Yes, I can be happy knowing so little too, and I do still enjoy sitting and reading philosophy books...

I do agree that insight wisdom is the most essential aspect of philosophical exploration. This probably goes beyond the surface of philosophical discussions. Each person probably has to make the quest in a unique way, and draw upon the ideas of others where it seems fit. Perhaps the usefulness of the joined pursuit should not be about proving points, but about mutual sharing of ideas.

I do agree with your earlier argument about 'conspicuous absences' in metaphysics. It does make one wonder how it all happened that certain ideas were often treated as more real than anything else? It almost seems like the history of philosophy can be seen as a great deflated balloon. And the problem is that we wish for answers and wish for grand meanings.

Some may wish to believe in God and others don't. Ultimately, we choose what to believe. Ultimately, we only have to find answers to these questions which satisfy us, but when the ideas are discussed it becomes more complicated, because there is lack of consensus.

I stumbled across Talbot's book by chance in one of the few shops that were selling books during lockdown. However, I had read Bohm's, 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' previously. When reading that, I had thought more about the implicate order as, perhaps, being like Plato's forms. It seemed to me that what is apparent in the explicate order stems from a non tangible basis.

I can see your point of view, but I am not sure that the three big philosophy questions can just be neatly swept away, after all the centuries of discussion. I also wonder to what extent it all comes down to word games. My understanding is that philosophy in the twentieth century began to just try to focus on analysis of language. However, I did not think that this meant that was because that was all that there was, as if all the underlying problems had been solved.

I am not sure that your arguments work. Proving that penises exist is so much easier than talking about God, because there is clear evidence. As for free will, the idea of giving money freely or at gun point is too extreme, because most of the real life scenarios would be far more subtle.

I do agree that physicalism ought to be avoided. I am not a physicist, so may be going into a territory for which I am not fully able to explore. I find the idea of the holographic universe interesting, but I am describing it with a view to weaknesses in it being raised.

I agree that the world and its possibilities seem to be changing rapidly. The only question is whether we can keep up in our theories and philosophy. We need to have expansive minds.

I am not sure. We all see parts and wholes, and I not sure where one ends and another begins, because it seems to be about framing and perspectives.

I do believe in following up to date ideas and realise that the theory I wrote about was 1991. The only one thing which I do wonder about is that by focusing on the latest discovery is whether we limit our horizons. I am all in favour of the new, but just try to not be too restricted, because sometimes what is currently popular may be so, with some deeper vision being lost or ignored.

I do agree that my post may be too vague. But, as far as I can see we are in a Tower of Babel anyway. I can empathise with your dislike of psychotherapy, and do prefer reading philosophy. Really, I don't like being told what to think at all, and prefer to read widely and come to the most informed conclusions, even though I am not sure that there are clear answers. Sometimes, it seems that it is more about dismissing those which have obvious weaknesses.

Yes, I believe that 'getting dirty' in the sense of going beyond the pleasing perspective in trying to find a correct picture of reality may be necessary. It may be that truth is not equatable with a perspective which suits our aesthetics. We may have to take on board the ugly and unfamiliar in our grasp for truth. Of course, many are not prepared to go in this direction. We cannot tell anyone what to think or believe, but analysis may reveal what perspectives are shallow and inadequate for understanding. It probably is about all of us being prepared to go outside of our familiar territories, into the unknown.

I am not aware of Michael Talbot straying into questionable areas, such as astral projection. I am wary of these. I have been reading,'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene, which looks at the idea of superstrings. I am in favour of looking at the most accurate theories available to us.
,

You are quite right to distinguish conceptual, epistemological, metaphysical and existential aspects of exploration. We probably all juxtapose these uniquely. However, I do believe that there has to be some way of going beyond the subjective dimension. I am not saying that there are clear objective truths, but perhaps there are certain parameters. I don't think that this is new, but our perspective is restricted if it is only about finding a viewpoint which is satisfactory from our psychological point of reference.

I notice your edit about the 'distacefulnress' of existence. So, one question is whether we are trying to construct ways of making sense of this, although I would imagine that some of find life more distaceful than others. It is not as if life gives us equal measures of joy and this may play a part in the explanations we find, to make sense of it all. I certainly know that my perspective shifts according to my personal circumstances and degree of happiness.

I do believe that 'partipating" is important rather than a detached searching. I certainly don't wish to give up asking meaningful questions, perplexed by mystery. We are in this life together and a better understanding seems worthwhile, and it may not even be as mysterious as some people believe.

I agree that 'indoctrinated belied' and 'emotional bias' are important and complex. However, even putting those aside, I am not sure that we can solve all the mysteries.

I do agree that ' 'every answer opens more questions' . So, where do we go next? Do we have to just come up with infinite questions?

