I have only read the thread a little in the last few days because I have become unwell. I think that I may have another chest infection. However, you mentioned Carl Jung's idea of the shadow. His book, 'Answer to Job' is significant because it looks at suffering and potential for war. It is more relevant than when he wrote it a year ago. It is involves greater understanding of potential destruction. Confronting the shadow is a spiritual quest which is hard work and definitely far more than 'chocolate box' pictures of spirituality.

Yes, there is the danger of cultural bias as a form of chauvinism. Negatively is a problem too because it is hard to keep positive in certain circumstances. It may come down to the idea of, 'As you sow, so shall you reap' but the negative side of this is to 'blame' those in the worst circumstances, when cause and effect is not straightforward as punishment, or in the sense of divine providence.

I am not suggesting that one should seek suffering but it comes to so many. Throughout the world there is so much suffering and it may lead to some raised consciousness. But, I do say 'may', because it may have detrimental effects. Also, the awareness of those who are not suffering themselves is a challenge, in terms of responsibility and the development of compassion for others.

One aspect which I wonder about is whether suffering may be a pathway to greater consciousness or awareness. Of course, suffering can lead people to break down but if worked with may lead to greater understanding and insight. That is because suffering may lead a person to deeper searching than they would have pursued otherwise. That may seem a bit theoretical and I am not saying that it always does, but I have often found those who have been through harsh experiences have quality understanding or wisdom.

One sociological book which may be relevant is Erving Goffman's, 'Stigma' which looks at how physical characteristics impact on social identity. What is seen as an 'abnormality' often leads people to focus on the characteristic more so than all other features. The book was written a few decades ago, so attitudes may have changed but people I know who are disabled often feel perceived differently in a negative way.

There is also the issue of learning disabilities and how this can be stigmatising, even though there is more understanding of associated issues, such as dyslexia and autism in education. One thing which I have noticed is that some institutions for those with profound learning disabilities is that they are often (in England) in rural, remote locations, as if hidden mainstream communities.

The idea of the 'truth within' may be problematic if followed through for its own sake. The idea of being 'co-creators with the universe' may enable a connection between the inner and outer aspects of evolution and the evolution of consciousness. Even the separation between inner and outer may be a problem if taken too concretely. Spirituality is a complex interface of human existence, consciousness and understanding, of which religious thinking is a mere shadow of possibilities.

Just as you are asking about my purpose of writing, I am wondering about yours too. It is so easy to get caught up in tangents of thinking, both about inner and outer aspects of philosophy. To a large extent, I would argue that the value of 'spiritual truths' is not about rational arguments per se, but what works as wisdom for living.

It does seem likely that religious believers may be devoid of spirituality, just as similar to atheists. This was the area of criticism of the Pharisees which Jesus identified. The inner quest for truth may be the quest of Socrates, Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche's Zarathustra and many others who sought the idea of 'truth within' oneself as an essential starting point for understanding and living.

I am not sure that the issues which I raise can be pinned down to one thread. It involves so much thinking about 'reality' and the questions arising in the inner life. There is also the issue of freedom and individualism. Spirituality may involve both an individual quest or be about a basis for understanding connectivity and moral responsibility. The two aspects may be juxtaposed or 'spirituality' my involve the balance between inner and outer aspects of living. Spirituality may be questionable when it is about one's own self alone, as if one is trying to rocket into 'heaven' on an individual quest.

Yes, I agree that there can be a lack of understanding of 'spirituality' amongst both religious people and atheists. The ancient thinkers, including Plato and Plotinus may have understood the value of inner experience, including spirituality, as a basis for human meaning and understanding.

It may also involve 'feeling', which may be a little different from the perspective of 'reason' and cognitive processes in the brain. Philosophy may come with the side-effect of 'overthinking' and some resultant imbalance of understanding.

The division between the secular and 'spirituality' is complex. Numinousity may involves the arts rather than what is perceived as 'religious experience'. Art may be the way in which the numinous is often expressed and experienced.

The issue of 'freedom' may be about the consciousness of 'freedom' conceptually.Recently, I read ' Freedom Evolves'; by Daniel Dennett. The idea of free choice may be bound up with the emergence of human consciousness. I was a little confused though by his thinking as he is associated with the idea of consciousness as an 'illusion'

I am inclined to think that the evolution of ''consciousness' is about the experience of reflection as a basis for the development of consciousness on an 'inner' level.

