I do agree that the matter of hearing voices is about identification, although from discussion which I have had with people who hear them regularly, they are variable. Some voices seem to be perceived inside the head and others outside, and they can vary in intensity. Also, how people perceive the voices is an important distinction. I am more familiar with people believing that their voices are a form of psychic attack rather than being from God, but it does depend on underlying beliefs.

It does seem that the literal experience of voices as auditory hallucinations is related to brain chemistry, neurotransmitters, because antipsychotic medication seems to change it dramatically. What is also interesting is that medication also seems to alter the perception and interpretation of voices. I have come across people who still hear voices when they 'feel well' but see the voices as being 'unreal.'

Of course, we all have inner dialogue and while most people don't see describe them as voices, thoughts can be of an intrusive nature. They probably also reflect different aspects of the self

One idea which I think is relevant here is the concept of the daimon, which I believe goes back to Plato. This is related to the true, or higher self, and it could be that this daimon was experienced as an external voice in the consciousness of human beings in ancient cultures.

I spent over 3 years in Jungian analysis, although the therapist did use other psychodynamic techniques. However, I do think that it is possible to work upon understanding the personal shadow based on reading Jung. It is about understanding one's personal demons and avoiding destructive tendencies. However, integrating the shadow is not easy, because there is the danger of integration of the shadow becoming acting out one's shadow. It can be a fine line, which is why therapy is useful in this respect. Nevertheless, awareness of the shadow is probably important because, without awareness of this aspect of the psyche, the shadow functions on an unconscious basis.

The particular book which @Valentinus and I were discussing by Jung, 'Answer to Job' focuses on the shadow specifically. It looks at it on a collective level, because while integrating the shadow is personal, and relevant in personal level, Jung is concerned about the shadow as a force which is involved as a source of mass destruction. In 'Answer to Job', Jung spoke of the danger of the 'dark side' of God being unleashed, with reference to nuclear weapons. His book was written in the 1950s, and of course, nuclear weapons have become more sophisticated and there are so many ecological threats too.

I read Jung before Plato, but I also see a parallel between the idea of archetypes and forms.

I think that in many ways, Jung's ideas on religion are far more challenging potentially to religion. I see that being related to how his critique is far more detailed. It is easy to interpret Jung's ideas to a reductive analysis of God. However, I think that if one reads his writing and steps back and reflects, it becomes possible to see that he is not really dismissing the idea of God , and related ideas.

Also, Jung does incorporate Eastern metaphysical ideas and, in doing so, when he speaks of God as being in the psyche, he is seeing psyche a bit differently to most thinkers within Western philosophy.

I had a strange coincidence today. I was in a newsagents, looking at magazines and, I found a magazine with an article which discusses Julian Jaynes' ideas on the bicameral mind. The article is in 'New Statesman' (26 March- 15 April 2021).It is called, 'The voice in your head', by Sophie McBain. It discusses a psychiatrist, Maurius Romme, who took a particular interest in the work of Jaynes. He had used it as a basis for aiding people who hear voices. Romme was interested in the work of Charles Fernyhough, who focused on the way in which thoughts are processed as inner speech and the role of trauma, which can lead to dissociation of consciousness.

Romme worked with a particular woman, Patsy Hage, a voice hearer, who contributed to Romme's writing. The writer of the article summarises how Patsy Hage,
'found it remarkable how similar the gods were to the voices she heard. They dispensed threats and orders, they bullied and mocked, they provided comfort and advice. The gods were always obeyed, just as she and other voice-hearers often obeyed their voices, finding it hard to know where the voices ended and their true selves began. "We voice-hearers are probably living in the wrong era," she concluded.

Apart from the article, I think another area relevant to your discussion is the way in which hallucinogenics can trigger voices. When I experimented on cannabis biscuits and Lsd at a warehouse rave, I experience voices. I was worrying about all the work I had to do on the course I was doing and I began hearing voices, telling me, ' Its a very life' repeatedly and, also, when I kept hearing voices saying, 'He's eaten skunk cake'. I was not sure if the voices were probably in my head or external, because
boundaries seemed unclear. Perhaps, hallucinogenics trigger a throwback to a bicameral mental state.

I believe that it is going to all be done on phones with scanned in data, and barcoded information, to prevent forgery. One outcome which I can see is a dramatic increase in phone theft.

