One's Metaphysical World View

[Chester]

Recently I experienced a true consciousness shift. I will save for another post the details behind that. This forum and another played a role and it was positive. Anyways... the shift came about as a result of an investigation I entered into all and only because I discovered a crusade that, on the surface seemed to make good sense yet, deep down inside I knew "something" was bothering me and I had to find out what that something was and why it was bothering me.

This led me to look deeper into my own most important world view which (for me) is... my current metaphysical view as to how "all this" came to be. My world view also includes the answer to "what am I." What bothered me was the crusade seemed anchored in a materialistic world view. I had explored materialism and realism and alternative views to some degree but I didn't feel I had a good enough handle on why my "gut" rejected "materialism."

I suddenly recalled a site called Skeptiko where the site owner had several hundred audio interviews with some of the world's most respected "thinkers" yet which spanned the spectrum from full blown militant materialists to the folks that can be placed loosely in a group we would call, "there must be more."

So I opened up the list and began to scroll down looking for a title that would grab me. "As this sorta thing goes" (when one lives the 'magical life' as I like to call it... hint, there's really no actual magic to it), I ended up at the one titled - "This philosopher goes toe-to-toe with materialist science… so far he’s undefeated."

I had never heard of Dr. Bernardo Kastrup until this moment. I began to listen. Within minutes I realized I wanted to read one of his books and ordered "Brief Peeks Beyond." A few days later the book arrived and I realized it was a compilation of essays. After reading the first several pages, I kept noticing he referred often to another book he had written called, "Why Materialism is Baloney." The title sort of turned me off so I didn't react until... after reading several more essays I encountered too many references back to this book, "Why Materialism is Baloney" and so I broke down and ordered it.

The book arrived just a few days before I was to leave for 17 days to meet my wife on the island of Curacao for a mission to get a silly piece of paper which is separating her from being with me back in Texas. The good news was that it was this very island I met Cristina 14 years ago and the island where we married, also 14 years ago. Just to make it "right" I got us a beachfront room at the same resort where we spent our honeymoon - yes... this was to be a second honeymoon too so not all that bad after all.

That the book came just before the trip set me up well for the opportunity to enjoy a peaceful contemplative reading opportunity.

All I can say is... "WoW!"

The most impacting book I have read in this lifetime.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=fOyWO7Yw8AY

EDIT: Originally posted on my blog - here

[Chester]

Some might be wondering about the back story...

Here is what led me to look further at my own world view.

I had found myself hearing that Stephen Hodges (aka Atticus and aka Charles) and his cohort Rhi had been ousted from a little known forum called inPHInet.net. A forum which I once belonged to for a brief period back in early 2015. One that I had been removed from when I did something which apparently gave Atticus whatever reason he felt he needed to have me removed from that forum. It was for this reason I felt that his insinuation to me that he owned the forum (backed up by Rhi's insinuations) was likely true as how else could I have been completely and instantly totally deleted from that forum (all posts, etc) as if I never existed.

So when I heard in late 2015 that both he and Rhi were 'de-membered' from inPHInet.net I realized I had it wrong... that what Hodges wanted me to believe had to have been wrong, that my assumption was also wrong. I then decided to join that forum again. The reason was to test whether I was actually not wanted by whoever the actual forum owner was so I would be able to know if it was Stephen's influence that got me deleted from inPHInet or if it was a consensus decision also taken by the actual owner. It turned out that I was allowed once again to make an account (under my same name by the way) and my question was adequately answered.

Some months went by and one day I desired to hear some music and I recalled that there were some excellent posts at inPHInet that featured music I had never heard (but recalled enjoying) and most of it by artists I had never heard of. So I went back and made a silly post that I enjoy the music I find featured on the inPHInet forum. Within a day or so I found myself reading a few posts there and found that the thread I had posted in seemed to have become a "processing what happened in the Stephen / Rhi era." Soon I discovered a particular poster there that laid the whole problem at the feet of "sociopathy."

The next thing I knew, after engaging in a few conversations, was that this poster seemed to be on a personal mission to rid the world of the power and control 'so labelled' "sociopaths" had over the rest of humanity. I then was exposed to this poster's opinion that all sorts of psychological tests may be part of the needed process but that the technology known as fMRI (some sort of brain scan test) was another important tool available for the identification of those who might then be labelled "sociopaths."

