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.

One of the complexities which I see with trying to evaluate Jung's perspective is that he is drawing upon his own dreams and visionary experience and interpretations of various writers. The effect which I believe that has it makes his writing rich to read and certain ideas stand out.

However, it seems to me that it makes it difficult to analyse them in the exact way which is often done within philosophy. Also, he compresses so much detail and has written so much that it would be a lifetime's work trying to analyse it. But, I still wish to explore his writings, and I found reading 'The Red Book' very interesting. Also, I did manage to have brief access to a very rare book of his, 'The Visions Seminars' and that showed more of his personal visionary experience.

His personal experience of the numinous is so much more evident in writings which were outside of his 'Collected Works'. But, 'Answer to Job' seems to be more on that level, and I believe that he was in a fairly intense state of mind as he wrote it. But I do think that in many ways, his writings fall in the category of 'supernatural' revelations, although outside of the mainstream Christian tradition.

It may be that some aspects of certain experiences are beyond speech. However, I think that there is a danger of even taking Lao Tzu too literally, and Taoism is only one perspective. Please don't think I am wishing to undervalue the wisdom of Lao Tzu, or your view. It may be that at some stage in my life I have some experience which will lead me to agree with you.

I think that you are correct to see the term mysticism as a term which can be applied and interpreted in different ways. No one has exclusive claim on the term, or right to say whether or not the term should be used.

There is the whole question of whether Jung was or wasn't a mystic. He was specifically interested in Taoism, but also in many other esoteric ideas. He did not like the term mystic, but was often labelled as one. I think that it is partly a problem of labels and choice of words.

Generally, I think that the use of the word, mystic, itself only matters for ideas being communicated clearly. It goes beyond word categorisation really and is about the ideas stemming and underlying the words. However, it is such a complex area because it is about experiential reality and probably every person has their own unique understanding. No wonder people often speak of the ineffable. Perhaps the people who choose not to describe it know intuitively that they would get tangled up in knots trying to put it all into words and concepts. It may be that the poets and other creative writers were the most accomplished in translating it into language which could be grasped by others.

But, aren't most aspects of life a bit strange. I am coming from the perspective of seeing absurdity in life generally. However, I also come with a bias towards the arts and from my viewpoint people who are only interested in sport, cooking, and the mundane aspects of existence are really strange. It"s a bit like the quote from the Doors' song, ' People are strange when you're a stranger.'

Okay, so I probably come from a completely different perspective because I am particularly interested in peak experiences. I may start a thread on this, but I may wait a bit because it may not be too great if it was running at the same time as yours. But I am definitely not into pragmatism. I do not find that 'meat and potatoes' philosophy makes much sense to me.

I have just thought that one of my favourite books, 'The Outsider' by Colin Wilson is relevant to your discussion because it looks at those on the edge or in the margins, including some existential philosophers, such as Camus and Nietzsche. It also includes many other famous creative individuals. The main theme is that the outsider sees differently.

This has special bearing on philosophy because it is likely that those who pursue philosophy may see life a bit differently as a result. Of course, there are so many different thinkers within philosophy and some are more within conventional perspective than others. Conventions change, as well. One other aspect, is that any perception of strangeness is dependent on how 'normality' is defined.

I am also aware that your introduction is also about war. I'm thinking that this may tie in with the way in which people who are seen as 'different' , or may be seen as the enemies. This may give rise to war. We may even have war within ourselves, between clashing aspects of our personalities.

I think that Freud has some bearing, but of course he was a psychoanalyst primarily and was writing a long time ago. I think that your topic is interesting but I will leave it for now, as I am waiting for a bus. I may join in again at some point. But welcome to the forum and hope you have some fun in exploring strangeness and its relationship with philosophy.

It is interesting to hear that you do art because I draw and paint. I don't compose but I love music and the more alternative it is the better, including metal and punk.

However, I have thought of a book relevant to what your debate, 'The Origins of the Uncanny' by Freud, which looks at the unfamiliar and taboos. Of course, many people regard Freud as strange...

My own understanding of strangeness comes down to that which is unusual or outside the mainstream. On that basis, I see strangeness as an exciting area, especially within art. It may be that what is now commonplace was perceived as shocking or strange by many when first conceived.

Reading through your post, your whole question comes down to strange. How do you perceive strangeness? Is being strange necessarily a negative attribute? Or, perhaps it is more interesting than conformity?

I know that you find Taoism useful, and think that mysticism can have too much baggage. However, don't you wish to go beyond a 'meat and potatoes' philosophy as you put it ? I am thinking about Maslow's highest stage on the hierarchy of needs, self actualization? I would say that it may be possible to cope without some of the lower needs being met, although there are limits, through some peak experiences. But, I do agree that the word mysticism can be problematic in some ways.

