopra's of the world for peddling pseudoscience and trying to validate our spirituality through bogus science rather than being able to prove idealism on its own scientific merit.

Spiritual worldviews, while obviously related to philosophy and science, are broader frameworks of understanding than both of those. I think you are conflating a lot of distinguishable fields of knowledge together here. But, even more crucially, you are failing to see how any field of knowledge progresses, especially science. BK identifies Thomas Kuhn as one of the two most influential minds of the 20th century (the other being Carl Jung) for good reason. There are not two distinct groups of scientists, idealists and materialists, working on scientific theories to incrementally prove one or the other true, but rather a relatively tiny group of scientists who are being forced by intrinsic flaws and limitations of all scientific theories to imagine a radically new paradigm of what it means to do science, which then ripples out into the rest of the scientific community. And there is no reason to say this new scientific paradigm cannot allow for all manner of spiritual worldviews to be explicitly represented.

Why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution? In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both?

One aspect of the parallelism must already be apparent. Political revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created. In much the same way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way. In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution.
- Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Yeah maybe I'm just not getting something and need to give it some time. It feels like Kastrup's idealism has only taken off in the past few years so perhaps I just need to give it space to grow. My primary worry is that we're just going to be ignored, especially since the Essentia Foundation includes parapsyhcologists. It just provides great fodder for the radical skeptics and materialists not to take us seriously. It just feels like we're hindering oureselves but maybe I'm wrong and it will produce something. I'm just more interested in empirical data and experiments than spiritual musings honestly.

[Simon Adams]

Why does appealing to a mass audience matter? Are we trying to sell books or prove a genuine scientific theory?

Idealism isn’t a scientific theory, which is an important distinction here.

I don't think it's a negative that materialists want peer reviewed science and academically rigorous evidence for things. That's really just good science. If all we're trying to do is make spirituality believable for people I think there are many authors already doing that. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the goal of the Essentia Foundation and Kastrup is to make idealism a scientifically viable ontology. If our hidden agenda is propogating spirituailty then everyone involved with this is being dishonest. I don't think Kastrup, Hoffman, Muller, or others are dishonest so I'd prefer not to go down that route. I'm just going from being intrigued and somewhat convinced by the idealist perspective to extermely skeptical once I've seen how many people involved just seem to be looking for a way for spirituality to be viable rather than supporting idealism on its own empirical merit.

I don’t know who they’re trying to reach, but as it’s not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical ontology, you’re not likely to publish a peer reviewed paper and then get a scientific consensus that it’s the right way of seeing things.

I think the biggest problem idealism has is that people don’t get it, or assume science has proven the materialist ontology. So part of the job seems to be to make people realise that it’s a serious, well reasoned option. If you only get people who see no spiritual implications of idealism, then you could argue that they haven’t really thought about what idealism is saying. If you just replace matter with “mind stuff” as an inert substance, is it really any different?