What do you think?
Rate this book
More Than Allegory: On Religious Myth, Truth And Belief
This book is a three-part journey into the rabbit hole we call the nature of reality. Its ultimate destination is a plausible, living validation of transcendence. Each of its three parts is like a turn of a spiral, exploring recurring ideas through the prisms of religious myth, truth and belief, respectively. With each turn, the book seeks to convey a more nuanced and complete understanding of the many facets of transcendence. Part I puts forward the controversial notion that many religious myths are actually true; and not just allegorically so. Part II argues that our own inner storytelling plays a surprising role in creating the seeming concreteness of things and the tangibility of history. Part III suggests, in the form of a myth, how deeply ingrained belief systems create the world we live in. The three themes, myth, truth and belief, flow into and interpenetrate each other throughout the book.
264 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2016
139 people are currently reading
1167 people want to read
About the author
Bernardo Kastrup
36 books648 followersBernardo Kastrup is the Executive Director of Essentia Foundation and Founder/CEO at AI systems company Euclyd BV. His work has set off the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence). As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the 'Casimir Effect' of Quantum Field Theory was discovered). He has also been creatively active in the high-tech industry for almost 30 years, having founded parallel processor company Silicon Hive (acquired by Intel in 2011) and worked as a technology strategist for the geopolitically significant company ASML. Most recently, he has founded AI hardware company Euclyd BV. Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, Bernardo's ideas have been featured on 'Scientific American,' the magazine of 'The Institute of Art and Ideas,' the 'Blog of the American Philosophical Association' and 'Big Think,' among others. His most defining book is 'Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell: A straightforward summary of the 21st-century's only plausible metaphysics.' For more information, visit www.bernardokastrup.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
October 17, 2021
الكتاب مقسم لثلاثة أقسام، الأول والثاني يعرض فيها ميتافيزيقاه ورؤيته للوجود والتعامل الأنسب من وجهة نظره مع الميثولوجيا، أما الثالث فيعرض فيه رحلته الروحية الشخصية التي واجه فيها "الآخر"، الجانب اللاواعي منه (أو "الروح" بمصطلحات يونغ). أحببت القسمين الأولين، لكن الثالث ضعت معه قليلًا، ولعلي أرجع له بعد قراءة بقية أعماله الأساسية.
عمومًا، الكتاب أكثر من جيد ويستحق الاطلاع لمحبي الميثولوجيا ودراسات الأديان.
عمومًا، الكتاب أكثر من جيد ويستحق الاطلاع لمحبي الميثولوجيا ودراسات الأديان.
April 16, 2016
I have followed Bernardo from very early on and this book is an excellent synthesis of all of his previous works (They are all worthwhile reads! ).
The sections discussing Transcendent Myths are very prescient as are his views on the current Materialist bent of society at large.
The sections discussing Transcendent Myths are very prescient as are his views on the current Materialist bent of society at large.
July 28, 2021
Kastrup's The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality is an excellent presentation of his philosophy. Some might find it overly technical, but Kastrup takes pains there to mitigate the technicality and present it for a general audience. It deals with myth and allegory only tangentially. The problem with More than Allegory is that this book deals with, well, more than allegory: Kastrup is always arguing for his metaphysics, but in his earlier books such as this one, he did not employ the useful constraint that structures The Idea of the World: the subjection of his material to rigorous peer review to clarify its arguments and claims. This book is an unstructured meditation by comparison, and will be far less compelling to a skeptic. I don't feel I would have taken the present book seriously if I hadn't already read that one. And while this book is a pleasurable diversion, it doesn't succeed as a serious analysis of the functions of myth, something countless experts in comparative religion have done much better. And it doesn't satisfy the hardened philosophical or scientific skeptic with regard to Kastrup's pet metaphysics, either. So what does it do well? I would class it as spiritual entertainment with a touch of demure memoir relating to Kastrup's own spiritual journey. A speculative perambulation around an underexplored territory. If you accidentally read about these ideas in this book first, then it has served a purpose by accident more than by virtue, but there is no shame in that.
So why does it fall short? Kastrup makes some interesting points and his reflections are fascinating as always, but I want to concentrate on what I see as the central fault in conception and execution:
Kastrup frames the first two sections as a prelude to his "myth," presented in part three, and suggests the reader might even dispense with the former and cut right to the meat of the latter. He creates a palpable sense of expectation for this myth that will express his ideas in a way inaccessible to verbal argument, whose limitations necessitate myth. Unfortunately, the "myth" he presents is at best a recapitulation and creative elaboration of the ruminations presented in the earlier sections; the misgivings suspended by the reader in the initial parts are not compensated for by the final one, but in retrospect thrown into starker relief because the lackluster execution of the final part is so anticlimactic.
Kastrup tells a rather perfunctory little story which is stylistically reminiscent of SF fan fiction, about a club of wealthy technologists that invent a method to more reliably communicate with a kind of greater self called the "other." Too much space is spent on this fluff without having a clear purpose or emotional thrust. It's rather insubstantial, and only serves as a vehicle for us to eavesdrop on the conversations between the seeker and this "other" about the metaphysical concepts Kastrup has introduced in the earlier sections, and elaborate on their implications.
If I read this story without introduction, I would definitely not call it a myth, or even mythic. It is basically a Socratic dialogue set in a near-futuristic milieu. Entities are presented engaging in purely logical arguments (recall that the Greek root for logic derives from the same antecedent as logos, which is do say that "logic" is fundamentally linguistic in character, something Kastrup is diligent in pointing out the limitations of). To the extent that world mythologies have gone down the path of putting sophisticated logical argument in the mouths of their agonists, I would argue that this material stands outside of myth proper. The myth becomes a vehicle into which argument is injected. But the argument is put there precisely because the myth already has gravitas, not the reverse. The mythic character may speak, but what it says ceases to be myth when its content moves beyond the bound of symbol and aphorism into the realm of argument. But this kind of speech is almost the whole of Kastrup's "myth." The frame story can be disregarded as an uninventive science fiction trope. It is "plausible" in Kastrup's reckoning, but plausibility is far from a sufficient condition for myth. Indeed, the author's contention that the myths of old were "plausible" to their audiences is not well explored. It presupposes a whole lot of critical assumptions that aren't addressed. I can't find any great justification for this myth making attempt, and its execution is lacking.
The fact that we must confront the paradox of "effing" the ineffable head on to engage with ancient myths as a modern person is a feature, not a bug. We must confront that paradox to be sure, but many of these mythic systems have an inconceivably rich palette of clues to point us. Kastrup's "myth" is a poor attempt at circumventing a rite that can't be wished away and is in fact the heart of the matter. Kastrup's poor substitute myth harms the case for myth's utility more than helping. It obscures rather than embraces the paradox. The fact that the author surely understands these issues better than myself makes the decision to go ahead and present this little creative writing project as the climax of his book even more ponderous. If I were cynical I might say there is an element of vanity here. However, I think he compassionately wishes to magically dispense with the modern person's dismissal and misunderstanding of the great edifying myths, which create such a barrier to spiritual progress. His heart is in the right place, but this resistance can't be summarily dispelled with this little story.
