Thank you for this good and well-thought out post. You referenced the work of Philip Goff… Have you read any of Bernardo Kastrup’s books or articles on Analytic Idealism? (“Meaning in Absurdity,” “Dreamed Up Reality,” and “Decoding Jung’s Metaphysics” are particularly good.)
Also, what do you think of the possibility that what one might be interacting with in a haunted location is not a full personality or an imprint on the environment, but rather a complex or sub-personality, perhaps something that got broken off, like a sliver of the deceased’s subconscious?
Thanks so much for reading, Rave—and for the thoughtful comment.
I’m familiar with Analytic Idealism conceptually, though I haven’t done a deep dive into Kastrup’s books yet. Most of what I’ve come across in that realm has been through my friend Ron Yacovetti’s work with the Digital Séance Experience. Ron’s doing some incredible things in the ITC space, and I’d definitely encourage you to check out his work if you haven’t already—he approaches these ideas with a rare mix of curiosity and discipline.
Personally, my introduction to the notion of consciousness as fundamental came more through Buddhism than Western philosophy. Tibetan perspectives on mindstreams, samsara, and the illusory nature of self really shaped how I began to understand not just life and death, but also the possible mechanisms behind spirit communication. The more I explored, the more it seemed like intention, belief, and perception weren’t just filters—they were part of the transmission itself.
As for your second point—I think you’re absolutely onto something. I’ve had many sessions where it didn’t feel like I was communicating with a full, cohesive spirit, but instead with a fragment—an echo, or a sliver of something emotional and unresolved. Sometimes these feel like trauma loops, sometimes like sub-personalities or autonomous complexes. The Jungian angle you mentioned really resonates.
The longer I do this, the more I think we’re not just interacting with “ghosts” in the traditional sense—but with a whole spectrum: echoes, thoughtforms, imprints, intelligences, and maybe even fragments of the self still caught in the psychic machinery of a place.
Thanks again for the kind words—this is exactly the kind of dialogue that keeps me writing and exploring.
Thank you for this good and well-thought out post. You referenced the work of Philip Goff… Have you read any of Bernardo Kastrup’s books or articles on Analytic Idealism? (“Meaning in Absurdity,” “Dreamed Up Reality,” and “Decoding Jung’s Metaphysics” are particularly good.)
Also, what do you think of the possibility that what one might be interacting with in a haunted location is not a full personality or an imprint on the environment, but rather a complex or sub-personality, perhaps something that got broken off, like a sliver of the deceased’s subconscious?
Thanks so much for reading, Rave—and for the thoughtful comment.
I’m familiar with Analytic Idealism conceptually, though I haven’t done a deep dive into Kastrup’s books yet. Most of what I’ve come across in that realm has been through my friend Ron Yacovetti’s work with the Digital Séance Experience. Ron’s doing some incredible things in the ITC space, and I’d definitely encourage you to check out his work if you haven’t already—he approaches these ideas with a rare mix of curiosity and discipline.
Personally, my introduction to the notion of consciousness as fundamental came more through Buddhism than Western philosophy. Tibetan perspectives on mindstreams, samsara, and the illusory nature of self really shaped how I began to understand not just life and death, but also the possible mechanisms behind spirit communication. The more I explored, the more it seemed like intention, belief, and perception weren’t just filters—they were part of the transmission itself.
As for your second point—I think you’re absolutely onto something. I’ve had many sessions where it didn’t feel like I was communicating with a full, cohesive spirit, but instead with a fragment—an echo, or a sliver of something emotional and unresolved. Sometimes these feel like trauma loops, sometimes like sub-personalities or autonomous complexes. The Jungian angle you mentioned really resonates.
The longer I do this, the more I think we’re not just interacting with “ghosts” in the traditional sense—but with a whole spectrum: echoes, thoughtforms, imprints, intelligences, and maybe even fragments of the self still caught in the psychic machinery of a place.
Thanks again for the kind words—this is exactly the kind of dialogue that keeps me writing and exploring.