In a way, I see such a process of selection as connected to the philosophical approach, because it is meant to be about really exploring ideas to their fullest, and going into deep and analytical engagements with them.

I am not sure that it is really possible to go beyond the empirical and metaphysical division, but have wondered about it. Really, I am not sure if one would be able to do so without becoming omniscient...

I think part of my own mind is such that when I read a book, from many perspectives, ranging from atheistic nihilism, to Christian, Greek or many kinds of writers is such that for a certain amount of time, I really feel able to become absorbed into that worldview. So, what we was trying to say is that I can usually see a variety of possible views and I juxtapose them differently. I don't know why but I probably have too much of an open mind. I always see things from various angles, almost at the same time. I think it was partly an approach which I cultivated but also the one which seems to come most naturally. I am just surprised by the way in which so many people do seem to keep fairly fixed approaches, religious or non religious.

Thanks for your contribution. I agree that 'Reality ...Life...is beyond any rationalization ...because...it's a paradox.'

I think that your question is to me, and I would argue that my answer would be neither a,b, or c, and probably more like:
Believing that x, y, z are possible explanations, with fluctuating per cent emphasises on any one of each from time to time, and probably no time when any of the three variables is ruled out completely. I don't see this as absolute, because it is even possible to bring in a v, and u occasionally

Yes, I am a bit of a seeker.

Yes, I agree that the question of reality may be more of a central question which all may ask at certain time, and not one which has a clear answer. I have been thinking for some time that phenomenology is possibly the area of philosophy which I should be moving towards in my reading.

I think that both of us, and probably a few other people are hopping around the issues of physicalism and perception in many of the threads which we are writing in. My own belief is that it is because these are the big issues within philosophy. Perhaps they are really the acute red zones of philosophy, just as much as nihilism, because it is possible to go round and round in circles thinking about them.

I am not sure that I agree with your picture of the human condition, but I think that we have already touched on this slightly. However, what I am interested in and curious about is your title which asks about deterioration. Are you coming from an assumption that the human mind was better at some point in the past? Is such a deterioration something which happens in life due to experiences? Or, is your title referring to some kind of deterioration which has occurred historically in culture?

I have read your post and find it interesting. I think that I may have seen some of the quotes, but certainly not all of them I would imagine that Einstein was rather ambiguous in belief although I have not read enough on him as a person to know completely. Hopefully, some people on this site will have read more, although when the person cannot be asked directly it is hard to know for sure, depending on the reliability of the sources.

But, when you say that you think that he was probably an agnostic, you might be right, but even then that is trying to categorize him. I come from the position of being neither a clear believer or an atheist, but I don't see myself as having a fixed position. I am sure that even when I write on this forum, at times, what I am saying sounds almost like atheism and other times like I am a believer in God. However, I think that it is because there is so much to think and wonder about. I hear the harmonies of the spheres in the music which I listen to, even though it is fairly alternative rock.

I am just so surprised that some people can come to definitive conclusions. I think that was the main reason why I started my current thread about religion. I think that it such a fascinating area, although at times I get stressed over my lack of certainty. However, I hope that others will be able to offer further clarity on Einstein's views, or interpretation of them, but I just think that it is best not to try to put Einstein in a box.

I think that I do see it as being more important to look to original sources, rather than just the plagiarism of others, such as Blavatsky. However, that is mainly after 8 months of engaging on this forum and being more critical of source material than I was.

Of all the various groups and movements, Scientology is one which I am less familiar with. However, I am familiar with various new age kinds of ideas such as those of David Icke, or the ideas of the artist Benjamin Creme, who founded transmission meditation.

I went to the last ever talk Creme gave before he died in his 90s, and did go to some transmission meditation workshops. I did embrace some of his ideas, such as the idea of a divine hierarchy of masters, and the idea of channeling. However, the part at which I, and I think that many others too could not accept, was his suggestion that Christ, or Maitreya, was living in East London, waiting to emerge to the world. This would have been about 6 years ago, and, apparently Creme had been saying this for years. So, when I think religious ideas, I do with awareness of how I had some involvement with this particular set of ideas, and when I really decided that Maitreya was not about to appear to the world I felt rather let down.

I think that the psychology of why some people choose to adopt religious beliefs and others don't is extremely complex. Freud spoke of neurosis, and I do think that fear does play a big part. I think that some people think about the religious questions more when confronted by death or deaths of others. I know that stress in life has made me think more about it, even though I don't get to the point of clear answers. I remember how when I used to be on night shifts, which used to seem so long at about 3 or 4 am I used to really dwell on questions.

