Consciousness, Mind, and Reality

Yes, well... Hi, Bernardo. Hi, hi, Francis.  A pleasure to be here with you. Yeah, we... we finally meet.  Neither of us is an interviewer, so I guess we're just   going to have a conversation. Yes, and perhaps it will be interesting for us  to come up with our  definitions of important terms,  such as consciousness, awareness, mind, reality. I suggest this. What do you think?  Do you have any others to add? I think these are the important ones.  I think as we elaborate on them, maybe we need to define terms.  Yes, yes. So, because my mother tongue is French, in French, we don't... we are not fancy.  We have only one word, which is "conscience." We don't have the word "awareness,"  so for us, it means both. So, my definition of consciousness/awareness  is the reality which is  hearing my words right now,  the reality which is hearing my words. And for those who are seeing these images,  it's going to be the reality  of seeing these images  and hearing these words. That would be my definition   of awareness/consciousness. My definition of reality...  In fact, it's not the real philosophical term, because usually, reality for philosophers  refers to the hypothetical existence of... of the world outside.  But there is that... to mean the set of all material things,  or all physical things. And that's not my definition of reality.  My definition of reality would  be the "thingness" of things.  And things include all things, not just physical things outside,  but also whatever is perceived in awareness. Basically, everything is a thing.  So, reality would be the totality of the cosmos. It would be, if you will, what Spinoza   defines as substance. And he defines a substance  as that which cannot not exist. I'm translating from Latin...  The essence of which implies its existence. Existence involves it.  That which cannot not exist. Now, there is a fourth one, which is mind.  Okay... Uh... I think mind can refer to two different concepts of things.  One... there are two questions. What is mind experientially, for us human beings?  And the second question is mind as a model. So, what mind is for us, experientially,  is basically the phenomenal aspect of our human existence, right?  It is comprised of thoughts, sensations, external perceptions, sense...  Okay, I use the word consciousness in a way entirely consistent with your definition.  That consciousness is the reality that experiences what is being experienced.  Now, in philosophy of mind, or in analytic philosophy of mind,  people try to be more precise in definition. So they use the combination of terms:  "phenomenal consciousness." And what that means is that...  if there is something it is like to be an entity, then that entity is phenomenally conscious.  In other words, if there is experience, there is consciousness.  That's the rough definition,  the way I like to define it.  And it's more specific  because the usual definition  seems to suggest that there are two things: the consciousness that experiences  and the experiences themselves. And I think that that can be dangerous  because I don't think they are two things at all. It's not like there is an experience that comes  and is received by the  consciousness that experiences.  So, one short definition that  I have used in the past is:  consciousness is that whose  excitations are experiences.  Yes, I... I would agree with that. In other words, there is only consciousness.  Experiences are just the different modes of excitation of consciousness.  It sounds like QFT, but indeed, that's where the inspiration comes from...  Quantum Field Theory, in which all the particles are just excitations  of the 17 quantum fields. Mind... I... I am more flexible.  If I'm not prompted, I tend to use the word "mind" in the same sense as "phenomenal consciousness"  because, in the philosophical  tradition, this has been done.  Like Descartes talked about psyche in the sense that we speak of as conscious,  phenomenal consciousness today. But I see validity in trying   to reserve that word for something more specific.  Like, mind could be what Schopenhauer called "abstract representations."  It is the conceptual part of thinking, as opposed to the intuitive part,  or the feeling-toned part. Is that for the representation part?  Indeed, precisely that. So, there are different types   of Vorstellung under Schopenhauer. One of them are the abstract ones,  and then there are... Now... now I'm mixing up German with English.  Representation, and yeah, abstract representations are the indirect ones,  if I remember correctly. So, that would be concepts.  So, one could say mind is the conceptual part of conscious activity.  But if I'm not prompted, I might use the word "mind" as a synonym for…  So, one could say mind is the conceptual part of conscious activity.  But if I'm not prompted, I might use the word "mind" as a synonym for...  Phenomenal consciousness. And reality, under analytic philosophy,  tends to be defined as "the  sum total of what is the case."  But of course, this is strange, because it's just a tautology.  That's Wittgenstein... "The world is that which is the case."  Yeah, but that's where analytic  philosophy originated from.  