I have thought about your question of what I am aiming for in the thread and think that it is more about the future of consciousness. Human consciousness and culture involved a spiritual dimension and, after the developments of religions, science and philosophy I am wondering if spirituality will be significant in the future of consciousness. Is consciousness still evolving and to what extent is this bound up with development of the inner life? At this juncture in history there is so much to fear and is as if the gods have led humanity on the brink of despair and self-destruction. But, do we have the spiritual resources or imagination and potential consciousness to save ourselves, individual and collectively?

I think that Schopenhauer may have influenced Jung!

I am influenced by Jung's understanding of metaphysics. It combines a Kantian understanding of the limits of epistemology with ideas from Eastern thining of the nature of consciousness.

One aspect of myth which Jung explores is the 'experiences' of seeing UFOs, in his book 'Flying Saucers'. His viewpoint is opposite to that of van Daniken, who believed that such experiences suggested extraterrestrial intelligence. He argued that it represented a form of mythology, different from belief in the gods and angels, corresponding with twentieth century thinking.

I have often wondered about what ghosts represent? My own reading has included ideas in theosophy, where I came across the view that ghosts are related to disturbances in the energy fields, especially from those who have had very traumatic deaths. What is interesting about ghosts is that they appear to be more than personal memories of those who knew them.

That means that even if they are symbolic they have some existence which is objective. Some people may be more 'sensitive' in picking up the ghost 'energies', but such experiences are not simply 'delusions'

The basis for my idea of spirituality being entwined with the evolution of consciousness is related to anthropology and ancient history. In particular, Julian Jaynes' discussion of the evolution of consciousness speaks of art, poetry and music as the first emergent aspects of human consciousness and human culture.

It is the story of the development the symbolic dimensions and this underlies myth and religious perspectives. Also, some of the ancient thinkers had very sophisticated understanding, even though a lot of it is not compatible with some facts of science. Religious thinking is related to this but spirituality is wider. I read Marcus Aurelius's writing recently and even though he talks of the 'gods' his understanding seems to be more of an appreciation of the symbolic nature of inner thinking more than the literalism of Abrahamic religions.

Spirituality and the issue of fantasy is important. Even within the genre of fantasy fiction there are aspects of 'truth' which may be the depths of human understanding. Hallucinary aspects of 'life' are of a different nature to the physical but not to be dismissed. Symbolic dimensions of reality and consciousness are of a different order to the everyday 'reality'. They may be more subtle and , perhaps, grasped better in Eastern metaphysics than in Western 'concrete' ideas, including the dichotomy between embodied and disembodied.

The question may be about what is 'spirit'? Is it disembodied? That is where it gets complicated and bound up with the philosophy of idealism, and the issues of whether mind or matter are the primary aspects of 'reality'. Spirit may be about the 'inner aspects of life', and it can result in the perspective of the inner life as the foundation of everything.

Physics is a basis for understanding the laws of the physical world. The nature and purpose of 'existence' is more complex. There may be meaning, or no meaning, depending on how a person's construction of 'reality- But, as far as I see it metaphysics involves the issues of 'beyond' the physical, whether the physical comes down to laws of nature or substantive aspects of the 'truths' underlying the nature of 'reality'.

The concept of 'understanding' is extremely important because it goes into the inner nature of ideas. It even goes into the territory of 'insight', which is where spirituality and philosophy come together. I am sure that this may be dismissed at times in philosophy but that may be a ''hollow' philosophy, similar to the notion of rhetoric. It is detached from life and living experience. Here, it may be more about rejection or acceptance of 'spirit'as metaphysics, but about the depths of human experience.

I think that you are correct in seeing the dichotomy between subjective and objective aspects of understanding. Even the idea of the intersubjective may be a bit 'loose' in this aspect of philosophy.

I do wonder about the issue of being 'analytical'in this area of understanding philosophy and the psychological nature of experience. The conditioned aspects of experiences may be important markers here. Acknowledging the psychological basis of experience and belief may be a starting point. It may come down to being able to separate the various components of belief, in order to understand ideas in fuller depth. This may be where 'spirituality'becones important, in merging psychology and philosophy. Human meaning comes into this complex area of understanding too.

I can understand why the idea of metaphysics confuses you because it involves what lies beyond 'physics' ideas of physics evolve alongside developments in science, including the transition from Newtonian thinking to that of quantum physics.

It involves a mixture of philosophy speculation and maths. The question may be about where the pathways of human understanding come in, with the concepts of physics being more than decorative aspects of the field of physics.

I guess that part of my philosophy problem.is about the connection between the outer and inner aspects of human understanding. I may be involving an unnecessary diversion between inner and outer aspects. I have been aware of this issue for some time, but part of this seems to come down to the 'dimensions'of human experience. So much hangs on the idea,of what constitutes 'reality'. It is extremely complex, but there may be a bias towards philosophy of realism in the context of scientific understanding.