Now, if I am awake, unable to sleep in the night like last night, I am not just worrying about the actual issues themselves, but how I am going to write about them properly in the various threads which I have started.

I am a little unclear when you say about poor quality threads you are talking about the threads simply in terms of the topic and the introduction. The reason why I say that is when I look at some which seem to start off well by the initial writer, when I look through the rest of the thread, some read much better than others. So, when I think about thread quality it is not simply the start but consistency of the posts within it. I also feel that some of the best discussions I had involved thread topics started by others, which did not start particularly well, but when they developed with certain people's contributions they became outstanding. But, I won't name those threads because the individuals who wrote them may read what I am writing and take offence, thinking that I am criticising their initial thread beginnings.

I have met all kinds of unusual ideas about aliens, fallen angels, devils and God, because my own work background has been working in psychiatric hospitals. I have also known people outside of hospital who have psychotic experiences, so I am definitely not in the position whereby I would suggest that I believe everyone's experiences as completely objectively true. I think that each person's suggestions have to be listened to but not with a view to believing them to be true.

I think that it is far harder to think about the ideas from the past in the exact same way as we think about the ones people describe to us. I think part of the problem is the reliability of the source material. Texts are written in various ways and I do think that if one tries to read them like they were newspaper texts it gets rather messy. I do know some people who try to do that and it doesn't really work because the overall world picture of the time they were written was so different. The biggest difference in the interpretation of the Bible is those who try to take it all so literally and those who see certain aspects as more symbolic truths. But, because there is so much which may be more symbolic it makes it hard to work out the basic facts. There is so little historical evidence apart from the texts, including those which were rejected from the mainstream, especially the Gnostic gospels.

I did read 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' when I was at college. I have read a certain amount about Hinduism when I was a student, but I after that time I became more familiar with theosophy, which looks to links between the various ideas underlying the various traditions, from Eastern ideas to the more esoteric ideas within Christianity. Have you read much in that direction?

I have looked at what you have written and I do agree with the gist of it, and what Philip K Dick says. I think that there has to be certain basic structures which don't change independently of our perceptions. But, I suppose where it does get complicated is, as it emerged in the thread I had on thoughts, is where qualia come in. At that point, there are aspects of objective reality which appear to be more subjective, and, thereby, more related to perceptual experience.

I am not aware of actually having said that I think belief in Zeus is silly at all. I do have some appreciation for accounts of the Egyptians and many early systems of ideas. One account which I think is extremely important for understanding ancient knowledge is Julian Jaynes, ' Origins of the Bicameral Mind", in which the author suggests that at some distant past times, human beings did not see the clear distinction between inner and outer experience that we do and thought that the gods, or symbols of the gods, were literal. I am not completely convinced of Jaynes' line of thinking, but it points to a possible way of understanding ancient thoughts and beliefs.

What I was trying to say was that I believe that there have been some metaphysical accounts which suggest hidden realities, including those of Kant, Plato, Swedenborg and Rudolf Steiner. Those can seem at odds with an emphasis on the observations of empirical reality.

However, I wonder about some kind of possible synthesis. Intuition may be one aspect, but this would require some backing up with evidence to support the intuitions. This is not easy but I was wondering if with the way the new physics suggested less solidity, it is possible to see beyond certain rigidities, with even the possibility that matter is not as absolute, and of more an energetic structure. Of course, there are clear physical laws and it would be startling if they began to change. It would be a bit of a shock if the moon split apart, although I once dreamed that happened. We expect gravity to be permanent on the earth and would get a shock if rather than the seasons altering with climate change, the diurnal pattern of night and day changed. So, we expect a certain amount of regularity, and this is a whole picture of grand design, but even so, it is possible that certain aspects of reality central to empiricism and metaphysics may not be immutable.

I have just read your thread discussion and found it interesting, although you have not raised any questions. So, I am imagining that you are leaving any potential discussion open. What I found most useful was the link about Plotinus, as I have just finished reading a collection of his writings. The idea in the link on this which I thought about is that he challenged the Gnostic emphasis on the fall into matter and the belief that matter is evil.

