Is the Philosopher Bernardo Kastrup Stalking Me?

 

---

“We’re not ever letting this go. You will be held accountable.”

— Bernardo Kastrup (From a personal email he sent me, see screenshot below.)

“Well, I’m determined to disprove this now and make an example of this particular troll, even if it takes us years.” 

 — Bernardo Kastrup (See source here.)

---

Why use the word “stalking”?

Mainly because the philosopher Bernardo Kastrup has sent me threatening emails, asked for my address on X (which, no doubt, he'd share), told his followers that I may be “possibly be a woman” who lives in Lancashire (he’s now, for some reason, narrowed it down to “probably in the Morecambe area”), etc.

And considering how aggressive and zealous some — even many — of Kastrup’s followers are (see screenshots below, as well as the replies after any YouTube interview with Kastrup), I do feel a little uncomfortable. 

In any case, Kastrup is now doing research on me to find as much dirt and detail (such as where I live) as possible. As stated, he’s already said that I may be a woman, that I use a pseudonym, that I may live in Morecambe, that I’m a follower of George Gurdjieff (I had to Google this name), etc. 

It’s all very conspiratorial stuff. Indeed, it’s almost cultish. 

It’s also worth noting here that Kastrup has already “updated” his piece on me. He’ll almost inevitably do so further in the future as he finds out that his claims about me, where I live, my sex, my links to George Gurdjieff, etc. are obviously false. So I’ve screenshot Kastrup’s entire piece just in case he changes details after the fact.

Kastrup only recently seems to have noted my ‘Bernardo Kastrup: The Idealist Cult-Leader Who Endlessly Abuses Others’ essay. That's probably because it now appears in his “Bernardo Kastrup” alert, or because it now ranks high in the Google search of “Bernardo Kastrup”. 

Kastrup has more or less admitted that he consults the Internet looking for praise and criticisms. In his own words:

“His hit-piece now appears on my Google Knowledge Panel sometimes as the very first hit (see screenshot below).”

And here:

“[] There are two or three thousand Google searches on my name every day [].”

So when Kastrup finds what he calls “trolls” (or critics), it’s now clear what he does: he abuses them, and attempts to sue them.

Thus, my new post is defensive piece in anticipation of Kastrup’s later words and actions. After all, Kastrup has adopted a by-any-means-necessary approach to this issue. That is, he has said that he’ll do anything (in his own words) “to make an example of [me], even if it takes us years”.

Bernardo Kastrup’s Gripe

All Kastrup’s actions and words are a response to my piece ‘Bernardo Kastrup: The Idealist Cult-Leader Who Endlessly Abuses Others’, which was published on May 17th, 2023 — almost a year ago! 

Kastrup responded to my piece on his own serial abuse with lots of…well, abuse. Take this example:

“I’d be very surprised if he had even an undergraduate degree [] we can only assume that he is what he seems to be: an angry nobody living on social security and spouting his grievances from a rented bedroom). His piece is petty, small-minded, and childish.”

And later:

“He comes across to me as a mediocre, envy little troll with a grudge, who is liable for the crime of libel and doesn’t have the guts to properly identify himself, preferring instead to cower behind a keyboard. It’s embarrassing for me to have to deal with this kind of sorry figure.”

I wrote my essay ‘Bernardo Kastrup: The Idealist Cult-Leader Who Endlessly Abuses Others’ for many good reasons. And, in response, Kastrup has accused my of “libel”… 

Yet the essay itself is about Kastrup’s very own “libels” against, and abuse of, many philosophers and scientists!

Kastrup is also attempting to get the publishing platform Medium to cancel me, or at least cancel my essay on him. Apparently, he even used his own “legal team”, which has sent letters to Medium.

What’s more, some (even many) of Kastrup’s “followers” seem to have taken his word for all these things too. Kastrup himself uses the word “followers” about his… followers. 

Kastrup comparing how many “followers” he has to how many followers Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have.

Bernardo Kastrup’s Followers

[A meme which was created by one of Kastrup's followers.]

More on Kastrup’s followers.

All of a sudden, my old essay (from almost a year ago) received a few new responses. Many of them are almost word-for-word what Kastrup himself wrote in his recent post on me. Most responders haven’t even changed Kastrup’s own wording (e.g., “libel”, the reference to me using a “pseudonym”, me being a woman, stuff about George Gurdjieff, suggesting Medium cancel me, etc.). 

