I am wondering how it varies from culture to culture as well as in different times. I was rather surprised by how mundane some of the discussion on the site is. I find this thread discussion more interesting than most. What I do wonder about is whether certain emphasis on certain philosophy topics is because many of the people engaging are from American culture. I think that there does appear to more openness to the unusual in some circles in England, and this may be true in some parts of America too. But, I definitely believe that there are plenty of creative bohemians, who probably write, even if they are often regarded as outsiders. Maybe they find more acceptance in the creative arts communities.

In a way, the metaphysical poets were trying to juxtapose 'the sublime and the mundane', but it was in a rather different way from contemporary modes of thinking. Just imagine if they wrote on this forum, even converting their ideas to prose. I think that they would be seen as ridiculous and would come under fierce attack. I think philosophy has got to the point where the mundane is preferred to the magnificent.

Thanks for your contributions to my thread and I will continue reading and thinking as deeply as I can.

Sometimes facts are arbitrary, with so many aspects of subjective testimony. Are there any 'true' facts which can stand above our own grasp and wishes to develop arguments? So much involves bias and, our own attempts to tell our own individual perspectives.

I have just looked at your link and it is to my own thread. I am sure that the thread which I have created has great weaknesses, and I started it with a view to looking at the best scope of knowledge. I am aware that we have a history of thinking about knowledge going back to writers from Plato, Hume and Russell. Obviously, the scientific methods have brought us into a different perspective, with physics and many other aspects of discovery. I am certainly not opposed to science, or the thread on facts on this site, but thinking more of looking at knowledge on a panoramic scale, and how we can integrate it in the best possible way.

I will try not to avoid your questions, and I will have a look at your link, but, I really don't believe that philosophy can ever be entirely theoretical, because it is so tied up with the real questions of knowledge which impinge on our own sense of meaning directly.

I am sorry if I have lost you, and, sometimes, I think that I lose myself, trying to make sense of so much information and translating it into knowledge. I am aware that there is a thread on what is fact, which is probably considered to be far better than my own thread.

However, I come from the perspective of thinking about building systems of knowledge, but, perhaps, such a way of thinking is not relevant in philosophy any longer, or only on a personal level. Perhaps, philosophy of the future will only be concerned with outer reality and, the inner aspects of experience will just be seen as aspects of psychology and, outside the scope of philosophy entirely.

I try not to get depressed by all that we could strive to know. We live in the context of some appearing as 'experts'. Even within philosophy there are hierarchies, ranging from popular views and those who are ranked as being important. It seems to me to be a complex mixture of what we need to know to live meaningfully and, also, about the best and most accurate knowledge required to forward the human race in the complex circumstances of our times.

I think that you make an important point about blindspots. One model which I am aware of is Johari' s model , which involves various aspects of which we may be conscious of certain aspects about ourselves, and how feedback can increase our own knowledge about ourselves . I think self knowledge and awareness are an important aspect as a starting point for further and deeper knowledge of everything else. Indeed, our own blindspots, and understanding of them, may be an essential part of finding greater depth of knowledge.

I think that the use of intuition alongside rationality is complex in the mapping of the widest perspective of our knowledge. In building of our models, I am inclined to believe that what is most important is incorporating the widest possible perspective rather focusing on specific facts, in order to build up a picture which is intricate and not based on the specific focus in a way which involves a narrowing of vision, or tunnel perspective. It may involve zooming in and out of specific ways of thinking and being able to juxtapose various ways of framing questions and answers.

I think that Russell did a great job and we should follow his example. I think that it is a delicate balance between focusing on the specifics of specialised knowledge and seeing the larger perspective. It is about seeing from more than one angle, the details and from a much wider perspective. It is a task in itself, but, of course, it involves our own subjective experiences and reading and thinking with a view to more objective frames of reference.

I am definitely not opposed to theories and we need to develop them as working knowledge; but I it is all about different competing descriptions, ranging from the scientific accounts to metaphorical ways of viewing. I have downloaded a book by Popper, so I will try to read it.

But, one aspect of the development of knowledge is fitting all the different ideas together. Many of the well known philosophers sought to do this within the development of their own unique systematic perspectives. I also wonder about systems views because it may be that we are in the position of needing to juggle all the various specialist disciplines, ranging from quantum physics, neuroscience and the social sciences. I believe that we are in the position of needing to juggle all the different, multidisciplinary aspects of knowledge together in a synthetic way, with the logic and analytical scope offered through philosophical methods and ways of thinking critically.

Really, it is amazing just how much people do know. We are especially lucky being in the information age and having so much available for us, ranging from the internet and e-books. We are also able to look back on the ideas of so many different eras and cultures. But, of course, each of us has our limitations and we have to be selective. There is only so much one can read. I often think that there is so much importance literature and philosophy that it would almost require a few lifetimes to read it all. I guess that most people specialize and this does mean that certain areas are focused upon and others left out almost entirely.

