Great coming line up, thanks Dave and company for everything you do. I’d say John McWhorter is a good, fair branching out across views too, as you guys have done plenty of. Keep up the good work.

Would love for you guys to interview Rupert Spira

IF YOURE MESSING WITH TAROT CARDS/PSYCHICS/MANIFESTING/ASMR/NEW AGE/MAGIC/WITCHCRAFT/SORCERY/ SEANCES/YOGA/OCCULT/CRYSTALS/LUCID DREAMING/OUIJA BOARDS/ANGEL #'s/ASTROLOGY/ASTRO PROJECTING YOU ARE MESSING WITH EVIL SPIRITS. YOU ARE OPENING THE DOOR FOR THEM TO COME IN AND THEY WILL GLADLY DESTROY YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES. ITS ALL SATANIC... ITS NOT INNOCENT. YOU DONT MESS WITH EVIL SPIRITS/DEMONS, THEY ARE FAR MORE POWERFUL THAN YOU THINK! satan WILL GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT AND TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR IF IT MEANS he CAN DRAG YOUR SOUL TO HELL WITH him. he HATES YOU AND LAUGHS AT YOU FOR MESSING WITH THIS STUFF. WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN GOD OR NOT YOU WILL KNEEL BEFORE HIM ON JUDGEMENT DAY AND HE WILL GO THROUGH EVERY WORD YOU SAID/EVERY THOUGHT YOU HAD/EVERY SIN YOU DID. YOU WONT BE ABLE TO ARGUE WITH HIM EITHER, YOU WILL KNOW YOU ARE GUILTY AND MADE A BIG MISTAKE. THE ONLY WAY OUT IS TO TURN TO JESUS. PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE BELOW AND IF YOU WANT TO MOCK AFTER GO FOR IT BUT I PLEAD WITH YOU TO READ IT. I WILL PRAY FOR YOU GOD'S STANDARD FOR HEAVEN IS PERFECTION AND ONLY JESUS (THE SON OF GOD/GOD IN THE FLESH) LIVED THAT PERFECT LIFE! HE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE & TOOK THE WRATH OF THE FATHER ON THE CROSS FOR YOUR SINS! GOD IS JUST SO HE MUST PUNISH SIN & HE IS HOLY SO NO SIN CAN ENTER HIS KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. IF YOU ARE IN CHRIST ON JUDGEMENT DAY GOD WILL SEE YOU AS HIS PERFECT SON (SINLESS SINCE YOUR SINS ARE COVERED BY JESUS' OFFERING). YOU CAN ALSO CHOOSE TO REJECT JESUS' GIFT/SACRIFICE & PAY FOR YOUR OWN SIN WITH DEATH (HELL) BUT THAT SEEMS PRETTY FOOLISH! GOD SEES & HEARS EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID & DONE. YOU WONT WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH HIM & YOU CANT DEFEND ANY OF YOUR SINS TO HIM. YOU'RE NOT A GOOD PERSON, I'M NOT A GOOD PERSON... ONLY GOD IS GOOD! WE'RE ALL GUILTY WITHOUT ACCEPTING JESUS' SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS! MUHAMMAD DIDN'T DIE FOR YOUR SINS, BUDDHA DIDN'T DIE FOR YOUR SINS, NO PASTOR/NO PRIEST/NO SAINT/NO ANCESTOR DIED FOR YOUR SINS, MARY DIDN'T, THE POPE DIDN'T EITHER, NO IDOLS OR FALSE gods DIED FOR YOUR SINS, NO MUSICIAN OR CELEBRITY DIED FOR YOUR SINS, NO INFLUENCER OR KZfaq STAR DIED FOR YOUR SINS, NO SCIENTIST OR POLITICIAN DIED FOR YOUR SINS, NO ATHLETE OR ACTOR DIED FOR YOUR SINS! STOP IDOLIZING & WORSHIPING THESE PEOPLE! JESUS CHRIST ALONE DIED FOR YOUR SINS & WAS RESURRECTED FROM THE GRAVE! HE IS ALIVE & COMING BACK VERY VERY SOON WITH JUDGEMENT (THESE ARE END TIMES)! PREPARE YOURSELVES, TURN FROM SIN & RUN TO JESUS! HE KNOWS YOUR PAIN & TROUBLES, HE WANTS TO HEAL & RESTORE YOU! TALK TO HIM LIKE A BEST FRIEND! ASK HIM TO REVEAL HIMSELF TO YOU & HELP YOU TO BELIEVE IF YOU DOUBT! DON'T WAIT TO CRY OUT! NO ONE IS PROMISED TOMORROW! HE LONGS FOR YOU TO INVITE HIM IN, HE LOVES YOU MORE THAN ANY PERSON EVER COULD, HE CREATED YOU! Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."-John 14:6 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."-Matthew 10:33 “For the wages of sin is death (hell), but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”-Romans 6:23