So firstly take Kastrup’s “update” to his piece on me:

“Update 22 April 2024: ‘Paul Austin Murphy’ is possibly a woman from Lancashire, England, probably in the Morecambe area, who went by ‘PAM’ and also used the handle ‘Wry1111’ in some groups and forums. He/she appears to be a notorious, toxic troll, apparently with a big interest in the Armenian mystic George Gurdjieff — including a delusion that she/he is Gurdjieff’s heir, or something — which is quite ironic given his/her accusations against me. [] She/he also seems to be an admirer of pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand. [] Well, I’m determined to disprove this now and make an example of this particular troll, even if it takes us years.”

This is conspiratorial nonsense. It is truly bizarre. It is very easy to find out that all this is false. 

In addition, it just comes across as a war between rival cults, and between rival cult leaders.

Now take this recent example from a E. Pederson, who has literally mimicked Kastrup’s idea that I’m a follower of the mystic and spiritual teacher George Gurdjieff:

“Hi Wry. (your former pseudonym.) [] the same sociopathic individual who abused me and others in an online Gurdjieff group back in 2018. Your pathological envy is blatantly obvious today as it was back then. You are clearly a very sick person. Do remember calling Jim Taylor an idiot and a lunatic? Do you remember telling me that I deserved to die for being a psychotherapist? I remember it all. This time your real identity has become a group project and you would be surprised how quickly it has spread through back channels among the legit and transparent community. Not quite the notoriety you were looking for but its a coming.”

Or take this from a Sebastian S.A., who has taken Kastrup’s word that I’m a woman: 

“my views are that you have mental health problems. you seem to be projecting a lot of your anger on men you intellectually adore. you try to deconstruct them with incoherent arguments, yet you pretty much embody all of your critiques of the men you hate. []

“Anyway, hope you can come with terms that you are actually a man. or a wowomanhope it all goes well. you seem emotionally to behave like the sexistic stereotypical behaviour of a girl. so let’s say you’re woman. the only reason i’m mentioned this is because it sadly seems relevant, you are unable to coherently make his points and then actually critique. untill then, try to work on your identity crisis.”

This is at least partly what I mean by the words “Kastrup’s cult followers”.

But Is It Stalking?

As stated, Bernardo Kastrup has sent me creepy warnings via email. The first email could be construed as a warning that I may be physically attacked by what he calls “we”…

This is exactly the kind of thing Scientologists [see here] and other cultists do. 

One email uses the words “we”. Kastrup also uses the words “our” and “us”. (So has Kastrup started using the Royal “We”?)

So should I report Kastrup to the police for threat and intimidation? Of course not, this is the cut and thrust of life… 

But I could do.

Anyway, let me rewrite Kastrup’s most recent email to me (i.e., the one directly above): 

It appears that Bernardo Kastrup has made many enemies over the years through nasty trolling, abuse, etc. They include Sam Harris, Sabine Hossenfelder, Massimo Pigliucci, Nicholas Humphrey, Jerry Coyne, Tim Maudlin, Philip Goff, Keith Frankish, Susan Blackmore, Michael Graziano, etc. I’ve also received messages from people who Kastrup has also threatened with legal action, as well as from people he has banned from his groups, etc.

Who would have guessed Kastrup would end up uniting people like this?

Delightful, isn’t it? 

My Targeted Essay

I find it astonishing that Kastrup should threaten suing me and Medium for “libel” when he’s written such abusive and extreme stuff about many scientists and philosophers. Indeed, apart from the words “cult” and “cult leader”, my essay is fairly toned down compared to lots of the stuff which Kastrup himself has written about other people. (Kastrup's comments on politics on X, Twitter, in his blog, etc. are even more extreme.)

What’s more, I even admit to my own rhetoric in the essay, and I even qualify what I mean by the word “cult leader”. For example: 

“As noted at the beginning, I acknowledged that the words ‘cult leader’, ‘religio-philosophy’, etc. may be ad hominems. [Actually, rhetoric, not ad homs.] Strictly speaking, then, Kastrup may not be cult leader in that he probably doesn’t control his followers and fans directly. In other words, he doesn’t actually run and organise a cultish (physical) group, with meetings, rituals, rules, etc. (Who knows, perhaps he does all these things.) That said, there are a few stories that Kastrup demanded complete loyalty (or intellectual obedience) in his Facebook group, as well as on a forum.” 

In other words, ‘Bernardo Kastrup: The Idealist Cult-Leader Who Endlessly Abuses Others’ was a self-consciously rhetorical essay on my part. It was actually in response to Kastrup’s very own rhetoric, as well as his frequent abuse of other people.

