I am thinking of our individual experiences but they take place within a cultural context. So, for example, so many people must have been affected by the pandemic throughout the world. However, we have all had our own unique experiences, according to our life circumstances.

I have read Jung's ideas on alchemy, as he is about my favourite writer. That was how I first came across the idea of alchemy in the first place, so I have always seen it as a symbolic process more than in any other way. Generally, I approach most esoteric ideas from that angle, but that doesn't mean dismissing them, because the symbolic is the language of the psyche.

Thanks for the links to the websites. I had a look at them this afternoon and they are very interesting. I am just finding so much to read that my head will explode eventually, with broken pieces of mysteries falling everywhere. I am thinking that Hermetic ideas are something I wish to analyse, because they do seem to have played such a central role in many developments of systems of ideas.

I really did have a tutor who thought that life after death might consist in us living eternally as disencarnate entities. However, the whole topic of bodies in afterlife is one which makes me laugh because my mum has always considered spoken of concern about what kind of bodies people would have after the resurrection, whether they would be glamorous and, whether the elderly would be given back their youth. Also, when I went to an evangelical church, I can remember people talking about what meals they would have after the resurrection. But, really, I think if you read the Bible, especially Paul, he is speaking more about spiritual bodies, rather than earthly ones.

Generally, I agree with your answer, because I am in favour of keeping an open forum. I am not absolutely sure about theism, because it does seem important for me still.

I grew up believing in God, and questioned the basis of my Catholic beliefs. I was extremely religious as a teenager, and really questioned it all after encounters with fundamentalists. Their extreme ideas seemed to point to the knots inherent in Christian thinking.

Now, amidst philosophy discussion, I am really unsure how the question of God. I am not sure that life is fully described by the most common philosophies of our time, especially materialistic determinism, and even neuroscience. I am not convinced that life is full of random events, which makes me wonder about God, but I just think that the understanding of God within theism may be a bit restrictive. So, I would not say that I describe myself as agnostic, because even that seems too much of a boxed in label. I am more in search of thinking beyond the categories, and wonder if the conception of God, which the theists described, needs updating.

It is just such an interesting area, about those who emphasise the nonmaterial and those who emphasise naturalism. It interweaves philosophy in the mainstream and the esoteric. Part of comes down to questions of pure metaphysics, and some of it is probably connected to the social and political construction of knowledge.

You are putting together a fantastic site. I appreciate it, and I am sure that many others do too.

I am not really wishing to suggest that theists have a superior knowledge or more peaceful life. Really, I was writing of the godless abyss more as a metaphorical truth, probably based on my own experiences of thinking outside of the religious background from which I was socialised. Ultimately, I try to be open, and non judgemental of anyone's ideas, and I keep an ongoing open understanding of any new ideas which I encounter.

I am not familiar with John Wheeler's ideas so I don't feel that I can talk about that really, but going back to your reply to my comment, I am curious about cognitive science investing religious experience. I really don't know where that might lead, but I would hope that it would not be too reductive. I feel that neuroscience is being given so much attention in philosophy, and I don't wish to dismiss it, but I am not convinced that it leads to all the answers.

I do find Kant's ideas on intuition as useful. Generally, I think that intuition is rather overlooked in philosophy and it does seem that reason is seen as the supreme principle.

Your post is interesting and I have just looked at your links, as there does indeed appear to be so much knowledge to be tapped into. In recent weeks, I am thinking that the Platonic mystics are of extreme importance. I try to read as widely as possible, but I have downloaded some books on on Greek ideas, and I am trying to find the time to read them. Thanks for your contributions to the discussion, and with regard to certain ideas being dismissed as mythical on this site, I try not to think as freely as possible.

One aspect of the questions which I see as an area linking religion and the empirical questions underlying the sciences is anthropology. It is an area which I have only read a certain amount about, because there is just so much to wonder and read about, but I do think that it can shed so much light on understanding the the emergence of religion. Writers such as Mary Douglas, on ideas about purity and danger, and the concept of savage mind of Levi Strauss are important. One book which is interesting is James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' ,in the way which it traces the developments mankind went from magic to religion, to science, as a developmental process in thinking perspectives.

