I think a distinction should be made between types of beliefs. The beliefs you're using as examples here are context-dependent and directly related to the world around us. What I'm trying to get at is fundamental belief,the beliefs that are the foundation of how each of us perceives and experiences the world. These are often not apparent to us (maybe more apparent to those of us who post on philosophy forums, true). They're beliefs about the self. — Noble Dust

I’m not sure that such a distinction between self and world can be made. — Joshs

Philosophical or religious beliefs are beliefs about the world, but beliefs about myself are the foundation on which these other beliefs are built. — Noble Dust

Kierkegaard said that the truth or falsity of an aspect of the world is subservient to how it matters to us. — Joshs

Does it need to be seen to be believed?
— Amity

This is a very good question — javi2541997

How about "believing is seeing"? Some times we do not see reality because we do not believe that it is real; and visa versa, we see the non-existent because we believe it exists. Some see god's purposes in every bird song and car crash. — BC

What does the term 'quantum' mean? How does it relate to 'experience'? Mental meat? Physical heat? It seems to be the smallest, basic building block, have I got that right? Is it stable? I have no idea. Indeed, the whole thing is a mystery to me. Does it need to be seen to be believed? — Amity

Belief is undifferentiated from reality down here. There is no "higher" reality in a spiritual sense, nor a "true" reality (in contrast to falsehood) in a logical sense, that exists "behind" or "beneath" my beliefs about reality. Belief is reality. There is no difference. — Noble Dust

This is just word vomit and I'm not posting these thoughts with the intention of arguing a position. — Noble Dust

If I use language to dig around deeper into the cadaver of my thoughts, the knife eventually hits the operating table. I've cut through the whole thing. Belief is not a set of thoughts which are then represented by words. Belief is more fundamental than thought. — Noble Dust

What do I believe about myself? untangling this question requires a lot of rigorous work and honesty. I am the window through which I experience the world; I am fundamental to the world I experience.[...]

Beneath language, at the quantum level of experience, is something that exists in an undifferentiated form. This is belief. Belief is undifferentiated from reality down here — Noble Dust

My fundamental beliefs about myself shape my reality. That could be another way of saying it. — Noble Dust

Perhaps you - or others - have a similar experience of alternating mental states when immersed in the creative writing process? — Amity

How can we know we are there? –In the room where dreams and life are merged– and could it be possible to know when we enter and when we leave the room? — javi2541997

But every time I woke up, I realised it was all a dream, no matter how genuine it appeared. Perhaps Murakami refers to the third room as a mix of both. A more continuous experience where dreams and awakened moments are more plausible. — javi2541997

How can we know we are there? –In the room where dreams and life are merged– and could it be possible to know when we enter and when we leave the room? — javi2541997

He admitted that the subconscious can often be unknown. He likes to explore this specific room in most of his novels, but I never thought he actually believed in the existence of this room. He couldn't explain with proper words what it feels like to be in the third room, but he claims that it exists, and he wonders if everything in the room exists as well, or if it is a hallucination. It was interesting to me to perceive that while he wished to explore this room, he also hesitated. — javi2541997

So, if you don't really mind—or Jack, since this is his thread—I would like to share my opinion, quoting and understanding Haruki Murakami. — javi2541997

Murakami is an excellent novelist. He came to Spain because he was awarded a prize for literature. Debating with some fans, he stated: I think there is in our consciousness a hidden room. In this room, it is where our real selves live and create art. Sometimes it is difficult to enter it; others leave it. I imagine this room as dark or poorly lit, like a train station at night or a pit. — javi2541997

What I learnt is that consciousness could hold a secret (rather than hidden) location where our ideas flourish. I agree with Murakami that it is difficult to join these locations. Well, what he actually said is that it is difficult to be aware when we are in our creative room, hidden from the rest. — javi2541997

I came to the conclusion that there could be three rooms for surreal or real ideas, dreams, etc. It is more normal to have a single tangible room. A second room where the tangible and unreal could be blurred (our dreams), and a third door, the one Murakami mentioned as the source of our creative thoughts, apparently. — javi2541997

The novel, which is technically three books in one, holds together by what I call "portals of consciousness." Murakami is known for his works that play off ideas of intuition and psychic prowess. His readers are left wondering if the events in his stories are to be taken at face value as reality or if the events are about the characters losing their minds. The author pushes readers to think beyond what they expect of consciousness, that perhaps humans can do incredible things with their minds if they let themselves tap into the subdued parts of themselves.