I have mixed views on Gnosticism, because on one hand I do query the emphasis on the body as being evil. From, my own reading in this area it does appear that the Gnostics almost had a sense of disregard for the body. However, I do believe that the whole emphasis on inner knowing is important. However, I would imagine that Plotinus would probably have wished to hold on to that idea. I also found it interesting to read about Plato's account of near death experiences, and it is useful to think about that in comparison with that of other accounts, especially 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'.

Strangely, I have always been far more attuned to reflection than facts. I always had far more difficulty with rote learning than speculation. I think that may because I was an only child, so I was spent more time alone than most children. I also didn't like sports, so spent a lot of time reading, drawing and listening to rock music, by the time I was about 10.

I think that we are becoming far ' too technologically correct', as I think we discussed on the thread you created. But, I think that it has a particular bearing on philosophy. People are becoming so accustomed to Wikipedia, and other sources. I sometimes think a lot of people almost treat Wikipedia like the best living philosopher in the world, knowing all the answers instantly. I also believe that the public can edit, it to include latest information. I use it as a basis for an overview of a topic, but that doing one's own research is better. If everyone relies on Wiki as the guide, there is a danger that people will begin to think too much alike, and there will be less creative and genuine thinking.

I moved it back to the front page because Madfool wrote a good detailed reply, just about the time I moved it to the lounge. I think that his discussion is worthy of the main stage. It can always be moved back to the lounge again...

I think that your answer is extremely interesting and was the kind of discussion which I was hoping for, but I will not attempt to answer it just now because I didn't manage to sleep. After your reply, I am tempted to put the thread back in the main discussion chamber. I partly moved it because I am creating too many. It can be a bit addictive, but I do enjoy inventing them as I don't have many creative outlets at the moment.

After thinking it through, I don't really see the ideas of religion coming from a distinctly different place to those of ones such as Zeus. I believe that it could be called the divine, or that is the way many people view it, or it could be the collective unconscious. But, I think that it is a matter of people entering into a certain kind of dream consciousness, or 'tuning in ' differently to the way people do in everyday awareness. I know that some people find the idea of 'hidden' as a bit too much, and I am not sure that it is actually about hidden aspects of reality, but about just perceiving a bit differently.

I am going to try to move this to the lounge because if it seen more as personal reflection that may be more appropriate really.

I
After reading the various responses I got I have realised that I am asking the question wrongly, and should be asking about personal view reality. I became aware of that when I just read a more personal response. It is probably stupid of me to have asked it so abstractly, because I was not really looking for a scientific kind of definition or explanation. I was raising the topic for some kind of philosophical reflection. So, I am about to add the word 'your' to the title. But, I do apologise for making changes, to you or anyone else who has replied to the thread already.

Really, I think that your understanding of the numinous may be part of what I was trying to discuss in my thread on transformation. Perhaps, my discussion of Colin Wilson's ideas, especially his book on 'The Outsider' got in the way.

I really like your reply because it is honest, about your own view. Of course, my question was rather abstract, but I do believe that an important part of thinking reality probably needs to include the personal components.

I think that one that stands out for me was probably about two months ago, the one on 'The Limitation(s) of Language' and that was probably because at the time it stood out in my point of view as having debate which was not repetition from so many of the others.

I am not sure what your purpose is. Is it to try to improve the quality of the threads or, if you believe that if the majority are of such poor quality is it about discouraging people from creating them. I don't see the purpose of simply naming the threads which people see as working unless it is with a view to looking at why they work and others don't.

Also, I think that part of the reason why some threads work and some don't depends partly on who picks them up initially, rather simply the topic, or the introduction. Of course, it does involve the question, but sometimes, a question arises from someone entirely new, with no introduction and it sails. However, I realise that you are talking about quality, which is probably different from popularity, but there is probably some kind of overlap.

I am not saying that your discussion is not worthwhile but I think that it needs to be about how we can improve, I believe, rather about trying to rank certain ones as quality, or naming and shaming other ones. I am aware that you are trying to do it positively by looking at ones that are quality, framing it positively. However, I don't think I am able to create links to threads on my phone.

I have only just noticed your comment, and the good little quotation from Emerson. Generally, I do think that opposition is at the centre of reality, because without conflict between opposites everything would be stagnant, but, here, I am interpreting the idea on a metaphysical principle, although it probably works on many levels.

I suppose that I am partly asking what it all comes down to, but I am also wondering how different people see it, or whether it is commonly negotiabled or agreed upon. I am not asking if there is a God, although I would imagine that those who do believe in God would see it very differently from those who don't. However, I think that it is likely that some people believe in speak of an energy and others speak of God. I know that is a big issue on some levels, but, in some ways perhaps it does not really matter.