Hi Curt. I know you’re a fan of a good deal of Idealism. A theme that occurs is the idea of “You are God.” I wonder if you would be interested in discussing that with someone from Theosophy, a Neo Jungian into Deep Interactivity, or maybe McGilChrist who seem to have more an idea of co-creation and the idea of having a unique *piece* of the infinite divinity, and ideas like the act of observation changing observer and observed, and the problem of inflation, or rejection of all constraint. One of the statements Henry Corbin brings up from Ibn Arabi is that in the experience of at-one-ment he called to say “I am God’s secret.” Rather than I am God.

And thanks for your channel.

Indeed. Plus he nails “emergence” problems-something that really bothers me for the exact reasons he states. First time I heard him do that. I haven’t read his most recent book yet but I already bought it. I would have but I am finishing up another book myself and all these people like Bernardo, McGilchrist, Vervaeke, Peterson, and many more people who you have already interviewed are standing at the towers keeping the barbarians of instrumental lever-pressing at bay. 😂 Thanks again Curt. ❤️‍🔥

@@Ac-ip5hd I love Ibn Arabi. So prescient and beautiful. Theosophy yes! I was a Theosophist for a long time starting when I was an undergraduate at the Theosophical society in Wheaton. Went to talks there, etc. So I understand… Great idea. love it. Take care my friend. ❤️‍🔥

@@spiralsun1 You too! Glad to hear other people discussing these ideas and thinkers. Probably a good decade of all these people hashing each other out and getting it to the public is needed, before they all re-catalyze with new arguments, and problems to solve.

My thoughts exactly Pablo. Time for a deeper dive. I'm starting with his JVK interview.

Very, very eloquently and intelligently stated. Compliments, my friend.

@@girlplanetboy Thank you friend :)

Thanks for this recommendation! Several episodes of that podcast look great.

Yep, I think that is well worth your time if you find this interesting.

I Am That is on the bookshelf behind B.K.

a pamphlet for those who were unaware that rabbit holes exist? You just saved me 60 minutes.

How is Kastrup's philosophy complex? Please explain it to me. All I see is him doing this: Before Kastrup: There is existence and consciousness. We don't understand it, but apparently it has to transcendent meaning. After Kastrup: There is existence and consciousness. We don't understand it, but we wish for transcendent meaning. ... what does Kastrup' argumentation add apart from this warm, fuzzy feeling that there might be more to all of this suffering? (believe me, I want to believe in his thesis) Before Kastrup: All is matter, mind springs from matter. After Kastrup: All is mind, matter is an interpretation of mind. What the ** are these highly intelligent people talking about?

@@andreasmuller5223 It's just that in my experience this isn't the type of conversation most people are interested in having

its not that it is 'complex'/ AS he suggests, it's because materialism is so engrained in our culture that even the word 'matter' carries the etymological meaning of 'being at the base or mother of'. So it's hard to see the ruthless simplicity of what he is saying. So people will continue to use abstractions WITHIN consciousness to try to explain consciousness. Which is like trying to explain water as a type of whirl-pool and insisting that water is a by-product of a whirlpool. Either that or they will not see the significance of this (such as the reply by Andreas) and it will produce a kind of. '...and?' shrug of incomprehension.

