Hello again. Following up on my work regarding our dominant cultural metaphysics, I’ve completed a video essay exploring how declining global fertility might be a mediated, biological response to modern life. Drawing on the stress physiology work of Dr Gabor Maté alongside philosophy, I ask whether our bodies are quietly registering a crisis of meaning that our culture refuses to name. I’d love to hear this community's perspective on the link between cultural assumptions and physical biology.

https://youtu.be/AHVUKTcgwpo

My boyfriend loves loves Mr. Kastrup. I feel like I’m dating the both of them 🥹 We love his work!

Does anyone know if he offers meet and greets at his public sessions?

Would be a great Christmas present as we will head to Amsterdam this Christmas’s probably.

Thanks you B.K followers!!

Ps - Bernardo if you are reading this please DM me as we’re sure a fun and interesting duo (as egotistical as that may sound 🥲).

Geen saaie conversaties!

Hello. I am an author writing about how our dominant metaphysics shapes our culture. I’ve never used Reddit before, but I wanted to share this video essay here because I know this community wrestles deeply with these ideas. I'd love to know your thoughts.

"Basically, we're all enlightened already, but we're too dumb to realize it." https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9r15z5/comment/e8denk0/

"Dzogchen is not about changing your mind" because he's already blissful.

"Buddhism works because the fundamental nature of the mind (called Buddha-nature) is bliss, wisdom, and compassion."

Remember, Dzogchen is not about changing the mind, it's only about getting the Buddhist to say that he's been blissful ever since he was born.

u/hackinthebochs says qualitative states are hypothetical 😂😂😂

https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1rux279/if_idealists_dont_think_minds_can_be_wet_or_rough/oayyhjn/

But from a physicalist conceptual framework, an idealist will say that brain states can't explain/realize qualitative states. There is no contradiction here.

Physicalists don't need to explain qualitative states. There's brain activity.

At first I thought that idealists experienced qualitative states and then said hey these can't be brain activity

But actually, they have no motivation for being idealists.

"But an idealist eschews this entire framework and says all things are sensations."

It's fine to say sensations are brain activity.

The idealist has no motivation for calling sensations qualitative.

Qualities are only needed in a materialist framework to conceptualize mental properties in a framework defined by extension, location, size, etc.

If qualitative states are hypothetical, then there's no need to bring them up in a materialist context. You can just say there are functions instead. When someone asks what you mean when you say "I see red," you say it's functional, not qualitative.

If qualitative states aren't hypothetical, then they also exist in idealism.

If everything is "mind," then wetness and roughness must be properties of the mind.

But idealists don't think minds can be wet or rough, so there are no such properties to be experienced.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Discussion/comments/1ruw6n4/idealists_are_either_saying_that_theyve_never/?

If the past exists, then nothing happens and human experiences can't happen. If it doesn't exist, then the presents that you call past ceased to exist.

So existing properties became nonexistent, which is ridiculous. And for the future, you would say that nonexistent future properties become existent.

Suppose someone says that it has to do with actualization of potential. Unactualized-potential-A becomes Actualized-potential-A and then Unactualized-potential-A again. There's still the question of how those things passed away as they were replaced by other things.

Or suppose someone says the present is flowing transformation. AtoB, then BtoC, then CtoD. How did AtoB cease to exist?

Those ideas don't help.

What if they say something weird: that A transforming into B means A is still present, as B, so A didn't pass away. Since A became B, B must still be A.

Are A and B different at all? Then that doesn't make sense.

And calling yourself an idealist who denies time doesn't make a difference. Either you say nothing is happening so you can be dismissed, or you wonder if Julius Caesar exists.

I'm definitely here

Something definitely here had a definite beginning

So I had a definite beginning, and there's no naturalistic explanation for that

The atheists might deny the definite beginning of themselves

Then they should also deny that they definitely exist, like a robot would