At first it sounded great... but within a few days, I started to sense something wrong at my "gut level." The poster had used many high profile "boogie-men/women" as examples but also had pointed the finger at all sorts of folks, some in the alternative community and in some cases, posters who otherwise lived obscure lives.

So I looked deeper into the matter, looked deeper into what was bothering me and... I suddenly realized that both the discipline so many call 'the field of psychology' was based in the mainstream view of society which... upon even deeper investigation I realized was based in the metaphysical world view of materialism (and/or its cousins, realism, physicalism, etc.) It was at this moment I discovered the primary philosophical contrasting view known as 'idealism.' Despite all my consciousness studies I had never come upon the term 'idealism' as the label to the metaphysical world view which insists consciousness is all we can know directly and that view parsimony, consciousness must be fundamental to all... indeed all we experience which includes the world "out there."

I then realized that the methods which this poster suggested we use to "identify" so called sociopaths were methods validated only if materialism as a world view turned out to be true. My gut wouldn't have it and so I went on a serious exploration of both views to make sure what my gut was aligned with was what I could also agree to using reason.

The results made it an easy choice as to which world view makes most sense to me at all three important levels of my being, my gut, my mind and my heart.

Still - back to the thought that identification of "sociopaths" and then restricting their ability to influence humanity by disallowing them from positions of power and control is a wise tact. The poster made the case using the example, "we test drivers for their vision so along those same lines we need to test humanity (as described above for the purpose described above). I went back and looked at this poster's recommendations as to what humanity can do to protect themselves from sociopathy. The psychology tests can be beaten anyways... so that alone won't cut it. Yet the only way the brain scan is any valid test where human rights can be restricted is if and only if the world view of materialism (that any semblance of what we call consciousness begins at the brain) and I flat out don't buy that world view.

Interestingly the poster had been discussing something else where I made the comment that went along the lines of - "What is our complaint about western medicine? That western medicine seems far more interested in treating the symptoms than attempting to discover the cause so that the cause can be dealt with." The poster agreed. I then pointed out to the poster that it was my opinion that self-centric and/or group-centric views (that appear devoid of empathy for all) was at least in part a result of a world which is dominated by the world view of materialism and that his solution (besides all the other arguments I have against it which I will touch on further) was (if anything) treating at most a symptom and will do nothing to eradicate the actual underlying problem which produces overt sociopathy in individual cases.

Very soon I began to experience being told what I observed other posters (who had moved on save one lone hold out) - "That's what a sociopath says." It was soon after that where I observed someone in a chat discussing their own strategy to help the world be a better place for all... and that is along the lines of what is often quoted here "Be the change you wish to see in the world" (Ghandi) - that the individual felt working on oneself is the best way we can get there to where we experience a truly better world. This individual was asked "isn't that selfish?" The implications are obvious.

I did attempt to bring the discussion to that forum with the creation of my own thread featuring the importance of "world view" with regards to everything that comes forth in the world and not just a look at this issue of the poster - so called "sociopathy" (in the way the poster presented it).

Not just in this thread but wherever I posted in the forum, never ever did that poster fail to respond. Not only did that poster respond, but the poster failed to address my most important questions (one which I presented to the forum and this poster specifically many times - 'the hard problem of consciousness') but I had to endure the same technique that has been used (with success) by the mainstream media where a snippet of a much large statement is "quoted" then conveniently interpreted in a way that if taken in original context would never fly, and instead twisted/interpreted in a way that then set up a validation of the poster's follow up statement. I pointed this tactic out several times. There was no change in tactic by the poster. The moderation staff (probably there is none save the owner) did nothing. OK, so I stopped reading that poster's posts when that tactic was used as it was a waste of time.

The day soon came forth that I had had enough of asking the poster to solve 'the hard problem of consciousness' and I made this statement -

Kastrup nails it and materialists can never get past the hard problem. Why not just face the truth? (that materialists cannot get around the hard problem)

The owner of the forum responded -

Why can we not have polite differences of opinions about a subject as personal as our spirit, Sam?
And, not assume one world view is superior over another?
For some reason, or other, it seems conscientiousness builds to convince others one way is better than another?

This statement led with "Why can we not have polite..." She actually called for "politeness." She singled out my comment implying it was impolite. Yet anyone who has looked at the posts made on this forum either directly to other posts or aimed at members (most who have long ago become inactive) to call many of them outright rude is an understatement. To then look at the posts that single out one or more members of that forum (active or inactive) as well as others known in the alternative community, to call these posts rude is again, a massive understatement.

