The mental universe: Exploring analytic idealism
Understanding Bernardo Kastrup's novel approach to metaphysics
Disclaimer: in an effort to avoid misrepresenting Kastrup’s theory, I have used an asterisk (*) whenever I offer conceptual extrapolations that he himself does not (to my knowledge) assert. All other descriptions of analytic idealism (in this post) are synthesized from the works of Bernardo Kastrup. If I have inadvertently misrepresented Bernardo’s ideas, it was by error.
To be human is to contemplate the nature of existence.
Our endowment with metacognition—the ability to ponder the mechanics of our own consciousness—is both fortuitous and, at times, agonizing.
An advanced sentient capacity drives us to adopt—on a collective scale—a worldview which explains the essence and unfolding of reality.
At present, physicalism holds mainstream consensus—defining matter, fields and quantifiable processes as ontic fundamentals.
Its cultural imprint runs unfathomably deep; however, a broad ideological movement is underway which asserts that the physicalist foundations are fundamentally flawed.
Here we explore a potential alternative: Bernardo Kastrup’s analytic idealism: a novel metaphysical framework whereby the universe and its contents are proclaimed to be entirely mental.
Analytic Idealism
In Kastrup’s model, materialization—3D reality as we know it—is imagined as the outward appearance of actively unfolding mental processes.
For example, the so-called neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) are thought to represent what an individual’s conscious experiences look like to an external observer.
The universe, then, is viewed as a unitary conscious-field or mind-at-large—equivalent to what I defined as the God-system in a previous post.
Using a clever analogy, Kastrup likens the arising of individuated, egoic consciousness to the manifestation of dissociative identity disorder (DID) in human minds—whereby multiple alters form within a singular personality structure.1
In people suffering from DID, alters can have their own unique and concurrent experiential timelines—similar to parallel processing in computers.2
That such a phenomenon occurs in nature indicates that it could plausibly occur on a larger scale.3
Another crucial component of Kastrup’s metaphysics regards a distinction of metacognition or, synonymously, of self-reflectivity.
Human beings are obviously self-reflective; however, mind-at-large is, under the umbrella of analytic idealism, assumed to lack this capacity.4
In other words, Kastrup suggests that the universal mind conforms to naturalism: the assertion that reality’s behavior is governed by intrinsic laws, rather than supernatural or divine intervention.
As such, the emergence of egoic awareness is construed as the God-system’s visceral, reflexive tendency to enact mechanisms which elucidate its fundamental complexion.*
Put simply, human consciousness acts as a means for mind-at-large to understand itself.
By catalyzing and undergoing the complex trials of cognizant life, the overarching system gains valuable insights into both its experiential potentials and the propensities which define its evolving identity.*
Most importantly, analytic idealism posits that there is something it is like to be the universal field of mind; however, the model maintains that mind-at-large cannot—without differentiating into individuated conscious entities—reflect upon its own existence or alter its own governing laws.5
All of this leads one to ask: since it is inherently non-physical, what exactly is the mind-at-large? Or, how can we conceptualize it?
An older book written by Kastrup—titled Why Materialism is Baloney—explores in depth possible theoretic configurations of the universal mind.6
Two critical metaphors are employed: 1) a flowing river of mercury with 3-dimensional whirlpools and 2) a thin, vibrating membrane with reflective surfaces and contorting perturbations.7
The whirlpool metaphor
Picture an endlessly flowing river of liquid mercury—this is the mind-at-large.
Ripples naturally form upon its surface, each of which represents an experience—witnessed either by an egoic consciousness or by the broader architecture of nature.
Throughout the infinite river, a distinctive feature is found: whirlpools—spinning vortices which are circular when viewed from above and conical when viewed perpendicularly.
Each whirlpool symbolizes an individuated, egoic consciousness structure—its boundary thus separates the contents of human perception from an external world which encapsulates them.
The whirlpool configuration gives rise to metacognition; namely, self-facing liquid surfaces allow an egoic self-identification loop to be created and sustained.
This occurs due to the shiny, mirror-like quality of mercury—parts of mind are, in essence, empowered to “gaze” into each other in an endless recursion.8
Notice that whirlpools and ripples are inseparable from the broader river—one cannot extract a whirlpool, since its substance is indistinguishable from the surrounding liquid.