The juxtaposition of the subjective and objective seems complex in my understanding of philosophy. The idea of the mind of 'God' may involve questions about physics and metaphysics, especially the idea of some spiritual 'being'or'force, imminent or outside of 'nature-.

From my perspective, that is where the idea of 'God' becomes so tricky, especially whether 'God' is imminent or transcendent.

The inner aspects human experience are complex and human values is central to this, especially in the evolution of religion. Here, religion may be seen as the outer expression of human experiences which are bound up with values, especially ethical values.

The shifts between different models of mind and behaviour is where philosophy and psychiatry is an important interface. I have read Jung and I often wonder what is going on my own psyche, as well as trying to understand others' experiences. How causation of thoughts and agency is significant.

Apart from the issue of how a person behaves in response to thoughts there is also the question how does thinking and feeling differ in itself? Feelings may be connected to the body more whereas thoughts with cognitive brain processes. However, the brain and thinking cannot be split off between body and 'mind'/brain as they are interconnected in a dynamic way. This is the case in differing models. In neuroscience, the chemistry of thought is intricate. Within psychodynamic theory, the conscious and subconscious are not completely separate too. But, the understanding of thinking and feeling does differ so much according to perspectives. I wonder to what extent psychiatry training includes philosophical reflection on this complex area.

Evidence about medication is important. It is a complex area because it involves quantitative and qualitative evidence and both subjective experience, as well as observations of others about a person's treatment. With any medication, there is an issue of placebo effects, but this would not explain the full impact of SSRIs as with any other medication. Part of the problem with forms of meditation is that effects do differ from individual to individual, which may say more about what is unique. Advances in neuroscience may help in tailoring medication.

If anything, it may be that medication is being prescribed or sought as a shortcut. I do take SSRI(Fluoextine) medication myself. I requested it when I was feeling very low in mood. If I stop taking it, sometimes I notice a difference and sometimes not. Mood is affected by so many variables, including overalk physical wellness and factors in life.

I am rather surprised that you challenge questioning the medical model. Also, I am not sure about your division between experience as being subjective and behaviour as objective.

As far as the medical model is concerned it is bound up with values, especially of what is 'normal' or acceptable. This involves ideas and what counts as delusions. For example, religious and spiritual ideas. The cultural context is important. Similarly, ideas of acceptable behaviour are socially constructed. The medical model and science are established by underpinning values, rather than being value free.

With difference between experience and behaviour, the fine line may be the interaction between experience and behaviour. Experience includes thoughts and feelings, whereas behaviour is about how a person acts in regard to thoughts and feelings. For example, a person may experience intrusive thoughts of suicide or harming others and what is critical is the perceived risk of a person acting out the intrusive thoughts.

How a person understands experience is important in itself. Interpretation of experience is not merely subjective because it involves others' understanding, which in turn affects subjective experience.

Your reply is important in pointing to the way in which the philosophy of mind is inherent to psychiatry. It may be asked to what extent can the 'cure' be found in the body? It is complex because the brain and nervous system are the centre of experience but influenced by so many factors, especially issues of beliefs and construction of meaning.

Psychiatry may still be seen in a negative light insofar as it involves treatment to 'normalise' people. Often, the medications given have problematic side-effects. Nevertheless, many people do seek medication, especially antidepressants and sleeping tablets. It is often a combination of medication and talking therapies which may help. There is a move towards online therapies and my own feeling is that the online approaches may help some people. Nevertheless, the experience of being listened to by a human being may part of the essential experience of therapy.

The idea of philosophical counselling does sound worthwhile. There was a tradition of pastoral counselling but this was often in conjunction with a religious or spiritual approach to human life. However, idea of philosophical counselling could be much wider into the examination of human values, which would be compatible with the person-centred emphasis on values and human meaning.

Thank you for your detailed reply to the outpost. Often chemical treatments of what is regarded as 'abnormal' are the focus within psychiatry. I am also thinking that differences may occur geographically. I am most familiar with the profession of psychiatry in England. The psychiatrists are trained in medicine initially and often do training in therapy in later training. There was an emphasis on the psychodynamic model developed by Freud and others. More recently, that has shifted towards a cognitive behavioral approach.

The cognitive behaviourist approach does involve a philosophical look at underlying beliefs and the way that they affect emotional life. There is some emphasise on positive aspects of mental wellbeing as opposed to just looking at correcting what is perceived to be 'abnormal'.

