I think that you make a good point when speaking of people who have different perceptions being, or viewed as unwell mentally. Obviously, there are those who really do have psychotic ideas and those who are just creative Bohemian. There is a whole spectrum, and many who speak of their peak experiences may be labelled as unwell, even though they are not. I am sure that many of the most creative people of all times, if they had lived in our times may have been detained in hospital and medicated against their will. They may not have created their greatest work at all.

I find that even beyond talking about peak experiences, a lot of people think that philosophy is peculiar. The people who live in the same house as me seem a bit puzzled about how I spend so much time reading and writing. As far as I can see they seem to spend most of the time on practical tasks. I am inclined to be completely minimalist over practical tasks, such as cooking. I probably get my room so untidy because I am spend so little time tidying. I also can't bear sport, playing or watching it. I think most people see me as an arty misfit.

One other matter, is the whole idea of outsider art, and that is about different perceptions, and of art created by people who have not been trained in art school. There is also the perspective of being on the edge in alternative music subcultures, ranging from goth, emo, punk and rap. I do think that music is often an expression of peak states of consciousness. I don't create music, but I do find that listening to it is a way of accessing certain states of consciousness. This may also connect to the shamanic quest. I definitely see John Lennon, whose lyrics you quoted, as well as so many of the great rock stars as being shamanic figures.

I definitely believe that we need to understand our own selves, and perspective, as a starting point for our higher individual and shared consciousness. Of course, how we understand peak experiences, does depend on our underlying perspective or worldview, with some people ranking them of being of more significance. However, I do think that many people do not even think about such matters at all. If anything, I have found that on some people look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but do like really place much emphasis on how he focuses on peak experiences.

I am definitely suggesting that it is possible to see miracles in all things, as Blake spoke of seeing heaven within a grain of sand. I do also believe that it is possible to experience some elements of the miraculous even amidst unpleasant experiences, because it is about states of awareness really. That is probably how artists can transform or transmits suffering into creative work.

I do think that being present can in itself be a peak experiences, but I am also thinking of how meditation can lead to transcendent states. I do think that this relates to what Gopi Krishna, and some others have spoken of, as the awakening of kundalini consciousness. However, that is a process which probably should occur naturally, rather than by conscious effort. Also, it is something which can involve or result in some great imbalances, so it is not something to be thought about, or spoken of, lightly.

Perhaps, you are forgetting that I am not talking about my own life, which I have not disclosed, because it is a public forum. I am sharing the ideas about peak experiences for others to think about, with no set agenda of my own, but presenting ideas, with openness towards their discussion as an aspect of philosophy discussion.

Of course, there are no shortcuts and we cannot go beyond the limitations of who we are, and what we may become..But, I do believe that it is worth us trying, even though we can probably never touch upon the heights which some of the most enlightened individuals have reached. It would seem like a swindle if we are only able to think of settling for the mundane, and nothing more.

Obviously, we lack Shopenhaurer's genius but, perhaps, through greater understanding, we can make a certain headway in penetrating beyond the superficialities of our experiences. it may takes us time, and the results fall far short of the geniuses, towards whose insights we may aspire, but it may count for something, even if only on a subjective level of aspirations and imaginations of touching upon the heights of transcendent experiences.

There may not be any outward criteria for thinking about effort put into meditation and other practices. It may be that we are empirical practitioners, who have to wait and see...

Probably, we just have to be able to see that It is being done badly, using our critical awareness.

Perhaps, the problem is that the word, physics, in itself has a certain powerful influence in out thinking.

I certainly hope that peak experiences go beyond entertainment. As much as I love music and the arts, I do hope that this dimension of experience is connected to some source beyond our usual experiencesm

I have read your post, and it is extremely interesting. What it makes me wonder about is just how death stands as an inevitable prospect we face. We fear hell, and may hope for heaven, and how much is that embedded in our thinking. I am not trying to be critical of anyone who believes in heaven, or hell but merely stand back, thinking about of how such ideas affect us, as perceived truths , and the foundations of such ideas in our philosophy and daily life experiences.

The question of simplicity of truth, or otherwise, arising in meditation and other practices, opens many areas for considering of experience. I am certainly not wishing to point to any as being superior above others. However, I am thinking about states of consciousness as an important, and possibly area which has been a bit neglected in thinking of the wider questions of human experiences and existence.

