What do you think?
Rate this book
The Flip: Epiphanies of Mind and the Future of Knowledge
A “flip,” writes Jeffrey J. Kripal, is “a reversal of perspective,” “a new real,” often born of an extreme, life-changing experience. The Flip is Kripal’s ambitious, visionary program for unifying the sciences and the humanities to expand our minds, open our hearts, and negotiate a peaceful resolution to the culture wars. Combining accounts of rationalists’ spiritual awakenings and consciousness explorations by philosophers, neuroscientists, and mystics within a framework of the history of science and religion, Kripal compellingly signals a path to mending our fractured world.
240 pages, Paperback
First published March 12, 2019
125 people are currently reading
1423 people want to read
About the author
Jeffrey J. Kripal
40 books143 followersJeffrey J. Kripal, Ph.D. (History of Religions, The University of Chicago, 1993; M.A., U. Chicago; B.A., Religion, Conception Seminary College, 1985), holds the J. Newton Rayzor Chair in Philosophy and Religious Thought at Rice University, where he serves as Associate Dean of Humanities, Faculty and Graduate Studies. He also has served as Associate Director of the Center for Theory and Research of the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
October 17, 2019
There are books that will take you into unusual places, even though they are nonfiction. This is one of them. Although they may predate my joining Goodreads, I’ve read many of Jeffrey Kripal’s books. A generous man as well as a scholar, he has taken the time to meet with me in the past so I could express my appreciation for the work he does, and tell him some stories of my own. You see, Kripal is one of those rare scholars of religion—tenured, no less—who’s willing to discuss the anomalous. Strange stuff. Instead of laughingly sweeping it off the table, he takes seriously the fact that many people (far too many to be considered all hoaxers) experience strange things. Religious studies is the discipline perhaps best equipped to explore them.
At the same time, Kripal invites science to the discussion. Science is a method and its application to the weird hasn’t quiet been figured out yet. Still, Kripal notes the basic problem with quantum physics. At some point, ill-defined, it ceases to function. It works only on the quantum level. The Flip asks, seriously, what if it applies to our perceptual levels too. You see, entanglement is very strange. On the quantum level it is undeniable. Kripal stretches our brains here and asks us to consider what it might look like if that invisible boundary did not exist. It might indeed help to explain some of the strange things people report.
While summarizing this important book here won’t be possible—it deserves to be read anyway—it should be noted that much of it comes down to consciousness. We are as far from explaining it as we ever have been. The materialist “mind equals brain” conclusion just does not compute. Instead, when we allow ourselves to believe our senses, we find the world a profoundly strange place. Some coincidences are just coincidences. Others, it seems, are much more significant. As I suggest in my blog post about the book (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World), this is one way that science and religion can begin to talk to one another productively. They can only do so, however, by being honest about what they see.
At the same time, Kripal invites science to the discussion. Science is a method and its application to the weird hasn’t quiet been figured out yet. Still, Kripal notes the basic problem with quantum physics. At some point, ill-defined, it ceases to function. It works only on the quantum level. The Flip asks, seriously, what if it applies to our perceptual levels too. You see, entanglement is very strange. On the quantum level it is undeniable. Kripal stretches our brains here and asks us to consider what it might look like if that invisible boundary did not exist. It might indeed help to explain some of the strange things people report.
While summarizing this important book here won’t be possible—it deserves to be read anyway—it should be noted that much of it comes down to consciousness. We are as far from explaining it as we ever have been. The materialist “mind equals brain” conclusion just does not compute. Instead, when we allow ourselves to believe our senses, we find the world a profoundly strange place. Some coincidences are just coincidences. Others, it seems, are much more significant. As I suggest in my blog post about the book (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World), this is one way that science and religion can begin to talk to one another productively. They can only do so, however, by being honest about what they see.
May 25, 2020
In The Flip, Jeffrey Kripal (a professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought) argues for a new view of the cosmos, consciousness and the relationship between humans and everything else out there. The 'flip' in question is a damascene conversion, but one that is spiritual without being conventionally religious - having your viewpoint transformed by a life-changing experience, often one that might be associated with the paranormal.
Kripal begins with two ‘true tales’ one of precognition the other of apparent communication with dead. But these immediately make me twitchy - data, as they say, is not the plural of anecdote. All too often people’s accounts of experiences (or even worse their memories) prove wildly inaccurate. Kripal tries to undermine this argument by saying we disempower stories by calling them anecdotes - yet the history of paranormal research shows that time and again as soon as controls are properly imposed the inexplicable experiences stop. (Kripal tells us this is because you need to be in extremis for these things to happen - something I can understand, yet you would imagine sometimes they would still occur in controlled settings. A simpler explanation is that they aren't real.)
The author damages his credibility with sweeping statements like ‘I simply want to call out those who want to claim [paranormal phenomena] do not happen. They do.’ I would love this to be the case - but argument from authority is no way to persuade anyone. It verges on deception to describe a situation where someone has a premonition and it comes true without mentioning the millions of time people have premonitions that don’t - this is world class cherry picking. This is frustrating, as after writing a book on the paranormal I was happy to accept there may be some unexplained occurrences (though the vast majority don’t hold up to scrutiny), but to only present them as fact in this unquestioning way ruins any potential for credibility.
Underlying Kripal's viewpoint is what amounts to a inversion of C. P. Snow’s 'two cultures' concept. In Snow's 1960s world, the humanities were too dominant. Now, Kripal seems to argue it’s the sciences that are too much in the driving seat. (It's hard not to see this as science envy from a humanities academic.) Leaving aside the indubitable fact that most people in political power still have a humanities background, the problem is that each discipline has its own fields of applicability - and explaining phenomena is a situation where science is far more effective.
The irritating thing is that I agree with Kripal that there may be something there and that we shouldn't undervalue the humanities - but the way he goes about putting his message across wins him no favours. So, for example, Kripal tells us that students are moving more to STEM subjects because the humanities are not valued because the are perceived as being 'concerned with surface phenomena, with things that are not real, that are nonexistent.' But, in reality, if you talk to real undergraduates, it's far more that students are preferring STEM subjects because this is where the jobs are - perhaps an ivory tower academic view missing the real world context.
The book is not all bad - although Kripal does indulge in quite a lot that comes near the kind of quantum waffle that is associated with books that attempt to link Eastern mysticism and physics, such as The Dancing Wu Li Masters, he doesn't have such a wide-eyed acceptance as these books tend to, and the underlying message is more about a different understanding of the nature and importance of consciousness and our relationship with the wider universe than it is about trying to argue that Eastern mysticism prefigures quantum theory. Even so, there was a lot here that seemed either about fighting an academic corner (you can almost see parts of it as the basis for a funding application) or too reliant on making stuff up as you go along.
Definitely interesting - glad I read it - but ultimately not convincing.
Kripal begins with two ‘true tales’ one of precognition the other of apparent communication with dead. But these immediately make me twitchy - data, as they say, is not the plural of anecdote. All too often people’s accounts of experiences (or even worse their memories) prove wildly inaccurate. Kripal tries to undermine this argument by saying we disempower stories by calling them anecdotes - yet the history of paranormal research shows that time and again as soon as controls are properly imposed the inexplicable experiences stop. (Kripal tells us this is because you need to be in extremis for these things to happen - something I can understand, yet you would imagine sometimes they would still occur in controlled settings. A simpler explanation is that they aren't real.)
The author damages his credibility with sweeping statements like ‘I simply want to call out those who want to claim [paranormal phenomena] do not happen. They do.’ I would love this to be the case - but argument from authority is no way to persuade anyone. It verges on deception to describe a situation where someone has a premonition and it comes true without mentioning the millions of time people have premonitions that don’t - this is world class cherry picking. This is frustrating, as after writing a book on the paranormal I was happy to accept there may be some unexplained occurrences (though the vast majority don’t hold up to scrutiny), but to only present them as fact in this unquestioning way ruins any potential for credibility.
Underlying Kripal's viewpoint is what amounts to a inversion of C. P. Snow’s 'two cultures' concept. In Snow's 1960s world, the humanities were too dominant. Now, Kripal seems to argue it’s the sciences that are too much in the driving seat. (It's hard not to see this as science envy from a humanities academic.) Leaving aside the indubitable fact that most people in political power still have a humanities background, the problem is that each discipline has its own fields of applicability - and explaining phenomena is a situation where science is far more effective.
The irritating thing is that I agree with Kripal that there may be something there and that we shouldn't undervalue the humanities - but the way he goes about putting his message across wins him no favours. So, for example, Kripal tells us that students are moving more to STEM subjects because the humanities are not valued because the are perceived as being 'concerned with surface phenomena, with things that are not real, that are nonexistent.' But, in reality, if you talk to real undergraduates, it's far more that students are preferring STEM subjects because this is where the jobs are - perhaps an ivory tower academic view missing the real world context.
