I've no idea. — Banno

:smile:
I knew you were clueless! :roll:
What kind of an idea don't you have?

I have an idea.
Let's start a YWHNIC.
'Yes, We Have No Idea/s Club'.
You can be the Founding Father and I can be Mummy :scream: :hearts: :monkey:
Our first offspring must be a song and dance.
Lyrics to the tune of YWHNB: ( they keep changing the words anyway, let's have a philo version)
Allons-y!

.

So its emotional blackmail actually, a romantic extortion, lots of lyrics are like that.

But your right, I will simply cancel it from now on — Seeker

If they hit home the heart, the pain and pleasure, then songs will sell.
I might be right but you better not let it/life go. It's transactional, innit. Love is all around :heart:
Gotta love the :broken: not to mention the wholesome white jumpsacks suits of the Manhattans. :monkey:

'So If you really love me...come on and let it show...'

Love him. — Moliere

Hadn't heard of @Srap Tasmaner's 'WCM' but now I have.
William Carlos Williams: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/william-carlos-williams

I didn't want any bad blood after so much good interaction. — Moliere

No worries. I don't do 'bad blood'...much. Certainly not in this kind of discussion :sparkle:

I appreciate everything you've contributed, and definitely do not want to lose that feeling of poetry, or the interpretation of poetry, in the wacky thoughts. — Moliere

Thank you. I much prefer the feeling/meaning but form is good for me too. I've learned a lot about how it contributes. It took a lot of questions to get there... :flower:
Have placed your last explanatory post on my back-burner...

You're forgiven but only because I'm an :halo: with a :naughty: streak.
Take care :sparkle:

I love/d this song but paying more attention to the lyrics:

[...]
Just trust in me like I trust in you
As long as we've been together
It should be so easy to do
Just get yourself together
Or we might as well say goodbye
What good is a love affair
When you can't see eye to eye
If you don't know me by now
You will never
Never, never know me

Sometimes we don't even know or trust ourselves.
As for 'just get yourself together'!
Then the threat... :naughty:

Heh, I'm just glad there's enough interest here that I'm able to think through my wacky thoughts. — Moliere

Well, I have my limits. And I think I've reached them. I might leave the rest to others. Thanks anyway :up:

Yup yup, true.
...does it really surprise you that a person whose fine without form would forget forms? :D — Moliere

Funny but not the point, if you're trying to be serious - don't dismiss with carelessness :naughty:
It's bad form, old boy :smirk:

.

I hate sonnets. To me, all sonnets day the same thing. — WCW

WCW :chin:
Woman Crush Wednesday or World Championship Wrestling.
'All donnets day the dame thing' :cool:

Trying to make it obvious here how the structure of a poem shapes its meaning. — Srap Tasmaner

Do you have an easy-to-understand example of a sonnet?

What are the 'rules for interpreting a sonnet'?

Iambic pentameter, 3 stanzas. Rhymes as follows: ABAB, CDCD, EE — Moliere

I just accepted that as true. Unfortunately, you didn't provide a source so that I could check.
Do you have one?

I found this interesting. Again, not sure if it's correct:

Shakespearean sonnets are broken into 4 sections, called quatrains.
They maintain a strict rhyme scheme:
ABAB // CDCD // EFEF // GG
The sonnet must have 14 lines.
Each line has 10 syllables.
Each line usually rhymes using the following syllable pattern:
soft-LOUD-soft-LOUD-soft-LOUD-soft-LOUD-soft-LOUD
Sonnets often describe a problem and solution, or question and answer.
The transition from problem to solution (or question to answer) is called the volta (turn). — Sonnet Rules and Rhyme Scheme

Disagree.

Hopefully any of those, and more, given that poems tend to invent their own phrase kinds. — Moliere

Given that, why pose the question of 'what constitutes a phrase?' and the follow-up:

is it possible to devise a relationship between a string and how many phrases are in a string — Moliere

If there are a number of phrases in a 'string', I would have thought any 'string' would be the sentence or more. But this doesn't seem to be the case:

What kind of a string? Examples?

