Triadic idealism: a model for the fundamental nature of reality [Advanced] | Cosmopsychism | #PaCE1

A #PaCE1 video contest winner :)
Nikolaj Pilgaard Petersen, PhD. An absolute idealistic, cosmopsychistic model for the fundamental nature of reality.
This video was one of the winning videos of the #PaCE1 video contest :)

Video chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:10 Metaphysical positions
2:04 Idealism - criticism and potential
4:42 Contemporary panpsychism and cosmopsychism
7:59 Absolute idealism and the decombination problem
9:46 World view of Martinus - thinker and mystic
11:21 Metaphors - sphere and disc
15:11 Model - triadic idealism
22:02 Individual subjects and a single substance
26:06 Summary
28:12 Objection
29:50 Further perspectives and conclusion
31:35 References

References:
- Albahari, M. (2019), "Perennial Idealism: A Mystical Solution to the Mind-Body Problem," Philosopher's Imprint 19(44).
- Brüntrup, G. and L. Jaskolla (eds.) (2017), Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, Oxford University Press.
- Chalmers, D. (2017), "The Combination Problem for Panpsychism," in G. Brüntrup and L. Jaskolla (eds.) (2017), Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, Oxford University Press.
- Coleman, S. (2014), "The Real Combination Problem: Panpsychism, Microsubjects, and Emergence," Erkenntnis 79(1).
- Jaskolla, L. and A. Buck (2012), "Does Panexperiential Holism Solve the Combination Problem?" Journal of Consciousness Studies 19(9-10).
- Kastrup, B. (2019), The Idea of the World: A Multi-disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality, IFF Books.
- Maharaj, A. (2020), "Panentheistic Cosmopsychism: Swami Vivekananda's Sāṃkhya-Vedāntic Solution to the Hard Problem of Consciousness," in G. Brüntrup, B. P. Göcke, and L. Jaskolla (eds.) (2020), Panentheism and Panpsychism: Philosophy of Religion meets Philosophy of Mind, mentis.
- Mander, W. (2011), British Idealism. A History, Oxford University Press.
- Martinus (2000-2020), Livets Bog (The Book of Life), 5 vols., transl. A. Brown, J. Haahr and M. McGovern, Martinus Institute, (original work published 1932-1961).
- Martinus (1986), To slags kærlighed, Martinus Institut (original work published 1967).
- Martinus (2013), The Eternal World Picture, 4 vols., transl. D. Bowe, J. Day, T. R. Henderson, R. Hopkins, M. McGovern, and I. Sørensen, Martinus Institute (original work published 1963-1994).
- Mathews, F. (2011), "Panpsychism as Paradigm," in M. Blamauer (ed.) (2011), The Mental as Fundamental: New Perspectives on Panpsychism, Ontos Verlag.
- Moore, G. E. (1903), "The Refutation of Idealism," Mind 12(48).
- Nagasawa, Y. and K. Wager (2017), "Panpsychism and Priority Cosmopsychism," in G. Brüntrup and L. Jaskolla (eds.) (2017), Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, Oxford University Press.
- Petersen, N. P. (2021), "Non-Constitutive Idealism: Countering the Decombination Problem," Idealistic Studies 51(1).
- Russell, B. (1938), The Principles of Mathematics, W. W. Norton & Company.
- Seager, W. (ed.) (2019), The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism, Routledge.
- Shani, I. (2015), "Cosmopsychism: A Holistic Approach," Philosophical Papers 44(3).
- Shani, I. (2022), "Cosmopsychism, Coherence, and World-affirming Monism," The Monist 105(1).
- Shani, I. and J. Keppler (2020), "Cosmopsychism and Consciousness Research: A Fresh View on the Causal Mechanisms Underlying Phenomenal States," Frontiers on Psychology 11.
- Skrbina, D. (ed.) (2009), Mind that Abides: Panpsychism in the New Millennium, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Sprigge, T.L.S. (2006), The God of Metaphysics, Clarendon Press.
- Sprigge, T.L.S. (1983), The Vindication of Absolute Idealism, Edinburgh University Press.

Patreon:

Thanks to Laven Antikvariat!