The book is not all bad - although Kripal does indulge in quite a lot that comes near the kind of quantum waffle that is associated with books that attempt to link Eastern mysticism and physics, such as The Dancing Wu Li Masters, he doesn't have such a wide-eyed acceptance as these books tend to, and the underlying message is more about a different understanding of the nature and importance of consciousness and our relationship with the wider universe than it is about trying to argue that Eastern mysticism prefigures quantum theory. Even so, there was a lot here that seemed either about fighting an academic corner (you can almost see parts of it as the basis for a funding application) or too reliant on making stuff up as you go along.
Definitely interesting - glad I read it - but ultimately not convincing.
February 25, 2025
4.5 stars.
Loved the journey of the book.
I don't agree with his conclusions at the end about how great social change is possible through the "flip".
Hopefully longer review later.
Loved the journey of the book.
I don't agree with his conclusions at the end about how great social change is possible through the "flip".
Hopefully longer review later.
October 7, 2019
Look at a photo of Jeffrey J. Kripal, and you’ll see a pleasant, teddy-bear- looking fellow (or the winner of a Karl Rove look-alike contest). He looks pleasant and friendly, and I suspect he is both. But behind this pleasant facade and seemingly easy-going demeanor is an intellectual daredevil. Let me provide a little background of what I know about this Clark Kent of scholars.
Kripal was raised in a small town in southeast Nebraska and raised a Catholic. As he reached his teen years, instead of pursuing the common family pursuit of athleticism, he marked himself off by becoming very thin via religiously-motivated--or so he thought--fasting. And after graduation from high school, he went off to a monastery in Missouri. There, his fellow monks worried about his appearance (thin), and they put him in psychoanalysis with a Benedictine monk. Kripal gained a great deal from this, not the least of which was weight. What he discovered in this process was that he has issues with sexuality that he was suppressing and that he was suffering (as he describes it) from anorexia. With this life-altering and intriguing knowledge, Kripal left that seminary and went to pursue a degree in comparative religion at the University of Chicago. Apparently not one to take the easy course, he concentrated in the Hindu tradition, studying under an acclaimed expert in that tradition, Wendy Doniger. (Surely he learned some Latin and Greek during his time in the Church and in a monastery.) But like Doniger, Kripal’s writings about Hindusim--especially about the sexuality of some Hindu gods and adepts--drew the wrath of militant Hindus, and this eventually drove him from the field. (It seems that writing about the sexuality of religious figures in an established tradition can yield death threats for such perceived transgressions. The same thing happened to Doniger while we lived in India, and her book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, was supposed to be pulled from shelves in India by her publishers--although I found it in Trivandrum, I’m happy to report.) (Most of this information comes from a Youtube interview of Kripal conducted by science journalist John Horgan, which is well worth watching to get an overview of where Kripal is coming from and what he's up to.)
Karl Rove? No? Well, different thoughts, I'm sure, the likeness notwithstanding
So Kripal took his professional life in a new and no less provocative direction by inquiring into the “paranormal”--all the weird, seemingly impossible things that people report have happened both within and outside of established religions. What’s going on with reports of telepathy, precognition, near-death experiences, levitation, UFO abductions, conversing with spirits, and so on? Needless to say, this broad topic is fraught with challenges and skeptics from both religious and secular perspectives. Nevertheless, he persists, and happily so.
Flip is Kripal’s most recent venture into this field, and I think it serves as a summary of where he’s gone and what (often tentative) conclusions he’s reached so far. (In this, I’m speculating, because I’ve read only one of his earlier works in full, The Serpent's Gift: Gnostic Reflections on the Study of Religion (2006), but Flip certainly seems like a weigh station on his journey). In any event, Kripal provides a useful summary of his conclusions to date and how his thinking along these lines might continue. In the book, he addresses individuals and their “flip” experiences, and ideas about how weird reality might be made more comprehensible through contemporary thinking based on quantum physics and scientifically-informed philosophy. I should note that philosophy is called on in part because it is one the humanities (as opposed to a field in the natural sciences). In short, the humanities deal with the mind or consciousness. As Kripal notes, “Consciousness is the fundamental ground of all we know, or ever will know” (46) and the humanities involve “the study of consciousness coded in culture” (45). Later in the book Kripal reminds us again of the importance of the mind (consciousness) to scientific as endeavors as well as those of the humanities:
Mind or consciousness is the locus of all scientific practice and knowledge; that science, at the end of the day, is a function of human subjectivity and consciousness and not, as often assumed, a simple photographic record of the world of things and objects "out there." (15).
Kripal buttresses his arguments via quantum theory, drawing upon, for instance, international relations theorist-turned-quantum social science proponent, Alexander Wendt, along with others. He also draws upon contemporary philosophers such as Philip Goff and Bernardo Kastrup. But the most compelling aspect of the book isn’t the theory (interesting as it is), but in his choice of witnesses to the paranormal. For his testimonials, he draws upon scientists, physicians, a philosopher, and a rationalist--not a “religious” figure among them. A couple of his exemplars I found especially surprising: A.J. Ayer, the famed logical positivist philosopher and Barbara Ehrenreich, a cell biologist and journalist concerned about women’s issues and poverty. But she’s also the author of Living With a Wild God: An Unbeliever’s Search for the Truth about Everything (2014) that details a “flip” experience of her own that occurred in her youth. Another witness (as it were) is Eben Alexander III, a physician who suffered a near-death experience and an extended coma that flipped his perspective on "reality." I trust you get Kripal’s point: this isn’t the group of loonies that you might expect. (For a parody of those whom many would associate with paranormal events, see the SNL skits with Kate McKinnon as the renegade UFO subject whose reports aren’t sweetness and light but instead hilarious sexual shenanigans.)
This book and Kripal’s project as a whole to inspect what’s under the hood of the paranormal or “super natural” is a careful and thoughtful--and needed--investigation into these undeniable phenomena. He’s fun to read and can hold the reader's attention much as we’d be held in thrall by a . . . well, a ghost story.
February 18, 2021
There are a plenty of books out there which provide arguments for the paranormal (unfortunately, that is an intensely loaded term, but it is all we've got so we need to go with it). Some are interesting, some are just silly. This one, was phenomenal.
I think why this book was so good was that the author's way of argument was one of the most intelligent, conciliatory and yet convincing I've ever come across. His emphasis on the importance of the humanities is something which speaks to my own heart, but by making the point that the humanities are to the immaterial as important as the sciences are to the material, he gave them a weight I've not come across before.
Interestingly, I finished this book very soon after I had read Sam Harris's book and the contrast couldn't have been greater. The author had none of the shrillness of Harris. None of his arguments were made by direct attack, although he didn't completely shy away from some of the limitations of a materialist viewpoint. Kripal also dealt with some of the same people and experiences that Harris had dealt with, and while Harris spent pages trying to tear apart claims, Kripal's method felt different. I felt it was important to have two sides to the argument in mind so actually the two books worked pretty well together. It meant I could read Kripal with Harris's arguments in mind and test them for myself. Perhaps by seeing the star ratings of the two books, it is pretty clear which method I found more convincing, even if I didn't buy into everything that Kripal said.
This book will definitely make you think. It offers a perspective which may not convince everyone - which is absolutely fine - but which is made in such well written and well argued terms that the actual reading process was itself worthwhile.
I think why this book was so good was that the author's way of argument was one of the most intelligent, conciliatory and yet convincing I've ever come across. His emphasis on the importance of the humanities is something which speaks to my own heart, but by making the point that the humanities are to the immaterial as important as the sciences are to the material, he gave them a weight I've not come across before.
Interestingly, I finished this book very soon after I had read Sam Harris's book and the contrast couldn't have been greater. The author had none of the shrillness of Harris. None of his arguments were made by direct attack, although he didn't completely shy away from some of the limitations of a materialist viewpoint. Kripal also dealt with some of the same people and experiences that Harris had dealt with, and while Harris spent pages trying to tear apart claims, Kripal's method felt different. I felt it was important to have two sides to the argument in mind so actually the two books worked pretty well together. It meant I could read Kripal with Harris's arguments in mind and test them for myself. Perhaps by seeing the star ratings of the two books, it is pretty clear which method I found more convincing, even if I didn't buy into everything that Kripal said.
This book will definitely make you think. It offers a perspective which may not convince everyone - which is absolutely fine - but which is made in such well written and well argued terms that the actual reading process was itself worthwhile.
July 2, 2020
A buddy recommended this to me the day after i was telling my views on life in relation to current trends quantum physics. The author's idea (you can find it in the book description) is interesting and profound. The book did seem a little defensive of the study of humanities, and I wish he placed less emphasis on this. To "shock" the academic world, as he states, it would've been nice to find a study outside, or new to the academic world, not one that has been in the acadmeic worlds for ages and is slowly dying. I love humanities and agree that we should all be better versed in its ways, but i wish the focus was more on his idea. Thre points made here are strong as to our relation with ourselves, others and the universe. I have definitely reflected more on my relationship with the universe and it was both exciting and scary.
June 29, 2024
This is a long review, but it is my attempt to digest some ideas which I believe are worth the digestion. So please bear with my digestive noises.