Of course, I would prefer that we come up with the best rational answers. However, it appears to me that these complex questions come shrouded in a veil of mystique, going back into the distance of philosophical questioning. I would certainly like to break through into greater clarity of thinking. So, I would like to see thinking which strives towards demystifying these ideas, but not about shallow attempts to answer the most perplexing questions.

I am adding Bohm's evaluation, as expressed by Talbot: 'Bohm does not believe any theory is correct in an absolute sense, including his own. All are approximations of the truth, finite and indivisible.'

I am not saying that you are wrong, but other people may see everything from an entirely different perspective. Having conversed with so many different viewpoints, I am just trying to make sense of it all.

I speak of mysteries, but each of us has a different understanding, and for some people such question are solvable and for others they are not. Here the biggest controversies lie in our midst and I don't think that there are any easy answers.

I am glad that some one else on the site finds Jung's work reading. He is on the fringe of psychology, but I do believe that he explores many philosophical questions, although in a unique way. Certainly, I have found his work makes a lot of sense, in exploring religious experience and in considering belief in God.

I just logged onto the 'Forgotten Books' website which you mentioned. I found it to be fascinating, as a way of gaining access to reading many rare books, and I have downloaded a few. It has some interesting esoteric ones. The philosophy ones are useful too. The only thing which I struggle with is working out which are dated and those which are relevant for all times. What I mean is the some aspects of psychology and philosophy seem to be based on models which are out of line with current science, whereas others seem to have ideas which are applicable universally. However, I do think that certain ideas which have a forgotten may still be worthwhile exploring.

One area which I think is relevant to your debate is the idea of the law of attraction. It is not simply about mind over matter, because the two are not easy to separate. However, what does come into the picture is intentionality, and of the role of our consciousness. The idea of the law of attraction, as advocated by Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and many other writers is of intention, on a conscious and subconscious level, having a determining effect in what becomes manifest in our external lives.

I just feel drawn to these areas of thought, and mainly read about them. I think that it is best to avoid using hallucinogenics, as far as possible. I have known people who have become extremely unwell mentally as a result of doing so. I read a lot about shamanism and mostly find that music is about the safest way of conjuring altered states of consciousness. I do believe that meditation is important too, and read writers, such as Gopi Krishna, on kundalini awakenings.

I find the whole exploration of the unfamiliar to be fascinating as part of the quest for creativity and healing. I keep an open mind towards all the many explorations of others, ranging from those of the religious mystics to those from diverse cultures, such as the vision quests of the North American Indians.

It is a while since I read Zaehner's book. However, I think it raises the question of whether one should seek certain states of consciousness, and how. It is also about potential dangers. Even though he was not writing about drugs specifically, Rudolf Steiner said, 'He who imagines that he can violently and forcibly climb into the higher worlds is greatly mistaken.' I also remember reading in Castaneda' s writings, the suggestion that the voyages to otherworlds come with potential dangers, especially of becoming lost, and unable to return to the ordinary world.

I think that the question is really how genuine the ones on hallucinogenics are? But, I am not sure that there are any absolute answers. However, in reading on the topic of mysticism, it does seem that the two contexts are different. One writer who explored this whole area was Aldous Huxley, especially in, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell'. However, his writings do lead to interesting questions about consciousness. He drew upon Bergson's idea of the brain being a 'reducing valve'. From that perspective, the mystic is able to see beyond the ordinary world, into the infinite. In shamanic cultures, this was often seen as voyages to the lower and upper worlds, as part of the quest for healing wisdom.

One important area is raised by an author Zaehner, in, 'Sacred and Profane Mysticism', is to what extent should the mystical states arrived at naturally, especially in a religious context, be distinguished from those achieved through the use of hallucinogenics? Can they be viewed as having a similar or completely different nature? The complexity of this is the way in which certain states have a chemical basis, but as Zaehner points out, the context is so different, with 'the profane' one occurring artificially, as opposed to naturally.

I have just spent about an hour on your link and will go back to it again as I think that it is excellent. You have put so much hard effort into it and I am very impressed.

I do some meditation but a bit haphazardly. I may go out and find a group when life begins again, because most things have been closed throughout the time I have use this site.

I have just been reading a book which I think is relevant to the thread: ' Perennial Philosophy, ' by Arthur Versluis. The author suggests that,
' Perennial philosophy points to individual spiritual experiences; and Platonism, Vedanta and Buddhism are based on direct individual realisations, on the experiential transformation and illumination of the individual.'

I think that the mystical experience can often be understood within such a framework.

I have read a few books by Carlos Castaneda and found them helpful, although I am not sure to what extent they are fictitious, as I have read some debate on this. Generally, I am interested in shamanism, which does involve exploring states of consciousness.

Even though I suggested to you that I am not a pragmatist, I think that this is not strictly true. I was really meaning more in a literal practical sense. However, my whole interest is in the idea of healing oneself and others, which definitely is about what works. I am interested in exploring ideas beyond conventional ones, but not just as abstract ones, so my own interest in mysticism and the esoteric is in that context. Also, I do believe that people who have accessed higher states of consciousness, such as many described by Bucke, which @Wayfarer referred to, did not stop at the mystical. The mystical experience is often a source for bringing some kind of healing vision to share with others.

I first began reading books on the mind, and philosophy, in early adolescence, because I was aware of so many questions and unexplored areas. I used to stop off in a local library on the way home from school, and my parents used to be worried where I was. Reading in corners in libraries and other places has become my mode of being. It is probably also about thinking about the corners of life, which are less remote from the main territories which we ordinarily inhabit.

I think that you are correct to suggest that philosophy is an attempt to make life less strange. While I have been going on about embracing the 'strange', it is important to recognise that philosophy can be a demystifying process, and a search for some clarity, amidst confusion. It can be about making the strange seem less puzzling.

The relationship between psychology and philosophy is complex, because some of the founding figures, such as William James were exploring both. It was during the twentieth anniversary that the two branches off separately. I think that behaviorism, and the development of experimental psychology played an important part in this.

I have always been drawn to read books on both psychology and philosophy. Generally, psychology is more concerned with ways of understanding how the mind works and improving techniques for helping us cope with our own mental states. Philosophy is more about questions about existence and how we can construct a picture of how reality works

Having always being interested in both psychology and philosophy, especially the way in which the two overlap, I have been thinking recently that the whole philosophy of mind is such an interesting area in this respect. I am also aware of vast areas arising in between the two disciplines during the time I have been using the site, especially phenomenology.

I have looked at the introduction to the thread and think that my own interest in mysticism is probably in the sense of category number 7, of hidden truths. One of the books which I am reading currently is 'Secret Teachers of my Western Tradition,' by Gary Lachman. In it, he does look at mystical ideas, such as those of Blake and Goethe. Lachman, who was also drummer in the pop band Blondie, is one of my favourite writers, and also wrote, 'Jung the Mystic', as well as others, including one on the ideas of Rudolf Steiner.

I spend a lot of time reading these books, but I do see it more as a process of gaining wisdom rather than declaring definitive truths. At times in my life I have almost felt 'beaten up' psychologically by people from religious or secular backgrounds who have tried to enforce their ideas. So, when I write on this site, I approach it with a view to meaningful exchange of ideas, but with a certain point of caution. I think that it is a problem if people claim to know more, or have the correct way of seeing than others.

However, that is not to say that there are not methods of analysis or certain knowledge which can be shared. However, I think that the quest which underlies the questions underlying the mystic quest goes beyond the actual ideas. Lachman says,
'Reading is simply more than simply looking at the pages and reflecting them. I have to make the mental effort of absorbing the words, connecting them, and assimilating them to my experience'.
I think that he is capturing the way in which ideas are not independent from our lives. They have to be absorbed subjectively, in order to become insights, rather than just remain as philosophical arguments. I am not saying that philosophical discussion is not an important aspect of this process, but it goes deeper and beyond the surface of the actual arguments, in the development of meaningful insight.

Yes, I think that it is a matter of perspective. I often find that some people think that philosophy is strange. But that is their perspective.

I have an interest in philosophy because it is a discipline which enables me to look at questions which are not talked about otherwise. Personally, I read a lot on areas covering philosophy, psychology and related areas. Until I found this forum I used to read the books but only ever discuss the ideas with other people occasionally. Even within philosophy there are popular books and ones which are not. I am often drawn to ones which are less popular, because they resonate with me.

But I don't really care if I am go into strangelands.I have been there for a long time and I am used to it. But I don't think that one has to just see philosophy as strange because I think that it does have a place in the mainstream academic world, and I do believe that more people are interested in it than those who talk about it. I have found sometimes that I get into conversations with people about it who say they have not ever found people to talk about it before. Really, it is the pursuit of questioning aspects of life and existence. So, when approaching philosophy, it is a matter of what you wish to find or explore by doing so.

I will have a look at the beginning again tomorrow, because sometimes when several pages have been written it is easy to lose sight of how it began. I also think that T Clark has arrived at a conclusion, so further exploration of the initial debate is probably more for the open discussion between others.

I am interested in that kind of discussion but it just doesn't seem to be what T Clark is wishing to have. The other thing is that there are so many potential discussions going on that it tthe thread may become really fragmented. So, I am inclined to think that certain areas are best explored as separate threads rather than in this particular one.

Having just written a long entry here, I am wondering if we discuss Jung any further perhaps it would be best if we resuscitate the 'Jung and God' thread. I don't wish to derail the discussion on mysticism. The reason why it fizzled out was probably because I was struggling to give it as much attention as I wanted because I was staying with my mother for Easter. She wanted me to talk to her rather than sit reading and writing constantly.