[thenatureofreality]

This video was among the winners of the #PaCE1 physics/consciousness video contest hosted by 'Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal'. Thanks a lot to Curt for making the contest happen and for the interest in the video! :)

[TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you so much for your submission! (final video announcement with winners / runner ups out now, by the way)

[MonisticIdealism]

This is an excellent video! It is difficult to find videos about idealism, let alone ones with such academic rigor as this one. I have subscribed to the channel and I'll spread the word so others can enjoy the content as well.

I am also very much interested in the decombination problem since I am a priority monist who is also an idealist. I want to know how we get the many from the one, and I even posted my own video on the decombination problem last week. While your solution is much more sophisticated than my own, it seems like ours have a lot in common. We view individual subjects as parts of the absolute subject, and the parts are just a manifestation of the one substance (the many are fragments of the one). While panpsychists typically view individual subjects as constituted by, or emergent from, many smaller subjects, I believe the many individual subjects sub-merge from the one, and we can use similar principles and concepts that we use for weak emergence but in reverse for what I call weak submergence. Other concepts such as subsumption and experiential inheritance can help us further understand how the many are grounded in the one and how they acquire the mental states they have.

[eugenei]

This makes perfect sense, one subjectivity (or it can be called "awareness") is structured such that it forms a multitude of subjective perspectives each having conscious experiences that are manifestations of the forces/impulses within the fabric of the one subjectivity. It also well aligns with idealist-based nondual spiritual practices such as Buddhism, Advaita or modern secular versions of it (Rupert Spira and others). However, this model still lacks an explanation of how these impulses/forces within the substratum of subjectivity are formed and why they bring about exactly the subjective experience of this very well-structured universe/world as we experience it which always follows certain precise mathematical laws. I also wonder how your model compares with Bernardo Kastrup's metaphysical model where he uses the analogy of DID to explain the individuated subjective perspectives withing one "Mind at Large"? Maybe you can make a video on that? Anyway, thank you for your work, that is a good advancement in the area idealistic metaphysics.

[Achrononmaster]

Q. As a hard-nosed physicist, but philosophically not a materialist (I lean towards Gödel's platonism) I wonder if you could elaborate on how spacetime is not a One that has Many. It fits the model you give. But we know cannot account for subjective conscious qualia. The objective and subjective is a fundamental duality (that only conscious beings can know about!). So I still think dualism has legs. Not even dualism, radical pluralism. The principle of a Unity connecting all things still stands, because of interaction. So like in Set Theory, there is always a higher level that can be viewed as encompassing all "Many". So I would say a monist can always tell a monist ontology story, maybe even logically consistently. But it does not have any grit to it if it is just symbology.

[OFR]

All the gymnastics our small minds and small science do to try to understand these things. The reality is probably both above and below our ability to comprehend ever. How much do you think an ant can understand about a laptop?

[luciwaves]

Congratulations on the win!! Great video 😎

[jl]

2:48 I'm a big fan of the hand gestures

[dubbelkastrull]

9:19 the main problem for absolut idealists

11:52 bookmark

[thenatureofreality]

Rather late, but I finally got around to add video chapters :)

[eushef]

I love metaphors, but I've got some issues in understanding some of those presented here. For example, in the case of the light, the shell and the rays, I have some issues with: 1. the shell; 2. the black part of the image that basically separate the rays. These two don't seem to be one and the same with the light, i.e. fundamental substance that represents 100% of reality. You should present us an image containing only light, and then be able to show us the rays in that image.

[zamplify]

Materialists will just say Materialism is fact does explain consciousness. You'll get nowhere with them.

[randymurphy]

Here. physicalism is conflated with materialism. Eliminate that, and a big part of the problem disappears.

[charlesvandenburgh]

Interesting, but I fail to see how the singular "I" of a cosmic consciousness can simultaneously be a multitude of individual conscious selves having no direct conscious awareness of each other, as it would require the cosmic consciousness to be each, all, and none of the individual conscious selves, and all at the same time. In any case, it can never attain the status of a logical proof since solipsism would still remain a possibility, with the added benefit of being a simpler and more elegant resolution.