One problem which I see with the vaccine in England is that having had it or not is being planned as a whole basis for reorganisation of life as we know it. Boris Johnson, who initially said it would never be used in this way, is planning to introduce vaccine passports, as a whole basis for allowing people to access cafes, pubs and many aspects of public life.

Many people are in disagreement but I am sure that Boris will force it through. He says that people who have not had the vaccine can show positive tests. However, the whole idea is using vaccine passports on phones is going to set up inequalities and exclusion. For example, not every person has a smartphone, so it may be that certain people are excluded from pubs, cafes and other social places, putting them into indefinite lockdown and isolation. Also, it paves the way for loss of privacy of personal and medical information. So, the vaccine comes with a whole hidden agenda and agenda which goes far beyond Covid_19.

Yes, it does seem that the scientific pursuit of knowledge can be seen as 'devout' and it is probably because that has become the main paradigm of 'truth'. It is a whole different model for seeing reality, but as a structure it has as much of a hold on people for directing meaning. Perhaps, really, the main difference is language in concepts used for understanding reality.

I wonder if the way we are drawn to certain writing is to do with how we shape our ideas autobiographically and with language. I began reading Jung during adolescence, so his ideas, such as archetypes and the shadow, are at the core of my thinking. If I had discovered a different writer at the time I my whole architecture of thinking might have been different. I would like to read Cassirer at some point, and I definitely wish to make interconnections between the various perspectives.

You asked me what specific insight I gained from Jung. I think that is that there is some underlying source from which our ideas and images come from. Some have called it the collective unconscious and religious people have referred to as God or the divine. It may be that spark which triggered the big bang, the process of evolution and consciousness.

Since Jung uses his concept of the collective unconscious to encompass many unexplained aspects, I can see why some regard him as a mystic. I do wonder if the idea of the collective unconscious is too fuzzy, however, and I do believe that the concept does need a lot more analysis within philosophy. I don't know whether that will ever happen. In saying that it needs more analysis, I am not saying that this would mean analysing whether the term means but trying to become more conscious of what remains unconscious, which may involve depth psychology. This probably involves some of the insights of the transpersonal school of psychology and philosophy.

Your extract from Jung's 'Answer to Job' contains some particularly relevant points which he makes and they do really raise the question of whether the God which human nature are having a relationship is changing. The statement, 'we can imagine God as an eternally flowing current of vital energy that endlessly changes shape just as we can imagine him as an eternally unmoved, unchangeable essence' is extremely important and I am not sure really to what extent theologians or philosophers have discussed this generally.

I have also found a quote in 'Answer to Job' which suggests that Jahweh changed as a result of interaction with Job. He argued that Jahweh 'raises himself above his earlier primitive level of consciousness by indirectly acknowledging that Job is morally superior to him and that therefore he has to catch up and become human himself'. In holding this belief, Jung is maintaining that human beings are necessary for God's consciousness. The idea of Jahweh being dependent on humanity for his own development leads to the question: if God is dependent on human beings is God simply a product of the human mind?

However, he does go on to query if there is some underlying force involved in the drama between God and humanity as revealed in the drama between Job and Jahweh, by saying, ' the miracle of reflecting consciousness is so great that one cannot help suspecting an element of meaning to be concealed somewhere within all the biological turmoil.' Here, he does appear to be going beyond an anthropomorphic picture and suggesting that there is some ultimate reality, God, behind the scenes of the drama. But, it does seem that humanity is central to the development of God, which is an extremely radical view.

Really, as far as I can see, what Jung is saying is of central importance to theological and philosophical debate. The book may not have been given as much attention as it should have done, because it is so radical, or perhaps, the issues arising from it were seen as too contentious.

One aspect which I think is particularly interesting is your remark that about mental commands believed to be coming from gods or God. This has specific relevance for considering the whole spectrum of visionary experiences, which would probably include auditory aspects.

I am particularly interested in Jung's ideas about religious experience. One idea which he develops about modern human experiences is that in many ways aliens have replaced angels and, he sees people's experiences of such phenomena as having a basis in the psyche rather than in the objective world. However, while Jung speaks of alien encounters, there are many people who do claim to see spirit guides. Jung himself, spoke of his encounter with a guide which he referred to as Philemon.

Of course, many people who hear voices in our time do struggle with them and some act on the voices. Also, some people hear voices which are extremely unpleasant. If the bicameral mind thesis is correct, I wonder if the problematic nature of psychosis is because voices, and other hallucinatory experiences, occur out of context of a general bicameral way of being.