The “flip” in question refers to the radical change of perspective reported by a number of individuals who at some point in their life underwent unexpected, anomalous and unexplainable experiences. Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, for example, found himself in a world of beatific consciousness, a 'place' he believed existed quite separate from his physical brain. Author, journalist and political activist Barbara Ehrenreich relates an epiphany of the burning aliveness of the material world, a vision so disconnected from ordinary life that it was decades before she wrote about it. Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor experienced a profound connection to the energy connecting all living beings, even as she knew she was undergoing a massive brain haemorrhage. Then there is Mark Twain’s precognition of his brother’s fatal accident. Even atheist and arch-sceptic Michael Shermer gets a mention.
All of these and the others Kripal writes about were level headed individuals well acquainted with how the physical and material world works. They were neither gullible, nor delusional, nor frauds, yet their experiences are regarded as completely 'real'. (Real just for them? Well, that’s a central question.) Their experiences were also intensely meaningful, even life changing. So Kripal’s initial purpose is to show that it’s not just crackpots or the delusional who report these things.
Kripal's more ambitious goal, however, is to bring these stories to the academic table as serious resources for exploring the nature of reality, in particular, the relationship of mind and matter. “What these stories suggest” writes Kripal, “is that (mind) is fundamental to the cosmos, not some tangential, accidental, or recent emergent property of matter”. They might even suggest that matter is “an expression of some kind of cosmic Mind". Moreover, Kripal’s book is an appeal to those working in the humanities (philosophy, theology and religious studies, literature, etc.) to take these kind of phenomena seriously; that they try and fathom, with all the resources at their disposal, what all this could possibly mean. Because it would appear that science alone is not equipped to make sense of it.
The curious thing is that I quite resonated with Kripal’s intention (in his prologue), before I even got to the individual stories. In fact, I worried that they would spoil the book. After all, why cheapen a valid philosophical worldview with tabloid tales of the supernatural? As it turns out, I still feel this way to some extent. All the same, the paranormal stories do play a central role in Kripal’s case for 'flipping' the dominant materialist paradigm. With this in mind, there are some stand out features.
First, it’s clear that the events and experiences did not, in and of themselves, have a fixed meaning. None of the experiencers were flipped out of a science-based understanding of the world. Nor were they flipped into religion. The flip can occur, writes Kripal “without surrendering an iota of our remarkable scientific and medical knowledge about the material world and the human body.” On the other hand “all were convinced that the phenomena are real and deserve major attention, but none construed them in traditional or religious ways”. So the flip represents a third way beyond scientific and religious dogmatism. Acknowledging this is what Kripal calls the double move of paranormal criticism: “It is time to affirm the historical reality of these events without signing our names to any particular mythological or religious framing of them”.
So far, there is nothing in any of this to disturb the standard materialist account of reality. People report weird coincidences, have strange dreams, and do drugs all the time. The brain can throw absolute curve balls at our sense of reality, especially if you poke, tamper with, or damage it. But what’s at stake here is the claim that these experiences were not only internal and subjective but also represent something in the external world, that is, something that is mind-independent, and not just 'in your head'.
But if that’s the case, why can’t these experiences be replicated in controlled laboratory experiments? Why can’t they be empirically tested or falsified? Kripal responds by way of the “traumatic secret”, one of the take-aways of the book for me. In the controlled setting, “there is no trauma, love, or loss there. No one is in danger or dying. Your house is not on fire. Your little child is not sleeping on the train tracks.” Many of the anomalous experiences reported over the ages have arisen in extreme, even traumatic, situations. By definition, a near death experience is traumatic, but so are psychedelics which enact a kind of temporary trauma on the brain. But even apart from trauma, more often than not, the experiences were deeply personal and meaningful, something that mattered to that person only, at that time and place. The safe, sterile and neutral environment of the laboratory is generally not one of those places.
(As an aside, Kripal mentions in a podcast that life for most people before anesthesia was, at some point in their lives, traumatic. Is it any wonder that past ages are replete with stories of such inexplicable experiences? Maybe they weren’t just ignorant and superstitious back then.)
There is a related claim to all this, perhaps even more controversial, and it relates to the question of meaning. If the anomalous experiences were deeply meaningful, yet objectively real in some sense, might this not mean that “meaning is real” as one of the subjects asserts? Or as Kripal ventures to suggest, that meaning might be “embedded in the foundation of the world”. This is a reactionary claim by today’s intellectual standards. For in the reigning scientific paradigm, there is no meaning in the physical world, only the meaning we choose to give it, which of course changes from culture to culture. And within the halls of postmodernism, there is also no meaning on the earth below or heavens above, since meaning is entirely locked up in the world of the text.
Such thinking is a travesty for Kripal. What are the humanities for, if not exploring the big questions of meaning? The humanities should therefore be imagined as “the study of consciousness coded in culture” and not just “candy sprinkles on the cake of science” (love that). In pursuing this, symbol, myth and the imagination play a key role. For if there are purported aspects of existence that science (with its neutral, objective and ‘third person’ way of knowing) fails to detect, this does not mean these aspects exist only in our minds. There are some things ‘out there’ whose existence only becomes known ‘in here’, that is, through a first person perspective. Such a way of knowing is almost always symbolic, shaped by individual personality and the broader culture. The imagination, far from just ‘making things up’ may be the only medium through which some truths or realities can ever reach our conscious awareness or be expressed intelligibly. Hence the need to draw deeply from the well of hermeneutics that the humanities have dug over the centuries. One specific area Kripal recommends is the vast body of mystical literature across the religious traditions: “I suggest we go there if we are really serious about plumbing the depths of consciousness and cosmos, of mind and matter”. He has some good recommendations here too.
There was one other take away from The Flip which I keep thinking about, one that I first read about in Aldous Huxley’s The Doors of Perception, and it was this: Drop Acid. No, just kidding. Rather, it was the filter or transmission theory of consciousness. This analogy likens the brain to a radio which does not produce the radio signals as much as receive them, before converting those signals to words and music. Just as the circuitry of the radio does not create the radio waves, but picks them up from afar, so too the brain may not create the mind, but functions as the physical organ which picks up and transmits "mind at large”. The beauty of this speculation is that not a single element of neuroscience needs to be sacrificed to make it work. This is for the very good reason that there is as yet no viable theory of how thoughts, subjectivity and awareness emerge from the physical, chemical and electrical matter of the brain. So the one theory is as good as the other. And as Kripal notes, the transmission theory is both symmetrical and intellectually generous, admitting the findings of both sciences and the humanities.
A decade ago I was studying the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur for a PhD thesis which I never completed. It seems to me that The Flip is an iteration of some of Ricoeur’s thinking about the way symbolism brings hidden elements of reality to our awareness. Ricoeur wrote: “In our time we have not finished doing away with idols and we have barely begun to listen to symbols”. If the ‘idols’ here are taken as the reigning materialist and postmodern orthodoxies, with 'symbols' standing for those meanings “embedded in the foundation of the world”, then Kripal and Ricoeur appear to be on the same page.
The “flip” in question refers to the radical change of perspective reported by a number of individuals who at some point in their life underwent unexpected, anomalous and unexplainable experiences. Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, for example, found himself in a world of beatific consciousness, a 'place' he believed existed quite separate from his physical brain. Author, journalist and political activist Barbara Ehrenreich relates an epiphany of the burning aliveness of the material world, a vision so disconnected from ordinary life that it was decades before she wrote about it. Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor experienced a profound connection to the energy connecting all living beings, even as she knew she was undergoing a massive brain haemorrhage. Then there is Mark Twain’s precognition of his brother’s fatal accident. Even atheist and arch-sceptic Michael Shermer gets a mention.
All of these and the others Kripal writes about were level headed individuals well acquainted with how the physical and material world works. They were neither gullible, nor delusional, nor frauds, yet their experiences are regarded as completely 'real'. (Real just for them? Well, that’s a central question.) Their experiences were also intensely meaningful, even life changing. So Kripal’s initial purpose is to show that it’s not just crackpots or the delusional who report these things.
Kripal's more ambitious goal, however, is to bring these stories to the academic table as serious resources for exploring the nature of reality, in particular, the relationship of mind and matter. “What these stories suggest” writes Kripal, “is that (mind) is fundamental to the cosmos, not some tangential, accidental, or recent emergent property of matter”. They might even suggest that matter is “an expression of some kind of cosmic Mind". Moreover, Kripal’s book is an appeal to those working in the humanities (philosophy, theology and religious studies, literature, etc.) to take these kind of phenomena seriously; that they try and fathom, with all the resources at their disposal, what all this could possibly mean. Because it would appear that science alone is not equipped to make sense of it.
The curious thing is that I quite resonated with Kripal’s intention (in his prologue), before I even got to the individual stories. In fact, I worried that they would spoil the book. After all, why cheapen a valid philosophical worldview with tabloid tales of the supernatural? As it turns out, I still feel this way to some extent. All the same, the paranormal stories do play a central role in Kripal’s case for 'flipping' the dominant materialist paradigm. With this in mind, there are some stand out features.
