What is Panspiritism?

[Belinda]

Seeds, what the word 'real' means to me depends on the conversation. I have even been known to exclaim that I prefer real ghosts.

I think that your challenge is what does ultimate reality mean for me. I claim no knowledge whatsoever about ultimate reality. I am a pessimist by nature so I prefer accounts of ultimate reality that describe it as chaotic not ordered. The practical risk of belief in ultimate order is that the individual who believes in ultimate order won't do their utmost to make order wherever they can.

[toddwayman]

This quality might be called 'spirit' or 'fundamental consciousness'. ... But according to panspiritism, consciousness is even more fundamental than gravity or electromagnetism, because unlike them it precedes the formation of the universe, and the universe, including all its physical forces, is an expression of it.

[Steve Taylor]

"Dual aspect monism too "sees both as equally real and valuable". The version of pantheism that Romantic poets wrote about "sees the world as a vibrant, interconnected whole" where every flower enjoys the air it breathes(Wordsworth).
[/quote]

Yes, I've pondered over whether panspiritism could be seen as a form of dual aspect monism...But I'm not sure if it quite fits. The fundamental quality of the universe is spirit - or 'fundamental consciousness' - which then express itself as matter (initially) and then the mind. But the two aspects of spirit (mind and matter) are derived from it, rather than being equivalent to it.

I agree that the Romantics had a similar outlook - Wordsworth in particular. Wordsworth wasn't so much a lover of nature as a lover of spirit in nature. I've heard him criticised for only loving in nature in an abstract sense, and rarely mentioning the actual names of flowers and animals. But that's not really relevant - as the paramount thing for him was his awareness of a spiritual force behind natural things, which brought them all into oneness.

[Belinda]

Steve Taylor wrote:

Yes, I've pondered over whether panspiritism could be seen as a form of dual aspect monism...But I'm not sure if it quite fits. The fundamental quality of the universe is spirit - or 'fundamental consciousness' - which then express itself as matter (initially) and then the mind. But the two aspects of spirit (mind and matter) are derived from it, rather than being equivalent to it.

I've read that for Taoists the Way is more Yin than Yang. Not that I see Yin or Yang as correlating with mind or matter, but what mind and matter are "derived from".

I'd not choose the metaphor 'derived from' as it's like mind and matter came after their source in time. I'd rather view mind and matter as perspectives on a simultaneous reality as are the morning star and the evening star, or alternatively as one or the other according to the Gestalt of choice.

"Equivalent to it" I'd not favour. This is also because mind and matter are certainly the total number of perspectives we can do. This does not quite rule out there are beings which can do three, four, five, or more perspectives besides or instead of mind and matter.

Steve, are you saying panspiritism involves a hierachy of reality such that mind is superior to matter?

You wrote:

We can think of fundamental consciousness as a kind of ‘dynamic field’ which enfolds and immerses the whole universe (and possibly other universes). Its creativity enables it to generate matter so that physical forms can arise and exist within it. An analogy here would be with waves on the surface of an ocean, which have an individual form as waves but are also united with the ocean as a whole and are of the same nature as the ocean.

I like your analogy but I prefer the neutral aspects natura naturans and natura naturata. Which is possibly why it's like Wordsworth and other Romantics talk sound and fury signifying less then one would wish for.

[Nick_A]

There are ideas which could stop all quarrels; such an idea is the law of three. ~ P. D. Ouspensky

Panspiritism seems to be a step in the right direction eventually proposing a hypothesis explaining human meaning and purpose within the conscious universe as well as the meaning and purpose of Man within it

Does panspiritism explain the origin of the relativity of values? What defines the objective relative value of a thing either animate or inanimate? Does it include the idea of the Great Chain of Being?

Ouspensky refers to the law of three forces and how ONE becomes three producing the levels of reality maintaining our universe. Is this a part of panspiritism in which the depth of the idea is explored rather than ridiculed?

[Belinda]

There are ideas which could stop all quarrels; such an idea is the law of three. ~ P. D. Ouspensky

Panspiritism seems to be a step in the right direction eventually proposing a hypothesis explaining human meaning and purpose within the conscious universe as well as the meaning and purpose of Man within it

Does panspiritism explain the origin of the relativity of values? What defines the objective relative value of a thing either animate or inanimate? Does it include the idea of the Great Chain of Being?

Ouspensky refers to the law of three forces and how ONE becomes three producing the levels of reality maintaining our universe. Is this a part of panspiritism in which the depth of the idea is explored rather than ridiculed?

Regarding " meaning and purpose":

every man who is not in utter despair has faith in his own meaning or purpose. The challenge of modernity is to make a religion which rises above present day religionists, notably many Christians and many Muslims, who insist that their religion is the only true religion. The new religion is barely born and at least until June, 2019, is unrecognisable as religion. The new religion and the values it enshrines has to be universal for all peoples and it has to enshrine the supreme value of the natural environment. The new religion must also be capable of change so that it will continue to bind all peoples together while technologies and the natural environment change.