I am aware that when I was in discussion with @180 Proof in the thread which I have on whether science and religion are in opposition, he pointed to the way the numinous can be appreciated without belief in God. I think that is extremely interesting, although he was talking about appreciation in the arts. Of course, art is another slant on reality. I realise that my question may not work very well, because asking it in the abstract form may mean trying to pin reality down in a scientific way.

I woke up in the night and looked at the answers and I am choosing yours to answer because it suggested that the understanding of reality depends on discourse. So, I am left wondering if apart from your point about physics showing that reality is 'slippery', the whole concept is indeed very slippery too.

I am not saying that the other answers apart from yours are not useful, but I am a bit disappointed by them. Okay, my question was trying to strip down philosophy to looking at what is at the core. However, the answers are so reductive, and none of them seem to be how I see reality at all. But, in some ways, perhaps what I am talking about is subjective construction of reality, and what the various people here are doing is an attempt to break it down to the objective, raw basics.

But, I do believe that it is a question which I should have never asked, because I don't think it is likely to result in any depth discussion. It may be because the question is too big, or because the answers here reflect the way reality is viewed now, although I did notice that at least @Pops post says, 'Mind will always be in the picture.'

I agree that there are all kinds of notions and that the subjective slants often get in the way. However, that is not to try to simply look to objective descriptions which rule out the subjective entirely.

Anyway, I have raised the question, for better or worse, but I am about to go to bed as it's 1am and will look at any further comments in the morning.

Hello, I hope that I have not gone over the top this time, but it is what I have been thinking about in the last few hours. I really see my threads as adventures in creative writing, but I am genuinely interested in the philosophy questions.I would definitely like to see the questioning of concepts, and I agree that it does not require faith, and I hope that it does not cause harm.

-Thus Spoke Jack

I realise that a 'shaped reality is subjective', but as far as I can see that is what we are left with individually, to work with, for better or worse. You speak about conditioning, and aspirations and this leads me to think that we are back to the conundrum of free will. This all depends how you view it, whether it is viewed as human beings being lead by external causes or making choices as individual actors. The key aspect is reaction vs action. It is complicated, in terms of the focus. One thing which I wonder about is whether we can create free will, or gravitate towards it, through greater consciousness or awareness. What I am trying to say is that rather than just being robots of conditioning, perhaps through greater understanding and insight we are able to attain greater levels of freedom of choice.

But, we don't have things simply dumped into us, because we can work with them and interact with our experiences. Even now, as I am writing I am sifting and choosing words to focus on and explore. I don't see how that is mere conditioning? As the cognitive behaviourists suggest, experiences don't control us. It is our feelings about those experiences, and this can be worked with, in therapy, or by our own critical interpretation. We can shape our own reality.

I think that my phone battery is about to run out. So, if you write a response and I don't reply it is because I have to wait to get home and put it on the charger.

Okay, my question for clarification would be what is your basis for believing that we are merely 'a bundle of experiences' and that the 'human mind is a trashcan'? You have not provided a basis for this view or opinion?

You have not really given an argument at all, other than say that what I am saying is 'non-applicable'. You are suggested in your previous post that 'we are nothing but a bundle of experiences' and that ' the human mind is a trashcan' which reduces human beings to insignificance. Surely, a person is more than that.

I am not sure that I would agree with Jung that we should follow the path of our own culture. I think that I remember coming across that idea in his writings somewhere, but as he wrote volumes, I would not be able to locate it easily. My understanding of his basic argument was that there is a danger of people in the West turning to those of the East, and getting in a bit of a mess because the ideas are based on a different set of metaphysical assumptions. I can see his argument, but wonder if it made more sense in the climate of the time he was writing because, he was writing in a time in which Christianity was the prevailing system of thought, but I think that the underlying thought of our cultural epoch is so fragmented anyway. I think that we need philosophy to try to put it together again.

I have found Jung to be my own mentor really, but I do agree that we need to read so much to even understand him. I see his writings as the starting point, for going beyond, into many diverse areas. I did find Plotinus inspiring really, and will probably go back to him, as I charged my way through ideas which called for far more reflection and analysis. But, I do read many writers from all kinds angles. One writer who I have read a few books by, and I find extremely interesting is Rudolf Steiner. I have only come across one person referring to him apart from me, but I do believe that he was an important systemic thinker who has not been given enough attention within philosophy.