I am not sure why it bothers you that Fritjof Capra combines quantum physics, metaphysics and Taoism. I know that you really love Lao Tzu's writing, and I do still plan to read his writings, but it is just that I have so many books which I am reading at the same time.

I know that some of the metaphysics related to mysticism can be a bit abstract. However, bearing in mind what you said in your mysticism, I am wondering is what bothers you is the possible idea of hidden reality, or realities, beyond the manifest world?

Thanks for the link to the article by Hofstadter . I will read it tomorrow because I have just been so tired today.

I can't help but ask questions because it is as if they explode into my consciousness. I remember my history teacher at school telling me that I wrote in a rhetorical way. As for finding answers, it is as if I am on mythic quest, often crawling through shadowy wastelands. Rather than answers, I come across labyrinths, knots, crosses and spirals and, of course, gigantic question marks looming in front of me, which often makes it hard to sleep at night.

I created the thread and I don't mind Mondor writing in it. I invent them like notebooks for people to experiment with ideas. The idea of holographic reality is speculative, so I invite any into this little adventure.

I am constantly trying to get rid of clutter. Last year I had to move and sorting my room was so agonising. Most of the charity shops were shut. The experience really taught me that I need to prevent accumulating too much, but music is my lifeline, but I read about all the new music. The best new music I have heard this year is the new album by the seventies singer, Alice Cooper.

It does seem that so many people have stopped buying music, but mainly shuffle music on their phones or computers. I do download books but I find going out and looking for CDs in music basements to be so exciting. Mind you, I accumulate pile of them, to the point where they sometimes fall into my bed. I think that I am the CD king, or have CD disease. Some people seem to think that discs don't sound as good as vinyl, but it probably just depends on having the right speakers.

Just to clarify for you or others, in response to some of the discussion you had yesterday, my own understanding of Bohm's actual idea of the implications order is not as an actual entity as such. He is not an idealist like Berkeley, but just sees mind and body as being beyond duality. I don't think that means that mind or body are more real.

I am sure that there are limitations In our understanding of philosophy and I prepared to explored to explore the possibilities, with a view to the most accurate and deeper understanding of the mind. I am certainly not wishing to limit this, but open possibilities arising arising from the current understanding of mind.

Objective and subjective dimensions of truth are important ,but navigating this pathway may be extremely difficult.

There is so much questioning around questions and answers. How much is about objective or subjective truths?

I think that the human environment has changed so much,and it changes the whole context and scope of metaphysical questions.

Many believe that Kant was groundbreaking. I have spent a bit of time reading him, but do believe him to be more worthy than the attention given to him by many of the present time. However, I was reading the thread which I believe gave rise to the one which led you to start this one. Having read that one, I became aware of all possible complications and misinterpretations.

So, I am left asking how do we interpret him in the context of our time? I am not trying to create confusion, or dismiss his ideas because I believe that they were profound. I know that some find his ideas make so much sense to some, but I find it hard to frame them in the context of the thinking of our time. I would like to be able to see a way forward in being able to demystify his ideas rather than merely rejecting them, because I do believe that he was capturing important philosophical insights. I think that the idea of 'noumenal' reality is in some ways extraordinary within the scope of our present use of language, and scientific models of the construction of 'reality'.

I have read some writing by Dennett and believe that he is one of the most important philosophers of our time. I think that we need to continue to read writers such as him, but also to explore our own ideas, in response to important writers because the arguments are so complex. Some may wish to leave it in the hands of the academics, but that may leave most of us out of the picture. I do believe that our ideas about metaphysics are important too, and it can be a whole area of lively debate, rather than mere discussion by those who are believed to be the professional experts. After all, we are talking about the questions which are central to the whole existence of each of us.

I am interested to receive your reply and as you are aware I am a seeker trying to make sense of ideas. I keep coming across ideas about going beyond dualism or binary thinking. In many ways, some of the ideas are beyond my understanding, especially as I am not a physicist. I came across the idea of the holographic perspective of reality a few weeks ago, and in further aspects of my reading in the last few days. So, I am just pursuing it as an interesting area of exploration.

I am certainly wishing to go beyond dualism. Strangely, I began this thread just before I began the one on mysteries. I was feeling a bit frustrated because it was several hours before I got a reply on this, so I started the one on mysteries of philosophy. Strangely,I began getting a few replies on this thread and loads on the one on mysteries. However, my own reading and reflections in response to replies on my thread on mysteries have led me back to thinking beyond dualism. That is the direction of my thinking and reading currently, which is why I logged into this thread this morning. So, I am in favour of pursuing ideas beyond dualism, for any people who are interested.

I can't really listen to the whole video because it keeps cutting up where I am listening from. So, are you able to offer a summary of the argument or the ideas.

I will try to listen further to the video further. Who is the person speaking? Is it Dennett , because I am more of a reader than a watcher of You Tube?

I like your idea of concepts as 'dried up metaphors', although it would probably offend some. I do think that some are people, including philosophers, are inclined to miss seeing that they are only constructed models, which are only representations of 'truth'.

I do believe that Plotinus is an important writer and I downloaded one of his works recently. The idea is a cosmic circle is important, and of the heart. That is because sometimes philosophy becomes too much time an intellectual pursuit, detached from life.

I was much more impressed by the set of questions you posed rather than the video you included. You ask many questions, which I am inclined to do, and about the whole nature of reality, which is the whole field of metaphysics. There is just so much to explore really, and I recall when I used to write essay plans that tutors often used to tell me that it would not be possible to cover so much in one essay. However, you may explore all the topics with many people, with no word limit and it could be a thread which grows and grows.

One of your questions which I believe is very interesting is that of what experiences are made of? This does seem to be the interface of mind and body, and it probably moves into the spectrum of phenomenology. However, it does seem to me to be at the centre of the mind and body question.

One aspect of it which I think is important is emotions because they involve a complex interaction between the physical and the mental. We know that there is such a physical basis for this, especially by the way that neurotransmitters work. This is central to the whole medical treatment of mood disorders through medication. However, the whole realm of mood goes so much beyond the physical as our thoughts affect our moods in such a profound way.

I could write more, but I will stop for now, because it depends how relevant the discussion is to the way the ideas and discussions in the thread evolve. I probably brought it up at this moment because so far there is some discussion of forms, as abstract ideas which we grasp, but our experiences are embodied. Possibly, it goes into the realm of archetypes, experienced by us, and the collective unconscious, but I will say no more because I probably talk about Jung too much, and I am aware that many people on this forum see the idea of the collective unconscious as being a dubious concept.

I just logged into this thread, which fizzled out about a week ago and saw the reference to Koch's book, which looks fascinating. I actually started this thread at the same time as the one on mysteries, but that has brought me back to thinking about the interrelationship between body and mind. I don't know why I brought the Sartre quote in, but I think that I had just been reading him that morning. I definitely agree that it is problematic to speak of minds without bodies. I may have spoken in such ways a few times, and I definitely think that some dualism has drifted in that direction.

Apparently, cassettes are making a comeback. I used to have some but they used to chew up sometimes, which used to be so stressful, so I hope this did not happen to the 2 favourite albums you mentioned.

I think that Oceansize are probably a bit underrated. I have heard some music by them in was fairly impressed. Also, I do have a compilation by Talk Talk, and think that they are treasured gem of a band, who got less attention than many other 80s bands in the time of electro.

The question is complex because we live in a world which is like a web, with effects which are like ripples. Also, your particular example is also complicated because while many people use weed to relax, there is a recognised link with cannabis and psychosis, especially with skunk weed. So, potentially, it may be about seeing the potential risks of psychotic Illness for the individual and, the effects of this on a wider scale.

There are probably overlaps between the questions raised in this thread and the one that was started on metaphysics today, mainly the whole questions surrounding consciousness. I do believe that perspective is so important and people view it so differently. For example, most neuroscientists see the experience of consciousness so differently from that of the mystics. However, there are convergence, such as those of the new physicists and mystics.

It probably depends on our basic perspective as to how we change our consciousness. In particular, the neuroscientists may prefer to use chemicals, such as tablets to aid people to relax, whereas those who see it from a more mystic angle may look towards mindfulness meditation, or other forms of meditation. It probably also depends on what we find helpful, and how we perceive what works for us probably influences the particular metaphysical conclusions which we come to. However, it definitely seems that some people gravitate more towards the search for the higher states of consciousness.

I can see that science is forceful in the way in which it provides evidence which cannot be ignored. However, there are probably biases, especially in what gets researched in the first place and it may be that it is possible to create evidence for certain ends. I have read some accounts how evidence is often manufactured by certain pharmaceutical companies, for their own benefits. So, while science is believed as knowledge, it is not value free or completely objective.

I do think that your idea of reasoning as philosophy works in many ways and it is likely that the use of reason has been important to human beings of all cultural traditions. However, I am not convinced that rationality is the only means of knowledge, but it became central to the philosophy of the enlightenment.

In thinking of the whole spectrum of knowing, Jung's model of the four functions can also be considered. These are: reason, sensation, feeling and intuition. Jung suggests that most people have a dominant function, and usually one or more which are barely developed at all. He sees the ideal as being able to make use of all four functions. Could it be that many Western thinkers have developed rational explanations, but with some lack of attention to the other three forms of experience?

I agree that the 'new age' ideas are not equatable with the Eastern philosophy traditions. Yes, it is a good question why I keep looking for 'answers'. I think it is just the way I am really, but I do have a sense of humour about it all, especially about how I once had a tutor who told me that he thought that I should start a religion...

I listened to some of the video, but not all of it because my mobile signal is a bit wobbly. However, in response to your whole series of questions, I just thought I might as well throw in a few thoughts from discussions which I have engaged in during the last few days.

I am sure that you remember me pondering the whole question of consciousness. In discussions with others, including @FrancisRay, we have been looking at the limitations of dualism. Generally, I think that I have been aware of some inadequacies in dualist thinking for some time. This has been explored by writers, such as David Bohm and Fritjof Capra. In particular, Capra speaks of rather than mind and body being separate, mind can be seen as being immanent in nature. At the moment, I plan to do more reading in the direction of non dualist perspectives on reality.

Yes, I do agree that there are certain amounts of overlap, and it may be a bit of an oversimplification to see the two perspective as being polarised, especially as there are so many different traditions and thinkers. It does seem that ideas of cross -fertilisation are emerging in so many thread at the moment, in the thread on mysticism, the one I created on mysteries and the one on esotericism. It seems like a general undercurrent on the site at present. In Western philosophy these ideas have often been cast outside.

I think that theosophy is a particularly interesting one, mainly because it challenged Western metaphysical ideas. Even though it has always been outside of most philosophical debate, it is interesting in the way that the Theosophical society had a purpose of trying to find links between the ideas of Christianity, Eastern philosophy, as well as the search for scientific knowledge. However, even though theosophy has not been respected highly within academic circles, I think that its influence cannot be ignored, mainly in the whole development of 'New Age', or 'Mind, body and spirit' movement within Western society.

This along with the ideas of Jung, Capra's 'The Tao of Physics', the Gnostic Gospels and many alternative thinkers have been so influential on a cultural level generally. On some level, they have been a challenge to philosophy, as well as some of the more traditional ideas within Christianity, and even some of the more standard models of science.

Surely, it would be rather futile to try to 'force' agreement. I think that it goes beyond people trying to deny scientific findings, but how we interpret the facts and make sense of them. Also, it does seem to me, that even though we may seek information and general frameworks for thinking, that we need to think through the ideas for ourselves individually.

Do you think that we may have got to a point in Western thinking where many are starting to look beyond, to other ideas, especially to those within Eastern traditions? Western philosophy owes so much to the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm. However, after the shift to the new physics and systems approach to life, such as that described by Fritjof Capra, a different picture may be emerging.

Also, even on the this site, which is of course only a forum, but many people have read a fair amount, it does seem that some are going beyond Western ideas. I think that the reason for this is because so many individuals see some of the approaches within Western philosophy as being rather flat, and rather inadequate, for offering enough scope and depth for contemplation of the biggest questions.

Thanks, I plan to read more in the direction of non dualist philosophies, because it does seem to me that it may be a useful way forward in thinking.

You've already mentioned 'Graceland,' by Paul Simon in another thread. However, you might wish to think which music artists you find to be the most inspirational. Of course, it is so subjective and only yesterday, I was listening to a compilation by an 80s band, who I think are truly wonderful, The Icicle Works.

I think that it is a major problem when people try to impose their views on anyone else, whether it is a mystic vision, or any other. It is unfortunate that people get so carried away with their way of seeing that they think that it is applicable to everyone else.

I agree that music and the other arts do involve entering into states of consciousness resembling the mystics. Even here, we have a problem with people disagreeing about the right way of seeing. I can't relate to classical music and I know that some of the rock/metal that I listen to is not compatible with others' view. We are hearing or tuning into different experiences of 'reality'. However, I don't write or perform music, although I use music to inspire me when I make visual art.

I definitely agree that Sartre is poetic. I discovered that when I began reading 'Being and Nothingness' recently. Perhaps this is because his writings are coming from a deeper level of experience. But, I am sure that not everyone can relate to prose, so it probably comes down to some common language, or some shared experience of a particular angle of perception.

I just think that your point of view would be clearer if you suggested a better view or model, rather than simply looking for weaknesses in the determinist view in the way you are doing.

I just think that you are exaggerating the extremes of determinism or non determinism.

I think that you are really trying to point to the weaknesses in determinism, but it is just a little confusing, because in some ways you are trying to go through the steps of determinist views, in perhaps a slightly caricaturist way.

So, you are suggesting that all our meanings are determined. I think that I follow your basic argument, but I am not sure that it is any more objectively valid than less determinist viewpoints.

But surely owning or disowning determinism, or any other system only makes sense in the context of any particular framework of meanings.