First, it’s clear that the events and experiences did not, in and of themselves, have a fixed meaning. None of the experiencers were flipped out of a science-based understanding of the world. Nor were they flipped into religion. The flip can occur, writes Kripal “without surrendering an iota of our remarkable scientific and medical knowledge about the material world and the human body.” On the other hand “all were convinced that the phenomena are real and deserve major attention, but none construed them in traditional or religious ways”. So the flip represents a third way beyond scientific and religious dogmatism. Acknowledging this is what Kripal calls the double move of paranormal criticism: “It is time to affirm the historical reality of these events without signing our names to any particular mythological or religious framing of them”.
So far, there is nothing in any of this to disturb the standard materialist account of reality. People report weird coincidences, have strange dreams, and do drugs all the time. The brain can throw absolute curve balls at our sense of reality, especially if you poke, tamper with, or damage it. But what’s at stake here is the claim that these experiences were not only internal and subjective but also represent something in the external world, that is, something that is mind-independent, and not just 'in your head'.
But if that’s the case, why can’t these experiences be replicated in controlled laboratory experiments? Why can’t they be empirically tested or falsified? Kripal responds by way of the “traumatic secret”, one of the take-aways of the book for me. In the controlled setting, “there is no trauma, love, or loss there. No one is in danger or dying. Your house is not on fire. Your little child is not sleeping on the train tracks.” Many of the anomalous experiences reported over the ages have arisen in extreme, even traumatic, situations. By definition, a near death experience is traumatic, but so are psychedelics which enact a kind of temporary trauma on the brain. But even apart from trauma, more often than not, the experiences were deeply personal and meaningful, something that mattered to that person only, at that time and place. The safe, sterile and neutral environment of the laboratory is generally not one of those places.
(As an aside, Kripal mentions in a podcast that life for most people before anesthesia was, at some point in their lives, traumatic. Is it any wonder that past ages are replete with stories of such inexplicable experiences? Maybe they weren’t just ignorant and superstitious back then.)
There is a related claim to all this, perhaps even more controversial, and it relates to the question of meaning. If the anomalous experiences were deeply meaningful, yet objectively real in some sense, might this not mean that “meaning is real” as one of the subjects asserts? Or as Kripal ventures to suggest, that meaning might be “embedded in the foundation of the world”. This is a reactionary claim by today’s intellectual standards. For in the reigning scientific paradigm, there is no meaning in the physical world, only the meaning we choose to give it, which of course changes from culture to culture. And within the halls of postmodernism, there is also no meaning on the earth below or heavens above, since meaning is entirely locked up in the world of the text.
Such thinking is a travesty for Kripal. What are the humanities for, if not exploring the big questions of meaning? The humanities should therefore be imagined as “the study of consciousness coded in culture” and not just “candy sprinkles on the cake of science” (love that). In pursuing this, symbol, myth and the imagination play a key role. For if there are purported aspects of existence that science (with its neutral, objective and ‘third person’ way of knowing) fails to detect, this does not mean these aspects exist only in our minds. There are some things ‘out there’ whose existence only becomes known ‘in here’, that is, through a first person perspective. Such a way of knowing is almost always symbolic, shaped by individual personality and the broader culture. The imagination, far from just ‘making things up’ may be the only medium through which some truths or realities can ever reach our conscious awareness or be expressed intelligibly. Hence the need to draw deeply from the well of hermeneutics that the humanities have dug over the centuries. One specific area Kripal recommends is the vast body of mystical literature across the religious traditions: “I suggest we go there if we are really serious about plumbing the depths of consciousness and cosmos, of mind and matter”. He has some good recommendations here too.
There was one other take away from The Flip which I keep thinking about, one that I first read about in Aldous Huxley’s The Doors of Perception, and it was this: Drop Acid. No, just kidding. Rather, it was the filter or transmission theory of consciousness. This analogy likens the brain to a radio which does not produce the radio signals as much as receive them, before converting those signals to words and music. Just as the circuitry of the radio does not create the radio waves, but picks them up from afar, so too the brain may not create the mind, but functions as the physical organ which picks up and transmits "mind at large”. The beauty of this speculation is that not a single element of neuroscience needs to be sacrificed to make it work. This is for the very good reason that there is as yet no viable theory of how thoughts, subjectivity and awareness emerge from the physical, chemical and electrical matter of the brain. So the one theory is as good as the other. And as Kripal notes, the transmission theory is both symmetrical and intellectually generous, admitting the findings of both sciences and the humanities.
A decade ago I was studying the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur for a PhD thesis which I never completed. It seems to me that The Flip is an iteration of some of Ricoeur’s thinking about the way symbolism brings hidden elements of reality to our awareness. Ricoeur wrote: “In our time we have not finished doing away with idols and we have barely begun to listen to symbols”. If the ‘idols’ here are taken as the reigning materialist and postmodern orthodoxies, with 'symbols' standing for those meanings “embedded in the foundation of the world”, then Kripal and Ricoeur appear to be on the same page.
May 1, 2024
this book is about the spiritual and scientific world colliding. I really enjoyed the first 1/3 of the book. There were lots of good anecdotes and info, but then it quickly became a ramble of thoughts. Towards the end of this book, it kind of knocks on other people’s belief systems and goes to an extreme end. I lose a lot of disrespect for people and authors like this. To each their own. We are all on our journey, so we can choose to believe in different things. No need to pretend like the ones that have flipped are better off than others. That’s a caste system that’s not necessary. The end of the book also gets a bit cult-ish which isn’t great.
Despite the review, of all the books that I’ve read for this book club, I’d recommend this book over the others. ☺️
❓i think/hope this isn’t offensive to anyone, so please don’t @ me. But what do you think happens to the soul during conditions like dementia? Do you have any similar questions about the soul/spirit and how science may be able to eventually intersect for answers?
Despite the review, of all the books that I’ve read for this book club, I’d recommend this book over the others. ☺️
❓i think/hope this isn’t offensive to anyone, so please don’t @ me. But what do you think happens to the soul during conditions like dementia? Do you have any similar questions about the soul/spirit and how science may be able to eventually intersect for answers?
July 21, 2024
Thus begins my ravenous consumption of everything penned by this author. With just one slim volume, he has changed my mind ("flipped" me) on a number of topics, and for that reason I welcome this book into my personal canon.
Dazzling, urgent, and prescient.
Dazzling, urgent, and prescient.
April 27, 2019
There were things I loved about this book and things I didn't. One example of things I didn't think worked well was his reference to Kary Mullis merely as a Nobel Prize Winner without also pointing out his dubious scientific claims concerning AIDS and climate change. Still, like lots of other of Kripal's books, this one is fun to read. But I would advise you to independently research his anecdotes before you establish your view of their full context. Ultimately though, Kripal's plea that we need to expand our rigid adherence to Aristotelian logic so that we can begin to come to grips with the high strangeness of twenty-first century seems spot-on.
June 26, 2024
Kripal explores how extraordinary experiences reveal that reality isn't restricted to our senses and ordinary cognition. He challenges us to consider perspectives beyond the purely materialistic, sharing examples of rationalists and scientists having life-changing experiences.
The examples in the first third of the book were really very interesting to read. Then Kripal shifts gears to speculate on "the how" and the need to bridge humanities with hard sciences. Later parts cover the dangers of materialism from religious and political viewpoints, ending with a call for a new non-reductionist worldview.
This book definitely makes you think! I was pleased to see references to authors on my to-read list like Eben Alexander III, Bernardo Kastrup, Timothy Morton, and Jill Bolte Taylor who also consider that consciousness might be more fundamental to reality than matter. I'm looking forward to delving deeper into these ideas.
The examples in the first third of the book were really very interesting to read. Then Kripal shifts gears to speculate on "the how" and the need to bridge humanities with hard sciences. Later parts cover the dangers of materialism from religious and political viewpoints, ending with a call for a new non-reductionist worldview.
This book definitely makes you think! I was pleased to see references to authors on my to-read list like Eben Alexander III, Bernardo Kastrup, Timothy Morton, and Jill Bolte Taylor who also consider that consciousness might be more fundamental to reality than matter. I'm looking forward to delving deeper into these ideas.
April 3, 2023
This was half a really cool book and half super annoying due to the consistent use of language from the 1980s regarding literary postmodernism. And random claims for the humanities without not really tying that in with the overarching argument. The fundamental thesis that the transcendent isn’t separate from the sciences is important (not totally sure I agree for the same reasons he makes the argument) and the stories of science folk who had transcendent experiences are amazing. But then the attempt to use postmodern language to explain it undermines the whole thing. We are really beyond that now and don’t need that sort of buffering. It becomes too hard to read and discuss with people who aren’t deeply into philosophy.
