I am glad to hear that practitioners in your part of the world are looking to Eastern wisdom. I think that it is possible that mindfulness was a craze a few years ago but it has been spoken of so much that a lot of people are fed up with it. It is possible that the word mindfulness was overused as a buzz word.

I do still read about it because I have books in my room. To some extent I find it helpful but not that easy to apply. I find the most useful aspect is in connection with thoughts because it can involve being able to distance them rather than being caught up in the spirals. It seems to allow for reflective space.

Some people who use the term mindfulness seem almost oblivious to the roots of the word and idea. It does seem that this may be related to possible 'embarrassment' of its origins and how it has been underplayed within psychology. This may be about a value system as captured in the words of a Doors song, 'the West is best'. Unfortunately, many people do have an attitude towards philosophy which sees Eastern ideas as tainted with mysticism in opposed to the hard logic of rationality of science.

I don't know why everyone makes such a big issue out of sex chromosomes. The majority of people have not had chromosome tests and would not even know if they had an abnormality. Such abnormalities only come to light if there is some reason to do a test. Just imagine someone realising that their chromosomes were not as they thought late on life. What effect would it have on their identity? I am sure that would be variable to a large extent on many factors.

I have read a few of Castaneda's books. I have come across some suggestions that they are all 'made up'. Even if they are fictitious, they still represent important knowledge and can be a source of inspiration for dream states.

When I spoke of opposites, the idea was about them as principles and was not saying how they play out in life. In particular, I am not meaning that real men and women are opposites but simply that the archetypes of masculinity and femininity are. Also, one way of looking at is captured in the yin and yang symbol which has the black and white sides curled up in a circle. What is most interesting though is the way the complementary opposite is also captured in each half by being expressed in the dot, or small circles in the two halves.

There are many opposites: the yin and yang, good and evil, day and night, male and female, mind and body. They are the extremes and it is hard to know how they exist as metaphysical constructs or as aspects of human perception. In this way, they are part of the area often known as qualia.

It is also about the nature of duality and how people juggle the extremes as opposites. That is because there are points along continuum and the interplay of opposites. One other relevant idea is that of enantiodromia of Heraclitus. That idea was that when the extreme of one opposite was reached there would be a swing to the other pole or opposite.

Psychosis can be an extremely terrifying experience and one of my friends is in psychiatric hospital as a result of a psychotic episode. I have worked in mental health care and found that in many cases psychiatrists are dismissive of philosophy discussion of areas such as hypnopompic dreams.

Do you think Jungian therapy is London oriented. It was not easy to find a Jungian therapist and I was undertaking therapy because it was a requirement to have some kind of therapy because I was doing an art therapy training course. However, Jung's ideas barely got mentioned on the course and even in London his ideas are often marginalised.

The worse experience related to reading about dreams when I was about 16 and first came across Freud's ideas I dreamt that I had a gun and shot my father. It was such an unnerving dream and shows how ideas have subliminal effects on dreaming.

Strangely, I have experienced less of my inner right eye imagery since starting the thread. It reminds me of when I was having Jungian therapy and was wishing to explore dreams. When I was in the therapy it seemed as if my subconscious was protesting against being scrutinised by a therapist. The relationship between the inner world and the outer one of daily life is so complex.

I haven't read Monroe in any depth but I may do at some point. I definitely don't think that dreams are meaningless and think that it is a great shame that they are often viewed in that way. I have some recurring dreams and some of them are extremely unnerving. It does seem likely that trauma has a role in this, especially as this is recognised within psychoanalysis. One strange thing which I notice in my own closed eye imagery is that I often see images of myself which change into other people or forms and I wonder what this is about. The world of dream imagery is puzzling.

We probably all have to be careful of not falling into the role of 'charlatan' and I don't wish to become one by starting this thread. So, for others who may read this thread, I will say that I am no 'expert' and raise it for general philosophy consideration.

I think that I read some writing by Robert Monroe in relation to 'out of body' experiences. As I see it, the nature of out of body experiences is interesting, but it is questionable how much can be taken at face value? In other words, it may appear that one has got out of the physical body, but whether that has happened in an objective sense, is another question entirely.

One thing which I am sure of though is that waking reality has a profound effect on the nature of dreaming. At one point, I did keep a dream diary and I found that it had a clear effect on my dream life. I would like to do that again, but it is hard to write dreams down before forgetting them. Even if dreams are mainly related to subjective aspects of experience and consciousness, it may be that they are an important resource and source. I would like to use dreams and lucid dreaming as a source for art and inspiration, but it takes a lot of effort.