Generally, I think that if you limit your focus to the natural sciences, as suggested by your title, you may restrict your scope. The actual content of your questions goes beyond natural sciences. I would imagine that you chose the words natural science, with a view to thinking about the empirical methods of investigating. Of course, this is important as opposed to just introspection, but even if empirical methods are used, there is so many beyond that, in the whole interpretation of the findings. My own view is that the exploration of religion is one which may be best approached in a multidisciplinary way.

I have been wondering recently about your question of whether we are the originators of our thoughts, or controlled by forces outside of us. I believe that it is really the question underlying that of free will. It depends on to what extent we are reflective agents, and it is complex.

That is because we originate as parts of living systems, but as we develop, we have a determining role for ourselves, and in relation to other living systems. Perhaps the mind is like a channel, taking in and interacting with the environment, which appears to be objective reality. Subjective and objective may be like looking at two sides of the same coin, as the two interconnected aspects of duality.

What I am about to say will probably have me cast as the madman of the forum, but I don't see the brain as the only source of awareness. I am not suggesting that the brain is not central but I believe that there are energy centres, chakras, and meridian points, which are important as well as the brain.

Such ideas are known in some Eastern systems of thought and holistic medicine, as being important, but I don't think that they have ever been thought much about in philosophy, which does seem to think about us as brains, within bodies, somehow connected with the nervous system. For me, this picture appears rather limited for understanding the human being, and it goes back to the Cartesian picture, rather than a fuller understanding of us as living systems.

I think that the mind and consiousness is probably more complex than many believe. I do think it is mysterious but I haven't given up and continue to explore many various perspectives, including phenomenology and nondualistic ways of seeing life. In another thread, I have been looking at Plato's cave. On one hand, it is a useful metaphor for thinking about seeing reality beyond us. However, in some ways it can be a restrictive metaphor because it can be about seeing reality as out there as an external reality, missing the basis in subjectivity. I think that the interface between the subjective and objective is an important point of focus in thinking about consciousness.

Generally, I find discussing ideas on this forum, but I am trying to be a bit reserved and cautious about how much I talk about certain ideas, like reincarnation. I have probably shared more in certain threads than I should have done, and I ended up feeling stressed out with some responses I received. I am just saying that because you are new to the forum, and there are some people who can become fairly hostile. Obviously, it is entirely up to you how much you share. At the moment, I am trying to be a bit more cautious than usual.

I like deep discussions and trying to think of some new threads which don't involve aspects of religion. I do enjoy discussion religious ideas so much, but at the moment, there are so many heated religious arguments going on in some threads. I have been using the forum for about 8 or 9 months and it goes in phases. People come and go, so I hope that you stick around. If I get into threads where it becomes tense, I prefer to keep a low profile. I feel that I learn through interacting and hearing various views, and what is good is that it is from people from all across the world. It is my first forum, and I will probably try to continue to use until a new avenue appears. I do agree that learning often takes place on many levels, and I think that I am in this life with fairly heavy karma...It is probably this that keeps me moving forward with the mysteries of life.

I am probably happier to discuss ideas like reincarnation or extrasensory perception on this thread rather than the one on reincarnation. That is because this is an older thread, so it is quieter and when talking about such ideas I am just trying to vocalise them with a few readers, rather than have to prove that I am right.

I believe that you are making an important point when speaking of the way in which there is a danger in becoming confused about certain topics, including life after death and reincarnation, without the guidance of a teacher. I do engage in such topic discussions on this forum, but it can be difficult in some ways because we are remote from one another and do not know each other. However, it is probably better than us reading and thinking about our ideas completely alone, in isolation.