July 4, 2023
El libro es bastante interesante, me parece que habla más de abrir caminos (aunque no siempre es muy claro en cuales, pero si muestra las opciones que hay actualmente) para otras formas de entender el mundo completo, creo que el punto es interesante, sin embargo me parece excesivo el uso de la falacia de autoridad, entiendo su uso, pero me parece que puede abusar de ello. Al final creo que uno si queda con la idea de una posibilidad, que me parece peligrosa en general, un modelo de entendimiento que explique satisfactoriamente la relación de la mente con la materia y como se relacionan. Me gustó :)
February 24, 2025
it’s good to plunge back into the immaterial world and this is a decent survey of the landscape. it’s a little western for me, and a little too secular, and i feel the author probably doesn’t identify their arguments as strongly western or secular which is more bothersome. but it was a good read
April 11, 2023
Some cool stuff here
July 13, 2021
How is it possible that our scientists can dream up mathematical models that reflect the reality of the universe so eerily well? Why do all religions explore similar themes of 'transcendence' and a sort of 'heaven'? Is all the (anecdotal) evidence of people experiencing out-of-body experience or of dreams wherein strange precognitions take place purely coincidental?
In "The Flip", Kripal, clearly fed up with the withering away of humanities and the triumph of positivist science, makes the point that there needs to be a place in scientific discourse for more mystical thought about consciousness. This is a very ambitious task in our current-day scientific climate, where the reigning reductivism wants to strip consciousness of its mystical nature, by explaining everything away with observable brain waves, cultural coding and pure coincidence. Kripal shows that many of us, especially intellectuals, have experienced a 'flip', an extraordinary state of mind in which someone unmistakably and vividly experience some sort of higher being or all-knowing. This book is a passionate call to incorporate these experiences into scientific thought, instead of dismissing them as 'paranormal drivel'.
To convince the reader of this, Kripal touches upon many subjects. A large part is reserved to anecdotal evidence of people who have experienced such 'flips', but Kripal also touches on the new ethics and worldview brought forward by the discovery of quantum mechanics and gives a short overview of different mystical philosophies of mind. In the end, he sketches the benefits of introducing the 'flipped' narrative into scientific thought.
The book is definitely a good read. Due to the large scope of subjects touched and the wide (and diverse!) range of experts cited, Kripal builds up many arguments against positivism, of which at least one should hit close to home for the reader. His enthusiasm for his own theory oozes off the pages, which makes this a very pleasant read. It made me think about inexplicable experiences I once had, and stories from friends. People who are hopelessly stuck in logical thought, empiricism and falsifiability might have a hard time with this one.
I do think Kripal is a little *too* eager to prove and contextualise the theory of the Flip sometimes. Examples are chapter 2, where intellectuals and their paranormal experiences keep getting heaped up onto the reader's plate. The end of chapter 3 also becomes all too esoteric, with very "out-there" theories about mind and consciousness that might scare off the less paranormally-minded reader. I personally thought this meandering did not work in favour of the book. In the prologue, Kripal says the following: "This is a manifesto. Short. Irreverent. Punchy. Blunt." I can't help but feel that these objectives were lost in the process, at least a little bit. Overall, I'd still say "The Flip" is worth a read; you can finish it in a couple of days, and, depending on the willingness of the reader, open your mind to new, interesting (dare I say 'fun') ways of thinking.
In "The Flip", Kripal, clearly fed up with the withering away of humanities and the triumph of positivist science, makes the point that there needs to be a place in scientific discourse for more mystical thought about consciousness. This is a very ambitious task in our current-day scientific climate, where the reigning reductivism wants to strip consciousness of its mystical nature, by explaining everything away with observable brain waves, cultural coding and pure coincidence. Kripal shows that many of us, especially intellectuals, have experienced a 'flip', an extraordinary state of mind in which someone unmistakably and vividly experience some sort of higher being or all-knowing. This book is a passionate call to incorporate these experiences into scientific thought, instead of dismissing them as 'paranormal drivel'.
To convince the reader of this, Kripal touches upon many subjects. A large part is reserved to anecdotal evidence of people who have experienced such 'flips', but Kripal also touches on the new ethics and worldview brought forward by the discovery of quantum mechanics and gives a short overview of different mystical philosophies of mind. In the end, he sketches the benefits of introducing the 'flipped' narrative into scientific thought.
The book is definitely a good read. Due to the large scope of subjects touched and the wide (and diverse!) range of experts cited, Kripal builds up many arguments against positivism, of which at least one should hit close to home for the reader. His enthusiasm for his own theory oozes off the pages, which makes this a very pleasant read. It made me think about inexplicable experiences I once had, and stories from friends. People who are hopelessly stuck in logical thought, empiricism and falsifiability might have a hard time with this one.
I do think Kripal is a little *too* eager to prove and contextualise the theory of the Flip sometimes. Examples are chapter 2, where intellectuals and their paranormal experiences keep getting heaped up onto the reader's plate. The end of chapter 3 also becomes all too esoteric, with very "out-there" theories about mind and consciousness that might scare off the less paranormally-minded reader. I personally thought this meandering did not work in favour of the book. In the prologue, Kripal says the following: "This is a manifesto. Short. Irreverent. Punchy. Blunt." I can't help but feel that these objectives were lost in the process, at least a little bit. Overall, I'd still say "The Flip" is worth a read; you can finish it in a couple of days, and, depending on the willingness of the reader, open your mind to new, interesting (dare I say 'fun') ways of thinking.
April 16, 2023
It’s hard to know what to say about this book. As someone as skeptical about materialist reductionism as the author, I can nevertheless affirm merely that it was interesting but not particularly persuasive. While the connections drawn by the author and the illustrative historical excursuses which punctuate the argument were stimulating, they seemed to reproduce the traditional myopia of perennialism; the treatment of diverse and even contradictory ideas as if they were compatible, or as if the differences between them were unimportant. His frankly naive optimism about what moral consequences ‘flipped’ consciousness might have is not only intellectually unconvincing but somewhat morally off-putting, underestimating as it does the complexity and intractability of contemporary social issues. Other tropes common to the overlap of political liberalism and new age religiosity were apparent - the dismissal of traditional moral sensibilities in favour of the putatively automatic morality of the ‘flipped’ perspective, seemingly without addressing the obvious fact that traditional moral and juridical codes address subjects who are, in most cases, morally recalcitrant and prone to recidivism (and that this is both a more clear-sighted picture of the average person than the borderline enlightenment the author seems to be advocating). The author, while dismissive of scientistic misreadings of religion, also treats distinct traditions as if their value is principally that of furnishing an enlightened minority with a grab-bag of metaphors for their personal spiritual journey. His impatience with religious claims to authority or attempts to define orthodoxy never address the fact that communities by definition always rely on a series of policed orthodoxies whether religious or otherwise: a ‘flipped’ community would be no different. It is symptomatic of the soft new age perspective he seems to occupy that such practical issues are, it seems, assumed to become irrelevant in the face of the enlightenment the author gestures towards.
June 25, 2025
I tried three times to get through this book and was unable to get past the first two chapters.
This is a shame because I find the premise completely engaging but every time I started, I realize the author was so eager to make a point that he kept TALKING about the points he wanted to make and that he was GOING to make that he NEVER MADE the point.
When I am two chapters in and you've given me two or three entertaining but minor incidents which are surrounded by PAGES and PAGES of reiterating your premise (rather than letting the incidents speak for themselves, or trusting the audience to pick up the message you've hammered home to the point of semantic satiation), I have to tap out and admit the writing style was not for me, which again, is a shame because I'm interested in this topic. Had they had a stronger editor, the book that lay beneath this book might have come through.
This is a shame because I find the premise completely engaging but every time I started, I realize the author was so eager to make a point that he kept TALKING about the points he wanted to make and that he was GOING to make that he NEVER MADE the point.
When I am two chapters in and you've given me two or three entertaining but minor incidents which are surrounded by PAGES and PAGES of reiterating your premise (rather than letting the incidents speak for themselves, or trusting the audience to pick up the message you've hammered home to the point of semantic satiation), I have to tap out and admit the writing style was not for me, which again, is a shame because I'm interested in this topic. Had they had a stronger editor, the book that lay beneath this book might have come through.
July 11, 2025
I'm still in the process of digesting this read. So much to reflect on and to mull over. But here's a helpful and sympathetic review that I found by Steven Poole from April 2020 on THE GUARDIAN website:
The Flip by Jeffrey J Kripal review – it's time for a mystical revelation
The ‘Flip’ is the moment of realisation that the entire universe comprises a single vast mind. This book promises a new path to understanding...
A few years ago the eminent American philosopher Thomas Nagel put quite a few celebrity scientist noses out of joint by publishing a book, entitled Mind and Cosmos, in which he expressed doubt that ordinary evolutionary theory could explain the emergence of consciousness from the dead matter of the universe. Perhaps there are as-yet-undiscovered laws of nature, he suggested, that guide the unfolding dance of subatomic particles so that, eventually, consciousness must arise. So the universe wakes up and comes to know itself.
The psychologist Steven Pinker quickly denounced Nagel’s “shoddy reasoning”, but given the absence of any scientific explanation for how your own subjective experience is produced by the interaction of neurons inside your skull, it is a respectable question, and a very old one. One equally old answer is panpsychism, the view that mind or consciousness is not a special possession of the higher mammals but exists to a degree in all matter, everywhere: it’s mind all the way down.