Murakami’s books aren’t for everyone. They can be violent and sexually graphic. For other readers, Murakami might be too strange. 1Q84, like many of his works, can be better understood if you know a thing or two about psychologist Carl Jung. In fact, Murakami pens a unique chapter in the novel that briefly mentions Jung. It’s one of the last chapters called “Cold or Not, God Is Present.” (This is a play on the phrase “called or not, God is present.

I want to open a window in their souls’: Haruki Murakami on the power of writing simply.
The master storyteller on finding a voice, creative originality and why he has never suffered from writer’s block.

Writing in a foreign language taught me to express thoughts and feelings with a limited set of words.

It is my belief that a rich, spontaneous joy lies at the root of all creative expression

I came across this line recently in the New York Times, written about the American debut of the Beatles: “They produced a sound that was fresh, energetic and unmistakably their own.” These words may provide the best definition of originality available. “Fresh, energetic, and unmistakably your own.”

Originality is hard to define in words, but it is possible to describe and reproduce the emotional state it evokes. I try to attain that emotional state each time I sit down to write my novels. That’s because it feels so wonderfully invigorating. It’s as if a new and different day is being born from the day that is today.
— Guardian - Murakami on the power of writing simply

I wonder if there is someone about who can explain how 'accepted answer' works? God, are you there?
— Amity

I don't want to derail this very interesting OP but after reading your question, I believe I can help you, Amity. — javi2541997

However, I do not believe that 'accepted answer' follows a pattern of quality. — javi2541997

The term 'surreal' in my updated title is a way of seeing ideas and symbols as being a potential shift from metaphysics as absolutes, to the scope of a tentative notion of the metaphysical imagination.

View Answer — Jack Cummins

Accepted Answer — Jack Cummins

The thread was intended to explore the debate over idealism, but with reference to semantics.
— Jack Cummins
What "debate"? You haven't even stated the proposition in contention we're supposed to either be for (thesis) or against (antithesis). Please clarify ... — 180 Proof

“Landscape and the Metaphysical Imagination”
Hepburn, Ronald W. | from Multimedia Library Collection: Environmental Values (journal)
Hepburn, Ronald W. “Landscape and the Metaphysical Imagination.” Environmental Values 5, no. 3 (1996): 191–204. doi:10.3197/096327196776679320.

Aesthetic appreciation of landscape is by no means limited to the sensuous enjoyment of sights and sounds. It very often has a reflective, cognitive element as well. This sometimes incorporates scientific knowledge, e.g.,geological or ecological; but it can also manifest what this article will call “metaphysical imagination,” which sees or seems to see in a landscape some indication, some disclosure of how the world ultimately is. The article explores and critically appraises this concept of metaphysical imagination, and some of the roles it can play in our aesthetic encounters. (Source: The White Horse Press) — Environment and Society - Landscape and the Metaphysical Imagination

Ronnie worked alongside Donald MacKinnon and Antony Flew, both serving as important, early mentors. Other thinkers he often turned to included Kant, Marcel, and Otto. This dynamic set of influences shaped a philosophical approach which insisted upon a dialectic between perception and theory, phenomenology and analytic method, where each would be at hand to question and sometimes undermine the other.
Ronnie was wary of fixed positions, and often preferred a critical metaphysical outlook which sometimes put him at odds with other philosophers. In his exploration of the links and boundaries between the aesthetic, moral and religious, his attention was drawn to wonder, the contemplative stance, imagination, the sublime, freedom, respect for nature, and the sacred. Ronnie brought this distinctive approach together with autobiography, narrative and the shaping of the ethical life to challenge moral philosophy’s preoccupation with rules and principles in his paper ‘Vision and Choice in Morality’, his contribution to an Aristotelian Society-Mind Association symposium with Iris Murdoch in 1956. — British Aesthetics - Ronald W. Hepburn

That really resonated with a lot of my thinking. — wonderer1

The author of the paper you linked to writes

…justified belief aims at truth, not imaginative capacity, or understanding. If we focus too much on having justified beliefs, it is harder for us to suspend disbelief and try to inhabit views that we don’t believe.