Within minutes of reading the owner's suggestion that I was acting impolite was all it took. I asked to be 'de-membered' which fortunately was immediately acted upon.

The whole experience gave me further reason to consider the importance of world view and this is why I hope that this discussion might lead to somewhere here on the Project Avalon forum. This will be all I say about that experience here in this thread.

[Foxie Loxie]

Excellent video, thank you! Look forward to hearing about your shift of consciousness!

[Chester]

It started innocently... a "gut reaction" that something was wrong with the idea of "identifying potential bad guys" via brain scans.

I then identified why that bothered me. My world view is not that my brain is me (or makes me who/what I am) but that my brain is a filtering mechanism through which my individuated consciousness flows as I express myself in the shared reality.

And as synchronicity goes, I just happened to search for an interesting audio interview on the Skeptiko site at the same time this was going on and found several excellent arguments that support the world view of idealism as a metaphysics as opposed to realism, materialism, physicalism and scientism.

And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with science as science is excellent for modeling what happens mechanically in the shared reality... a wonderful tool. But if something cannot be proved by the scientific method does not mean we should accept a metaphysics called materialism - compared to idealism it is incomplete, unreasonable and lacks parsimony. Yet the only thing we can know, consciousness, presents far less of the problems found in arguments attempting to support materialism.

So why might this be important?

If my world view suggests support for the idea that I am (or I and my special group are) separate from other expressions of life, I am far more prone to cutting myself off from empathy which, at least according to the poster referred to above, is the difference maker between so-called 'sociopaths' and those who are not.

Even in the above statement reveals one of the flaws in labeling anyone (other than the obvious cases) a sociopath as the world is a sea of shades of grey, very little ever so black and white. In addition, the idea we can identify sociopaths via brain scans suggests that once a sociopath, forever one... that there is some overwhelming physical condition which then opens the door to "could it be genetic." Can we see how easily this becomes eugenics? Referring again back above to John Lamb Lash... And then if we go down that path... you know where that ends up. Throw out any theories regarding epigenetics - sorry folks but "you" have "the selfish gene" (thanks Richard Dawkins).

In this view there is no possibility we are more than just some meat-suit. There is no possibility there's more to life than you are simply (via a cosmic accident) born and in time, die... forever dead. That leaves too many saying to themselves, "well... you only live once (and there was nothing before or will be after) and so I'll take what I can now and forever until the plug is pulled.

[Innocent Warrior]

An article you may find informative, here, Sam (your gut is clever).

[greybeard]

Sam by coincidence posted here https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1077608

Buddha at the Gas Pump interview of Dr. Bernardo Kastrup

Love Chris

[Foxie Loxie]

I thought the idea of each of us being a whirlpool in the stream of consciousness an excellent one! Kind of like what has been said, that each of us is a part of everything else. If everyone of us thought along those lines, this WOULD be a different world! Yes, we each have inherited traits, but until we can recognize those traits in ourselves, there is not much we can do about them. Recognizing that I AM an eternal being housed temporarily in this shell has helped me immensely!
Because of my health condition I am not able to be involved with very many people, but I have read with interest all you have written. You, indeed, have an active mind! Blessings!

[Chester]

Posted by Innocent Warrior (here)
An article you may find informative, here, Sam (your gut is clever).

I ran across Fallon in my investigation... I asked myself, would I have failed (as he did) this test at any point in my life and my answer was, "probably yes." There was a time in my youth I very much might have failed both an fMRI and perhaps a test of "genetic markers." Yet, over the last several years at the very least, I am often overwhelmed by empathy... some might say far too much. Of course then, when I felt cornered, out again came the 'bad guy' (and I can be pretty good at it, ask donk). So how could that be? How could these swings be?

So I wondered... what was the difference for me at the times I was led by empathy and the times I felt compelled to act as some cornered animal?

And the answer I came upon was that I was experiencing an inner battle of world views. So the good news is that my latest experiences in this regard led me to do the final research (and not just via reason and intellect but in listening to my gut and looking at my heart's truest desires along these lines) and... voila! I discovered I am (currently and likely for at least the rest of this lifetime) a monistic idealist.

In my world view, anyone can change. Maybe the odds on a brain damaged psychopath changing are all but zero yet still... in my world view, the body is a shell for the actual being and it is that being that we want to steal the human rights from for one day failing some mechanical test. I can't go with that.