Even though Wittgenstein contradicted himself almost completely later in his life,  he changed his mind totally. We still have some of those throwbacks  to these definitions. So, reality would be   the sum total of what is the case. In my view, reality and phenomenal consciousness  are synonymous. But that's already the result.  That's what is involved in my views. It's not that we could say  that experientially they are the same... Conceptually, they may or may not be the same,  but experientially, they are obviously the same. Yeah, coextensive, completely.  Yeah, yeah. Even our abstract theoretical entities,  that are not directly experienced in any way... Well, they exist as the experience  of making the abstraction. Yeah, so even then, they are coextensive.  Yeah, okay. So, I have to keep that in mind.  When we use the word "mind," I will understand in what sense you mean it.  Yeah, maybe the audience... we need to help the audience follow along.  Yeah, yeah. So, if we start from there,  I think we have to be very careful to make a distinction between actual experience  and models, concepts. Of course, as Krishnamurti used to say,  "the word is not the thing." But there are words that point to concepts,  and there are words that  point to direct experience.  And direct experience is always, in my definition of it,  whatever is experienced by consciousness directly. For instance, we can say that   an elementary particle is experienced, but it's   experienced in a detector, in a hadron collider.  But it's not experienced  directly by consciousness.  So, that doesn't qualify as direct experience. You would agree with that?  Absolutely. Right.  So, in fact, direct experience boils down, in my view, to three categories...  At least from my perspective, the three categories that human   experience is comprised of... The mind part, bodily sensations,  external sense perceptions, and thoughts and concepts.  Where would you place emotions and intuitions? That's interesting.  Emotions are a mix... A mixture of bodily sensations and thoughts  that kind of trigger each other or are synthetically unified in perception.  But I don't think that we can separate emotion from bodily sensations.  I think bodily sensations are a wider category that includes emotions.  Regarding intuition, then we have to... There is a lot to sort out there,  because it could be thoughts, it could be a bodily   sensation that triggers a thought. But I think the main discrimination  we could make among what we call intuitions depends on their origin.  There are intuitions that come from the known, from the past,  and there are intuitions that  come from out of the box,  so to speak... Out of the box of the mind.  And if I use an example, because I use this one   since it's a very important one... It is the intuition of being conscious.  For me, the intuition of being conscious is the type of pure intuition...  The intuition that comes out of the box. Let me... I think it's an important point.  Let me develop it a little bit. Most people believe that the reason  why we believe we are conscious, why we believe there is consciousness,  is derived from phenomenal experience— thoughts, bodily sensations, sense perceptions.  And they say, "No, no. There is no such thing   as the experience of pure consciousness." They deny the possibility of such an experience.  And they say, "In fact, we derive   our knowledge that we are conscious from phenomenal experience."  It's a... it's a case of... The word escapes me...  Like, if there is smoke, there must be fire.  How do we call that again? You understand what I mean?  I understand. So, it's an implication.  Smoke implies fire. No, it's not the word I was   looking for, but anyway... So, in this analogy,  let's assume fire stands for consciousness, smoke stands for the presence of a mentation,  a perception appearing in consciousness. In order for us to say,  "There is mentation, therefore  there is consciousness,"  if we go back to the fire and smoke analogy... For us to determine that there   was fire behind the hill because we saw smoke on top of the hill,  we need to have numerous prior experiences where we saw fire and smoke simultaneously.  If we are an alien just landing on Earth who has never seen fire  and sees smoke on top of the hill, they would not know.  They cannot know there is fire down there. It requires for them to have at least once  seen fire and smoke coming out of it, so that next time they can say,   "Yes, therefore..." So, if we say that the   reason why we know we are conscious is because we perceive mentations—  the smoke— that requires for us to have,  at least at some point in the past, had the direct experience of consciousness,  and the thoughts, the perceptions emanating out of it.  Which is precisely what is denied in this case. So, they are playing a trick on us.  It seems very natural to say, "Okay, yes, you don't have the direct   experience of consciousness. It's not possible.  You only assume there is consciousness because you..."  Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know who you're referring to...  who makes these claims. Yeah, I don’t know...  No, no, many people make these claims. I’m not aiming this at anybody.  Many people who come to my  events make these claims.  They ask me, "Francis, but why?  