Presenting a "myth" in this format is a little hubristic, and is bound to fail to some extent. Those who have come closest to succeeding explicitly at this are often thought mad: consider Nietzche, or else charlatans and cult leaders. On the other hand, those who merely engage in creative play are prone to propagate mythic material almost in spite of themselves: countless accidental cultural touchstones have emerged from the trashiest of popular media, probably because the authors are completely unconscious of any mythic intent. Part of this challenge comes simply from the individual struggle to express the transhuman from within the bounds of the modern cultural binary of "truth" and "fiction," which itself doesn't survive Kastrup's metaphysics unscathed, and cannot make space for myth. Myth emerges in ritual, dance, music, dreams, and life as a kind of possession. It is a loa that rides us. We are more the cart than the horse.
So why does it fall short? Kastrup makes some interesting points and his reflections are fascinating as always, but I want to concentrate on what I see as the central fault in conception and execution:
Kastrup frames the first two sections as a prelude to his "myth," presented in part three, and suggests the reader might even dispense with the former and cut right to the meat of the latter. He creates a palpable sense of expectation for this myth that will express his ideas in a way inaccessible to verbal argument, whose limitations necessitate myth. Unfortunately, the "myth" he presents is at best a recapitulation and creative elaboration of the ruminations presented in the earlier sections; the misgivings suspended by the reader in the initial parts are not compensated for by the final one, but in retrospect thrown into starker relief because the lackluster execution of the final part is so anticlimactic.
Kastrup tells a rather perfunctory little story which is stylistically reminiscent of SF fan fiction, about a club of wealthy technologists that invent a method to more reliably communicate with a kind of greater self called the "other." Too much space is spent on this fluff without having a clear purpose or emotional thrust. It's rather insubstantial, and only serves as a vehicle for us to eavesdrop on the conversations between the seeker and this "other" about the metaphysical concepts Kastrup has introduced in the earlier sections, and elaborate on their implications.
If I read this story without introduction, I would definitely not call it a myth, or even mythic. It is basically a Socratic dialogue set in a near-futuristic milieu. Entities are presented engaging in purely logical arguments (recall that the Greek root for logic derives from the same antecedent as logos, which is do say that "logic" is fundamentally linguistic in character, something Kastrup is diligent in pointing out the limitations of). To the extent that world mythologies have gone down the path of putting sophisticated logical argument in the mouths of their agonists, I would argue that this material stands outside of myth proper. The myth becomes a vehicle into which argument is injected. But the argument is put there precisely because the myth already has gravitas, not the reverse. The mythic character may speak, but what it says ceases to be myth when its content moves beyond the bound of symbol and aphorism into the realm of argument. But this kind of speech is almost the whole of Kastrup's "myth." The frame story can be disregarded as an uninventive science fiction trope. It is "plausible" in Kastrup's reckoning, but plausibility is far from a sufficient condition for myth. Indeed, the author's contention that the myths of old were "plausible" to their audiences is not well explored. It presupposes a whole lot of critical assumptions that aren't addressed. I can't find any great justification for this myth making attempt, and its execution is lacking.
The fact that we must confront the paradox of "effing" the ineffable head on to engage with ancient myths as a modern person is a feature, not a bug. We must confront that paradox to be sure, but many of these mythic systems have an inconceivably rich palette of clues to point us. Kastrup's "myth" is a poor attempt at circumventing a rite that can't be wished away and is in fact the heart of the matter. Kastrup's poor substitute myth harms the case for myth's utility more than helping. It obscures rather than embraces the paradox. The fact that the author surely understands these issues better than myself makes the decision to go ahead and present this little creative writing project as the climax of his book even more ponderous. If I were cynical I might say there is an element of vanity here. However, I think he compassionately wishes to magically dispense with the modern person's dismissal and misunderstanding of the great edifying myths, which create such a barrier to spiritual progress. His heart is in the right place, but this resistance can't be summarily dispelled with this little story.
Presenting a "myth" in this format is a little hubristic, and is bound to fail to some extent. Those who have come closest to succeeding explicitly at this are often thought mad: consider Nietzche, or else charlatans and cult leaders. On the other hand, those who merely engage in creative play are prone to propagate mythic material almost in spite of themselves: countless accidental cultural touchstones have emerged from the trashiest of popular media, probably because the authors are completely unconscious of any mythic intent. Part of this challenge comes simply from the individual struggle to express the transhuman from within the bounds of the modern cultural binary of "truth" and "fiction," which itself doesn't survive Kastrup's metaphysics unscathed, and cannot make space for myth. Myth emerges in ritual, dance, music, dreams, and life as a kind of possession. It is a loa that rides us. We are more the cart than the horse.
December 9, 2025
Explanatory truths must refer to the past to infer laws and behaviours of nature, and past is only a subjective experience in the form of memory or records, which are all referrals to something non-existent in the present, meant to give context to present moment. In this sense, explanatory truths can never explain transcendental truths, which is wholly above past or future. We can never even say whether a piece of explanation is actually true or not, we can only say it is consistent with memory and present situations.
Even in the presence of an "objective" experimental result, it is only with our present perceptions and memories of past that we can come to a subjective conclusion with regard to how to read the experimental results and infer an explanatory truth from it.
Space-time is simply a mental coordinate system that allow you to unfold or unpack overlapping mental contents. This makes explicit the associative links between them, which would otherwise remain hidden. Space-time allows you to mentally spread out simultaneous perceptions, thoughts, emotions, insights along cognitive references lines, therefore rendering their links visible to and treatable by the intellect.
At one points Kastrup posits a metaphysical tale of forms emerging out of a quantum foam of disconnected ideas, in the mind of God, which is an interesting musing on the nature of aesthetics. Since mind-at-large has the innate predisposition to get drawn into its own imaginings, like the ideas expressing symmetry, are particularly attractive at an intrinsic level, so mind-at-large began conceiving of purely abstract symmetries - mathematical in essence - and became more and more captivated by them. With increasing commitment and more sophisticated "emotional" response, the symmetries turned more complex and and refined too.
What if the intrinsic sense of aesthetics we all have is not evolutionary but divine? Is that why some art feels transcendental? And is that why modern materialism goes hand in hand with social engineering that aims to label a more inherent sense of aesthetics as reactionary, and have tried / still tries regretfully to create a new sense of aesthetics of nihilism, detached from the inherent sense we all have?
Anyways, back to metaphysics. When you deliberately conceive of something while awake, you experience your imagination from outside. You know the conceived scenarios are in you, generated by you. But when you dream of something, you enter your own imagination, and the imagined scenarios become autonomous and you inhabit them, without knowing they are in you and generated by you.
This transition from conceiving to dreaming, from outside to inside - is analogous to the change that mind-at-large underwent when it entered its own imaginings. And from within, the rules of cognitive associations governing the universe (laws and behaviours of nature) were now believed in as autonomous realities. This is the birth of belief, the origin of life.
Even in the presence of an "objective" experimental result, it is only with our present perceptions and memories of past that we can come to a subjective conclusion with regard to how to read the experimental results and infer an explanatory truth from it.
Space-time is simply a mental coordinate system that allow you to unfold or unpack overlapping mental contents. This makes explicit the associative links between them, which would otherwise remain hidden. Space-time allows you to mentally spread out simultaneous perceptions, thoughts, emotions, insights along cognitive references lines, therefore rendering their links visible to and treatable by the intellect.