What was interesting too was the poster's insistence that synchronicity/psi experiences were likely nothing but 'apophenia.' It was this poster that I can thank for my investigation and for my landing on the firm ground of monistic idealism where no coincidences ever need be (as there are none in the world view of monistic idealism). And so the day I finished Katsrup's book was also the last day of my trip to Curacao. This meant this was the last day I would be with my wife, Cristina, for likely several more months.

What a fitting ending to the trip that not only provided Cristina and I a deeply meaningful moment but also captured a live example of what the poster calls 'pure, random coincidence.'

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lIqyJR6hOJQ

[ulli]

Bumping this thread, just so that Sam can find it again.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Hi Sam, sorry if this flies off on a slight angle, but I thought it germane to the insightful information you've already posted - and many thanks for it

You have definitely struck upon an interesting and definitely valid line of thought in my opinion and experience – that we are barking up the wrong tree when attempting to "identify potential bad guys" via brain scans. Such a technique, though reasonable, would be lacking, and only part complete. Allow me to expand (into a potentially strange area that perhaps many will not understand or even slightly believe in).

I hesitate, because I don't know what your 'reckoning' of this type of esoteric subject is, or what your beliefs are. But I'll go for it anyway...

The physical body is just a body we have temporarily entered. We also have the astral or etheric bodies which we have also entered, and are every bit as important as the physical. We also have an emotional and causal body if you want to go there. There are others, too. But staying with the etheric body, which is like an overlay of the physical, this is an energetic projection of our true identity – the energy we bring with us from Spirit when we incarnate (it is not our consciousness, nor our soul, this is different). But it is an exact copy of our physical body. What people see as a 'ghost' is exactly that, a projection of someone's etheric body. What amputees experience in 'phantom pain' is also this – an echo from the etheric body overlaying the physical which is no longer there. Etc..

The quality/properties of the etheric body directly influences the physical. Distortions therein mould and modify the physical genetic structure. For example, negative karma from former lives will in turn be brought forward and manifest into the etheric body. It also brings soul memory, which effects thoughts/feeling/emotions, as well as all kinds of psychosis/sociopathy/phobias, because we are the sum of all our former lives and experiences. Basically the condition of our energetic bodies directly influences the physical body, and in many instances it can cause physical ailments and disease (dis-ease).



I am given to strongly believe, have in multiple cases read about (and in a gut sense know/remember) that long ago, before the vast spiritual store of Mankind's ancient accumulated wisdom and knowledge was lost/perverted/destroyed (I'm talking antediluvian and Atlantean times), every new born baby was spiritually 'scanned' (for want of a better term) to analyse and measure the qualities and potential defects of that incarnating soul. It was done with crystals and Light – and through thought (not technology per se). The practitioners of this wisdom were highly advanced souls (the ancient equivalent of doctors), and they used crystal chambers filled with light to help balance these energies and bring them into balance (healing).

The goal of the 'scan' however, was to determine the alignment of the energy of the child; how the child would best add to the whole (of society), what distortions might be present (leading to future ailments), but ultimately how their inherent gifts would best serve the community and humanity as a whole (there was no such thing as wasted talent in those days - every one did exactly what they were best at, and what they very much wanted to do). Anything akin to sociopathy would be instantly picked up, and one can rest assured, no being with this type of distortion would ever, ever, attain a position of power. (I believe there are many so called leaders today who have certain, shall we say, distortions of a negative nature in their energetic make up). Oh what this lost knowledge could do for us today!

So your gut reaction to this 'technology' is correct – but a scan of the brain would only scan the physical effect of a distortion, not the energetic cause of the distortion (in the being's soul - brought forward from previous lives). It would not pin down the nature or characteristics of the fault, and certainly it could not heal it. 'They', long ago, could heal these problems by correctly aligning the light in our energetic bodies. It would not eradicate karma exactly, or change any preordained effects, such as restrictions or lessons the incarnated being needed to work through in the first place, but critical imbalances could be addressed, which would in turn align the genetic, healing and perfectly restoring the physical body. We can do this ourselves with our own conscious minds over time. It really is the best medicine.

This is part of the Lost Knowledge of Man - what we once had, and lost after the Fall; and much of it was what the Mysteries (in post-diluvian times) actually were.

tl;dr -- metaphysics and the spiritual angle is the reality, and is (always) the cause. Physicality is merely the translated effect, and is (always) subordinate to the spiritual.