I find Kant a bit heavy to read. I went through a period of reading his writings when I was a teenager. I read some of writing by him a year ago but I found it a bit of a struggle and, generally, find it easier to read what others have written about him, but I guess that it is probably best to go to the original texts, and, perhaps, it would be worth me reading his, 'Prolegomena of Any Future Metaphysics'.

I find the discovery of unknown unknowns as being very interesting and that is probably why I am interested in reading and thinking about philosophy. There is also psychology exploring and the question of how well we even know ourselves, let alone know other people, including those close to us.

I was just reading your comments and, yes, my question does involve the semantics of what we mean by the idea of 'knowing'. I believe that Kant thought that there were limitations of how much we can really know about metaphysics, apart from by means of intuition and a priori logic. Jung made his famous television broadcast, saying that he did not believe in God, but rather , 'I know', based on the direct experience of God in dreams and other personal experiences. However, I am sure that many people would challenge his use of the idea of such knowledge as reliable.

One aspect which I think about is how science gives us findings which are used to build theories, but the theories are interpretations, which may be modified at some point. But, most of all theories are only models, and, thereby, only partial pictures of reality or 'truth'.

I think that we probably do have 'stone age brains' in many ways, but I think that the experiences we have, as well as our own philosophical searches, can probably stretch our perception and potential. I do believe that reading and thinking are very valuable but I think that it is our experiences, and probably the hardest ones, which will lead us to develop the greatest knowledge. This does go beyond epistemological reasoning, and it is probably about the inner process of synthesizing the knowledge and reflective self-awareness.

My own thinking on knowledge is that it is different from information in the sense of it being about a connection with the information and ideas in some kind of meaningful way. I believe that it is connected with understanding, because it involves being able to make use of what one has learned. Understanding may be something which we think we have, but I am not sure that it is that simple because it is about whether we are able to make use of what we consider to be our knowledge, and apply to the experiences which test our capabilities. In a way, my own view of understanding is related to the concept of insight. I think that it is a kind of deeper level of knowledge based on being able to reflect on the ideas which we have and take them on board to live in a greater conscious and responsible way. I am not sure that I am fully able to live with insightful awareness, but I am seeking to be able to do so. It probably also comes down to various levels of meaning and analysis, ranging from the personal context to thinking in larger, systemic ways.

I agree with you that in many ways knowledge is about what is useful. I am probably stepping into the realms of the extraordinary because my life experience is really leading me to question the foundation of knowledge as we know it. In some ways, I think that knowledge is socially constructed and is not absolute.

I am definitely not opposed to the methods and findings of science, but, even then so many variables come into play in the interpretations of scientific findings, including the role of the observer. I am not trying to dismiss the basis of science, or rationality. I am not even trying to say that our knowledge, based on reason, or the senses is entirely inadequate, but I am asking how much we know in the context of our means of knowledge, and what remains unknown. Questions of the unknown remain as speculation, and it is important to establish where this is differentiatef, and what is possible to know and, what must remain as unknown. How do we consider the areas which we can know potentially from those which we cannot.

My initial thinking was about epistemology and how much we really know, but with the implications in people's lives and a veneer of knowledge based on science.

I am sorry that I have started poorly, and it may be that my thread will not work at all. My point is probably that many think we have such great knowledge in our grasp. I am not denying that, but I think that it is possible to become inflated and not recognize the limitations. We don't even have the knowledge to cope with the problems of our time, such as climate change and the future of needing petroleum, so my own thread is about remarking on limitations. But, it is likely that many on this site will only see the strengths of human rationality, rather than wishing to look at deficits.

I know that some people have suggested that Socrates claimed to 'know nothing', and I am inclined to think that he knew far more than the average person. However, I think that we have moved into an era of which some speak with uncertainty, but others herald the ideas of science. I am trying to balance all of this because we are in an age of information, but I am sure that there are limitations of our current knowledge.

Your reply is interesting because I am questioning what we think we know and what we 'really' know, which casts some doubt on apparent knowledge. This is partly my intention because I am coming from the angle in which human beings think that with scientific sense they know so much, and I am wondering how much we really know of 'truth', despite the bombardment of information and 'knowledge'.

I know that you query the understanding of English language, but I wonder if your question goes further and is about the limits of any language. How do we construct the many complex aspects of experience into words and theories which can be discussed amongst others? How much is language itself, or the ideas which lie behind the surfaces of language?