This sounds fantastical, but so is the interpretation of experiments in quantum physics according to which electrons or photons somehow “decide” what to do based on what the experimenter is looking for. And indeed some of the leading fundamental physicists of the 20th century took a more or less panpsychist view, including Max Planck and Erwin Schrödinger. Wolfgang Pauli, meanwhile, was notorious for the “Pauli effect”, whereby laboratory equipment malfunctioned in his presence, and he adopted a mystical view of the absolute oneness of the universe and all the beings in it.
In the language of this intriguing little book by Jeffrey Kripal, Pauli experienced “the Flip”. Kripal is a professor of philosophy and religion, and also a trustee of the Esalen Institute, the retreat in Big Sur, California, that was a hotbed of the 1960s mystical counterculture. “The Flip” is his term for the moment – through mystical or near-death experience, or the ingestion of some very good hallucinogens – when one decides that not only is all matter imbued with mind, but the idea that we are individual people is just an illusion: the entire universe itself comprises a single vast mind, through which our own apparently private consciousnesses are tiny cross-sections.
This idea, too, has a long history, being essentially the view of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. But how seriously should we take it? Nothing in science rules it out, Kripal argues, and indeed Einstein’s “block universe” model of space-time, according to which the past and future are just as real as the present, can be taken to imply it. Just as interesting is what would follow about human society if everyone came to believe in the idea. As Kripal points out, racism, nationalism, prejudice, and arguments over identity or faith would be plainly absurd. “Herein lies the potential politics of the flip,” he writes. “We are not our thoughts. We are not even our beliefs. We are first and foremost conscious and cosmic, which is to say we are human.”
Kripal’s book is a warmly vivid account of various science-minded people who have experienced the “Flip”, and he has some well-informed discussions of quantum weirdness and panpsychism in modern philosophy. One drawback of his approach, though, might be its assumption that all reported mystical or paranormal experience is veridical. It can seem that anything goes: not only the oneness of all being, but also reincarnation, poltergeists, the brain as a “radio” picking up signals from elsewhere, and what one Flipper, perhaps more frazzled than most, describes as the realisation that humans are “five-dimensional beings” with “spectral superpowers”. Still, only the irrationally dogmatic would deny the near certainty that there are more things in heaven and earth than are currently dreamt of.
The Flip is also a polemical defence of the importance of the humanities in an era when it is blithely assumed that every important problem can be solved with the scientific method, and when we are encouraged to picture ourselves, as Kripal puts the view wittily, as “basically walking corpses with computers on top – in effect, technological zombies, moist robots, meat puppets”. If consciousness, though, is a fundamental property of the universe, and if the humanities, as he suggests, can be redescribed as “the study of consciousness coded in culture”, then they are just as valid a method for investigating deep truths as the hard sciences. Kripal is passionate and often funny here, offering along the way a rousing portrayal of those “fierce thinkers” Foucault and Derrida, which concludes persuasively that “deconstruction is justice”.
It might, to be sure, seem like poor timing to encourage us all to embrace our oneness with nature during one of the regular periods when nature is trying to kill as many of us as possible, and to insist on the primacy or at least equal importance of the humanities when what we really need right now is the work of crack virologists. But the present emergency will not last for ever, and the arguments about how society might be reshaped in its wake will be arguments about politics and morality – not amenable at all, despite the fervent wishes in some quarters, to data-mining or mathematical modelling.
The Flip by Jeffrey J Kripal review – it's time for a mystical revelation
The ‘Flip’ is the moment of realisation that the entire universe comprises a single vast mind. This book promises a new path to understanding...
A few years ago the eminent American philosopher Thomas Nagel put quite a few celebrity scientist noses out of joint by publishing a book, entitled Mind and Cosmos, in which he expressed doubt that ordinary evolutionary theory could explain the emergence of consciousness from the dead matter of the universe. Perhaps there are as-yet-undiscovered laws of nature, he suggested, that guide the unfolding dance of subatomic particles so that, eventually, consciousness must arise. So the universe wakes up and comes to know itself.
The psychologist Steven Pinker quickly denounced Nagel’s “shoddy reasoning”, but given the absence of any scientific explanation for how your own subjective experience is produced by the interaction of neurons inside your skull, it is a respectable question, and a very old one. One equally old answer is panpsychism, the view that mind or consciousness is not a special possession of the higher mammals but exists to a degree in all matter, everywhere: it’s mind all the way down.
This sounds fantastical, but so is the interpretation of experiments in quantum physics according to which electrons or photons somehow “decide” what to do based on what the experimenter is looking for. And indeed some of the leading fundamental physicists of the 20th century took a more or less panpsychist view, including Max Planck and Erwin Schrödinger. Wolfgang Pauli, meanwhile, was notorious for the “Pauli effect”, whereby laboratory equipment malfunctioned in his presence, and he adopted a mystical view of the absolute oneness of the universe and all the beings in it.
In the language of this intriguing little book by Jeffrey Kripal, Pauli experienced “the Flip”. Kripal is a professor of philosophy and religion, and also a trustee of the Esalen Institute, the retreat in Big Sur, California, that was a hotbed of the 1960s mystical counterculture. “The Flip” is his term for the moment – through mystical or near-death experience, or the ingestion of some very good hallucinogens – when one decides that not only is all matter imbued with mind, but the idea that we are individual people is just an illusion: the entire universe itself comprises a single vast mind, through which our own apparently private consciousnesses are tiny cross-sections.
This idea, too, has a long history, being essentially the view of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. But how seriously should we take it? Nothing in science rules it out, Kripal argues, and indeed Einstein’s “block universe” model of space-time, according to which the past and future are just as real as the present, can be taken to imply it. Just as interesting is what would follow about human society if everyone came to believe in the idea. As Kripal points out, racism, nationalism, prejudice, and arguments over identity or faith would be plainly absurd. “Herein lies the potential politics of the flip,” he writes. “We are not our thoughts. We are not even our beliefs. We are first and foremost conscious and cosmic, which is to say we are human.”
Kripal’s book is a warmly vivid account of various science-minded people who have experienced the “Flip”, and he has some well-informed discussions of quantum weirdness and panpsychism in modern philosophy. One drawback of his approach, though, might be its assumption that all reported mystical or paranormal experience is veridical. It can seem that anything goes: not only the oneness of all being, but also reincarnation, poltergeists, the brain as a “radio” picking up signals from elsewhere, and what one Flipper, perhaps more frazzled than most, describes as the realisation that humans are “five-dimensional beings” with “spectral superpowers”. Still, only the irrationally dogmatic would deny the near certainty that there are more things in heaven and earth than are currently dreamt of.
The Flip is also a polemical defence of the importance of the humanities in an era when it is blithely assumed that every important problem can be solved with the scientific method, and when we are encouraged to picture ourselves, as Kripal puts the view wittily, as “basically walking corpses with computers on top – in effect, technological zombies, moist robots, meat puppets”. If consciousness, though, is a fundamental property of the universe, and if the humanities, as he suggests, can be redescribed as “the study of consciousness coded in culture”, then they are just as valid a method for investigating deep truths as the hard sciences. Kripal is passionate and often funny here, offering along the way a rousing portrayal of those “fierce thinkers” Foucault and Derrida, which concludes persuasively that “deconstruction is justice”.
It might, to be sure, seem like poor timing to encourage us all to embrace our oneness with nature during one of the regular periods when nature is trying to kill as many of us as possible, and to insist on the primacy or at least equal importance of the humanities when what we really need right now is the work of crack virologists. But the present emergency will not last for ever, and the arguments about how society might be reshaped in its wake will be arguments about politics and morality – not amenable at all, despite the fervent wishes in some quarters, to data-mining or mathematical modelling.
October 1, 2024
Thought-provoking discussion about integrating the concept of knowing and consciousness with physical evidence-based scientific knowledge. The author has a challenging task in doing so, and starts by relating story after story told by highly scientifically-minded persons and skeptics who then personally experienced phenomena such as psychic knowing, telepathy, near death experiences (NDEs), etc.
He relates that western intellectual history has seen immense swings back and forth between Platonic mystical/visionary experiences and Aristotelian “empirical rationalism that bases its knowledge on sense data and linear logic.”
The solution, he says, is “to effect a synthesis or union of the two modes of human knowing.” Further, he postulates, our pendulum of understanding consciousness tends to dichotomize between religious fantasy and hard stop fact that can be proven and substantiated. What to make of people who have had vivid sensory experiences such as NDEs?
In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James called these moments that cannot be reduced or explained by any simple cognition or sensory input as “noetic”. The author also engages in a lot of discussion about the mind-brain possibly being the “antenna” of consciousness.