I remember when you spoke of the 'creative nothing' you saw it as a starting point for creativity. So, nothing may be like a void of potential and possibilities.Perhaps it is the unconscious.

I am not sure that such animosity is particularly helpful. However, I do believe that people do need to speak out against social evils rather than just accept them as the norm.

I think that you are speaking of the horrors of life, which is a little different from finding truth, philosophically, or is it? We have moved into an era of post truth, especially after post modernism, as suggested by Michael Kakutani in, 'The Denial of Truth',(2018). He suggests that some individuals tried to 'whitewash entire chapters of history' alongside exploiting 'the postmodernist argument that all truths are partial.'

I do agree that access to food, medicine and electricity are essential. I would add housing because we are talking about Maslow's basics on the hierarchy of needs. Once those go, for so many people, we are talking about a very dire situation.

I am also wary of the collective, especially the destructive capacity of the herd. The only reason why I chose the word collective is because we are talking about global and national issues. Perhaps we need some truly inspiring individuals to arise in the midst. I am probably talking about prophets or visionaries, who are able to go deeper and beyond the surface of political agendas.

Yes, I sometimes wonder what could happen and it is hard to see through the political cracks in the pavement. It is sometimes just hard to know what is going on beneath the surface of news headlines, because as the sociologists have stressed, news is manufactured. We may not know what is going on behind the scenes exactly. It seems that there is a lot of confusion, but there may be aspects which are not revealed too.

I hadn't come across that quote from Gramsci and I wrote a thread on pessimism vs optimism. So thanks for the great insight offered by Gramsci:
'Pessimism of the intellect. Optimism of the will.'

I think that there is a danger of trying to make mysticism into a neat and tidy term. For some people this may work, but the problem is that the mystical experiences of individuals vary so much as well as the attempts to understand them.Some of those who have experienced mystical states have been those who explored philosophies which are obscure. Also, some of the literature is not easy to read. One book which I have, but not managed to read, is W B Yeats" 'A Vision', but I am determined to do so, at some point.

It was brave of you to share your experience. Your experience must have been just before you found this site I do believe that it is often the harshest things in life which bring about transformation. I have seen some literature on mysticism which seems to ignore this, and almost treat mystical states as if they were add on extras to the comforts of life. However, there is the tradition of mysticism which sees it in the context of 'the dark night of the soul.'

But, of course, I would not be wishing to denigrate the mystical experience of anyone, but do think that as your testimony suggest, the mystical experience arising from suffering is important.

Your detailed discussion of the many potential facets of totalitarianism is useful because it is a complex area and not just one idea. While it is possible to see potential threats, let's just hope that the threats are only that. Let's just hope that the good of many is protected and that systems which emerge do not bring too much suffering.

I think really that I would rather worry rather than become indifferent. It's also about balancing the personal worries and the wider collective ones. It is sometimes easier to see our own little world under the microscope and probably the turbulence of our time is a wake up for most of us. Rather than just hearing of historical atrocities and ones in far away countries, so many throughout the world have been shaken up by life being so dramatically. I realise that the leaders must be struggling and are probably just trying to think of all options.

Okay, I will have a read of The Tao te Ching tomorrow evening. It is true that there are not that many philosophies or religions which can be read in an hour. So, it is strange that I have missed this little one, considering all the piles of books I accumulated from an esoteric bookshop in Central London a few years ago.

Oh, I am talking of the I Ching. Initially, when I read your thread I thought that The Tao de Ching was another book, and then I came to the conclusion that your thread was about the I Ching. So I feel extremely foolish. I have not read the Tao de Ching, in that case.

Yes, I will try not to worry too much about totalitarianism, but I do fairly frequently, because that is my disposition. But what strikes me when I have made remarks to people in conversations recently about totalitarianism, is that many people don't seem to be perturbed by it. I think that we may be moving towards a culture of indifference.

Obviously the whole area of mysticism in Hinduism and Buddhism is a very complex one and it is not as if I am from one of these traditions. I just read widely, and there is probably some truth in the common notion that a little knowledge is a bit dangerous. So, I will wait to see what happens in the thread as it so new.

Thanks for the link to The Tao de Ching. I may put one latecomer entry, probably on Hexagram 23. I often used to get that hexagram, or it might not have been that I really got it more than other ones, but it always used to stand out for me.

I am not talking about the kind of Asian 'mystical' stuff you are talking about portrayed in the media. I am speaking of serious meditation practices, such as those within Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism . I am also thinking of the whole tradition of esoteric Christianity. However,it may be that you are not wishing for such areas to be explored in the thread you have created, and are just wishing to explore what the idea.