[PeteJ]

Yes, I've pondered over whether panspiritism could be seen as a form of dual aspect monism...But I'm not sure if it quite fits.

I feel you have the right idea. Panspiritism is best seen as non-dualism and I believe Steve Taylor would be happy with this.

Dual-aspect monism is a form of dualism and this doesn't work as a fundamental theory. Non-dualism is largely unknown in the philosophy department as it is the Perennial philosophy or 'mysticism'.

The philosophical foundation of panspiritism is explained by Nagarjuna.

[PeteJ]

Panpsychism and panspiritism are a huge step in the right direction. However they still carry the fatal flaw of all Western "philosophy": dualistic thinking.

They are talking about fundamental consciousness and the material universe being inherent in each other. That's sort of correct, but they aren't "inherent" in each other because they aren't two things. "They" are one and the same. Consciousness IS matter/space. Matter/space IS consciousness.

I share your view. Non-dualism asks us to overcome this fatal flaw.

[Belinda]

Petej wrote:

Dual-aspect monism is a form of dualism

No it isn't! Dual aspect monism is a form of monism as its name says ; idealism and materialism are the other two main monisms.

The great eastern philosophies are ontologically monist not ontologically dualist philosophies.

[Nick_A]

Belinda wrote:

Regarding " meaning and purpose":

every man who is not in utter despair has faith in his own meaning or purpose. The challenge of modernity is to make a religion which rises above present day religionists, notably many Christians and many Muslims, who insist that their religion is the only true religion. The new religion is barely born and at least until June, 2019, is unrecognisable as religion. The new religion and the values it enshrines has to be universal for all peoples and it has to enshrine the supreme value of the natural environment. The new religion must also be capable of change so that it will continue to bind all peoples together while technologies and the natural environment change.

Our essential difference. Belinda describes the challenge of modernity as learning something new while I recognize the challenge as remembering what has been forgotten. Simone Weil describes the social value of remembering.

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.

The genuine person of understanding has become aware of our potential conscious connection between above and below and practices the means for the above to nourish the below making possible the respect for the natural environment Belinda wrote of. It is perennial knowledge which must be remembered.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

Our essential difference. Belinda describes the challenge of modernity as learning something new while I recognize the challenge as remembering what has been forgotten. Simone Weil describes the social value of remembering.

I agree. It's essential for knowing where we are , to recall and interpret well as we can what we and other peoples once believed.

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

That the other reality, i.e. what we aspire to, is a man made concept does not diminish its value. But we must study the ethics of traditional moral codes and be prepared to change them.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.

Feelings are essential to evaluating any set of circumstances. There is no reality that pre-exists or transcends our concepts of reality. We are on our own in a lonely and alien universe.

The genuine person of understanding has become aware of our potential conscious connection between above and below and practices the means for the above to nourish the below making possible the respect for the natural environment Belinda wrote of. It is perennial knowledge which must be remembered.

There is no perennial knowledge any more. "There is no perennial knowledge any more." is not perennial truth either.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

B. Feelings are essential to evaluating any set of circumstances. There is no reality that pre-exists or transcends our concepts of reality. We are on our own in a lonely and alien universe.

N. The genuine person of understanding has become aware of our potential conscious connection between above and below and practices the means for the above to nourish the below making possible the respect for the natural environment Belinda wrote of. It is perennial knowledge which must be remembered.

B. There is no perennial knowledge any more. "There is no perennial knowledge any more." is not perennial truth either.

From the article:

…………….What I’m calling ‘panspiritism’ is by no means a new idea. In fact, the idea that the essence of reality is non-material seems to be one of the oldest and most common cross-cultural concepts in history. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean it is correct, but it at least shows that I’m not plucking it out of thin air.
In early Greek philosophy, Anaximander used the term apeiron, which literally means ‘boundless’ or ‘infinite’, for an all-pervading spiritual principle. He described apeiron as the source from which all forms arise, and to which they all return. Later Greek philosophers believed that pneuma – literally ‘wind’ or ‘breath’, but also translated as ‘soul’, ‘spirit’ or ‘mind’ – was the underlying principle of the universe, pervading everything. The Stoics saw mind and matter not as two different things, but as two aspects of the same underlying active principle, inherent in all material things, which they called logos (word or reason, sometimes translated as God). Other Greek philosophers, such as Anaxagoras, used the term nous (intelligence), conceiving of it as a single, unifying force that animated all things. Plato expressed panspiritist views too, particularly in his later dialogues such as Timaeus. He used the term anima mundi – ‘world-soul’ – and suggested that the cosmos has a soul in the same way as the body, and that everything in existence shares this soul.
Six centuries after Plato’s death, a new wave of panspiritism began with Plotinus (204-270 AD), who taught that the fundamental reality of the universe is a spiritual force he called ‘The One’. The One is a dynamic reservoir of spirit from which all individual beings arise. It continually creates and sustains our lives, like a fountain that pours out into our individual beings. It is the central force of the universe, and as such we feel a powerful attraction to it, a longing to regain contact with it………………………………

You must deny Plotinus’ ONE since you deny a Source. That being the case you must also deny Panspiritism and the Panentheistic belief that the universe is the body of God.