Why, you know? I know that I’m conscious  because I see the table in front of me." If we just say,  "Any experience betrays the  presence of consciousness,  because consciousness is that which exper --- y  that is strictly smaller than 100%. Are we always experiencing  consciousness experiencing itself at all times, in addition to the other types of experience?  Or is the direct experience of consciousness something that happens only now and then?  Or does it not happen together with the rest? The answer is,  we are at all times experiencing consciousness. Consciousness is experiencing itself at all times.  In the absence of perception, remember, in the absence of perception,  there is no time elapsing. Yeah, I understand that.  That’s very important. So, this experience of pure consciousness  has two features, if you will, that enable us to distinguish it.  One, the absolute certainty it comes with. Number two, timelessness.  No time elapses. Schopenhauer would disagree,  but I sense where you’re going, and I can follow along.  Yeah, Schopenhauer would say that time is intrinsic even to   introspective experience, without perception.  Yeah, because he sees it still from the vantage point of the objective side.  Eventually, he does try to deny that time exists at all in the   will as it is in itself. And he acknowledges  that we can get to a state of awareness in which it also disappears,  when the subject gets lost  in that which is experienced.  But he would say that time  is different from space,  because without perception, there is no space,  but there is still a sequence of thoughts, so there’s time.  Then he's going to have a  big problem with Einstein.  Indeed, yeah. But, to tell you the truth,  I don’t give a flying rat’s ass about whatever Schopenhauer said.  I'm old enough now to rely solely on my experience,  and the rest, I don’t care. I mean, Schopenhauer was great,  he had beautiful intuitions. For me, his idea of representation  means he had an intuition of phenomenal stuff. The "will" part was this first impulse  that creates, you know... And that comes a bit...  Anyway, I’m not defending him. I am not a subject of King Schopenhauer.  Yeah, no, no, I didn’t mean that. I was just trying to bring other references,  but I’m not married to Schopenhauer either. Yeah, so that’s extremely important.  Once we recognize, once we are open to the possibility  of the experience of pure consciousness, in the absence of perceptions,  of course, that comes with this absolute certainty and timelessness.  Because then we are aware of the possibility of metaphysical investigation.  You could call it that. Metaphysical investigation.  Because before that, we think that this path is closed.  If we think that all there is to us, all there is to reality,  is perception— whether we come from a realist perspective  or from an idealist perspective... Right?  Which is idealism à la, for instance... Then we have decided, right off the bat,  that there was no other direction to explore. So, what I’m trying to do is say,  "No, no. There is another path of exploration." There is another mode of knowledge  that is open to us, which is the mode of knowledge  from which we derive this certainty of being, of existence,  the certainty of consciousness, the certainty of reality.  Now, the question becomes: Well, is there other stuff?  Is there other stuff that we— once we have opened this path of exploration—  can we learn more from that place? Mhm.  You see? Can we learn more from that place?  And that becomes... That is interesting.  But I don’t want to monopolize the conversation. I have a lot of questions.  And I don’t mind that you  monopolize the conversation.  I’m here to learn. Well, so am I.  Well, you’ve done some more  of that than me before.  What do you see as the relationship between what psychology calls "metacognition"—  the ability of consciousness  to turn in upon itself  and investigate its own contents, and recognize itself as subject?  That ability to metacognize— is that the same as the pure experience  of consciousness itself? I think we have to be clear  about what we mean by that. Because it could mean two things  that are completely different. It could mean, on the one hand,  the experience I’m referring to— the experience through which we know  that we are conscious. And it could mean also something else,  which is the conceptualization of it in the mind. For instance, the word "consciousness" itself  is a concept, right? It’s a placeholder.  Or the word "I," perhaps. Or the word "reality."  The word is not the thing. This second type of metacognition  requires, of course, a mind, in the usual sense of the term.  Right? Conceptualizing of the self.  So, it can point at itself. But the experience of the self, by itself,  doesn’t require anything, because my contention is that   it creates everything it perceives.  So, ultimately, the king is not  dependent upon his subjects.  Would one of these two  interpretations of metacognition  be the same as what you mean by the pure experience of consciousness?  Or the experience of pure consciousness? Uh... I don’t know.  We should define metacognition A and metacognition B.  Metacognition A being the experience of pure consciousness.  And metacognition B being a reflection of this experience as a mind construct.  Yeah, in psychology, it’s B that is meant. Yeah, because metacognition entails...  It requires a re-representation of the contents of consciousness.  