In his discussion of what Bell's Theorem implies by the philosopher of science Robert Nadeau and the physicist Menas Kafatos after their own fifteen-year dialogue:
“All particles in the history of the cosmos have interacted with other particles in the manner revealed by the [entanglement) experiments... from the big bang to the present. Even the atoms in our bodies are made up of particles that were once in close proximity to the cosmic fireball, and other particles that interacted at that time in a single quantum state can be found in the most distant star. Also consider... that quantum entanglement grows exponentially with the number of particles involved in the original quantum state and that there is no theoretical limit on the number of these entangled particles. If this is the case, the universe on a very basic level could be a vast web of particles, which remain in contact with one another over any distance in "no time" in the absence of the transfer of energy or information. This suggests, however strange or bizarre it might seem, that all of physical reality is a single quantum system that responds together to further interactions.”
Max Planck (1858-1947), the author states, put it this way:
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
“Modern science, and particularly quantum mechanics, has rendered every past public conception of the real, every past conventional religious worldview fundamentally inadequate, if not more than a little silly. And yet the positivism of science has prevented us from offering any viable alternative or new story. In Thomas Berry's language, we simply do not have a stable story at this global moment. We are "between stories," which is a polite way of saying that we are in crisis."
If “the material world is nothing but mindless matter behaving in strictly mathematical ways … we haven’t the slightest idea how matter makes the leap from insentience to sentience, from dead stuff to us.”
Philosopher Philip Goff: “Think about what physics tells us about an electron. Physics tells us that an electron has negative charge. What does physics have to tell us about negative charge? Rough and ready answer: things with negative charge repel other things with negative charge and attract other things with positive charge. Physics tells us that an electron has a certain amount of mass. What does physics have to tell us about mass? Rough and ready answer: things with mass attract other things with mass and resist acceleration. All the properties physics ascribes to fundamental particles are characterized in terms of behavioral dispositions. Physics tell us nothing about what an electron is beyond what it does.”
That’s certainly a provocative thought – what “is” consciousness may be actually ready for our inspection, if we ask the right questions, and go deeper beyond the obvious practical considerations of what constitutes the fundamental stuff of life.
Finally, Bernardo Kastrup, in his book More than Allegory: On Religious Myth, Truth and Belief, postulates "Put in another way, the universe is a scan of God's brain; except that you don't need the scanner: you're already inside God's brain so all you have to do is look around. Your perceptions of the sun, rainbows, thunderstorms, etc., are as inaccessible to God as the patterns of firing neurons in your brain—with all their beauty and complexity-are inaccessible to you in any direct way. We are the universe becoming self-aware. We know what God does not know, since we are "inside" God. But—and here is the even more astonishing thing —we have access to what God knows, since we are, in fact, embodied, particularized forms of this same cosmic mind. We exist in, and so can know, both levels of the real."
So in a nutshell, the book is more of a treatise, suggesting that in our race for technological and industrial advantage, we shouldn’t lose sight of the ontological questions that underlie everything. Overall, a very thoughtful discussion about the value of better integration of scientific and humanistic sources of knowledge and wisdom.
He relates that western intellectual history has seen immense swings back and forth between Platonic mystical/visionary experiences and Aristotelian “empirical rationalism that bases its knowledge on sense data and linear logic.”
The solution, he says, is “to effect a synthesis or union of the two modes of human knowing.” Further, he postulates, our pendulum of understanding consciousness tends to dichotomize between religious fantasy and hard stop fact that can be proven and substantiated. What to make of people who have had vivid sensory experiences such as NDEs?
In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James called these moments that cannot be reduced or explained by any simple cognition or sensory input as “noetic”. The author also engages in a lot of discussion about the mind-brain possibly being the “antenna” of consciousness.
In his discussion of what Bell's Theorem implies by the philosopher of science Robert Nadeau and the physicist Menas Kafatos after their own fifteen-year dialogue:
“All particles in the history of the cosmos have interacted with other particles in the manner revealed by the [entanglement) experiments... from the big bang to the present. Even the atoms in our bodies are made up of particles that were once in close proximity to the cosmic fireball, and other particles that interacted at that time in a single quantum state can be found in the most distant star. Also consider... that quantum entanglement grows exponentially with the number of particles involved in the original quantum state and that there is no theoretical limit on the number of these entangled particles. If this is the case, the universe on a very basic level could be a vast web of particles, which remain in contact with one another over any distance in "no time" in the absence of the transfer of energy or information. This suggests, however strange or bizarre it might seem, that all of physical reality is a single quantum system that responds together to further interactions.”
Max Planck (1858-1947), the author states, put it this way:
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
“Modern science, and particularly quantum mechanics, has rendered every past public conception of the real, every past conventional religious worldview fundamentally inadequate, if not more than a little silly. And yet the positivism of science has prevented us from offering any viable alternative or new story. In Thomas Berry's language, we simply do not have a stable story at this global moment. We are "between stories," which is a polite way of saying that we are in crisis."
If “the material world is nothing but mindless matter behaving in strictly mathematical ways … we haven’t the slightest idea how matter makes the leap from insentience to sentience, from dead stuff to us.”
Philosopher Philip Goff: “Think about what physics tells us about an electron. Physics tells us that an electron has negative charge. What does physics have to tell us about negative charge? Rough and ready answer: things with negative charge repel other things with negative charge and attract other things with positive charge. Physics tells us that an electron has a certain amount of mass. What does physics have to tell us about mass? Rough and ready answer: things with mass attract other things with mass and resist acceleration. All the properties physics ascribes to fundamental particles are characterized in terms of behavioral dispositions. Physics tell us nothing about what an electron is beyond what it does.”
That’s certainly a provocative thought – what “is” consciousness may be actually ready for our inspection, if we ask the right questions, and go deeper beyond the obvious practical considerations of what constitutes the fundamental stuff of life.
Finally, Bernardo Kastrup, in his book More than Allegory: On Religious Myth, Truth and Belief, postulates "Put in another way, the universe is a scan of God's brain; except that you don't need the scanner: you're already inside God's brain so all you have to do is look around. Your perceptions of the sun, rainbows, thunderstorms, etc., are as inaccessible to God as the patterns of firing neurons in your brain—with all their beauty and complexity-are inaccessible to you in any direct way. We are the universe becoming self-aware. We know what God does not know, since we are "inside" God. But—and here is the even more astonishing thing —we have access to what God knows, since we are, in fact, embodied, particularized forms of this same cosmic mind. We exist in, and so can know, both levels of the real."
So in a nutshell, the book is more of a treatise, suggesting that in our race for technological and industrial advantage, we shouldn’t lose sight of the ontological questions that underlie everything. Overall, a very thoughtful discussion about the value of better integration of scientific and humanistic sources of knowledge and wisdom.
January 5, 2023
I slogged through this as an audiobook. Perhaps it would have been better to read? The main gist seemed to be “there’s lots we still don’t know” but it seemed to be written in a needlessly complicated way.
July 3, 2020
Scientists and liberal arts need to get together.
May 4, 2022
While maybe not as life-changing as the paranormal, or at least visionary, experiences ("epiphanies") described in this book, I found reading it to be thought-provoking and mind-expanding, if you're willing to take seriously its exploration of the potential of human consciousness. At its core is the belief that consciousness is more than just an emergent property of biological matter and chemical or electrical processes, and that it bears a striking resemblance to the mysterious and revolutionary scientific understandings recently (historically speaking) revealed through quantum physics. That is to say, consciousness reflects many of the properties we see elaborated in quantum theory : uncertainty, entanglement, nonlocality, atemporality, and a relationship to "reality" (as defined by traditional Newtonian physics and scientific empiricism) that defies or exceeds our narrow understanding of that term.
Kripal explores a number of different perspectives on consciousness and reality drawn from religious traditions, mysticism, paranormal experiences, psychedelic experimentation, and philosophical and scientific theories that challenge the prevailing notion of a universe composed of "dead matter" acting in strict mechanical or deterministic terms according to a finite set of physical laws. Instead, he shows that, throughout human history and into the present, alternative visions of a universe connected to, emerging from, or generative of consciousness, have revealed deep truths that are now being affirmed by scientific discovery. What's more, this "cosmic consciousness" goes beyond individual or even human experience and is intimately bound up with the material universe and its processes. In other words, mind and matter are not separate ecosystems--they are generative of and dependent upon one another.
The implications of this, while glimpsed in the sometimes strange, paranormal, or mystical experiences of certain individuals, are more profound than any one vision of reality. They suggest that we (all things, really) share a part in shaping the cosmos around us, both in material terms--society, politics, the environment, life itself--and in terms of our awareness of the ultimate reality--one shaped by our collective consciousness, imagination, memory, aspirations, and will. To use Kripal's own term, it is a vision of a "cosmic humanism" that is built upon classical idealism mingled with modern quantum theory and deep/dark ecology, suggesting a convergence of humanistic and scientific thinking that he believes is "the future of knowledge."
Kripal explores a number of different perspectives on consciousness and reality drawn from religious traditions, mysticism, paranormal experiences, psychedelic experimentation, and philosophical and scientific theories that challenge the prevailing notion of a universe composed of "dead matter" acting in strict mechanical or deterministic terms according to a finite set of physical laws. Instead, he shows that, throughout human history and into the present, alternative visions of a universe connected to, emerging from, or generative of consciousness, have revealed deep truths that are now being affirmed by scientific discovery. What's more, this "cosmic consciousness" goes beyond individual or even human experience and is intimately bound up with the material universe and its processes. In other words, mind and matter are not separate ecosystems--they are generative of and dependent upon one another.