At one points Kastrup posits a metaphysical tale of forms emerging out of a quantum foam of disconnected ideas, in the mind of God, which is an interesting musing on the nature of aesthetics. Since mind-at-large has the innate predisposition to get drawn into its own imaginings, like the ideas expressing symmetry, are particularly attractive at an intrinsic level, so mind-at-large began conceiving of purely abstract symmetries - mathematical in essence - and became more and more captivated by them. With increasing commitment and more sophisticated "emotional" response, the symmetries turned more complex and and refined too.
What if the intrinsic sense of aesthetics we all have is not evolutionary but divine? Is that why some art feels transcendental? And is that why modern materialism goes hand in hand with social engineering that aims to label a more inherent sense of aesthetics as reactionary, and have tried / still tries regretfully to create a new sense of aesthetics of nihilism, detached from the inherent sense we all have?
Anyways, back to metaphysics. When you deliberately conceive of something while awake, you experience your imagination from outside. You know the conceived scenarios are in you, generated by you. But when you dream of something, you enter your own imagination, and the imagined scenarios become autonomous and you inhabit them, without knowing they are in you and generated by you.
This transition from conceiving to dreaming, from outside to inside - is analogous to the change that mind-at-large underwent when it entered its own imaginings. And from within, the rules of cognitive associations governing the universe (laws and behaviours of nature) were now believed in as autonomous realities. This is the birth of belief, the origin of life.
August 4, 2023
With the author's permission, having already read his other books, I skipped over to Part 3; which was, of all things, a science-fiction story about a brilliant young techie who, with the help of a well-funded research lab and a configurable psychedelic juice machine has a series of serious parleys with none other than the Universal Mind (aka God).
What the Deity then proceeds to explain as Gospel is (surprise!) none other than Kastrup's own theory of monistic idealism, according to which all things, minds, and persons are spawned complexes within one universal consciousness; whirlpools, as it were, dotting a shoreless and otherwise featureless sea. But what about physical matter that we knock on as if that's what's really and finally there? Alas, not real, a finally unknowable abstraction.
As I've mentioned in other reviews, Kastrup's argument seems strong given physicalists' dismal failure to account for consciousness as an emergent property of matter. But matter is perhaps equally strong within consciousness -- we keep bumping up against it! I admire Bernardo for his repeated attempts to steer us in what may turn out to be a new paradigmatic direction. It's a tough sell, and he's taken his share of abuse for it along the way. But if anyone's up to the challenge it's probably him.
What the Deity then proceeds to explain as Gospel is (surprise!) none other than Kastrup's own theory of monistic idealism, according to which all things, minds, and persons are spawned complexes within one universal consciousness; whirlpools, as it were, dotting a shoreless and otherwise featureless sea. But what about physical matter that we knock on as if that's what's really and finally there? Alas, not real, a finally unknowable abstraction.
As I've mentioned in other reviews, Kastrup's argument seems strong given physicalists' dismal failure to account for consciousness as an emergent property of matter. But matter is perhaps equally strong within consciousness -- we keep bumping up against it! I admire Bernardo for his repeated attempts to steer us in what may turn out to be a new paradigmatic direction. It's a tough sell, and he's taken his share of abuse for it along the way. But if anyone's up to the challenge it's probably him.
June 9, 2018
It is a very interesting book and does speak to our modern language and thought structure. It explains things easily and clearly and is not a tortuous read like Hillman or Corbin. Kastrup has a vast in depth knowledge of what he is talking about and also has an understanding of what the other side would say or which questions a sceptic or someone on the fence might pose him. It is a great introductory book for people interested in myth, truth and belief - which leads to what I do not like in this book. The ideas might be revolutionary for our materialistic society, but most of them are not exactly new and I feel like Kastrup does not do justice to all of the thinkers that came before him (from pre Socratic philosophers to Huxley) and to whom he owes a great debt.
But still definitely worth reading.
But still definitely worth reading.
April 11, 2020
Having read all of Bernardo’s books I can say this is the second most important book after ‘’Why Materialism Is Baloney’’ from a personal point of view.
In the first two chapters Kastrup berates the deprived materialists’ myths, he implies that reality is a ‘dream’ of a disembodied individuals, who are collapsed segments of mind-at-large that ‘wake up’-become lucid- inside the dream. In part three he introduces a modern religious myth, and each chapter in part three relates a part of its story of his own which is way beyond mind-blowing, I’m always impressed by Kastrup’s way of weaving together the richness of the Western mystical tradition into linking that to what might just be happening in our physical reality that we experience. Out of all his books, this book will bring a special kind of meaning to your life, read with an open mind, I highly recommend it.
In the first two chapters Kastrup berates the deprived materialists’ myths, he implies that reality is a ‘dream’ of a disembodied individuals, who are collapsed segments of mind-at-large that ‘wake up’-become lucid- inside the dream. In part three he introduces a modern religious myth, and each chapter in part three relates a part of its story of his own which is way beyond mind-blowing, I’m always impressed by Kastrup’s way of weaving together the richness of the Western mystical tradition into linking that to what might just be happening in our physical reality that we experience. Out of all his books, this book will bring a special kind of meaning to your life, read with an open mind, I highly recommend it.
November 10, 2022
Brilliant book, but I don't agree with one of the key arguments: We don't have to accept primeval-transcendental myths.
March 22, 2024
I recommend More Than Allegory if you'd like to check out the worldview of Bernardo Kastrup. His other book, The Idea of the World, focuses too much on arguing pedantically without unveiling the full-scope of what Kastrup means by 'idealism'.
The interesting part of the book is in part III where Kasrtup describes "his" experiences with AI-guided psychedelic trips with a secret organization ("the club"). He meets "the other", which seems like some sort of "higher self", that explains the particular variety of "monistic idealism" to him. Cosmogenesis from the aware void a la abstract thoughts that stumble upon self-stimulating loops, self-contained coherent meme-plexes (such as our physical matter reality), individuating units of consciousness ("alters"), etc.
In my view, it's important to see how Kastrup came to these ideas, i.e., NOT through analytic reasoning. The arguments I've seen, so far, do not present a strong enough case for the full worldview. The case for ontologically basing sense-making in phenomenal awareness is stronger (yet doesn't seem to logically necessitate the rest of the package he presents, so far as I can tell so far). It's unclear what degree of "truth" is mixed into the story — yet 2/3 of the book is deconstructing the notion of "truth" anyway. My hunch is that an essential core of the story is not just fiction 😛.
The section on myth discusses "transcendental truths" that cannot be gotten at via evidence from this world (nor even pin-pointed via language). I find the notion interesting and prefer its treatment in other texts (such as Buddhist Logic); the way it's done here seems a tad bit off. The discuss of "myth vs no-myth" approaches seems off-base given the book ends with a deconstruction of the inner/egoic myths, too, which is precisely in line with the no myth approach that is set aside here.
The section on 'truth' largely focuses on "deconstructing objective truth" to the point of vacuity whereupon we may as well accept Christian myths as being on the same footing as any other ostensibel "objective truths" of consensus reality. This isn't really reconciled with how to approach the worldview Kastrup later introduces.