Okay, that's useful to know, because it is just that the whole area of thought arising from the ideas of Jaynes, leads onto so many other ones. The question of how consciousness developed in human culture gives so much scope for speculation.

In the discussion above, I was thinking more about relativism in thinking about metaphysics. I believe that moral relativism is more complicated. That is because whereas reality involves the subjective experience, there is a certain objective reality.

On the other hand, moral decisions have a wider scope, ranging beyond intentions and consequences in the individual's life. The consequences of any action are far reaching, because any given act of a person has benefits and disadvantages for self and others. In making a choice at any moment it does seem that situations are unique and the specifics of circumstances seem to need to be juxtaposed in decisions. I find it hard to see anything which is absolutely wrong in all circumstances apart from murder and rape, which I think most, but not all people would see as almost always wrong. So, what I am suggesting is that I think that searching for knowledge based moral decisions is even more complicated than other philosophical ones. However, I can see that what I have said is probably far from true as an absolute.

Perhaps different writers have used the terms relativism and pluralism slightly differently. However, what I see as the main aspect is that we strive towards finding truth but do not put that of others down as lesser.

Having argued a short while ago that one can go beyond mere opinion to knowledge based truth, am I going back to the point of seeing only opinions? It is complex, because I do see it as problematic if anyone thinks they have the definitive truth. Yet, it does seem that some particular theories or ideas are derived from knowledge and clearly thought out thsn those which just seem shallow, and only a subjective opinion.

I think that relativism and pluralism are slightly different because pluralism seems to be about competing truths, rather than just seeing them as being just equal. It has some greater sense of constructing a model from the various pictures.

I didn't ever respond to your thread on Dennet because I began a book called 'The Four Horsemen,' involving Dennett, and a couple of others but I just can't get into.

I went through a phase a few years ago in which relativism did seem a really good option, because it did seem that there were so many perspectives. However, I see the relativist viewpoint as very weak, because it avoids any commitment to any specific one.

I think that relativism is a good way of going beyond mere acceptance of what one was taught to believe in childhood, but not a good conclusion to come to in the long term. I see the development of a unique perspective on truth as the goal, but coming to this individual grasp of truth takes time. I am hoping that through reading and writing to come to this. But I think that when one works hard to develop knowledge it is possible to go a bit further than mere opinion.

I have been thinking through what I wrote to you an hour ago and wonder if I am stretching Jung's idea too far in suggesting that it could be that God is actually evolving through human consciousness. My actual basis for suggesting that Jung could be interpreted in that way was because I remember when I was reading from his Collected Works that he was interested in the ideas of Bergson on 'creative evolution.' However, I was trying to make the parallel, but there is no reason to say that Jung made this parallel himself.

I am thinking that if one wishes to read Jung's understanding of the development of the ideas of God in line with a Christian perspective, he is seeing the difference from the God-image from the Old Testament to that in the New Testament, it would not mean that God is changing. That is consistent with his emphasis on the inner realisation of God, as the God-image. So, as far as I can see, Jung's understanding of God could be seen as reductive, or in line with one's choice to fit with the possibility of a belief in God, if one chose to. He simply doesn't go as far as to say that the image of God points to the existence of God. That is where he limits his perspective to a psychological level.

I think that it becomes clearer that it becomes clearer that Jung developed his views into an idea or ideas about God is in his book ' Answer to Job' .In this, he explores the development of the God-image from the Old Testament image of Jahweh, and the New Testament figure of God, in Christ. I am sure that many Christians may see this as a reductive analysis. It seems ambiguous to me, because he believes in the reality of the psyche. When I read, 'Answer to Job,' it appears to raise the possibility that God is evolving through human consciousness. It does seem that he doesn't spell out the implications exactly, but leaves that to the readers' own interpretations.

You specify that you 'take issue' with my opening statement about establishing a connection between inner psychic processes and the idea of God, but you have not told me why.

One book which I have come across on this topic is, 'The Eternal Now,' by Eckart Tolle. He suggests that, '
The eternal present is the space within which your whole life unfolds, the one factor that remains constant. Life is now. There was never a time when your life was not now, nor will there ever be.'
I recommend his book because it offers a whole meditational reflection and I found it to be extremely inspiring.