Strangely, even though I criticised Plato's cave as having possibly contributed to us looking for an understanding in relation to a divine order, I have just discovered in Arthur Versluis' discussion of perennial philosophy, a useful insight into seeing illumination through the use of Plato's cave metaphor. Versluis suggests,'If ordinary life can be likened to a cave, then to awaken is to go outside the cave from the darkness into the light of the sun.' He goes on to say that within perennial philosophy 'illumination includes but also transcends our ordinary discursive consciousness.'

So, in this way, peak experiences can be viewed in the context of the process of waking up, or illumination. I am certainly not wishing to suggest that the peak experiences are just a form of pleasure, but, of seeing ourselves as being part of a bigger picture. I think that the topic just got a bit confusing when it moved into the question of whether consciousness is well-organising, which is more one of phenomenology and metaphysics.

I began my thread with a discussion of Colin Wilson's writing on peak experiences, and this is connected to Maslow's understanding of such experiences. However, it is probably best understood within the context of people seeking greater self awareness, or even those within spiritual traditions, including states of enlightenment. It may take extreme discipline before we can ever reach such states, but it can be seen as a spectrum of potential higher states of awareness. While the peak experiences may be seen as the peaks, it is likely that the process involves obstacles as well. I hope that I am making the point of my thread a little clearer.

I was reading your thread and find it interesting, although I spent some time really thinking about the possibilities of reincarnation and decided it was very difficult to know for certain. I would much prefer the idea to any other form of life after death, and so much could be learned through many lives rather than the restrictions of one body and one set of life experiences.

I originally began wondering about reincarnation as a child because one of my earliest memories was being in a cot, with one of my mother's friends offering me a biscuit. I had the thought 'I am coming round again'. It felt like a distinct waking up, not from sleep, but something more.

I was also compared a lot to my grandfather, who died 6 weeks before I was born and began wondering if I was a reincarnation of him.One particular strange experience which I had was looking for a fairly rare writer on school stories from an earlier time, and my mum telling me that there had been a copy of that book in my grandfather's books which she threw away. I never suggested the idea that I could be a reincarnation of him to anyone in my family because it was not an accepted belief. Of course, I realise that I may have read too much into a coincidence and built up a story in childhood, possibly as a result of my mother's projection of her loss of her father, so shortly before my birth.

One thing which I have wondered about in thinking about reincarnation memories, is if rather than people remembering specific personal memories, they are tapping into the collective unconscious of memories. However, I am aware that many people on this site find Jung's idea of the collective unconscious as rather unsound.

But, I do think that it is possible that we are individual beings of consciousness, interconnected with others in time. Perhaps, we all aspects of an underlying group mind. I am not speaking of consciousness as some abstract force, as the idealists describe, but as permeating nature. It could be that nature and consciousness is like a web.So, we may have some connection with previous lifeforms on some level, with some continuity between the generations.

I like to keep the idea of reincarnation as a matter for contemplation, as a possible way of seeing consciousness existing in other future lives. However, my own understanding is that the Buddha was uncertain about rebirth, so I like to keep an open mind.

I am sorry if my discussion of peak experiences was not clear to you. I have found your comment during the night, but will write a fuller response tomorrow because It may be that the purpose of what I have written is not written clearly, for you and for others too. I am talking more about the processes of creativity and awareness.

Thanks for the link. I realise that your topic of self-organisation of consciousness is probably slightly out of context in this thread, although I don't mind if anyone wishes.

I think that Plato's cave is very interesting in thinking about consciousness, and the grasping for reality. It may be that the cave metaphor has been a key aspect in the way in which we have thought about metaphysical reality as being a remote one beyond us, rather than as being immanent in nature.

Perhaps it is not that Plato's allegory is not useful as a starting point, but it could be that it has been taken a bit too literally.

It may not be that clear though because life is not entirely mechanistic. Some people smoke and live to be in their 90s, while others lead a healthy lifestyle and get sick and die young. Of course, the choices we make play a certain amount of influence, but it is within a whole set of variables.

We could ask to what extent are the variables determined in the first place, taking it right back to genetics and socialisation For example, are criminals born or made? This goes more into the territory of the nature vs nurture debate, which is probably relevant to considering free will in some ways, Howevrr, it still doesn't really get to the issue of whether we as individuals make the specific choices as conscious reflective beings or whether we are more like puppets, enslaved by the combined interplay of nature and nurture.

My interest in Bergson's ideas is mainly in connection with Huxley's ideas about mind at large as a filtering down process of a higher level of mind. However, I do see the questions of whether to see that it is interesting to think about consciousness as self organising. Hopefully, it doesn't lessen the importance of the development of states of consciousness, but just frames it differently.

It seems that you are really saying that we are in pathways of causation arising from our previous choices. In other words, we start out with many choices, but as we go through life we are more restricted. Surely, this is more about restrictions of options rather than free will, and not necessarily the same as free will, which involves the capacity to make the specific choices we make.

But it is interesting to think about how we have limited choices and, this probably also varies as a social and socioeconomic factor in some ways. The people who come from poorer backgrounds don't have the same range of choices as some from wealthier backgrounds. There is probably a whole spectrum of some people having more possible options than others, but, of course, the options do become less as one progresses through life. For example, we may look back and think that we would have been able to choose different career pathways if we had chosen to pursue other studies rather than the ones we chose.

It is probably that certain ideas have been pushed out of the mainstream of philosophy. I have read some but not that much of Bergson on creative evolution, and wondering if he sees consciousness as self -organising, or does he see it as being a reflection of some higher level? I am planning to read him soon, so I can find out, and it may be relevant for this discussion.

It is interesting that ancient philosophers saw it this way and I am not opposed to the idea of self -organisation of consciousness. It is just so different from some ideas within Western metaphysics, which saw it the other way round, as probably stemming from some kind of divine order.

I understand that you are saying that human consciousness is biased in favour of our emotional. So, are you trying to argue that the peak experiences are part of an overall coping process? I can understand that some of the peak experiences of people have occurred to individuals who are struggling. However, I think if the heightened states of creativity, and cosmic consciousness are reduced too much, there is a danger of missing their significance, even on a cultural level.

Or, perhaps, I am misunderstanding the implications of your theory of self -organisation of consciousness. I am not wishing to elevate the ideas of certain creative individuals. I think that the whole area is a complex topic, which includes perspective on phenomenology and states of consciousness.

I think that you have quoted me as @Apollodorus. I don't mind, so I just hope that he doesn't. Generally, I go along with what I believe the Buddha thought, with lack of certainty about reincarnation. I would much rather the possibility of some deeper aspect of myself returning for future lives, and I just keep an open mind. More lives than one seems to offer more scope than just one for the development of consciousness.

I went through a time when I really wondered a lot about reincarnation, but I am not sure that it is possible to know for sure at all. As it is, I agree with your focus on how 'to create myself as a better person.' That is not to say that I don't think reincarnation is an interesting question, in the wider one of life after death. At least, it would not leave us floating around as entities, without bodies.

You have written a very good detailed reply. I have to admit that I struggle with the whole question of qualia. I know that it involves the subjective experience of properties, but it must connect to reality beyond us. Of course, light and darkness are based on the retinal reception, but it is connected to so much more. It makes me think that Bergson was probably right in speaking of the brain as filtering down process.

Okay, I will let you get on with whatever you are doing. It has been good interacting, and I am going to carry on reading Huxley's 'The Perennial Philosophy'.

I believe that you are correct to say that we can only control ourselves, and I think this is particularly important when others almost wish to overwhelm us. Sometimes, it is probably about standing back, and doing nothing. I think that I am better at reflecting after events, rather than in reflection in action. So, sometimes, I just need to slow down rather than act or speak before thinking carefully, and we probably need our quiet peaceful days, rather than being caught up in a constant battle with moment to moment stress. The times of reflection and contemplation are possibly as important as the peaks of transformation.

I think that the personal ego can be a problem. Actually, my own ego has had so many knocks that it is not particularly powerful, but just enough to keep me going. The interpersonal conflicts which we have probably are mostly trivial, but they can so easily be blown out of proportion. Some of my worst ones have been arguments by text, which have ended up seeming like text wars.

Funnily enough though, a lot of my own interpersonal stress is not even really about my own personal issues, but about me feeling bombarded with other people's own problems. So, in a way, perhaps this is about helping others to see things in perspective, and beyond the limits of the personal ego.

I have loads of horrible days, ranging from having disagreements with my housemates, stressful phone conversations and all kinds of other aspects of life, like losing things, such as my bank card, or my phone. They are probably the mundane aspects of life, rather than the biggest stresses. Sometimes the smaller ones can seem almost as difficult as the larger ones. Even when nothing in particular goes wrong, I feel better on some days than others, almost for no apparent reason. I find life to be almost like riding on waves, and trying to remain standing and keeping a balanced position and perspective.

It's rather funny to me that the thread on loving the Lord and one's neighbour keeps popping up next to this one. While I am not conventionally religious, I do see it as having some connection to this discussion, because transformational experience do have some relationship to a sense of appreciation of some higher power beyond us and of our service towards others. But, putting this into practice is not easy.

I do think that you are right to say that many people are not that interested in transformation. I am, but, even then, it may be on my own terms. Today, it's a bank holiday and I have just been lying on my bed, listening to music and being rather lazy. But, I am feeling reasonably okay, but it may be that today or tomorrow I will end up having a horrible day, and feel the need for some kind of transformational experience. So, it is an ongoing process, and I would like to relate it to some kind of higher purpose, but with some amount of fear if I had to make difficult changes in my life.

I think that your comment is a really good one. We certainly shouldn't become peak experience junkies, or even complacent. I think that it would defeat the whole purpose. Perhaps if we do not use any experience for some higher purpose, we will be back to the beginning, although it may sometimes be unclear what this purpose is, depending on our social positions. But, we probably need to try to find the best ways we have of translating experience into something larger than our own pleasure and egos. But, it is quite likely that this may fail, and we will go back to the original need, which may be about the need for some kind of healing experience, to take us beyond suffering, monotony and powerlessness.

I definitely agree that there are reasons why people would not wish to talk about their experiences, especially on a public forum. I am also wary of doing so, because I even have I am not even anonymous and have my a photo of myself showing on the site, and it is actually online to the general public. Apart from this, when we talk about our experiences, we can be discredited or subject to ridicule. It would be awful if that began happening on this thread and I started the thread more as a focus for thinking.

I think that your definition is useful, because it may be that my discussion of Colin Wilson's ideas was a bit too obscure. Also, it focuses on famous creative people, and we don't really see ourselves in comparison with them. So, what you have offered probably brings the focus more in line with us as ordinary individuals and our peak experiences.

The only thing which I wonder about is your remark that you are not sure if yours was a peak experience, because with certain experiences which I had I wondered about this too. The conclusion which I have at present is that I don't think that we should worry too much about whether ours is the real thing. Really, I see it as an entire spectrum of potential experiences which go beyond the mundane. In opening the thread I was really wishing to enable people to explore all the possibilities of this, with a view to thinking about consciousness explorations, and how this can be potentially enhance our lives.

After discussing it, I am about to play 'The Dark Side of the Moon' because I haven't listened to it for such a long while.

Thanks for recommending the book. I will look out for it.

I am glad that someone else is admitting to having some experiences. I had some unusual experiences. In one, I initially thought I had a fever but then I felt like I was opening up to some kind of higher reality and it was very pleasant. I wonder if a lot more people experience some kind of peak experiences, but are a bit cautious, and reserved about talking about these.

It does not that we share similar areas of interest, although coming from different perspectives. I come from a far more esoteric angle. I prefer saying esoteric, because, as you know the use of the word mystic comes with complications. I have started 'The Tao de Ching', although I think that I can relate to 'The I Ching' more. But, it is fun to dig and search...