On another theme. 

Many of Kastrup’s followers have said that I only tackled Kastrup’s character, not his philosophy or arguments. Kastrup himself stated that I didn’t have the intellectual means to tackle his actual philosophy. 

‘Bernardo Kastrup: The Idealist Cult-Leader Who Endlessly Abuses Others’ isn’t even meant to be about Kastrup’s idealist philosophy: it’s about Kastrup himself!

So this is like criticising an apple for not being an orange...

Hands up, then. I happily admit that it’s not a work of philosophy.

It's also very odd that Kastrup didn’t see the links at the bottom of the essay, or that he hasn’t seen any of my other pieces on him. (I suspect that this situation has now changed. So he’ll need to update the “update” to his blog post on me.)

Kastrup’s followers also seem to assume that I’ve never tackled Kastrup’s actual philosophy, despite the fact that my other essays are linked at the bottom of ‘Bernardo Kastrup: The Idealist Cult-Leader Who Endlessly Abuses Others’. So here’s a copy and paste of those links at the bottom of the piece:

“(*) See my essays ‘Bernardo Kastrup’s Spiritual Take on Psychedelic Experiences and Cosmic Consciousness’, ‘The Idealist Philosopher Bernardo Kastrup vs. Materialism’, ‘Bernardo Kastrup (the Well-Known Cosmic Idealist) and His Afterlife’ and Reality is a Metaphor: Bernardo Kastrup on the Vibrations of Cosmic Consciousness’.”

These particular essays almost completely ignore Kastrup’s character. What’s more, they never use the words “cult” and “cult leader”. One other essay, however, does tackle Kastrup’s character. It’s called ‘Bernardo Kastrup’s Cosmic-Idealist Worldview as Neurotic Ego-Defense Mechanism’. The thing is, that too was a response to Kastrup’s own psychological “hitjobs” on those with different views to himself. (Kastrup’s own piece is called ‘The Physicalist Worldview as Neurotic Ego-Defense Mechanism’.)

So, as I wrote in the essay Kastrup is campaigning against, all along I was simply “giving Kastrup a taste of his own medicine”.

---

Screenshots

Kastrup’s update: Is this all about a war between rival cults and rival cult leaders?

One follower of Kastrup responding to my essay on him.

Another follower of Kastrup responding to my essay.

Spiritual Idealist Bernardo Kastrup Slanders Hossenfelder, Coyne, Pigliucci, Etc: Should they Sue Him?

 Probably not.

The following passages are from Bernardo Kastrup’s blog Bernardo Kastrup, PhD, PhD: Meditations on life, the universe, and everything.

Kastrup on the American philosopher Tim Maudlin:

“[Tim] Maudlin’s unbecoming, unacademic and rude behaviour made it clear that such was not the case. He came across to me as a nasty and crass street brawler, not a thinker. [] Nor do I find his ungrounded, tendentious, hand-waving and wishful technical statements worthy of in-depth discussion in debate format. I am sure he can continue to believe in his unfalsifiable, pseudo-scientific fantasies without my help.”

Kastrup on the German theoretical physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder:

“Sabine [Hossenfelder] has a big mouth and seems to be willing to almost flat-out lie in order to NOT look bad when confronted on a point she doesn’t have a good counter for. [] Her rhetorical assertiveness is, at least sometimes, a facade that hides a surprising lack of actual substance.”

“[I]t is entirely possible for someone who sincerely considers themselves honest to arbitrarily dismiss substantive points, deflect and mislead to a level that flirts with lying, just to save face and avoid being pinned down during a debate, thereby protecting their public image at the cost of someone else’s.”

“I am now convinced, to my own satisfaction, that Hossenfelder does not engage according to what I consider to be the minimum level of intellectual honesty required to render the debate fruitful.”

“I am not doing this just to gratuitously and repeatedly stick my finger in the wound; I’m not trying to do character assassination. [Sic!] [] by flat-out misrepresenting her own output. I ought to defend myself against that overt suggestion, which I consider to have been rhetorical and dishonest, violating all basic debate ethics.”

Kastrup on the American biologist Jerry Coyne:

“Dim-witted biologist [].”

“The target of Jerry Berry’s [Jerry Coyne] latest rant and rage has been an essay I wrote.”

“This is one of those embarrassing passages in which Jerry Berry [Jerry Coyne] unwittingly makes painfully clear to the whole world the depths of his philosophical ignorance.”