Thinking of metaphysics this way as split off from empirical truth perpetuates a dualism between ideas and reality, the physical and the metaphysical. The philosophers I follow don’t treat the metaphysical as ‘imaginative capacity’, but as the plumbing undergirding the intelligibility of a true belief. — Joshs

Metaphysics as Essentially Imaginative and Aiming at Understanding
Michaela Markham McSweeney
Abstract: I explore the view that metaphysics is essentially imaginative. I argue that
the central goal of metaphysics on this view is understanding, not truth. Metaphysicsas-essentially-imaginative provides novel answers to challenges to both the value and epistemic status of metaphysics.

[...]
There are other things that matter besides truth. Imagination is both intrinsically and instrumentally (in part because it can lead to understanding) valuable. Understanding is an important goal of certain kinds of inquiry. On the metaphysics-as-essentially-imaginative view, both imagination and understanding are central to what metaphysics is for. But justified belief aims at truth, not imaginative capacity, or understanding. If we focus too much on having justified beliefs, it is harder for us to suspend disbelief and try to inhabit views that we don’t believe. And there is value in doing so.

It's possible that any confusion in my posts is on account of stress, because it can lead to muddled thinking. However, it would probably be going too far to describe me as 'psychotic' or 'deluded'. — Jack Cummins

Metaphysical Imagination' - what do you think it is? How have you used it?
In the meantime, I found this: https://philarchive.org/archive/MCSMAE — Amity

... seeing ideas and symbols as being a potential shift from metaphysics as absolutes, to the scope of a tentative notion of the metaphysical imagination. — Jack Cummins

Language is the way humans process experiences, with the formation of concepts, but it does not mean that it the only possible way. For example, it is possible to form visual representations of ideas and this itself is likely to have come first in human culture, such as in symbolic representations. — Jack Cummins

...any interpretations of anything depend on our minds processing words/images, — Amity

The painting of a wild pig and three human-like figures is at least 51,200 years old, more than 5,000 years older than the previous oldest cave art.
The discovery pushes back the time that modern humans first showed the capacity for creative thought.

Prof Maxime Aubert from Griffith University in Australia told BBC News that the discovery would change ideas about human evolution.

“The painting tells a complex story. It is the oldest evidence we have for storytelling. It shows that humans at the time had the capacity to think in abstract terms,” he said. — BBC News - World's oldest cave art

The term 'surreal' in my updated title is a way of seeing ideas and symbols as being a potential shift from metaphysics as absolutes, to the scope of a tentative notion of the metaphysical imagination. — Jack Cummins

Also, despite the emphasis on physicalism, all interpretations are dependent on ideas and language. What is language and its connections to symbolic forms of interpretation? Are ideas mind-dependent, subjective, objective or intersubjective constructs in human semantics? — Jack Cummins

One author he points to is Berkley and the query about whether a tree makes a sound if there is no human being to experience it. — Jack Cummins

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception.
While the origin of the phrase is sometimes mistakenly attributed to George Berkeley, there are no extant writings in which he discussed this question. The closest are the following two passages from Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, published in 1710. [...]