[Chester]

Hi Star Mariner,

I read your post (#10) will attention and openness. I have not come upon the many details you expressed in this post via direct apprehension or experience and so I am unable to validate any of it. Yet, it is because of the possibility that some or much of what you stated may be 'true' (as in universally true if there is such a thing) that your post perfectly fits in this thread and is an example of possibility that supports one of my points with regards to scans of the 'jelly in one's brain.'

As for the structure of "the being" your post suggests, I have come upon these 'bodies' as energy bodies. I have benefited from looking at the possible structure of a being via exploration of these seven bodies and I am wondering if you share this same view... and I ask this for a specific question to follow: (source).

Energy bodies in Sanskrit and their definitions:

I’m giving the names of the Koshas or sheaths or bodies :

1. Annamaya kosha – sustained by food – physical body

2. Pranamaya kosha – sustained by prana – etheric body

3. Kamamaya kosha – sustained by emotions and desires – astral body(emotional body)

4. Manomaya kosha – sustained by mind material, thought waves – mental body

5. Vijnanamaya kosha – sustained by knowledge – intellect (spiritual intellect) body

6. Aathmamaya kosha – sustained by psionic energy/consciousness – soul body

7. Anandamaya Kosha – sustained by cosmic energy/supreme energies – self body

My question would be -

"How are we to know this is a correct structure of the being beyond the physical body which we all may agree is "real" (at least from the viewpoint of our shared reality)?"

Also, your post is not in any way off topic to me and opens to exploration I hoped the topic might lead to.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Sam Hunter (here)
"How are we to know this is a correct structure of the being beyond the physical body which we all may agree is "real" (at least from the viewpoint of our shared reality?"

Thanks Sam, it's a good question. The way I see it is, that just as our physical bodies have many different functions that can be branded and divided and sub-divided (respiratory, digestive, reproductive, endocrine, lymphatic and so on), so I suppose, as revealed by eastern philosophies, can the energetic bodies be likewise divided down into different categories. And I believe they are just as complex, but I cannot state with certainty exactly what the structure is or how it works, but it is probably very much like the list you posted. One thing is for sure, they are all interconnected, and everything interacts with each everything else on many levels, all of which directly mirror the physical.

Thought, intention, desire, and emotion – I suppose these are the base energies/vibrations moving through our etheric bodies. Even the sceptic can accept and understand the nature of psychosomatic effetcs – where thought alone creates discomfort. It is very real, and real evidence of how pure energy (a thought or a fear) can directly influence the physical (over time).

[Chester]

Thanks Star Mariner for the response which I enjoyed reading - especially your emphasis on the inter-connectivity.

Note there's an excellent post over in the Horus-Ra thread. I did more investigation on Thomas Campbell's "My Big T. O. E." and I am happy to see that Thomas Campbell's views are in alignment with the metaphysics of idealism.

For example he has a term he calls "The Big Cheese"

and his more descriptive term - LCS - Larger Consciousness System

The LCS encompasses the entirety of consciousness that is media of reality. Whether or not something exists outside of consciousness is theoretically possible but practicably unknowable, as we are consciousness itself.

[Chester]

Materialism versus Idealism

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=uArSolZX19U

[Mike Gorman]

You have presented some intriguing adventures on alternative forums Sam, you seem to be a questing soul, and a philosophical one! I sense some kindred traits in your writing, I think so at least.

There is a lot of movement abroad in our world, changes, shifts of perspective and lots of different groups emerging who offer refuge and consanguinity (likeness of blood, or close affiliation) - lots of energy about! From your explorations, and from your implied position of sensing a problem with dogmatic positions (how to determine 'bad guys') I believe we have a similar outlook. I have always been resistant to institutional thinking, rules and regulations-I perceive Laws as being largely abstract, determined by the most powerful groups in society & therefore actually inherently 'socio-pathic' - many so-called sociopaths are merely personalities who have been thwarted and prevented from operating by our society, poverty, lack of opportunity e.t.c

Anyway from your post I would think you would be interested in the work of Rupert Sheldrake, a scientist who refutes materialism, and the 'Dogma' of science. Also the work of Arthur M. Young an American visionary genius (he developed the first fully operational Helicopter) who offered a cosmology and integrated view of our universe-no less than a revision of Evolution & Relativity - it is potent, amazing work. This is simply my offering, take it or not - your post prompted me to reply

[animovado]

In this view there is no possibility we are more than just some meat-suit. There is no possibility there's more to life than you are simply (via a cosmic accident) born and in time, die... forever dead. That leaves too many saying to themselves, "well... you only live once (and there was nothing before or will be after) and so I'll take what I can now and forever until the plug is pulled.