Kastrup on the Skeptical Inquirer magazine:

“What makes the profound ignorance betrayed by the ‘review’ even worse is the conceitedness and pretentiousness that oozes through it.”

“How can a magazine with ambitions to ‘promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason’ publish this kind of juvenile garbage?”

“If I were a subscriber to the Skeptical Inquirer, I would feel offended by this ‘review.’ [].”

“[W]hat kind of psychological disposition makes one feel entitled to publicly criticize something one has admittedly not understood?”

Kastrup on the English philosopher Philip Goff:

“Since he [Philip Goff] was a cosmopsychist just a couple of years ago, then a constitutive panpsychist for the duration of one book, and now seemingly something else already again, who knows what his position will be by the time we debate?”

“Many academic philosophers love to indulge in these tortuous conceptual games that achieve lift off from the firm ground of reality and end up in some other galaxy. This is no news. But I confess to feeling disappointed at Philip [Goff], an academic philosopher I thought would see through this nonsense. I regret that so much energy and time was wasted, during the debate [].”

Kastrup on the American neuroscientist Michael Graziano and the British philosopher Keith Frankish:

“[Keith] Frankish has accomplished precisely nothing in his long essay; at least nothing more than tortuous obfuscation and hand-waving.”

“Not only that, he [Michael Graziano] is a Princeton neuroscientist who couldn’t even weave a conceptually consistent counter-argument in his ‘reply’ of little more than 800 words.”

“[T]o watch him [neuroscientist Michael Graziano] babble incoherently in front of you and think, ‘this is actually happening.’”

“[W]hen it comes to Graziano and [Keith] Frankish, things are different. They truly are emperors with no clothes.”

“Their [Graziano and Frankish] nonsense is toxic, corrosive and pernicious, not only because it is nonsensical, but because — if believed — it could undermine the very foundations of our secular ethics and moral codes.”

“Our emperors [Frankish and Graziano] are parading proudly in front of us, but they really have no clothes. Watch carefully, ignore the posturing cacophony around you, and you shall see it in horror.”

Kastrup on the American philosopher and biologist Massimo Pigliucci:

“[T]here is little of substance in [Massimo] Pigliucci’s essay to actually rebut or respond to. [] Unlike Pigliucci, I shall comment based on substance. Yet, I shall also comment vigorously and honestly, not through a smokescreen of passive aggression.”

Kastrup on the American philosopher, neuroscientist and author Sam Harris:

“[Sam] Harris seems to be, at best, confused and ignorant of the facts; or, at worse, wilfully biased in his appraisal of the available data. [] The irony would be sweet if it weren’t concerning as far as what it seems to say about Sam Harris.”

Kastrup on “academic philosophers”:

“[S]ome seem to react to what I have accomplished with covetousness — as opposed to the objectivity that academics are expected to embody — is both a serious problem and a missed opportunity for desperately-needed change. [] many academic philosophers have abandoned reality and now spend their time playing entirely abstract conceptual games of no relevance to you and me. But they still insist that what they do is ‘real’ philosophy. [] Academic philosophy is funded by public money paid out of our taxes. As such, it must be relevant to us.”

Kastrup on the American philosopher Daniel Dennett and the English neuropsychologist Nicholas Humphrey:

“And [Daniel] Dennett isn’t alone. Others, like psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, suggest the same thing [] Despite being a surreal display of in-your-face incoherence, the fact that the video is cladded with the gentle and trust-inspiring demeanor of an affable old man [].”

Kastrup on the British psychologist and writer Susan Blackmore:

“I rather think she [Susan Blackmore] and the other magicians are fooling themselves; the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.”

Kastrup on “fundamentalist atheists”:

“There is a significant way in which fundamentalist atheists may be unconsciously attributing to others their own cognitive limitations. In psychological terms, this is called a projection. By passing judgment onto their own projections according to the rules of their own private games, they reveal parts of their psychological makeup but assert nothing of relevance about the nature of reality.”

And, finally, Kastrup on yours truly:

“It makes no argument, probably because Murphy just isn’t intellectually capable of making one. [] we can only assume that he is what he seems to be: a spiteful nobody living on social security and spouting his grievances from a rented bedroom). His piece is petty, small-minded, and childish.”

So should Philip Goff, Keith Frankish, Sam Harris, Sabine Hossenfelder, Massimo Pigliucci, Nicholas Humphrey, Jerry Coyne, Tim Maudlin, etc. sue Bernardo Kastrup for his insulting and slanderous claims?

Probably not.