Well, for now, I just mean a set of characters with some kind of single-dimensional direction that has a place where it begins and a place where it ends -- speaking more formally, basically. When I'm speaking as abstractly at the level of "strings" I'm kind of coming at the question "from the other side" of feeling -- attempting to put down abstract theories that provide clarity. — Moliere

So again, a clear-cut example of what your first sentence means would be helpful.
Clarity is necessary for understanding. How will unclear abstract theories provide this?

[...] But one of the things I'm trying to do is focus on the bits of language that truth-conditional semantics doesn't. So poetry, and its evaluation, as SrapTasmaner pointed out earlier, is a concrete topic under which we might come up with distinctions to figure out what this "left over" is -- if we think there's more to meaning that the truth of statements at least. — Moliere

Thanks. A pity that this was skipped over:

This thread might provide a better opportunity for discussing the subjective and objective [...]
The interpretation of a work of art is a good test case in part because, as I think Dawnstorm suggested, there's stuff in there the artist didn't put in deliberately. But it is, objectively, there. Some stuff you find only if you bring it with you, so subjective.

There's also the peculiarity that what's not there, might not be there on purpose, which happens with expression not intended as art too, but plays out differently with art. There are various ways this is done for various purposes with various effects. Always cases. Since it's not there, but the place for it is, this is particularly interesting spot for addressing the objectivity and subjectivity of interpretation. — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting to consider the possibly purposeful missing pieces of the poetic puzzle.
A message hidden from plain sight for whatever reason. We see that in philosophy where the anti-religious had to hide their views from the status-quo for health and safety reasons.
The reader then must figure out any clues that might lead to a new unspoken 'truth'.

So yes, of course, there is always a combination of subjectivity and objectivity in any text; poem or art.
The 'subjective' is not 'left over'.

I think that the approach which prefers to talk about meaning in terms of a Language "L", such that we're speaking about language in the abstract rather than a particular natural language (like German or English or..), would say that the actual sound of a given unit of meaning is not important. But the phonic structure of a poem is part and parcell to poetry, even when it's not one of the forms. — Moliere

Thanks for clarifying. It shows what most readers would know. The sound is the pound.
And yes, I now see that the absence or silence within can create or disturb a rhythm, as in music.
Also how reading aloud, or listening, can provide the musicality and a more meaningful experience.
I found help, here: (included for my own recall !)
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Sound-Devices-in-Poetry

What are the 'rules for interpreting a sonnet'?

Iambic pentameter, 3 stanzas. Rhymes as follows: ABAB, CDCD, EE — Moliere

Those are structural rules, no? How do they help in interpretation? Ah, reading on:

(also itself not necessary for providing an actual interpretation of a poem, which I've agreed is more about feeling and sharing and connecting than this attempt at making something formal) — Moliere

Got it :up:

Poets frequently complain about the impossibility of translating poetry. And one of the main complaints in translating poetry is exactly the phonic structure of the poem, and the relations that invokes within the spoken language. — Moliere

Yes, I don't envy the translator's task. I've read more here:

[...] One of the features that makes poetry even more special is to be found on a “deeper” level. The thing about poetry is that it manages to explore the author’s feelings and express them in such an overpowering way, that it does so with a twist.

The trademark of poetry, in fact, is that it resonates with the reader’s feelings too. And even if unable to fully appreciate the intricate meanings and messages hidden in a certain use of words, readers’ emotions are triggered by a simple word or rhyme, or even by the associations made by their own imagination. — Creative Translation

[my bolds]

I appreciate all the time and energy spent in responding to my queries.

Do you see why, then, poetry serves as a good contrast case for truth-conditions to explore the nature of meaning? — Moliere

I understand a whole lot more now than I did before, thanks :sparkle:

In particular, it'd be interesting to simply answer the question "what constitutes a phrase?" when we take a string -- is it possible to devise a relationship between a string and how many phrases are in a string? — Moliere

What kind of a phrase?
https://natureofwriting.com/courses/sentence-structure/lessons/phrases/topic/phrases/

What kind of a string? Examples?