These are characteristics of the river—doings of the river, as Kastrup describes them.
Translating into metaphysical language, an egoic consciousness is something that the universal mind does—not an entity detached from it.
The separateness we experience is thus, in a literal sense, illusory; however, the whirlpool boundary—corresponding to sensory organs such as the eyes, ears, mouth and skin—segregates reflective and non-reflective parts of mind.
This boundary is permeable, in that ripples—originating from beyond the whirlpool’s flow-area (i.e., from the external world)—can travel into the egoic structure to effect changes in its internal dynamics, akin to nature’s many interactions with humans.9
The above insights invoke a question: since individual whirlpools are, in technicality, part of the broader experiential river, why are we unable to witness the conscious perceptions of mind-at-large?
Kastrup answers this using the concept of obfuscation: within an egoic structure, self-reflectivity perpetuates and intensifies, and this tendency blocks out—or obfuscates—much of the activity in the surrounding liquid.
Consider the sensational effects of high-dosage psychedelic consumption, whereby users are temporarily disjointed from normal 3-dimensional awareness in that they become suspended within an amorphous abyss of vivid colors and imagery (i.e., ego death): seemingly, such endeavors allow users to experience—by dampening the effects of obfuscation—what it is like to be the universal mind.*
One can speculate that such an experience is resonant with that of organic death: as the whirlpool disintegrates, its contents are allowed to reintegrate within the broader flowing river.*
The membrane metaphor
Imagine a thin, 2-dimensional membrane covered in salt—as it moves, the salt gradually arranges itself according to engrained modes of vibration.
In Kastrup’s second metaphor, the universal mind is pictured as an infinitely-extending membrane which vibrates based on natural proclivities or patterns.10
In this case, experiences are likened to vibrations, and the broader membrane is thought to contort itself such that complex topologies emerge.
Human, egoic consciousness is imagined as localized structures built upon the global fabric of mind.
These constructs have developed such that their surfaces are self-facing, creating—as in the whirlpool metaphor—the phenomena of self-reflectivity and obfuscation.
Nature’s laws of physics thus correspond to intrinsic vibratory patterns: dynamic tendencies which govern subtle movements of the universal mind.
Egoic structures follow their own vibratory patterns, some of which conform to those of the broader membrane.
Equivalent to translating ripples in the previous metaphor, vibrations stemming from the external world travel into egoic structures; in doing to, they intermingle with local modes of vibration.
If external and internal vibratory patterns align, resonance occurs—causing the corresponding experiences to become amplified, thus obfuscating non-resonant vibrations.
Generally speaking, the external vibrations which result in resonance represent the known “physical” world—experienced directly by egoic awareness; those that do not represent the so-called collective unconscious.11
In Kastrup’s latest book, Analytical Idealism in a Nutshell, he expounds a profound explanatory concept; namely, that 3D reality is a dashboard representation of an underlying objective reality.
Like a pilot commandeering an airplane using pressure, humidity and temperature dials, the configuration known as spacetime conveys salient information about a transcendent landscape of existence which cannot be directly grasped.12
Modern humans grow up believing that a windowless cockpit—with all of its many informational dials—is all that there truly is, blissfully unaware of a vast sky situated just beyond the boundary of our perceptions.
Kastrup’s model, therefore, suggests that there is indeed an external world out there; however, it is not physical.
Physicality is what the objective landscape looks like when represented on the dashboard of human cognition.
The novel metaphysical framework outlined here marks a monumental step forward in the overarching effort toward authentic characterization of the nature of reality.13
In terms of coherence, parsimony and explanatory capacity, analytical idealism appears to be far more feasible than the physicalist regime.14
Regardless, there is plenty of work yet to be undertaken.
We all must locate and embrace our roles in challenging the stagnant psychic programs which continue to proliferate incorrect or detrimental ideologies.
Owing to both the wide margin for potential advancement and an inevitable, overwhelming cultural opposition to change, the path forward is simultaneously enthralling and formidable.
Every inch of incremental progress matters—leaving no archaic stones unturned, we will surmount the inertial chasm of resistance and build a foundation of pioneering comprehension which instills fervor and provocation in its followers.
The term “alter” stands for “alternate personality.”