It may be true that certain outsiders are in danger of presenting their ideas as absolute. This is a big problem as we read the writings of particular writers of importance, and I don't think that there are any easy answers, because individuals may have reached certain degrees of awareness. These degrees of awareness are open to questions, as are the psychologists of a writers, so, we may be left in the position of thinking, in the midst of the critical scrutiny, in mainstream rendition of ideas.

You may think that I am opposing you, in what I am saying against reductive explanations, and I am not really trying to do that, because I come with some history of eye disorder. A few years ago I had headaches, after a period of stress. I went to an optician who picked up some underlying retinal disorders. I was referred to an eye clinic, and given a possible diagnosis of Coates disease. I researched this, which is a genetic disorder, rare but most common in males under 10 years old. I am an adult, so was rather puzzled, and I have been discharged as my eyesight is stable.

I am interested in what the eyes say about the brain and the mind, but I think that it is complex because the retina is part of a brain.I wonder if the eye problems which were picked up were connected to all the reading and thinking which I do. The eyes and the brain are part of the apparatus of our thinking, and perhaps they become overwhelmed and overloaded at times, but perhaps this needs to be seen in a wider scope of mind.
.

Thanks, that is reassuring because it does seem that in many ways the philosophical questions seem to becoming mere questions of language. It almost appears as if philosophy is like an appendix to what is seen as facts, and the absolute truth, as proclaimed with philosophers who are coming from the domain of the physical sciences.

I appreciate your quote from Schopenhauer, and I have managed to download a copy of his, 'The World as Will and Representation', which is one of my priorities in my reading list. I certainly believe that he had a great mind.

My own thread may be far too obscure to be taken seriously on a philosophy forum, because it is about the development of our own consciousness, and I am not sure that many see this as being of much importance in the climate of our times. It appears to me that we are being seen more as numbers, rather than individuals with ideas, as the spectrum of thinking becomes a mere shadow of science, and, most especially, neuroscience. It all seems to be about reductive explanations, and I may be seen as ridiculous for thinking about peak experiences, as being of any significance.

The question of whether Jung was a mystic is one that has been debated a lot by many writers. He disliked the idea being applied to himself. Part of the complexity of the question is because Jung wrote so much and, from different angles. He did contextualise his thinking in relation to instincts, but, in many ways, also within Western and Eastern ideas of religion. Personally, I can see why some people see him as a mystic, but I prefer not to put him in a neat box, because he was a very diverse thinker.

It is interesting that Aquinas thought that it would be better to be in hell than not exist at all. I think that I would prefer not to exist. I remember when I was growing up that someone suggested that hell would actually be about not existing at all. It was the first time that I ever considered the possibility of nothingness, and it struck me as a better option, although I was not entirely sure.

However, the whole idea of fear of death is so central to the ideas which we develop about it. The Egyptians had complex beliefs and rituals surrounding death. They saw it about journeying towards otherworlds, and it does seem that most religious thinking goes back to the Egyptians.

So much of culture itself is based around death, and the ceremonial rights. Perhaps the search longevity in Western culture is connected to a widespread loss of belief in an afterlife. Even within the time of the pandemic, the underlying belief behind the surface is about the need to fight death, with death being viewed as the enemy. I wonder how different this would have been in the last century when people were laying down their lives for their country. That was more in the context of a more widespread culture of Christianity. Even within Islam, as far as I understand, there is a belief that the terrorists, who get killed themselves in the attacks which they carry out, go straight to heaven. So, the views people have about death have profound implications for the way people live.

Your answer seems to be in response to mine, and I will say that I would certainly say that the holocaust was evil. Here, I am thinking that we are using the word evil, in its sense of the devastation caused, rather than in just the conventional moral sense, although they are interconnected.

If you are framing your thinking, in the context of Jung's view of the shadow, which is a very complex topic, he is suggesting that we need to work on ourselves in such a way that aspects of ourselves, which are conventionally viewed as evil, are integrated so that they are less toxic. An obvious example would be that we need to cope with feelings of anger in ways which are not harmful.

I think that great harm can be done in telling people that they are evil. I think that your quote on the shadow may be taken from Jung, you do not say.I am not sure that it is simply that evil needs to be defined, but more considered on a critical level. Part of the problem may be that some people may have sought to define evil, and in doing so have projected it onto others. It can be too easy to see the evil in Sadaam Hussein and the politicians etc.

When I say that harm can be done through telling people that they are evil, I am thinking of the way people have been labelled as sinners, and how many, especially Catholics and others brought up in certain religious backgrounds, have grown up with guilt complexes.The consideration of what is evil is extremely complex. However, if you are speaking about Jung's idea of the shadow, I think that this needs to be seen more about potential for destruction, towards self or others.

