Introducing the Uniform Reprints: Updated philosophy brought together as a whole

My biggest publishing news of 2018 is now officially out: the Uniform Reprints of my first six books. But wait: you have seen the new covers already; they have been around for a couple of months. "So, what's new?" I hear you ask. Well, the changes go much deeper than mere covers! "But if so, why only now make a breaking news item of it?" This, and many other questions you may have, is what I intend to address in this post.

What are the Uniform Reprints?

The Uniform Reprints are in-depth revisions of my six earlier books. The arguments have been refined and sharpened, with some ambiguous segments corrected. They have also been made consistent with one another, so that the six titles now contribute coherently to the same overall philosophical system, without seeming contradictions. Particularly, the usage of terms has been harmonized across books. Even my very first book, Rationalist Spirituality, which uses a dualist metaphor throughout, has been made more explicitly consistent with my idealist views.

Since their original publications, I have engaged in a number of exchanges about the books and fielded answers to countless questions from readers. This has given me a treasure trove of insights about how best to frame and word my case so it is better understood and misinterpretations are avoided. I have leveraged these insights while revising the text of the Uniform Reprints, which should thus be considerably clearer and more compelling.

All in all, the books now reflect and capture my thought in a more accurate, balanced and self-consistent manner. The Uniform Reprints also make clearer which role each respective book plays in the context of my overall philosophical ideas, and how they build on one another. One could even regard them now as one extensive six-volume work elaborating on a single theme from different angles and perspectives.

Why don't you call them new editions?

Since so much has been revised and improved, why don't we call these new versions full-blown new editions? There are several reasons, the most important of which is this: my publisher and I did not want to inadvertently deceive readers into assuming that these new versions have new material (such as new chapters, references, etc.). For clarity, let me say this: The Uniform Reprints do not have new material. They are revised, improved, sharpened versions of the same arguments and hypotheses already covered in the original versions. Improved as they certainly are, they do not cover new ground.

In addition, I wanted to supplant the earlier versions with these new revisions, because they are simply better at doing what I originally intended to do. If the revisions were published as new editions, the original versions would have survived, since new editions are basically new books, with new ISBN numbers. As it is now, the Uniform Reprints supplant the earlier versions entirely.

Should I buy a new Uniform Reprint of a book I already have?

This depends on the book and your personal situation, of course. One book in particular has been significantly improved: Rationalist Spirituality, my very first title. I am much happier with its Uniform Reprint version, as it is more accurate, compelling, clear and consistent with my idealist views. If any one of the Uniform Reprints deserves to be re-purchased if you already have the earlier version, it is this one. Of all my books, this is now the one that offers the most accessible, easy path into my ideas, because of its use of a dualist metaphor (body and soul, psyche and matter, etc.) that nearly everybody is acquainted with and have an intuition for. The original version already attempted this, but the Uniform Reprint is more successful at establishing a clear bridge from dualism to idealism.

Two other books have also been significantly improved: Meaning in Absurdity and Brief Peeks Beyond. The revisions here are less structural than in Rationalist Spirituality, but extensive and important nonetheless. If your interest in those two titles is high, it may be worthwhile to re-read them in their Uniform Reprint versions.

My best-selling title, Why Materialism Is Baloney, has gotten several improvements and corrections of passages that were ambiguous or not accurate enough. Dreamed Up Reality and More Than Allegory, on the other hand, required only language and terminology adjustments for accuracy and consistency with other titles; nothing too significant. Only real enthusiasts with no financial constraints should consider re-purchasing these.

Are the books still true to the originals?

I believe each one of my books belongs to its own time and circumstances, contributing an indispensable piece of the overall jigsaw puzzle I've been attempting to put together in the body of my work. Although my thinking has moved on since I've written them, in the sense that my focus has shifted, the earlier books still capture angles and perspectives integral—even indispensable—to the overall story.

As such, it has not been my intention, with the Uniform Reprints, to turn the older titles into different books. They remain true to what they were; to their time and nexus in the development of my philosophy. If anything, I've attempted to improve on what they already tried to achieve, without in any way defacing them.

So why are you announcing it only now?

Because the Uniform Reprints aren't new editions, they do not have new ISBN numbers. This means that they are treated as the exact same book as the original, logistics-wise. For this reason, there was no way to know whether a buyer would get a Uniform Reprint or an original version when purchasing: neither I nor my publisher have control over the stocks of retailers, so we couldn't be sure whether all the original versions had already been flushed out. (Naturally, this applies only to the paperback editions, as the e-book files have already all been updated.)

Had I announced the Uniform Reprints earlier, the chances that you would have gotten an older paperback version when purchasing—leading to possible disappointment—would have been high. So I felt it wasn't responsible to do so. And although even now I cannot be absolutely sure that the retailers' paperback stocks have been refreshed, the chances are at least much reduced, as I've waited literally months now. This is why this announcement is coming only today. Nota bene: I still can't guarantee that you will get the new version if you go and purchase a paperback now (the e-books are safe), for I simply have no control of the retailers' stock levels. On the other hand, if I were to delay the announcement much longer, it would hardly be news-worthy anymore.

Is this really such big news?

At least from my own perspective it certainly is. In fact, if anything, I've been holding my enthusiasm back throughout this post! If I could I would be throwing virtual fireworks here. The Uniform Reprints represent a consolidation of the body of my work that few philosophers have the opportunity to achieve in their lifetime. However much one tries to fine-tune and wordsmith a manuscript, the post-publication repercussion and feedback always provide embarrassing insights into what could have been done better. Thanks to my publisher, Iff Books, I have now had the opportunity to actually leverage these insights and firm up the foundations of my philosophy in a manner that gives me great confidence. The Uniform Reprints constitute a solid edifice of ideas argued cogently, compellingly and mutually-consistently. They also anticipate and preempt a number of the criticisms that could be made against them. The result is, hopefully, quite robust.

I still have many more books in me (in fact, I have been working on two yet-unannounced new manuscripts that even my publisher knows nothing about yet; so please don't tell anyone). But seeing the Uniform Reprints come out already gives me a great sense of fulfillment. If I were to write no more books in my life, I'd already regard this set of six (and now seven, with The Idea of the World) as my legacy to the world of philosophy. I hope you derive as much value from reading them as I have from writing, and now revising, the books.


  1. I want to read the new digital versions. How can I? If I buy Kindle version today wiill them be the revised version?

    1. Yes, e-book editions are all updated to the Uniform Reprint version!

  2. This is a good development. And revision also no doubt. I have read all of your books and as in many such circumstances, I felt the later ones lacked the solidity of the first ones. I understand publishers can push for more and more books when someone is a marketing success, but at the end of the day, it is substance which endures.

    1. Iff Books never pushed me for new books... the push comes from myself! :-)

  3. This is very, very exciting to me. Thank you, Bernardo, for taking the time and effort (I'm sure it was a lot) to refine these and otherwise prepare them for a reprint. One aspect of the reprints you didn't specifically mention, but that I am so glad to see, is the new covers, which are less wu-y (especially Rationalist Spirituality and Meaning in Absurdity). The old covers didn't keep me from reading them, but they honestly may have, had I not first heard you in an interview. I believe these will be significantly more accessible.

  4. Sorry for getting into the weeds in this but, do you know if my existing Kindle copies will get the reprint updates?

    1. Someone in my forum said the Kindle versions can be automatically and freely updated, but I don't know for sure!

  5. Thanks Bernardo for the wonderful updates and all your deep insights. I purchased a Kindle version of Rationalist Spirituality on Oct 10, 2018. Is it the Uniform Reprint version?

  6. I am so looking forward to following your work. The time and effort to produce such a collection is truly admirable. I came across your work through Dr Joe Dispenza. I have had a life-time of multi-dimensional experiences after an NDE at 2 and love that people like yourself and science is now putting a language and understanding to the experiences and inner knowing that has made me feel so separate from others for so long. We are in an interesting and exciting place right now on this earth and I am loving the journey and fellow humans that I am riding the Kaleidoscope of changes with right here right now. Thank you - Jo

  7. I just wrote to you in another thread around the latest psychedelic research via yours and Kelly responses. Your contribution to the Mind Body Problem, Materialism zone et al is FOUNDATIONAL for this time, Dr. Kastrup. Rupert Spira targets people directly to your work. In one of the Buddha at the Gas Pump interviews your honesty was revealing and perceptive - about the limits of the DIRECT experiencing of all this that your sensory system/I had had to that date, vs. the supreme depth of the intellectual understanding and metaphors (the whirlpool in a river with sensory organs on the outside edge is just wicked!) Around this honesty I offer this in response to "If I were to write no more books in my life, I'd already regard this set of six (soon to be seven, with The Idea of the World) as my legacy to the world of philosophy." The concept of legacy is, in my view, for most of us unknowingly rooted in the dualistic tradition. The idea that there is a captain of the ship somewhere at the helm inside the head/brain, creating thoughts and making all the decisions thereby deserving CREDIT and BLAME is at odds with the deeper understanding (or apparent outcomes) you are involved in developing with your work. In the Nondual frame of reference who we are and what we think or do is not a property of anything other than all the limited sensory processing systems that we label as “ours” doing their thing. There is no separate self/separate consciousness deserving legacy. If we concede the separate self than that self may of course desire legacy (the current status quo orientation). Each of the 7 billion systems/I/persons is completely unique obviously (flavor, texture, way of being), but no system is “special”. (Or maybe all are ultimately special - each of one us either an expression of Source, or some would say is Source itself). So the pull we have towards "legacy" is at least worth looking at from the actual lens of the work being investigated, or least the outcomes of the work being investigated in your case. I could be off here, of course, so if I am missing something that sheds a different light on this from the perspective of your work/lens please recontextualize. Keep it on, the world of science vibrates in an ever so slightly new form as your contributions seed the materialism fortress.

  8. Hi B. Wow. I didn't know it was possible to do this. How wonderful to be able to go back to revise and re-publish with the benefit of hindsight. It's quite a body of work and is surely making a difference.