So, it cannot be pure consciousness. It has to have some content  that can be conceptualized, and therefore, re-represented.  Because— you see, that’s the point.  Only consciousness experiences itself. An object of consciousness  doesn’t perceive consciousness. For instance, a thought doesn’t think.  Yeah, the thought of an elephant doesn’t think the thought of a hunter.  Yeah, right. Perception doesn’t perceive.  In other words, we have to make a distinction between the reality that perceives—  that you and I call consciousness— and the objects of perception.  One is real. The others are less real,  because they depend... Yeah, yeah.  On consciousness. That’s what, in the Bhagavad Gita,  Krishna says: "The beings   have their roots in me. I do not have my roots in them."  Yeah, yeah. But the extraordinary thing—  and I think that you and I have something touching into this—  is that this apparently  ordinary consciousness of ours  is, in fact, universal. It’s just that, through this human vehicle,  there is an extraordinarily small window. An extraordinarily small restriction.  But at the origin, behind it, it’s the entire universe.  When we say, when we point to this experience  of pure consciousness— so that we know that we are conscious—  we have to be open to the fact that, at that moment,  we are at the center of the universe. And what I say seems completely,  you know, improbable. It may sound anthropocentric  to those who are not really  grasping what you mean.  Exactly. Because the same can   be said about anything else. They, too, are the center.  Because they imply— there is a tacit implication  that consciousness is limited. So, then it sounds anthropocentric.  Of course. Right.  Right, precisely. Yeah, yeah, I know exactly what you mean.  And then, the thing is— if we go back to understanding...  Ordinary understanding, but true understanding.  Not something mechanical, which is simply the repetition of...  you know, 2 + 2 = 4. We have learned that as kids.  It comes... there is no understanding there.  Real understanding— you’re trying to solve a problem in math,  you don’t know how, and all of a sudden—  bingo! Right?  Yeah. Something happens there.  And the data you are trying to put together, like a puzzle,  you know, it’s a train of thoughts. But it’s also images in the mind,  perhaps in a two-dimensional or three-dimensional realm.  And at some point, all of that dissolves.  And in one single moment, you move from "I don’t understand"  to "I understand." It’s not a gradual step.  You cannot be half-pregnant. Right, yeah.  It’s binary. Yeah.  So, what happens in this moment? There is a gap—  between the question and, all of a sudden, the answer that comes.  This gap is a timeless moment. It means that the question that was formulated—  which is a mind object— dissolves in consciousness,  the all-knowing. That which creates everything.  And the answer comes. Consciousness...  This all-knowing kind of tweaks the brain, or the mind,  whatever... And then you have the result.  You have the egg— the golden egg—  from intelligence. In other words, intelligence is non-local.  Meaning is non-local. Consciousness is non-local.  People believe it is local, but it is not local.  Understanding is non-local. When we understand,  we are again at the center of the universe, at the center of reality.  And that’s the place of intelligence. That’s also the place of love,  of beauty... It’s a place of eternity and immortality.  You see? It’s the most extraordinary place,  which is our reality as human beings. Yeah.  There is some of what you're saying that I recognize instinctively,  and I can argue conceptually for as well. Like intelligence being non-local—  it's that moment of insight that is outside space-time.  There is no "where" it comes from. It just is.  It is immanent in the whole of existence.  I resonate with that completely. It’s obvious to me.  What I have never managed to achieve is a recognition of the experience  of pure consciousness without content. And part of my difficulty, I think,  is my own conceptual mind. Because if I conceptualize it,  my logic goes this way: If you remove all the contents of consciousness,  and you say that what then remains is the experience of pure consciousness,  then that experience becomes the last content of consciousness.  Absolutely. Absolutely.  And this experience is somehow the last obstacle. Because, in fact, this experience  is not the experience of pure consciousness. The experience is like a blank state,  or a white screen. That is still a projection of the mind.  So, there is still something there. Exactly.  And it’s the last veil. It’s the last veil on the path.  I am interested in— which is the path of liberation.  That’s an obstacle that usually the guru helps   the student to get rid of. And when we try to go  to the experience of pure consciousness... Remember that it is not sustainable   in time. Because time is not present there.  From the vantage point of the mind, it looks like a zero-duration interval  between two perceptions. Right?  It’s infinitesimal. It’s vertical.  It’s like, in our common language, the word "understand."  Right? I have the thought,  I’m trying to understand... And then, there’s the moment of understanding.  Yeah, yeah. Instead of standing above,  I stand under. I "understand."  I go to the understanding. Right.  