Your points of clarification are extremely important because blurring of all the aspects may make the topic more confusing. Even though I think that my own experience of seeing imagery is related to an organic eye problem, it may be that the reason why I developed this may go beyond the physical to aspects of 'spiritual' development.

Definitely, the topic goes into the realms of religious experience and mental health conditions. I would not wish to underplay either of these, and I said in my previous post, it is a 'sensitive' topic. I guess that I would hope that both the medical and religious perspectives are not marginalised or given too much exaggeration. I am hoping that this discussion gives rise to some useful discussion and I put it into the lounge a while after writing the thread to make it a 'quieter' topic. If the thread does not seem to be working in terms of giving some balanced integrative discussion, I will seek to wind it up. I guess I just see it as an aspect underlying many other philosophy discussions and I certainly hope that starting this thread is not a grave error...

I put this thread into the Lounge because in some ways it is a fairly 'sensitive' area, as if people disclose dream experiences it may be a bit private, rather than simply rigorous arguments. The nature of dreams is so complex and, as you say, it hard to know what a 'proper lucid dream' is. I do remember reading some time ago that flying dreams are meant to signify 'upper states of consciousness.' I think that the closest I come to having actual flying dreams is some borderline sleep experiences in which I am floating around my room. However, these have not been particularly pleasant experiences.

Jung was probably correct in indicating that in the interpretation of dreams the individual meanings of the dreamer need to be taken into account rather than rules of interpretation being applied universally. He also looks at dreams in connection with the understanding of symbolism. It may be that dreams, including lucid ones, are about connecting with a different angle. Huston Smith, in 'Forgotten Truth', speaks of symbolism being about being able to explore different 'levels' or 'dimensions of reality'. Also, Peake refers to 'inner space' as a reality in itself.

It may be that there are two opposing approaches to lucid dreams or 'unusual' dream states. One is that which is extremely dismissive. In addition, many people are inclined to the view that exploration of symbolic levels is pointless. In contrast, some people interpret the symbolic experiences in a concrete way. Even if imagery and other aspects of experiences occur with eyes shut, on the borderline of sleep, if people read too much into them it can be dangerous. That may be the way in which many end up going into the territory of 'psychosis'. I consider myself as fortunate that I discovered Jung's writings during adolescence, because I think that otherwise I may have gone on to develop psychotic illness. It is such a fine line, because I have worked in mental health care and seen people struggling in how they understand and interpret symbolic experiences.

There are various models of understanding the various aspects of lucid dreaming and associated experiences, including the shamanic viewpoint. That is interesting in the way in which it refers to voyages to upper and lower worlds. I find reading literature on shamanism, including the work of Mircea Eliade, very useful. Also, there is a lot of interesting writing within Eastern literature, including the model of the chakra system One other important idea is that of 'kundalini', as the energy force rising from the base of the spine to the centre of the forehead, spoken of by Gopi Krishna. He speaks of all kinds of imbalances which may occur in the awakening of the 'kundalini serpent', and how it can lead to 'madness'.

The whole phenomena of lucid dreaming and 'astral travel or projection' is one which may be fraught with dangers. I can understand why many choose to leave it alone completely. Some find it extremely important though. I fall into the category of those who choose to explore it. The main issue may be about keeping balance and it is not easy. I definitely have experienced times when I have lost that balance. Ideally, it may be best to have some kind of mentor but they are difficult to find, and there are so many charlatans. Careful reading from various viewpoints may be the best, with a basis in philosophy or critical thinking may be the best approach, and some kind of grounding in the physical world.

Yes, it is probably unlikely that time reversal could happen as a real possibility because it would involve the reverse chains of causality. It would sort of mean that the injury of the car crash would have to then happen backwards with the crash being later. However, the book was well written and as far as the memory aspects that is more complex because it involves aspects of knowledge being outside of time, from the perspective of eternity. That would make sense in terms of precognitive experiences because it would be about people being able to perceive beyond 3 dimensional world experience.

One idea of an imaginary possibility which is unlikely but not cannot be ruled out is that of time's arrow reversing. I came across it in ' The Death of Forever: A New Future For Human Consciousness' by Darryl Reanney.The book is a contemplation of time and eternity and he thinks that it cannot be ruled out that time's arrow could reverse and history occur backwards. It was also the theme of Martin Amis novel, 'Time' s Arrow' which is an interesting fictional tale of characters' lives in reverse. It is a bit of a mind boggling idea and I have to admit thinking about Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence and how it would work as a fantastic possibility...

