Challenging materialism – important contacts, ideas about evolution
SUGGESTIONS FROM BERNARDO KASTRUP’S FORUM ON PEOPLE WHO WILL BE HELPFUL IN CHALLENGING MATERIALISM
(from Braude through Jack Hunter – from “Sciborg2”; below that is from Don Salmon)
Braude – I think having Braude’s careful analysis on the failures of mechanistic theories – including ones from Idealism & Dualism – is vital. I say this because replacing “matter” with “mind” in a search-replace sense seems to avail us little.
Sheldrake – A pioneer who was willing to wander into the wilderness before others, I think no matter the final accounting for morphic resonance Sheldrake’s understanding of biology – as well as Bergson’s philosophy of Time – will be important.
Freya Matthews – Even if the path ends with Idealism, I do think Holistic Panpsychism has a role to play in shifting people from materialism to Idealism. Additionally, I think the Taoist and environmental aspects will prove useful in shifting the tide as she shows why materialism is bad in a clearly understandable way.
Jeff Kripal – as a theology professor working in comparative religion, Kripal provides people a way to utilize their existing faith as a frame in which to consider the Numinous. Given the number of people who are religious, but don’t have a good grasp on the reasons one should reject materialism, Kripal offers a way to reach that demographic.
Raymond Tallis – Neuroscientist, Philosopher, Novelist, Poet, and so on. You gotta have a neuroscientist on board, given so much of materialist claims about the person hinges on neuroscience.
Brian Josephson – Nobel Prize Winner in physics. Helps with the credibility problem.
Jack Hunter – Paranthopology Journal. I think we need to get more of the humanities involved in this effort. While no doubt people will want to see results from parapsychology, the paranthropological record is – IMO at least – important to consider as well.
Dan Siegel: almost alone among mainstream neuroscientists, he refuses to reduce mind to brain. He’s now working with a psychiatrist at Stanford on connecting the Enneagram to neuroscience. I’m expecting him to go into astrology next (just kidding, but as far as most scientists go, the enneagram is almost as far out as astrology)
Tom McFarlane: Just posted something from him; fantastic guy who totally gets non duality and science. he’s a a mathematician and (Peter, take note if you stop by) he has written stuff based on Laws of Form, filtered through Franklin Merrell Wolff’s “consciousness without an object” philosophy. Very cool stuff. And you need someone connected to Merrell Wolff, who himself as a trained philosopher and mathematician.
Avery Solomon: long time student of Paul Brunton, worked closely with physicists at Cornell and others; Brunton and kastrup’s views and language are very close; would be great team.
Peter Wilberg – Wilberg is a therapist who has drawn on Abhivnavagupta’s tantric wisdom and translated it for a number of modern disciplines. He’s written great stuff on scientism (“The Qualia Revolution”) and has a lot of practical stuff too.
and I’ll just quickly mention some of my favorites again: Don DeGracia, Ulrich Mohrhoff, Matthijs Cornelissen, Alan Wallace, Ed Kelly, James Carpenter. Oh, Rudolf Tanzi too
And some ideas for challenging neo-darwinian/materialist evolutionism:
Another essential piece is rethinking evolution from a non-material perspective. Sci, if you feel like taking a brief amount of time, look back – I think it was in 2013? – at www.integralworld.net posts on evolution. There were about 6 or so on direction in evolution. I was surprised myself, as when I did research on this back in 2003, almost nobody in the mainstream accepted it. A lot has changed in the last 11 years. Once you acknowledge direction, some kind of telos is almost inevitable. Whitehead sees this, Bergson did to some extent, as did Aurobindo. Now an increasing number of mainstream evolutionary biologists are very tentatively catching on.
This may be tiresome as I’ve written it before, but here are my keys, including psi:
- Bernardo’s main point – we start with subjective experience, thus the burden of proof is on the materialist as to why we should accept his shadow, abstract universe.
- Freya matthews on laws of physics. Once you get that pattern of any kind is impossible in a mindless universe, this underscores point #1 and completely eliminates the need for that postulate.
- Look at neuroscience research showing the mind constructs (not creates) the environment. Look at Barfield, Gebser, Graves (spiral dynamics), etc showing that the WAY the mind constructs the environment develops, or evolves. This “construction” takes place over several hundred milliseconds, and once you see that there IS direction in evolution, you see that the unfolding of consciousness at each moment mirrors in a startling way how consciousness unfolded over 2 billion years.(George, by “consciousness” I don’t mean pure awareness)
- Look at the way that knowing, willing and feeling manifest in plants and unicellular organisms, and then see that the essential processes are the same in what we call “physical” structures, from stars to subatomic particles
- Look at psi data on plants and animals, showing psychokinesis and telepathy (group consciousness affecting large numbers of animals in terms of mutations). Incorporate yogic knowledge (Aurobindo is best source for me, but there’s lots of others) regarding subliminal or inner consciousness. Experiments can be done showing that changes in inner consciousness occur prior to either physical or surface consciousness changes. This explains direction in evolution.
- Incorporate all parapsychology and par anthropology research, as well as NDE research.
This will, I think, bring a revolution in physics, biology and neuroscience. it will also require new methodologies, quantitative, qualitative, and based on intuitive knowing with conventional analytic thinking only secondary.