@@andreasmuller5223 all Bernardo is doing is trying to provide an ontological framework where your intellect can more readily accept moving into exploration of the nature of that disassociated alter/filter. (remember this is just a short-ish interview) He does sometimes kind of give the impression you are locked into your dashboard other than in lucid dreams/ psychedelic states/ near death/ 40 years of hard-core meditation.I don't think Bernardo intends to suggest this but it sometimes comes across. is the alter/filter more flexible and subtle than this? Could more precise control of to what degree the filter expands/contracts/orientates? In one way or another many spiritual practices approach this. I would say an interest in looking into this more directly is what should come out of this philosophy. IN his books he goes into more detail about sound basis for doing this.

His work.🙄

@@Dhorpatan what's the problem with saying that? (I could be more specific or precise but I don't think calling it his work is wrong work could be replaced with creation)

@@lukecockburn1140 It's just fawning and kissing his behind. I've been on here 14 years and no person has EVER referred to my videos as work, though they require a lot of work.🙄😒

@@Dhorpatan yeah probably am kissing up a bit that's kinda embarrassing & it's his books more than videos but if someone did appreciate your videos & called them your work I think that would apply & make sense I'll check out your channel

@@lukecockburn1140 no it's perfectly normal to refer to someone's body of published books as their 'work'. Happens all the time.

who is TOm and Jordan?

@@rahulsangal5438 Tom Bilyeu and Jordan Peterson would by my guesses

"ur so immersed into physicalism guyse, plz do it in shape im used to"

I can see how perception is a dashboard but is BK suggesting that all other scientific models based on ‘physicalism’ are merely equivalent to perceptual constructs?

Infinity surrounds us.

Yes but the original filter/alter is still more accurate I think. Or the whirl-pool within an ocean. Ultimately we ARE the ocean even if a localised bit of it experiencing a kind of specific action of the ocean water. The water acting in the whirpool (individuated/disassociated alter) is made FROM water (consciousness at large). We have as humans the ability of self reflection - that is literally the ability the dissociation/separation gives us. And with this reflective ability we can observe how the water (consciousness at large) moves and behaves within us. This is basically what non-dualist spiritual practices aim to do.

What the hell is cool about a damn goat? It's amazing the stupid things people do in large numbers.

"Materialism doesn't argue that those qualities don't exist, but that they are emergent from the nature of individual atoms/molecules by combined effect. A simple example being that a water molecule isn't wet on its own. " Correct. So under materialism, the world as it is in of itself doesn't have qualities. Qualities exist, but they exist in your head. This contradicts nothing he said. "Bells Theorem does not say that there is no 'standalone reality'." Bell's theorem refutes local hidden variables, and Leggett's inequalities later refute non-local hidden variables. This means that a key prediction of QM, quantum contextuality, is true. Quantum contextuality entails that physical quantities have no standalone existence. Notice that he's talking about PHYSICAL QUANTITIES, not reality.

Hoffman seems to be saying that our senses don't perceive 'actual reality' but just an extremely filtered version of what is actually there. This is obviously true, but is anyone surprised? It would be hard to come up with a plausible alternative. I guess I just don't know what Hoffman is giving us beyond that rather obvious observation. Bernardo here goes way way deeper.

Hi, professor. I don't think I can do justice to Bernardo's ideas but I'll give it a try He would say that nothing can truly be independent of consciousness. So, in that example, whatever the green dot is, it can only be so within the mind of a conscious being. If no finite consciousness is perceiving it, or if whatever lies behind that perception is not held within one, then it must be part of the mind of an infinite consciousness for it to be at all. It might not appear as a green dot within this infinite consciousness (or within a finite one that holds whatever lies behind the perception) though, it just so happens that finite ones perceive it as such for evolutionary reasons (in other words, they grasp it in whatever way the limitations of their minds allow), but it will be something nonetheless - a thought, idea, emotion, etc. And it will be held within consciousness. No consciousness = no dot. To be honest, however, even though I agree with the "no consciousness = no dot" paradigm, I don't find this explanation satisfactory. For example, If said infinite consciousness is really infinite, then it seems totally arbitrary for there to arise anything within it that appears localized and interacts with only portions of it. It's kinda like being precisely one leg in an infinite centipede (or inifinipede?). What are the odds of being just one of those legs at any one time if there are infinite alternatives and all are equally valid? What is one divided by infinity?