He often claims that the "materialist" worldview is lacking in meaning that myths can provide, which isn't adequately explained, and seems to reflect how in the US Christians often seem to think that the non-religious worldview must be "meaningless".
I think the first two parts were probably pragmatically introduced for the purpose of weakening one's "defenses" against the worldview he presents in part three. If one is reasonably open-minded and not completionist (as I tend to be), I'd recommend just skipping them.
The interesting part of the book is in part III where Kasrtup describes "his" experiences with AI-guided psychedelic trips with a secret organization ("the club"). He meets "the other", which seems like some sort of "higher self", that explains the particular variety of "monistic idealism" to him. Cosmogenesis from the aware void a la abstract thoughts that stumble upon self-stimulating loops, self-contained coherent meme-plexes (such as our physical matter reality), individuating units of consciousness ("alters"), etc.
In my view, it's important to see how Kastrup came to these ideas, i.e., NOT through analytic reasoning. The arguments I've seen, so far, do not present a strong enough case for the full worldview. The case for ontologically basing sense-making in phenomenal awareness is stronger (yet doesn't seem to logically necessitate the rest of the package he presents, so far as I can tell so far). It's unclear what degree of "truth" is mixed into the story — yet 2/3 of the book is deconstructing the notion of "truth" anyway. My hunch is that an essential core of the story is not just fiction 😛.
The section on myth discusses "transcendental truths" that cannot be gotten at via evidence from this world (nor even pin-pointed via language). I find the notion interesting and prefer its treatment in other texts (such as Buddhist Logic); the way it's done here seems a tad bit off. The discuss of "myth vs no-myth" approaches seems off-base given the book ends with a deconstruction of the inner/egoic myths, too, which is precisely in line with the no myth approach that is set aside here.
The section on 'truth' largely focuses on "deconstructing objective truth" to the point of vacuity whereupon we may as well accept Christian myths as being on the same footing as any other ostensibel "objective truths" of consensus reality. This isn't really reconciled with how to approach the worldview Kastrup later introduces.
He often claims that the "materialist" worldview is lacking in meaning that myths can provide, which isn't adequately explained, and seems to reflect how in the US Christians often seem to think that the non-religious worldview must be "meaningless".
I think the first two parts were probably pragmatically introduced for the purpose of weakening one's "defenses" against the worldview he presents in part three. If one is reasonably open-minded and not completionist (as I tend to be), I'd recommend just skipping them.
December 23, 2022
This book serves as a kind of contemporary introduction of certain non-dualist and comparative religious principles to the contemporary reader, especially to the modern scientifically inclined seeker who has had enough of the reductionist, atheist, materialist scientism of our modern age which simplistically bulldozes religious myth and expression and tells all others that it's "logical" or "moral" to do the same. I see Bernardo as one of the great drivers of anti-reductionistic idealism of our age, popularized through his several books and his enormously influential podcasts and lectures. "More Than Allegory" is a fast-paced introduction to Jungian principles, Vedantic non-dualism, Joseph Campbell comparative religion, classic hermeticism, and Christian esotericism through Bernardo's own lens of modern, scientifically-literate idealism.
There are several ideas in this book that stand out. One of them is his notion of "deprived myth." I'm not sure if this is Bernardo's own term or if it's borrowed from someone like Jung or Campbell. I think the term is his while the idea was explored by these other comparative mythologists. A deprived myth is a normative story for society which has lost its teeth - its deeper, transformative power. It's one that is widely accepted, though not fully comprehended by the masses. The deprived myths of our day and age advance a total materialistic view of our universe, that the particles flying around, colliding within and without us, give us absolutely everything, including life and purpose. A deprived myth still exerts power and influence, but unconsciously and uncritically. It lacks all nuance and depth. It arrogantly assumes that it is all that is. Bernardo argues our age needs to re-discover all the deeper myths - those of the world's religions especially - that put us in touch with the deepest truths of all, including the meaning of life and love.
The final part of this book is an extended "myth" (which reads more as a parable) which Bernardo develops to creatively illustrate, through narrative, many of the ideas he already expressed in the book. I found the final part helpful, though at times the dialogue was a bit forced and artificial.
This book will be eye-opening to most readers who have no interaction with comparative religion, have relegated mythology to silly fiction for high school students, and have not questioned the deep seated and reductionistic materialist atheism of our "scientific" age. For those who have read Jung or Campbell, Bernardo's book will be a welcome re-formulation of certain ideas and an engaging, fun contemporization of many idealist principles.
There are several ideas in this book that stand out. One of them is his notion of "deprived myth." I'm not sure if this is Bernardo's own term or if it's borrowed from someone like Jung or Campbell. I think the term is his while the idea was explored by these other comparative mythologists. A deprived myth is a normative story for society which has lost its teeth - its deeper, transformative power. It's one that is widely accepted, though not fully comprehended by the masses. The deprived myths of our day and age advance a total materialistic view of our universe, that the particles flying around, colliding within and without us, give us absolutely everything, including life and purpose. A deprived myth still exerts power and influence, but unconsciously and uncritically. It lacks all nuance and depth. It arrogantly assumes that it is all that is. Bernardo argues our age needs to re-discover all the deeper myths - those of the world's religions especially - that put us in touch with the deepest truths of all, including the meaning of life and love.
The final part of this book is an extended "myth" (which reads more as a parable) which Bernardo develops to creatively illustrate, through narrative, many of the ideas he already expressed in the book. I found the final part helpful, though at times the dialogue was a bit forced and artificial.
This book will be eye-opening to most readers who have no interaction with comparative religion, have relegated mythology to silly fiction for high school students, and have not questioned the deep seated and reductionistic materialist atheism of our "scientific" age. For those who have read Jung or Campbell, Bernardo's book will be a welcome re-formulation of certain ideas and an engaging, fun contemporization of many idealist principles.
May 4, 2020
I just discovered Bernardo Kastrup, and this is the first book of his I've read. The argument, that everything exists in mind and not outside anywhere, is familiar to me. In fact, through my study of Blake, the Christian mystics and other traditions plus via my own exploration of things, I would absolutely affirm that this is the case. The strength of Kastrup is that he takes the argument back to the materialist academy and pushes the point on their academic terms. At this he is remarkably successful, and moreover he finds very approachable and clear ways of conveying what the sages have often found unsayable.
This book concentrates on how Myth (and to a lesser extent, religion) relate to the central concept. Again, anyone with a passing knowledge of Campbell or Jung won't find very much surprising here, but it's always good to hear someone grasping this stuff.
Kastrup then attempts to write his own myth, to express what he has found. On the level of a philosophical creative piece (akin to a Platonic dialogue or Kierkegaard's Either/Or), it does convey Kastrup's truth very effectively, and is entirely readable as a philosophical tract. But Kastrup isn't a creative writer, nor does he really succeed (to my mind) in creating a myth. But never mind, his attempt opens up possible lines of flight for himself or others on the same path.
I'd be interested to read one of his earlier works, which deals more formally with his arguments against materialism.
This book concentrates on how Myth (and to a lesser extent, religion) relate to the central concept. Again, anyone with a passing knowledge of Campbell or Jung won't find very much surprising here, but it's always good to hear someone grasping this stuff.