The current phrasing appears to have originated in the 1910 book Physics by Charles Riborg Mann and George Ransom Twiss. The question "When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is near by to hear it, does it make a sound? Why?" is posed along with many other questions to quiz readers on the contents of the chapter, and as such, is posed from a purely physical point of view — Wiki

They'd shoot you dead, just for being incomprehensible. Red-blooded, gun-totin' 'Merickans hate it when they don't understand something. — Vera Mont

Ah, a muse for every purpose. I suppose... Me, I prefer one familiar spirit, even not a particularly powerful one. (My top favourite Terry Pratchett book is Small Gods.) — Vera Mont

Listen to 40 magnificent new re-recordings of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, read by leading names from British stage and screen including Bill Nighy, Peter Serafinowicz, Indira Varma and Andy Serkis. This epic programme of new audiobooks truly has something for everyone. — Penguin - Discworld in Audio

I'm sorry but this 'contrast' doesn't make sense to me. There is nothing simple about secularism as a philosophy. Leaving it here, thanks. — schopenhauer1

But, of course there is the dynamic of the counterprotests, which is the more left wing ventilation protest about so much misery and suffering. — Jack Cummins

In Walthamstow, east London, thousands took over the street outside an immigration bureau shouting “we fight back.”Newspapers from across the spectrum, including several aligned with the center-right, united in praise of the “anti-hate marchers.”

“The show of force from the police and, frankly, the show of unity from communities, together defeated the challenges that we’ve seen,” Mark Rowley, commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police, said Thursday. — Politico - The night Britain fought back against riots

Poetry. I'm "attracted to" all the very human, Deadwood characters, major and minor, because each one is an oracle of syntaxes and silences, profanies and cries peculiar to that imaginary-historical place. I'm even more "attracted to" the female and beta-male (i.e. quasi-Beckettian) characters than I am to Al Swearengen even though he tends to be more quotable and one of the two main protagonists (the other being Seth Bullock). — 180 Proof

Going back to Freud's ideas, catharsis involves sexuality but trauma too. It also involves the whole spectrum of love and hatred, with aggression sometimes being a source of cathartic pleasure. — Jack Cummins

I am wondering about this in relation to the outbreak of the current outbreak of riots in the UK. In some ways it is the opposite to the Brixton riots which were based on opposition to racism. Rioting may be the expression of deep anger and hatred, like the expression of primordial anger of the tribe in the form of cathartic aggression in real life as opposed to in the form of the arts. — Jack Cummins

From Newcastle to London to Bristol, anti-racist demonstrators stood up against threat of further racist riots.

The scale of the anti-racism protests was surely sending a message: an effort to change the narrative after a week dominated by rampant far-right, anti-immigrant violence.

In Birmingham’s jewellery quarter, outside a migrant centre, they chanted “fascist scum out of Brum”.

In Liverpool they held banners such as “Nans Against Nazis”, “Immigrants welcome. Racists not” and “When the poor blame the poor only the rich win”. An elderly man with a portable speaker resting on his walking frame played John Lennon’s Give Peace a Chance on repeat. — Guardian - Protest - United against hate

... other 'big' TV series like  Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Succession, etc. Well written and performed, but I just don't care about the stories or the characters.

No fuckin' doubt, Tom, we be a couple of dusty ol' cocksuckers drinkin' from the same crack'd bottle ... like all them other hoopleheads down on their fuckin' luck, laughin' and pissin' it all away in that limey cocksucker Swearengen's saloon. :smirk: — 180 Proof

In Western countries, Christian nationalism often seeks to impose pro-life policies, ban certain forms of sexual speech in public settings such as libraries and schools, promote Christian ethical teachings in educational curricula, and restrict access to certain websites. Similarly, Islamic nationalism enforces these and many more restrictions, often with even stricter adherence to religious doctrines.

Religionists argue that these restraints are necessary to prevent civilization from descending into decadence and excessive hedonism, where higher values are discarded in favor of simple pleasures. They believe that without these moral guidelines, society would lose its ethical foundation and succumb to chaos. — schopenhauer1

On the other hand, humanists, existentialists, and secularists who hold notions of "virtue" or "civic virtue" argue that Enlightenment values can temper the excesses of pure hedonism in a secularized society.
— schopenhauer1

I read years ago that sexual products and services including production and distribution of pornography generate many times the revenue of, say, sports broadcasting. I see not a lot of comment from those espousing ‘enlightenment values’ in that regard.