Denial means that the only objective result for human being is dust to dust. We can only aspire to become one with the ground again. Anything else is imagination

The One is a dynamic reservoir of spirit from which all individual beings arise. It continually creates and sustains our lives, like a fountain that pours out into our individual beings. It is the central force of the universe, and as such we feel a powerful attraction to it, a longing to regain contact with it……

Steve Taylor’s explanation makes more sense to me both intellectually and emotionally. At the depth of my being I am attracted to a source rather than the ground. To assume that the universe so vast and magnificent functioning as a machine is an accident serving no objective purpose opposes the laws of probability

How is a person to open to "understanding" when the attempt is rejected proven by the killings of Jesus and Socrates? A person open to the experience of understanding must become like the salmon with its need to swim upstream to return to its source regardless of how the river opposes the salmon or society opposes the seeker of truth?

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

You must deny Plotinus’ ONE since you deny a Source. That being the case you must also deny Panspiritism and the Panentheistic belief that the universe is the body of God.

I do deny those.

Denial means that the only objective result for human being is dust to dust. We can only aspire to become one with the ground again. Anything else is imagination

No, we live by faith and have no choice but to live by faith. Faith is inherent in every living thing. I don't confuse imagination and fantasy.

The One is a dynamic reservoir of spirit from which all individual beings arise. It continually creates and sustains our lives, like a fountain that pours out into our individual beings. It is the central force of the universe, and as such we feel a powerful attraction to it, a longing to regain contact with it……

But it does not come to the world and tell us how to live.

Steve Taylor’s explanation makes more sense to me both intellectually and emotionally. At the depth of my being I am attracted to a source rather than the ground. To assume that the universe so vast and magnificent functioning as a machine is an accident serving no objective purpose opposes the laws of probability

It's so understandable that you want to believe this! Earth goes round the Sun but we poor men have no permanent Sun to look to.
Jesus and Socrates were two of a kind who died because they opposed the forces of stupidity and fear. We don't need to look far today to find others of that sort. The best we can do is be thankful there were moral giants and take courage from their lives.

A person open to the experience of understanding must become like the salmon with its need to swim upstream to return to its source regardless of how the river opposes the salmon or society opposes the seeker of truth?

Yes.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

No, we live by faith and have no choice but to live by faith. Faith is inherent in every living thing. I don't confuse imagination and fantasy.

We may live by blind faith which is psychological slavery but we do have the potential to live with the experience of conscious faith which is strength, So I don’t know what you mean by faith.

But it does not come to the world and tell us how to live.

Be reasonable. Why would an ineffable Source responsible for the creation of the universe worry about telling you how to live. It is part of universal knowledge and a priori knowledge for us. We just have to remember it and take advantage of what helps us to remember..

It's so understandable that you want to believe this! Earth goes round the Sun but we poor men have no permanent Sun to look to.
Jesus and Socrates were two of a kind who died because they opposed the forces of stupidity and fear. We don't need to look far today to find others of that sort. The best we can do is be thankful there were moral giants and take courage from their lives.

There are far too many people concerned with indoctrinated morality and not enough who have become open to the experience of “conscience.” In fact how many even know the difference?

1948
"One never goes wrong following his feeling. I don’t mean emotions, I mean feeling, for feeling and intuition are one.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 95. – conversation on September 14, 1948)

"We must make the individual man aware of his conscience so that he understands what it means that only a few will survive the next war. This man will be the cosmic man." Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 99.)

Emotions support morality while feelings reflect conscience. Morality is learned while conscience is remembered. How many in this day and age have ever even questioned the difference?

Belinda, if what you say is true and the fate of Man is dust to dust it makes the Crucifixion and the choice it offers the ultimate expression of stupidity.

[Atla]

Panpsychism and panspiritism are a huge step in the right direction. However they still carry the fatal flaw of all Western "philosophy": dualistic thinking.

They are talking about fundamental consciousness and the material universe being inherent in each other. That's sort of correct, but they aren't "inherent" in each other because they aren't two things. "They" are one and the same. Consciousness IS matter/space. Matter/space IS consciousness.

I share your view. Non-dualism asks us to overcome this fatal flaw.

Exactly

Dual-aspect monism is a form of dualism and this doesn't work as a fundamental theory. Non-dualism is largely unknown in the philosophy department as it is the Perennial philosophy or 'mysticism'.

Exactly. Western philosophy is still far from realizing that dual-aspect monism, and even idealism and materialism are deep down dualistic philosophies.