Kastrup then attempts to write his own myth, to express what he has found. On the level of a philosophical creative piece (akin to a Platonic dialogue or Kierkegaard's Either/Or), it does convey Kastrup's truth very effectively, and is entirely readable as a philosophical tract. But Kastrup isn't a creative writer, nor does he really succeed (to my mind) in creating a myth. But never mind, his attempt opens up possible lines of flight for himself or others on the same path.
I'd be interested to read one of his earlier works, which deals more formally with his arguments against materialism.
January 29, 2022
Somehow, despite considering myself to be familiar with Kastrup's position, this book was able to completely blow my mind by simply formulating it in a way I hadn't encountered.
This is most likely going to become a very influential book for me. Granted I was already a fan of Kastrup's work and ideas. I have already drank the Koo-laid so to speak and might be biased.
This might look like another book on mythology filled with Joseph Campbell-isms. It's not. The first part may have moments which are similar and he does quote Campbell himself, but this is a book about reality and transcendence. You might get more answers than you bargained for.
Who this may appeal to:
If you are one of those people who grew up religious but had to change your world view to one that made more logical sense and in doing so created a conflict within yourself, than I can imagine that this book, specifically the first part, might be of help to you.
If you are a nerd about alternate states of conciseness (psychadelics, meditation, neuroscience etc.) you will definitely get a kick out of this book, the third part in particular.
If you are of an academic inclination with interests in comparative religion, philosophy and psychology, this book might go in places where you were not expecting. Keep an open mind and reserve judgement till the end of part two. Those who have Jungian leanings might have a smoother ride.
This is most likely going to become a very influential book for me. Granted I was already a fan of Kastrup's work and ideas. I have already drank the Koo-laid so to speak and might be biased.
This might look like another book on mythology filled with Joseph Campbell-isms. It's not. The first part may have moments which are similar and he does quote Campbell himself, but this is a book about reality and transcendence. You might get more answers than you bargained for.
Who this may appeal to:
If you are one of those people who grew up religious but had to change your world view to one that made more logical sense and in doing so created a conflict within yourself, than I can imagine that this book, specifically the first part, might be of help to you.
If you are a nerd about alternate states of conciseness (psychadelics, meditation, neuroscience etc.) you will definitely get a kick out of this book, the third part in particular.
If you are of an academic inclination with interests in comparative religion, philosophy and psychology, this book might go in places where you were not expecting. Keep an open mind and reserve judgement till the end of part two. Those who have Jungian leanings might have a smoother ride.
July 7, 2016
Mind bending and mind blowing
I first heard Bernardo Kastrup being interviewed on a Podcast. He was discussing the nature of reality in a way like I had never heard it put. He was actually resurrecting religious myths and telling us that the ancient myths reveal deep eternal truths. This is something I had sensed so I had to get the book.
I had no deep how deep the rabbit hole went though. Much more than just a book on religious myths, this book tackles the notions of time and space as illusions, life as a shared dream and the very idea of how much we can know based on logic and reason and materialism. As I read it I kept saying to myself. "Wow. I get that now.". Concepts I have struggled with for years came to life for me. The last three chapters and the epilogue alone make the book worthwhile.
I found myself wanting to know more about the author so I spend the weekend watching YouTube interviews with him. Admittedly some of his ideas are still beyond my grasp, but he has a way with words and allegory that brought many esoteric concepts within my reach.
There have been few books I would say have significantly and fundamentally altered my view of reality and even who I am. This is one of those books.
I first heard Bernardo Kastrup being interviewed on a Podcast. He was discussing the nature of reality in a way like I had never heard it put. He was actually resurrecting religious myths and telling us that the ancient myths reveal deep eternal truths. This is something I had sensed so I had to get the book.
I had no deep how deep the rabbit hole went though. Much more than just a book on religious myths, this book tackles the notions of time and space as illusions, life as a shared dream and the very idea of how much we can know based on logic and reason and materialism. As I read it I kept saying to myself. "Wow. I get that now.". Concepts I have struggled with for years came to life for me. The last three chapters and the epilogue alone make the book worthwhile.
I found myself wanting to know more about the author so I spend the weekend watching YouTube interviews with him. Admittedly some of his ideas are still beyond my grasp, but he has a way with words and allegory that brought many esoteric concepts within my reach.
There have been few books I would say have significantly and fundamentally altered my view of reality and even who I am. This is one of those books.
December 14, 2021
The romantics were right!’
‘Yes,’ the Other concurred. ‘The inanimate universe is a
collection of symbols pointing to imaginings incommensurable with
perception; to feelings and ideas beyond your intellectual
comprehension. But if you can tune into these symbols using your
intuition and imagination, you can read them and unveil their
meaning. The world around you is a book waiting to be deciphered.
‘Yes,’ the Other concurred. ‘The inanimate universe is a
collection of symbols pointing to imaginings incommensurable with
perception; to feelings and ideas beyond your intellectual
comprehension. But if you can tune into these symbols using your
intuition and imagination, you can read them and unveil their
meaning. The world around you is a book waiting to be deciphered.
October 25, 2022
More than thought provoking
Thanks again Bernardo. Loved your trinitarian format exploring Myth, Truth and Belief. I felt on numerous occasions while reading MTA that I really truly got it only to be reined in by my rational mind/meta consciousness/ego. Then, around the middle of the book, the aha moment - I and other are one and the same consciousness - stuck around and still feels insightful.
Thanks again Bernardo. Loved your trinitarian format exploring Myth, Truth and Belief. I felt on numerous occasions while reading MTA that I really truly got it only to be reined in by my rational mind/meta consciousness/ego. Then, around the middle of the book, the aha moment - I and other are one and the same consciousness - stuck around and still feels insightful.
July 6, 2019
A valuable insight in myths, truth and belief. Eventually it builds up into a concept for our lives. It is self explainitory. Bernardo gave us a way to see our lives to a new and better metaphore. I sincerly think this will one day lead to a better me. One who has some insights into God and the meaning of our lives.
June 11, 2020
Red pill.
October 2, 2021
As always a good contemporary take on advaita vedanta
January 13, 2020
Underneath all of our rational beliefs, there is always a belief that is irrational. Underneath all our myths of fables and religion, there is a truth that all myths point towards.
In the absence of past and future, we have do uncover the present. Only in the present, we can find the greatest gift. Only in the present, we can believe the myth and it can become the Truth.
I found the style, content, and context of this book very enjoyable to read.
Some excerpts I enjoyed:
-Meaning and emotion cannot be directly shared the way the images of consensus reality are.
-myth is a story that implies a certain way of interpreting consensus reality so to derive meaning and affective charge from its images and interactions. Without these myths, consensus images and their respective interactions would be just dancing pixels.
-Consensus reality is a realm of pure form. It triggers our myth-making capacity so to evoke thought and emotion within. Our role is to interpret the pure forms by projecting a myth onto consensus reality. The myth implies a way to translate pure form into meaning.
Underlying our contemporary attitude toward religious myths is the hidden but far-reaching assumption that all relevant truths about reality can be directly captured by the intellect in the form of language constructs. I
-Emotionally, we either believe a religious myth or we don’t. If we don’t, the myth loses the power to bring transcendence into daily life. I thus propose that, if a religious myth resonates deeply with your intuitions, you should emotionally—though not intellectually—take it onboard as if it were literally true.
suffering arises from the ego’s inability, yet compulsive need, to control the world
Consensus reality is trying to get our intellects to ask the right questions, so to poke the obfuscated mind into unveiling the deepest transcendent truths in the form of religious myths. As such, our myth-making capacity may be nature’s only chance to grok itself.