Perhaps the idea of self is problematic I some ways. It is is a concept which is at the juncture of phenomenology and the whole nature of the interpretation of experiences.I wonder if self and others is at the core of many of paradoxes, because paradoxes are about apparent contradictions. However, there may be underlying aspect of 'truth ' which can be seen as inherent in paradoxes. The idea of self and other minds may have some relevance with regard to ideas of self reference, but this would probably need to be backed up within the context of a specific understanding of philosophy.

I wonder if Jim Morrison was a bit vague in his question of the ' West is the best' and I imagine that he drew upon the ideas of Nietzsche. One aspect which I wonder about is the nature of generalisations and whether the opposition between Western and other philosophies is really as in opposition as it may appear on the surface, or whether it is comprised of varied aspects of diversity of thought, because it opens up so many controversial areas of thought. I think we have to wonder and contemplate all of the different eras, which could be a minefield in it's own right.

I am interested in the area of Western philosophy and other alternatives, especially Eastern philosophy, ranging from Taoism and perspective such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

Jim Morrison of the Doors suggested that the 'West is the best'. I think that it is worth considering whether the underlying perspective of Western metaphysics is the most useful, for considering how we understand reality, including the mind and body problem. I believe that the systemic thinking of Eastern traditions allows for more fluidity and less concrete interpretation of experiences.

Thank you for music for its power to restore and give inspiration. I have heard quite a bit of Hendrix, but I listened to his 'Axis: Bold as Love' which I hadn't heard before, and I was simply blown away...

Your wish to have your poems turned into songs and sung was one of my mum's biggest longings. When I was a child she used to answer ads in music magazines for composers seeking lyricists. She ended up with loads of cassettes full of songs. However, she would have loved for some group to record them and get them on the radio. I don't imagine that your poems would fit into the pop and rock genre, and I think that you prefer more classical music. But, what I am thinking is that rather than just looking for apps it may be more interesting to find some musicians to collaborate with. You don't know what may happen and you might end up creating a new 'Dark Side of the Moon', or some psyched out space rock opera.

I think that one thing we have to remember about all drugs, illicit and prescribed is that most substances come with some potential side-effects. Some people experience them and others don't, but I know that if I ever get any tablets from a doctor, there is usually a list of some so terrible that I end up wondering if I really need take them at all. Usually, I don't notice any, but some people have ended up with some side-effects that are possibly worse than the original sickness.

As far as illicit drugs are concerned, it is hard to generalise and it possibly gdepends on the context and extent of use, as well as individual factors. However, I think that making some drugs illegal can create an unhelpful underground, affecting the people who are desperate to experiment in a negative way. Some get sold dangerous stuff because it is not monitored. Also, there was the whole development of 'legal highs'. I tried a few and got on fairly okay with them. However, I knew a few people who had really bad experiences, including someone who ended up fighting for life in intensive care. I believe that most over the counter selling of these substances is outlawed now, in England, at least.

I am left wondering what people will be able to turn to for experimentation. Perhaps, the path of Van Gogh remains an open legal possibility, as absinthe remains a legal option.

One aspect of this interesting area of thought, which goes beyond the search for objective reality beyond the human realm such as the Forms, is states of consciousness. I think that this was touched on briefly in the thread you had several months ago on Julian Jaynes's, 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind.' It is interesting how he maintained that ancient people did not necessarily think in terms of the clear distinction between inner and outer reality which we have today.

I also think that there is the issue of stepping into altered states of consciousness. This is touched by in the anthropological understanding of shamanism, but it also linked to what dimensions are believed to exist beyond the three dimensions, including fourth and fifth dimensional reality, and even the idea of parallel universes.

It is possible that states of consciousness can involve stepping into unknown dimensions of consciousness. This is touched upon by Bucke in his, 'Cosmic Consciousness'. His description of the development of specific individuals includes the Buddha and Jesus Christ, but it does include a number of creatives, such as Dante and Walt Whitman.

Of course, we are talking of people who were beyond the experience of most individuals, and the majority can only touch upon such inspiration through the works of these creatives. However, I do believe that the process of creativity, including the writing of poetry relates mostly to subjective experiences but it is interconnected with states of consciousness. The link is probably in the realm of peak experiences, such as described by Abraham Maslow. Sometimes, I think creativity can become mystified through consideration of great works of art, but I believe that it is possible for most human beings to experience some creative 'inspiration', especially in the context of some kind of peak experiences amidst the mundane aspects of daily life.

I think that the way death is thought about in a negative way within many cultures leads people to fear death. It may be that in some cultures it is not seen as something to be feared so much but understood to be part of the cycles. The fear of death is linked to our attachments to ego consciousness. Some people are so much more afraid than others, but probably at the moment of realising one's future death is on the horizon makes it hard not to be fearful of non existence, and this may also be connected with whether we feel satisfied with our lives and how we have contributed to life in the world.