Would it be possible to develop a logic of phrases? — Moliere

What is a 'logic of phrases'?

Mostly still just looking at that "what's left, if we are able to conceptually "take away" truth-conditions?" question. — Moliere

What is left where... in a poem? What is a 'truth-condition'? Why would a poem need one?
I struggle to understand what is at issue. Even after I read the following:

Sentences are valuable primarily because they are meaningful. Typically, we have little use for random strings of symbols. Such strings, no matter how complex or interesting, are regarded as at most curiosities, unless they are thought to be meaningful. To be meaningful is to have a meaning. But what is this thing, this meaning? What is the meaning of a sentence?

How can we answer this question? The first step is to notice that "meaning", as it is used in the question, suggests that we are looking for some type of thing. But where and how do we look for this thing? You can't touch it or see it, so empirical methods would appear to be useless. You might say: "Yes, I can't see it, but I know when it is there and I know when it isn't, even if this knowledge isn't observational." This response yields a hint: perhaps if we approached meaning from the perspective of our knowledge, we might be able to get a foothold. In particular, if we found something that (a) if we know it, we know a meaning, and (b) if we know a meaning, we know it, then we might discover a way of analyzing meaning. We will begin (and end) our search for this thing by examining truth conditions.

II. Truth Conditions

The truth condition of a sentence is the condition of the world under which it is true. This condition must be such that if it obtains, the sentence is true, and if it doesn't obtain, the sentence is false.

Now, whether a sentence is true or false in a given circumstance will depend on its parts. For instance, the sentence, "Snow is white," depends for its truth on snow and the property of being white. For it to be true, these things must be related in the right way; if they are not, then the sentence is false. Thus, the truth condition of a given sentence S will consist in a relation between the things in the world that correspond to the parts of S. This is often expressed in the following way:

"Snow is white" is true if and only if (or just in case) snow is white.

This seems like a platitude, but it really isn't. The first part of the sentence, "Snow is white", is a name, in this case, the name of a sentence. Thus, the sentence could be rewritten:

S is true if and only if snow is white.

This looks much less trivial. The part of the sentence on the right of the "if and only if" specifies the condition of the world that must obtain for the sentence named by the quote to be true. — Philosophy 202 - Meaning and Truth Conditions

***
Another kind of logic question, grammatical:

Let's consider, for example, this excerpt from a poem by Grenfell:

Those ancient Jew boys went like stinks,
They knew not reck nor fear,
Old Noah knocked the first two jinks,
And Nimrod got the spear.
And ever since those times of yore
True men do ride the fighting boar.

The last line here contains two verbs—do and ride—and I know that do here is used to make the phrase emphatic.
What I'm curious about is the underlying logic of such emphatic constructions. As a non-native speaker, I find it difficult to see how it makes any sense to use a transitive verb, do, right before another verb, ride. How can a verb be an object? Or should I see ride here as a noun rather than a verb?
My question: What exactly is the logic of using do to make phrases emphatic? — The Grammatical Logic of Emphatic Phrases

***

One thing that should be obvious from my approach is that I don't think there'd be a general answer for all languages, given that poetic meaning -- as I've been rendering it thus far at least -- includes phonic structure. — Moliere

Nothing is obvious to me, perhaps I missed it. If you could explain again, I'd be grateful.

So the question would be about, first, what is a reasonable delimitation on generality such that it's still interesting, and not just a set of rules for interpreting a sonnet? — Moliere

Again, I lack understanding of what it is you are asking. What do you mean by 'reasonable delimitation on generality'? What are the 'rules for interpreting a sonnet'?