The implications of this, while glimpsed in the sometimes strange, paranormal, or mystical experiences of certain individuals, are more profound than any one vision of reality. They suggest that we (all things, really) share a part in shaping the cosmos around us, both in material terms--society, politics, the environment, life itself--and in terms of our awareness of the ultimate reality--one shaped by our collective consciousness, imagination, memory, aspirations, and will. To use Kripal's own term, it is a vision of a "cosmic humanism" that is built upon classical idealism mingled with modern quantum theory and deep/dark ecology, suggesting a convergence of humanistic and scientific thinking that he believes is "the future of knowledge."
July 9, 2022
I loved Kripal's book. I had read Nagel's Mind and Cosmos and was intrigued by alternatives to physicalism (in Nagel's case, panpsychism). Kripal goes over these alternatives and offers instances of flips, or episodes where even the hardest skeptics have a Damascus Road Experience, of sorts, that result in them questioning physicalism, and realizing that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. I was particularly surprised by how many top tier scientists and atheists seem inclined toward the mystical and occultic - something that Kripal seems to enjoy citing.
Probably the most thought-provoking aspect of the book for me was his discussion of proto-religious "flips," these revelations that seem to build momentum behind specific religions, despite not necessarily evidencing or being loyal to any particular one. And I wondered whether Kripal's work citing scientist after scientist who became aware of the flimsy veneer of things could not extend to specific religious truths. Surely, I thought, another book could be published listing a litany of people who were "flipped" by specific religious truths - men who suddenly became aware (as if from nowhere) that they were in need of saving, or women who upon hearing the words of Christ became instantly convinced of His Godhood status as if taken by thoughts that weren't their own, etc. What does it mean when these flips not only propel people to a particular religion, but appear to embody the distinctive essence of it?
I appreciated Kripal's discussion of Bergson's work as well. Descartes seems to suggest that there is a transaction between the brain and soul, but I had never considered that our brains are transceivers which filter some timeless reality, and that - if I'm interpreting things correctly - our distinct consciousness is distinct because of how each brain filters it. It definitely made me interested in reading Bergson, which I'm doing next.
A great book!
Probably the most thought-provoking aspect of the book for me was his discussion of proto-religious "flips," these revelations that seem to build momentum behind specific religions, despite not necessarily evidencing or being loyal to any particular one. And I wondered whether Kripal's work citing scientist after scientist who became aware of the flimsy veneer of things could not extend to specific religious truths. Surely, I thought, another book could be published listing a litany of people who were "flipped" by specific religious truths - men who suddenly became aware (as if from nowhere) that they were in need of saving, or women who upon hearing the words of Christ became instantly convinced of His Godhood status as if taken by thoughts that weren't their own, etc. What does it mean when these flips not only propel people to a particular religion, but appear to embody the distinctive essence of it?
I appreciated Kripal's discussion of Bergson's work as well. Descartes seems to suggest that there is a transaction between the brain and soul, but I had never considered that our brains are transceivers which filter some timeless reality, and that - if I'm interpreting things correctly - our distinct consciousness is distinct because of how each brain filters it. It definitely made me interested in reading Bergson, which I'm doing next.
A great book!
March 25, 2022
This is another book that I wish there was less than a 1-star rating. There were several times throughout the book I wanted to give up reading it, it was so boring! This book was part of my yoga teacher training recommended reading. I wouldn't have finished reading it if it wasn't part of the cirriculum.
I felt like this book talked in circles and it was hard to understand. My favorite chapter was near the beginning, entitled "flipped scientists". After that it was all downhill and repeated words. There is a YouTube channel that reviews movie trailers called Honest Trailers. One of those reviews is for Ant Man. It makes fun of how many times they say quantam throughout the movie. I felt like this book did the exact same thing. I found myself giggling at how many times the author used quantam this or quantam that throughout the book.
This book took several months to read and now has put me behind on this year's reading challenge. It was a tough read but I struggled through and can say I finished it even if I didn't retain any of the information.
I felt like this book talked in circles and it was hard to understand. My favorite chapter was near the beginning, entitled "flipped scientists". After that it was all downhill and repeated words. There is a YouTube channel that reviews movie trailers called Honest Trailers. One of those reviews is for Ant Man. It makes fun of how many times they say quantam throughout the movie. I felt like this book did the exact same thing. I found myself giggling at how many times the author used quantam this or quantam that throughout the book.
This book took several months to read and now has put me behind on this year's reading challenge. It was a tough read but I struggled through and can say I finished it even if I didn't retain any of the information.
September 15, 2025
Pretty solid explanation of how mystical experiences, psi-phenomena & things that are incompatible with physicalism (aka scientific materialism) doesn’t & shouldn’t be lumped together with religious fundamentalism or new age “woo” & can be totally secular & still nonphysicalist/anti-physicalist.
I particularly liked how Dr. Kripal conveyed that these experiences & nonphysicalist metaphysical models themselves, are more associated with the humanities than with STEM & say more about existence than STEM fields do (not to downplay the importance of STEM industries of course). It really conveys the bias our capitalist system has for quantitative type of work over qualitative type of work/labor (no wonder why physicalism became the dominant metaphysical model among other reasons).
A lot of the information presented in here was stuff I already knew, however, I would recommend this to anyone interested in metaphysics but doesn’t know about the different metaphysical positions & is “on the fence” about all of this stuff/agnostic types.
I particularly liked how Dr. Kripal conveyed that these experiences & nonphysicalist metaphysical models themselves, are more associated with the humanities than with STEM & say more about existence than STEM fields do (not to downplay the importance of STEM industries of course). It really conveys the bias our capitalist system has for quantitative type of work over qualitative type of work/labor (no wonder why physicalism became the dominant metaphysical model among other reasons).
A lot of the information presented in here was stuff I already knew, however, I would recommend this to anyone interested in metaphysics but doesn’t know about the different metaphysical positions & is “on the fence” about all of this stuff/agnostic types.
August 31, 2018
I received this book, for free, in exchange for an honest review.
This book starts out strong. It has some rather hard to explain anecdotes that point to the possibility of the supernatural or at least something beyond our everyday understanding.
I have read many similar anecdotes but these were both new and reasonably convincing.
Both the novelty and relative credibility of the anecdotes were impressive surprises.
The book slows down a bit after the nice start. It begins to get bogged down in dry academic text.
I think this is the point in the book where the author is trying to prove his point, but the lack of brevity coupled with the boring presentation prevented me from following his thoughts around this point in the book.
All in all this book is more interesting and convincing than many of its peers.
This book starts out strong. It has some rather hard to explain anecdotes that point to the possibility of the supernatural or at least something beyond our everyday understanding.
I have read many similar anecdotes but these were both new and reasonably convincing.
Both the novelty and relative credibility of the anecdotes were impressive surprises.
The book slows down a bit after the nice start. It begins to get bogged down in dry academic text.
I think this is the point in the book where the author is trying to prove his point, but the lack of brevity coupled with the boring presentation prevented me from following his thoughts around this point in the book.
All in all this book is more interesting and convincing than many of its peers.
January 7, 2020
4.7/5 - What a great book to start 2020 with. This book re-inspired me with something that I felt I lost after reading a little too much Carl Sagan and Sam Harris a few years ago. Its synthesis of Religious Studies, science, Mysticism, and the unexplained all come together in this book in a way that I almost feel like it was meant for me. So well written and the perfect length, it also felt like a wonderful introduction to a TON of new ideas that I'm eager to dive into. What a welcome trip it was to encounter - I can't wait to re-read it, and see where my thoughts, book selection, and explorations go in the coming years as a result of stumbling upon this book. I wish I remember where it was recommended from...
April 10, 2023
This book turns how we learn on its head by suggesting we expand our intake beyond conventional means of learning. I like this exploration of how our minds work, and the ways we limit ourselves in examining how the world works around us. Religion and science have been somewhat adversarial over time in the worldviews each has created. The truth is that neither alone can explain all we fully experience as human beings. The way we view learning does establish how our biases make it hard for people to get along with each other. I agree with Jeffrey that we must become more open in our view of everything in order to deepen the way we experience life. Once we do, I believe we will move closer to creating a world that works for everyone.
May 5, 2023
He leído con mucha emoción, cautela y asombro el libro de Jeffrey Kripal. En líneas generales me parece una obra atrevida y necesaria, pues plantea un revire en la manera en que hemos entendido a la vida y la existencia en los últimos siglos. Aboga por pensar en la existencia de una vida detrás de esta vida, algo espiritual que es difícil de expresar y comprender, pero que es innegablemente cierta. Al menos así lo han expresado muchas personas que, por diversas vías, creen saber esto. Acaso el mayor problema del libro es que se puede volver un tanto redundante hacia el final. Me gustó mucho esta obra, recomiendo también el trabajo de Gary Lachman como complemento a Kripal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews