Thanks Paul, as someone even less able than Hoffman to comment on philosophy, I find it hard sometimes to clearly delineate the various versions of idealism and realism. For example, Atmanspacher calls Eddington and Wheeler neo-Kantians and notes that Kant wrote before the quantum revolution on which they based their ideas. They clearly do not consider mind to be everything but there is a strong sense of primacy of mind in both their ideas as far as I can understand them. Kastrup seems a more pure idealist as I think he would say, but still expresses the view that there is something real in our shared experiences of what we consider physical. Hoffman, I recall from either his book or an interview, said that there is a reality but we cannot access it since we are evolved only to process what we perceive in the form of icons. Even Kant, as I understand it, believed in a sort of inaccessible reality called nouemena, the thing as it is, or something like that. So, how to separate these all out into clear divisions is a bit confusing to me. Maybe you can help clarify.