The Enactive Mind in Risk – Free Online Workshops
Bernardo Kastrup is a Dutch philosopher (https://www.bernardokastrup.com/) who researches and writes about Metaphysical Idealism. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence), such a fascinating combination in expertise.
You can see more about Kastrup and his books here: https://www.collectiveinkbooks.com/iff-books/authors/bernardo-kastrup
His videos are here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeDZCa3VrRQvzBlVR-oVVmA
What is intriguing about Kastrup is his arguments against ‘physicalism’ and materialism and, his understanding of consciousness.
Whilst I don’t align philosophically with Kastrup’s work, his arguments are compelling about the nature of consciousness beyond the physical. Most importantly, that consciousness is not anchored to the human brain but is enactive in the world. More on Kastrup later.
___________________
Free Online Workshops on the Enactive Mind and Risk
We have already started our preparation reading for the workshops on enactive thinking and risk but, it’s not too late to join. Registrations close on 28 August.
You can register for the free online workshops run on 8, 15, 22, 29 September 9am Canberra time with Prof. Rob Long, register here: admin@spor.com.au
When Kastrup uses the language of ‘mind’ and ‘mental’, he doesn’t mean brain. Similarly, when discussing intelligence, he doesn’t mean ‘brain work’.
When we understand Enactivity, we think beyond the constrains of the brain-as-computer and computational metaphors applied to human cognition (thinking).
I find Kastrup’s triarchic understanding of consciousness fascinating, as it aligns with many other philosophers (eg. Pierce) who hold a non-binary understanding of the world. What this model tries to show is that perception or reality is not ‘in here’ but ‘out there’.
Kastrup argues that the world is fundamentally mental (https://besharamagazine.org/metaphysics-spirituality/mind-over-matter/). I will leave it up to you to research further the work of Kastrup.
In SPoR, the reason why we are interested in the Enactive Mind in Risk is to better address the way humans make decisions as they move through the world.
When we begin to understand the bodily systems of humans (nervous, endocrine, respiratory, integumentary (skin), muscular, digestive, cardiovascular, reproductive, cellular, urinary, feeling/emotional and skeletal systems) and how these are all inter-connected, inter-corporeal and inter-affected, we see how we respond to risk as much more than ‘brain work’ and programming humans.
When we ditch the assumptions of physicalism and behaviourism, we see risk differently and respond to risk differently. When we see humans as embodied in the world and understand the way humans inter-affect each other consciously and unconsciously, we dump the brain-as-computer stuff and approach risk more comprehensively and holistically, with much better results than we see projected by Traditional safety.
Indeed, if you are reading safety material that is anchored to brain semiotics or brain metaphors, regardless of the marketing or slogans, you are doing traditional safety. Without a shift in methodology/philosophy, it will just be cosmetics. Unless there is a change in methodology, there will be no real change in method or ethic in how you tackle risk.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Embouchure, Affordance and Learning in Risk - September 8, 2026
- Following-Leading in Risk, Supplement. Free Download - September 7, 2026
- Safety Culture and the Culture of Safety - September 6, 2026
- Safety, Creating Order Out of Disorder - September 4, 2026
- The Meaning of Risk - September 4, 2026