Past and future exist only as mental explanations and predictions, images in the mind projected backwards and forwards. But these projections are experienced in the present, for there is only ever the present. Our intellect mistakes particular qualities of certain present experiences for a past and a future.
Now, what you call space-time is simply a mental coordinate system that allows you to unfold or unpack overlapping mental contents.
The world around you is a book waiting to be deciphered. Figuring out how to do it—that is, finding a suitable hermeneutics of the universe—has been the quest of poets, artists, shamans, mystics and philosophers since time immemorial.
As a dream symbolically portrays the inner state of the dreamer, As a novel insinuates the inner life of the writer, As a lie betrays the insecurities of the liar, So the fiction you call reality reveals something about truth.
In the absence of past and future, we have do uncover the present. Only in the present, we can find the greatest gift. Only in the present, we can believe the myth and it can become the Truth.
I found the style, content, and context of this book very enjoyable to read.
Some excerpts I enjoyed:
-Meaning and emotion cannot be directly shared the way the images of consensus reality are.
-myth is a story that implies a certain way of interpreting consensus reality so to derive meaning and affective charge from its images and interactions. Without these myths, consensus images and their respective interactions would be just dancing pixels.
-Consensus reality is a realm of pure form. It triggers our myth-making capacity so to evoke thought and emotion within. Our role is to interpret the pure forms by projecting a myth onto consensus reality. The myth implies a way to translate pure form into meaning.
Underlying our contemporary attitude toward religious myths is the hidden but far-reaching assumption that all relevant truths about reality can be directly captured by the intellect in the form of language constructs. I
-Emotionally, we either believe a religious myth or we don’t. If we don’t, the myth loses the power to bring transcendence into daily life. I thus propose that, if a religious myth resonates deeply with your intuitions, you should emotionally—though not intellectually—take it onboard as if it were literally true.
suffering arises from the ego’s inability, yet compulsive need, to control the world
Consensus reality is trying to get our intellects to ask the right questions, so to poke the obfuscated mind into unveiling the deepest transcendent truths in the form of religious myths. As such, our myth-making capacity may be nature’s only chance to grok itself.
Past and future exist only as mental explanations and predictions, images in the mind projected backwards and forwards. But these projections are experienced in the present, for there is only ever the present. Our intellect mistakes particular qualities of certain present experiences for a past and a future.
Now, what you call space-time is simply a mental coordinate system that allows you to unfold or unpack overlapping mental contents.
The world around you is a book waiting to be deciphered. Figuring out how to do it—that is, finding a suitable hermeneutics of the universe—has been the quest of poets, artists, shamans, mystics and philosophers since time immemorial.
As a dream symbolically portrays the inner state of the dreamer, As a novel insinuates the inner life of the writer, As a lie betrays the insecurities of the liar, So the fiction you call reality reveals something about truth.
October 10, 2023
As Terence McKenna might have said;
Ah, can you feel the vibrations, the pulsating waves of synchronicity reverberating through the membrane of reality itself? We have Rick Rubin, in his mystical manifesto, "The Creative Act: A Way of Being," taking us on a kaleidoscopic journey through the existential tapestry of ideas! Not that we merely "have" ideas—oh, heavens no! These notions, they are conscious entities that possess us, choosing to incarnate in the ephemeral domains of our minds. They are the cosmic fugitives that bubble up from the quantum foam, choosing us as their vessels in the stream of spacetime!
To say I "believe" this phenomenon would be like saying a psychedelic trip is just bright colors and weird shapes—it's laughable! This is gnosis, my friends, an irrefutable awareness, so complete that Bernardo and I find our psychic geometries aligning like celestial bodies in a preordained cosmic ballet! Were we to diverge on this, it would be more than eerie; it would be a paradox in the symphony of existence itself. Yet, our congruency is not just accepted; it is necessitated by the grand narrative in which we are both fractal emanations.
And, oh, let's not forget, Kastrup is not some whimsical poet; the man has a crystalline mind honed by the rigorous machinery of mathematics! He's a linguistic alchemist, transmuting the base metals of everyday discourse into the golden lexicon of universal truth! He's tuning the dial so that even those allergic to the incense and chants of conventional religiosity can hear the harmonic vibrations of this cosmic hymn.
Now consider this in relation to "Than Allegory: On Religious Myth, Truth And Belief." We're talking about dimensions upon dimensions of interpretative frameworks, an interlocking matrix of myths, symbols, and dialectics that beckons us toward a unified field theory of human belief! Ah, the glory of existence—where rationality and mysticism, math and metaphysics, intertwine in an ecstatic dance at the edge of the unfolding universe!
Ah, can you feel the vibrations, the pulsating waves of synchronicity reverberating through the membrane of reality itself? We have Rick Rubin, in his mystical manifesto, "The Creative Act: A Way of Being," taking us on a kaleidoscopic journey through the existential tapestry of ideas! Not that we merely "have" ideas—oh, heavens no! These notions, they are conscious entities that possess us, choosing to incarnate in the ephemeral domains of our minds. They are the cosmic fugitives that bubble up from the quantum foam, choosing us as their vessels in the stream of spacetime!
To say I "believe" this phenomenon would be like saying a psychedelic trip is just bright colors and weird shapes—it's laughable! This is gnosis, my friends, an irrefutable awareness, so complete that Bernardo and I find our psychic geometries aligning like celestial bodies in a preordained cosmic ballet! Were we to diverge on this, it would be more than eerie; it would be a paradox in the symphony of existence itself. Yet, our congruency is not just accepted; it is necessitated by the grand narrative in which we are both fractal emanations.
And, oh, let's not forget, Kastrup is not some whimsical poet; the man has a crystalline mind honed by the rigorous machinery of mathematics! He's a linguistic alchemist, transmuting the base metals of everyday discourse into the golden lexicon of universal truth! He's tuning the dial so that even those allergic to the incense and chants of conventional religiosity can hear the harmonic vibrations of this cosmic hymn.
Now consider this in relation to "Than Allegory: On Religious Myth, Truth And Belief." We're talking about dimensions upon dimensions of interpretative frameworks, an interlocking matrix of myths, symbols, and dialectics that beckons us toward a unified field theory of human belief! Ah, the glory of existence—where rationality and mysticism, math and metaphysics, intertwine in an ecstatic dance at the edge of the unfolding universe!
November 7, 2024
Very interesting premise to this book. In a nutshell, the author has a PhD in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence) as well as a PhD in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind). So he comes at this particular book from both a right- and left-brained background and approach. That appeal is what interested me in this read.
In the first part of he book, he speaks a lot about the value and purpose of myth and allegory, making the astute observation that there isn't a linear path between a mythological story and its truth or fiction. He also points out that many allegories point to a larger truth, even if the tale represented by it may or may not have actually occurred. Further, the “truth” of a myth isn't even as important as we tend to think it is, and it makes sense for us to continue to make a place for our intuitions, for allegories, for the very stories that make us human. He argues that in the process of arguing so assiduously for myths to not be true, we're losing the opportunity to learn higher truths that those stories teach us - stories that have been an integral part of the human experience since time immemorial.