And then I can formulate it. Yeah --- at you had this intuition. It’s just that you don’t give it its true value  because you have the wrong interpretation of it after the fact.  You see? And that is an obstacle.  Because look— You have the intuition   that consciousness is universal. No matter how you got there,  you got that. Some form of understanding.  You see? Then you say, "No, no,  but I missed the experience. I missed the experience."  But the one who misses the experience is precisely the one who didn’t have it.  You know? So just throw this one out the window.  It’s better to assume: "Well, I couldn’t have   this type of interest in my life unless I had some recognition,  some instantaneous recognition." And it is these moments of   instantaneous recognition that then work through us,  bringing about more and more clarity, more and more space and light.  And then, all the aspects of our lives that previously seemed compartmentalized—  all of that gets unified. You see?  We don’t see that. And at the same time,  the fear of absolute disappearance leaves us. Sometimes, for some people,  it leaves instantly. For others,  it kind of evaporates over time. After five years,  you say, "Well, I am in a completely different place now."  Yeah. That... that I understand better.  Yeah, you see? Look, I don’t think I got that experience,  or that key moment in which certain things became absolutely clear.  I had small instances of that— Like when I understood  that you can never explain consciousness in terms of material structures.  That was like that. It was like—  When I understood the hard  problem of consciousness,  it was clear to me instantly. But what about in terms of mind structures?  How do you mean? Because you made a distinction—  "I cannot explain consciousness in terms of material structures."  Meaning— what about in terms of thoughts?  Concepts? No, it became clear to me  that consciousness is the  matrix of everything else.  That everything else is an arrangement within consciousness,  made of consciousness. That became clear as well.  What I never grasped was the experience of pure consciousness.  And what never happened to me was that moment of liberation.  Well... let's separate these two. I hope I have shown you  that you have had the experience  of pure consciousness.  The fact that we use the  words "pure consciousness"—  Most of us have had the  experience of pure consciousness.  It’s just that they deny it after the fact. If we ask John Doe,  "Are you conscious?" Most of them will say yes.  And then, if we ask them, "Do you know that from hearsay  or from direct experience?" Most of them would say,  "From direct experience." You see?  Does that liberate them? Not yet.  Because they know that they are consciousness, but they have not explored  the implications of this experience. Then, what is important is...  What this experience of pure  consciousness delivers for us  is that it deconstructs beliefs we had about it  that we acquired from society. For instance, if we ask ourselves a question—  Based on my experience, can I assign a beginning in time  to my consciousness? Because whatever anybody else says about that  has no value. Because it would imply  that they had access to an experience different from mine.  That they are like Superman, Superwoman, very different beings.  So, I don’t buy that. So, if I cannot make this decision  based on my memory— meaning phenomenal experience—  that my consciousness had a beginning, the only reasonable conclusion is to say,  "I don’t know." Right?  Another question: Do I know that consciousness  is dependent upon this body or upon this mind—  this human mind that appears to it? The answer is,  "I don’t know." Now, the question is:  Am I absolutely certain that— Based on that, I don’t know.  We can say, "Yes, based on that,  I am absolutely certain that I don’t know."  That I am limited in space and time by this body? I am absolutely certain that I don’t know.  Because there is space in my dreams as well. So, we can reach an absolute certainty  of uncertainty. And that’s very important.  Most people will say, "You have achieved nothing."  Well, I have news for you— If you get rid of a belief  which is unsubstantiated, you are traveling much lighter in life.  Yeah, yeah. That’s progress.  Yeah. Because then,  when we don’t carry any unsubstantiated beliefs about consciousness,  something happens— Consciousness is then allowed to be  what it truly is. It liberates itself.  In other words, we don’t need to go to the next step.  The next step being: "I know that consciousness is universal."  Because that would simply  be a conclusion in the mind.  Are you following me? A conclusion in the mind  that consciousness is universal. Let’s say,  "I have the experience that consciousness is universal."  Okay. And then I   store that in... Yeah, yeah.  And then I store that in the mind. But then, what’s the value of it?  The moment it is stored in the mind, it’s no longer the experience.  Correct. It’s a memory.  Yeah. Therefore—  Therefore, it’s a pointer. Yeah.  It remains as a pointer. It has a limited usefulness,  provided you use this pointer. Many people come to me,  and they had this experience— you know, the big transcendental experience.  They had it. But what happens after the fact  is that they stick to the memory of it. And they claim,  "Well, I don’t have this experience any longer." Yeah, I have that problem.  At that moment, they’re out of it. Because the one who claims  that he didn’t have the experience is the mind.  Yeah. And they identify with the mind.  Yeah. The experience—  What the experience was revealing at the time is the universality of consciousness.  That your consciousness is universal. Just stick to it in the future.  Or at least be agnostic about it. Live your life.  "I don’t know whether  consciousness is universal or not."  Live your life like this. That opens up a full field of experimentation.  Because in many cases, I will act differently,  I will think differently, depending on whether consciousness  is universal or not. So, depending—  When I reach this fork in the road, depending on where I go,  there will be an outcome. This outcome then will reverberate back to me.  And also, it’s an indirect verification. We are discovering a new lepton  in the hadron collider. It's unlikely there will be a new lepton,  but who knows? There will be supersymmetry,  who knows, right? Yeah.  And so... Although it is a phenomenal element,  for instance, a serendipitous event happening as a result of that,  of a reharmonization in the world and in me, that is a hint.  That is an indirect verification. And ultimately, for me,  to live in wisdom means to live from this not knowing.  I know that consciousness is. I know reality is.  I know consciousness is real. But I have no hypothesis,  really, practically in my life, about what it is.  I live my life from this not knowing, allowing for this reality/consciousness  to be whatever it is, right now, at every moment.  And that’s what we both are doing, because we are both of good will in that sense.  You see what I mean? I confess to experiencing, right now,  a bit of anxiety. And I’ll share with you why.  I used to search, to look for wisdom,  for understanding. Not just conceptual understanding—  because very early, I realized that conceptual understanding  doesn’t get you very far. You are still the same wreck you were before,  just a smart wreck. But you're still a wreck.  Very early, I understood that. Maybe it's my mental experience  and the way you use the word "mind." But whatever I identify with at some   point concluded: "You can’t do it.  Other people can. You can’t.  You are born with the cards that nature hands you. These are the cards you can play.  Some good cards, some bad. These ones you don’t have."  And I got to a point where I made peace  with my own limitations and whatever impossibilities I thought I had.  And I stopped fighting suffering. Because when you fight suffering,  you meta-suffer. And that’s much worse than suffering.  So now, I just suffer, and it's okay.  And you're giving me hope that maybe—  maybe I can get there, actually. Maybe I will want to start searching again.  And that’s the anxiety I feel slightly now. The hope.  The anxiety that comes with the hope that maybe, who knows?  Maybe, just maybe, I could get there.  And I don’t want to want that at this point. If you know what I mean.  I don’t know if you've ever come across a case as neurotic as mine,  but I’m being open to you. There is a feather sort of tickling me now,  like... "Perhaps, who knows?" That’s good.  That’s good. But, you know, let me ask you a question.  When you think about these matters— consciousness, life, reality—  doesn't it trigger in you some thrill of happiness?  In a sense, yes. In a sense, no.  Mostly, my experience of doing philosophy comes out of a sense of responsibility.  It’s like, "I have the words.  So nature can do the words through me." So it’s my responsibility to do that.  It’s like a weight. It’s like a bag on my shoulders.  And every book I finish, I go, "Oh, thank God!"  And then, when the next one pops into my mind,  I go like, "Oh, [ __ ], oh no.  Here we go again." So, from that sense, no.  But there is another sense... That Bert predicted in me years ago,  when we were having dinner at some restaurant in Amsterdam.  Years ago. I don’t remember exactly when.  And I shared with him what I thought was true. And it was true at the time.  I told him, "All my idealist talk, it’s all...  it’s all head stuff. It’s a conceptual play.  I can play that conceptual game very well, and it is intellectually satisfying to me.  And I share that, but I don’t live it."  And then he said, "It will happen slowly.  You will not even notice that it’s happening." And that prediction came true.  I am not as neurotic today as I used to be.  And I can’t even tell you when that happened or why that happened exactly.  But I’m still neurotic. You know?  I remember. Because the first time I told you,  perhaps six years ago, Bert was in Toulouse visiting.  And he told me about you. And I remember asking him this question about you:  "Is he happy?" And he said,  "Well, he confesses he’s not." Something to that effect.  Yeah. And it is this passage  from the concept to the experience. It is like a virus you catch.  In this moment, this timeless moment,  when you are open to the possibility that consciousness is universal,  you catch the virus. And then it does its job  through the entire system. I feel more content now  than I was when Bert and I had that discussion. It was more than six years ago.  It was way before the pandemic. Maybe 2016?  I don’t remember. Pe --- he will be forever the Übermensch for me.  You know? The perfect authoritative source of wisdom.  Because of that, I think—  This is my own self-analysis— I don’t think I will ever land there.  So, I would have great fear of finding myself in the position  that you and Bert are in. It’s like sheer terror.  I cannot be in the position of the source of wisdom  that will help people. I cannot carry that weight.  Sheer terror about that possibility. It’s really—  It’s the most sensitive spot in my soul. The most heavily guarded.  You know? It’s surrounded by an army,  nuclear-weapon-armed. So, that’s one thing.  At least I recognize that today. I didn’t for the longest time.  The other thing is that part  of the bit of contentment  and peace I have arrived at today has to do with the realization  that none of my life has ever been about me. That none of this is about me,  will ever be, or has ever been. It’s not about me at all.  It’s about nature. Bernardo Kastrup is a doing of nature.  It’s an instrument of what nature is doing. It’s not about Bernardo Kastrup.  So, if Bernardo Kastrup now  wants to be enlightened,  I will lose that peace. Because it becomes about me.  Nobody— That contentment—  He's going to get there. There is nobody enlightened.  There is nobody enlightened. There is only consciousness.  Consciousness is light. Right?  And this light— I mean, this—  The spirit blows wherever it wants to. You know, sometimes you find a source of truth,  and the next moment, this source of truth is no longer there.  And then you find another source of truth. And you know, this reality   is totally unpredictable. My teacher had a devastating stroke.  And the next moment, the source of truth was no longer there.  And then he died two years later. An apparent source of truth may make mistakes,  may have... The Tantra says:  "In the instant one liberates oneself, in the instant one binds oneself."  In other words, there are no guarantees there.  You see? But regarding—  And a lot of people who teach, they don’t really teach from this experience.  And a lot of people who don’t teach live from this experience.  That, we have to... You know, not everything that shines is gold.  Right? And there is also gold in many places,  which is hidden and doesn’t shine. Yeah.  But do you know the story of that Buddhist monk  at the time of the Vietnam War? He wanted to protest the war.  And the way he did it was to self-immolate.  So, he sat in a meditative position, doused himself with fuel,  set himself alight, and remained impassive, meditating.  Without even accelerated breathing. Nothing.  Impassive. No sign of pain,  as his body was being burned. And he just toppled over  when he was basically carbonized. Wasn't that person enlightened?  Isn't that true enlightenment? I have no clue about that.  I have no clue about that. All I can say is that, if it happened to me,  I’m quite sure I wouldn’t stay motionless. Me neither.  I wouldn’t do that, to begin with. So, we are obviously not enlightened.  It’s like all these phenomenal judgments. You know, about these kind of   prerequisites for enlightenment. That you have to accomplish miracles,  you have to levitate, you have to be clairvoyant,  you have to predict the future. I mean... come on.  You have been teaching for many years. You've changed a lot of people's lives.  How do you regard what you do? You see?  How do you regard what you do? I enjoy it.  I enjoy it. You know, it’s like a bird  singing in the forest. Perhaps there are people listening.  Perhaps nobody really is listening. I mean, I need some audience,  I have to confess that. But ultimately,  I'm like someone singing... Singing.  Sometimes in the bathroom, in the shower. And sometimes in some meeting hall.  And sometimes here. Also, I must say,  I’ve always enjoyed teaching. So you enjoy what you do.  Yeah. I have.  Listen, I’ve taught tennis to my kids and to people.  I’ve taught math. I’ve taught physics.  It’s your life. It’s your thing.  It was my vocation. Teaching was a vocation.  And then you need to love what you teach. So I love tennis.  I love math. I love physics.  I love, more than that, let’s call it philosophy.  Right? And then, it’s a kind of coming together—  a vocation and a love for what I teach. And I understand very well  that there are people who say, "Oh, if I get enlightened,  I have to teach." "If I get enlightened,  I have to understand this." No!  You can be a gardener. You can be anything.  You can be a businessman. You can be an aviator.  You can be so many things. Just follow your heart’s desire.  You can be a philosopher. You can be a conceptual guy  and be the new Husserl, or the new Heidegger.  Right? And why not?  Because I like who I am. The life trajectory of this instrument  was different for you, different for me.  But hopefully, as we move on this path,  this peace, this love, and this happiness shine.  And we get rid of this heavy weight from the past.  You know, I noticed, in my case, the reason I became interested in these things...  I never... When I studied philosophy in my late teens—  I mean, before that, of course, I had translated Plato and others—  but in my late teens, that was really philosophy.  You know, with Kant and all these guys. But whatever I felt,  it was a dead end. It’s like a plane that never lands.  