The saying "I only live once (and there was nothing before or will be after)" isn't so bad in itself. It might be true even from an opposite viewpoint (other than the meat-suit view) and shows more of an attitude towards life like "..and so I'll be what I am now".
Like there's an "alone"-and an "ALL one"-perspective.

Good thread - THX

[Chester]

I wrote Robert Steele and asked him about his world view.

I posted about this here on this other thread

Here is my 'promised' response back to him -

Hi Mr. Steele,

As promised, here is my current answer to the question –

“What is my metaphysical cosmological world view?”

Note I am 59 years old and though I realize in retrospect that I have been working towards an answer to this question since my teenage years, I only reached the ability to identify my current world view and articulate this world view in the last few years.

My current world view is based on what is known as ‘monistic idealism.’

Monistic idealism simply defined is: That consciousness is fundament to all… that consciousness has primacy and that all which comes forth, including the ‘perceived material realm’ emanates from consciousness.

The term ‘idealism ‘ in this case is based on the classic definition from philosophy.
Wikipedia does a decent job in describing this -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Also, in the definitions section is the following –
Monistic idealism holds that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being. It is monist because it holds that there is only one type of thing in the universe and idealist because it holds that one thing to be consciousness.
Monism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
Monism is the view that attributes oneness or singleness.

So there’s my current answer to my own question.

I say current because in my own operational protocol, I always leave open the possibility for a change in views.

If you are not familiar with Bernardo Kastrup… here is his “About” - http://www.bernardokastrup.com/p/about.html

Kastrup has written several books on the subject and if ever you wish to review one, the most excellent book I may have ever read is Kastrup’s -
Why Materialism Is Baloney:
How true skeptics know there is no death and fathom answers to life, the universe, and everything
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Materiali...ism+is+baloney

Now for some brief opinion sharing.

It is my firmest opinion that all the problems of the world can be associated with the world’s massive imbalance between the metaphysical world view of materialism vs idealism where most folks hold a world view based in materialism. In addition, most folks are not even consciously aware of their deepest world view or if so, are only vaguely aware such that they experience the inner war between the two poles of idealism and materialism.

It is also my opinion that some of the folks (if not most) who are “the string pullers” in our world are either aware that consciousness is preeminent or have made a decision to make this otherwise. What most certainly appears to be the case is that these folks promulgate the materialist world view and I believe they do so because this gives them greater power over the rest of humanity.

Apologies my answer went beyond the few paragraphs but know that I appreciate what you are working so hard to do and I value your time.

If ever I can be in any way helpful for you (us), I am very willing to be so.

Kind Regards
Sam
Sam Hunter from the Project Avalon Forum

[Foxie Loxie]

Appreciated your statement on "Monistic idealism". That really brings it home that "all" is consciousness; whatever else springs from that!

[Chester]

Tim Freke is onto it... a handful of other humans are too... sadly, just a handful.

Clever Monkeys Clinging to a Rock

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=G-aJpwqZOHs

[Chester]

an interesting addition to this thread -

from here

[The discussion in the Chalmers on Idealism thread, in particular the "if idealism is true, then how could I be so wrong?" question has motivated me to finish and resubmit the essay I submitted but then withdrew a few months ago, containing as it does my answer to his question. Here is the much changed essay:]


It appears that many people find idealism implausible simply because it does not match up with what they consider to be common sense. Well, they are correct. If by "common sense" we mean our pre-philosophical understanding of what things are like -- an understanding that is held in common with most everyone around us -- then the philosophical name for that understanding is dualism. It is dualist in that it makes a distinction in our experience between controlled (or at least controllable) and uncontrolled, between what seems to come from within us and what seems to come from outside. The contents of our sense perceptions are uncontrolled, while our thinking, feeling, and acting is, or at least can be, under our control. Further, much that is not under my control does not appear to be controlled by any mind at all. Hence, common sense divides reality into the mental and the non-mental.