I hadn't come across the Boulder model, so thank you for pointing to that. It does seem that Szasz and Laing have lost their influence in the critique of psychiatric practice. There is a focus on critical psychiatry though. Psychiatry is bound up with values about norms or what is considered 'normal'. There are also political aspects of the practice of psychiatry too.

Psychology does draw upon the meaning aspects of understanding experience as well as neuroscience. Of course, there are different schools of thought within psychology. Some emphasise the physical basis of the brain.

Psychiatry is often focused on the way of correcting what is regarded as 'abnormal' through chemical treatments. However, the field of psychiatry often draws upon a bio psychosocial approach, understanding the way in which developmental and social circumstances affect or impinge on psychological wellbeing.

It all comes down to whether gender is seen as a biological given or not. What constitutes being a man or woman? In gender rulings, the problem may be that everything is reduced to how a person is assigned to a gender at birth. There is so much which is so complex, involving both biology and psychology. This may be why non-binary identities are being adopted, in order to overcome clear disturbances..

Many people may see this blurring as a problem. However, identity is complex and individuals may identify differently from assigned and biological sex. To try to fit such identities into the binary of gender distinctions may show the limitations of the binary of gender.

When I have been interacting on the forum, I find that it affects both my conscious experience and dreams. At times, the communication seems more real if I know a little about the person I am communicating with.

At times, I have dreamt that I am interacting on the forum and either disappointed or relieved that the exchange was not 'real'. At one point, I even dreamt that my own threads were rolled up as scrolls beside my bed. The experience of communicating on the forum seems to make philosophy surreal. Previous to that my own philosophy reading felt rather lonely and cut off, so I have felt some validification as a thinker in interaction on the forum. I don't mind the surreal aspect because, in a way all communication is surreal in the sense that communication between others involves imaginary aspects of listening and interpretation.

There is an 'almost giddiness in approaching the question' of my thread. I do see it as connected to Sartre's idea of 'nothingness' and his ideas of existence in body and for others.

When I was reading your thread on the mirror and reflection of narcissism, it led me think about my own mirror experience from when I experimented with LSD a long time ago. Whilst under the 'trip' in a warehouse rave I went to a mirror, expecting to see myself in diabolical form. However, when I looked into the mirror what I saw was all surroundings, including a radiator' but I was not present. It felt like the confrontation with loss of my body, or nothingness. It led me to panic that I would be left in a vacuum of nothingness forever. I had a sense of 'self' but felt detached from the physical world. To what extent did I no longer exist, I wondered. It was a relief when I discovered that I could still communicate with other people, as this seemed to validate my own existence in the world.

Of course, non-existence after having once existed is different from complete non-existence of never existing, but probably only from the standpoint of others who still exist.

I do see your interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy, especially the idea of 'eternal recurrence' as being helpful in contemplating living in the 'here and now'. His original thinking was of a literal ongoing process of cycles, whereas he later viewed the idea as being more symbolic.

What may have been problematic in the interpretation of Nietzsche is how so much has focused upon his thinking as a critique of Christianity. It was so to a large extent, but it was not just a foundations for nihilism and absence of meaning. If anything, it was a foundation of 'transvaluation of values'. This involves the path of individuation and Zarathrustra's quest could be seen in that context. This, especially in relation to the idea of 'eternal recurrence' can be viewed about framing and creating meaning in the moment.

The problem is that the contradictions about free speech to address hate speech incites cultural wars. Of course, unexpressed hatred exists as an unconscious subtext to life. Suppression of hostility may lead it to fester but there is the question of whether too much freedom is giving more power to hostile emotions as opposed to seeking common grounds beyond differences. It all seems symptomatic of fragmentation of value systems.

I am glad that you make a connection with my question and life reviews. That is because I was led to this point while ill in hospital a few months ago. I started to experience near-death imagery while my oxygen levels were extremely low. Since that time, while I am not sure that I actually came close to death, I have been reviewing my life and thinking about the impact my existence has made, for better or worse. I worry that I take more than I give, although that is not my intention.

When I was a teenager I tried to do 'good' but felt that I ended up as a dysfunctional 'do gooder'. I try to find the right balance but it is extremely hard, especially when one is out of work and not really part ot a community. So much of the current culture is of socially isolated 'nobodies' who are just struggling to survive in the world.

What is the 'tyrant' within, or the internal saboteur? Is it metaphysical and hoe does it come into play in the dynamics of the moment, as in conjunction with the larger the scale picture of what constitutes 'time' and the idea of 'the eternal', or unchanging?