@@el66k94 You missed my point. I was not challenging Kastrup's thesis, rather augmenting it from another idealist point of view. 1. An. atheist such a Sam Harris (heck, a sleuth of neurologists) constructs a theory that the complete "outside" world is mediated (e.g., nerves) into the brain where a "picture" is formed for and projected into the field of consciousness. This means that your world as presented in consciousness is nothing else other than a product, indeed, a construct of the brain within the nerve system of your body (which, too, is a construct in your consciousness). But--and here is the radically that interest me--where is the brain? In the head (skull), could be an answer. Then, where is the head? Why the questions? The head, viz., the brain too is (located) in the "outside" world to our consciousness, which we humans investigate empirically. But the empirical "outside" world is not DIRECTLY given to the brain in the head, rather is mediated to said location from "outside" to "inside"--so the theory. All empirical evidence for a head, let alone for a brain in the head, appears in our consciousness (which too is nothing but a so-called product of the brain) as a representation of something outside our consciousness. That includes the brain. I conclude that the brain, that supposedly dictates the entirety of our consciousness, is, well, according to the theory, in the brain, in the head, both of which are posited as real parts of the objective world. So, my brain is in my brain, which is a tautology. The brain we see is naught but a "construct", so claims Gerhard Roth. Roth is consistent enough such that he holds that the "real" brain is not open to observation, but can only be inferred by what it does to the "empirical" brain which dictates the entirety of the contents of consciousness. In effect, neurologists become theologians of an unseen world, for which there is no direct evidence, just a pleasing theory. 2. I ask you the accept my Reiningerian challenge. Describe anything, say, a spot of green, as it is, presuming that it is fully "outside" any consciousness, even an infinite one. Describe the experienced as fully beyond experience, even that of an infinite mind. You will soon repeat the effective theology of Roth or Harris. If you can describe any empirical "something" 100% independent of consciousness, of references that pertain to consciousness, I must surrender my idealism. Thank you for the challenge. That is what makes the intellectual life worth while. Prof.. Wessell

@@deluxieeee I'll chime in, and will be happy to bring it to an email conversation because YT threads get really tiring to follow to after a certain length. To address the question, we have to decide whether we tackle it from an idealistic perspective or not. From an idealistic perspective, I think that we can't really ask what a green dot that is not present in any consciousness (finite or otherwise) is like, simply because such dot, quite literally, doesn't exist. Experiences are excitations of consciousness, if consciousness doesn't produce the experience, then there isn't anything to describe. The mere fact that we can speak of "a green dot outside consciousness" _does_ make it pop into existence _as an experience_ (we can imagine it) but then we are not addressing the question, obviously. From a non-idealistic perspective, the question can be asked but it's not interesting because we could posit that reality exists outside of consciousness, but then what can we say about stuff that never appears on any screen of perception? Probably nothing, or, at best, make some speculation about the side effects that a supposed out-of-reach green dot produces (which essentially is precisely what particle physics does). When it comes to the brain, I see it as follows: if there is only consciousness, and what consciousness does are experiences, then we are experiences. We can easily assess that there are all sorts of experiences, such as direct waking experience, dreams, memories, imagination, etc. All of them differ in degree, but not in kind. So we can postulate that consciousness can modulate the degree of experience and we can say that (human) mind itself is a particular configuration of consciousness (specifically, one that can introspect itself, metaconsciousness). Depending on the degree, when a consciousness looks at itself, sees itself as a body. It's not by chance that creatures that think and behave like humans, tend to look like humans too. The body (and I'm not making yet the distinction between body and brain) is what a specific configuration of consciousness looks like when observed by another consciousness. So the question is, where do we draw the line between body, skull, brain and nerves? I think it's just a pattern. _By virtue_ of our investigative practices (neuroscience etc) we have come to the conclusion that experience correlates with activity with the stuff that happens within the stuff that we call the skull, but really it is just *the body*. So the brain, skull and the rest of the body are in experience (cosmic consciousness) and they look as such to other dissociated consciousnesses. Not sure this is an actual answer to your question. I'm just joining this conversation with my input since this is the stuff I like to talk about.

@@deluxieeee Understood. My answer then is that there is no possible reasonable answer. Descriptions themselves are totally dependent on conscious experience. In order to describe, we use our concepts, mental images and conscious actions (talking, writing) to leverage the concepts and mental images of others through their perceptions (reading-hearing). Just as a blind man cannot grasp colors that he can't see, we can't describe what is fundamentally alien to us by design. Furthermore, I'd go as far as to say that the very concept of an inherent existence or substance other than conscious experience is totally untenable. What can something be to itself if it is not experienced by itself in any way at all? The idea of information existing totally independent of any actual (conscious) subject that knows it contradicts the very concept of information. That is, unless you take knowing to be an action so devoid of meaning that knowers can lack all experience of knowing and yet truly know something, and information to be something so inconsequential as to be able to truly exist and yet inform no one. And then I don't really know what the hell you're talking about, and neither do you (I mean, not you, you XD, you know)

@@namero999 I thank you for your contribution. I am elderly and my health is poor. At the moment, interesting and intellectually conversation is not possible for me. I am sorry!

Reality is not in our head. He never says that. He is an idealist. All that exist is consciousness. (Our head is in consciousness)

@@sxsmith44 just trying to making a funny based on the title, fella

Think about what Quantum physics tells us. Reality is held in a state of potentiality until observed. The same question applies to your bedroom when you're not there. It exists in a state of potential until a lifeforms perceives it. A timeless interaction of mental forms that 'becomes 'physical' when life turns up.

@@NOCOMPLYE thanks for the heads up. I'll check that out

@@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser it's not bernardos position that reality is all in our heads.

Exactly. And my favourite WILLIAM BLAKE!

That sounds brilliantly poetic but I have no idea what it means.

@@moesypittounikos Things became duplicated in Tlön; they also tend to become effaced and lose their details when they are forgotten. A classic example is the doorway which survived so long it was visited by a beggar and disappeared at his death. At times some birds, a horse, have saved the ruins of an amphitheater.

All saying simliar things with different language.

They are very compatible, until it comes to the position of a pure idealism, McgilChrist specifically argues against it in his works, and has argued against it on his Q&A’s specifically, and very respectfully with admiration of much of Kastrup’s work, disagreeing with him on it, and this is similar to Vervaeke’s stance on idealism which involved a long two part debate between Kastrup and Vervaeke on Theories of Everything KZfaq channel.

Some Christians today believe that Platonism is not compatible with Christianity (they tend to be literalists) while other Christians think that Platonism is a foundational philosophy of Christianity (they tend to advocate Biblical allegory) I believe the later. But both lines of thinking coexisted for 2000 years. Philo of Alexandria (b 25 BC) already created a syncretic system linking Greek Platonism Pythagoreanism with Jewish thought, and Paul who had vision of Christ rather than meeting Jesus a physical man seemed to be more aligned with Philo‘s metaphysical understanding. Philo even claimed most of Greek philosophy was derived from Judaism. But all of this leads up to Christian Logos theology. Even if Paul was not a Platonist, the dominant philosophies of Christian writers for four hundred years after was Platonism, Pythagorean, and Stoic with a rejection of Epicurean Philosophy which emphasized truth through one‘s senses. Epicurus was not reintroduced until the Renaissance through Lucretius writing, which created a revival of empiricism. And these ideas became foundational for liberal philosophies like John Locke. I don’t know what philosophy was dominant in Judaism before that time but I think Isaiah or Moses point to a God that is separate from creation but reflected in it, thereby God is the creative principle of creation but not creation itself and could only be encountered indirectly: Exodus 20But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”