That's what form does for us, in a way -- it tells us exactly how many phrases a poem will have, and some of its internal structure. In a way poetic form is a logic for answering the question "What constitutes a phrase?" -- and the modern poets basically assert that such formalities are not necessary to convey meaning (thus making it much harder to answer the original question, but taking us back to the original impetus -- the feeling of poetry) — Moliere

I am not sure what you are getting at. Perhaps if you could provide a complete and simple poem, an example to show how poetic form is a logic for answering the question 'What constitutes a phrase'?'
What is the importance of this question, in any case, when it comes to understanding meaning?
Wouldn't looking at the content be just as helpful?
Content + Form = Meaning

Content = title, subject matter, theme, word choices and order, imagery...

Again, do you have a source for your claim about 'modern poets' - who are they and where do they assert that 'formalities are not necessary to convey meaning?

A poem might initially be 'felt' by a simple read; not fully engaging the mental faculties.
However, to reach any obscure or symbolic meaning requires us to go beyond.
To read again. With care. To connect, compare and contrast with our own 'truths'. To relate.

The 'truth' of poetry I discussed earlier:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13562/poem-meaning/p4
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2015/4/poetry-truth

When I woke up this morning
You were on my mind...

But if you would understand a real idea, with what woudl you contrast it? What is an unreal idea - one from the sixties? If you would understand a real sensation, then you would also understand an unreal sensation... but what would that be? In asking such questions one comes to see that the notion of "real" is misapplied to sensations and ideas. Whole volumes of bad philosophy are removed by such considerations. — Banno

'What is an unreal idea'?
That got me wondering if the opposite of 'real' is 'unreal'. Should it be nonreal, irreal...?
Sticking with 'unreal', there's a long list but I've cut it down to three:

1. Opposite of that which is material, tangible, or physical
2. Opposite of essential, innate or inherent to something
3. Opposite of existing independently of the mind — WordHippo

clicking on the links:
1. immaterial, mental, spiritual, intangible
2. extrinsic, acquired, artificial, learned
3. nonempirical, theoretical, subjective, faith-driven

Next up, what is an 'idea':

Noun
(philosophy) An abstract archetype of a given thing, compared to which real-life examples are seen as imperfect approximations; pure essence, as opposed to actual examples.
(obsolete) The conception of someone or something as representing a perfect example; an ideal.
(obsolete) The form or shape of something; a quintessential aspect or characteristic.
An image of an object that is formed in the mind or recalled by the memory.
More generally, any result of mental activity; a thought, a notion; a way of thinking.
A conception in the mind of something to be done; a plan for doing something, an intention.
A vague or fanciful notion; a feeling or hunch; an impression.
(music) A musical theme or melodic subject.
— WordHippo

An 'unreal idea', then, is what?
1. a mental image of an object
2. an acquired way of thinking
3. a subjective result of mental activity

To be contrasted with a 'real idea'. What is that again?

• A genuine abstract archetype.
• An existing mental image.
• A physical vague notion
• An objective mental conception of a plan

Pick and mix. Compare and contrast. But we're missing context. Have we any examples?
Any ideas come to mind? Real or unreal? :chin:

In asking such questions one comes to see that the notion of "real" is misapplied to sensations and ideas. Whole volumes of bad philosophy are removed by such considerations. — Banno

I haven't covered sensations but, given the above, how is the notion of 'real' misapplied to ideas?
Whole volumes of philosophy, bad or otherwise...could be removed and we would still be non the wiser.
Which philosophers are more 'real' than others?

Of course, all of the definitions above come from a non-philosophical site.
Are they more or less helpful than something from the SEP or similar?
Enter 'idea' and you get 1965 hits. Talking of which...

What is an unreal idea - one from the sixties? — Banno

Of course, our own experience/interpretation can be compared and perhaps found wanting by others but it's real, no?
— Amity
Yes. Fictions, or interpretations, may consist of 'truth-telling lies' which (can) indicate realities. — 180 Proof

Interesting. Never heard this term before: 'truth-telling lies'. In a text, they would constitute substantive content (material) but also the subjective thoughts/ideas (mental/spiritual ) of the author.
Readers bring their own realities to the table. All real, no?