We are in the realm of concepts, but we never land on reality.  So, I thought,  "I better go for physics and math." Because at least there,  I know something. Yeah, I know.  And also, I came from an atheist family  with a scientific background. Later on,  I understood that I was wrong. That’s an interesting point.  I understood the power of philosophy— which is not in knowledge.  Modern philosophers think that philosophy is more knowledge.  They see philosophy as an evolving science. That’s not the case.  The power of philosophy resides in this: Let’s start with words  and the distinction between  information and meaning.  There are words that point to objects, but that don’t deliver their referent.  For instance, if I say "computer," or if I say "beer,"  we know what it refers to. But it’s not going to bring a glass of beer to me.  It’s not going to deliver it. But words such as "consciousness,"  "reality"—  they appear in their referent. The word "I" appears in me.  The word "consciousness" appears in consciousness. The word "reality" appears in reality.  Yeah, yeah. So they have a unique feature—  that as they dissolve, because they cannot maintain themselves,  it's an energy. This energy is going to dissipate.  Right? They taper off,  and they lead to their referent. They lead to this timeless experience  of "I," of reality,  of consciousness. We don’t notice it.  The way we notice it is in  the form of understanding.  "Oh yes, I know I am conscious." "Yes, I understand what Francis said."  "Yes, I get it." "Yes, that’s true."  "Yes, that’s my experience." You know?  That’s the way we formulate it after the fact.  It’s too late. We have already been killed by the virus.  Yeah, yeah. It’s too late.  You see? But—  So the power— It’s a kind of—  If you take the universe of words, there is a singularity.  And this singularity is a subset of words— like "consciousness,"  "reality," "I"—  We can find others— "God,"  "substance," "being."  It’s a subset. So if you consider that all the words  which share this quality of self-reference— we could say, self-reference—  Okay, you could put— It’s an equivalence relation.  So you have the set of these words with this equivalence relation,  and you call it "R." And if you take the quotient set  of all words by this one, then you have this singularity.  There. You have this...  And that’s this singularity. For me, that is the real foundation of philosophy.  But of philosophy as I define it. Not as a mode of acquisition of knowledge.  Because I feel that, okay— we go back—  Perhaps, historically, philosophy didn’t go many places.  Philosophy, defined as a kind of science, didn’t produce much.  What you’re saying— And it begs the question:  What is the goal of philosophy? Is it more knowledge?  Because then, science does quite a good job in that regard.  I don’t think that philosophy can compete with physics  in practical applications. Right?  It is something about the recursiveness of self-reference.  There lies the value. This is the most original  and compelling definition  of philosophy I have heard.  You know, the words of John Wheeler, the famous physicist...  I’m paraphrasing, but it’s about that.  Philosophy is far too important to be left to philosophers.  Oh nice. Yeah. And so, what’s the goal of philosophy? You know, I like this definition.  I think it’s the French  philosopher Jacques Maritain.  I don’t know whether you know him. I have heard the name,  but I don’t know his work. I think he said somewhere,  "The goal of philosophy is  to liberate oneself from fear  through the use of reason." So, my definition is:  The goal of philosophy is happiness. Philosophy—  And in antiquity, it was about the art of living.  You take the Cynics. You take the Stoics.  You take the Epicureans. You take all of them.  Marcus Aurelius. You take all of these old guys.  It’s about how to live life. Yeah, yeah.  Epicurus gets the fame for it, but everybody else was trying to   do the same thing. Yeah, indeed.  Even the Stoics. Yeah.  And that changed. That changed.  And especially when modern science took off. Then, people like Kant—  they were kind of jealous. You know?  So they wanted to build philosophy in the same way that you build mathematics,  starting with, let’s say, set theory and axioms and theorems.  That didn’t work, really. Yeah, we just need to look  at analytic philosophy today. Even a brief glance will show us  that it definitely did not work. And probably will not work.  Francis, I really want to stay talking to you. But I have visitors arriving.  Of course, of course. It was beautiful.  Can we do this again? We do it again.  We do it again. So, are you really willing to do this again?  Because you’re not getting much from me. I’m getting more from you.  But if you’re willing to do it again, I would love to.  I’d love to do it again. No, but there are many   other topics we could explore. Like the connection of this with physics,  computers, AI... You know?  Meaning versus information. How does that relate to quantum physics?  Yeah yeah. Okay. It was very sweet to see you. I’m sorry I took all the time.  But I made you do it. And I knew I was doing it.  Maybe it was a little bit egocentric on my side. But I couldn’t resist.  I needed to hear certain things from you. I really wanted to.  But we do it again, I promise. I’ll try to say more.