When there’s discussion of the possible connection between pornography and sexual violence against women, there’s a lot of throat-clearing about the evils of censorship and a correct understanding of ‘consent’. — Wayfarer

Also, the whole idea of catharsis was central to his perspective on therapy. The idea was that the ventilation of emotional expression is the road to 'cure'. This was based on his work with patients.

The problem which I see is that it does not always follow that ventilation of emotions and traumatic experiences will lead to a cure and the CBT therapists see him psychodynamic therapy as placing too much emphasis on the past. — Jack Cummins

However, the emphasis he placed on sexuality had a profound influence on culture and dealing with the repression of sexual aspects of life. It may be central to pleasure itself and it would be hard to imagine trajedy without a sexual aspect.

The nature of trajedy itself may be about the way in which sexuality causes conflict and potential destruction. His philosophy, which drew upon mythology, emphasised the tension between Eros and Thanatos, the life and death drives/instincts. — Jack Cummins

On the other hand, humanists, existentialists, and secularists who hold notions of "virtue" or "civic virtue" argue that Enlightenment values can temper the excesses of pure hedonism in a secularized society.
— schopenhauer1

I read years ago that sexual products and services including production and distribution of pornography generate many times the revenue of, say, sports broadcasting. I see not a lot of comment from those espousing ‘enlightenment values’ in that regard. When there’s discussion of the possible connection between pornography and sexual violence against women, there’s a lot of throat-clearing about the evils of censorship and a correct understanding of ‘consent’. — Wayfarer

Could you cope with a committee of the of the pesky things? — Vera Mont

And some more fuckin' words to live by:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/792330 — 180 Proof

There are certainly more eloquent lines in Deadwood than “I don’t like it, either.” But after rewatching all three seasons of the great HBO western this spring, they’re the words I can’t get over. As uttered by a sex worker named Dolly (Ashleigh Kizer), who spends most of her screen time between the legs of Ian McShane’s coarse saloon owner Al Swearengen, they constitute an assertion of personhood from a heretofore insignificant character. “They hold you down from behind,” Al fumes, as she kneels beside him. “Then you wonder why you’re helpless. How the f-ck could you not be?”

He’s referring to powerful men like George Hearst (Gerald McRaney), who is slowly bringing Al—along with everyone else in the prosperous frontier mining camp of Deadwood—to his metaphorical knees. And so it’s jarring when Dolly replies “I don’t like it, either,” because she’s really talking about the johns who physically pin her down during sex. “I guess I do that, too, with your f-ckin’ hair,” Al muses, his voice softening to an uncharacteristic whisper. Though he does plenty of despicable things in the subsequent eight episodes of the show’s final season, he never treats Dolly so roughly again. — Time - Deadwood was the rare show about men that did women justice

It's bound to be brutal and nasty.
— Amity
Nevertheless, intriguing. — Vera Mont

Yes, I know that preferring entertainment over heavy philosophical content is frivolous, but I'm okay with that.
— Vera Mont

I think Deadwood works well as entertainment and at a deeper level. — Tom Storm

But it is violent and pessimistic. In that way, it is not much different to other long form, scrupulously written, television shows. The performances and the script are astonishing. — Tom Storm

Gaskell's account reveals there is no significant difference between genders and class in the experience of self-interest. We pursue what is best for us. The difference of outcomes come about from slight gains or losses of self-awareness in each person. And nobody gets to check the scorecard since it involves life beyond one's view. — Paine

We pursue what is best for us.
— Paine

We pursue what we believe to be best for us - and sometimes what we know to be bad for us, yet want anyway. — Vera Mont

Update: I did get some commentary on the making of the series and some excerpts.
I've concluded that I will not be making a heroic effort to see it. Whatever its literary and dramatic merits - and I gather they are prodigious - it's not my idea of entertainment. — Vera Mont

At 78, whatever I still need to learn about the human condition will probably come unbidden, in humiliating, inelegant forms. I don't need to watch other people pretend to get there first. — Vera Mont