As reported by Kastrup in Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell (2024) pp. 104-105 (the comparison to parallel processing is, however, my own conception). See, for example, this intriguing study about the nature of dreaming in people with DID. However, I found a paper from 2002 which argues that alters are metaphorical, not literal—a conclusion that would, if correct, seemingly contradict Kastrup’s interpretation. The viability of Kastrup’s analogic basis is assumed here for the sake of this article. For reference, he cites a book titled First Person Plural: Multiple Personality and the Philosophy of Mind by Stephen Braude (1995) with respect to his understanding of alters in DID, but I was unable to find access to it.
Consider also the following: within Kastrup’s worldview, every human being represents what the act of mind-at-large dissociating looks like when viewed from an external vantage.
One possible point of contention: since the universal mind is, in essence, a singular conscious entity, how can an element of it (e.g., a human being) be viewed from an external perspective? I found this a bit tricky to resolve; however, one could consider that parts of mind are viewing other parts of mind—or, that mind is viewing itself.*
The difference between metacognition and rudimentary consciousness is subtle yet important—the former implies the existence of the latter; however, the latter can exist without the former. To conceptualize consciousness without self-reflectivity, try to imagine what it is like to be an insect, rodent or bird, for example. These critters’ lives are driven by instinctual, reactive movements in response to environmental stimuli—they cannot contemplate the nature of their existence. Kastrup’s model hypothesizes that the broader mind-system lacks the ability to reflect upon itself; thus, it would be unable enact deliberate changes.* My personal experience seemingly contradicts this notion. Further, I am not entirely sure how analytic idealism would integrate the concept of synchronicity.
Update: Kastrup mentions the role of synchronicity in his life during this podcast; however, I lack clarity as to what that means to him precisely and to how synchronicity can be reconciled with naturalism (a tenet of analytic idealism).
Note that analytic idealism is distinctly different from the popularized metaphysics known as panpsychism, wherein material particles are assumed to be conscious entities which, when combined, somehow constitute egoic awareness.
It is important to realize that mind is, fundamentally, not made up of “stuff” as in the case of physical entities. This is somewhat difficult to conceptualize, especially given that we have been conditioned to view physicalist assumptions as gospel.
Metaphors are necessary because, in verity, the universal mind transcends spacetime and thus cannot be precisely characterized by egoic minds which are limited, in their experiential trajectories, by 3D geometry. Therefore, one must keep in mind that Kastrup’s metaphors are merely tools for comprehension, not literal representations.
To elucidate self-reflectivity, try thinking about your present thoughts. Then, try thinking about thinking about your thoughts. This exercise can go on forever, similarly to how configuring two mirrors directly across from each other creates a recursion whereby reflections are bounced back-and-forth ad infinitum.
Likewise, the whirlpool metaphor allows for the possibility of ripples travelling from within the egoic structure into the outside world, thus affecting the experiential essence of the surrounding environment. This would correspond to the concept of manifestation, whereby change is effected within reality through manipulation of one’s identity, beliefs and other deep-rooted psychological components.*
The membrane of mind could potentially exist in more than two spatial dimensions; however, for the sake of this metaphor, it is most useful to imagine a 2D object such as a tautly stretched bedsheet.
The collective unconscious terminology follows from Carl Jung; however, Kastrup uses the phrase loosely, asserting that all parts of mind are technically conscious (albeit not always self-reflective).
Kastrup’s dashboard concept is entirely analogous to Donald Hoffman’s interface theory of perception which utilizes evolutionary game theory to prove, mathematically, that the probability for humans to have developed to see reality as it is is practically null.
To be fair, it is unlikely that analytic idealism, as it presently stands, is entirely correct (as Kastrup himself would be quick to admit). However, it is a significant, positive departure from the reigning mainstream metaphysics, physicalism, and a viable heuristic approach in the eventual movement toward deriving a complete metaphysics. Can humanity ever reach such an ideal? I’m not convinced that we can; however, given that we’ve been granted the gift of metacognition, it is our collective duty to try. Analytic idealism acts as a compass in this endeavor, serving to guide future directionality and instill passionate curiosity in the hearts of up-and-coming intellectuals.
This claim is Kastrup’s; however, I tend to agree—not only due to the myriad reasons he astutely provides, but from my own personal experience—much of which cannot be integrated under physicalism.