You say that, 'Man makes his own hell in the world'. I do agree that many of the atrocities in history seem to reflect that. The question which I see is how can we act differently collectively, to try to climb out of the hells we create, and to stop creating them?

I have read the Tao Te Ching and looked at the lengthy thread on it, but did not participate because I don't have a copy of it currently. I am interested in Taoism, especially as developed by Jung. There is also Capra' book, 'The Tao of Physics' which was important in the leading the way in the exploration of mysticism arising from the findings of the new physics developed by Einstein.

I am wondering why you resist the idea of mysticism as being about heightened states of consciousness? I do not believe that we are able to touch upon these easily but I do see mystical states as being part of this spectrum. Maurice Bucke's book, 'Cosmic Consciousness' looks at specific individuals who reached illuminated states of consciousness, such as the Buddha, Jesus, William Blake and Dante. Of course, these were extemely rare individuals. I am aware that we cannot even attempt to compare ourselves to such important figures, but I do think that there is a whole range of potential mystical states, ranging from the the almost mundane states of bliss, to those of a more magnificent nature. It seems to a whole pathway of possible states of consciousness, more frequently touched upon within esoteric traditions.

In some ways, I think that the term mysticism is sometimes used in a derogatory way. It is also difficult to talk about sometimes because there is the whole experiential level, which is so subjective. I am currently reading a book on peak experiences by Colin Wilson, 'Superconsciousness: The Quest for the Peak Experience' (2019). In this, he says, ' What I learned from mystics and poets was that " everyday consciousness" is only one of many possible states, and that we become trapped in assuming that it is the only kind.' Colin Wilson, in his many books looked at the quest for heightened states of consciousness. He began first exploring this in his first book, 'The Outsider',in relation to the states of mind or creative writers and artists, who entered into certain states of mind as part of the creative process. Of course, mysticism is central to religious and spiritual quests, but I think that it is an idea which is relevant to the whole spectrum of peak experiences too.

I am inclined to think that it is hard to predict what is going to happen in Britain, as indeed other parts of the world. We still have a welfare system and the NHS, and I think that it would be if these were to collapse that Britain would collapse truly because people are reliant on them. I think that maintaining the NHS has been central to the whole process of restrictions, as a central focus being the NHS being not being overwhelmed. However, what has happened is that so much money has been spent through furloughs and many people being on benefits.

So, I think that a lot will depend on whether people are able to work again. If mass unemployment continues I fear that the welfare state would collapse altogether, bringing devastation and misery for multitudes. So, survival of the economy is central, because at the moment it is extremely difficult to find work. I suppose that we have been lucky to have a whole welfare state but if this were to collapse, I really don't know how countless people would survive at all.

One area of thinking which I see as relevant to your question is chaos theory. However, that involves randomness but with some underlying order, as well as feedback loops.

Perhaps life and our lives involve order emerging from chaos. We have the order of physical laws and the whole process of creation is the emergence of order from the possibilities of random order. While there is a general background of chaos, essential order is required for the development of the physical body as well as the organisation of social life. Perhaps free will, and freedom, can be seen as feedback loops because it is at this leve that consciousness comes into the picture of subjects participating in the process of creating order.

Another aspect to the consideration of chaos and order is that they are also constructs in our minds as well as, rather than just being aspects of the external world.

Your question makes sense to me because I can remember a time when I was really afraid of possible finding of truth in my searching. What if the truth I discovered was not bearable at all. At the time, I was hovering between Christianity and atheism and afraid of both possibilities. Was it surprising that I began reading in the direction of Eastern traditions.

My answer may seem absurd to some people, because finding the truth is sometimes seen as important above all else, especially in philosophy.My own feelings of fear of finding truth of Christianity were based on my guilt and fear of hell, while the prospect of atheism seemed to spell out cosmic insignificance. But, the point which I am making is not I was aware of feeling fearful of truth itself. I was looking for answers which would make life endurance.

I am still inclined to think that finding 'truth' when we are searching for answers to all the big questions is connected to our psychological motivations. For many aspects of this, it is not as if truth is revealed easily, so it may be that we often perceive and think what we find helpful to make life meaningful.

What I am saying does worry me though, because I would like to believe that my own exploration is impartial. I have moved on from the big fear of theism vs atheism and like to think that I am more impartial now. However, as a general principle, I do wonder about when we search in the world of ideas and explanations, what if we discovered truth which was simply horrific, beyond all worst possibilities? Would we fight against it and seek untruths instead?