Where else might we find 'truth-telling lies'? A stretching of the truth or reality.
I found 'paltering': the devious art of lying by telling the truth is not just for politicians; we all do it.

Lying can and does clearly serve a devious social purpose. It can help someone paint a better picture than the truth, or help a politician dodge an uncomfortable question. "It's unethical and it makes our democracy worse. But it's how human cognition works," says Rogers. — BBC Future

Knowing what is 'real' and how to challenge the misuse of facts...developing critical thinking...having the courage to stand up against the lying and the manipulative...we could all do more...to progress rather than regress. Education right from the get-go; telling stories and discussing them. Pretty much what we do here.

I’ll define “reality” as the state of being real. — T Clark

A circular definition, not particularly helpful.

Expanded here:

The state of being actual or real.
A real entity, event or other fact.
The entirety of all that is real.
An individual observer's own subjective perception of that which is real. — WordHippo

The latter would include hallucinations and delusions as previously discussed.

[...] It's important to recognise the distinction between different kinds of reality and their consequences. For health reasons, if nothing else. — Amity

That's the subject of this discussion.
— T Clark

You stated that what is usually considered to be reality may be distinct from reality as viewed from a philosophical perspective.

Can you not articulate what the potential difference is? — frank

TC either can't or he can but won't.
The question then is: Why won't he?
The answer: 'That's the subject of this discussion. I won't discuss it'.
Why not?
And so on...

TC is having fun. Along the lines of:

There's a story, probably apocryphal, that Frederick the Great once gathered his court scientists and philosophers together and asked them to explain why a dead fish weighs more than a live one. They went around in turn each offering a theory, and once they had all offered their explanations, he pointed out that it does not. — Srap Tasmaner

[ emphasis added]

It is an enjoyable thread...listening to and learning from different perspectives but where does it lead? Is it meant to lead anywhere...increased understanding or confusion? Both and more :sparkle:

As I noted, that is the subject of this thread.
— T Clark

Okey dokey. — frank

:smile:

Did the repetition wear you down?
TC picking up some political techniques; avoidance of questions à la robotic Truss.

You ever listen to Scott Walker's solo stuff? It gets pretty intense. — Noble Dust

Yes, I have listened to some. Interesting to read wiki entry:

From the mid-1980s onward, Walker revived his solo career while moving in an increasingly avant-garde direction; of this period in his career, The Guardian said "imagine Andy Williams reinventing himself as Stockhausen". Walker's 1960s recordings were highly regarded by the 1980s UK underground music scene, and gained a cult following.

Walker continued to record until 2018. He was described by the BBC upon his death as "one of the most enigmatic and influential figures in rock history".
[...]
Crucial differences came via the more avant-garde orchestrations of his arrangers (primarily Angela Morley (at the time known as Wally Stott), Peter Knight and Reg Guest) and by Walker's own approach to lyrics, which involved a cinematic mise-en-scene approach once described as "unsettling short stories, all the more creepy for their delicate orchestral backdrop."
— wiki

I hit on this one yesterday and didn't last for more than 30 seconds!

Nice list. Thanks for pointing me to WordHippo. — Banno

Well, I wouldn't have got there but for you and Austin! To compare and contrast how the word 'real' is used in a variety of contexts is fascinating. I now need a dummy's guide to Austin!
The full list below, I later discovered that each item is linked to its own set of synonyms.
For example:
Adjective
Of, or concerned with, the actual doing or use of something, rather than with theory and ideas
Includes practical, existential, empiric and dozens more.
Each in turn can be clicked on to reveal...yes, even more!
Lost in words, you will never be lost for words...unless you are...for quite some other reason.

Adjective
Actually being or existing
Officially recognized as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards
Free from any intent to deceive or impress
Rightly so called
Important or serious in nature
Absolute in nature
(informal) Honest in a blunt manner
(informal) To be under no illusion, or to be serious about a matter
Not romantic
Essential, innate or inherent to something
Characterized by the lack of artificial additives or preservative treatment
Used to emphasize the extent of something unpleasant or bad
Of, or concerned with, the actual doing or use of something, rather than with theory and ideas
Denotes a humble and unpretentious attitude towards life
In bodily form
Legally, officially or formally in effect
Having all its feathers
Most intimate or private
Still in existence

Adverb
To a very large or great degree
(informal, for real) In a genuine, true, serious, or earnest manner

Determiner
A large amount or degree of
— WordHippo

'Having all its feathers' - Really?!! :chin:

I recognize the distinction you're making, but I'm not sure I buy it, at least not from a philosophical point of view. — T Clark

OK, call it a pragmatic point of view. Philosophy as a way of life...
You don't need to buy it.

If I understand correctly, the difference is that fiction is open for examination by everyone while delusions are purely personal. I'm not sure I buy that distinction. — T Clark

You are right to be sceptical. It is a distinction that I only became aware of as I wrote.
Not sure I can explain but here goes anyway:

The words on the page of the Tao Te Ching or the Bible are open to interpretation as literature.
We can read and share what the words or The Word mean to us if anything.

Hallucination: a sensory perception not accessible or real to those other than the sufferer.
Delusion: a fixed, false conviction in something that is not real or shared by other people.

Both hallucinations and delusions can and should be assessed and treated where possible:
https://www.verywellhealth.com/hallucinations-5222084
https://www.verywellhealth.com/delusions-5113070

It's important to recognise the distinction between different kinds of reality and their consequences.
For health reasons, if nothing else.

I love Otis. This one I wanna slow dance with someone... :hearts:

My kinda sound. Hitting the spot :up:

So much could be said about 'Taxman' - but I didn't know that was Paul playing guitar. Wow.

I was thinking about taking it easy on yourself, myself, ourselves.
In general. Not about romantic break-ups.
But this kinda sound is easy on my ear, right now. So here it is:

I never expect anything much to make sense - but it's a human trait to build ourselves little stories of meaning — Tom Storm

And to try to make sense of them, nested as they are...

It was just an excuse for an alliterative quip. I take nothing much from this. — Tom Storm

:smile:
Pretty poet potential, perhaps? :flower:

Always found it interesting that the creator of the most ruthlessly rational figure in fiction was himself a flake. :razz:
— Tom Storm

I don't know how to explain that. — Agent Smith

In the same way that comedians can be depressed.
You can be both flaky and rational, no?

My position - I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell in their homes, at work, — T Clark

This too is how I tend to view 'reality'. What is 'real' to someone, e.g. experiencing hallucinations, is only real to me in that I understand the person believes their 'sense', 'perception'. Also, any belief or delusion that they are God or have a special status or knowledge e.g. receiving messages from the television.
However, the actual content of this mental state is not 'real' to me; I can't access what the other person sees.

Reality is that which does not require "faith" and is the case regardless of what we believe. — 180 Proof

I like this. It reminds me of something I discovered yesterday when talking to @Agent Smith.
His profile has numerous quotes, including:
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
— Philip K. Dick

I wondered at the time whether it was something Dick said, or one of his characters. Either way, the actual message is transmitted.

His novel, I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon involves a questioning of what it is to be human and of what reality is. The story also has a theme of guilt, as the memories of the passenger are spoiled by the guilt he retains about his past actions. — wiki

Whether fictional or no, the content is 'real'. This time it is accessible. We can read and 'feel' it...there is a mental connection. Of course, our own experience/interpretation can be compared and perhaps found wanting by others but it's real, no?

Austin, especially in Other Minds, addresses "real".

But is it a real one? When you ask if it is real, what are you sugesting? No, it's a fake; it's an illusion; it's a forgery; it's a phoney, a counterfeit, a mirage... What is real and what isn't is decided in each case by contrast; there is no single criteria.

'The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real'
— Austin — Banno

[ my bolds]
I keep meaning to read Austin. This makes sense to me. I hadn't thought of it this way before, thanks.
The deciding factor in specifying 'reality' is by contrast, 'not what I shall have to show it is'.

Interesting that Austin suggests we can find a less 'fatal' word to replace 'real' depending on context.
So we don't die on the hill of a single meaning.
Trying to think of an example: [*]
Is that for real? > Is that true?
Perhaps substitution detracts from the sense? Does the truth lie in the 'tone' or emphasis of disbelief...?
Why do we make a mountain out of a molehill?

[*]

Actually being or existing
Officially recognized as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards
Free from any intent to deceive or impress
Rightly so called
Important or serious in nature
Absolute in nature
(informal) Honest in a blunt manner
(informal) To be under no illusion, or to be serious about a matter
Not romantic
Essential, innate or inherent to something
Characterized by the lack of artificial additives or preservative treatment
Used to emphasize the extent of something unpleasant or bad
Of, or concerned with, the actual doing or use of something, rather than with theory and ideas
Denotes a humble and unpretentious attitude towards life
In bodily form
Legally, officially or formally in effect
Having all its feathers
Most intimate or private
Still in existence — wordhippo

I'm reaching that point of needing to return to these in another moment. — Universal Student

I've now reached maximum mental output for today. Time to chill :sparkle:

I'll be sure to quote ya once I'm ready to move forward with my responses on these. — Universal Student

Please take all the time you need. I prefer this more leisurely way, rather than the knee-jerk responses.

Yikes. That was a typo. No journalism here. I meant to say that I journal. I use personal writing as a tool. It's a rather powerful tool for me that I've utilized since I was a pre-teen. — Universal Student

:smile: I think that is an excellent practice. Another exercise I've failed in. I admire those who have what it takes to do this.

I do have some personal projects that I am developing and perhaps if I get around to returning to school one day, I'll dive into more. My education is nothing special or noteworthy. — Universal Student

I wish you all the very best in your life-long learning. There are now more opportunities than ever.

I keep fairly busy as is, as mother of two boys working full time. I do work to maintain a balanced and simple life, so I only select a few things to channel my energy into. — Universal Student

Again, I take my hat off to you. I know when I studied with the OU that some, like you, managed to gain a degree over several years. I don't know how they managed but they did...with honours. :100:

Writing, reading (almost exclusively non- fiction - can't recall the last time I read a fiction novel) and having these kinds of conversations are my preferred ways to spend my time when I'm not attending the basic needs of myself and my family. — Universal Student

Dedication plus.

I wrote poetry when I was younger but my writing developed to be more philosophical in nature pretty quickly. I still write poetry. I have ideas, thoughts and various writings scattered about my life but I haven't put the real work into formulating anything constructive yet. Perhaps one day, when my kiddos are a bit older. — Universal Student

So far, so very well done!
I've a lot of scattered ramblings and could probably do with more self-discipline. However, now of a certain age and mental decline, I'm in relative relaxation mode.
I come here for such as this and a bit of fun.
Really good to talk with you...

Reference points to me, are sometimes little nuggets of wisdom that we have earned along the way. A reference point can be a tough lesson learned or a significant realization that comes with experience. It could be a mistake that has shaken us to our core. — Universal Student

Thanks for the explanation.
Re: nuggets of wisdom 'earned'. Is that a typo? Or a karma cause-and-effect thing?

Knowledge can fail us in vital moments, so it has to be something that we can see clearly while in a storm. Something with strong roots. This can be particularly useful in moments when emotions run high, difficult circumstances emerge and the more primitive parts of us threaten to take over the full use of our facilities. These have also aided me in times when I become lost in my mind space and need to find my way back to reality. — Universal Student

Hmm. What we can see 'clearly' when going through tough times can vary, depending on state of mind, context and circumstance. What kind of 'vital moments'?
Our perceptions can be faulty. Do you mean something to hold on to? What?

Are you suggesting that 'knowledge' doesn't have strong roots?
Yes, our emotions can take over but it is in utilising knowledge and experience gained that control can be exerted.
So, what provides the 'strong roots' that you can easily see when mentally 'lost'?
Where are you in your 'mind space'? What kind of a 'reality' does it return you to compared to what?

So many questions. More 'distractions' ?! :wink:

I do have my own personal reasons for why I have the sense that the essence of me will continue on in other lifetimes, as I have the sense that it has done so already. This sense however, is not religiously motivated. If anything, I am careful not to attach to belief systems. — Universal Student

You talk about a 'sense' that your 'essence' will continue as it has done before and will do again.
What kind of 'sense' is this? And how do you detect it? Where is its source?

The concept usually identified with this is that of 'reincarnation'. Is that what you mean?

I do not consider anything that I utilize to be mine, if I am capable of losing it. In death, I will lose my intellect, my possessions, my hands and feet. If I can lose them, then were they ever truly mine to begin with? — Universal Student

So, you don't consider the brain inside your skull to be yours?
Does this mean you take no responsibility for your mind, body or actions taken?
This doesn't make sense to me. You own your words and your actions, don't you?
You can change your mind e.g. as to religious or spiritual affiliations and beliefs, no?
Questioning your ownership doesn't make sense to me.

In this acceptance, I can shed attachments to that which I have no control over. — Universal Student

It is not necessary to disown your own brain, indeed quite the opposite, to put into perspective that over which you have no control.

Who knows what comes after? If my soul does continue on, it will be stronger for whatever comes along because I wasn't distracted by things that are fleeting and temporary. — Universal Student

How do you know or 'sense' that any surviving soul will be stronger?

I do not feel certain that I can identify my prime motivation at this time. This is something I will need to spend time with. — Universal Student

OK. Thanks for that. I understand the need for time to consider.
Even if not identified, there is clearly a strong need or desire to develop yourself as much as possible.

Plenty of thoughts to mull over :sparkle:

Also, what tools and how have you adapted them to suit your needs?
— Amity

The tools themselves vary from being as physical as training myself to breathe more consciously to being as conceptual that I wouldn't know where to begin with explaining them.

Meditation both in sittings and in that of viewing life as such in practice, fasting and various approaches to our relationship with food, physical movements, mindfulness of various forms of consumption, reading, journalism and sharing ideas, learning the usefulness of establishing reference points, mental exercises and learning tricks of the brain are some examples of what comes to mind without effort in this moment. — Universal Student

OK, thanks for this. A holistic practice and development, then.
The conceptual is always more difficult to understand far less explain. However, what concepts are most important to you, other than the thread topic?

I read on and note: 'Consumption'. Best use of resources? Environmental concerns.
'Cooperation'. Rather than competition?
So, political concerns?
These are not so difficult to explain so perhaps you mean:
'Establishing reference points' - what are they and how can they be established? How are they useful?
'Mental exercises and brain tricks' - have you any specific examples?

You mentioned 'journalism'. Your writing and thoughts have been well-informed and expressed.
Do you write elsewhere? Articles? Forums? Magazines? Essays?
Do you forage for ideas on places like this as research for a particular writing project?

Appreciate the time and energy you have given to respond carefully to all. A pleasure to read.

This feels natural to me. To explore, to question, to wonder. I don't even have to find the answers. I want it to be deeply felt in that moment when my transition from this form comes and I return all which I have borrowed in this lifetime, that I spent at least some of my moments seeking valuable insight and understanding of the nature of reality and existence and my own place in that. — Universal Student

As you know from your explorations, some questions have no answers. Or so many that it can be confusing. I think we gravitate to those which make sense to us, even though it also makes sense to question that too. That is why this forum can be illuminating in different ways.

See my bolds: There is an almost religious element here. A certain philosophy or faith?
What kind of transition are you talking about? What have you 'borrowed'? From where and how would it be returned?

It seems like this is your prime motivation: to develop and grow so that you can live on in some other life.
Perhaps I missed this, but did you mention what faith you follow?