But if one goes back to 2500+ years ago, the common sense of that time was that behind every natural phenomenon was the mind of some god or nature spirit. While people now are naive dualists, back then people were naive idealists. And so we are faced with two possibilities:

1. Modern common sense is correct, meaning ancient common sense was a bunch of made-up stories and superstitions to explain things that modern science explains very differently.
2. Ancient common sense, like modern common sense was a consequence of direct experience, but the nature of direct experience has changed. Ancient common sense was a consequence of the mentality of natural phenomena being directly perceived, somewhat like the way we detect the mentality that lies behind the utterances of people. But experience has changed, and we no longer have that sort of direct experience of mind in nature.

Now a materialist or substance dualist must of course choose the first option. But an idealist has ontological room to inquire into the second. And that inquiry comes up with not only providing evidence for the second option, but also with an explanation of how we have changed from being naive idealists to being naive dualists.

The results of that inquiry can be found in Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry. What Barfield points out is that the distinction between mind and matter, or inside and outside, didn't exist in early peoples. (This is also the basis of Julian Jaynes The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, though being a materialist, Jaynes explains this with the dubious theory that our thinking was done unconsciously in one cranial hemisphere, which then "talked" to the other.) Thinking happened to the person, and was not felt as being produced by the person. In the beginning of the Iliad, Achilles is angry because Agamemnon has taken Achilles' slave-girl away from him. Achilles naturally wants to kill Agamemnon, but if he does that would be the end of the Greeks' siege of Troy, so he doesn't. We would say that reason prevailed, but what Homer says is that Athena tells him not to. It is something outside of Achilles that controls his action. And of course, Homer credits his own work to the Muse. One may also note that it is only recently that "genius" came to mean a great thinker, and not some external source that inspires the thinker. There was innovation in ancient times, but such innovation was credited to divine kings and prophets, not to a common individual's cleverness.

All this is to say that the growth of control in our thinking, feeling, and willing is a marker of the evolution of consciousness, which amounts to a change of common sense. This control moved from "outside" (belonging to the supernatural) to "inside". Parallel with this change is a change in sense perception. Supernatural control was exercised equally on humans and nature, which means that humans were just as much "nature" as anything else, all pervaded by spiritual entities. And that was perceived. It was not an "animist belief system" that people made up to explain things. Rather it was, simply, experienced. But as our ability to think grew, the perception of spirit in nature declined, until in modern times it has disappeared. Hence modern common sense divides reality into two: our (more or less) controlled minds on the one hand, and on the other, a mindless physical system. Even in the late middle ages, no one would think of denying that behind what was sensed there was Mind. It is only once this complete separation between human mind and nature was effected that a philosophy like Descartes' dualism could make sense to people.

Barfield calls the early peoples' common sense "original participation", in that with their sense perceptions there was an extra-sensory participation with the object being sensed. As mentioned, something like this can be understood when we converse. We "hear through" the words to the meaning behind the words, and hence our minds participate with each other. In our current state, which Barfield calls "final participation" that participation with the objects we sense still exists (otherwise there would be no perception at all), but has moved from the outside into our subconscious. All we experience consciously is the surface form of the object, like words of an unknown language, meaningless to us. The mentality within, or behind the object is blocked out. We thus treat the surface form as the whole object, like worshipping a statue of God in place of what the statue represents -- hence the subtitle of Barfield's book: A Study in Idolatry.

It should be noted that the above paragraphs only give the conclusion of Barfield's investigation. In the book one will find the reasoning that leads to these conclusions, from anthropology, history of ideas, and above all a study of changes in word meanings. Why is it, he asks, that all of our vocabulary for mind has been taken from the vocabulary for nature? Why did the Greeks have just one word 'pneuma', which we must variously translate as 'spirit' or as 'wind' (or 'breath')? And of course the Latin root of 'spirit', inspiritus, also meant breath. The same goes for most all of our vocabulary for mental activity. The explanation is simple: the ancients simply did not differentiate between our two meanings. That is, in ancient common sense, wind is spirit.

The "how" of the change from naive idealism to naive dualism is, then, that about 600 BCE, give or take a century or two, people started experiencing thinking as coming from within themselves. Hence there was what Jaspers calls the Axial Age, those few centuries which saw the appearance of thinking stemming from the revelations of the likes of the Buddha, Lao Tse, the Upanishads, plus Confucianism in the East, and in Greece the likes of Solon and the pre-Socratic philosophers, and in Israel the Deuteronomic move to monotheism. These were all movements that gradually caused original participation (which is to say paganism) to die out. To think about natural phenomena is to distance oneself from those phenomena. It took about 2000 years for this distancing to have the full effect of conscious participation disappearing. But it did, resulting in a second major shift that gave us the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, and the so-called Enlightenment, that is to say, modern common sense.