I was not really saying that I see suicide as actually 'right', but saying that I would not make judgements or see it as absolutely wrong. I am against definitive ways of seeing acts. I am not sure that I even see any moral acts as absolutes, with murder and rape being the closest possible exceptions. I think that it is all about weighing up the effects of actions, and intentions are important too in considering the nature of morality.

Also, you speak of third person perspective as being more important than the subjective. I believe that both aspects are worth thinking about. The third person analysis is a useful way of looking at the objective aspects. However, I think that looking at the individual person who is on the precipice of suicide is not necessarily about sympathy, but about empathy, in trying to understand the suffering of the person at the moment when they chose to take their own life. I don't believe that it is an easy choice because it is not really that easy to kill oneself. I know someone who took 100 Aspirin tablets and slept for 2 days, and woke up. On the other hand, some people who don't really wish to kill themselves do die accidentally, even though the act may have been a cry for help.

I have known a few people who have committed suicide and try not to be judgemental in seeing what they did as 'wrong'. However, I do see suicide as being one of the worst possible ways to die and would like to find better solutions than to kill myself, if found my life to be completely unbearable.

One of the aspects of it seems to be that it is an act which often occurs in a moment of rash panic. Also, often people who do make a suicide fail and end up disabled or with long lasting health problems. One of the worst scenarios is that of people taking overdoses of Paracetamol and making some kind of recovery, often glad to be alive, only to discover they are likely to die through liver failure.

Part of the ethics of suicide do involve the question of the right to make such a choice and this is extremely complex. Mental health services often step in to forcibly stop people killing themselves through keeping them in hospital under Section, and by putting them on suicide watch observations, if people are perceived as a risk. Of course, the real issue is of being able to measure risk accurately, because the person who is really planning suicide may keep the ideas as a secret.

Aside from any religious aspects of the question is the effects of a suicide on others, and if I was at the point of thinking of suicide that would weigh heavily on my choice. The emotional consequences for family and friends can be devastating and there is even some evidence that people have been bereaved through a suicide being more likely to commit suicide themselves. However, it is likely that the person who commits suicide is in such a difficult place emotionally that they are not able to stop and think clearly. Also, there may be a difference between the person who has fleeting suicidal thoughts and the person who has recurrent or almost permanent suicidal ideation. I believe that there may be better ways forward for managing suicidal unhappiness, but I would not go as far as to say that suicide is absolutely wrong in all circumstances.

I hope you stay well. It is a problem with all the new variants and I would imagine that people will have to keep having further vaccines as the initial ones will wear off. I don't know many people in real life who had the virus. Of course, it is possible to have it and not have symptoms at all. I was surprised that I didn't get it in the beginning because I was still working and had to travel to work on the buses. Strangely, I have got sick far less often during the time of the pandemic. The only thing I have is my eye problem and it just has to be monitored but I may need an operation at some point.

Anyway, I hope that you have a good birthday on the 16th. My anniversary of joining this site a year ago is on the 9th.

Thank you for the power of reason, which can be a way of sifting through the rush of ideas which flow into consciousness.

I was just reading some of this thread today and discovered that you had Covid_19. I hope that you are getting over the long term effects. In spite of the discussion on vaccines and the impact of the impact of lockdown etc, I am not really aware of anyone talking about the experiences of having the virus. This is perhaps a missing area of discussion and people who have actually had it need to have a voice because I believe that it can take a long while for people to recover fully.

One thing which I wonder about in relation to your question is how it connects with issues surrounding the development and history of religion. Certainly, within Christianity there was the suppression of women within the Church and the role of a priesthood of men, even though that has begun to change. I believe that in many religions male supremacy has been linked to beliefs in a divine order. However, there is some archaeological and anthropological findings about gods, so one question may be about whether there was at any point a belief in goddesses, possibly prior to gods. This may be suppressed, alongside paganism, which emphasises the idea of sacred 'feminine' power and fertility rites.

I can understand your questions around Gus's thread about the thread title and I am also aware of the problematic nature of metaphysics in relation to subjective experiences connected to poetry and other art forms. But, I do have my own question related to this, which is where does creativity come from?

I know that it is wired in the brain, and a many writers have suggested that it is connected to the left and right hemisphere. However, while we are moving on it does still leave the question of the underlying source of images and ideas which come into consciousness. We have the whole tradition of ideas as Forms which goes back to Plato and I believe that Jung draws upon this in his ideas about the collective unconscious and archetypes. However, I believe that many people find Jung's ideas as being outdated, so I would ask how people view the source of the flow of images. I know that in poetry there is a focus on language and sensory experiences, but it does still, from my point of view, have to be connected to underlying consciousness itself, because the writing of poetry is connected with conscious interpretation of experience, and, in general, imagination. In other words, I believe that it involves questions about imagination as a source for creativity.