Definitely Calvin's perspective is important, and when I questioned my religious beliefs it was with a view to how religious teachings can be used for political means. The fear of hell can function on that level and Marx pointed to the role religion plays in maintaining oppression. However, as you suggest, Hegel pointed to the need to know the 'Absolute', so these need to be juggled in our thinking and exploration.

Generally, sociologists have pointed to the potential biases within news, mainly due to the way in which those who own the news companies have a role in manufacturing it. So, there may be underlying slants, and some newspapers are biased towards particular viewpoints and politics.However, we need to be aware of the news, so need to access it.

Another option, rather than having a set of rules, is to come with a certain amount of critical awareness and, by looking at various sources. There can be so much sensation in news. Also, it is about the aspects which affect us. I find that if I watch too news on television or look at too much news on my phone, I get stressed out. c We are now in the situation of fake news being generated too. But, all news comes with the biases of journalists, and underlying politics. So, perhaps the main thing is to not take it all at complete face value realising that there may be more going on behind the scenes, of headlines, and that is worth trying to dig deeper than the mere surfaces.

Your long entry is good. When you think of the brain and the mind as you describe, it seems like the brain is a transmitter. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am in favour of simply trying not mystify consciousness. It is probably that we are so aware of our own stream of consciousness. Perhaps it is our own egotistical attachment to the idea of a 'self', and, I believe, that the Buddhists challenge the idea of there being a self, as an independent entity.

The idea of a separation between body and mind has been at the heart of the conundrum about life after death. In particular, within Christianity, some people have thought that the soul was immortal, whereas others have thought that would life would not take place until a resurrection at the end of the world. So, really, the mind/body problem was a dispute which was central within Christianity.

Alongside this, there was the whole question of whether there is an invisible realm. Some people have believed in spirits, angels and devils. I know people who claim to have seen ghosts. So, generally there is a longstanding history of people being fascinated by the possibility of a nonmaterial dimension, which has appeared shrouded in mystery.

I think that fear of death is at the centre of meaning making. However, I think that human psychology is complex, and we may think that all our meanings stand the test of rationality. It may be easier for someone to hold a nihilist position if their daily life is full of joy than for someone who is extremely unhappy. Of course, there are many who do, on the basis of their perceptions of reality adhere to a nihilist viewpoint. It may be that they are brave, in being able to face despair, and death, without any grand ideas.

Personally, I struggle when, at times, I have drifted into the territory of nihilism. So, I usually find alternative ways of seeing. It even seems to me that if I am feeling low and downcast, the nihilist view seems to make some sense, but when I become more cheerful, I begin to think differently. However, as I have said before, the idea of my own death, even if it is the end, seems far less fearful than any prospective end to humanity. I think that is because I am aware of my own weaknesses and limitations. In contrast, the potential of the human race, in general, seems boundless.

I think that 'beyond the material' usually means that the world is not simply physical. I think that most people believe that the mind and body are connected. On one hand, you have reductive materialism, such as the behaviourist BF Skinner, who saw consciousness as an illusion. This is in contrast to idealists, such as Berkeley, who saw mind as the main reality. This dispute has a central one throughout philosophy, and it all comes down to the question of to what extent can consciousness be simply reduced to the brain and nervous system?

Do you think that it is possible to quantify consciousness.? Obviously, we know that it is linked intricately with consciousness, especially with neurotransmitters. It may be that major progress will occur in this direction. However, as far as I can see, at the present time it is hard to make absolute connections between the physical and mental.

For example, psychiatric medication may address emotional disorders and psychosis, but it can be a hit and miss affair, and this is sometimes hard to explain clearly. Another unexplained phenomena is ECT. I was against it as a student mental health nurse, but I have seen it work for some people, mainly older adults. As far as I am aware, within psychiatry, there is so much uncertainty about how or why ECT works for some people in addressing mental health difficulties.

I wonder if the mind is boundless in shape and scope. Obviously, we don't know what discoveries will be made in neuroscience. However, I am wondering if while we know that mind arises from the brain and nervous system, perhaps it cannot be reduced to the physical at all.

I am interested to know in what way you think that the 'raw world and our feelings' are hidden amidst an emphasis on progress and civilisation. I am inclined to believe we are sometimes in a bit of a wasteland as a culture, with a lot of fragmentation of thinking behind the scenes, in the aftermath of postmodernism and scientific reductionism. Do you think that many are struggling with finding deeper meaning, or are you suggesting something else?

You seem to be querying about people who see the world better through seeing life from a Jungian perspective. I would say that I found his writings more applicable to understanding life, than most of the other psychologists. I discovered him, alongside Freud, when I was about 16, and what I found particularly helpful was his approach to the symbolic dimensions of life, and this for understanding questions underlying religion.

I am aware that many dismiss Jung's ideas and, of course, I read many philosophers and psychological approaches. However, I still think that I rank Jung as probably my own mentor for helping me to think about life. Obviously, that is just my own subjective experience, but I do still believe that he makes an important contribution to psychology and philosophy.

I actually only have one room to myself in a shared house, but I probably have about 3000 CDs, so perhaps I am really crazy. I have narrowed my paper books down to about 200, by using E books.

But, I just feel so sad that the bookshops and music shops are closing down. I went inside what used to be one of the biggest chains yesterday and it was so deserted. I haven't stopped buying physical music, but I certainly want to buy much less.

'Today we live in our heads rather than in our bodies because we have so many words' you said and I can recall having a supervisor when I was on a student placement who told me that I seemed to him as if I was living only in my head. He also told me that I was 'full of words'.

I was lying in bed last night thinking how I had answered 10 pages of replies on this thread and how if some new person on this thread began reading, they may feel let down, thinking that I had not really said much at all. Even though we have words and we string them together as the best we can, they do not necessarily form into answers to the mysteries. I think language goes a long time but we are still only left with models and metaphors.

Obviously, some develop fully fledged systems of thought but even these are open to being challenged by opposing ones. Perhaps, I think too much and should just contemplate more. The mystics come up with the best answers which they can and probably don't keep thinking and thinking. Could it be one possible problem inherent in philosophy, that it is possible to spend a whole life going round in circles, thinking?

If you have read my previous post to you, you may be wondering why I mentioned panpsychism, and I can explain that came from reading a book a couple of days ago, 'Ancient Wisdom' by Annie Besant, which suggested that all inanimate matter have some rudimentary consciousness. I am not sure if that is true, but it did get me wondering about it.

I am definitely wishing to explore more of the ideas of some of the more ancient thinkers because I do think that they were able to get in touch with truths on a more intuitive level than we who so caught up in rational thinking may be able to. I am not wishing to throw rationality aside but do think that Western philosophy has become too dominated by it. Jung spoke of the importance of integrating reason, feeling, sensation and intuition as means of knowing. I do believe that the way in which philosophers of this century and the last one have become so 'in their heads' may be why many people are looking outside philosophy more, to texts, such as 'The Tao de Ching'.

It may be that it is because Lao Tzu and the Greek philosophers were able to use words in a deeper way, rather than just providing rational arguments. In our own times, for many, the arts, especially literature, may offer deeper insights than possible within philosophy. Of course, I am not just wishing to dismiss philosophy, but just think that we need to widen our imagination rather than narrow it down too much.

I am not sure that we are just restricted to isms. For example, one can be a Jungian and that is not an ism. Generally, I think that isms are about putting ideas into boxes, and I am not sure that we need to make use of such boxes to label our ideas, but rather juxtapose them in the most creative ways to develop our viewpoints.

Your statement about, 'those who see everything as animated and those who are are believing that things are only matter, have very different consciousness' is profound, because it encompasses questions of consciousness, ranging from dualism and panpsychism. Perhaps, it would even be worth you starting your own thread, because this one may be on its last legs now, because newer ones are being created daily.

However, what I think is especially interesting in your statement is how the views are bound up with consciousness itself. I do believe that in many metaphysical discussions the actual role of consciousness, and its role in perception, is ignored in its distinct role, in the generation of our ideas about reality. It possibly goes more into the scope of phenomenology rather than metaphysics. Of course, all these fields overlap, in an extremely complex way.

I am certainly not trying to suggest that you should try to answer it, or create a thread, but I hope that I have at least drawn out your question for potential further consideration by you, or others, rather than letting it got lost and buried amongst the buried aspects and threads on the site.

Thanks, I have never been list orientated but I may need one for reading because I leap from book to book. I sometimes have too many books on the go at once. I have not had CBT, but do find reading the techniques helpful, because it does seem as if it is like philosophy technique on a practical and personal basis. Anyway, I will log off, as I was planning to try and stay off this site today, but as you can imagine seeing that someone had created a thread on Jung drew me in...

I will give you a quick reply because I am still outside, but can follow it further later if you are interested. Jung's ideas which may be described in some psychology books focus on the integration of opposites in the personal life. However, if you look into the larger body of his writings, especially 'Answer to Job', he spoke he spoke in depth about what is repressed on a collective level. He looks at the way in which striving for perfection in the development of Judaeo-Christian culture society, has been at the cost of a repression of the capacity for collective evil, as a shadow. He sees this as an unconscious aspect underlying the development of nuclear weapons, and the power which this poses for humanity, as the potential for mass destruction.

Personally, I think that one of the central ideas of his idea of self which is particularly relevant to the philosophy of self is the collective unconscious. It is an idea which some may regard as rather abstract.( I am afraid that I am not able to give a quote to define it at this moment because I am not indoors with my books). However, the concept of the collective unconscious is a key aspect of his psychology, because the personal and collective unconscious are linked, as apparent in dreams.

His underlying understanding of self is definitely about individuation, which is about making the unconscious more conscious. This involves greater awareness of repressed aspects of consciousness, which are viewed as inferior, within the socialisation process. That is usually the shadow. In this way people gain greater awareness of opposites in the psyche: good and evil, as well as men becoming more conscious of the feminine, and women of the masculine as projected onto others in relationships, or within their own psychology. Apart from that his model incorporates the ideal of people gaining fuller self integration through the four aspects of feeling, reason, sensations and intuition.

Edit- I was writing outside and I realise now that you did not create the thread.


I wrote thid response to Alexandros and the later one as if he was the creator of the thread, so I apologise for any misunderstanding of intent. So, I have updated this as a result.

I will engage in discussions about Jung at some point, but busy today. I created a thread on Jung's ideas on God a few weeks ago, which you can find if you scroll back a few pages. You may not be interested in his ideas on religion but my discussion goes into some ideas relevant to the self, including the shadow. I actually wrote a dissertation on his idea of the shadow as part of my studies at university.

I definitely think that you need to suggest an area of thought, or a specific question in addition to the video, as Jung's idea of the self is wide, because he wrote volumes on the subject. As you are new to the forum, I wish you all the best. I will catch up with your thread when I have a moment.

You are only just beginning to make a known presence on the site. I burst onto this site 8 months ago and have been involved in probably more conversations than I should have got involved in, or started. I have created about 15 threads so far. So, I am trying to slow down, but I have just noticed that a thread on Jung has been started, so I will probably not be able to resist getting involved in that one. At least, it will deter me from creating a new thread for a bit, and I am still involved in my mysteries thread. I wish you the best for the discussion in the Buddhist epistemology thread.

I plan to read Bergson and many others. I have read some Russell. I am trying to find more time to catch up with my reading, so that I can talk through my ideas on the basis of knowledge. Coping with all the negatives: boredom, suffering etc is hard. I do find this site helpful. I struggle with stress more than boredom. I am trying to find a job and my mum is not very well. When I visit my mum she gets so cross when I am busy writing answers on this site on my phone. However, if life was too easy we probably would not end up searching for philosophies to make sense of it all.

I am still reading your posts and this thread with interest, but,sometimes, I find it better to keep a low profile and be a little cautious about what I say. I try to find safe corners, because I am trying to work through my ideas. But, I am sure that I will interact with you and @3017amen, in this or other threads, because I am extremely interested in metaphysics and mysticism. I am also trying to catch up on my reading, so that I can back up what I am saying with knowledge, rather than wild thoughts.

I do not see an absolute distinction between theory or wisdom, and I think that your distinction between that your suggestion of wisdom as including mastery is useful for thinking of this. My suggestion about 'having theories' as not including wisdom is connected to the way in which such information does not really offer any underlying sense of values. It is not that I am wishing to say that philosophy should give a set of morals. In fact, I would say that even though Nietzsche opposed conventional morality, he offered a world view, even if some may not have liked it.

So, when I speak of a lack of wisdom, I am talking about some of the postmodern writers specifically and how it does not give any underlying source for inspiration. There is deconstruction and nothing arising in the collapse. Of course, we may turn to the arts, and I think that for many arts and literature have filled a void which has arisen within philosophy. In some ways, philosophy is becoming more like an offshoot of science, but I am not sure that is completely true because there are probably so many people who are developing ideas. However, there is so much information on the internet, but I am not sure that just finding the bare information is going to provide a basis for values and mastery. Perhaps, we need less rather than more, or it may be that we need to select carefully and pursue ideas more intimately. But, I think this is difficult in the information age.