From my reading of Jung, there seems to be a fair amount of ambiguity ranging from that which could be seen as supportive of traditional religious experience and that which is more in line with science. It is hard to disentangle it all because of the sheer amount which he wrote, including the many volumes of the Collected Works, and many other writings.

One writer who seemed to interpret his writings more in line with evolutionary biology, and instincts is Anthony Samuels. I was impressed by that interpretation but I do not think that the ideas of Victor White can be dismissed because White had lengthy correspondence with Jung, which resulted in Victor White's book, 'God and the Unconscious.'

I have found Jung's ideas particularly helpful, since I first discovered him at school. However, I am aware that he remains on the fringe, and is probably not taken seriously within psychiatry and probably not within philosophy.

Strangely, I did work with a consultant psychiatrist who took the idea of the collective unconscious seriously. When I mentioned Jung to some of the junior psychiatrists some of them had not even heard of him. I would imagine that is because they come from a medical and sciences background. Even on my mental health nurse training course, his name was not mentioned at all, and Freud's ideas were only mentioned in a very basic way. It does seem that Jung's ideas are given more credibility in the arts.

My main interest in Jung has been for understanding religious and the symbolic dimensions of experience. I found his writing to be a way of being able to overcome the tensions between literal interpretation of religious experience and scientific understanding. I do believe that others are able to do so, and there is a big section on him in the esoteric bookshops I go to in London. Also, it does seem that new books are being written on him continuously.

Yet, I am aware that Jung's particular point of view is probably not seen as important within philosophy circles. I see his understanding of God as a way of overcoming the clear distinction as to whether God exists or not. I don't think Jung's view is identical to an agnostic position because he is not simply saying I don't know. He is saying that we know of the experience of God, but he just gives flexibility as to what that signifies in an absolute sense.

It is hard to know, but I would not dismiss the visionaries and outstanding thinkers who have paved the way with their insights. It seems to me that relativism has gone too far in deflating the whole quest for truth.

I saw that part of Pfhorrest's discussion as interesting because it is questionable whether we can find the correct answers to many philosophical questions. I know that you suggested in a discussion we were having in another thread that we could find truth rather than opinion. It does seem to be an underlying one in many of the threads. It does seem that so many of the issues in philosophy involve mysteries and throughout history people have sought to answer them differently. Obviously, each question is unique. I am inclined to think that, generally, we may only be able to come up with opinions, but that some opinions are far more knowledge based than others.

I have thought a bit about how you say that I do not speak 'with education for democracy.' I think that is partly because I don't really have much sense of being in a democracy. I am not really sure that I feel that people in society are listened to by leaders and politicians. I realise that we are not free to do exactly as we please and do believe that we need certain laws, but I do find the implementation of law a bit abstract in some ways. I don't really have much sense of any involvement in the creation of laws and social policies. Having a vote in England seems to be the only involvement, but I am speaking of English politics. I have been on a few marches, but don't feel that the politicians are very interested in those at all.

I have read some writing by Sacks but I am not sure if he has written on colours specifically. One thing I am aware of is that if I am feeling low, I feel that colours seem a bit wishy washy, whereas if I am feeling in great spirits, they seem to appear brighter.

The whole subject of seeing colour also falls into the area of ophthalmology. It seems to me that my mother sees colours differently since she had cataracts operated upon. To a large extent, visual perception of colour is dependent on the rods and cones and the retina, is part of the brain really. We know of people who are colour blind have severely altered sense of colour, but I wonder if we all see colours in exactly the same way generally, but this is probably an aspect which can be answered by neuroscientists.

However, the view of artists are probably relevant too. I remember it being so difficult to mix the exact shade of greens for certain leaves on trees. I think that there is plenty of khaki in the trees and I believe that camouflage, khaki designs was to enable soldiers to blend into the trees. Painting the sun in the sky is intricate too because one has to do it in such a way that the yellowish light does not blend with the blue to give a greenish effect. This is due to the way in which sun shows through the sky, but it is relevant to consideration of colour because objects often change shade by being seen through surfaces. Flouressent colour shades are interesting too, often created artificially, but they do create imaginary possibilities.

It is also interesting how the colour of blood changes from the blue of veins to red when a person bleeds, because oxygen comes into it. The colour of skin is interesting too because while people often speak of people being black or white, and of yellow as well, in actuality there is a whole multitude of shades and hues. Even within each of our bodies there are so many different areas of skin colour, mainly due to the thickness or thinness of skin in certain areas and blood flow variation.

