My own understanding of the ideas of Bohm and Talbot is that these writers are trying to overcome dualism and reductionist determinism. That is by seeing consciousness as being related or 'enfolded' in matter.

I think that we all face the tension between lack of knowledge or an assumption of knowing so much. Perhaps, the more inflated any of us become, in our sense of possessing great truth and knowiedge, is partly due to the fear of this collapsing and of realising our ignorance. So, it is probably about finding a careful balance.

It sometimes seems that people in our time act as if we are fortunate to be able to understand so fully, but it is hard to know what knowledge is yet to be uncovered. It is hard to predict, but who knows, what big omissions and gross errors will be found. Perhaps new paradigms of knowledge and science are yet to be discovered, rather just the filling in of detail.

Yes, I think that too many people have inflated egos, and this probably extends to people with a whole variety of beliefs and ideas.

I am grateful for the internet. I have found discussion on this site so helpful during lockdown. My mother got really annoyed with me when I kept sitting writing answers over Easter. A few months ago, I flooded her bathroom when I was writing a comment, because I left a tap on. The water cascaded through the ceiling and made the light go out downstairs.

As for the idea of God permeating the internet, I first came across the idea from one of my friends who was having a psychotic episode. I remember him crouched down banging his head on the floor, stating. 'God is a computer', and it struck me as an interesting idea. Computers are currently at the heart of the network of communication for us.

I know that you say that understanding 'is beyond our capacity' and, of course, there are limits but without a certain amount, surely, we would be completely lost. It may be that we strive for too much knowledge, but thinking is central to the human condition. Perhaps we need a certain amount of insight rather than just endless information. I know that I sometimes read and think too much. That is probably where meditation comes in.

I came from a Catholic background which was quite liberal but left many questions unexplained. I explored these, but have come across people who became unwell mentally as a result of certain contradictions. I have a few friends who developed psychotic delusions of a religious nature. I think that philosophy helped me to disentangle knots in my thinking. However, unfortunately some people can be just as dogmatic in philosophical argument as the ones who are dogmatic in fundamentalist religion.

I agree with what you wrote about needing to feel part of something much larger, and perhaps this is what gets lost when we spend so much time logged onto digital devices. I was even reading today that it may contribute to 'brain fog', and I wonder about this. I don't think that we are designed to spend most of our time on computers and mobile phones.

I am not convinced of the logic that to understand one thing would result in knowing everything. If only.. I also think that it is just as easy to go insane from lack of knowledge rather than too much of it. We probably have so much information to process, but that is completely different from understanding.

I think what you are saying is essentially true and often gets missed in some circles of philosophical discussion. Personally, I was brought up as a Catholic However, I experienced some narrow forms of Christian ideas . These were ones which were very literalistic and contrary to any kind of genuine exploration, or certainly that was how I felt. However, it is true to say that sometimes philosophy can swing to the opposite direction, in a forceful way. It is easy to end up partaking discussion about the existence of God and end up thinking of some abstract search and lose sight of Jesus, and the whole message of love.

I would imagine that the big questions must be becoming increasingly difficult for children, with so much information available, especially on the internet. There is just so much, and I would imagine that parents, who are probably struggling to find beliefs, must have such a hard time showing their children through the maze. I am not sure whether some clear beliefs or the best option. I am sure that it varies so much.

B F Skinner thought that consciousness was illusory but if that was true how do we make sense of conscious awareness. What does appear to be more potentially accurate is the Buddhist idea that there is no self, because it does appear to be more of a construct of fleeting consciousness rather than as an actual entity in it's own right. The 'I' of awareness remains but as Ken Wilber, argued more as a witness.

As for the idea that there is no God, no life after death and no free will, it is possible to come up to that conclusion, but, on the other hand, it does not mean that we may never consider other possibilities. While the lack of clear evidence can be seen as perplexing, it does give scope for imaginative possibilities.

I am definitely not in favour of 'an ideal realm of abstract knowledge.' That would seem to be drudgery and not helpful for living. Really, I am probably fascinated by mystery. If we had all the answers clearly laid out, philosophy would not be fun any longer. Also, what would be left for us to discuss on this site?

I do agree that the mysteries which I have spoken about are not just abstract ones, but involve connections. The way we answer them is central to how we live. Without some need for such a pursuit, it may be tempting just to lie in bed all day. We need some underlying motivation and it is probably when we do not have it that life becomes hollow.

I think that you are right to emphasise the importance of reason. We may not always be completely rational, but, at the same time, it does seem that we need to exercise reason to make sense of life. Otherwise, it would be like being stuck in an endless fog.

If free will is the central problem of philosophy it does depend what it means, and it may come down to how we perceive ourselves to be free or not. When we are act and make choices, these are bound up so many causal factors. We are making choices in an external world of causes, and our own consciousness is a result of biological and other factors, so even though we make choices it is hard to say to what extent they are truly free. Saying we have free will or not seems to be more a matter of perception and perspective.

I know that you seem to question the idea of a holographic perspective, but do you think that the idea of an implicate order makes sense at all? I do believe that neuroscience is important but it does seem to end up becoming completely reductive.

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.