At first, when I saw your word agnotology I thought that you had made it up. But, I pressed on the word and saw that exist. So, I have learned something new.

I am wondering if you are thinking of the paranormal, which is often shelved next to philosophy in libraries. Of course, there is parapsychology as a branch within psychology. But, the unknown is often is at the edges in between the disciplines as the unknown variable which is hard to classify and put into a box.

I haven't come across anyone who has said that they feel angry about people believing in life after death, although I am aware that being preached to can lead people to feel angry. Personally, I am not sure whether I believe in life after death or not, as my thinking shifts a lot. Of course, the psychology of believing or not believing in it is variable and I do wonder to what extent the psychology of the belief influences belief in it.

Personally, I like the idea of rebirth because one life and one body seems a bit limiting and some have better circumstances than others. However, I try to not simply convince myself that reincarnation exists on that basis because it would seem like philosophical dishonesty.

It is interesting to compare the approach of the novelist and the scientist making formulas. It is not as if one is more 'real' than the other, although some might regard fiction as mere imagination. The language of story is about a different way of seeing and means of showing and telling through the development of narrative and metaphors.

What I have found on psychology courses is that they focus often on the lower scale of needs. Maslow was saying that the basis for moving on to the higher needs is on the lower ones are fulfilled. However, if you read his writings he is emphasising the importance of peak experiences. When I mentioned this on in a class related to once the tutor seemed puzzled and I think that she probably had not read Maslow's writings at all.

In particular, Roper developed a model of nursing care and activities of living linking it to the basis Maslow's hierarchy. That may have influenced the way many have understood Maslow's hierarchy, although I am sure that the philosophical consideration of his ideas involves a holistic approach in emphasising the full spectrum of human needs.

@Hanover
Without going off topic I am afraid that I do get messages saying, 'Data warning' and that I have used too much data, especially when I have logged into links. Perhaps, Big Brother is watching me and sees my interests as subversive, like the Illuminati 'all seeing eye'!

I am extremely interested that you have read Alice Bailey's book, 'Glamour'. I have read it as well as some other books by her. The argument in her book 'Glamour' is so interesting, especially her observations about politics and the way in which Hitler was influenced by esoteric ideas but got caught up with the lure of glamour.

One other writer who I have read is Benjamin Creme and I managed to get to a lecture by him, his final one before he died. However, some of his ideas are very strange, especially that of the Maitreya being in East London, waiting to emerge to the world. He had been saying this for years as well. It was really after my interest in Creme' s ideas, which were based on the idea of channeling that I came back to reading philosophy as opposed to the direction I had gone into esoteric literature.

I am extremely interested in Western esoteric thinking and wishing to discuss it rather than have to listen to a podcast. Using podcasts uses up most of my mobile data allowance and I don't enjoy podcasts. I am more of a reader. I do read in the esoteric traditions, including theosophy and Hermeticism, alchemy, Rosucucianism and the ancient writers. I also try to keep sceptical and critical in the spirit of philosophical enquiry. One writer who I find very useful for his readable writing on Western esoteric ideas is Gary Lachman, who was also the drummer in the pop band, Blondie.

I am not sure how you wish your thread is develop. A couple of people have put entries in about numbers and this may be important in some ways but I see esotericism as being more about ideas, but how they may go back to writers such as Plotinus. But, I am not sure if you are simply wishing this thread to be about the podcast which you introduced or more of a wider consideration of ideas.

I guess that it partly comes down to what people consider to be weird. Even within this site there are norms and some people are probably considered as the weirdos. Does it matter how one is seen? I am sure that this is variable. The point where being weird seems to matter to me is not when others consider me to be weird, but when that is how I see myself. What does it mean to be weird? It can have extremely negative connotations as being someone as an outsider to be disregarded. Or, it can even be romantic, like being a bohemian. It spans the spectrum between being a misfit or a bohemian.

On my good days I see my interest in philosophy, and related fields, as making me different and as being a bit 'interesting', but on bad days as it being a bit offbeat. Part of the problem may be about images and glamour and how this contributes to identity in relation to esteemed ideals about being worthy as a human being. The underlying problem may be about identity, and how ideas of whether someone is weird or not is ranked according to values. In particular, I am aware that I have met people who were regarded as 'strange' and saw them treated badly while I saw them as being interesting.

Another label is 'eccentric' and I probably see myself as a bit eccentric. I have joked at times about being an eccentric and, if nothing else, it made others laugh, because it may be that it is not too good to take oneself too seriously and keep a sense of humour in coping with personal weirdness, and, maybe, life itself is weird and people miss so much of the incongruities and absurdities of everything.

I guess that what you are talking about is scientific fundamentalism which can be as concrete as religious fundamentalism. It just leaves no scope for further thinking. It may be that the process of evolution is nearer to what happened in the sense that it didn't take place in 7 days and there was no actual Adam and Eve. However, there is a lot which still remains unknown, especially the evolution of culture and language. It also appears that rather than some of the earliest people being 'primitive' some of the ancient people were very advanced, such as the in the civilisation of Egypt and Greece. As far as I am aware there is some evidence of a flood, and, of course, there is a lot not known, such as ice ages.

I don't object in any way to you discussing Aristotle here. His ideas are very important, especially in relation to science.

The resemblance between dreaming and idealism is interesting. It conjures up ideas of solipsim and the idea of 'Maya' and everyday 'reality' being an illusion. It does lead to the questioning of the philosophy of realism, and how ideas of objective 'reality' can be established. I see it as an interesting area of speculation, but I am sure that some people may come up with more 'definitive' answers.

Hello, I think that you are new to the forum, so I welcome you and hope that you find a lot of helpful discussion. What is good here is that there is a lot of diversity of thought on what the 'truth' is. As you may have discovered if you have read some of this thread there is questioning of science rather simply people being blinded and mystified by its power.

As far as the the relationship between science and religion, it is complex, and I have struggled with it. I don't consider myself as an atheist but have a general interest in religious experience. When I first learned the story of evolution at school, by a teacher who said that he was an atheist, when I was about 9 or 10, I was horrified because I was being brought up by a Catholic family. I requested to be sent to a Catholic school and I stayed in Catholic schools until I was 18. But, what I discovered by about the age of 13 or 14 was that some of the Catholic teachers believed in evolution or were struggling with knowing how to evaluate it.

I found that the English teacher helped me to make sense of it. He explained how the nature of scripture and Biblical narratives are so different. 'The Book of Genesis' is not like newspaper journalism. It was based on mythical and folklore traditions, which were written down. The authors had not witnessed the creation of the world in 7 days and an actual Adam or Eve. So much is symbolic; but that represents a different kind of 'truth', rather than literal.

So, generally, I think that the story of evolution is definitely important, but it probably doesn't represent the whole truth. One of my own interest is in the evolution of consciousness and culture, and this is extremely complex. Science is important, yet all theories, like stories and metaphors are models. It is worth trying to modify them in line with empirical evidence, although it is important to be aware that they are only models and may have big gaps.

I actually meant Theravada Hinduism but there is a fair amount of overlap between Hinduism and Buddhism, which makes sense considering that Buddhism developed from Hinduism. I have read some of Hegel's writings. I have definitely got to the point of thinking that percep)tion is of major importance and hope to read more phenomenology.

I read Karl Popper's, 'Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem' last week which looks at the complexity of the mind and body relationship. One main argument which he developed is based on the idea of emergent evolution. He suggests that, 'The novel structures which emerge always interact with the basic structure of physical states from which they emerge. The controlling system interacts with the controlled system. Mental states interact with the physiological states. And world 3 interacts with world 2, and through it with world 1.

Thanks, I had a quick read through of the article and it is very interesting so I will probably read it again more slowly. I definitely like the term cognitive narcissism, because I think that it is applicable to the fascinating with psychology.

My main understanding of Eastern metaphysics was based on Hinduism which I did a term module on when I was a student and it was based on Theravada Buddhism. I am also influenced by Rudolf Steiner some theosophy and have read books by Benjamin Creme. Have you read anything by Creme, he has some extraordinary ideas, but I have attended workshops on transmission meditation. This was the meditation which he developed and even though I am not sure that it really involves channeling down energies from the Masters, I found it to be the best form of meditation I have come across.

Do you really believe that idealism is true. I thought that you were a physicalist. I am definitely not a materialist. Generally, I think that the relationship between mind and body is complex, and I do have some sympathy with non dualism. However, I do find that my thinking on the matter fluctuates and where I think that mind is the main source of everything. I definitely find Eastern philosophy helpful, although from what I gather there is dispute over mind and matter in Buddhism.

Within esoteric thinking there is a tradition of seeing mind as more real. Plato's idea of the Forms suggests that ideas exist beyond the physical world. Also, the physicist, David Bohm, considered that beyond the physical world, the explicate order, there is the implicate order, which is a bit like the idea of Plato's forms. From what I have read of science, it seems that it does come up with clear answers about whether the body or mind are more real. Physics, which is like the master of the physical sciences because other sciences are lead by it, seems to be about models and interpretations and it does seem that the metaphysical imagination comes into play in the process of theories being developed initially.

To Agent Smith and Mr Daniel Dennett,

You are still you and exist as consciousness, and not an illusion, while asleep, even if part of you goes into the astral dimension.

Yours faithfully,
Mr Jack Cummins

I hope that you sleep well. I do struggle to get to sleep frequently. I will look up what Dennett thinks about sleep and get back to you. My own thinking is that it does seem that identity continues in sleep to a large extent because in dreams we are usually the same person as in waking consciousness. I once dreamt that I climbed out of my body and into that of the body of a drummer playing in a rock band. But, I never went on to learn to play the drums, so maybe that was my long lost vocation...

Actually, if you remember, I did write a thread on the Holy Spirit really, because you wrote on it. The thread was about the idea of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is considered to be the unpardonable sin according to the Gospels. I spoke of how I got into a bad state worrying about the passage in the Bible when I was 13. A few years later, I was relieved to read that both Jung and Kierkergaard had worried over what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit meant.

When I tried to think at some point when I was still going to church about the Trinity, the conclusion which I came to was as follows: God the father is the source, and the son, Christ, is the embodiment, with the Holy Spirit as being the force through which this is mediated, especially in the embodiment as Christ. The view which I came to about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was the general attitude of hatred of good or love and compassion represented by Christ .

Nowadays, I do also think that other teachers, especially the Buddha come from a similar starting point. Rudolf Steiner also speaks of Christ consciousness, which seems related to the idea of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure how the idea of the Holy Spirit stands in relation to materialism. Also, it is questionable whether God the father is male, as it would make more sense to see God as androgynous, and beyond gender.

I don't think that taste, such as art taste is purely physical. The pieces of art are physical objects but this is interconnected with representation or the mental states of those who created them. I see mind as real, even if relies on physical structures as a basis.

But are you and your experience, whether as Agent Smith or the Madfool? It may be about naming of identity, to describe experience, or does the experience in itself have more to say about the nature of consciousness? Each of us is an individual aspect of consciousness, and what does this mean?

It comes down to how reality is viewed and what one means by illusion' in viewing consciousness in that way. Illusion is generally taken to mean that something which is only imaginary and not real. However, the question is whether one gives any significant to the imagination, or whether it is seen as having no importance because it is not physical. Is only that which is physical real?

That is where Dennett' s statement is that of materialism. The implications is that physical reality is all there is or all that is important. Okay, physical matter is observable, although particles are not clearly visible and are in constant movement. It may be that the self and consciousness are processes, but are processes not real? As human beings our meaning is connected to experience, and we experience life as subjects and the basis of our meanings are bound up with our subjective experiences in relation to other beings and objects. To say that consciousness is an illusion is stating that the experiences of consciousness is insignificant simply because it cannot be grasped in the same way as the physical world, which may be the basis for physical reality.

Yes, it may be that it is a reflection of materialism and scientific thinking, but the issue is that the people who adhere to ideas such as consciousness is an illusion don't seem to even question beyond the ideas. It may be that so many people have grown up in a climate influenced by Dennett and similar thinkers that to look beyond for other alternative perspectives can almost be seen as antiscience.

Of course, it is up to each individual to come to their own conclusions but some ideas are represented more prominently in culture generally. Different individuals may come across specific ideas according to their family and educational background, and it is likely that some people are not that aware of the full diversity of ideas, especially historically.

I like the term anti-philosophy and it may be that he has not helped the art of philosophy. However, what may be worse is when people take the idea of consciousness as an illusion in an extremely shallow way to dismiss the importance of mind and consciousness. I do believe that he is at least wishing to understand the complexities of the nature of consciousness. It may be that the conclusion which he comes to is more one which represents the underlying view of many thinkers, based on cognitive psychology, more than from the angle of the historical development of ideas. This is bound up with a picture of reality which emphasises empirical observations above all other ways of understanding.