He then goes into how we determine meaning and assumptions – how our minds actually work through these things on a fundamental level. And finally in the third part, tells an allegorical story about a man who, as a scientist, decides to undergo a new regimen that will allow him to transcend and learn more deeply the nature and purpose of human existence. The idea of creating a “new myth” to help illustrate his points is a good one, though to be honest, I found myself having a whole new set of questions I’d want to ask if I were to have the opportunity to dialogue with “The Other” (the entity the mythological protagonist meets in his altered state). More than likely, we’d each have a different set of questions we’d want to ask if we were to meet such an entity (or angel, spirit, Jesus, God, etc.)
So there’s a lot to unpack. Apparently, this book is a synthesis of some of the author’s earlier works, which I’ll have to add to my reading list as well. It’s certainly some intriguing and thought-provoking material, and quite unique in exploring consciousness from the perspective of a technologist.
In the first part of he book, he speaks a lot about the value and purpose of myth and allegory, making the astute observation that there isn't a linear path between a mythological story and its truth or fiction. He also points out that many allegories point to a larger truth, even if the tale represented by it may or may not have actually occurred. Further, the “truth” of a myth isn't even as important as we tend to think it is, and it makes sense for us to continue to make a place for our intuitions, for allegories, for the very stories that make us human. He argues that in the process of arguing so assiduously for myths to not be true, we're losing the opportunity to learn higher truths that those stories teach us - stories that have been an integral part of the human experience since time immemorial.
He then goes into how we determine meaning and assumptions – how our minds actually work through these things on a fundamental level. And finally in the third part, tells an allegorical story about a man who, as a scientist, decides to undergo a new regimen that will allow him to transcend and learn more deeply the nature and purpose of human existence. The idea of creating a “new myth” to help illustrate his points is a good one, though to be honest, I found myself having a whole new set of questions I’d want to ask if I were to have the opportunity to dialogue with “The Other” (the entity the mythological protagonist meets in his altered state). More than likely, we’d each have a different set of questions we’d want to ask if we were to meet such an entity (or angel, spirit, Jesus, God, etc.)
So there’s a lot to unpack. Apparently, this book is a synthesis of some of the author’s earlier works, which I’ll have to add to my reading list as well. It’s certainly some intriguing and thought-provoking material, and quite unique in exploring consciousness from the perspective of a technologist.
August 10, 2025
I went into this book with some scepticism, admittedly. I wanted to hear what a modern idealist take of the mystical variety looks like, safe from the complete crack-pot stuff.
Along the way, I found the ideas to be occasionally interesting, an internally consistent, and my scepticism gave way to more simple reservation. While the metaphysics here are consistent, it doesn't really manage to convince, and, most importantly, hand-waves reality away, essentially landing within the problem of solipsism. No-one will ever be able to convince Kastrup that mind-at-large isn't all there is, as it is an entirely impossible position to disprove. But, as should be evident, that doesn't make it true.
In the end, if someone finds comfort in this, go ahead, but it's mostly air, revealing nothing about anything.
On the literary side, I was mostly okay with it, until the last part, trying to write up a 'modern myth'. It was painfully long, poorly written, having no charicteristcs of a myth, but was really just a poorly executed speculative sci-fi. The amount of times it mastubatorily congratulates itself with an analogy whipped up by the 'Other' is comically high, and the narrative is completely irrelevant. Worst, the talks with the Other just points back to the first part of the book, and shows how self-contained the whole thing is, as it just reiterates its own points, with even less opposition.
All in all, I had hoped for more, and I was probably just naive to think it was found here.
Along the way, I found the ideas to be occasionally interesting, an internally consistent, and my scepticism gave way to more simple reservation. While the metaphysics here are consistent, it doesn't really manage to convince, and, most importantly, hand-waves reality away, essentially landing within the problem of solipsism. No-one will ever be able to convince Kastrup that mind-at-large isn't all there is, as it is an entirely impossible position to disprove. But, as should be evident, that doesn't make it true.
In the end, if someone finds comfort in this, go ahead, but it's mostly air, revealing nothing about anything.
On the literary side, I was mostly okay with it, until the last part, trying to write up a 'modern myth'. It was painfully long, poorly written, having no charicteristcs of a myth, but was really just a poorly executed speculative sci-fi. The amount of times it mastubatorily congratulates itself with an analogy whipped up by the 'Other' is comically high, and the narrative is completely irrelevant. Worst, the talks with the Other just points back to the first part of the book, and shows how self-contained the whole thing is, as it just reiterates its own points, with even less opposition.
All in all, I had hoped for more, and I was probably just naive to think it was found here.
February 19, 2018
I was unsure of giving this book 3 or 4 stars. The first two parts, while written legibly and simply, still had me confused...As if the structure of some sentences was counter intuitive and I had to slow down. I ended up giving it four stars because I do think it's a book people should read- as people should read more books about the nature of myth and our place within reality. Note: I enjoy these topics and ideas and therefore very open to them.
I enjoyed the last part of the book because I had found it somewhat relatable (the more meta events, not the basic plot points). Due to some of the hidden difficulties of the first two parts, I would almost recommend that someone read the last part with an open mind, as a story that creates a setting, and then read the first two parts that solidify the initial setting. Going over the third part again, at the end, would be helpful as a reminder of how it all fits together (and some big questions get answered in a way that the first two parts don't touch).
In any case, the ideas presented here were both borne out of ancient myths/belief systems and yet created in the new framework that quantum science is suggesting. So basically, as a reader, you are getting new ideas that tie in ancient ideas with new science. Yay!
I enjoyed the last part of the book because I had found it somewhat relatable (the more meta events, not the basic plot points). Due to some of the hidden difficulties of the first two parts, I would almost recommend that someone read the last part with an open mind, as a story that creates a setting, and then read the first two parts that solidify the initial setting. Going over the third part again, at the end, would be helpful as a reminder of how it all fits together (and some big questions get answered in a way that the first two parts don't touch).
In any case, the ideas presented here were both borne out of ancient myths/belief systems and yet created in the new framework that quantum science is suggesting. So basically, as a reader, you are getting new ideas that tie in ancient ideas with new science. Yay!
June 19, 2023
For some reason I thought this would be a serious study. But this book is just a farrago of twisty moves and bunkum. It is merely sly apologetics for preconceived notions and beliefs. And neither open-minded nor rational/skeptical as claimed.
Some examples of fairly standard twisty moves:
- Science is ALSO based on myth. Just an alternative ‘truth/belief’ — Nonsense.
- Religious myth reveals transcendental ‘truths’ beyond words or reason. — Probably nonsense.
And then we are treated to his detailed construction of an idealist ontology where everything is mind/consciousness and the physical world is just an 'illusion'. It's an interesting enough idea and it has been looked at carefully in some works. ( The modern version would be how do we know we are not all in some vast 'sim' - but this just drops the problem down a level). It is an extraordinary claim requiring some very detailed analysis and extraordinary evidence. But what you get here is just so much sophomoric slop.