But this leaves us with the question of "why". Idealist philosophy tells us that our common sense, being dualist, is wrong in how it views physical reality. But there has also been another source for that information, namely, mystics. Vedanta names this wrongness 'Maya', usually translated as 'illusion' or 'delusion'. Buddhists call it 'avidya', or 'ignorance'. Christianity also has a doctrine of wrongness, called Original Sin, though in its traditional formulation it is not an indictment of common sense. Nevertheless, in all three cases, the religious import is that this deep wrongness is the source of our suffering and sinful nature. This, however, raises a serious question, which is: why did this occur? This is, basically, the well-known Problem of Evil: if God is so wonderful (or fundamental reality so blissful), why are we suffering?

There are two common replies to this question, neither of which, especially the first one, is all that satisfactory. The first is to push it off as a mystery, that God is so far above us that we cannot assume to be able to grasp Its rationale. The second is to assert that the possibility of evil must be allowed if we are to have free will. While this makes some sense, I think it can be improved on. If we accept that consciousness has evolved, then we can ask whether this evolutionary process can tell us something about why we are in this mess. What follows is speculative, but seems to me consistent.

While not all idealists might agree, idealism generally goes from saying that all is mentality to arguing that fundamentally, mentality is One. In doing so one can then refer to that Fundamental, or Absolute, Consciousness as God. This, however, raises the risk of anthropomorphization, but the only way to avoid that is to make one's language so stilted that the story I want to tell gets lost in the stilted vocabulary. So forgive the anthropomorphization in what follows. Call it a myth if that helps.

God creates, and every thought of God is a creation which can never be truly separate from the thinker. Now one might ask, how does God create an image of Itself? This would be a creature that creates, which means that it must have its own will. Which in turn means that it must have a sense of itself as, if not separate, at least distinct from the totality which is God. Perhaps there are more benign ways of making this happen, but one way that works is to believe, however illogical it may be, that one is separate from God. Which is the state we find ourselves in.

This was also the case in pagan times, that is, they were operating under a false belief. Though all was mind, it was all separated minds. And because those minds were separated there was as much if not more strife and suffering as now. The person was at the mercy of those natural/spiritual forces. Overcoming that was (and is) what thinking serves to accomplish. As mentioned, by thinking about natural phenomena one creates distance from them -- their power on the person diminishes, and with that the sense of being an individual increases. There was also another factor involved, namely the influence of prophets and mystics in the gradual replacement of pagan religion with monotheism (in the West) and all-is-one-ism in the East, which today we call nondualism. In both cases this meant denying power to all those invisible forces in nature.

And so, by the modern age -- and this is pretty much what defines the modern age -- mind in nature had by and large disappeared. In philosophy, the many minds of nature had been replaced by the single Mind of God, but it wasn't long before that too was dropped, giving us mind/matter dualism or materialism. Separation between minds has been replaced by separation between human minds and nature. And while this creates a bunch of new problems (notably the tendency to despoil nature), a necessary step in the creation of images of God has been accomplished, namely, we now think of ourselves as autonomous individuals.

But it is only a step, for while we may think we are autonomous, we still have quite a ways to go before we actually are autonomous. Most of what we experience remains beyond our control, and that is not limited to our sense perceptions. Unwanted thoughts, carrying unwanted emotions continue to plague us. Hence, our continued development depends on us, to discipline our thinking further, to detach it from our selfish concerns.

And what of uncontrolled nature? Recall that "final participation", as Barfield calls it, doesn't mean the end of participation, but that participation has moved from appearing outside of ourselves, as it did in original participation, to being a subconscious process inside of us. Hence we can consider the possibility of that process becoming conscious. We will then be conscious of the creative process that produces nature's outward forms. Which is to say that what is now a collective subconscious would become a collective consciousness -- we would be experiencing how we -- human minds and the minds behind natural phenomena -- are collectively creating the reality we perceive.

In sum, while philosophy can tell us [i]that modern common sense is wrong, it is a study of the history of consciousness that can tell us how we came to be so wrong, and it is religious speculation that can give us a reason why we should be in such a state. But if we accept all this, we are still left with a philosophical problem: if a creature is a thought of God, what does it mean to say that it is an autonomous creator? It would appear that we are and yet are not God. In another essay I hope to address this question.