It is also questionable if black is an actual colour. In some paint sets there is no black included because it is thought that it is possible to mix it from the other colours. When I tried this, I was not really satisfied with the result, because it didn't seem black enough. Another aspect arising when painting is the way the water gets discoloured by the dirty brushes, and as a child I used not to clean the brushes enough and this led to colours in the picture becoming a murky shade.

I am reading and thinking about what you said to me about democracy, but I think that you replied to @Pfhorrest but did not click on the name, but I have clicked it here, so that may make it obvious that the comment you wrote previous to the one to me was intended for Pfhorrest.

Bearing in mind that you may be more interested in the physiology of imagination, the ideas of Oliver Sacks may be relevant for your discussion because he explores many kinds of unusual phenomena.

You may not like my answer, but the area of study which I think is relevant is art, and possibly physics, and the paint palette seems the best place to begin exploring. I also know that the alchemists tried mixing gold to paint. Also, different mediums give different effects, such as the translucence and the stained glass windows were a means of capturing light in unusual ways. I also see imagination as being extremely important, but I won't go any further, because I think that you specified the question of physics and physiology. So, while I am interested in imaginary colours through blending and even mixing effects such as ink and pencil, you may be more concerned with the actual making of the pigments, themselves rather than the exploration on paper. The creation of colours in the mind is interesting.

I was interested to see your links, which go back a bit before I joined the site. I think that your project sounds great. The one thing that I am not sure about, however, is your suggestion that we can find 'correct' answers to many questions. I am not just saying that I disagree with it, but that it is a complete contrast to what so many other people on this thread are saying. I know that you are suggesting backing this up with 'common experience,' but many dispute this. Personally, I don't come from the point of view that knowledge is not possible at all, and I do believe in systemic ways of seeing, but it does all seem to be a very careful art of juggling and there are so many competing perspectives.

I looked at the post you referred to and it seems that the philosophy of levels is about viewing from a closer level in contrast to seeing from the larger perspective. I came across an associate idea when I was studying English literature at school, which was the idea of the microcosm and macrocosm as perspectives. This distinction has a history going back to Aristotle, but you are quite possibly familiar with it, and perhaps it is part of your own philosophy.

Yes, I think that the very first post I ever communicated with you on was you speaking about the idea of levels, when I began referring to the dance track, by Avicii, 'Levels.'

Strangely, I have found that some people do plan their lives in a very clear way. I have never felt able to do as much as I would like to, because I am aware of far too many waves. I think that a lot of people have felt life has been unpredictable since the time of the pandemic, but I feel that I am accustomed to it. Everything seems to change constantly, and I just try to go with the flow, and to the best of my abilities.

Do you think anything it has been a predominant idea that everything wasknowable? I would imagine that some philosophers and other thinkers in the past did think we could construct a clear picture However, this view has not been so clearcut since quantum physics replaced the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm. If anything, I think that many do question the whole foundation of knowing, especially after postmodernism. I do believe that a lot is uncertain, but I do think a systems approach does provide some basis for sketching some foundations amidst our uncertainty.

I find that the more I try to plan life, with possible courses of action, something different to what I expected seems to arise. Perhaps it is captured in the quantum physicist Heisenberg's principle of indeterminancy. In the thread I started about a real philosopher, people were discussing a saying, possibly attributed to Socrates, about not knowing anything. I am not sure that it is helpful to go as far as saying that, but it does seem that we need to live with some flexibility because reality is unpredictable.

I was impressed with the book at the time but not entirely convinced by it. I think that fuzziness can be a way of brainstorming. However, I am more in favour of trying to gain as much clarity as possible. But, of course, we face so much uncertainty in life.

I recommend a book which I read a few years ago on the usefulness of fuzziness in thinking, by Bart Kosko (1993), 'Fuzzy Logic.'

Yes, I think that it is unlikely that Socrates said that we can't know anything. Of course, we cannot know everything, but to settle for just saying that we don't know anything would seem to defeat the whole purpose of philosophy. However, our knowledge is limited and life is unpredictable.

I do see 'standing around doing nothing' while the ship sinks as one of the dangers of the current philosophers. Also, saying we don't know anything, as discussed by a few people here, whether Socrates said it or not, doesn't seem particularly helpful. All this would seem like dismissing the philosophical quest. It seems better to try to put ideas together systematically, as you are doing.