Some examples of fairly standard twisty moves:
- Science is ALSO based on myth. Just an alternative ‘truth/belief’ — Nonsense.
- Religious myth reveals transcendental ‘truths’ beyond words or reason. — Probably nonsense.
And then we are treated to his detailed construction of an idealist ontology where everything is mind/consciousness and the physical world is just an 'illusion'. It's an interesting enough idea and it has been looked at carefully in some works. ( The modern version would be how do we know we are not all in some vast 'sim' - but this just drops the problem down a level). It is an extraordinary claim requiring some very detailed analysis and extraordinary evidence. But what you get here is just so much sophomoric slop.
December 23, 2024
Leí More Than Allegory por recomendación de mi jefe, un estudioso de filosofía y seguidor de la filosofía integralista de Ken Wilber. La recomendación no pudo ser más acertada: este libro me abrió los ojos a cómo las narrativas simbólicas y los mitos moldean nuestra percepción de la realidad, incluso en un mundo contemporáneo donde cada vez menos personas creemos un dios o en la religión. Desde que lo leí, veo símbolos por todas partes y no puedo evitar preguntarme qué significan.
El estilo de Kastrup es muy accesible, incluso para quienes no tienen un trasfondo académico en filosofía o espiritualidad. Sin embargo, la tercera parte del libro me dejó algo insatisfecho. Aunque entiendo que no es un relato literal, su tono me pareció demasiado didáctico y un tanto condescendiente. No termino de entender por qué Kastrup no optó por compartir una experiencia más personal si buscaba transmitir algo más auténtico o resonante.
Recomendaría este libro especialmente a otros ateos como yo, porque ofrece una forma renovada de valorar el significado y la importancia de la religión, los mitos y los símbolos. No se trata de aceptar dogmas, sino de explorar las profundidades de la experiencia humana más allá de lo literal. Sin duda, es un libro que invita a reflexionar profundamente.
Calificación: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
El estilo de Kastrup es muy accesible, incluso para quienes no tienen un trasfondo académico en filosofía o espiritualidad. Sin embargo, la tercera parte del libro me dejó algo insatisfecho. Aunque entiendo que no es un relato literal, su tono me pareció demasiado didáctico y un tanto condescendiente. No termino de entender por qué Kastrup no optó por compartir una experiencia más personal si buscaba transmitir algo más auténtico o resonante.
Recomendaría este libro especialmente a otros ateos como yo, porque ofrece una forma renovada de valorar el significado y la importancia de la religión, los mitos y los símbolos. No se trata de aceptar dogmas, sino de explorar las profundidades de la experiencia humana más allá de lo literal. Sin duda, es un libro que invita a reflexionar profundamente.
Calificación: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
September 19, 2020
This is simply the most important book I have read thus far.
Kastrup’s brave and compelling ideas are a beacon for those of us who are lost in a forest of conflicting beliefs, torn in two directions by intellect and intuition. He has even cut a trail for us, marked with reason, myth, and a small portion of transcendent poetry. He explains the rift between the reality we know and the one our soul craves; demonstrates the harmony of myth, truth, and belief; and reveals the paradox of life: to discern truth in fiction, to find meaning in nothingness, to find liberation through self-annihilation.
“Partake in reality as an actor in a theatrical play: with attention, dedication and an open heart. But never believe yourself to be your character, for characters spend their lives chasing their own shadows, whereas actors embody the meaning of existence.”
Kastrup’s brave and compelling ideas are a beacon for those of us who are lost in a forest of conflicting beliefs, torn in two directions by intellect and intuition. He has even cut a trail for us, marked with reason, myth, and a small portion of transcendent poetry. He explains the rift between the reality we know and the one our soul craves; demonstrates the harmony of myth, truth, and belief; and reveals the paradox of life: to discern truth in fiction, to find meaning in nothingness, to find liberation through self-annihilation.
“Partake in reality as an actor in a theatrical play: with attention, dedication and an open heart. But never believe yourself to be your character, for characters spend their lives chasing their own shadows, whereas actors embody the meaning of existence.”
April 27, 2025
Too indulgent in the end
I thought the first section was incredible, it was deep and put into words thoughts I've had for a long time but felt alone in. It also managed to delineate where experiences leave the world of language and become that of feelings which we can only know through gnosis, a challenging conceptual barrier described by Kastrup with ease. The second part tried to rationalize much of this while acknowledging the limits of logical explanation, it seemed superfluous, but fine.
The third part is where he lost me.
While there were points that caused deep reflection on idealism and consciousness the attempt to turn a Greg Egan-esque sci fi tale into myth seemed too self aware, indulgent, and lacking the aesthetic underpinning that causes a myth to be sublime. It all fell apart.
I thought the first section was incredible, it was deep and put into words thoughts I've had for a long time but felt alone in. It also managed to delineate where experiences leave the world of language and become that of feelings which we can only know through gnosis, a challenging conceptual barrier described by Kastrup with ease. The second part tried to rationalize much of this while acknowledging the limits of logical explanation, it seemed superfluous, but fine.
The third part is where he lost me.
While there were points that caused deep reflection on idealism and consciousness the attempt to turn a Greg Egan-esque sci fi tale into myth seemed too self aware, indulgent, and lacking the aesthetic underpinning that causes a myth to be sublime. It all fell apart.
September 19, 2025
I admit that I only understand broad concepts in the conversation between "The Other" and the author although this is not the author's fault. I think he has done a great job in articulating, but I simply find the details hard to come to grip with. Overall, the discussion is mind-boggling and insightful. I enjoyed it.
I understand that the nature of "The Other" is at sub-conscious level (obfuscated mind?) while the mind-at-large is supposed to refer to God or universal mind? To an Asian like me, it is interesting that the conversations about birth, dead, reborn (we never die) never touched on concepts of karma or soul. So, the conversations only take an angle from intellect point of view. This is fair enough. This is not supposed to be a religious book. Anyway, it took me a while to map object, subject and content in my head. Mr. Bernardo, thank you. I did learn a few things.
I understand that the nature of "The Other" is at sub-conscious level (obfuscated mind?) while the mind-at-large is supposed to refer to God or universal mind? To an Asian like me, it is interesting that the conversations about birth, dead, reborn (we never die) never touched on concepts of karma or soul. So, the conversations only take an angle from intellect point of view. This is fair enough. This is not supposed to be a religious book. Anyway, it took me a while to map object, subject and content in my head. Mr. Bernardo, thank you. I did learn a few things.
August 31, 2025
Perhaps the most revealing of Kastrup's works from what I've read so far. You can sense he is pushing against the very same intellectualist brick wall Jung did that forced ideas and insights to sublimate and become "acceptable."
Kastrup gets around this by using his story of the "Trilobyte" experiment near the end of the book. Through this narrative, he delivers the most profound truths that would otherwise be simply dismissed if stated plainly.
That said, the writing in the "fiction" section wasn't amazing, though this is not Kastrup's speciality and the necessity of the method of delivery is appreciated.
Kastrup gets around this by using his story of the "Trilobyte" experiment near the end of the book. Through this narrative, he delivers the most profound truths that would otherwise be simply dismissed if stated plainly.
That said, the writing in the "fiction" section wasn't amazing, though this is not Kastrup's speciality and the necessity of the method of delivery is appreciated.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews