I am replying to you because you enquired about the meaning of my battery running out in Wimbledon and also know that my mother is ill. Apart from being out in Wimbledon, as the womble of this site, and having to wait until I get home until I can charge up my phone, I think that my psychological batteries had probably run out too.

If my thread discussion did appear a bit obscure it probably comes in the context of my mother being ill and awaiting tests, for which both I and her are fearful. I am struggling with how to help her cope with any bad news and that is what got me thinking about how we frame 'evil'. My mother does see life in terms of God, but does still struggle with how to view the 'evil' of suffering. I see this in a wider context but can see problems with any view of life which traces back suffering to our failings. But, I do believe that how we understand the forces of good and evil is not dependent on a religious perspective.

Of course, our experiences of 'good' and 'evil' are related to the way in which we define them, but I think that the experience of suffering is central. I think that independently of whether we believe in any underlying divine force, we are still left with the quandary of whether there are any inherent principles of good and evil in the universe, even though these ideas are inevitably related to how we perceive good and evil in our own lives. Human ideas of these concepts are restricted to understanding, but we can ask whether they have any basis in any aspects of principles beyond the realm of our own thinking.

I think that my problem goes back to theology but I am trying to think outside of that. My own views are related to Jung's psychology of the shadow but also I question in the widest possible way, in relation to the suffering of human beings and other lifeforms.

However, I am in Wimbledon and my phone battery may run out any moment, so I may not be able to discuss any further until I can charge my battery.

Interesting, and I am inclined to think that a disregard for life may incorporate the lives of others alongside our own, but I do think that this split is an important one.

I definitely think that aspects of behaviour have a root in the psychology of a person, including sadism. However, I do believe that to think of evil and good simply in this way rules out ideas of the a priori principles of Kant or Plato's ideas of forms. I am not saying that I see it simply as they do, or I would not be writing a thread, but I do think that it is likely that good and evil go beyond our own psychologies.

Okay, I will look at the link which you have provided to a thread previous to my time on the site, and anyone else can throw in any new ideas which they may have.

I like your art on physics and your images of so many ladies probably point to the importance of the feminine principle as an essential aspect of existence.

Also, in the post previous to that, in which you speak of the reality within a grain of sand, you refer to William Blake. I think that he is such an important thinker and he created so much of a philosophy, in his thoughts about innocence and experience, and especially in 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.'

But, I do think that poetry, e is such an important aspect of thought. While I was a student I got to know a fairly well known poet in England, called U A Fanthorpe. Unfortunately, she is not living now, but I met her in the context that I was doing illustrations for a college magazine. At the time, I was struggling with the philosophy of Kant, and through knowing this poet, I became aware of the limits of reason, and how the arts, and poesis, are extremely important aspect in the scheme of human knowledge.

Thanks, and life can be so difficult at times, throwing us into all kinds of philosophy conundrums. I plan to have some interaction on this site, even while my mother is ill and in hospital, although it is lower on my priorities.
I do believe though, that the harshest lessons in life are probably the ones which give us the most scope for learning. I am not sure that life is meant to be easy at all, aside from any particular viewpoint which we may choose to adopt, to make sense of it all. But, I realise that it is a matter of perspective entirely and how the abstract entity known as the self is present as an essential factor in any such interpretation of life experience. This also is related to how we view the importance of self in relation to any larger cosmic order.

As regards to the self, I also believe that we need a certain amount of sense of humour and need to try not to take our own selves too seriously. My own funniest dream , a couple of weeks ago, was one in which I saw all my own threads on this site, lying as long pieces of curled up pieces of paper on the floor, next to my bed, almost like scrolls.

Thanks for your entry, and I am just letting you and others know that I am really taking a bit of time out because my mum is in hospital. However, I can't go to visit her daily due to Covid_19 restrictions. So, I am logging onto the site but will probably have much less participation for a while. But, I am continuing to read the replies on the threads and I am glad that the thread is still going for any people who are still interested.

Thanks for all your fantastic contributions. I downloaded your documents and will read them properly today. I am still reading your own book on the Bible. I was also very impressed by your poem on the mystery of existence.

My own view of postmodernism is connected to sociology. In particular, I knew someone who thought of gender as being socially constructed. I thought how useful this was at the time . But, I also see the biological dimensions of gender. So, it may be about various lens, and how we explore and experiment with them until we find those which are both most accurate and helpful for our thinking.

I can accept what you are saying and we are indeed so different. Obviously, our philosophies are connected to our basic sense of self, but it does possibly show how our own psychologies come into play in our thinking. Each of us comes with a subjective life, and this is involved and evolves during our engagement with others, as well as our being the starting point for the development of our construction of philosophies about everything in life. We cannot really escape the self while we are alive.

I think that postmodernism definitely was important as a movement and it lead to a way of analysing meanings, especially in connection with the social construction of many aspects of reality. It aided in thinking about so many fabricated constructs, but, perhaps it went a bit too far, and may have given rise to the perspective where everything is reduced to mere social constructs. This may have lead to the possibility of post truth, and a whole agenda in which nothing can be taken for granted at all. So, in thinking about postmodernism, perhaps we need to think about what was helpful, or unhelpful, and where do we go from here?

It makes it sound as if the existentiali prospects of a disembodied fictitious self may make life in the real world seem so incredibly dull. I am actually wishing to get back to real life and having a life as an embodied self, but perhaps, the alternative reality of the internet and cyberspace will be too alluring. We will all sit alone, fixated on our devices with the ability to shapeshift a sense of self at the flick and tapping of digits.

I don't know if you have chosen the title of your link to an earlier aspect of this thread intentionally .' Be Here Now' is an album by Oasis.I think that it rocks with the mysteries of existence, with retro comparisons to The Beatles and John Lennon. Perhaps the big questions cannot be answered by philosophy alone and the creative artists contribute in this together, alongside the philosophers.

One aspect which I wonder about this, is to what extent are people creating identities on social media because the scope for expressing in daily life is so restrictive. I think that have become locked into a mixture of institutions and individuals floundering socially. I probably would not have joined a forum at all if it had not been due to the pandemic and lockdowns.

As it is, I think that we are in an extremely upside down world, with a mixture of pros and cons and, the question is where is humanity going to end up, including our plights as individual selves struggling to find meaning and a place within it all? I think that the last 18 months, with the pandemic and lockdowns, have seen a speeding up of so many processes which had been beginning already. At this stage, it is hard to know what will happen and how life for any of us will be in, say, five years time.

I know that you have queried engaging with me on my many threads, but I think that our differing angles are so interesting. You are an highly valued member of the forum but write in response to others' threads. On the other hand, I write threads with complex questions, and I struggle my way through reading and thinking about replying. I often think how interesting it would be to see threads you might think of. But, I am not thinking that you should necessarily do so, because you are doing well anyway. I may need to slow down, but I love creating threads.

I just think that it shows how different we are as individuals. Fortunately, the forum allows for our individual expression of self and I can't help but laugh at how it would be if everyone created as many threads as I have done. The front page would be changing constantly, and it would really be a Tower of Babel of so many threads.

I think that your point, 'Oneself is what each of us is, but yourself is not no one else can be,' is extremely important in our times. We have seen individualism but I think that we are now in a time in which the individual is viwed as being so insignificant. But, each of us is unique and needs to be valued, even in the digital, information age. There is the whole focus upon the needi to assert oneself, as many psychology experts emphasize, but, there is a contrasting ethos to current life, which seeks to dehumanise or crush the individual self, and I think that we have to be wary of this.

I didn't realise just how many threads I had created, when the truth of the matter is I often struggle with writer's block. I probably need to slow down a bit and I certainly don't believe that sheer quantity of writing is important. Sometimes, thought before speaking or writing is important. I do still wish to write threads, but I see them as prompts for others to think about, rather than just as platforms for my own ideas.

On the subject of writing, Jack Heffron, in' The Writer's Idea Book', suggested that writing,
'is a means of carving order from chaos, of challenging beliefs and assumptions, of facing the world with eyes and heart wide open. Through writing, we declare a personal identity amid faceless anonymity'. So, it may be that the process of writing, including our expression of ideas on this site, is a central aspect of the realisation of the self.

Your reply is very interesting, in tracing the way in which the idea of self has in itself gone through many identity changes in itself. Yes, the ancient people often thought of it as the soul. In particular, Plato spoke of the daimon, in speaking of the idea of the soul in relation to the divine. How different the concept of the daimon is to most contemporary thinking about the self.

Unfortunately, I am not writing a book but I do love writing which is probably why I write so many threads. Perhaps, I will write one oneday. But, I think that I have probably created a lot of threads in a short time, and it is actually a lot of work trying to write so many replies. So, I probably do need a bit of a break, and, of course, I wish to get involved in others' threads as well.

I think that your post is interesting because while we are talking about embodied selves in life, as we interact on this site we project ourselves in a disembodied way. It is true that some people disclose more than others and, personally, I feel that to disclose a certain amount gives the interaction gives some kind of human touch.

With regard to how I wrote about the idea of fearing doing 'badly' on the site, I will admit that this connects to my own fears of failure and rejection. When any of us come to the forum, we come with our own life history and underlying sense of self. I can trace my own feelings of potential rejection to when I was about 8 years old and after not seeing a group of friends for a few days, how they told me that they were forming a rock band, but that I could not be any part of it, and they kept taunting me over this. I felt so rejected, not that I thought that any of them, or myself, had any musical talents. But, the issue was about exclusion. That is an issue which I can share but I think that we all have weakspots.

A couple of months ago, I asked if ' reality is solid' and we can even ask if our own selves are solid? Hopefully, most of us are fairly solid, or stable, but I think that most of us have areas of weaknesses and strengths.

I think that your question, 'What power do you give TPF and its members to adversely affect you? ' is an interesting one. Personally, I think that it does affect me possibly more than it should, and that is probably because I spend a lot of time in my room by myself using it. It almost feels like reality television because it goes on night and day, with new threads popping up and heated, dramatic exchanges of ideas.

I also believe that you make an important point when you speak of how we listen to one another and have our own 'blindspots'. Even going beyond this forum, the idea of blindspots is not addressed within philosophy as it is in psychoanalysis, but, perhaps, it should be, because it may be an underlying aspect behind arguments and premises. It is interrelated to your point that on the forum, 'Judgements are made ... and sometimes wrong assumptions are made'. I definitely feel that often people write heated posts, quoting another, without exploring the issue fully with the other person. I think that there is a danger of conflating the other's position and the other person almost into a caricature. I think that there is more danger of doing this on a site like this in which we cannot see the other person, especially as the non verbal aspects of interaction are left out.

So, this is the reality of meeting as disembodied selves, and, of course, philosophy has traditionally often been in the form of books, but that does usually mean more direct human contact with others in the process of the creation of books. That may be less now when people can self publish online.

I think that your post is interesting but I think that it ignores the historical development of thinking, especially as it ends with saying that we usually go with cultural ideas rather than logic. What you are missing here is the way that the particular worldviews were dependent on specific answers to questions in the first place. Of course, it doesn't mean that those individuals were right in the first place. However, you may be right to say that instincts play a large role against logic, and frequently the debate is put in terms of rationality vs emotions.

But, was Socrates really corrupting youth by encouraging them to question? Also, your title, although may be intended as rhetorical, but at face value it suggests that he should have been put to death, which seems a problematic view. You suggest that the questions of 'how did life begin? 'what is our life for? and 'is there life after death?' are ones 'which cannot be 'answered in a definitive way'. I think that it is true, because they are indeed speculation. But, it probably doesn't stop people from thinking about them, so they may as well be discussed openly rather than privately. I admit that I have created threads on such questions, so, perhaps, it is time for me to be given the hemlock, but I say this with a sense of humour.

I definitely don't hold a view an emphasis upon rationality or greater consciousness which ignores other aspects. I think that balance is of key importance as suggested by Iain Gilchrist in 'The Master and the Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World'. He points to the need for science, reason, intuition and imagination' being central, and believes that emotions are important. So, any idea which I have about rationality and self understanding would involve greater understanding of all the various aspects of the brain and human consciousness, rather than a lopsided development of the self.

I think that we have the capacity for rational and deliberate behaviour but it is just that many people don't get stretched enough. It is often only rare circumstances or experiences which push people to go beyond what Guirdjieff and Colin Wilson described as 'robot' consciousness. But, I do believe that gradually more people are becoming 'individuated' more fully, as Jung describes it. Maybe it is time for the philosophers and humanity to wake up to greater self knowledge and consciousness.

I am still reading this thread and my other one, but not paying full attention because my mum had a fall and had to go into hospital. However, I am glad that the the thread is still going because I think that the mystery of consciousness should not be dismissed too quickly.

I think that it is interesting to compare Hume and Jung's understanding of self, because Jung certainly didn't think that we are just 'a bundle of experiences'. The more I think about this issue in relation to the many varying responses on the this thread it seems to me that the idea of self is interrelated to the mind and body problem. I tend towards the view that mind is dependent on the body, but I think that the body can give rise to such a sense of evolving consciousness, including heightened states of self awareness.

I am not convinced that we are that unconscious and I think that we have the ability to develop as self conscious beings. In some ways, I think that the experience of suffering may often lead to a much more intense experience of self, as a waking up experience. Also, I think that we have a certain amount of choice about how we develop as individual selves, and it probably involves a certain amount of separation from the social group. We live in a society in which individualism is apparent and this probably gives rise to a stronger self consciousness, but it probably does mean that a certain amount of narcissism comes into the picture. However, I do believe that there is scope to go beyond this, with a view to greater creative freedom, especially through reflective awareness and consciousness.

Thanks for your links on self concept and self esteem. I think what is interesting in these is the cultural aspects of thinking about the self because I am sure that the whole way we think about the self is in a social context. So, while there are probably universal elements of experience of the subjective experience of self we live in a world of social meanings and values.

I think that the point about how self is thought about in relation to internet identity is especially interesting as well. I think that my own sense of self is affected by interaction on this forum in particular. When I feel that I am doing badly here I feel that my own self esteem is affected detrimentally, just as if it was happening at work. Similarly, when I feel that I have meaningful interactions on the site, I do feel validated as a human being, and I think that this definitely gave me a sense of self worth during the isolation of lockdowns.

I think that it varies how people understand the concept of self, within different psychology models and within the various systems of meditation. Also, I think that individuals vary in the way in which they think about the self. Some people probably operate on a more automatic basis than others, and it all depends on how much people stop and reflect on the processes. In some ways, psychology in Western society has probably made us more conscious of the self. Also, this is probably true of the focus of psychotherapy. But, I do think that the models of how we think about the self probably affect how we conceptualize the experience of self because it is an interpretative process.

I definitely agree that the self is a 'tricky notion.' It is experienced meaningfully through self awareness and in connections within interaction.

Your focus upon how this relates to various dimensions of awareness is a response which I find to be particularly interesting and, @Amity also speaks of the multidimensional aspects of the self. Several months ago, I remember discussing art with you in relation to dimensions. I do believe that the self is a construct observed and consolidated in these various dimensions. You may be right to say that the various aspects are consolidated in one dimensions above the experience.

I think that many people would question the idea of the self in terms of dimensions, because it seems rather abstract. However, my own intuitive experience suggests that it may happen in such a way. I certainly feel that I am moving into dimensions when processing experiences. Many models of psychology don't allow for such a viewpoint. However, some perspective of consciousness based on quantum physics and various thinkers in the transpersonal approach to psychology and philosophy do point to various levels of consciousness and, offer a much wider framework for understanding the self.

Even though I said that everything matters, I think that in many ways, the idea that nothing matters and everything matters is in many ways an essential paradox within life. It is possible to blow things up beyond all proportions or to reduce it all to insignificance. Generally, though, I think some of the most insignificant aspects of thoughts can open up channels of thinking if we pay attention to detail. Also, I think that we are affected by so much information on a subliminal level. This includes aspects of ideas which we only glance at briefly, including the news.

You have created further great poems. I particularly like your reflections on time,
'..there is no time, then, externally
And, internally everything happens,
In the boundless 'eternity' within.'
I think that the way eternity is inner experience rather than an simply as an outer aspect of existence can become overlooked easily.

I do come from the angle of seeing outside of the various social roles which we play in life. I came across this idea in social psychology, especially through reading, 'Games People Play, 'by Eric Berne, who looks at how a person is not identical to the various roles they adopt, including parent, lover, and to some extent, we adopt masks in most aspects of social life. I think that it would be possible for people to go too far in deliberating on the nature of how we are all playing 'games' in social life, but, on the other hand, the ability to be able to think beyond the various fronts and parts we play, and be able to distance oneself, is a way of being able to step back as a self. I do believe that many people are not really able to do or think about this at all really, and do see themselves as being identical with the various roles they play.

Surely, it would be going too far to say that nothing can be known, but simply that many aspects of life are rather uncertain. But, we are not just in a deep black void, and, if nothing else we know so much based upon our experiences, which are central to existence. What more can we ask for really?

Our experiences gives scope for imagination and speculation and, perhaps, waking up from the sleep of not knowing as much as we would like may not be preferable ultimately. It may be that if the answers all became apparent oneday it may become so disappointing, and our quest would dissipate. We might truly be stuck in a narrow tunnel, or rut, of restricted meaning, or even meaninglessness.

I am not sure how people rate it as being one of the best, but one of my own favourites is 'A History of Western Philosophy', by Bertrand Russell.

@180 Proof

Okay, I will look at the older posts.I think.that Neil Young is great anyway. He and others such as Dylan and Cohen may be the great philosophers of our time, even though seen a little bit differently. I also think that Bono of U2 is important, and I have just managed to get hold of the music of Bono's son, in the band, Inhaler. Perhaps, philosophy goes beyond books entirely and is an aspect of the ongoing process of creative exploration and thinking in life.

But, of course, you needn't engage in discussion with me. If anything, I have probably created so many thread topics and answering all of replies has left me rather exhausted. I will try to chill out a bit, especially before I create any new ones, for anyone who does wish to engage with me. But, perhaps, I just need some private reading time first.

I am not wishing to dismiss the ideas which you proposed in the first page of this thread, but I think that there may be so much more to be elaborated upon. I do believe that so much of self may be encoded in the biological basics of DNA, but do believe in the entire way in which this comes into play In the enfoldment of self is so much more complex.

I am not sure if I understand fully, but tensing of the self may be extremely important in our understanding. Perhaps, you could explain your own understanding in a bit more detail.

An interesting link, and I keep an open mind. I certainly don't wish to come to any premature conclusions. I come with a view to having any ideas which I am accustomed to being thrashed, and questioned.

I was just looking back at my thread and saw your idea of self delusion. I think that it is an important aspect of existence, and I am wondering how can we overcome this? We develop ideas to buffer up our sense of self, security and identity. But, so much is about defense mechanisms and I am left wondering what it means to step outside of these entirely. We have our identity in relation to social structures and meanings, but as thinking beings I am left wondering about the whole process and possibility of facing and going beyond self and self delusion.